Should smoking in cars with Children be banned?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

If it's being used on work business then it's illegal to smoke in it even if noone else is in it.[/b]

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?

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. [/B]

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?

YouTube video

"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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

YouTube video

"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:

But if others enjoy it, it's their decision

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.

...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.

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.