Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be.

Don't see how 17 year olds can be allowed to smoke in cars when they can't buy cigarettes to smoke...oh wait, Canadian law is probably different to ours.

To put it short, NO.



To put it long, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

All this banning smoking shit, is there a study to show second hand smoke causes any harm, let alone death. Okay, it would suck if those kids had breathing problems or some other severe defficiency, but do we need to ban these types of things so people don't do them? I think people are smart enough to make the right decision.

It's like banning people from jumping off of bridges. Do we really need a law for it?

I would say it involves a serious health threat to the children and should be banned on that basis. Impairment of actual driving ability would be somewhat secondary (and as far as I know untested so far).

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's like banning people from jumping off of bridges. Do we really need a law for it?

There are an awful lot of apparently (and legitimately) needless laws out there. I think the UK has laws on the books that forbid suicide.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Don't see how 17 year olds can be allowed to smoke in cars when they can't buy cigarettes to smoke...oh wait, Canadian law is probably different to ours.

To put it short, NO.



To put it long, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

All this banning smoking shit, is there a study to show second hand smoke causes any harm, let alone death. Okay, it would suck if those kids had breathing problems or some other severe defficiency, but do we need to ban these types of things so people don't do them? I think people are smart enough to make the right decision.

It's like banning people from jumping off of bridges. Do we really need a law for it?

There are plenty of studies that show second hand smoke kills and harms.

And I mean why wouldn't Canada ban smoking from cars with children if it does harm them? Is it not the Governments job to protect the people?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would say it involves a serious health threat to the children and should be banned on that basis. Impairment of actual driving ability would be somewhat secondary (and as far as I know untested so far).



There are an awful lot of apparently (and legitimately) needless laws out there. I think the UK has laws on the books that forbid suicide.

Smoking actually helps relieve stress from drivers, people tend to drive better when they are relieved from stress.

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be.

abso-****ing-lutely NOT.

What people do in their cars are totally up to them. I'm not sure America is Stalinist Russia just yet.

I think people who have children should just not enough not to do it..or care enough not to do it.

Originally posted by Takion
There are plenty of studies that show second hand smoke kills and harms.

And I mean why wouldn't Canada ban smoking from cars with children if it does harm them? Is it not the Governments job to protect the people? Forgetting Canadian and British laws (not really relevant to my point anyway), show me an unbiased study to show second hand smoke has killed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Forgetting Canadian and British laws (not really relevant to my point anyway), show me an unbiased study to show second hand smoke has killed.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Of course I'm sure you'll claim that the National Cancer Association, Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program, US Surgeon General, US Department of Health and Human Services and the International Agency for Research on Cancer are all part of one big conspiracy.

EDIT (Look at S.C's post)

Originally posted by lord xyz
is there a study to show second hand smoke causes any harm, let alone death.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf

yes...lots...

but i agree...i dont think there is a need for constant legislation banning smoking here there and everywhere

if the governments of the world were truly interested in the people's health they would outlaw smoking completely...but the tax revenues obviously are more important to them

i hate govenments that get too obsessively interfering with the smallest details of people lives...particularly health and safety laws

i mean...the best one of recent times in the UK is that pubs who want to have a dartboard have to surround the area of play with bulletproof glass incase people get hit by rebounding darts

I agree that the Government shouldnt bann smoking in cars, but why cant the goverment come into our private lives if it is hurting or slowly killing a child?

BTW sorry for sounding noobish its my first time debating about this.

The government should mind their own business for once in their lives.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Of course I'm sure you'll claim that the National Cancer Association, Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program, US Surgeon General, US Department of Health and Human Services and the International Agency for Research on Cancer are all part of one big conspiracy. Should see Penn & Teller's episode on second hand smoke.

All those organisations have an EPA study as their primary source that was thrown out by the federal court for being biased in 98. Infact, the study itself doesn't even have much of an argument.

Lung Cancer in people in non-smoke environments: 1:1000000
Lung Cancer in people in smoke environments: 1.25:1000000

Hardly significant, is it?

Originally posted by jaden101
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf

yes...lots...

but i agree...i dont think there is a need for constant legislation banning smoking here there and everywhere

if the governments of the world were truly interested in the people's health they would outlaw smoking completely...but the tax revenues obviously are more important to them

i hate govenments that get too obsessively interfering with the smallest details of people lives...particularly health and safety laws

i mean...the best one of recent times in the UK is that pubs who want to have a dartboard have to surround the area of play with bulletproof glass incase people get hit by rebounding darts A website like no-smoke might be biased, but alright, I'll accept it.

To tell you the truth, tl;dr, but I doubt the evidence is enough to suggest smoking should be banned.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Should see Penn & Teller's episode on second hand smoke.

All those organisations have an EPA study as their primary source that was thrown out by the federal court for being biased in 98. Infact, the study itself doesn't even have much of an argument.

Lung Cancer in people in non-smoke environments: 1:1000000
Lung Cancer in people in smoke environments: 1.25:1000000

Hardly significant, is it?

a) I'd rather take the word of doctors and professionals over magicians turned activists.
b) All but one of the studies cited (if you'd bothered to look) are from 2000 or later.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) I'd rather take the word of doctors and professionals over magicians turned activists.
b) All but one of the studies cited (if you'd bothered to look) are from 2000 or later. Alright, I'll take that.

Still, I doubt the evidence is severe enough to call for a ban.

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be. Um, it'd be pretty hard to enforce.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Should see Penn & Teller's episode on second hand smoke.

All those organisations have an EPA study as their primary source that was thrown out by the federal court for being biased in 98. Infact, the study itself doesn't even have much of an argument.

