Alright, this is a little too much from me... (Smoking ban with kids in car)

[Flames_Gimp]

its a good law, won't stop the thousands of stupid people from doing it, though.

[The Ditch]

Just because feeding your child crap food is bad and isn't illegal doesn't take away from the argument that subjecting your kid to second hand smoke in the car shouldn't be illegal. That is a false analogy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

In the extreme case yes. But what if you only fed your kid enough unhealthy things that they were only moderately overweight, but the stage was set for a lifetime of poor eating choices. Is this not a similar arguement that parents who smoked pass on smoking habits to their children?

Good point.

However, there are amounts of fried food that are acceptable so it would be hard for a 3rd party to make assumptions just by visually looking at what a child eats. It would take putting the child through a physical, which crosses the privacy line imo.

With smoking, there is no acceptable limit for what is beneficial or safe (unlike fried foods) so the law wouldn't be based on assumptions.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Claeren

So if i locked a child in a enclosed space with poisonous air equal to that of cigarette smoke am I a good person too?

Why is it that cigarette smoke gets a pass just because ADDICTS produce it?

I am not sure there is a SINGLE other exception where i can poison a child knowingly and on purpose and not go to jail?


Oh, but those pooooor smokers! Those poooor victims!

"Smokers: Hundreds of years of poisoning their own children, making up excuses for their addiction, and still going strong!"



Claeren.

Poison! Poison! Poison!

People who, in this day and age, smoke in the car with their children are stupid. I don't quite think they are criminals though, at least not any more so than people who feed their kids terrible food (Poison! Poison!) and let them become fatasses.

Are they next?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Um, I dunno feeding kids fried food. Food can be an addiction and then when a parent or other adult goes to McDonald's instead of preparing a meal filled with mixed greens for children it's effects can be just as devastating overtime.

Why don't we sick the food police on these negligent adults. Heck, why doesn't the state step in and raise all of our children because no adults can be trusted without legislation or supervision to raise any children without exposing them to some sort of harm.

It is worth noting that the fast food industry itself has been under pressure, both from the public and government, to:
1) eliminate trans-fat
2) post full caloric information
3) reduce total calories
4) change marketing practices, especially towards children
5) provide healthier options, particularily for children

Likewise for cars, restrictions have never been so tight on emissions. Not only do cars pollute a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what they used to but:
1) complete car recycling is virtually the norm, outside the fuel consumed cars are one of the most completely recycled consumer products on earth.
2) Clean diesel introductions in North America this past year.
3) Ethanol production (which is not driving food prices).
4) Alternative fuels and engines, both largely funded by government.
5) High fuel taxation.
6) Safety innovations far beyond what could have even been imagined 20 or 30 years ago - not to mention seat belt laws and drunk driving laws.



It seems that the other two bogey men outside of smoking DO in fact face their share of new legislation aimed at making the publics life better in the larger picture, even if their is a short term cost borne by some in the short term.

The REAL problem here with smoking is that smokers are ADDICTS. Because they are addicts they often can no longer think clearly about any law in regards to their habit. It is no different than asking a heroin addict if they should by allowed to shoot-up or asking a gambling addict if we should shut down lotteries or casino's. Oh sure, some of them are so close to the end of their rope they would welcome the change (for selfish reasons usually, with the addiction still ruling their thought process and gearing it almost exclusively to THEIR well being), but plenty of others would fight tooth and nail to keep their addiction fed....

As to how to raise children, instead of ADDICTS lets ask the countries parents how many want their kids put in a room of poisonous air for an extended period? Then when we confirm that is not a reasonable behavior lets work to reduce ALL instances in which that happens? Seems pretty logical and reasonable...



Claeren.

[Thunderball]

I hate legislation that infringes on personal liberties, common sense should not have to be put into law... but the question remains, is it within the personal liberties of a smoker to poison their minor child with their addictive habit?

The answer is no, and the law has no choice but to step in on behalf of the child.

As for the high fat/caloric foods argument... in moderation, even they hold some nutritional value... you can't say the same for something that boasts tar, arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and nicotine as principal ingredients.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I hate legislation that infringes on personal liberties, common sense should not have to be put into law... but the question remains, is it within the personal liberties of a smoker to poison their minor child?

The answer is no, and the law has no choice but to step in on behalf of the child.

Good post, but if there were common sense in the world, we won't need laws

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Good post, but if there were common sense in the world, we won't need laws

True, but sometimes common sense would dictate committing a crime. If common sense was universal, we wouldn't need so many "nanny state/father knows best" laws, that's for sure.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That was my point.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you.

