The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on January 22, 2008, 07:00:08 PM
-
http://www.komotv.com/news/13958692.html
By KOMO Staff
Watch the story OLYMPIA -- A law being proposed to state legislators would ban smoking in a car if there are children inside.
State Representative Shay Schual-Berke compares it to drunk driving, saying you're injuring your children for life if you smoke with them in your car.
"Did you know that the poisons from secondhand smoke, which we know cause cancer in adults; we know cause asthma and bronchitis in children and adults, is also associated with sudden infant death syndrome?" she said. "I've seen people smoking and I've watched their children in the backseat coughing."
Some are all for the ban, including Christina Porter, who says she'd never smoke with kids inside.
"No, not in a million years; that's one of my biggest pet peeves," she said. "Who else is going to protect the children if the parents aren't going to do that themselves? It's no different than saying we can't smoke in a restaurant or a bar."
Others say it's an invasion of privacy.
"I really do not believe that a government should be insisting on laws like that. It's just a little intrusive now, definitely," said parent Bryan Bailon.
Schual-Berke says you wouldn't get pulled over just for smoking while your kids are in the car. But you could face roughly a $100 fine if you're caught after you're pulled over for something else. She says the law is needed to protect children.
Several states already banned smoking in cars with children, including California and Alabama. Supporters of a ban here say 27 other states are considering a similar ban.
-
I'd support it.
People can claim all they want there their is not "concrete" proof that second hand smoke isn't harmful. What about breathing smoke isn't harmful?
-
I'd support it.
People can claim all they want there their is not "concrete" proof that second hand smoke isn't harmful. What about breathing smoke isn't harmful?
You want the government monitoring what you're feeding your children? Same f'n thing.
-
ya know... as a kid who grew up riding around in cars filled with smoke... i dont mind this law so much.
i wish it was around when we were growing up. i hated that smell first thing in the morning...
and my dad died of lung cancer... so... yeah, i think its ok.
-
ya know... as a kid who grew up riding around in cars filled with smoke... i dont mind this law so much.
i wish it was around when we were growing up. i hated that smell first thing in the morning...
and my dad died of lung cancer... so... yeah, i think its ok.
Do you have emphysema? Not trying to start an argument or anything, but my father and uncle also grew up with a mother that smoked in the car. One is a smoker, my father is not. My father also has no respiratory illnesses. The government isn't in the business of raising kids. If it's child abuse, it should be researched, documented, and implemented. As of now, the government is trying to get involved because it's a nuisance. They can't add health. If they can, show me the research.
....and yes, it is the same thing as the government regulating how you feed your children because "they" know what's healthy.
-
ya know... as a kid who grew up riding around in cars filled with smoke... i dont mind this law so much.
i wish it was around when we were growing up. i hated that smell first thing in the morning...
and my dad died of lung cancer... so... yeah, i think its ok.
Do you have emphysema? Not trying to start an argument or anything, but my father and uncle also grew up with a mother that smoked in the car. One is a smoker, my father is not. My father also has no respiratory illnesses. The government isn't in the business of raising kids. If it's child abuse, it should be researched, documented, and implemented. As of now, the government is trying to get involved because it's a nuisance. They can't add health. If they can, show me the research.
....and yes, it is the same thing as the government regulating how you feed your children because "they" know what's healthy.
i cant breathe anywhere else when im with a parent who smokes in the car and in our home... im not mad at my dad, but i hated the smell and it was gross.
food doesnt just come at me with no way to avoid it, if im not hungry... smoke is different, i cant get away from it.
and yes, we have all sorts of regulations and laws that protect us from ourselves. and its mostly cause dumbasses dont know to protect themselves. some idiot just sued the city of new york for not allowing him to jump from some tall building.
his defense was: there was no sign up there that said, "no jumping" .. so, he's going to get some money for being a dumbass. then they will make a law about jumping from tall stuff.