Lung Cancer in people in non-smoke environments: 1:1000000
Lung Cancer in people in smoke environments: 1.25:1000000

Hardly significant, is it?

A website like no-smoke might be biased, but alright, I'll accept it.

To tell you the truth, tl;dr, but I doubt the evidence is enough to suggest smoking should be banned.

the website is biased but the studies aren't

but we are in agreement about non banning...albeit for different reasons

Originally posted by jaden101
the website is biased but the studies aren't

but we are in agreement about non banning...albeit for different reasons Well, my reasons are it's authorititive, redundant and the argument of health is pretty ridiculous.

Originally posted by lord xyz

To put it long, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Yahtzee talk is Yahtzee

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Yahtzee talk is Yahtzee Hehe.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Hehe.
Can you show me a link to an unbiased opinion (opposite to what we have just seen)

I need to know both side of the topic.

Here's an article written two years ago.

http://libertyed.org/noforce/2006/08/secondhand-bullshit.html

And here's pretty powerful evidence.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

Originally posted by lord xyz
Here's an article written two years ago.

http://libertyed.org/noforce/2006/08/secondhand-bullshit.html

And here's pretty powerful evidence.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
Can you please relate this to Children, since this is truely about the kids.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Here's an article written two years ago.

http://libertyed.org/noforce/2006/08/secondhand-bullshit.html

Four years ago. He also fails to cite anything.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And here's pretty powerful evidence.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

You have a comically twisted idea of what "unbiased" means.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, my reasons are it's authorititive, redundant and the argument of health is pretty ridiculous.

it's ridiculous in the sense that governments will never go the whole way and make tobacco illegal hence any argument they make that it's for the good of people's health is destroyed

but the fact is that it is bad for people's health

of course there are massive variables in studies and studies are flawed in the sense that they only look at 1 criteria at a time...eliminating others...for example genetic predisposition to lung cancer...

and granted there are studies showing the opposite such as

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

but generally the consensus...particularly in children...that passive smoking does cause health problems

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_06_190307/letters_190307_fm-3.html

here's a more specific study

jesus christ.

so you think a person should shell out 40k for a car but not be allowed to smoke in it? you think a person should shell out 400k for a house and the government should be able to tell them they can't smoke in it.....or drink in it........or have sex in it.....because there is a child somewhere in it aswell?

this world would be vastly improved if all these self riteous people would just put a shotgun barrel in their mouth and pull the trigger.

Just have the little brats roll down a window.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Four years ago. He also fails to cite anything.



You have a comically twisted idea of what "unbiased" means. Wednesday, August 02, 2006 is 4 years ago? It even says 2006 in the url.

Biased, maybe, but it's results do not lie.

Yes. They should ban cigerettes and fully legalize Cannibis. There'd be less violence and less people in prison. There's probably way more good things about this that I can't think of. I'd rather smell second hand skunk weed than a marlboro.


While we're at it, more solar power plants, more nuclear power plants, more wind powered plants, and only electrical cars from here on out. Then my nose would never be offended again. Thanks, America, for adjusting to me.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wednesday, August 02, 2006 is 4 years ago? It even says 2006 in the url.

a) he still didn't cite anything
b) it's a 2006 reprint of an article from 2004.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Biased, maybe, but it's results do not lie.

You realize that if he's biased (and he makes FOX look rational) that there's essentially zero chance that he's telling you the whole story.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Should see Penn & Teller's episode on second hand smoke.

from wiki:

"Secondhand smoke

Robert Todd Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, originally sided with the show's conclusion that there was no link between secondhand smoke and cancer. Yet Carroll switched sides after further investigation into the studies. Carroll concluded that the studies were biased, and consequently decided that secondhand smoke does have negative effects on people.

At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3 the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller sitting at his side, said regarding this episode they were "very likely" wrong and the next season would add a notation. Penn went on to describe "a new study that came out of England, just recently, that seems to have more stuff about it" and "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke." He went on to say that this was a small portion of the program, and their main point was their opposition to "outlawing" smoking in privately-owned businesses, which they still "stand behind 100%.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit!#Secondhand_smoke

Originally posted by lord xyz
Lung Cancer in people in non-smoke environments: 1:1000000
Lung Cancer in people in smoke environments: 1.25:1000000


an increase of 25%?

that seems rather significant....

Originally posted by Evil Dead
jesus christ.

so you think a person should shell out 40k for a car but not be allowed to smoke in it? you think a person should shell out 400k for a house and the government should be able to tell them they can't smoke in it.....or drink in it........or have sex in it.....because there is a child somewhere in it aswell?

this world would be vastly improved if all these self riteous people would just put a shotgun barrel in their mouth and pull the trigger.
So we can put a price on a car, and allow ourselves to smoke in it with kids, even though we know the consequence?

Smoking in cars = No
Smoking cars= yes

No they shouldn't. It would be right up there with outlawing taking your kids to McDonald's for a cheeseburger because of the health issues caused by it.

Most parents have the good sense to keep air circulating in the car when they're smoking anyway, and the ones who don't are stupid and selfish. But those people are going to continue being stupid and selfish whether there's a law in place or not, so all the law would really do is punish the parents who already care about their kids enough to exercise a little common sense.

Not to mention the fact that the number of people pulling the car over to beat their children on the side of the road would increase dramatically if Dad has to drive for 45 miles in car full of screaming kids and can't smoke to relieve the pressure that's rapidly building behind his eyes...

Originally posted by darthgoober
No they shouldn't. It would be right up there with outlawing taking your kids to McDonald's for a cheeseburger because of the health issues caused by it.