[Ozy_Flame]

Good grief - I enjoy smoking now and then, but no way would i ever....EVER...smoke around kids let alone in a car. That's just a dumb idea all around.

That said, whoever said "kids rights supersede all" should be shot. Kids are subordinates until they can think rationally about life's choices. If we lived by your logic, it would be illegal for parents to force their kids to go to school, drink their milk, or take their naps. Kids need discipline, and as such, kids have no more rights than the next person.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Then maybe the whole publicly funded aspect of health-care has to be re-approached because it doesn't reflect the reality that Canadians expect to live in a free society where behavior isn't dictated by the state of the governments coffers. Maybe if the government didn't write a blank check for everyone's health care needs, actually bothered to calculate everyone's risk like actuaries,and then proceded to penalize those who participated in activities that increased their risk profile we wouldn't need these nuisence laws.

Agreed... but from a government POV, what is going to cause less uproar?

-Nuisance laws like these to attempt to instill personal responsibility and reduce costs of healthcare?

OR

-Treating public healthcare like an insurance company would and charging people based on risk (which many would argue discriminates on socioeconomic lines)... essentially, attack the sacred cow of no-strings-attached public healthcare (which is a fallacy anyway, but that's a different argument)

We both know #2 is more effective, but the easy road is just that, the easy road... and if it accomplishes a portion of what #2 would, the government would invariably pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Good grief - I enjoy smoking now and then, but no way would i ever....EVER...smoke around kids let alone in a car. That's just a dumb idea all around.

That said, whoever said "kids rights supersede all" should be shot. Kids are subordinates until they can think rationally about life's choices. If we lived by your logic, it would be illegal for parents to force their kids to go to school, drink their milk, or take their naps. Kids need discipline, and as such, kids have no more rights than the next person.

I think the point is that because kids are subordinates, they are at our mercy for us to do what is right for them. When we ignore that obligation, we ignore our duty as rationally thinking adults.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think point is that because kids are subordinates, they are at our mercy for us to do what is right for them. When we ignore that obligation, we ignore our duty as rationally thinking adults.

I think that's exactly what Troutman meant. Well put.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think point is that because kids are subordinates, they are at our mercy for us to do what is right for them. When we ignore that obligation, we ignore our duty as rationally thinking adults.

That's true, we must conciously make the best decisions for our kids, I can't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the idea of bending over backwards just so the kids rights aren't violated. That's a bit of a grey area that is left to good parenting to make the best decisions. You shouldn't have to be afraid of violating your children's rights as a ground for raising them.

[Muta]

I plan and giving my kid alot of cigarettes.

'Smoke'm up, Johnny!' That's my motto.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's true, we must conciously make the best decisions for our kids, I can't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the idea of bending over backwards just so the kids rights aren't violated. That's a bit of a grey area that is left to good parenting to make the best decisions. You shouldn't have to be afraid of violating your children's rights as a ground for raising them.

You're right... people shouldn't be afraid to be good parents under fear of legal reprisal. The best example I can think of is the spanking = child abuse fallacy that has been making the rounds. The definition of abuse has been watered down from being unethical and disturbing use of force to hurting a child's feelings.

However, its tough to argue that hotboxing a kid in a car full of carcinogens is anything but abuse.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

For the record, I am an ex-smoker and I love the no smoking in pub and restaurants. I still enjoy the occasional cigar and sometimes I have one with my g/f's little brother in the car. [b]Only in nice weather, and only with the window wide open with the cigar and my breath going outside.[b/]

I hate it when smokers justify smoking in the car as long as the window is open. It still gets in the car and stinks and it still gives off second-hand smoke that is hazardous to the other passengers in the vehicle.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You're right... people shouldn't be afraid to be good parents under fear of legal reprisal. The best example I can think of is the spanking = child abuse fallacy that has been making the rounds. The definition of abuse has been watered down from being unethical and disturbing use of force to hurting a child's feelings.

However, its tough to argue that hotboxing a kid in a car full of carcinogens is anything but abuse.

What if they request it?

[edn88]

I hate the fact that you have to legislate people not to do ignorent things, but I think in this case what choice is there?

Wish this was a law when I was growing up.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Poison! Poison! Poison!

People who, in this day and age, smoke in the car with their children are stupid. I don't quite think they are criminals though, at least not any more so than people who feed their kids terrible food (Poison! Poison!) and let them become fatasses.

Are they next?

I wouldn't call them stupid, more like self centered. Their filthy disghusting habit is more important to them than the health of their children.