Alberta bans smoking in cars with minors present. - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

valo403 · 03-20-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklord700

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

As has been pointed out many times in other threads where this issue comes up, feel free to head for the paradise that is Somalia. Absolutely no government getting in your way, it's worked out oh so well for them.

The Yen Man · 03-20-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklord700

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

If you're irresponsible enough to smoke in the car with your kids in there, or have music turned up to excessive volumes, then yes you should be glad the government is making these decisions for you. Correct that. Your kids should be glad the government is making these decisions for you.

Matata · 03-20-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skins

In a country where health care is paid for by the government, I have no problem with any laws that discourage smoking (an obvious health detriment). While I've done little research on the topic, I find it hard to believe that tobacco tax revenue offsets the costs imposed on the health care system by smokers.

I'd seen a report on this long ago (made by tobacco companies and sent to the US gov't), that says that since smoking tends to kill you before you reach old age (the money sucking years), that it provides tremendous savings at a national level, in terms of health care, pensions, etc.

GP_Matt · 03-20-2012, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

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)

I will apologize for not fact checking, I just pulled it from one of the many lists of SF nanny state laws online.

And I do agree with you that most of those laws seem reasonable by themselves. Personally I do not really have a problem with the anti smoking laws I just don't like the way things seem to be headed with all the bans.

Bans are very easy and cheap for the government to put into place but they don't usually solve the problem.

Like a ban in Toronto that makes all shooting ranges non-conforming. (Nothing new and improvements to the building are not allowed) It was done to address gun crime but resulted in the shuttering of a training facility for Olympic athletes.

Or banning handheld cellphones while at the same time promoting hands free cell phones. I was emailing back and forth with the lawmakers in Alberta on this one and they admitted that it is the conversation and not hand position that was dangerous but that a hands free ban would be hard to enforce. All that law accomplished was to force everyone to purchase a hands free system it does not make the roads safer.

Many places have a ban on pesticides/herbicides on city property which has resulted in sports fields being replaced with artificial turf to avoid the weed control problems that pesticides took care of. Now they are using chemicals to clean the fields because they don't soak up everything like grass did and there is an increase in things like staph infections from the unclean turf.

darklord700 · 03-20-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

If you're irresponsible enough to smoke in the car with your kids in there, or have music turned up to excessive volumes, then yes you should be glad the government is making these decisions for you. Correct that. Your kids should be glad the government is making these decisions for you.

Why don't you live in Russia or China? A lot more bad things are banned there for the benefit of yours. I'm sure it's a lot harder for you to hurt yourself in those countries.

Zevo · 03-20-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklord700

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

Seems to me you're the exact type of person the government needs to make decisions for as you obviously lack basic common sense.

valo403 · 03-20-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I will apologize for not fact checking, I just pulled it from one of the many lists of SF nanny state laws online.

And I do agree with you that most of those laws seem reasonable by themselves. Personally I do not really have a problem with the anti smoking laws I just don't like the way things seem to be headed with all the bans.

Bans are very easy and cheap for the government to put into place but they don't usually solve the problem.

Like a ban in Toronto that makes all shooting ranges non-conforming. (Nothing new and improvements to the building are not allowed) It was done to address gun crime but resulted in the shuttering of a training facility for Olympic athletes.

Or banning handheld cellphones while at the same time promoting hands free cell phones. I was emailing back and forth with the lawmakers in Alberta on this one and they admitted that it is the conversation and not hand position that was dangerous but that a hands free ban would be hard to enforce. All that law accomplished was to force everyone to purchase a hands free system it does not make the roads safer.

Many places have a ban on pesticides/herbicides on city property which has resulted in sports fields being replaced with artificial turf to avoid the weed control problems that pesticides took care of. Now they are using chemicals to clean the fields because they don't soak up everything like grass did and there is an increase in things like staph infections from the unclean turf.

Those are legitimate points, but where do they fit in with this smoking ban or any of the bans in San Francisco? I also take issue with laws that don't actually target the problem, the hands free laws being a great example, but that doesn't mean that all laws that prohibit certain conduct suffer from that problem.

valo403 · 03-20-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklord700

Why don't you live in Russia or China? A lot more bad things are banned there for the benefit of yours. I'm sure it's a lot harder for you to hurt yourself in those countries.