Most parents have the good sense to keep air circulating in the car when they're smoking anyway, and the ones who don't are stupid and selfish. But those people are going to continue being stupid and selfish whether there's a law in place or not, so all the law would really do is punish the parents who already care about their kids enough to exercise a little common sense.

Not to mention the fact that the number of people pulling the car over to beat their children on the side of the road would increase dramatically if Dad has to drive for 45 miles in car full of screaming kids and can't smoke to relieve the pressure that's rapidly building behind his eyes...
Why not pull over their car and smoke?

Originally posted by Takion
So we can put a price on a car, and allow ourselves to smoke in it with kids, even though we know the consequence?

Don't ask a question if you aren't willing to accept the answers.

Stop pretending you don't understand why people are offering the answers thay have offered.

At what point do you think the state should not be allowed to dictate the behavior of the people in it?

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be. If a state is going to establish this law, it will do so regardless. the question is will people actually follow the rule. I would say they would not.

Originally posted by Devil King
At what point do you think the state should not be allowed to dictate the behavior of the people in it?

When it's inconvenient to me.

Why should the state allow people to kill their children?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When it's inconvenient to me.

Why should the state allow people to kill their children?
Smoking in the car doesn't equate to killing their children, the worst that can really be said is that they're willfully endangering the health of their children. But then again, the same can be said about parents who frequently take are obese children to Burger King out of their own desire for fast food or for their own convenience. For that matter the same can be said of parents who decide to send their kids to school in a bad neighborhood rather than Homeschool them for their own safety.

It's not the government's place to tell parents what values need to be in place in any given family, and a desire for good health and long life expectancy definitely qualifies as a value in this instance.

Originally posted by Takion
Why not pull over their car and smoke?
You drive much?

How about a TV ad for children which 1) mentions the effects of second-hand smoke on young lungs, and 2) reminds children of their right to ask their parents not to smoke while they're all in the car?

It could be one of those "truth" ads.

Originally posted by darthgoober
You drive much?
Im going to be part of a debate, so I have to look at every angle of the debate thats why Im questioning much.

No

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When it's inconvenient to me.

Why should the state allow people to kill their children?

Why is it the business of the state? Do you agree with Mrs. Palin, that abortion should be illegal in all cases; including rape and incest?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
jesus christ.

so you think a person should shell out 40k for a car but not be allowed to smoke in it? you think a person should shell out 400k for a house and the government should be able to tell them they can't smoke in it.....or drink in it........or have sex in it.....because there is a child somewhere in it aswell?

this world would be vastly improved if all these self riteous people would just put a shotgun barrel in their mouth and pull the trigger.

That's not the argument, now is it. They're saying you can't smoke in it when you risk someone else's health, not you can't smoke period.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why is it the business of the state? Do you agree with Mrs. Palin, that abortion should be illegal in all cases; including rape and incest?

A living child isn't comparable to a fetus, so strawman. It's the business of the state because the state is required to protect it's citizens, killing the child slowly has no relevant difference from killing the child quickly.

Would be a pointless law


If the parents are stupid enough to do it with children in the car.. im sure they are doing much worse things at the house

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A living child isn't comparable to a fetus, so strawman. It's the business of the state because the state is required to protect it's citizens, killing the child slowly has no relevant difference from killing the child quickly.

Oh, I thought you were talking about abortion. As I said in my first post, the state doesn't need to outlaw smoking in the cars of people who have children. The parent should know not to do it out of consideration and love. However, I have heard of no child dying from his parent's second hand smoke. If the child has problems, such as asthema, I'm sure most parents would quit. I had very bad asthema when I was a child, so my father didn't smoke in the car and always went outside to have a cigarette. If my parents had friends that smoked, they were asked to follow the same rules. Oddly enogh, though, there was no state or federal law that required them to practice this behavior.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A living child isn't comparable to a fetus, so strawman. It's the business of the state because the state is required to protect it's citizens, killing the child slowly has no relevant difference from killing the child quickly.
But it's not killing them, it's simply endangering their health and there's no malicious intent involved. I've yet to see a study that says that 100% of children exposed to second hand smoke have a 100% chance of dying because of it so it's not like those parents who slowly poison their children by spoon feeding them arsenic.

Originally posted by darthgoober
But it's not killing them, it's simply endangering their health and there's no malicious intent involved. I've yet to see a study that says that 100% of children exposed to second hand smoke have a 100% chance of dying because of it so it's not like those parents who slowely poison their children by spoonfeeding them arsonic.
But do you think the government is not going to ban second hand smoke if its not killing them, but only endangering them?

Originally posted by Takion
But do you think the government is not going to ban second hand smoke if its not killing them, but only endangering them?
They shouldn't. Not everyone views a long life expectancy as a good thing and it's not the governments place to try to force that view on people.

Originally posted by Takion
These are my reasoning to why it SHOULDNT it be banned.

Do you have kids?
Ok.

Yeah I have a 4 year old son.

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be.

No. Get off Smokers' backs, you Smoking Ban Nazis*.


*Nazi Germany was one of the first states to ban smoking in public places.

Here she comes!

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be. smoking permenantly should be banned all it is is a drug dont know why the hell its still leagal in the states after all the deaths its caused.

Originally posted by darthgoober
But it's not killing them, it's simply endangering their health and there's no malicious intent involved. I've yet to see a study that says that 100% of children exposed to second hand smoke have a 100% chance of dying because of it so it's not like those parents who slowly poison their children by spoon feeding them arsenic.

You won't find a study that says 100% of children that are spoonfed arsenic are killed by it either. Those sorts of absolutes don't exist anywhere in science.

