Alberta bans smoking in cars with minors present.

[geos]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No thanks, let the smokers stay in their houses and kill themselves.

As long as they aren't killing their kids in the house too.

[blankall]

Laws should always be about balancing the infringement on rights against the benefits. I was quite outspoken on how I though people complaining about the negative health effects of occasionally getting a wiff of smoke outdoors was ridiculous.

This, however, is a different issue. The medical evidence clearly shows that repeated exposure to second hand smoke in confined areas has negative health consequences. Not sure how anyone can be opposed to this law. Don't see how you have any more right to smoke with your kids in the car than you do to hit them in the head repeatedly for no reason.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by blankall

This, however, is a different issue. The medical evidence clearly shows that repeated exposure to second hand smoke in confined areas has negative health consequences.

Medical evidence clearly shows that alcohol and nicotine have adverse effects on fetus as well. Should we lock up pregnant women who smoke and drink during their pregnancy too?

A lot of things are not right and flat out wrong but we don't need legislation for every single one of them.

[geos]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Medical evidence clearly shows that alcohol and nicotine have adverse effects on fetus as well. Should we lock up pregnant women who smoke and drink during their pregnancy too?

Ya, I would suggest that may be appropriate. It's a psychopathic behavior to knowingly cause physical harm to your children. You have to be mentally sick to do that. I would suggest they need immediately psychiatric intervention.

They should at least cover every dollar of the increased medical costs their child incurs over its lifetime as a result of their direct choices.

That $1,000 fine might look mighty attractive!

[geos]

Originally Posted by darklord700

A lot of things are not right and flat out wrong but we don't need legislation for every single one of them.

You're right, but we do need laws to protect those that are physical incapable of protecting themselves or leaving the situation at hand. The child cannot do anything. Therefore society must protect his liberty and rights.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Medical evidence clearly shows that alcohol and nicotine have adverse effects on fetus as well. Should we lock up pregnant women who smoke and drink during their pregnancy too?

I actually think they should. Feminists, however, will not allow that. Because a fetus, unlike a born child, is in the womb, it is considered legally, more or less, a part of the woman's body. Women have the right to control their own bodies according to the law right now.

Personally, I think a woman should be financially and legally responsible if she deliberately chooses to put her unborn baby at risk....however, that's another can of worms, where does abortion etc....factor in. I'm pro-choice (during the very beginning of pregnancy alone), so some will see my views as hypocritical.

Back on topic though, I don't really see how your analogy is all that apt. The law already stops me from doing plenty of things to my children in order to protect them. We're talking about a pretty small infringement here that offers a fair bit of protection to the child. People can wait until after their car trip and have their cigarettes in a well ventilated area outside.....I have no problem with that (although half of CP jumped down my throat the last time I expressed that opinion).

[troutman]

Now the reason we're here
Every man, every woman
Is to help each other
Stand by each other

Stephen Colbert Takes the Sizzle Out of SawStop
http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...orking-eletter

http://www.tool-rank.com/tool-blog/n...-201202201120/

Should people have the right to by cheaper tools knowing that they may get injured if they use the tool incorrectly, or should we be forced to purchase a more expensive saw on the chance that we might make contact with the blade? Do we want a country that believes in freedom of choice, or do we want to be told what is best for us? In the video below, a table saw user feels he should have the right to be able to cut off his own finger.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by darklord700

A lot of things are not right and flat out wrong but we don't need legislation for every single one of them.

It's illegal to keep firearms unlocked in your house for the safety of you and your family, yet I don't see people complaining about all the firearms laws. What's the difference between that and banning smoking in a car with kids?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

It's illegal to keep firearms unlocked in your house for the safety of you and your family, yet I don't see people complaining about all the firearms laws. What's the difference between that and banning smoking in a car with kids?

You don't see people complaining about firearms laws? Look south.

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Is smoking already included in the distracted driving law?

Didn't see this answered, but isn't smoking in a car already banned?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You don't see people complaining about firearms laws? Look south.

let's not let our neighbour to the south be our yard stick.....

