Let the whining begin!

What an awful law! And they should make drunk driving with children in the car legal too - durn nanny state.

To be fair then they should also make cell phone use, radios, drinking anything and talking to other humans in the car illegal too. You are supposed to be driving.

\How many laws to we really need?

Soon enough, no smoking in your home if you have children. It might hurt the precious darlings.

How long before they start legislating your morality in front of the snowflakes? Oh, you can't have sex outside of marriage if you've got children; they'll be scarred! You can't drink alcohol if you have children - they'll get the wrong idea! You can't watch TV if you have children - they won't learn the right lessons about active service! And on and on...

There's no justification for nanny state laws like this. You can't legislate a risk-free society.

OK, let's get this out of the way. Pyridine is a carcinogenic liquid compound that has one of the worst smells you can possibly imagine. I (a purely hypothetical narrator) nonetheless happen to be a fan of this particular scent, and thus enjoy carrying an open jar of pyridine wherever I go. Since this is not illegal, therefore I have the right to

1) Hang out in bars and restaurants, where non-pyridine-huffers (like nonsmokers, a significant majority of the population) have to endure the delightful odor while eating and/or drinking

2) Impose the pyridine vapors on the developing lungs of my own or other people's offspring in enclosed spaces, such as my home or car.

Right, smokers?

But they can still "light up" while sealing, right?

Born to Die: OK, let's get this out of the way. Pyridine is a carcinogenic liquid compound that has one of the worst smells you can possibly imagine. I (a purely hypothetical narrator) nonetheless happen to be a fan of this particular scent, and thus enjoy carrying an open jar of pyridine wherever I go. Since this is not illegal, therefore I have the right to

1) Hang out in bars and restaurants, where non-pyridine-huffers (like nonsmokers, a significant majority of the population) have to endure the delightful odor while eating and/or drinking

2) Impose the pyridine vapors on the developing lungs of my own or other people's offspring in enclosed spaces, such as my home or car.

Right, smokers?

What people do on their own private property is really none of your business. If you don't like what they allow on their property, you have every right not to be there. Keep your values and morals to yourself and stop trying to force them on others.

mmm... pancake:
What people do on their own private property is really none of your business. If you don't like what they allow on their property, you have every right not to be there. Keep your values and morals to yourself and stop trying to force them on others.

Excellent. So any kind of child abuse, from exposure to toxic chemicals to severe beating to rape, is OK as long as it is on your private property? Where do you draw the line?

/Yes I know I'm mid-strawman here, but I do like tweaking the lib(ertarian)tards whenever I can.

Born to Die: mmm... pancake:
What people do on their own private property is really none of your business. If you don't like what they allow on their property, you have every right not to be there. Keep your values and morals to yourself and stop trying to force them on others.

Excellent. So any kind of child abuse, from exposure to toxic chemicals to severe beating to rape, is OK as long as it is on your private property? Where do you draw the line?

/Yes I know I'm mid-strawman here, but I do like tweaking the lib(ertarian)tards whenever I can.

I, like most rational people, draw the line at harm.

mmm... pancake:
I, like most rational people, draw the line at harm.

My point exactly. Exposure to secondhand smoke at close quarters is harmful to children.

/grew up in a smoking household
//asthmatic

Born to Die: My point exactly. Exposure to secondhand smoke at close quarters is harmful to children.

No, it's potentially harmful. It may lead to an increased risk of harm. You're trying to legislate against possible risk as opposed to actual harm.

/grew up in smoking household too
//not asthmatic

I'll probably get flamed for this, but here's a novel idea:

What if we stop letting people have children, and instead let the 'creation' of new citizens be a government function. Rather than depend on people to take care of, teach, and otherwise continue society, we guarantee all children are provided with the same education, upbringing, and opportunity for success when they reach adulthood. Of course, we'd have to separate people into psuedo classes, because we all know the world needs ditchdiggers too. The indoctrination and training of the lesser individuals would be such that they wouldn't know any better, and therefore would not be upset that they're going to spend their entire life at the bottom of the ladder. It would eliminate poverty, overcrowding, depression, and poor genes from being passed on from generation to generation.

