Alberta bans smoking in cars with minors present.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I can.

A law put in place that required kids to wear a bike helmet while riding a bike resulted in my brother no longer riding his bike.

Are you really arguing against a law that has been proven to save kids lives? I would suggest that you ask your doctor next time you see him about his view on bike helmets or if you have kids and have to take them to the emergency room ask the doctor there what he thinks about children wearing bike helmets. Also it isn't about people "thinking" that something is better for you... it is about science proving that for most people (maybe not you I guess) their brain is very important to their health and wellbeing and it might be a good thing to try and protect when riding a bike.... but as I said I am sure that you know more than those science talkin guys.

Who in their right mind would argue against a law that was proven to save kids lives? Also maybe your brother is just lazy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/.../bike-law.html

Fewer kids died after Ont. adopted bike helmet law: research

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Are you really arguing against a law that has been proven to save kids lives? I would suggest that you ask your doctor next time you see him about his view on bike helmets or if you have kids and have to take them to the emergency room ask the doctor there what he thinks about children wearing bike helmets. Also it isn't about people "thinking" that something is better for you... it is about science proving that for most people (maybe not you I guess) their brain is very important to their health and wellbeing and it might be a good thing to try and protect when riding a bike.... but as I said I am sure that you know more than those science talkin guys.

Who in their right mind would argue against a law that was proven to save kids lives? Also maybe your brother is just lazy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/.../bike-law.html

Fewer kids died after Ont. adopted bike helmet law: research

You know what else would reduce those statistics to nothing? Outlawing the use of bikes by a minor. Now there's a law that would save lives.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

So the government should do nothing at all in order to prevent kids getting potentially seriously hurt in your libertarian utopia? Especially when which right is being infringed - your right to avoid hat hair?

Honest question do your only arguments against these two laws involve taking everything to the most illogical and extreme conclusion?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I can.

A law put in place that required kids to wear a bike helmet while riding a bike resulted in my brother no longer riding his bike.

Thoughts and prayers.

[Flash Walken]

Your brother sounds like a cool guy.

Too cool to wear a helmet, obviously.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I can.

A law put in place that required kids to wear a bike helmet while riding a bike resulted in my brother no longer riding his bike.

So, if your brother has kids, and smokes.....is he going to stop driving? Man that will sure show them who's boss!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

I feel like I'm rapidly getting nowehere here.

What I'm trying to say is that you have to change the behaviour of the people who feel that smoking around their kids is okay and that I dont think this law is going to accomplish that in any way.

[Knalus]

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.
.

Doesn't fix the situation far enough, man. Should outlaw boating on the Bow altogether.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Locke

I feel like I'm rapidly getting nowehere here.

What I'm trying to say is that you have to change the behaviour of the people who feel that smoking around their kids is okay and that I dont think this law is going to accomplish that in any way.

I agree that the end goal should be a change in behavior, and while I'm not sure that this law will be incredibly effective I fail to see a better way of achieving the goal. It's not as if education campaigns on the harmful effects of smoking haven't been around for decades. Maybe I'm missing something, but what would you suggest as a better course of action to meeting the goal?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Doesn't fix the situation far enough, man. Should outlaw boating on the Bow altogether.

You really aren't capable of making an argument that isn't just hyperbole and scope shifting aren't you?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Locke

I feel like I'm rapidly getting nowehere here.

What I'm trying to say is that you have to change the behaviour of the people who feel that smoking around their kids is okay and that I dont think this law is going to accomplish that in any way.

It might not change it 100%, but I would think once fines are being handed out, some will stop a significant portion of the people who do it. Nothing curbs bad habits like punishment.

At the end of the day, I really don't see the harm in making this a law. What are the negative effects of the government passing this?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Doesn't fix the situation far enough, man. Should outlaw boating on the Bow altogether.

You had some decent points, but now you're just ruining this thread with your sillyness and hyperbole.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

What I'm trying to say is that you have to change the behaviour of the people who feel that smoking around their kids is okay and that I dont think this law is going to accomplish that in any way.

Making it illegal to do something is a pretty good re-enforcement that the behaviour is bad.