I think when this sort of debate comes up, we're delving into realms that are just silly. I mean, a lot of things that kids are exposed to are unhealthy - should there be a law that makes parents not feed their children fast food for example?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You won't find a study that says 100% of children that are spoonfed arsenic are killed by it either. Those sorts of absolutes don't exist anywhere in science.
Ok no study, how about a statement? Because I can almost guarantee that any doctor will tell you that if start to frequently spoon feed arsenic to an 8 year old in moderate doses they'll die before they're 18 100% of the time.

On the other hand, no doctor in the world can guarantee your kid will end with lung cancer by the time they're 18 even if they themselves smoke like a freight train from the time they're 8. Hell I know people who've for 30 years and not gotten lung cancer.

And that's the whole thing, the kids are only going to get lung cancer if they themselves start to smoke because when you're 18 years old(and no longer legally obligated to stay in the house with smokers) your lungs are still developing and working to repair themselves. And if the kids are both smokers and vulnerable to lung cancer then they're going to get it anyway. It's a choice on the children's part as to whether or not they risk dieing from smoking because it's up to them as to whether or not to take up smoking themselves.

So yes you can say that the parents are endangering the health of their child(as health problems may develop), but you can't say that they're "killing their children".

Originally posted by darthgoober
Ok no study, how about a statement? Because I can almost guarantee that any doctor will tell you that if start to spoon frequently feed arsenic in moderate doses to an 8 year old they'll die before they're 18 100% of the time.

On the other hand, no doctor in the world can guarantee your kid will end with lung cancer by the time they're 18 even if they themselves smoke like a freight train from the time they're 8. Hell I know people who've for 30 years and not gotten lung cancer.

Actually smoking around very young children is known to increase the odds of SIDS. A bullet isn't guaranteed to kill someone either, that's not an excuse for putting a person in the line of fire.

Originally posted by darthgoober
So yes you can say that the parents are endangering the health of their child(as health problems may develop), but you can't say that they're "killing their children".

I disagree. Knowingly placing someone in danger simply because you're an addict is at most only a very small step from killing them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually smoking around very young children is known to increase the odds of SIDS.
What's an SIDS?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A bullet isn't guaranteed to kill someone either, that's not an excuse for putting a person in the line of fire.
But is a bullet's potential to cause harm/death sufficient to warrant banning them from being in the same the room as a child? Wouldn't it make more sense to say keep your guns and ammo locked up(don't let you kids get into your cigarettes) and don't point them at the kids(roll down the window and keep the air circulating)?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. Knowingly placing someone in danger simply because you're an addict is at most only a very small step from killing them.
Danger of bad health, not danger of immediate death. As I already pointed out...
Originally posted by darthgoober
And that's the whole thing, the kids are only going to get lung cancer if they themselves start to smoke because when you're 18 years old(and no longer legally obligated to stay in the house with smokers) your lungs are still developing and working to repair themselves. And if the kids are both smokers and vulnerable to lung cancer then they're going to get it anyway. It's a choice on the children's part as to whether or not they risk dieing from smoking because it's up to them as to whether or not to take up smoking themselves.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think when this sort of debate comes up, we're delving into realms that are just silly. I mean, a lot of things that kids are exposed to are unhealthy - should there be a law that makes parents not feed their children fast food for example?

So, there should also be a law that says that children are not allowed to eat at McDonalds 4 or 5 times a week, right? Or maybe a law that prevents soda from being loaded with high-fructose corn syrup? Maybe we should only be allowed to buy soda after we've all turned 21.

I think gays shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, personally. The flamingness can steam up the windshield and cause an accident.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
I think gays shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, personally. The flamingness can steam up the windshield and cause an accident.

Yeah, but the cars are usually parked in an alley or outside a Republican senator's office when that happens. So, if the car ain't moving, it shouldn't be a problem. Rhythmic swaying doesn't count, if you're wondering.

... whatabout erratic swaying? That can mess up the suspension.

Originally posted by darthgoober
What's an SIDS?

Sudden infant death syndrome (ie dead baby).

Originally posted by darthgoober
But is a bullet's potential to cause harm/death sufficient to warrant banning them from being in the same the room as a child? Wouldn't it make more sense to say keep your guns and ammo locked up(don't let you kids get into your cigarettes) and don't point them at the kids(roll down the window and keep the air circulating)?

I didn't say you shouldn't have cigarettes in the same room with a child, just that you shouldn't be allowed to place the child at risk by smoking around them when they don't necessarily have a way to leave. Maybe outright banning people from smoking around their kids is extreme, that doesn't mean there's any justification for doing it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Danger of bad health, not danger of immediate death. As I already pointed out...

And I already pointed out that it shouldn't matter how slowly you kill someone. You're still killing that person.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sudden infant death syndrome (ie dead baby).
Ah ok.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't say you shouldn't have cigarettes in the same room with a child, just that you shouldn't be allowed to place the child at risk by smoking around them when they don't necessarily have a way to leave. Maybe outright banning people from smoking around their kids is extreme, that doesn't mean there's any justification for doing it.
Justification doesn't make it right though. Look hard enough and you can find a way to justify nearly any act, not matter how tyrannical it is. But having one reason on one side of the argument(kids health is at risk, so we should pass a law about smoking around them) doesn't outweigh all the reasons on the other side of the argument(the movement shouldn't have the right to dictate values within the family, it'd be difficult and expensive to enforce, it's hypocritical while things like fast food are allowed, it helps with the problems of overpopulation(harsh but true), etc.).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And I already pointed out that it shouldn't matter how slowly you kill someone. You're still killing that person.
Only if their actually at risk of dieing. If you're talking about restricting smoking around babies that's one thing since there's the whole SIDS thing, but no child over... say two years old, has ever died from SIDS or lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke before they reached the age of 18 to my knowledge. Without actual death, there's no precedent for the word "killing"

Originally posted by Devil King
So, there should also be a law that says that children are not allowed to eat at McDonalds 4 or 5 times a week, right? Or maybe a law that prevents soda from being loaded with high-fructose corn syrup? Maybe we should only be allowed to buy soda after we've all turned 21.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I completely agree that such laws are silly.