It's the future, and it's coming more quickly than you think. Huxley knew what he was talking about.

mmm... pancake: Born to Die: OK, let's get this out of the way. Pyridine is a carcinogenic liquid compound that has one of the worst smells you can possibly imagine. I (a purely hypothetical narrator) nonetheless happen to be a fan of this particular scent, and thus enjoy carrying an open jar of pyridine wherever I go. Since this is not illegal, therefore I have the right to

1) Hang out in bars and restaurants, where non-pyridine-huffers (like nonsmokers, a significant majority of the population) have to endure the delightful odor while eating and/or drinking

2) Impose the pyridine vapors on the developing lungs of my own or other people's offspring in enclosed spaces, such as my home or car.

Right, smokers?

What people do on their own private property is really none of your business. If you don't like what they allow on their property, you have every right not to be there. Keep your values and morals to yourself and stop trying to force them on others.

So, people have the right to injure their children any way they like if they are in their own homes?

In principle... I don't think smoking should be banned on private property.

In practice... I hate being around smokers, and I've got a big smile on my face if there are more smoke-free places for me to go to.

/but the existence of a smokey bar doesn't bother me

Wanna hold my hand while I cross the street too, subby 'cause something BAD might happen if you don't.

It's not like Canadians have any of those pesky "rights" anyway.

mmm... pancake: Born to Die: My point exactly. Exposure to secondhand smoke at close quarters is harmful to children.

No, it's potentially harmful. It may lead to an increased risk of harm. You're trying to legislate against possible risk as opposed to actual harm.


No, it IS harmful. No ifs, ands, or buts. HOW harmful it is depends on each individual and their experiences with it. Just because you have no expressed conditions from it, doesn't mean there has been no harm done to you.

mmm... pancake: No, it's potentially harmful.

BZZZT. Thanks for playing.

Unless you now want to classify lung damage as only "potentially harmful"



/Put out the damned cig until you get to wherever you're going/a rest stop
//Selfish prick

idsfa

Put out the damned cig until you get to wherever you're going/a rest stop

Then you'd seek to ban it there.

moralpanic: No, it IS harmful. No ifs, ands, or buts. HOW harmful it is depends on each individual and their experiences with it. Just because you have no expressed conditions from it, doesn't mean there has been no harm done to you.


That's exactly what it means. There should be significant, identifiable harm for the Government to step in and regulate legal behavior of the citizens.

idsfa

So when will the state start mandating parental eating habits? Obesity is now, after all, the greatest cause of death in america (not sure about up here).

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/474966

We know for a fact that eating habits are handed down from parent o child. Shouldn't the government also regulate intake of fats and sugars? I see fat ass kids all the time who's parents can't say "no, you can't have that candy" and my taxes have to pay for their health care.

When will the madness end? It's time to ban unhealthy eating, for the children. We also need to force parents to lead an active lifestyle, as lazy, tv addicted parents are likely to raise equally lazy children.

"The most striking finding was the substantial increase in the number of estimated deaths attributable to poor diet and physical inactivity," the researchers wrote. "The gap between deaths due to poor diet and physical inactivity and those due to smoking has narrowed substantially." They warned, "It is clear that if the increasing trend of overweight is not reversed over the next few years, poor diet and physical inactivity will likely overtake tobacco as the leading preventable cause of mortality." The researchers called for interventions to prevent and increase smoking cessation rates, improve diet, and increase physical activity to "become much higher priorities in the public health and health care systems."

mmm... pancake

So diet and exrecise then, right? We know that a poor diet and lack of physical activity is harmful, no if's and's or buts.

mmm... pancake: moralpanic: No, it IS harmful. No ifs, ands, or buts. HOW harmful it is depends on each individual and their experiences with it. Just because you have no expressed conditions from it, doesn't mean there has been no harm done to you.


That's exactly what it means. There should be significant, identifiable harm for the Government to step in and regulate legal behavior of the citizens.

Unfortunately, children don't get to choose where they live or what they grow up around. The law is meant to protect them from unfit parents (such as yourself) who don't realize that when you become a parent, you no longer have the freedom to do whatever you want. For every action you take, you have to take into account the repercussions it will have on both yourself AND your child.

/Please proceed to the nearest clinic providing vasectomy services

idsfa: mmm... pancake: No, it's potentially harmful.

BZZZT. Thanks for playing.

Unless you now want to classify lung damage as only "potentially harmful"

/Put out the damned cig until you get to wherever you're going/a rest stop
//Selfish prick

That study offers no proof that it will manifest itself into ANY medical condition down the road. None whatsoever. You're attempting to legislate against potential risk rather than actual harm. Stop being such a busybody. We should be erring on the side of liberty not fascism.

