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

[jayswin]

BTW (Off topic, I know), but do you still offer your services as a free rent a goalie?

I ask because fellow CP'er Jayems is our goalie this summer, and he let me know that he just started his summer practicum, and may get called out on short notice once in a while.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Okotoks ponders no smoking in car with kids

From CTV.ca

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. Only in nice weather, and only with the window wide open with the cigar and my breath going outside.

I think this is too far. So you would get pulled over and they would ID your passenger?? What is next? Not allowing people to smoke in their own house? Why not take more steps to stop the 12-16 years olds that are smoking? I just find this quite ######ed. I know there will be the 'Won't someone PLEASE think of the children' argument but how much do we have to infringe on peoples rights in their own space??

actually, there already is a charge that could be applied ... its called "child abuse"

what kind of moron smokes in their car with children in it?

[flamesaresmokin]

I'm pretty sure this wont ever get close to seeing the light of day, however, i think people need to sit back and realize that even breathing will annoy some people. Its starting to get rediculous how much of this stuff gets air time and coverage. If someone wants to endanger their infant by smoking in a vehicle with them no matter how stupid, its their perogitive. Not everything in life can be legislated.

The last thing along these lines i heard was a transit rider trying to ban the use of cologne and perfume on calgary transit a few years back because it made them nauscious. Fact of the matter is, i want to be able to choose in my life and having a government tell me by law that things like smoking and whatever else is not acceptable in my own property is too far. They are personal choices and need to stay that way.

Any responsible person wouldn't smoke around their child, especially a car anyway so i don't think it would accomplish anything more then piss everyone off.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by badnarik

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's a violation of property rights when one person kills another without the consent of the person being killed.

Smoking in a car violates the child's property rights by damaging the child's body. Smokers have the right to damage their own body, but not the property (bodies) of others unless the other person consents.

Actually then we better ban cell phones, x ray machines, cleaning materials and just about everything else that MAY cause bodily harm while we are at it.

Again this is something that is up to the parents and the parents alone. If you have a problem with it, deal with it but it doesn't need to be a law. This doesn't need to happen and shouldn't be happening but either way there is a long list of things to ban if we want to go that route.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I'm pretty sure this wont ever get close to seeing the light of day, however, i think people need to sit back and realize that even breathing will annoy some people. Its starting to get rediculous how much of this stuff gets air time and coverage. If someone wants to endanger their infant by smoking in a vehicle with them no matter how stupid, its their perogitive. Not everything in life can be legislated.

The town mayor said it will become law.

Enforcing it will be the tough part

The last thing along these lines i heard was a transit rider trying to ban the use of cologne and perfume on calgary transit a few years back because it made them nauscious. Fact of the matter is, i want to be able to choose in my life and having a government tell me by law that things like smoking and whatever else is not acceptable in my own property is too far. They are personal choices and need to stay that way.

People do have allergic reactions to perfume and cologne.

Any responsible person wouldn't smoke around their child, especially a car anyway so i don't think it would accomplish anything more then piss everyone off.

I tend to agree. However there are responsible people out there that do not believe in the second hand smoke argument.

[flamesaresmokin]

[quote=Dion;1323236]People do have allergic reactions to perfume and cologne. [quote]

Should 1 million people be punished because 1000 calgarians are allergic to perfume?

The more i think about it, this will just be another gun registration fiasco that will cost the province millions and basically enforce about 5% of the actual problem.

How about we spend our time lobbying for lower fuel taxes or improving education instead of things that can't really be enforced anyway.

[Dion]

[quote=flamesaresmokin;1323259]

Originally Posted by Dion

People do have allergic reactions to perfume and cologne. quote]

Should 1 million people be punished because 1000 calgarians are allergic to perfume?

If what you do affects the health of others - yes!

We ban peanut products from schools due to alergic reactions.

[dissentowner]

I'm all for it and I am a smoker. When I want a smoke I go outside where it will not affect others.