I dont think there should be a law against parents smoking around their kids, but like someone mentioned, its probably something they shouldn't do of their own accord. Whether secondhand smoke has been conclusively shown to increase the risk of lung cancer or not, as a parent I wouldn't want to take that gamble with my own kid.

Children shouldn't be anywhere near cigarettes!!.. Think about our future and how I dont think that we want our children Die early with lung cancer.. Be smart.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I completely agree that such laws are silly.

I know you do. I'm just using your statement to make my own point; taking the insanity even further.

NO MORE SMOKING WHAT SO EVER!

Originally posted by MrJoe815
Children shouldn't be anywhere near cigarettes!!.. Think about our future and how I dont think that we want our children Die early with lung cancer.. Be smart.

You're right. My God man, you are so right. Still, I'd rather have them die of lung cancer and have good grammer.

Hurry up and edit it out, Scot.

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be.

whats next, making it illegal to smoke in your home?

My opinion is that the Government must ban smoking in cars with Children. As its harmful for child's health and it will be a bad effect on the behaviour of a child.

They should ban smoking outright, disgusting habit!!

Smoking should be banned if there is children or not.

It should be the driver and/or owner of the cars decision.

should feeding your children anything but organic 3 course meals be banned?

should forcing your children to go to school be banned?

should punishing your children for misbehaviour be banned?

should teaching your children anything be banned?

because, you know, cigarettes are the only thing bad for children that parents have the right to expose them too. Or wait, I forgot it was ok to take away the personal freedoms of those who smoke, because they are dirty and we don't like them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It should be the driver and/or owner of the cars decision.

Not the child's? I mean if the kid is being put in danger wouldn't any rational moral system say the kid should get at least some say in what happens?

Originally posted by inimalist
should feeding your children anything but organic 3 course meals be banned?

I'm pretty sure you can't eat it if it isn't organic.

Originally posted by inimalist
should forcing your children to go to school be banned?

No. They should go to school.

Originally posted by inimalist
should punishing your children for misbehaviour be banned?

No. If we don't punish kids how will we deal with anger issues?

Originally posted by inimalist
should teaching your children anything be banned?

If it disagrees with my personal system of morals, yes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not the child's? I mean if the kid is being put in danger wouldn't any rational moral system say the kid should get at least some say in what happens

Yeah, it should have the right to decide whether it wants a ride in the car. Not whether someone smokes in the car though

Yes, it should be banned.

anyone who says yes to this needs to be blasted in the face with liquid aids.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
anyone who says yes to this needs to be blasted in the face with liquid aids. Originally posted by Toku King
Yes, it should be banned.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly are you suggesting that I be maimed/injured?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Is this also a responsible attitude to take?

I can think legal action is irresponsible

my point with the comparison is that the precedence this would set is alarming.

That doing things which are bad for your health and that of those around you is... undesirable?

Ha. Right.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can think legal action is irresponsible

my point with the comparison is that the precedence this would set is alarming.

We could just kill smokers in the good old fashioned free-market problem solving.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We could just kill smokers in the good old fashioned free-market problem solving.

free-market?

I don't follow

Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can drive

Recently I was looking at a debate and a popular topic was being debated, should smoking in cars with children be banned?

I would like to know your reasonings if it should or shouldn't be.

doesn't matter. nobody would enforce it, and a lot of smokers most of the time wouldn't bother to follow it.

Originally posted by inimalist
free-market?

I don't follow

No government intervention. We get to enforce laws by the will of the individual. I'd love to see a smoker try running from a ex-marine with an Uzi.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No government intervention. We get to enforce laws by the will of the individual. I'd love to see a smoker try running from a ex-marine with an Uzi.

well, at least that follows from the point I was making...

I smoke out children in my car

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I smoke out children in my car

Aaaaymeeeen!

And any other pains in the ass which happen to be in my car, being bothered about smoking in the car.

I meant with weed stoned

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
anyone who says yes to this needs to be blasted in the face with liquid aids.

Yeah! To hell with children! Let them die of suffocation, or slowly grow an obsession with cigarettes! As long as smokers get to smoke, who cares about the lives of others! To hell with them, I say!

Oh, please. Toku King, it's time for a bit of realism. Cars are owned by individuals. Therefore, when those individuals drive those cars they're allowed to smoke.

of course it's not responsible behavior.
but if the government were to say "DON'T SMOKE IN CARS WITH CHILDREN," that's one step away from "DON'T SMOKE IN HOUSES WITH CHILDREN."

you want a perfect, idealistic world. that's not possible while we still want/need a human-run governing system.

i believe that smoking is bad, i might tell a friend to please not smoke around me out of courtesy, but at the end of the day, it's they're decision if they're going to smoke or not to.

and really? talk about an uninforcible law. blegh.

a single human can try to be idealistic.
a government, trying to appease hundreds of people, can not be idealistic if anything is ever going to get done.

capische?

