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.
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.
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.
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.
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.[17]
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%."[18]"
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.
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...
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?
Re: Should smoking in cars with Children be banned?
Originally posted by TakionIf 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.
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.