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're conveniently forgetting to mention the basis for that, religion. How can you argue for liberty on one hand and then argue for impinging upon freedom of religion on the other? Could it be that things aren't that simple?

I find it quite easy. Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe and act as you would but it stops (or at least I think it should) when you come up against the rights of another. As an adult I should have the right to weigh my beliefs against the benefits, a child doesn't have that luxury so harming your child in the name of your beliefs is wrong but harming yourself in the name of your beliefs is okay.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You don't see people complaining about firearms laws? Look south.

I meant Canadians. If hypothetically the government announces tomorrow that you no longer have to keep firearms locked in your house and unloaded, you think most people would be ok with that? I don't think they would. But hey, it's a nanny state if the government dictates how I should store my firearms right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I find it quite easy. Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe and act as you would but it stops (or at least I think it should) when you come up against the rights of another. As an adult I should have the right to weigh my beliefs against the benefits, a child doesn't have that luxury so harming your child in the name of your beliefs is wrong but harming yourself in the name of your beliefs is okay.

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.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If this is why you think Child Services takes children from families, of any cultural/ethinic/racial background, then you are obviously very confused about what Child Services does. I don't see how my post relates to this, or residential schools in the slightest degree, except that it is the only example you could find that supported your point. An example that is as outdated and irrelevant as your opinion that all people know to raise their kids properly.

You said you support a visit from Child Services for people who smoke in cars with children, presumably to potentially take the child away from the parents. It's this 'nanny-state' knows best mentality that exactly lead to the residential schools. The government knew how to educate and assimilate the 'barbaric' children and so they took them away from their families and ended up doing much more harm than any good at all.

Kids are put in danger in many ways, every single day, by parents who are either too selfish, under educated, or simply unable to understand what they are doing is hurting or killing their kids. If you think that the government should ignore that because it infringes on peoples rights, then you are only giving a severe black eye to every other libertarian minded person out there.

You're right. Maybe the government should take all children and put them in state homes to make sure they are raised properly. Then we could all be residential school childen.

What a useless stream of thought.

[crazy_eoj]

I'm really curious, for all those strongly in support of this law; how many of you think that someone who currently smokes in their car with their child present, will suddenly stop because they heard it is illegal?

Or how many of them do you think will be shocked to find out this is bad for their child?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm really curious, for all those strongly in support of this law; how many of you think that someone who currently smokes in their car with their child present, will suddenly stop because they heard it is illegal?

Or how many of them do you think will be shocked to find out this is bad for their child?

1. none
2. none

[blankall]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm really curious, for all those strongly in support of this law; how many of you think that someone who currently smokes in their car with their child present, will suddenly stop because they heard it is illegal?

Or how many of them do you think will be shocked to find out this is bad for their child?

I think plenty of people will stop once they start handing out tickets. I hardly see people texting while drivign anymore. I also don't see anybody smoking in bars anymore. Same principle.

I think all smokers know this is bad for their children. Some just need a kick in the pants to properly adjust their behaviour.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I meant Canadians. If hypothetically the government announces tomorrow that you no longer have to keep firearms locked in your house and unloaded, you think most people would be ok with that? I don't think they would. But hey, it's a nanny state if the government dictates how I should store my firearms right?

What about the registration of Long Guns? I think that's a closer analogy to what you are trying to say. I mean, people register their cars all the time, why would they complain about registering a dangerous weapon? After all, we are Canadians, right, not those hard-to-understand Americans.

And no, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And I think that there would be fewer Canadians that do have a problem with that than you think.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Amen. I'm glad the government is making every decision for me, thus freeing up my mind for other things.

You must be that guy outside my window at 3 AM on a weeknight with his bass turned up so loud in his car that I can feel my internal organs rearranging themselves.

Your rights to play loud music/smoke/be a complete jerkface ends where it impinges on my rights. It's not the government's fault that the world is full of idiots who must be legislated out of their stupidity.