[quote="Jonathan Read"]Earl, I agree with you, but there's a difference between overprotection, and the government getting in the way of parents, and Parents who knowingly harm their children
So you'd be "ok" with it being made illegal to feed your kid McDonald's standard fare?
How about fried dough at the fair? It "ok" to make it illegal for parents to feed their kids fried dough at the fair?
no artificial sweetners or off to court with the parents? You "ok" with that too?
How about video games? Off to court with the parents that let their children play more than an hour of video games a day?
Libertarian my ass.
libertarians believe that your rights end when they infringe upon anothers...
so don't give me libertarian my ass crap
smoke for young kids can cause asthma, being in a car with smoke is not good for young kids, far worse than the other things mentioned, as i said i struggle with this one, because on the whole, i'm a huge smokers rights advocate.
artificial sweetners, especially so if in conjuction with a pork laden diet, cause cancers. They have a harmful effect on the nervous system. America is one of the few, if not the only, developed country that doesn't put a warning label on products containing what was once called NutraSweet - ever wonder why they changed the brand name?
Video games are great for making fighter pilot reaction times, really have a detrimental effect on concentration.
Eating McDonald's every day, even just for one meal, will have a far faster detrimental effect on a persons health then second hand smoke will.
If you are going to go in for banning smoking in cars or homes where children are present you have to go in for banning artificial sweetners and fast food.
So, Mr. Libertarian, where are you going to draw the line?
libertarians believe parents have a right to raise thier own children based on their own beliefs not on junk science and political correctness. Lots of kids have been exposed to second hand smoke with NO adverse effects. The same cannot be said about beatings or starvation.
libertarians also don't fall for the "its for the children" crap and they tend to be smart enough to see the long term implications of short sighted destructions of people's rights.
but you agree there is a line to be drawn, and no i'm not a full on libertarian, i disagree with them on a few key issues, but i tend to be, a leave someone alone till they harm someone else
there is a line to be drawn, where do we draw it?
Last time I went to my OB, there was some jerk smoking RIGHT OUTSIDE the door. I walked by and literally threw up right there. There was nothing I could do to stop it, and he was like "are you Ok?" and I just said that I'm pregnant, just left my OB office, and the smell of cigarettes will make me vomit and there is nothing I can do about it.
I don't mind people smoking... but I think it's really crappy and rude to smoke outside the door of doctor offices, ESPECIALLY OB offices :roll:, and I think it's really bad to smoke in an enclosed space with children.
Should there be a law? I don't think so. There are good points there about childhood obesity and while I think it's kinda crappy to let your kids get obese as well, I don't think there should be a law. I resent government involvement in people's personal lives, but I honestly don't know how anyone can defend smoking in a car with their kids. I remember my parents smoking in the car with me and it SUCKED. I couldn't breath and it smelled horrible. I ended up smoking at 13, and I am not saying that it was because my parents smoked, but stats show that children of smokers are more likely to smoke. I ended up officially quitting at 18 although I would pick up a cigarette now and then, not anymore. The very thought of it makes me feel ill. I'll probably be forever imprinted with that moment outside my OB office puking in front of a stranger and never be able to smoke again.
I don't know HOW pregnant women can smoke... physically, I don't know how they can do it. Maybe I'm the only one who will vomit at the smell of cigarettes... or maybe they are just so addicted that they will smoke and puke at the same time.
The problem with people who won't consider the possibility of anything other than evolution is that they generally want laws that circumvent evolution in man.
Either evolution works or it does not. If you believe in evolution to the exclusion of all other possibilities why would you also strive to circumvent evolution?
My answer is that great disdain should be put on folks who smoke often in small places around their children. I have no right to interfere with how someone raises their children, and you have no right to tell me how to raise mine. However, I can hold you in utter disgust and contempt for poisoning your kids lungs, and I can tell you about it.
Look at using the N***er word. Completely socially unacceptable (in most places). No law there. Folks don't use it so much because it's socially disgusting.
Can't this and the marijuana discussion be combined? Then we can talk about kids getting a contact high on the way to school.
Now see Jonathon, there is a Libertarian answer.
