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, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
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, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
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.
Re: Should smoking in cars with Children be banned?
Originally posted by Takion
Childrens = Before they can driveRecently 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 TakionForgetting Canadian and British laws (not really relevant to my point anyway), show me an unbiased study to show second hand smoke has killed.
There are plenty of studies that show second hand smoke kills and harms.And I mean why wouldn't Canada ban smoking from cars [b]with children
if it does harm them? Is it not the Governments job to protect the people? [/B]
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.
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
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosShould see Penn & Teller's episode on second hand smoke.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETSOf 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.
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 jaden101A website like no-smoke might be biased, but alright, I'll accept it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdfyes...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
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: 1.25:1000000Hardly 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 ChaosAlright, I'll take that.
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.
Still, I doubt the evidence is severe enough to call for a ban.
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: 1.25:1000000Hardly 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