/non-smoker
//dumbass

SweetJ

Unfortunately, children don't get to choose where they live or what they grow up around. The law is meant to protect them from unfit parents (such as yourself) who don't realize that when you become a parent, you no longer have the freedom to do whatever you want.

Right, like unfit parents who raise fat lazy kids, right?

It's basically the same thing, isn't it? When you become a parent you should lose the right to choose your own diet, because fat parents raise fat kids who live their life like a fat, lazy person.

sorry above post labeled for mmm...pancake is actually for moralpanic

SweetJ: Unfortunately, children don't get to choose where they live or what they grow up around. The law is meant to protect them from unfit parents (such as yourself) who don't realize that when you become a parent, you no longer have the freedom to do whatever you want. For every action you take, you have to take into account the repercussions it will have on both yourself AND your child.

It's none of your business. Butt out. Stop involving yourself in other people's farking business. I swear, folks like you are the biggest threat that peaceful citizens face with regards to individual liberty. You try to eliminate every single form of risk no matter how small out there with no regard for individual rights. You are the worst form of utopian asshat.

BoozePenguin: SweetJ

Unfortunately, children don't get to choose where they live or what they grow up around. The law is meant to protect them from unfit parents (such as yourself) who don't realize that when you become a parent, you no longer have the freedom to do whatever you want.

Right, like unfit parents who raise fat lazy kids, right?

It's basically the same thing, isn't it? When you become a parent you should lose the right to choose your own diet, because fat parents raise fat kids who live their life like a fat, lazy person.

No, that's completely different. The difference is that secondhand smoke is not something you control, you breathe it in. The child is CHOOSING to eat more than what they need.

The only way that argument would even be remotely related to what we're talking about, is if the children were being force fed.

SweetJ

What are you talking about? Children don't drive themselves to sports activities - they don't buy the food sitting around in their house. I know plenty of unfit parents who don't make healthy food available and who don't make physical activity available either.

Fat parents raise fat kids by limiting their childs opportunity to live a healthy life. Tell me did you do the grocery shopping when you were 6?

mmm... pancake: SweetJ: Unfortunately, children don't get to choose where they live or what they grow up around. The law is meant to protect them from unfit parents (such as yourself) who don't realize that when you become a parent, you no longer have the freedom to do whatever you want. For every action you take, you have to take into account the repercussions it will have on both yourself AND your child.

It's none of your business. Butt out. Stop involving yourself in other people's farking business. I swear, folks like you are the biggest threat that peaceful citizens face with regards to individual liberty. You try to eliminate every single form of risk no matter how small out there with no regard for individual rights. You are the worst form of utopian asshat.

We're talking about people force feeding tobacco to their kids, not your right to drink beer and watch nascar with your NRA buddies.

You need to draw a line somewhere.

SweetJ

And if a parent doesn't buy vegetables then the child has been forced to miss out on his 5 servings a day.

Fat ass parents who buy junk food instead of fresh food are harming their child's health.

If you want to ban parents smoking around kids you must want to control the food parents make available to their children.

It's only logical. Isn't it?

SweetJ: We're talking about people force feeding tobacco to their kids, not your right to drink beer and watch nascar with your NRA buddies.

You need to draw a line somewhere.

We're talking about an activity that at the very most may increase the risk of something bad happening later. Is it your contention that we should legislate away ALL activities that may increase the risk of something bad happening?

You're nanny stater plain and simple.

BoozePenguin: SweetJ

What are you talking about? Children don't drive themselves to sports activities - they don't buy the food sitting around in their house. I know plenty of unfit parents who don't make healthy food available and who don't make physical activity available either.

Fat parents raise fat kids by limiting their childs opportunity to live a healthy life. Tell me did you do the grocery shopping when you were 6?

They don't make physical activity available? You mean they lock the children indoors? Shackle them to the floor? They don't buy healthy food either? Just buckets of lard and processed cheese?

Sounds like you should be calling child services on these people.

SweetJ

Seriously did you buy the groceries when you were 6? Sign yourself up for sports?

If so you must have been one hell of a mature 6 year old.

The very act of riding in a car is infinitely more dangerous than being exposed to second-hand smoke in the car.

SweetJ

Chips, twinkies. Refined carbohydrates. Not enough vegetables.

And as far as physical activity, by allowing the child to watch hours of tv a night. They don't make boundaries.

You think children should be taken away from fat parents?

mmm... pancake: SweetJ: We're talking about people force feeding tobacco to their kids, not your right to drink beer and watch nascar with your NRA buddies.

