Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Aug '11 11:43
    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?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '11 12:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Is this law too intrusive?
    Yes.
  3. 04 Aug '11 12:13
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes.
    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.
  4. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    04 Aug '11 12:15
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    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]
    Perhaps the time has come to make tobacco a controlled substance?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '11 12:17
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    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.
    I think parents who smoke in confined spaces when they are with their children are cretinous and grotesque.
  6. 04 Aug '11 12:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think parents who smoke in confined spaces when they are with their children are cretinous and grotesque.
    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 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".
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '11 12:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    So no, I disagree I would not call them "cretinous and grotesque".
    We ex-smokers can often be strident and candid.
  8. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    04 Aug '11 12:38
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    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".
    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
    - 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.
  9. 04 Aug '11 12:39
    I'll tell you the truth, even though my mom smoked in the house and car etc, when I see a parent smoking in the car these days with a kid in tow, I feel sorry for that kid. A little disgusted too. That being said, I do think this is too intrusive.
  10. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    04 Aug '11 12:40
    Originally posted by FMF
    We ex-smokers can often be strident and candid.
    Hey, high five! I smoked for a good 25 years but I'm six years clear now. Starting smoking ranks among the dumbest things I ever did, giving up among the smartest.
  11. 04 Aug '11 12:42
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    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.
    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.
  12. 04 Aug '11 12:43
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Hey, high five! I smoked for a good 25 years but I'm six years clear now. Starting smoking ranks among the dumbest things I ever did, giving up among the smartest.
    I quick 4 years ago myself.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '11 12:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    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.
    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".
  14. 04 Aug '11 12:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    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".
    Okay, 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.
  15. 04 Aug '11 12:59
    Originally posted by FMF
    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".
    I 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.