Do the police have the authority to intrude when they observe legal activity?
â€œIt may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satisfied; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.â€ - C. S. Lewis
the libertarian view, at least the one i like because i know they can be splintered as a group at times, is you can do whatever you want till it infringes upon someone else
your rights end where anothers begin...
the question in this case, is are you violating the childs rights, and i really don't know the answer...
Past research has shown that children whose parents smoke are more likely to have wheezing, asthma and bronchitis; sudden infant death syndrome; middle ear disease and other cognitive and behavioral problems. The July Surgeon General's Report concluded that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure.[/quote]
Jonathon, you know the difference between a Libertarian and the two major parties?
Libertarians understand that the law can't stop someone from being stupid and that the use of the force of government to attempt to do so is inherently wrong.
'Cause if you go in for this you have to go in for banning parents feeding fast food to their kids, putting their kids in new homes, putting them in rooms that have been painted in the last 3 months, letting their kids go outside in the yard unattended and a whole host of other things that would make a Libertarian cringe.
Perhaps you're not really a Libertarian? Perhaps it is a case of whatever you are has just found a temporary home in the Libertarian Party because the two major parties certainly aren't it?
All well and good. Guess the good folk of Bangor better get ready to pony up for some more law enforcement.
This is nanny state do-gooder run amok!
Guess the local property tax in the Big Town ain't high enuff!
Health fascism is so pathetic.
Check out this link from your source. They seem to have a definate slant. But running this particular story with the headline it has is especially telling.
[size=18]Banning smoking in cars goes too far[/size]
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The debate over the toxicity of secondhand smoke is over. The U.S. surgeon general has rightly warned against exposure to these noxious fumes for anybody, especially children.
It is with good intention, then, that a group of public health advocates led by a Bangor pediatric dentist want that city to ban smoking in vehicles when children are present. The logic is straightforward. Secondhand smoke hurts kids. The city should protect those children.
That is HORRIBLE! So you think the info regarding children of smokers being sicker than children of non-smokers is bunk, then?
I think we all agree that second-hand smoke is bad for children. And while no one can stop parents from smoking in the car with their kids, how many of those kids are covered by Mainecare? These irresponsible parents are using health resources paid for by working people, and THAT'S where I think we should have a say.
If it's the law that kids have to be in carseats for their own protection, what's the difference between that and trying to protect them from inhaling something that's bad for their health?
What % of time do the parents spend smoking around the kids in other places besides the car? Like the home for example. WHat are we to do about that? Might as well go the whole nine yards and call DDHS and expand that service too.
Protect the children at all costs! Sure it works, look what happened to TABOR.
Having law enforcemnt on the lookout for smoking parents has got to be the most misguided thing I have ever heard of. Guess they can do that while checking you out for Seatbelts, Wipers on in the rain, Headlights in the rain etc.etc. Every other do-gooder law that some nitwit thinks we need to protect ourselves!
Meantime, notice how many stores & business are getting knocked off everyday to support the growing drug trade here in the Pine Tree State????? How many more Mistah Speakah? How Many More?????
I don't smoke and I have a kid and I think this is the height of lunacy!
If these parents are so stupid to endanger their own children believe me this law will do nothing to protect these kids. Its a feel good deal and that's all.
holy cow, Swampy, exactly when did you quit smoking? Yesterday? :lol: I do admire a person who feels strongly about issues.
But again I say, what is the difference between this and laws that say your child must be strapped in? No, we can't protect them from carcinogens when they are in the privacy of their homes. We can't protect them from being slapped around there either, but there are laws in place so that if it happens in public someone's going to stop it.
In the meantime we can agree to disagree, I hope.
I have an interesting take on the upswing in drug-related crime. Have you ever heard of a narcotics contract? People who are receiving prescription narcotics enter into a signed contract with their healthcare provider that says they must submit to drug testing upon request of the provider. If they are found not to have the narcotic in their system that's it for their supply (from that provider anyway). I worked in a physician's office when this came into place and there were more than a few patients who suddenly needed to find another way to get narcotics.
