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

[moon]

If people are dumb enough to smoke in their cars with their kids nowadays do people really believe they are going to stop because of some law they will probably never hear about/care about/remember?

What's the likelihood that cops will be able to enforce this law? The amount of time/effort it would take coupled with the little to no results that they would get would be a waste of time.

I applaud the effort and think that as much should be done as possible to stop parents from smoking in the car with their kids, but making a stupid law that is likely to stop less than 5% of the parents who smoke seems to be nothing more than a waste of time and another badge that the holier-than-thou anti-smoking jackass can pin on their jackets while patting themselves on the back smiling about how much better they are than other people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by psicodude

No, a bad post is one that uses extreme examples to prove a weak point. What percentage of the population in Calgary are too fat to attend a grade or go to the hospital? Maybe 1 in 100,000? What percentage smoke with a child in the car? Maybe 1 in 50?

If you read my other post, I said that if not feeding a kid is child abuse, then way over-feeding (yeah, not a word) should be as well. But honestly, we are talking about a tiny number of people in Canada.

I am all for improving the health of our society. I just think the chances of my kid dying from second hand smoke is a lot higher than the chances of him dying from having 2 big macs a month.

Yeah, if only you would feed your child 2 big macs per month.

3/4 people who go to Mickey D's are heavy users....meaning they eat there more than 5-6 times per week.

The chances of your kid dying from second hand smoke are VERY low compared to having them die from unhealthy eating habits. 1/3 kids in the United States is going to have Type 2 Diabetes by 2010. Also from a direct result of eating too much fast food.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

Most low income families go to Mickey D's 3 times a week? Whoa..what planet is this on? I was one time low income, and I cooked what I could afford and got very creative with leftovers too! I could not afford Mickey d's or Dairy Queen. That's generalizing, kind of like saying all men go home after work and do nothing And just for everyones info..processed and frozen food is way more expensive than cooking a chicken and some potatoes and a fresh veggie.

You're one person. One family. Who obviously knew a lot better than most people.

The statistics released by the FDA in the US says that a lot of low income families eat fast foods. Over 60% of them actually.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

In the States, the big thing with the poor and a fast food diet is often that poor urban areas are surrounded by fast food places and grocery stores are no where to be found. These people do not have cars, so they cannot drive to a supermarket and therefore eat fast food.

Is that true for Canada? I have no idea.

Exactly.

And even those grocery stores are hardly a market for fresh veggies and lean meat.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by troutman

If people won't protect their children from second-hand smoke, then society must protect the children. The rights of the child supercedes all.

If you are doing something that is endangering a child, you should be stopped. Your right to do what you want in your own private space does not give you the right to harm kids.

Period.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Try to catch people before they become burden with chronic but preventable disease. It's staggering how many kids are being diagnosed with Type I diabete or develop signs of early high blood pressure.

A good place to start would be by forcing the fast food industry to tell people what kind of chemicals they put in their food, and all the other nutritional information.

But of course that doesn't help if schools are refusing to properly educate kids about their own bodies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't get it... people really should never have been allowed to smoke in front of kids in the first place (as witnessed by the total ban on indoor smoking that exists/is coming). To me this isn't a 'oh my god big brother is telling me what to do' issue... this is correcting something that never should have started.

Can you put your baby in a tanning bed? And if not... why not? It's your baby... right? Seems the same type of thing...

Though, to be honest, I can't imagine what's going through the mind of someone who's smoking with their kid in the car. You may as well just chop 10 years off their life. Great parenting.

I can't imagine what is going through the mind of someone who teaches their kids unhealthy eating habits.

Obesity is a MUCH bigger problem than smoking....especially amongst kids. Second hand smoke, and the effect IT has is nothing compared to how many kids are getting Type 2 diabetes as a result of their parents feeding them crap.

Thing is, nobody is noticing it yet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Of course they are made up. They come from my 35 years of using my eyes. Personally, I have never met a person too overweight to make it to the hospital if they had to, so that sort of leads me to believe there aren't a lot of them around.

Well, those kinds of people who fall under the 'severely obese' category....around 10% of the population. And considering that most of them can't walk, and leave a very sedentary lifestyle, its not surprising that you don't see many of them around.

But you don't have to be 'severely obese' to have health problems. And trust me, a HUGE percentage of the population is overweight.

Anyway, this thread is majorly off topic now. I will just leave things by saying I am happy when lawmakers at least try to help those who can't help themselves.

I'm driving it off topic because I find it ironic how some people think second hand smoke is so dangerous to kids(which it is)...but they completely ignore a much bigger danger. Parents who instill in their kids unhealthy eating habits. Parents who take their kids to Mickey D's 5 times a week, which A LOT of parents do. And considering that obesity is going to kill more kids than second hand smoke EVER will, well, if you legislate laws for one, shouldn't you legislate laws for the other?

But no, people don't want to be told what they should feed their kids. And I agree with that. And despite it being dangerous to smoke in your car when you have kids in there, I don't agree with the government passing laws banning that.