You seriously believe that there are more laws in Russia and China that have been enacted as an attempt to legislate public health and safety? Seriously?

The Yen Man · 03-20-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darklord700

Why don't you live in Russia or China? A lot more bad things are banned there for the benefit of yours. I'm sure it's a lot harder for you to hurt yourself in those countries.

Why don't we make drunk driving legal? Afterall, you wouldn't want the government to impede on your personal freedoms now, would you?

DuffMan · 03-20-2012, 02:01 PM

I think the reason a lot of us even started smoking was because our parents smoked in the house and in the car. I would say a kids chance of never starting increases with not being in confined spaces with cigarette smoke.

I would say the majority of people I see smoking in cars with kids in them are within 1 km of a Walmart. Also see a lot of Grandparents doing it.

GFG4Life · 03-20-2012, 02:16 PM

Every time i see someone smoking in their car with children in it, I am disgusted. Not once have I, nor likely anyone's first thought ever been "Good for you for expressing your personal freedoms and making your own choices"

GP_Matt · 03-20-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

Those are legitimate points, but where do they fit in with this smoking ban or any of the bans in San Francisco? I also take issue with laws that don't actually target the problem, the hands free laws being a great example, but that doesn't mean that all laws that prohibit certain conduct suffer from that problem.

My point was that while I agree with this specific ban I disagree with politicians enacting bans to solve all their problems. Something like this might be possible through education or maybe it should be rolled into existing child endangerment legislation. There is a sense that if they don't ban the act it must be okay when in reality there are a large number of things that parents do that may not be great for their children and they can never all be banned. I think that using the threat of burning in hell for an eternity is a poor way to raise a child but am not convinced that banning the practice would be a good idea.

Knalus · 03-20-2012, 02:36 PM

It is a sad, sad day for liberty.

I can't believe how happy some people are to being controlled like this.

Makes me sick to my stomach. How much further will we tolerate this? I shudder to think how involuntarily controlled and regimented our lives will be in 20 years time.

VladtheImpaler · 03-20-2012, 02:42 PM

Again, this is not the hill for libertarian rights to die on. This is about protection of an innocent, defenseless third party, not just about you altering your own behaviour...

undercoverbrother · 03-20-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is a sad, sad day for liberty.

I can't believe how happy some people are to being controlled like this.

Makes me sick to my stomach. How much further will we tolerate this? I shudder to think how involuntarily controlled and regimented our lives will be in 20 years time.

you're not married are you?

Knalus · 03-20-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

you're not married are you?

Yes I am.

Street Pharmacist · 03-20-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

Those are legitimate points, but where do they fit in with this smoking ban or any of the bans in San Francisco? I also take issue with laws that don't actually target the problem, the hands free laws being a great example, but that doesn't mean that all laws that prohibit certain conduct suffer from that problem.

The hands free law does make a difference in that it makes texting unlawful. While you can argue about the talking hands free, it was a ban on cell phones that was a compromised solution. It still is safer than allowing it, no?

geos · 03-20-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is a sad, sad day for liberty.

I can't believe how happy some people are to being controlled like this.

Not at all. I'm as libertarian as it gets and I love this law.

Children have a right to be free from being exposed to lethal and physically harmful chemicals. Their liberty has been violated by careless individuals.

The state here is simply protecting the liberty of the vulnerable.

The kid doesn't have the choice to leave the car. The parent has the choice to make a responsible decision.

No brainer.

Lt.Spears · 03-20-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is a sad, sad day for liberty.

I can't believe how happy some people are to being controlled like this.

Makes me sick to my stomach. How much further will we tolerate this? I shudder to think how involuntarily controlled and regimented our lives will be in 20 years time.

Damn... if only there were a way around it... like not smoking when you have kids in the car.

Unless you believe this is the beginning of the end.....

The Yen Man · 03-20-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is a sad, sad day for liberty.

I can't believe how happy some people are to being controlled like this.

Makes me sick to my stomach. How much further will we tolerate this? I shudder to think how involuntarily controlled and regimented our lives will be in 20 years time.

You're not allowed to beat your kids. Why should you be allowed to expose them to cancer causing agents in a confined area, just because you feel like smoking?