I fail to see a negative aspect of this legislation, and so far no one has really pointed one out except for a flawed 'freedoms' argument, which you're not making.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by valo403

I agree that the end goal should be a change in behavior, and while I'm not sure that this law will be incredibly effective I fail to see a better way of achieving the goal. It's not as if education campaigns on the harmful effects of smoking haven't been around for decades. Maybe I'm missing something, but what would you suggest as a better course of action to meeting the goal?

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

It might not change it 100%, but I would think once fines are being handed out, some will stop a significant portion of the people who do it. Nothing curbs bad habits like punishment.

At the end of the day, I really don't see the harm in making this a law. What are the negative effects of the government passing this?

There arent a whole lot of negatives for implementing this law, I just dont feel that the very few positives make it worth it, not to mention the possible waste of resources that may then not be available for an alternative when a suitable one is found. If we're all resigned to no future alternatives to attempt to tackle the bigger problem then fill your boots and pass the law.

To reiterate, I dont think this is about rights as much as it is about responsibilities.

When I say that parents should be responsible for their actions, I do not mean that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want just because its their kid, what I mean is that parents, much like children, can not be supervised at all times.

If the parents, or adults in general, are only on their best behaviour when they're on the roads because they know that Johnny Law is on the lookout for their shenanigans then this does no service to their kids when their parents are not in danger of being caught in some fashion.

The decision to smoke while in the car with your kids is, in my non-parent opinion, a symptom of a larger problem that affects responsible parental decision making.

So, this law may curb this one poor decision, but the rest will be left unchecked.

In summation, I'm not against this law, it'll probably work out okay, but I dont think its going to be particularly effective and in that case I'd rather it go back to the drawing board than implement something that I perceive to be a bit half-assed.

In the end, I still dont have kids and I still dont smoke, so I still dont care.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by valo403

You really aren't capable of making an argument that isn't just hyperbole and scope shifting aren't you?

Scope shifting is the whole argument. The scope has been shifting every year for the past 20 to 30 years. I'm not pro-second hand smoke, I'm not pro child abuse, I'm not pro head injuries. None of that.

I do have problems with this constant legislation creep. I dislike how the argument always seems to be that "It's about the children", or that I'm somehow siding with some terrorists if I don't want to take my belt off or be fondled to get on a plane. I dislike how the whole argument has been skewed so if I disagree with this, then somehow I'm some kind of monster.

A previous poster was partially right when he said that this particular legislation was not the hill to die on. But that's the issue, it never really seems to be that hill. My big issue is how many more are there going to be? Where is it going to end? Because when I was younger, these things that have been legislated away would have been considered crazy. Absolutely crazy.

I don't like these laws because I don't like the direction these laws are going. I don't think that smoking in a car with children is a good thing. I also don't think that a cop or a legislature should try to legislate that someone who disagrees with this is now in breach of law. Look at what the law is trying to do, and what it is saying. It's about changing people's attitude. It's about changing people's behavior. It's about "educating" (or should it be re-educating?) people who disagree. It's about deciding which attitudes are legal, and which are not. It's practically training people. And honestly, you've seen government, and the individuals that it attracts. Do you want them to be the ones training people to be obedient, compliant people?

Let me repeat. I do not think it's a good idea for people to smoke in a car with children. I understand the reasoning behind protecting innocent people from harm, and in principle agree with their goals. What I disagree with is the method and implementation of these goals, because of the larger implications on society. So yeah. I have been shifting the scope of the argument. Because the constant shifting scope of government is the argument.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Locke

There arent a whole lot of negatives for implementing this law, I just dont feel that the very few positives make it worth it, not to mention the possible waste of resources that may then not be available for an alternative when a suitable one is found. If we're all resigned to no future alternatives to attempt to tackle the bigger problem then fill your boots and pass the law.

To reiterate, I dont think this is about rights as much as it is about responsibilities.

When I say that parents should be responsible for their actions, I do not mean that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want just because its their kid, what I mean is that parents, much like children, can not be supervised at all times.