-
I guess I just hate to see the government get involved in parenting period. Keep in mind, I have no problem prosecuting the hell out of some scumbag who beats his/her kids. ....and that is beats, not whips. I had my ass whipped several times, sometimes BAD. I deserved every one of'em. (I'm sure some of you enjoy hearing that :-) )
As for me, I smoke. ....but I don't smoke in the home and, personally, don't care for the smell myself.
-
I guess I just hate to see the government get involved in parenting period. Keep in mind, I have no problem prosecuting the hell out of some scumbag who beats his/her kids. ....and that is beats, not whips. I had my ass whipped several times, sometimes BAD. I deserved every one of'em. (I'm sure some of you enjoy hearing that :-) )
As for me, I smoke. ....but I don't smoke in the home and, personally, don't care for the smell myself.
im not telling people not to smoke... just let the kiddos breathe in their own home. we dont let people do meth in their homes cause it affects everyone around them.
its the same thing here... anything airborn ought to have a few restrictions on it.
but thats just me.. i have sensitive smell since my last pregnancy.. i think i just associate it with being uncomfortable.. and death.
-
I'd support it.
People can claim all they want there their is not "concrete" proof that second hand smoke isn't harmful. What about breathing smoke isn't harmful?
You want the government monitoring what you're feeding your children? Same f'n thing.
So the government shouldn't tell you not to feed cyanide to your kids? There's a differance between eating Trans Fats and putting your kids into an enclosed environment with a toxic atmosphere.
-
So the government shouldn't tell you not to feed cyanide to your kids? There's a differance between eating Trans Fats and putting your kids into an enclosed environment with a toxic atmosphere.
Cyanide is a poison. Show me an unbiased study that second-hand smoke causes death. :whatever:
Don't be irrational. The straw man only works on birds.
-
So the government shouldn't tell you not to feed cyanide to your kids? There's a differance between eating Trans Fats and putting your kids into an enclosed environment with a toxic atmosphere.
Cyanide is a poison. Show me an unbiased study that second-hand smoke causes death. :whatever:
Don't be irrational. The straw man only works on birds.
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
-
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
My mistake then. If so, and it's in their constitution, they're within they're rights. I will now bow out of this with my tail between my legs. :-)
-
I'd support it.
People can claim all they want there their is not "concrete" proof that second hand smoke isn't harmful. What about breathing smoke isn't harmful?
You want the government monitoring what you're feeding your children? Same f'n thing.
I dunno I kind of agree with the slippery slope argument that you are presenting I also think kids should be protected.
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
This will probably catch on and become fed law before too long.
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
This will probably catch on and become fed law before too long.
Doubt it. Maybe if Hillary or Obama take office, but I doubt a Republican would waste time with something that the majority of the States are already enacting. I would expect them to mandate something like Jessica's Law before this.
-
I second Rebel's opinion. This is nanny-state bullshit. Plus this could not be enforced on any wide scale unless somehow the authorities could watch the inside of every single vehicle 24/7.
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
This will probably catch on and become fed law before too long.
Doubt it. Maybe if Hillary or Obama take office, but I doubt a Republican would waste time with something that the majority of the States are already enacting. I would expect them to mandate something like Jessica's Law before this.
Well the way the repukes are going I have complete faith that they would try it. Sorry I'm just cynical today. :-)
-
I second Rebel's opinion. This is nanny-state bullshit. Plus this could not be enforced on any wide scale unless somehow the authorities could watch every single vehicle 24/7.
I would suppose enforcing it would be pretty much the same way they enforce seatbelt laws now. Cop sees it he pulls you over.
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
This will probably catch on and become fed law before too long.
I would not be surprised with a party of socialists on one side and a party of statist RINOs on the other.
-
I second Rebel's opinion. This is nanny-state bullshit. Plus this could not be enforced on any wide scale unless somehow the authorities could watch every single vehicle 24/7.
I would suppose enforcing it would be pretty much the same way they enforce seatbelt laws now. Cop sees it he pulls you over.
Yep. Smokers will probably just put out their cigarettes if they see a cop car to minimise their chances of getting caught.
