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

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Sure. Please show me the study that shows driving a car kills people. Not the stats on accidents, an actualy study that shows cars can kill people. In fact, go crazy. Let's see your list.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Guns.
Emos with Guns.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Sure. Please show me the study that shows driving a car kills people. Not the stats on accidents, an actualy study that shows cars can kill people. In fact, go crazy. Let's see your list.

Cars get into accidents killing people. How can you argue against that? If it's harmful or has killed someon, then lets ban it!!!

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Cigarettes are arguably the ONLY product I can think of that cause significant harm when used as suggested/recommended....

Cars don't...even guns don't

[RougeUnderoos]

Are you kidding me? How about this -- forget the statistics. Go stand on Deerfoot for a while and do your own study.

How about pollution, or booze, or poor eating habits, or bungee jumping, mountain climbing, chuckwagon racing...

Should I go on?

Saying laws should be based on the premise of "if it has been scientifically proven to kill people it should be illegal" just plain-old doesn't make sense.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Saying laws should be based on the premise of "if it has been scientifically proven to kill people it should be illegal" just plain-old doesn't make sense.

if it has been scientifically proven to kill people when used as directed it should be illegal...or better yet

if it has been scientifically proven to kill people and harm bystanders when used as directed it should be illegal

Does that sound different?

Of course anything can cause harm (driving, bungee jumping, sitting all day), but that is a pretty lame parallel to this proposed law.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

if it has been scientifically proven to kill people when used as directed it should be illegal

Does that sound different?

Sure it sounds different, but it still doesn't make sense.

Cars again -- they can certainly kill people even when used as directed.

Even further to that -- cars pollute constantly when used as directed. That pollution kills people. It's a long and winding road (like smoking) but it certainly happens. Should it be illegal?

I've always thought it was kind of strange that smoking is vilified to such a level while nobody ever bats an eye about the other crap we fill the air with.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I've always thought it was kind of strange that smoking is vilified to such a level while nobody ever bats an eye about the other crap we fill the air with.

Smoking doesn't have any positive effects, some reports show it is as or more addictive than heroin. It is a money suck and kills the smoker and the people around them. Governments have regulated cars and new innovations are coming out all the time to reduce pollution and deal with congestion. Unfortunately we need systems of transportation and many times a car is the best way to get around.

I don't really care if you smoke in your house or outside not around anyone. Only thing I get annoyed about is every smoker seems like it is their right to litter their inorganic butts (won't decompose) all over the ground.

[flamesaresmokin]

[quote=Dion;1323272]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

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

We ban peanut products from schools due to alergic reactions.

Thats because children could die by ingesting something that they are allergic too and are too young to know the difference. Do we ban peanut butter in all restaurants because of these people?

Banning cologne or perfume because someone is allergic to it is entirely different. Its not a bylaw to not serve peanut butter in schools - its a policy to prevent mishaps. Its a public place, you can't tell people what they can and can't wear - thats borderline nazi germany at that point.

They might as well say that you can't wear the colour red in public either because people who are colour blind can't enjoy the colours. If someone is bothering you that much move to another seat - thats the reasonable thing to do, buses and trains are large enough that moving a few rows away would accomplish the same thing.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Even when I was a smoker I could not smoke with the windows closed, rain or snow. I don't really know why this is relevant but I just don't understand how people can smoke with the windows closed...

My buddy's parents used to do it all the time. I remember being in the 6th grade in the back seat of his car with him, while both parents sat up front with the windows rolled up tight, smoking. It reeked so bad that my buddy would crack the window a bit, and then immediately face the wrath of his parents, who didn't like the cold coming in. There's some real idiots out there...

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Sure it sounds different, but it still doesn't make sense.

Cars again -- they can certainly kill people even when used as directed.

Cars kill people through accidents or when used as a weapon...if you use them properly you will never harm anyone (pollution from the car excepted...that is a good point)

Cigarettes, will harm you and those around you when you use them properly

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

Please tell me where i claimed it was the same thing as smoking in a car with children? What everyone who is advocating this is doing is basically saying i can't make choices for myself so please tell me what to do. If you go this far, anything can become illegal if it is deemed harmful or even a nuesance.

