Alberta bans smoking in cars with minors present.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by valo403

And now you've crossed over into a violation of the right of families to function as they choose.

I happen to agree with the result you call for, but don't pretend that there isn't an infringement upon liberty in getting to it.

There is an infringement on liberty that will be inherent with any group that decides to live together and form society. I think it is to be expected and have no problem with it. Something like our current system of zoning land is a great thing. It absolutely infringes on my right to use my land in many different ways but it is also necessary to avoid the chaos of having my neighbor erect a factory on his property.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Dion

Good grief!

I'm POSITIVE that 20 years ago, that would be the response by the majority to this legislation.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'm POSITIVE that 20 years ago, that would be the response by the majority to this legislation.

I'm too young to remember, but what was the response to the seatbelt laws being passed in Alberta?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'm POSITIVE that 20 years ago, that would be the response by the majority to this legislation.

That's far too vague.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The problem I have with the hardcore libertarians (as exhibited in this thread: darkllord700 and Knalus) is that the "Less government!" cries are seen as some sort of fix-all solution. It begins and ends with "Just get the god damn gummint off my back in every way possible!" for these people.

Like with anything, simple single-statement solutions aren't solutions at all. Each issue or facet of society usually demands careful consideration and unique solutions and those solutions need to be revisted. Sometimes it ends up as less government intervention, different form of government intervention or sometimes more government intervention.

If your only tool is a hammer ("less government!"), every problem starts to look like a nail.

I know it sounds like it because I tend to argue that way, but I'm not a hardcore libertarian. I voted Liberal last provincial election. I just happen to strongly dislike small, unnecessary bits of legislation that are put into place "because it seems like a good idea", or "it's intended to educate more than punish". One at a time they seem like good ideas, but in aggregate they suck all the responsibility out of people.

Too often they are legislation that is put in place so the government at the time, or the opposition as the case may be this go around, looks like they are doing something. Really, it could be anything, they just want to do something to justify their election.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

I'm too young to remember, but what was the response to the seatbelt laws being passed in Alberta?

The vast majority of drivers understood the reasons why the law was passed. Of course you had the others who don't like to be told what to do as they think they know better.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Dion

The vast majority of drivers understood the reasons why the law was passed. Of course you had the others who don't like to be told what to do as they think they know better.

There are also a small group to this day who hate the law on the basis that they read about a person who drowned because they drive into a lake and couldn't get their seat belt undone.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't smoke. But I'm sure I do something that someone else finds offensive. The way things are going, I fully expect to find myself in breach of some form of legislation out there that will attempt to control my behavior at some date in the future.

There's a difference betwen being offensive and actually causing physical harm to someone esle. Innocent children at that. You may think smoking is offensive. But this law is not telling people to stop smoking. It's urging people to stop smoking when it adversely affects those who are least able to protect themselves.

I'm not sure why it seems diificult for you to grasp the difference.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by jammies

Your rights to play loud music/smoke/be a complete jerkface ends where it impinges on my rights.

Your right to randomly spew bigotry ends when it infringes on my right of not seeing them, you should be locked away.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

What a useless stream of thought.

You are right but feel free to keep posting unrelated things about residential schools.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There are also a small group to this day who hate the law on the basis that they read about a person who drowned because they drive into a lake and couldn't get their seat belt undone.

Meanwhile ignoring the fact that a seat belt can save thier lives in a car accident. I live in a small town and some here still drive without thier seatbelt on. They are gambling with their own lives.

[MoneyGuy]

I support this initiative.

I grew up in a smoke-filled vehicle and house. My heavy-smoking parents both died of cancer (ages 65 and 70) and subjected their kids to their toxic crap. I love my parents but will harbour a resentment for that for as long as I live, which may not be that long given all the second-hand smoke I've ingested (I've never smoked myself). Unlike my parents I take care of myself, so I fully expect to live a very long time.

Parents who do this to their kids are morons. If someone here reads this and recognizes him/herself, I'm sorry but you're a clueless moron. Smarten up!

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Dion

Meanwhile ignoring the fact that a seat belt can save thier lives in a car accident. I live in a small town and some here still drive without thier seatbelt on. They are gambling with their own lives.

You moved?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

You moved?

