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.

This is some of the research I have done on why it shouldn't be banned.

Why are we focusing on banning smoking from cars with children if we can be focusing on bigger things?

If we do ban smoking from cars with kids, then we should ban wood fires since they are more deadly than the tobacco smoke since wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke (Pryor). It is 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke (Lewtas) and lowers the body's defense mechanisms for fighting off infections. Just one hour of exposure can lower immune defense 25 to 40 percent (Zelikoff).

Is there any case studies of Children being affected from parents smoking in cars with them? I need proof.

Why not stop kids from eating garbage since its killing them? Should the parents be held responsible?

Shouldn’t kids be taken away from there homes since I’m sure there toxins roaming all through out the house like bug sprays.

Shouldn’t they stop eating fruits and vegetable since its was probably sprayed with pesticide?

How’s about stop drinking cola since it has a chance of giving cancer aswell.

If this is banned, wouldn’t cops have such a problem tracking down a car with someone smoking in it, with Kids adding to that.

This may require new technology which may be very expensive.


Banning smoking in cars doesn’t make people want to stop smoking, it just makes them not want to get caught.

If this is banned, are we going to fine people who are in poor, or in poverty?

Substitute the smoke, change the smoking habits.

Its not a habit, it’s a smoking addiction.

“Just saying no to problematic substance use is what have a nice day has done to a clinical depression.”

“a ban makes the person hide their problem. When you are hiding, you don’t tend to come forward, and ask for help. Instead, education is the best approach to this problem.”

“Long, Slow, deliberate suicide.”

If a ban is placed it just makes the people find a more creative method to smoke.

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
This is some of the research I have done on why it shouldn't be banned.

Why are we focusing on banning smoking from cars with children if we can be focusing on bigger things?

If we do ban smoking from cars with kids, then we should ban wood fires since they are more deadly than the tobacco smoke since wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke (Pryor). It is 12 times more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke (Lewtas) and lowers the body's defense mechanisms for fighting off infections. Just one hour of exposure can lower immune defense 25 to 40 percent (Zelikoff).

Is there any case studies of Children being affected from parents smoking in cars with them? I need proof.

Why not stop kids from eating garbage since its killing them? Should the parents be held responsible?

Shouldn’t kids be taken away from there homes since I’m sure there toxins roaming all through out the house like bug sprays.

Shouldn’t they stop eating fruits and vegetable since its was probably sprayed with pesticide?

How’s about stop drinking cola since it has a chance of giving cancer aswell.

If this is banned, wouldn’t cops have such a problem tracking down a car with someone smoking in it, with Kids adding to that.

This may require new technology which may be very expensive.


Banning smoking in cars doesn’t make people want to stop smoking, it just makes them not want to get caught.

If this is banned, are we going to fine people who are in poor, or in poverty?

Substitute the smoke, change the smoking habits.

Its not a habit, it’s a smoking addiction.

“Just saying no to problematic substance use is what have a nice day has done to a clinical depression.”

“a ban makes the person hide their problem. When you are hiding, you don’t tend to come forward, and ask for help. Instead, education is the best approach to this problem.”

“Long, Slow, deliberate suicide.”

If a ban is placed it just makes the people find a more creative method to smoke. Originally posted by darthgoober
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.
These are my reasoning to why it SHOULDNT it be banned.

Do you have kids?

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.

smoking should be banned outright, all cigarette company's closed.

Mind you I would say that I´m a non smoker.

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?