I know several smokers, some of which have children, none of them would ever smoke around there children - especially in a vehicle or confined space. Sure there will be people who do it, they are idiots but they are few and far between. Making this a bylaw wont stop those people anyway.

There is a very long list of things to make illegal for people around children if this goes through - Drinking infront of your child, it sets a bad example - feeding your child any sort of fast food, the child can't choose between good and bad food - playing xbox or computer games, if they stare at the screens too long there eyesight might depleat - not making your kids excercise, they develop unhealthy bodies and don't know the difference.

This is definitely way overboard but you must see some sort of connection here. All that stuff is harmful to your child and they can't choose because they don't know better. Yeah smoking is something that shouldn't happen around a child but lets look at everything that might hurt a child if we are going to go down that path. Lets have cops fine everyone who does anything deemed remotely harmful to a child and see where we end up as a society.

I just have a very strong opinon against making things like this law, there is a fine line between too much authority in a democratic society and this is boardering on that. I'm not a smoker and never will smoke - but i respect a persons right to live they way they see fit, even if their choices aren't good ones all the time.

[jayswin]

So this thread has turned into an argument of semantics. Who cares about the semantics, what matters is the issue at hand; Should smoking in cars be a ticketable offense. The answer being; Why are there parents in this day in age stupid enough to smoke in their cars with kids present?

Instead, we're, for some reason, trying to justify that if we ban smoking in cars with children present, we should also ban driving, since both have been proven to kill people? Semantics Fataing suck!!!!!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Instead, we're, for some reason, trying to justify that if we ban smoking in cars with children present, we should also ban driving, since both have been proven to kill people? Semantics Fataing suck!!!!!

I think I more or less speak for the Anti-Law crowd, but I feel the posters that are debating with me are addressing semantics rather than my point.
Which I will re-state .

Originally Posted by Gozer

I draw the line at telling a bar owner what clientele he may target.

I draw the line at telling a person what legal products he may or may not smoke in his own home.

I do not draw the line at telling a person they may not smoke in a car with the windows rolled up and kids in the backseat, but I do not believe the gov't may draw the line as flippantly as I. That is the point I am trying to make.

I think anti-smoking sentiment is worthwhile and righteous. If I was in power, I would probably vote in favour of the law. However, the fact that we all agree this is wrong does not necessarily mean that we have the right to legislate it.
(two posts compiled)

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by flameswin

So this thread has turned into an argument of semantics. Who cares about the semantics, what matters is the issue at hand; Should smoking in cars be a ticketable offense. The answer being; Why are there parents in this day in age stupid enough to smoke in their cars with kids present?

Instead, we're, for some reason, trying to justify that if we ban smoking in cars with children present, we should also ban driving, since both have been proven to kill people? Semantics Fataing suck!!!!!

Exactly.

I think the posters know that that's not what I or anyone else meant regarding driving not killing people.

We've seen accidents, we've heard of people dying from them.

If you are a reasonable driver and follow the laws set out, the chances of you dying are RARE.

You might die if some ****wad clips you going 220 on Deerfoot... but again, that's him doing something illegal.

You might die because that idiot behind you is tailing you going 95 in a 50 zone, but AGAIN, that's him doing something illegal.

[Calgaryborn]

1. Is this law warranted by the risk to the child?

2. Given the income levels of many families in our country does imposing a fine actually harm the child?

3. Is this law Just and fair considering there are many things parents do that are at least equally as harmful to their children that we as a society tolerate?

4. Should smokers be protected as a minority? They do seem to be receiving a lot of abuse because of their addiction.

[Calgaryborn]

Here are my answers to the questions I posed:

1. No

2. yes

3. No

4. No, but I do think they are being unfairly attacked.

I also think that when a cigarette company is sued for selling their product that the government should be on the hook for the percentage of profit they made off those sales.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Should smoking in cars be a ticketable offense. The answer being; Why are there parents in this day in age stupid enough to smoke in their cars with kids present?

You didn't answer your own question. We all know it is stupid. Is that good enough to make it illegal?

[Azure]

I still thinking educating the public would help a lot more than legislating laws like this.

Not that the law is a bad thing, but the government imposing so much control over us is never a good thing.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You didn't answer your own question. We all know it is stupid. Is that good enough to make it illegal?

I did answer my own question, earlier in the thread.