Alberta bans smoking in cars with minors present.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

They tried to mandate bike helmets for adults here in Lethbridge a year ago.....

Thankfully that didn't go over too well.

The way things are going I wouldn't get your hopes up that this is the last you will hear about that.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The way things are going I wouldn't get your hopes up that this is the last you will hear about that.

I think it will get to the point where people just won't care about all the laws, and won't comply.

If they mandate adults to wear bike helmets, how are they going to fine you if you don't bring your ID with you? ...make you register your bike with the city? Pfffft...

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think it will get to the point where people just won't care about all the laws, and won't comply.

If they mandate adults to wear bike helmets, how are they going to fine you if you don't bring your ID with you? ...make you register your bike with the city? Pfffft...

I agree. It's a silly situation.
It's already happening with online music piracy. When everyone is participating in illegal activity, no one will care if what they are doing is illegal or not.

[The Yen Man]

Wow, there is so much hyperbole in this thread. We're going to end up being a nanny state! Our freedoms have been encroached!

Like most things, this isn't a black and white issue. There's always degrees and how far laws should go. In this particular case, I say its the proper degree of legislation. It really is no different than the seatbelt law, or the bike helmet laws.

Besides, it seems like most people who are up in arms with this law aren't even smokers themselves. It has no affect on them whatsoever. So really, they're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not really thinking about the benefits of the law itself.

[SeeBass]

Imagine if there was an 8x8 metal box in this city, that parents took their kids to for a few hours every week, and made their kids sit in there with them while they smoked.

Would these metal boxes still exsist?

Would there be people demanding their freedom to take their kids to this metal box?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just dont see the point man. I understand its a bad thing, but at the same time what real effect is this going to have? So they dont smoke in the car with their kids but just hotbox their house once they get home? Progress!

Yes, progress. Any carpooling parent, parent driving their children on a play date, grampa driving the grandkids around etc etc etc. These are net benefits.

If you want to have an impact on the safetey of people who cant protect themselves then I think other measures are going to have to be implemented, this law to me seems like trying to empty Lake Ontario with a teacup.

Why do you think that? The responses in this thread are enough to illustrate that this law will have a positive impact on the safety of those unable to defend themselves. This law isn't government sticking their noses where they shouldn't, this law is about government doing exactly what it's supposed to do, protect the most vulnerable parts of society.

I understand the 'logical fallacy' of; 'if we cant do everything then we shouldnt do anything' but at the same time, the effort and expense of doing something incredibly minor and likely largely ineffective seems like an inefficient method to cure the root cause.

Have you been inconvenienced? Did this legislation cost anything extra? Are you somehow on the hook now if some jagoff smoking in their car while their kid coughs in back gets a ticket? There has been no extra burden placed on you whatsover, and the net positive is that maybe a handful of kids at the least will benefit. I wish I could accomplish so much without having to do a single thing.

You want to protect kids, thats great, what real, measureable effect is this going to have towards that goal? If the answer is; 'very little' then maybe people should keep looking for a better way.

Why is 'very little' an unacceptable outcome? This has cost virtually nothing to implement and will divert zero in the way of enforcement dollars or hours. Will it be worth it if it saves the province 10 thousand dollars over the course of one child's life who might otherwise use those costs + on public healthcare?

I also understand that its 'something' and that 'something is always better than nothing' but if the cost of something outweighs its own benefits then maybe instead of blindly and unthinkingly doing it anyways, the resources would be better served finding a more suitable alternative.

Again, the cost is virtually non-existent, and you haven't really given any kind of logical reason to be against this. Seems like a very Albertan attitude, "I don't like it, what is it?"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But. Is. It. Distracted. Driving.

Some people were just discussing their confusion.

Really? Because it took me about 12 seconds on the FAQ page posted above to see that smoking is on the list of things that are not considered distracted driving.

[Locke]

Do you think enacting laws is free?

[The Yen Man]

I imagine it's probably illegal now to strap your kids with a belt. Is that encroaching on your parenting freedoms? Why not make it legal? God forbid the government step in and tell you how to raise your kids right?

[SeeBass]

Would it be ok if the guy driving the school bus everyday was allowed to smoke?

It is only a small part of your kids day so it shouldn't be worth worrying about as it would only open the door to more nanny state laws.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you think enacting laws is free?

Do you seriously think that enacting this law increased the budget for the applicable government entity?

[Flash Walken]

Signs on the Bow River signalling the danger of the Weir are an encroachment on my freedom. Waste of my tax money to have some politician talking back and forth about the best way to make the most dangerous part of the Bow safer.

Attacking my freedom to make me wear a life preserver on water craft! I don't care if it will eventually cost the city tens of thousands of dollars to pull my lifeless corpse from the Weir, it's my God Given Right as a second generation Canadian to inconvenience countless other members of society because of my own stupidity and arrogance.