[shane_c]

I'm a non-smoker and I'm all for it. I think we have something similar in NS. If people had some common sense and weren't so self centered then we wouldn't need laws like this. I'm glad they are putting it in place. I have never gotten the appeal of smoking. It's such a filthy habit. It's no different than going up on a roof and sucking in smoke from the chimney. For those who feel that they should be able to smoke wherever they want, whether it be in a car with others or out in public, I think that the rights of those that want clean air trumps your rights.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

I'm pretty sure this wont ever get close to seeing the light of day, however, i think people need to sit back and realize that even breathing will annoy some people. Its starting to get rediculous how much of this stuff gets air time and coverage. If someone wants to endanger their infant by smoking in a vehicle with them no matter how stupid, its their perogitive. Not everything in life can be legislated.

The last thing along these lines i heard was a transit rider trying to ban the use of cologne and perfume on calgary transit a few years back because it made them nauscious. Fact of the matter is, i want to be able to choose in my life and having a government tell me by law that things like smoking and whatever else is not acceptable in my own property is too far. They are personal choices and need to stay that way.

Any responsible person wouldn't smoke around their child, especially a car anyway so i don't think it would accomplish anything more then piss everyone off.

It's hard to take any argument made after this statement as credible. Smoking in a car with a kid is not the same as breathing, so I'm not sure why you would even say this. Is smoking bad for the health of a kid who has a choice? Yes. Is health important? Yes, so it seems like a reasonable law to me, and comparing it to breathing just doesn't make any sense.

As well I look at this as protection of the people who do not have the personal choice about protecting their health.

[Nehkara]

I'm all for it. Sorry smokers, kids need to be protected more than you need your fix.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Dion

If what you do affects the health of others - yes!

We ban peanut products from schools due to alergic reactions.

Ugh, Don't even get me started on not letting kids have a peanut butter sammich for lunch because little Johnny bubble child can die if he breathes on him. Why does the majority have to change for the needs of one? Banning cologne is ######ed. Can we make people shower then? Because when I used to take the train I always ended up next to the person who hadn't bathed in a month. At least they always have their arms up to increase my enjoyment...

What about noise pollution then? It hurts my ears when people talk on their phones on the c-train, lets ban them. Once you start policing stuff like this where does it stop?

This is off topic but it is my post.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Meh, my mom did it to me and I survived.

It's people like you that make me not want to have kids. So what next, you're going to take away peoples kid who visit someone who's a smoker? Take away the kids if they don't have a meal that fits within Canada's food guide 6 times a week?

Do I agree with smoking in the car? No, but you're getting a bit extreme on taking away the child.

You can keep your kids away from smokers. If you visit someone that smokes then ask them to smoke outside. I would always put my kids first before someone else's feelings. I do think that in the case I talked about earlier the kid should be taken away when it is putting his health at risk.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Ugh, Don't even get me started on not letting kids have a peanut butter sammich for lunch because little Johnny bubble child can die if he breathes on him. Why does the majority have to change for the needs of one? Banning cologne is ######ed. Can we make people shower then? Because when I used to take the train I always ended up next to the person who hadn't bathed in a month. At least they always have their arms up to increase my enjoyment...

What about noise pollution then? It hurts my ears when people talk on their phones on the c-train, lets ban them. Once you start policing stuff like this where does it stop?

This is off topic but it is my post.

It's very simple. If you are doing something that has been scientifically proven to kill other people, then it should be against the law. End of story.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by psicodude

It's very simple. If you are doing something that has been scientifically proven to kill other people, then it should be against the law. End of story.

Driving?

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Driving?

... under the influence?

Yes, that's illegal, since that has been proven to kill people.

Driving though... hasn't.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

... under the influence?

Yes, that's illegal, since that has been proven to kill people.

Driving though... hasn't.

Driving doesn't directly lead to thousands of deaths a year?

Are you joking? Do I actually have to go get statistics?

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Driving doesn't directly lead to thousands of deaths a year?

Are you joking? Do I actually have to go get statistics?

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and making yourself look silly in the process.

[The Yen Man]

Wouldn't it be funny if a cop pulled a car over thinking there were kids sitting in the back only to find out they were actually midgets?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and making yourself look silly in the process.

It's a perfectly legitimate argument.

You want a list of other things that have been "scientifically proven to kill people" but are not illegal?