Originally posted by Toku King
Yeah! To hell with children! Let them die of suffocation, or slowly grow an obsession with cigarettes! As long as smokers get to smoke, who cares about the lives of others! To hell with them, I say! you shut your god damn mouth

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Oh, please. Toku King, it's time for a bit of realism. Cars are owned by individuals. Therefore, when those individuals drive those cars they're allowed to smoke.

of course it's not responsible behavior.
but if the government were to say "DON'T SMOKE IN CARS WITH CHILDREN," that's one step away from "DON'T SMOKE IN HOUSES WITH CHILDREN."

you want a perfect, idealistic world. that's not possible while we still want/need a human-run governing system.

i believe that smoking is bad, i might tell a friend to please not smoke around me out of courtesy, but at the end of the day, it's they're decision if they're going to smoke or not to.

and really? talk about an uninforcible law. blegh.

a single human can try to be idealistic.
a government, trying to appease hundreds of people, can not be idealistic if anything is ever going to get done.

capische?

Oh my lord. Are you serious?
Give me a friggin' break, man. Ideal world? You mean common sense. You're one of those people that says SCREW THE WORLD! I'M AN INDIVIDUAL! when you don't even have to, causing more trouble than it's worth. You have your rights. You have your freedom. And protecting children is a freedom for them to not have to deal with that bullshit.
So no, not capische. **** capische. Don't smoke with kids in the car. It's unsafe.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
you shut your god damn mouth

Never! I fight for my individual rights! Sure, this specific, absolutely stupid one is dangerous as it is, but bah to the man! Screw the man!

You got studies on all the bad effects the now legal smoking in cars with children has?

Or just trying to limit personal freedoms for the heck of it?

Originally posted by Toku King
Oh my lord. Are you serious?
Give me a friggin' break, man. Ideal world? You mean common sense. You're one of those people that says SCREW THE WORLD! I'M AN INDIVIDUAL! when you don't even have to, causing more trouble than it's worth. You have your rights. You have your freedom. And protecting children is a freedom for them to not have to deal with that bullshit.
So no, not capische. **** capische. Don't smoke with kids in the car. It's unsafe.

So why not go the whole way and say that people who smoke shouldn't be allowed to have children?

I'll tell you why...Because it's government interventionism gone way too far.

The UK government technically has already outlawed smoking in cars if that car is to be used for work purposes regardless of whether it's privately owned or not. If it's being used on work business then it's illegal to smoke in it even if noone else is in it. So a travelling salesman who uses his car for transport and makes his living through it has to pull over to the side of the road and get out to have a cigarette otherwise he's breaking the law. That is also government interventionism gone way too far.

Wow. I've discovered that being insulted over the internet has....





..... absolutely no effect on me.

which is apparently the opposite of the reaction you get, toku king.

Originally posted by jaden101
So why not go the whole way and say that people who smoke shouldn't be allowed to have children?

I'll tell you why...Because it's government interventionism gone way too far.

The UK government technically has already outlawed smoking in cars if that car is to be used for work purposes regardless of whether it's privately owned or not. If it's being used on work business then it's illegal to smoke in it even if noone else is in it. So a travelling salesman who uses his car for transport and makes his living through it has to pull over to the side of the road and get out to have a cigarette otherwise he's breaking the law. That is also government interventionism gone way too far.

I agree.

It is however evident by looking at some of the threads and posts in this forum why governments around the world keep insisting that people are too stupid to make their own choices on smoking, drinking and food, so they're imposing it on us.



I do wonder how far will this go, and what will personal freedom come down to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You got studies on all the bad effects the now legal smoking in cars with children has?

Or just trying to limit personal freedoms for the heck of it?

not to mention we would then HAVE to ban all other things parents do to their children which are equally or more harmful

May I make a suggestion. Maybe we should discuss whether children should be banned from cars in which smoking is going on.

It's a more interesting, and fair, topic, I think.

lol

I like that

Originally posted by Bardock42
May I make a suggestion. Maybe we should discuss whether children should be banned from cars in which smoking is going on.

It's a more interesting, and fair, topic, I think.

Banning smoking outright would solve everything . . .

I concur. Smoking anywhere should be abolished. It is outright counter productive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Banning smoking outright would solve everything . . .

Including world peace.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
I concur. Smoking anywhere should be abolished. It is outright counter productive. Silly.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Banning smoking outright would solve everything . . .

Isn't your standard reply something like "So would killing everyone"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Isn't your standard reply something like "So would killing everyone"?

And thus far no one has come up with a valid reason that murder wouldn't solve various problems more quickly and definitively than other methods. I don't advocate it in real life but then again I can't see how people advocate pretty much any of the various philosophies around here with a clean conscience.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And thus far no one has come up with a valid reason that murder wouldn't solve various problems more quickly and definitively than other methods. I don't advocate it in real life but then again I can't see how people advocate pretty much any of the various philosophies around here with a clean conscience. No, I agree that it would solve some stuff, just what you said in the second part.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Silly.


No, it isn't.

Any smoker I debate with uses the countless excuse that they have the freedom to smoke. What about those around them that do not wish to inhale such toxic matter? Also, their share is unfiltered.

Smoking is silly. It has absolutely no purpose other than providing an overly negative effect on your body.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
No, it isn't.

Any smoker I debate with uses the countless excuse that they have the freedom to smoke. What about those around them that do not wish to inhale such toxic matter? Also, their share is unfiltered.

Smoking is silly. It has absolutely no purpose other than providing an overly negative effect on your body.

Banning it in communal areas of state owned property, fair enough. Banning it in private homes, cars or in privately owned businesses is another. Why should they have to not smoke in their own homes? Does anyone force you to go to their place? No? Then you are really the invading party, aren't you?

And the purpose is solely the joy one gets. Personally, I don't smoke, bothers me and makes me cough. But if others enjoy it, it's their decision, and really, that's all the purpose it needs.

ya, ban smoking outright, because we see how well that worked for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and heroin

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Wow. I've discovered that being insulted over the internet has....





