Smoking with kids in the car

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I had a neighbour call the fire department for a backyard fire that got smokey once. I wasn't in the wrong, and the fire department left.

I knew exactly which neighbour it was that called the cops. I went to his house to figure out if there was an issue, and to tell him if he ever had an issue again, that it would be better to just talk to me.

People tend to know many of their neighbours. Guessing who called the cops generally isn't hard.

And there are MANY things that can be done to get back at a bad neighbour without actually kicking their ass. Think about it.

You could lock them in a small enclosed area and make them inhale toxic fumes for a couple hours a day.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You could lock them in a small enclosed area and make them inhale toxic fumes for a couple hours a day.

Or you could also call the cops on them for some other infraction.

I'm not advocating smoking in a car with children. I'm just against calling the law on your neighbours instead of talking to them.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You can't legislate against things which are considered dangerous when used in the manner they are intended? What the hell can you legislate on then?

There are, and always will be, laws about the circumstances you are allowed to smoke under. This is no different than having non-smoking sections in restaurants, except the difference here is the kid in the car doesn't have the ability to say he wants to sit in the non-smoking section.

Children are a vulnerable sector of society, so they need additional laws to keep them safe.

Where do you draw the line though? Non-organic meat has carcinogens in them. Why haven't we made it illegal to feed children non-organic meat? And would you support it? I would also argue that smoking in a car with a window down is probably less cancer causing than that, but there is no way to prove it.

It's actually very different from legislating smoking bans in public places.

[Rathji]

Do you honestly think that if someone came to talk to buddy that he would suddenly be super cooperative and agree to stop whatever it is you are complaining about?

What if in 2 weeks some other neighbour sees the same thing and does call the cops? He gets investigated and they find out he is cooking meth in his basement. What is going to happen then?

I am sure he wouldn't suspect the busy-body neighbour at all. I suspect he might bake you a cake. Everything will turn out fine.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Do you honestly think that if someone came to talk to buddy that he would suddenly be super cooperative and agree to stop whatever it is you are complaining about?

What if in 2 weeks some other neighbour sees the same thing and does call the cops? He gets investigated and they find out he is cooking meth in his basement. What is going to happen then?

I am sure he wouldn't suspect the busy-body neighbour at all. I suspect he might bake you a cake. Everything will turn out fine.

Of course not, that would be absurd. But calling the cops isn't a better solution. Not for something like this that the cops almost certainly aren't going to do anything about anyways.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Where do you draw the line though? Non-organic meat has carcinogens in them. Why haven't we made it illegal to feed children non-organic meat? And would you support it? I would also argue that smoking in a car with a window down is probably less cancer causing than that, but there is no way to prove it.

Stop protecting children from neglect and/or abuse because meat is bad for you.

Well, at least your argument is sound and totally logical.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Dying to understand the pic and thanks that HW posted: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...44&postcount=5

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Of course not, that would be absurd. But calling the cops isn't a better solution. Not for something like this that the cops almost certainly aren't going to do anything about anyways.

Exactly.

They file a report, which likely gets flagged for Child services. If there is a suitable accumulation of reports then someone gets sent out to investigate.

Everyone wins.

- A minor amount of resources are spent filing the report.
- No one bugs idiot mom and dad for hot boxing with their kids
- If little Johnny is in danger and several people report things with Child Services deem problematic, they send a little old lady out to take a look around. Since chances are there is nothing major going on, they get a wake up call and can fix the issues.
- If something potentially dangerous is going on, then they might face a supervision order which means little old lady comes back a few times to make sure things are fixed.
- If something serious is going on, then the kids get to go live with some relatives or foster care until the parents get their stuff together and make their home safe.

Which part of that is bad or undeserved?

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Exactly.

They file a report, which likely gets flagged for Child services. If there is a suitable accumulation of reports then someone gets sent out to investigate.

Everyone wins.

- A minor amount of resources are spent filing the report.
- No one bugs idiot mom and dad for hot boxing with their kids
- If little Johnny is in danger and several people report things with Child Services deem problematic, they send a little old lady out to take a look around. Since chances are there is nothing major going on, they get a wake up call and can fix the issues.
- If something potentially dangerous is going on, then they might face a supervision order which means little old lady comes back a few times to make sure things are fixed.
- If something serious is going on, then the kids get to go live with some relatives or foster care until the parents get their stuff together and make their home safe.