-
I second Rebel's opinion. This is nanny-state bullshit. Plus this could not be enforced on any wide scale unless somehow the authorities could watch every single vehicle 24/7.
I would suppose enforcing it would be pretty much the same way they enforce seatbelt laws now. Cop sees it he pulls you over.
Yep. Smokers will probably just put out their cigarettes if they see a cop car to minimise their chances of getting caught.
Like people throw on their seatbelts when they see a cop now. :-)
-
Where does it stop?????
When I smoked (I quit a few months ago) I did NOT smoke in the car with my kids, we did NOT smoke in the house and we did not need a damn law for us to do this.
My issue isnt with what the law intends to do, my issue is with the law itself. Just one more notch in the nanny state government that conservatives are supposed to be against.
-
Just one more notch in the nanny state government that conservatives are supposed to be against.
Yep. All the statists needs to say is "its for the cchhhiiillleddreeen" and tons of people get on board with whatever new stupid and useless law they they want to pass.
-
If cigarette smoking is so horrible, then outlaw cigarettes. This one-at-a-time intrusion into people's private lives is unAmerican and there should be no one not outraged by this.
It IS absurd. If smoking in your car with your children inside was so damaging, there would not be one of us kids from the 1950's and 60's left standing. You and I both know this has nothing to do with "children". It has everything to do with government control.
As a free person determined to remain free, no one should find this long arm of the law's reach into their private automobile acceptable. It isn't the role of our government, period.
-
^yeah, what Undies said.
+1 :-)
-
What Undies said, squared.
I'm waiting for mandatory breastfeeding.
-
If cigarette smoking is so horrible, then outlaw cigarettes. This one-at-a-time intrusion into people's private lives is unAmerican and there should be no one not outraged by this.
It IS absurd. If smoking in your car with your children inside was so damaging, there would not be one of us kids from the 1950's and 60's left standing. You and I both know this has nothing to do with "children". It has everything to do with government control.
As a free person determined to remain free, no one should find this long arm of the law's reach into their private automobile acceptable. It isn't the role of our government, period.
Very well said, Sir - all of it.
-
Seat Belt Law - Check
Helmet Law - Check
Hands Free Cell Phone Law (Starting in CA in 7/08) - Check
No Smoking in Bars and Restaurants - Check
No Smoking in your car with Kids (coming) - Check
If I gave it more thought, I could surely come up with more. No slippery slope here :thatsright:
-
Seat Belt Law - Check
Helmet Law - Check
Hands Free Cell Phone Law (Starting in CA in 7/08) - Check
No Smoking in Bars and Restaurants - Check
No Smoking in your car with Kids (coming) - Check
If I gave it more thought, I could surely come up with more. No slippery slope here :thatsright:
ok, call me crazy but all of those things you mentioned saves countless lives every year. not *every* thing the govt does is bad for us as a country. i would never put my kid in a car without a seatbelt. and helmuts have definitely saved both my kids lives more than a few times - as well as my husbands' noggin riding dirt bikes.
maybe a law saying you cant smoke around kids is a bit far reaching, but ask any kid; they hate the smell of it and when they ask "hey can i do that too?" and you say, "well no, cause its bad for you cause youre a little kid" .. you really dont have much of an argument against it.
or maybe we could have a discussion about the *benefits* of smoking around kids? :-)
(i can argue both sides of this one.. )
-
It's the whole Nanny-state thing. What's next, cheeseburgers and french fries??
BTW, if you haven't heard, in CA they're considering putting state controls on your thermostats.
-
It's the whole Nanny-state thing. What's next, cheeseburgers and french fries??
BTW, if you haven't heard, in CA they're considering putting state controls on your thermostats.
oh yeah, ive read about that. im not sure it will pass.. it may just be meant to alarm people into turning down their thermostats.
people can always vote this stuff down, but a lot of times, the nanny staters out number every one else.
-
i would never put my kid in a car without a seatbelt.