..... absolutely no effect on me.

which is apparently the opposite of the reaction you get, toku king.

You know, that would be clever if it did. Unfortunately, I could care less about the opinion of one of you "Constant freedom fighting" guys that "fights freedom" in the most ridiculous ways possible.
Fighting for the freedom of speech? Awesome. Fighting to be able to smoke in a car with children present? I'm still laughing a little.
Funniest part? You only say that because you have no argument left.

Originally posted by jaden101
So why not go the whole way and say that people who smoke shouldn't be allowed to have children?

Because I know parents that are responsible smokers. Smoking in a car with children is not at all responsible. Hell, even Rick(a responsible, but smoking, parent) mentioned to me once that smoking in a car with his kids there(who are about 10 and 12) is something he would never do.



Oh please, it is not. If the government tomorrow says that we have a curfew, puts microchips in us, or bugs us 24/7(which will hopefully not happen), then I'll be one of the first to wanna fight back. This is a right that is only unhealthy to little ones.



Which is silly. This specific issue is different, however.




You'll have to be more specific. Do you mean a car that is owned by the company you work for, or your own car?




Once again, you have to be specific. If it's his own car, then it is pretty nuts. Still, he most likely doesn't have children in that car with him.

Originally posted by lord xyz
is there a study to show second hand smoke causes any harm, let alone death.

Yes. It's called lung cancer.

Originally posted by Toku King
Yes. It's called lung cancer.

lol

well argued

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

well argued

If you won't take Toku's word for it, how about Yule's?

JNjunlWUJJI

"pwned"

Originally posted by Toku King
Yes. It's called lung cancer.

T-that's a disease...not a study.


But can you show me all the lung cancer caused by children riding in cars where smoking was going on?

How does having a window open relate to the lung cancer that, iyo, has been caused by this dreadful habit?

It doesn't matter who owns it. If it's used for work then it's considered the workplace and thus it's illegal to smoke in it.



I don't think i needed to be more specific given that i said "his car"

Originally posted by Bardock42
T-that's a disease...not a study.

And what has been a trigger for it?

Exactly.

Originally posted by Toku King
And what has been a trigger for it?

Exactly.

again, your logic is astounding

Originally posted by Robtard
If you won't take Toku's word for it, how about Yule's?

JNjunlWUJJI

"pwned"


pfft, uncle fester can kiss my ass








































actually, I don't smoke, I just love freedom

Originally posted by Bardock42
Banning it in communal areas of state owned property, fair enough. Banning it in private homes, cars or in privately owned businesses is another. Why should they have to not smoke in their own homes? Does anyone force you to go to their place? No? Then you are really the invading party, aren't you?

And the purpose is solely the joy one gets. Personally, I don't smoke, bothers me and makes me cough. But if others enjoy it, it's their decision, and really, that's all the purpose it needs.

I guess I didn't have to be a psychic to have KNOWN this was coming:



Regardless of it being in their home, vehicles or business ... That cigarette smoke still has a negative effect on the people surrounding them and those individuals have a right not to smoke. Let us take the business for example. A lot of businesses have citizens coming in and out of them. These people also suffer the bodily penalty for YOU smoking. It's not like smoking is something that only the user suffers from. Smoke travels, my friend.

Your first paragraph is something I would agree with if the smoke did not effect others, to be honest with you.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Regardless of it being in their home, vehicles or business ... That cigarette smoke still has a negative effect on the people surrounding them and those individuals have a right not to smoke. Let us take the business for example. A lot of businesses have citizens coming in and out of them. These people also suffer the bodily penalty for YOU smoking. It's not like smoking is something that only the user suffers from. Smoke travels, my friend.

Your first paragraph is something I would agree with if the smoke did not effect others, to be honest with you.

so you think it would be good to have a government that is able to ban something that causes as much or more harm than second hand smoke?

do you know how many people die of heart disease from poor diets or from cars? should all food that doesn't conform to YOUR health standards and automobiles be banned? (and yes, your diet does affect others)

what about skydiving or other reckless things, I have to pay the hospital bills for those who aren't as specifically careful as you would have them be.

also, why not comment on how impossible it would be to enforce any ban of anything in people's private establishments? You know, like that successful war on drugs?

Originally posted by inimalist
again, your logic is astounding

Considering you have no real argument against it, I guess so.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I don't smoke, I just love freedom

Then the counter argument would be you're giving people freedom to hurt others if they want to. Where will it end?

Here's a tip: Crack your windows.

Well hell..roll'em all the way down!

Originally posted by jaden101
It doesn't matter who owns it.

It completely matters who owns it.

Originally posted by Toku King
It completely matters who owns it.

You're completely missing my point...legally...in the UK it doesn't matter who owns the car...whether it's the individual or the business...If it's used for work then it's considered "the workplace" and thus it is illegal to smoke in it.

Originally posted by jaden101
You're completely missing my point

Not at all. I completely understand your view, but at the same time I don't understand how that makes smoking in cars with children ok.




In a way it makes sense, and doesn't at the same time. If it's a company's car, smoking in it is a terrible idea, if not moronic. If it's your car, then you should be able to do whatever you wish. That is, of course, up until you smoke in the car with children present.

Originally posted by Toku King
Considering you have no real argument against it, I guess so.

no real argument against nothing, given you didn't even respond properly to what was quoted

I was more pointing out the absolute lack of anything concrete coming from you, simply dictatorial statements about what you think is right.

Show one study that makes a statistical inference about the percentage of lung cancer in children that is caused by car related cigarette smoke? thanks

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then the counter argument would be you're giving people freedom to hurt others if they want to. Where will it end?

good point

rationally, it is impossible to erase the impact people will have on each other. It is about amount of harm.