The drive to educate and inform people about the effects of smoking in the early 70's almost cut in HALF the amount of smokers from 1980 to 2000.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

That 50% of kids you talked about for sure will have health problems, still they have opportunity as adults to make lifestyle changes. For sure some won't, but it doesn't negate the fact they still have that option.

As for second hand smoke........

http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthf...0a.stm#E46E291

I'm not going to argue with that.

New Scientist wrote an article about fast food once..."early exposure to fatty foods could reconfigure children's bodies so that they always choose fatty foods. That exposure will critically effect 1/2 kids in America with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, colon cancer, gout, arthritis, menstrual abnormalities, sleep apnea and diabetes by 2010."

And I'm not even going to start posting statistics of how many people are killed by each of those health problems each year.

Hint, its about 20 times more than die from second hand smoke and smoking.

[Itse]

I'm not crazy about "nanny state mentality" either, but passive smoking = smoking. Smoking around children should be banned in all situations.

I won't give my 1-year old a beer either, even though I don't see anything wrong with adults drinking beer.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not going to argue with that.

New Scientist wrote an article about fast food once..."early exposure to fatty foods could reconfigure children's bodies so that they always choose fatty foods. That exposure will critically effect 1/2 kids in America with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, colon cancer, gout, arthritis, menstrual abnormalities, sleep apnea and diabetes by 2010."

And I'm not even going to start posting statistics of how many people are killed by each of those health problems each year.

Hint, its about 20 times more than die from second hand smoke and smoking.

Maybe i didn't state my case properly.

I can appreciate everything you posted regarding obesity, and yes the statistics are in your favour of who dies more. I also appreciate the magnitude of the obesity factor. I am a person who struggles with weight problems and as you already know am working hard to improve my fitness and over all health. Joined a gym and got some exercise equipment for my basement. Also a few years ago I changed they way i eat with the help of my GP. I'm not where i want to be yet, but i'm working damn hard to get there.

Point is my argument isn't about who dies more.

The illnesses that arise later in adulthood due to second hand smoke are often death sentences - in the fact that one dies or the damaging health effects are irreversable. They don't get a second chance like those that grew up obese or learned bad eating habits. That's why i've always felt that second hand smoke was more dangerous.

[PsYcNeT]

Don't you all realize that dumb people smoking in a car with their likely dumb children is just a form of population control?

I mean, they're likely sterilizing themselves and their inferior offspring so we don't have to put up with more smokers in the future destroying their childrens chances of not running a marathon!

Smoking is the last true calling of Darwinism. We've moron-proofed everything from handguns to electrical conduits, so how else are we going to weed out the idiots?

[DuffMan]

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??

I'm pretty sure that this is one of the things this is aiming to accomplish.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I'm pretty sure that this is one of the things this is aiming to accomplish.

By having their parents not smoke in the car? That doesn't make sense to me.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

By having their parents not smoke in the car? That doesn't make sense to me.

My thoughts are kids get somewhat addicted to nicotine from second hand smoke. Especially in a confined space of a car, and especially if it happens quite often.
So, by not allowing people to smoke in cars with kids in them, will keep some kids from the addiction, hence stopping them from starting in the first place.

make sense?

[ResAlien]

Well, been watching this thread for a few days now. After my experience (feel free to search threads) I may not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who smokes with kids in the car is a true piece of s**t. I smoke, but not around my kid. Gov't wants to legislate it, cool. Most of us need to have someone watch out for our own stupidity anyways.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Well, been watching this thread for a few days now. After my experience (feel free to search threads) I may not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who smokes with kids in the car is a true piece of s**t. I smoke, but not around my kid. Gov't wants to legislate it, cool. Most of us need to have someone watch out for our own stupidity anyways.

I still think the government is going about this the wrong way ... just like the rest of their anti-smoking legislation. Legislation against smoking in vehicles is an indirect way of attacking smoking. As you've pointed out, it's really a legislation against stupidity as much as it is against smoking.

If the government wants to stop smoking, make it illegal. If that's really their goal, why not take direct legislative action against smoking itself, rather than indirect legislation that often targets individual rights and lifestyle choices. I'd rather see the government just make tobacco use illegal than establish precedent setting individual rights and lifestyle legislation. Failure to legislate against smoking directly makes me wonder if governments are too addicted to tobacco taxes to have the will to actually make it illegal.

For what it's worth ... I'm a casual cigar smoker, not a non-smoker or an anti-smoker.

[Azure]

Of course they don't want to 'stop' smoking....they'd lose a lot of tax revenue.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're one person. One family. Who obviously knew a lot better than most people.

The statistics released by the FDA in the US says that a lot of low income families eat fast foods. Over 60% of them actually.

U said 3 times a week. I disagree.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

U said 3 times a week. I disagree.

Disagree with what? That 3/4 people that are found at Mickey D's eat there 5-6 times per week? And in certain areas, 75% of those people come from low-income families?