From the dinner table to my computer Seriously i'm still in High River but I see your point. To refer to HR as a small town was a mistake on my part.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont particularly care about kids or smokers, but that being said it would be interesting to know how much it costs to enact and enforce silly legislation like this.

And yes, I understand that its all about protecting a defenseless third party, but last time I checked, the primary people responsible for protecting their children are those children's parents, if they're not interested or are unwilling, then I see little point in attempting to legislate proper parenting into them.

Hey, if smokers want to endanger their own kids then power to them. They got to this point by their own decision making process, what they do from here on out is up to them.

Un-thanks for a surprising lack of logic on your part.

Did you bang your head?

[SeeBass]

As a child of the 70's my parents both smoked.

My dad 2 1/2 packs a day mom 1 1/2 a day. When my dad drove he would light the one that was ending with the one he was starting.

They smoked non stop in the car and never cracked a window cause mom never liked the breeze. We drove a lot as child, went into the city for a three hour drive almost every weekend.

As of today out of the 3 kids they had 2 of them have destroyed sinus passages and lingering breathing problems. Neither of my two sibblings smoked and had no say in the smoking my parents did. My brother can't stop sniffing to this day as his nose will always run, like a person who comes in from the cold, the small veins in his nose are destroyed.

Our parents used to beat us real bad and we have scars on our bodies to prove it. But out of all the hurt they caused us the abuse of their second hand smoke has been the most damaging.

I hate my parents for this, cause even then they knew what they where doing and didn't care.

This law was made for people like my parents and for the health of the two kids they destroyed. This is abuse, just like beating a child. Take it from someone who has lived through the scars of both there is no difference.

[WesternCanadaKing]

I am a smoker, and am fully for this. Law is designed to keep you from infringing harm on others when they can't do anything about it. All you people going on about a 'nanny state' are out to lunch, this is no different from law prohibiting you from beating your kids.

I do take major issue with laws that say I can't do something that affects nobody but myself. That is clearly not the case here.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'm POSITIVE that 20 years ago, that would be the response by the majority to this legislation.

And sixty years ago there would be a discussion on the medical benefits of Camels and their smooth taste... times change and more importantly from a scientific standpoint people who are smarter than you or I are able to determine things like smoking in a car with children may be detrimental to their future health and wellbeing.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

As a child of the 70's my parents both smoked.

My dad 2 1/2 packs a day mom 1 1/2 a day. When my dad drove he would light the one that was ending with the one he was starting.

They smoked non stop in the car and never cracked a window cause mom never liked the breeze. We drove a lot as child, went into the city for a three hour drive almost every weekend.

As of today out of the 3 kids they had 2 of them have destroyed sinus passages and lingering breathing problems. Neither of my two sibblings smoked and had no say in the smoking my parents did. My brother can't stop sniffing to this day as his nose will always run, like a person who comes in from the cold, the small veins in his nose are destroyed.

Our parents used to beat us real bad and we have scars on our bodies to prove it. But out of all the hurt they caused us the abuse of their second hand smoke has been the most damaging.

I hate my parents for this, cause even then they knew what they where doing and didn't care.

This law was made for people like my parents and for the health of the two kids they destroyed. This is abuse, just like beating a child. Take it from someone who has lived through the scars of both there is no difference.

I wanted to thank you for this post as i'm out of thanks.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

As a child of the 70's my parents both smoked.

My dad 2 1/2 packs a day mom 1 1/2 a day. When my dad drove he would light the one that was ending with the one he was starting.

They smoked non stop in the car and never cracked a window cause mom never liked the breeze. We drove a lot as child, went into the city for a three hour drive almost every weekend.

.

My parents weren't quite that bad. They used to smoke in the car with the window cracked, but it used to mostly result in ashes being blown back into my face while I was sitting in the back seat.

I grew up with shortness of breath, which I thought was totally normal. In school, you could always tell the kids whose parents smoked because they were always the ones out of breath when playing sports. I started smoking as a teen and then quit when I was around 27 and a few months after quitting, it was the first time in my life that I realized what it felt like to actually be able to breath without wheezing.

Parents who smoke inside around their kids don't realize the disadvantage they are putting them in. Granted, most of them probably grew up around it, then started smoking at a young age, so they have no baseline reference.