Key word being "I". You really need the state to tell you to do that??
people can always vote this stuff down,
In CA there have been more than one initiative passed by the people that have been overturned by some judge :banghead:
Apparently you have kids. I don't know how you discipline them (I never laid a hand on mine, they were perfect :-)), but heaven help you in some states if you discipline your kids in public. All it takes is some do-gooder to drop a dime and you're defending your ability to keep your kids (I ain't talking about beatings either).
Watch out, that camel has got it's nose way into the tent.
-
i would never put my kid in a car without a seatbelt.
Key word being "I". You really need the state to tell you to do that??
people can always vote this stuff down,
In CA there have been more than one initiative passed by the people that have been overturned by some judge :banghead:
Apparently you have kids. I don't know how you discipline them (I never laid a hand on mine, they were perfect :-)), but heaven help you in some states if you discipline your kids in public. All it takes is some do-gooder to drop a dime and you're defending your ability to keep your kids (I ain't talking about beatings either).
Watch out, that camel has got it's nose way into the tent.
well, i grew up in the 70s and some very well educated people back then didnt put their kids in car seats or use seat belts.. it was just our culture. we dont have seat belts on school buses still and most kids use school buses back and forth every single day.
i think as we learn more about how things work, we adapt our laws to reflect that.
when cigarettes first came out, doctors were telling women to use them to keep their figures trim. Barney and Fred Flintstone were hawking cigarettes in ads. as we learned more about the affects of cigarette smoke, they put warning labels on them and encouraged people not to smoke.
when the internet first came out, it was free wheeling, anything goes. well, now we realize that its not always an acceptable place for kids to hang out and that our kids have to be monitored.
its just the nature of the world; we invent something, and then we figure out the unintended consequences of that invention..
-
I don't approve of smoking, but I would be against the law. However, kids who smoke pick that habit up because of parents and/or friends do it.
-
we dont have seat belts on school buses still
Now that one I agree with you on. In that situation we are relinquishing the safety of our kids to the state and I've never figured out why seat belts aren't mandatory on school buses :confused:.
Is that someone knocking at your door?? Have you been feeding your kids too many cheeseburgers again :rotf: :tongue:
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
In the Peoples Republic of Californistan this is already a law (just one of the many things that makes me want to get out of here) the story being here (http://www.nbc11.com/news/14321307/detail.html).
This type of crap law just leads us along the way to the nanny state level and I find it unpalatable.
I used to smoke about 9-10 years ago, and yes I do find it stinks, but no I do not find second hand smoke dangerous.
-
we dont have seat belts on school buses still
Now that one I agree with you on. In that situation we are relinquishing the safety of our kids to the state and I've never figured out why seat belts aren't mandatory on school buses :confused:.
Is that someone knocking at your door?? Have you been feeding your kids too many cheeseburgers again :rotf: :tongue:
here's one you might have heard already: when taking your kids to the pediatrician, the docs will ask your kids if there are smokers in the house, if there are any guns in the house.. how many people live in the house, and so on.
i think at some point, there will just be informational overload and maybe it will implode the govt. what could they possibly do with all that information?
boggles the mind..
-
So your saying you find nothing wrong with kids breathing in smoke, when they have no say in the matter?
No, but the states should do something about it, not the federal government.
Check the story again boss. This is about the Washington State Legislature making the decision. And it also talks about 27 other states who are looking at the topic right now as well. Not the Federal Government.
In the Peoples Republic of Californistan this is already a law (just one of the many things that makes me want to get out of here) the story being here (http://www.nbc11.com/news/14321307/detail.html).
This type of crap law just leads us along the way to the nanny state level and I find it unpalatable.
I used to smoke about 9-10 years ago, and yes I do find it stinks, but no I do not find second hand smoke dangerous.
i cant tell you if its dangerous or not.. but being a kid, growing up with it, we all hated it. and we couldnt do a thing about it.
my dad could smoke, or he could quit.. it was all up to him.
us kids had no say so. it made me want to puke at times, especially in the morning. it gave me headaches.. i never told my dad. i didnt want to hear him say to me, "well, too bad you dont get to tell me what to do" ..