You need to draw a line somewhere.

We're talking about an activity that at the very most may increase the risk of something bad happening later. Is it your contention that we should legislate away ALL activities that may increase the risk of something bad happening?

You're nanny stater plain and simple.

I never said anything about banning ALL activities. This is one thing, known to cause lung cancer, that is easily avoidable. In fact, it's simple common sense. Do you share your vodka with a toddler? How bout your crack? Then why tobacco?


BoozePenguin: SweetJ

And if a parent doesn't buy vegetables then the child has been forced to miss out on his 5 servings a day.

Fat ass parents who buy junk food instead of fresh food are harming their child's health.

If you want to ban parents smoking around kids you must want to control the food parents make available to their children.

It's only logical. Isn't it?

No, it's not logical. You're just making a very poor strawman argument.

BoozePenguin: And as far as physical activity, by allowing the child to watch hours of tv a night. They don't make boundaries.

OMG. Watching too much TV may hurt their eyes. I think I know what the solution is.

BoozePenguin: You think children should be taken away from fat parents?

I still hold that my post at 07:05:59 PM describes perfectly the end game of all of this 'protect the children' crap.

BoozePenguin: SweetJ

Chips, twinkies. Refined carbohydrates. Not enough vegetables.

And as far as physical activity, by allowing the child to watch hours of tv a night. They don't make boundaries.

You think children should be taken away from fat parents?

Ok, so you're saying that these people should be making boundaries for their children to keep them healthy, while at the same time condemning me for putting boundaries on PARENTS to keep their children healthy, and yet you're calling me a nanny stater?

mmm... pancake: The very act of riding in a car is infinitely more dangerous than being exposed to second-hand smoke in the car.

I'd like to see your numbers on that one.

SweetJ

No, it's not, answer my question. You've purposely ignored my core argument.

Children don't select the food they eat anymore then they select the air they breath when their parent smokes. If you believe the state should remove the potential harm to the child being forced on them by their parents,t hen you must recognize that children don't select the food their parents buy either.

unless you did the food shopping at 6? Seriously, i want to know. DId you select the food you ate when you were a kid?

SweetJ

No i'm against eh state forcing these boundaries on them. I don't support the state dictating diet any more then i agree with the state dictating smoking habits.

I just think if you want the state to control parents smoking around children you should agree with the state dictating lifestyle for the same reason, as obesity now causes more deaths in the US then smoking does, making it a greater risk.

BoozePenguin: unless you did the food shopping at 6? Seriously, i want to know. DId you select the food you ate when you were a kid?

We don't trust children to make decisions regarding sexual activity; why would we trust them to their health otherwise?

SweetJ: I never said anything about banning ALL activities. This is one thing, known to cause lung cancer, that is easily avoidable. In fact, it's simple common sense. Do you share your vodka with a toddler? How bout your crack? Then why tobacco?

Second-hand smoke may lead to a slight increase in risk for health issues. That is not harm. A child who has a sip of a vodka/OJ isn't going to die or get cirrhosis of the liver.

Shaggy_C

We shouldn't. I'm just extending the logic of the smoking ban argument, since it's all based on health concerns.

It's the parents responsibility, not the states.

SweetJ: I'd like to see your numbers on that one.

Odds of being killed in a car crash - 1 in 5000

I can't find the odds of being killed by second-hand smoke. Imagine that.

BoozePenguin: SweetJ

No, it's not, answer my question. You've purposely ignored my core argument.

Children don't select the food they eat anymore then they select the air they breath when their parent smokes. If you believe the state should remove the potential harm to the child being forced on them by their parents,t hen you must recognize that children don't select the food their parents buy either.

unless you did the food shopping at 6? Seriously, i want to know. DId you select the food you ate when you were a kid?

No, I can honestly say I never went shopping when I was 6, but you're making a ridiculous strawman argument here.

So since you don't think parents shouldn't be allowed to smoke near their children, you must obviously support parents also sharing their heroine needles with their kids?

SweetJ

Heroin is illegal. Tobacco is not. And children under 18 can't smoke.

No, I can honestly say I never went shopping when I was 6, but you're making a ridiculous strawman argument here.

So if your mom brought home junk food she would be forcing obesity on you. Obesity, the number one reason for loss of life in the united states.

Right?

SweetJ: So since you don't think parents shouldn't be allowed to smoke near their children, you must obviously support parents also sharing their heroine needles with their kids?

I don't support parents who smoke in the car with their kid so why would I support that?