04 Aug 11
Arkansas currently has a law that prohibits smoking in the car with very young children. The law has been extended to include children under 14 years of age, claiming that it will spare children from secondhand smoke. The law includes all children, even one’s own. There is a $25 fine. IN California, the fine is $100.
The debate :
Is this law too intrusive? What happens if a smoker takes his/her own children into the home? Is that child exposed to second hand smoke? What other bad habits will the state tell us we can’t do in front of our own children? How does this differ from a child seat law or a helmet law? Bottom line, is it any of the state’s business?
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonPerhaps the time has come to make tobacco a controlled substance?
Arkansas currently has a law that prohibits smoking in the car with very young children. The law has been extended to include children under 14 years of age, claiming that it will spare children from secondhand smoke. The law includes all children, even one’s own. There is a $25 fine. IN California, the fine is $100.
[b]The debate :
Is ...[text shortened]... differ from a child seat law or a helmet law? Bottom line, is it any of the state’s business?[/b]
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think parents who smoke in confined spaces when they are with their children are cretinous and grotesque.
I agree. I have noticed the m.o to get these intrusions passed or attempted to pass, is the "safety of the children". The other ploy is to cite tax payer cost.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFLOl. I wouldnt say that. Any one here over a certain age grew up with their parents smoking in confined areas with them.
I think parents who smoke in confined spaces when they are with their children are cretinous and grotesque.
All of public was this way not so many years ago ( at least in the U.S.).
Smoking in all restaurants, you may get a "non-smoking table" tucked away back by the kitchen if you requested one. Department stores, grocery stores, any where and every where most people smoked with the exception of movie theaters. Even in commercial air liners.
So no, I disagree I would not call them "cretinous and grotesque".
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonHere's what the American Cancer Society has to say about passive smoking:
LOl. I wouldnt say that. Any one here over a certain age grew up with their parents smoking in confined areas with them.
All of public was this way not so many years ago ( at least in the U.S.).
Smoking in all restaurants, you may get a "non-smoking table" tucked away back by the kitchen if you requested one. Department stores, grocery stores, any ...[text shortened]... n commercial air liners.
So no, I disagree I would not call them "cretinous and grotesque".
Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
- An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are currently non-smokers
- About 3,400 lung cancer deaths as a result of breathing secondhand smoke
- Other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
- 50,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
- Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
- More than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
- Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth- weight babies.
It's not entirely clear if these statistics relate to the world as it is now, or the world as it was 'not so many years ago', but I'd have thought it was a cause for concern at the very least.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think their statistics suck. 50000 to 300000? 200000 to 1000000? With such a wide range they might as well say we don't know, but we think it's bad. That would be closer to the truth.
Here's what the American Cancer Society has to say about passive smoking:
Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
- An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are currently non-smokers
- About 3,400 lung cancer deaths as a result of breathing secondhand smoke
...[text shortened]... 'not so many years ago', but I'd have thought it was a cause for concern at the very least.
04 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpI disagree. What would be closer to the truth would be "...what we do know is that it's really bad and it might be even worse than we think".
I think their statistics suck. 50000 to 300000? 200000 to 1000000? With such a wide range they might as well say we don't know, but we think it's bad. That would be closer to the truth.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFOkay, you might be right. I don't like statistics that are only put out to scare, though. If they don't know that it's a million, they shouldn't put it out there.
I disagree. What would be closer to the truth would be "...what we do know is that it's really bad and it might be even worse than we think".
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFI equate stats such as these with man made global warming stats. Its the same ol same ol. The liberals pick something to demonize and then run with it. More laws, more laws, give more and more power to the government and less and less freedom for the people.
I disagree. What would be closer to the truth would be "...what we do know is that it's really bad and it might be even worse than we think".