-
us kids had no say so. it made me want to puke at times, especially in the morning. it gave me headaches.. i never told my dad. i didnt want to hear him say to me, "well, too bad you dont get to tell me what to do" ..
I understand what you're saying, I really do, but did you want the state to tell your dad what to do??? I'm a smoker (daily I question my sanity) and I'm sure on long trips I'd sneak a smoke in the car with my kids in it but I'd make damn sure the window was wide open and all (or most) of the smoke went out the window (mostly would stop at a rest stop), didn't need the state to tell me that. My daughters are 20 and 24, went to a family gathering last Saturday and all rode in the same car (a three hour trip), my daughters don't smoke, so out of respect for them I didn't (didn't need a law to tell me that). Lot of common sense involved here.
I was just listening to the radio while I was in the shower, caught bits and pieces and I don't have a link. Apparently the state legislature in CA is currently debating whether there ought to be a state mandated rent control in CA. That friggin camel is just working his way into that tent.
-
we dont have seat belts on school buses still
Now that one I agree with you on. In that situation we are relinquishing the safety of our kids to the state and I've never figured out why seat belts aren't mandatory on school buses :confused:.
Is that someone knocking at your door?? Have you been feeding your kids too many cheeseburgers again :rotf: :tongue:
here's one you might have heard already: when taking your kids to the pediatrician, the docs will ask your kids if there are smokers in the house, if there are any guns in the house.. how many people live in the house, and so on.
i think at some point, there will just be informational overload and maybe it will implode the govt. what could they possibly do with all that information?
boggles the mind..
They also ask you if you put your baby down with a bottle and if the water heater is turned down to 100 degrees. About the no smoking in cars thing, I smoke and I never EVER smoke around my baby. When I do smoke, I go out in a "smoking coat" and wash my hands with soap and scalding water. I really don't need a law to tell me what I know already.
-
us kids had no say so. it made me want to puke at times, especially in the morning. it gave me headaches.. i never told my dad. i didnt want to hear him say to me, "well, too bad you dont get to tell me what to do" ..
I understand what you're saying, I really do, but did you want the state to tell your dad what to do???
well, i will tell you this. at the end of his life, when lung cancer took him.. he was laying in a diaper, in a morphine stupor trying to take his clothes off in his room cause he was burning up from the inside out.
i wish someone had warned him off cigarettes when he was a young man. that was an agonizing thing to watch and as a man, he certainly wouldnt have liked knowing that we could all see him naked. he was a proud southern man and having us brush his teeth and do other personal hygeine things for him would have been a real humiliation.
i understand what youre saying, but my dad didnt have to die in his early 60s... another cancer, maybe, but lung cancer is mostly preventable if you dont smoke. i do now have seasonal asthma issues and lower lung capacity - although i'm healthy as a horse otherwise, there is no way to know if growing up with a smoker didnt do me some damage.
again, i'm not mad at my dad... i think in this day and age, we know what behaviors are bad for our kids and we shouldnt need the govt to tell us how to behave...
-
Seat Belt Law - Check
Helmet Law - Check
Hands Free Cell Phone Law (Starting in CA in 7/08) - Check
No Smoking in Bars and Restaurants - Check
No Smoking in your car with Kids (coming) - Check
If I gave it more thought, I could surely come up with more. No slippery slope here :thatsright:
ok, call me crazy but all of those things you mentioned saves countless lives every year. not *every* thing the govt does is bad for us as a country. i would never put my kid in a car without a seatbelt. and helmuts have definitely saved both my kids lives more than a few times - as well as my husbands' noggin riding dirt bikes.
maybe a law saying you cant smoke around kids is a bit far reaching, but ask any kid; they hate the smell of it and when they ask "hey can i do that too?" and you say, "well no, cause its bad for you cause youre a little kid" .. you really dont have much of an argument against it.
or maybe we could have a discussion about the *benefits* of smoking around kids? :-)
(i can argue both sides of this one.. )
True. Helmets and seatbelts do save lives, but nanny-statism is a slippery slope to even worse laws.