In this case, cigarettes are used as a social scape goat as opposed to tackling real polluters.

But if you want to get right down to it, I don't have a line where it become bad, nor would there be an objective one. My main point in this discussion is a broader perspective on what powers we are giving to the government. I don't follow this stuff, but I do feel it would be nearly impossible to make a empirical judgement of the amount of harm done to children by smoking in cars.

The precedence here would then be, the government is allowed to ban things with no empirical idea of how much harm it can do to people.

It actually smacks of the same reasoning the Canadian Supreme Court gave a few years back about marijuana legalization. They said that even the suspicion that something could harm someone justifies the government banning it. In this case, a drug that has no recorded medical deaths is the standard of harm, essentially giving the government of canada carte blanche to ban anything.

and would someone who supports a smoking ban please comment on how it would be an effective way to stop people from smoking?

Seeing as there is evidence that alcohol prohibition increased the consumption of alcohol and drug prohibition increases the consumption of drugs?

Originally posted by Toku King
And what has been a trigger for it?

Exactly. Indeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies.Originally posted by Forum Ninja
I guess I didn't have to be a psychic to have KNOWN this was coming:



Regardless of it being in their home, vehicles or business ... That cigarette smoke still has a negative effect on the people surrounding them and those individuals have a right not to smoke. Let us take the business for example. A lot of businesses have citizens coming in and out of them. These people also suffer the bodily penalty for YOU smoking. It's not like smoking is something that only the user suffers from. Smoke travels, my friend.

Your first paragraph is something I would agree with if the smoke did not effect others, to be honest with you. It is their choice to expose themselves to it. If they don't want to be exposed to smoke, they should do business somewhere else.

Besides, the risks of second hand smoking are vastly overhyped.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies.

http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2008/03/smoking-and-lung-cancer.html

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/lung-cancer.html

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2962

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/lungcancer.html

Originally posted by Toku King
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2008/03/smoking-and-lung-cancer.html

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/lung-cancer.html

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2962

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/lungcancer.html

the first 3 aren't studies, and at the very least, have no references. There is a link from the first to a series of studies, and the last link has some, although none of them appear to deal with children exposed to second hand smoke, and none specifically addressing the issue of the car.

Most deal with women who live with a smoker and are exposed continuously to second hand smoke in the home.

That most children don't live with the parents for as long as the wife would with a husband calls any conclusions you might extrapolate from these studies into question, unless of course you can provide statistics on mortality rates of people/children exposed to cigarette smoke in the car, as that is what we are discussion and science can't be generalized in the way you are trying to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, what has been? And in case you say smoke (second hand smoke to be specific), it would be nice to show some studies. It is their choice to expose themselves to it. If they don't want to be exposed to smoke, they should do business somewhere else.

That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.

If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)

Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php

That is in Canada alone. What about the country I'm in?

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

Part of North America alone experiences thousands upon thousands of deaths due to second hand smoke. This is smoke ingested without the non-smokers consent.

Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?





Completely untrue. It's simple logic. Unfiltered smoke is regurgitated into the air for another entity to inhale.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.

If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)

Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php

That is in Canada alone. What about the country I'm in?

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

Part of North America alone experiences thousands upon thousands of deaths due to second hand smoke. This is smoke ingested without the non-smokers consent.

Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?

awesome that neither deal in any significant way with car based smoke, only provide passing reference

lol, and one is a government page with no references

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Completely untrue. It's simple logic. Unfiltered smoke is regurgitated into the air for another entity to inhale.

sorry sir, but second hand smoke is extremely exaggerated. Look up other things that kill more people each year. You might as well ban cars.

Just to emphasize this last point:

in Canada, at least 5 people die PER DAY from workplace related injuries and diseases. 5 x 365 = 1825 per year.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/cana-d29.shtml

this is more than the 800 deaths in the Canadian government article posted above.

From the logic proposed, workplaces should be banned

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Is it freedom to allow smoking? How free are you? Really?


since the dawn of philosophy, freedom, justice and liberty have been envisioned as things with a double edge. Whether it is the sword of lady liberty or the axe of shango, people have understood that with freedom comes a necessary cost.

EDIT: I am the post master

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
That's wrong and the same could be (And should be) said reversely.

If smokers want to smoke, they should do their business somewhere else. I'm sorry but that's the way it should be considering these products have absolutely no positive effect (There's not even evidence to suggest they relieve stress, a common excuse among addicts.)

But if it is their business?

Originally posted by Toku King
Not at all. I completely understand your view, but at the same time I don't understand how that makes smoking in cars with children ok.




In a way it makes sense, and doesn't at the same time. If it's a company's car, smoking in it is a terrible idea, if not moronic. If it's your car, then you should be able to do whatever you wish. That is, of course, up until you smoke in the car with children present.

Now you're missing your own point...You said (in response to my saying that it legally didn't matter who owned the car, if it was for work purposes it was illegal to smoke in it) that it did matter who owned it...i responded by saying no it didn't matter...it was a legal issue...It being illegal to smoke in a car used for work regardless of whether it's a personally owned car or not.

None of that part of the conversation was about whether children are in the car or not as i was merely highlighting what i beleive to be the government bringing absurd legislation and enforcing more of, what we in the UK call the nanny state....in other words unwarrented government intervention in people's everyday lives.

I believe that legally enforcing the banning of smoking in cars where children are present is again an example of a government going too far with interfering in people's lives. I totally agree, from a health perspective, that it's a good idea but it'd also be hypocritical because if the government were really interested in people's health then they would ban smoking...The reason they don't is because they get huge revenues from levies on cigarette sales.

Not to mention that it would be completely unenforcable.