Give me the ability to smoke in my car filled with young, helpless children or give me death. Anything in between is anti-freedom, and I won't stand for it until someone violates my freedom and resuscitates me so that I can complain louder.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by valo403

Really? Because it took me about 12 seconds on the FAQ page posted above to see that smoking is on the list of things that are not considered distracted driving.

Notice how I did the exact same thing? Yet we keep hearing people, online and in real life, that have very little idea how this legislation really works. There is plenty of confusion over this legislation, regardless as to how fast you pulled some info you were looking for.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Notice how I did the exact same thing? Yet we keep hearing people, online and in real life, that have very little idea how this legislation really works. There is plenty of confusion over this legislation, regardless as to how fast you pulled some info you were looking for.

And who's to blame for that? Are you seriously pointing fingers at the government because people are too stupid/lazy to understand incredibly straightforward laws with easily accessible and detailed explanations?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by valo403

And who's to blame for that? Are you seriously pointing fingers at the government because people are too stupid/lazy to understand incredibly straightforward laws with easily accessible and detailed explanations?

The government should make a law making it illegal to be confused about understanding straightforward laws with easily accessible and detaled explainations!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The government should make a law making it illegal to be confused about understanding straightforward laws with easily accessible and detaled explainations!

They'd make a killing by just monitoring a handful of people in this thread

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Would it be ok if the guy driving the school bus everyday was allowed to smoke?

It is only a small part of your kids day so it shouldn't be worth worrying about as it would only open the door to more nanny state laws.

That is already illegal under the smoking in a workplace legislation so no worries there. The kids will get to school safely.

This ban seems to be based on science in that studies have shown that when smoking in an small enclosed space the second hand smoke is worse than in a larger enclosed space or outside. In the end, while I am against most bans I find myself in favor of this one. I won't be out in the street celebrating the ban but I can think of no valid reason to be against it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Signs on the Bow River signalling the danger of the Weir are an encroachment on my freedom. Waste of my tax money to have some politician talking back and forth about the best way to make the most dangerous part of the Bow safer.

Attacking my freedom to make me wear a life preserver on water craft! I don't care if it will eventually cost the city tens of thousands of dollars to pull my lifeless corpse from the Weir, it's my God Given Right as a second generation Canadian to inconvenience countless other members of society because of my own stupidity and arrogance.

Give me the ability to smoke in my car filled with young, helpless children or give me death. Anything in between is anti-freedom, and I won't stand for it until someone violates my freedom and resuscitates me so that I can complain louder.

I'm not going to get drawn into hyperbole.

I've never once claimed that I think its an infringement upon anyone's rights or liberties. Trying to keep kids out of smoke infested environments is a great and noble cause.

What I have been saying is that measures such as this are a drop in the bucket that solves no problem and provides little to no gain, and yes, thats a problem.

Further, I think that instead of 'drop in the bucket' legislation, what people should be more concerned about is clarifying the goal and then making strides towards meeting that goal.

What is the goal? Is it to protect children from second hand smoke inhalation?

To take Flash's analogy, if Gramps is running the carpool and puffing away, if the parents dont like it, maybe they should say something, you know, try parenting a little?

Or are they instead hoping that the possibility of a $1000 ding to his wallet is going to make Gramps quit and they can quietly hope they never have to say anything to him?

I'm not going to bemoan the loss of civil liberties in this case as I dont see that as the issue, rather, I see this as the removal of personal responsibilities.

If they're your kids and you want to smoke around them all the time knowing full well the health consequences then I see that as their personal responsibility as parents.

But I understand, its totally free and better than nothing so lets just legislate it so that parents dont learn anything about taking responsibility for their own actions. Because not until that time, when they'll voluntarily stop smoking around their kids all the time, not just in the car, will something have been accomplished to achieve the goal.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

If they're your kids and you want to smoke around them all the time knowing full well the health consequences then I see that as their personal responsibility as parents.

And this is where I think you've hit your head.

This is why child safety laws exist, because saying "well that's how I choose to raise them" isn't a satisfactory response to child endangerment, which is what this law is aiming to prevent.

It's the same reason you can't sell smokes to children or force them to work in coal mines.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You have a very broad idea of what your "rights" are. Too broad if you ask me.

No, I have a pretty narrow definition of my rights. I should be able to do whatever I want, provided it doesn't force someone else to take the negative consequences. I don't think it gets much more succinct than that.

In this case, by smoking in a car with kids, you force those kids to take the negative consequences of that behavior. If I rumble down the street in the middle of the night so that people's windows rattle and they wake up, again my behaviour is having a deleterious effect on those I inconvenience. If I assert my right to talk loudly on my cell phone during a movie, again I am infringing on other's rights.

It isn't always easy to determine what to do when individual rights conflict, but the idea that "nobody can tell me what to do!" is not only incorrect, it is infantile. There are authorities that can and will tell you what to do, and if they didn't exist, you would lose the "tyranny" of limited government in favour of the tyranny of unlimited individuals.