I don't buy what that particular site is saying because they clearly have an egenda. I don't buy that second hand smoke for short periods is dangerous. there are many other factors why these kids could be sick one of which is most likely poverty.
As for second hand smoke causing SIDS, that is a horrible lie meant to further devastate already devastated families. researchers just found the first breakhrew in SIDS research. I have spoken with several doctors about the SIDS hype and they were all very disgusted by people making this claim. Smoking around kids is bad, but adding decietful guilt to the pains of a devastated family for political gain is unacceptable.
I can tell you anecdotal evidence from my past experience as a daycare worker that the children of smokers were sick A LOT more than the children of non-smokers. I don't know why it's so hard to believe, particularly when you consider the fact that most smokers don't just smoke one cigarette a day. They smoke like once an hour, and even then the smoke lingers.
(GRANTED--SOME PARENTS WHO SMOKE DO SO OUTSIDE, AWAY FROM THEIR CHILDREN, AND EITHER DON'T DO IT IN THE CAR OR THEY DO IT WITH THE WINDOWS DOWN TO MINIMIZE THEIR CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO THE SMOKE. THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. IT'S WHEN THEY KEEP THE WINDOWS UP OR THEIR DO IT RIGHT IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE KIDS ARE THAT GETS ON MY NERVES.)
It may not rise to the level of government involvement, but it certainly isn't GOOD. Furthermore, as an expectant mom, I am not going to risk doing anything to increase my baby's risk of SIDS... whether it seems to be true or not. Who would intentionally smoke around their baby knowing that there is a possibility that it could increase their child's risk of sickness and/or death?
And one more note--
When I was a little kid I was in a non-smoking home (parents didn't smoke until I was about 10) For awhile my mom brought me to a friends house for occasional baby sitting. This child's parents smoked and soon after going there I started getting chronic ear infections... until my mom stopped bringing me there. After that, the ear aches went away.
Catherine - sorry your mom smoked with you in the car when she was hooked on cigarettes. If it had been illegal at that time it might not have happened :oops: Enlightenment is a wonderful thing.
Well luckyduck I had just had my third cup of coffee this morning and after reading through this entire thread I'm sure you couldn't get a reading on my blood pressure. But then I went to work for me and the gov't of the munificent Bald One.
But, I am much more calmer now knowing that Big Brother is there for me in all seeing ways. Why just today I was told by a friend of mine whose wife works for the state in psychology that two more of the lost and huddled massess from away (TN & NH) have washed up here on our shores and by golly they are getting free health care and scripts upon arriving here in the Pine Tree (with a soft P) state. Oh and the welfare checks were waiting in the post office.
You see, life is good now, and I would daresay that if the "enlightened" ones in Bangor have there way, why Bangor will soon be all the better for it too.
Ta Ta for now.....time for my nap zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Where did this insanity start? Minority groups dictating to others on how to live in America. Yes, when this smoking assault began it was a very small minority group leading the way (a lot like prohibition), now the smoker is the lowest form of American. Now the assault on Fast Food and Suvs has commenced and soda in school is taboo. Hunters are under assault, border enforcement proponents are under assault and the very folks in charge of national security are under assault.
I don't care how you live your life, it ain't my business. I take care of my family, friends and my community so get out of my face.
I don't believe most Americans know what it means to be an American any more. Get off you soap boxes and enjoy life, if that means smoking then do it, if that means eating ice cream until you weigh 500 pounds then do it, just don't judge other folks for what they enjoy. Being an American means freedom, start to practice it and let your fellow Americans do the same.
but do we agree that second-hand smoke is bad for kids? Not just their health but by getting the message that smoking is something they should do when they grow up? If that is so, then how do we keep our kids from smoking? By not smoking around them, right?
I am also concerned about how much nicotine second-hand smoking children are getting; seems to me if they are getting nicotine it must be really hard to pay attention in school all day with a nicotine jones.
It's gross, it's disgusting... I can't argue with that. However, where do we stop? I wouldn't feed a baby Pepsi in a baby bottle, either, but I've witnessed it. How far do we go? Do we become Israel, and take them from mom and dad at a young age, and raise them in a kibbutz?