Which part of that is bad or undeserved?

Because you're a rat, and rats are bad.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Stop protecting children from neglect and/or abuse because meat is bad for you.

Well, at least your argument is sound and totally logical.

It is sound you just don't like the parallel.

2nd hand smoke causes cancer = ban smoking in cars with kids

Hormones in non-organic meat causes cancer = legislate allowing only organic meat to be fed to minors

or if you don't like the meat analogy how about...

cell phone use around kids or microwaves around kids or power lines or one of the million other things that cause cancer

It's the exact same thing. This is why legislation like this starts crossing dangerous lines. Where do they stop? I'm all for bans of smoking at restaurants and other public places, however at least in the states inside your car is considered an extension of your house for a lot of legal purposes and now you are legislating what can and can't be done in one's home.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It is sound you just don't like the parallel.

2nd hand smoke causes cancer = ban smoking in cars with kids

Hormones in non-organic meat causes cancer = ???

It's the exact same thing. This is why legislation like this starts crossing dangerous lines. Where do they stop? I'm all for bans of smoking at restaurants and other public places, however at least in the states inside your car is considered an extension of your house for a lot of legal purposes and now you are legislating what can and can't be done in one's home.

Nope, I don't care one way or another. It really just doesn't prove your point.

To complain that because regulations regarding hormone use in cattle, and other very tasty animals, don't go as far as you would like them to somehow means that we should allow people to poison their kids with another well known carcinogen is a ridiculous argument and a logical fallacy.

Both should probably be regulated, but just because one isn't doesn't mean the other can't be.

[Bonded]

For me, it comes down to the fact that people do stupid things. Are we going to try to regulate and ban every stupid thing people do? It is a lost cause in my opinion, and at some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

Do we really want a nanny state that tries to decide what is best for everyone?

[metallicat]

The difference here is people causing harm to defenseless children, not themselves. You want to suck on a cancer stick? Go right ahead! Just use your brain when you're around your kids.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Dying to understand the pic and thanks that HW posted: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...44&postcount=5

From Breaking Bad, all I can really say without ruining the show for people who haven't watched

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Ah yes, the memories of childhood in an era when 70% of Canadian adults smoked, including my mother with roll-your-owns from a tin of Vogue tobacco, rolled up windows in the car and a harsh "get used to it!!!" and a slap if you complained.

Cowperson

My dad would blow smoke rings in my face!

I got a kick out of it...different times.

[Champion]

Should smoke outside your house. Idiotic to do it with your kids there this day and age. Worse with little kids like that in a car.

Hey, Lets poison my kid!

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It is sound you just don't like the parallel.
It's the exact same thing. This is why legislation like this starts crossing dangerous lines. Where do they stop? I'm all for bans of smoking at restaurants and other public places, however at least in the states inside your car is considered an extension of your house for a lot of legal purposes and now you are legislating what can and can't be done in one's home.

I still think you are off. The fact one rule does not exist does not mean one rule also should not exist. I also do not agree that eating meat causes cancer is a fair argument to make in respect to smoking causing cancer.

I can eat a steak in front of a child, they are not eating a steak, no matter how small the room is. I smoke in front of a child, they are smoking, and it is only worse as the size of the room decreases.

Some people need a law to pressure them into doing the right thing. This is one of those laws.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bonded

For me, it comes down to the fact that people do stupid things. Are we going to try to regulate and ban every stupid thing people do? It is a lost cause in my opinion, and at some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

Do we really want a nanny state that tries to decide what is best for everyone?

Allison Redford does, and is leading our province in that direction.

[Daradon]

I get a chuckle everytime I see this thread bumped because even though I know the OP means:

Smoking, with kids in the car.

I keep seeing:

Smoking with kids, in the car.

If your going to smoke with kids, at least do it in a ventilated area!

[Locke]

I said this before when this topic came up:

These people are smokers, they have kids, they have cars, whatever, this is a lifestyle and a pattern for them.

Do you honestly believe that a ticket from bylaw is going to change absolutely anything? Anything at all?

That ticket will provide them with their epiphany moment where they stop smoking and find Jesus?

You would probably achieve more with a very casual:

"Dude, dont smoke with your kids in the car bro. Its bad for them. Dude...."

Than you ever would with some roundabout business with child services, bylaw and God only knows whomever else.