If the parents, or adults in general, are only on their best behaviour when they're on the roads because they know that Johnny Law is on the lookout for their shenanigans then this does no service to their kids when their parents are not in danger of being caught in some fashion.

The decision to smoke while in the car with your kids is, in my non-parent opinion, a symptom of a larger problem that affects responsible parental decision making.

So, this law may curb this one poor decision, but the rest will be left unchecked.

In summation, I'm not against this law, it'll probably work out okay, but I dont think its going to be particularly effective and in that case I'd rather it go back to the drawing board than implement something that I perceive to be a bit half-assed.

In the end, I still dont have kids and I still dont smoke, so I still dont care.

I agree with you in general, I just don't see any resources being wasted or any preclusion of utilizing other avenues in the future. It's likely not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Scope shifting is the whole argument. The scope has been shifting every year for the past 20 to 30 years. I'm not pro-second hand smoke, I'm not pro child abuse, I'm not pro head injuries. None of that.

I do have problems with this constant legislation creep. I dislike how the argument always seems to be that "It's about the children", or that I'm somehow siding with some terrorists if I don't want to take my belt off or be fondled to get on a plane. I dislike how the whole argument has been skewed so if I disagree with this, then somehow I'm some kind of monster.

A previous poster was partially right when he said that this particular legislation was not the hill to die on. But that's the issue, it never really seems to be that hill. My big issue is how many more are there going to be? Where is it going to end? Because when I was younger, these things that have been legislated away would have been considered crazy. Absolutely crazy.

I don't like these laws because I don't like the direction these laws are going. I don't think that smoking in a car with children is a good thing. I also don't think that a cop or a legislature should try to legislate that someone who disagrees with this is now in breach of law. Look at what the law is trying to do, and what it is saying. It's about changing people's attitude. It's about changing people's behavior. It's about "educating" (or should it be re-educating?) people who disagree. It's about deciding which attitudes are legal, and which are not. It's practically training people. And honestly, you've seen government, and the individuals that it attracts. Do you want them to be the ones training people to be obedient, compliant people?

Let me repeat. I do not think it's a good idea for people to smoke in a car with children. I understand the reasoning behind protecting innocent people from harm, and in principle agree with their goals. What I disagree with is the method and implementation of these goals, because of the larger implications on society. So yeah. I have been shifting the scope of the argument. Because the constant shifting scope of government is the argument.

When that attitude is 'I think it's a good idea to make my children inhale smoke' I think that legislation to enforce a change in that attitude is a great thing.

You seem to have no concept of proportionality, it's shown in the way you respond with outlandish examples and your clear lack of understanding of how these laws come to be and how they continue to be in existence. Laws that are not proportional don't last. Laws that don't target legitimate concerns don't last. People like yourself like to throw up your hands and scream about the government taking away your liberty based upon hyperbole and ignorance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Where is it going to end?

It'll end where the society decides it's reasonable for it to end. Nothing's stopping you from leaving if you don't like the types of laws your society is putting in place aren't up your alley.

As for education to change people's behaviour, obviously this doesn't work well enough otherwise we wouldn't have these issues; I've seen a lifetime of education on bicycle helmets and risks of second hand smoke, but I still see parents my age smoking in cars with kids and letting their kids ride bikes without helmets.

No one's suggesting to stop the education, the law just gives the government another tool to change people's behaviour.

[geos]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

It really is no different than the seatbelt law, or the bike helmet laws.

Oh but it is. If a guy falls of his bike and whacks his head, I couldn't care less, stupid enough not to wear a helmet, he deserves what he got. As long as he's funding his entire health care cost that is. Then I don't care.

This is different in that we aren't talking about people that are needlessly endangering themselves, where maybe we need a little more Darwin. We are talking about people making a conscious choice to poision their kids. Completely different situation.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by geos

We are talking about people making a conscious choice to poision their kids. Completely different situation.

Agreed. Next up we should lock up parents who give their kids too much coke, too much salt, too much greasy food, no food at all, too much bad TV, too much video games, not enough video games, too much sleep, too little exercise. Let's lock them all up all in the name of those angelic kids who can't protect themselves.