I wasn't sure people needed to be told not to send text messages while doing 120 on Deerfoot, but apparently they do. Some people are dumb and need solid reminders. Fine em, second offense should be more severe.
Defense that "I rode in smokey cars as a child" is irrelevant.
I dislike smoking as much as the next guy, but I disagree with nanny state law making. Removing personal freedoms one bit at a time. You all say you don't care, or this is a good thing but doesn't affect you, but you wait. One day they'll move down the list and it will be something, or you'll realize that everything is controlled
I bet they spend more money than that on the health care related costs. That difference will only increase as the number of people who stop smoking increases.
Give it 20 years, as less and less people continue to smoke, and you will be seeing it come up since it won't be political suicide to whoever attempts it.
The thing is, most children do not have the right to stand up to their parents and object to being in a confined space with cigarette smoke. A non-smoking adult can choose not to be in a confined space with smoke and we would never expect them to have to subject themselves to that.
Most reasonable people would never do this to their kids anyway, so the law doesn't affect those people.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I am both a parent and an occassional smoker. I wouls NEVER consider lighting up a smoke in my car if my kids were riding in it with me. To me, this isue has very little to do with the gonvernment telling people what they can and can't do. This is about the protection of children.
To echo sentiments that have already been made in this thread, its disappointing that we need to make laws which should fall under common sense for most people. But I fully support this.
In order to curb aggressive panhandling, San Francisco outlawed sitting on the street between the hours of 7am and 11pm.
Which is a great thing if you have ever been to San Francisco it is a huge problem, when I was there a few years ago I was accosted every block by a number of panhandlers who were often times quite aggressive.
Quote:
Advertisements in San Francisco cannot “promote the use of firearms or advocate any violent action.” The poster for The Other Guy had all the weapons removed just for San Francisco's Muni system last summer.
They don't want ads that represent violence on city owned property such as the MUNI. While I don't care either way I don't believe that this is a citywide ban on guns in posters as your post suggests.
Quote:
As a protest to the state's strict immigration policies, city employees (except for police officers investigating a crime) are not allowed to travel to Arizona.
You forgot to mention that they are not to travel to Arizona on official city business. Once again your wording in your post makes it appear as though it is something that it is not. If an employee wants to go to Phoenix for the weekend they have every right to do so.
Quote:
Soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice cannot be sold from vending machines on city property.
Imagine having to walk into one of the bazillion convenience stores in the city in order to order a pop. Once again the city is under no obligation to have soda sold on their property.
Quote:
Segways are not allowed on sidewalks or bike paths because the mayor of San Francisco thought they promoted laziness.
Or if you look into it, there are safety related issues in having a motor vehicle on public sidewalks and the Segway is a motor vehicle.
Quote:
It's illegal to sell baby chickens, ducks, and rabbits in San Francisco.
Something that impacts the average citizens daily life I see.
Quote:
Tobacco cigarettes are not allowed to be smoked in buildings, and clove cigarettes are not permitted to be sold in the city at all.
Do you miss smoking in restraurants and bars as well? I love the fact I can go out for a night and not reek of smoke when I get home.
Quote:
City money cannot be used to purchase bottled water and it cannot be sold from vending machines on city property.
Once again on city property. They have every right so say they don't want to sell bottled water because it is awful for the environment. It isn't a ban on bottled water just saying they don't want to be associated with the product. I would have a problem if they said no store can sell bottled water but at the same time this is just them putting their money where their mouth is which is actually respectable.
Quote:
Plastic bags are currently not allowed at large chain supermarkets and drug stores, but they are considering expanding the ban to all stores.
This is a good thing from an environmental standpoint and is very common in foreign cities. Just because we in North America are slow up on the uptake doesn't mean that it is necessarly a bad idea.
Quote:
Toys in happy meals are no longer allowed
I think this one is one that goes slightly too far but I can understand where they are coming from.
What your post does is it either manipulates the facts to such a degree that they are a shell of what they once were (the Arizona travel ban - ignoring it is for city business)
Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 03-20-2012 at 12:26 PM.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Yeah, I don't see how people are upset about people taking away a freedom here.
The law isn't about stopping people from smoking in their car, it's about stoping people from smoking in their car with children in it.
This isn't about removing the rights of one group (to smoke when/where they want), it's about protecting the rights of another (not having to sit in an unhealthy confined space).
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
If I had to choose between the rights of smoking adults to smoke in their cars vs. the rights of children not to be exposed to second hand smoke, I side with the rights of the children. Good for the government for making this law and speaking up for the kids.
Hello. I'm from the Government. I'm here to save your children. Pass them over.
I personally think it should be grounds for investigation by Child Services if you are caught smoking with your kids in the car. Child Services on the other hand, does not have a mandate regarding smoking around children. You can have had your kid apprehended by Child Services, be in a supervised visit and and smoking right next to it and nothing can be done.
I do like your flare to exaggerate your position to the point of ridiculousness, because it makes you look so smart.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I personally think it should be grounds for investigation by Child Services if you are caught smoking with your kids in the car. Child Services on the other hand, does not have a mandate regarding smoking around children. You can have had your kid apprehended by Child Services, be in a supervised visit and and smoking right next to it and nothing can be done.
I do like your flare to exaggerate your position to the point of ridiculousness, because it makes you look so smart.
Personally, I don't think it should be the governments job to mandate smoking in vehicles when people like Graham James are sentenced to 2 years in prison for child molestation. I don't think the justification for removing children from "primitive/stupid" Native families in order for the government to assimilate them is any more convincing than removing them for smoking in a car. Would you have supported residential schools as well?
To a large extent we should let people behave stupidly, in the name of freedom, because usually the government DOES NOT KNOW BEST. If you're stupid enough to smoke in car with children you're likely not going to live long anyways.
Personally, I don't think it should be the governments job to mandate smoking in vehicles when people like Graham James are sentenced to 2 years in prison for child molestation. I don't think the justification for removing children from "primitive/stupid" Native families in order for the government to assimilate them is any more convincing than removing them for smoking in a car. Would you have supported residential schools as well?
To a large extent we should let people behave stupidly, in the name of freedom, because usually the government DOES NOT KNOW BEST. If you're stupid enough to smoke in car with children you're likely not going to live long anyways.
What? Those two issues have nothing to do with each other and might be one of the stupidest arguments that I have ever come across but then you somehow topped that with something about residential schools? Graham James should have be sentenced to a longer time in prison - I agree on that, but because he wasn't the government shouldn't be able to enact other laws designed at protecting children from potentially dangerous situations... The provincial government didn't sentence Graham James by the way, nor did they have anything to do with the criminal charges or the trial or the sentencing, in fact the people who designed this legislation have absolutely nothing at all to do with Graham James. Just a stupid argument.
The government doesn't know best all the time, but scientists generally have a pretty good idea and most of them do say that smoking in a car with children present is a bad idea.
And I just read to the end of your post and you somehow topped both stupid arguments - so because someone smokes in their car and isn't going to live long we should allow them to expose their children to potentially fatal chemicals for some unknown reason?
Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 03-20-2012 at 11:46 AM.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
