Buckle Up And Butt Out

[Do_Somethin]

Sometimes common sense needs a law.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...6:g25:r3:c0:b0

[chodan9]

<----- waiting for smokers to start whining (or wheezing) about there rights being infringed LOL

[Wildtim]

Sometimes common sense needs a law.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...6:g25:r3:c0:b0

Its common sense for the government to tell you what you can do around your own children while driving your own vehicle?

Bull****!!!

This is Canada though so I shouldn't be surprised. If this type of thing ever becoms common down here I hope we have the balls to finally revolt and recreate our system of government the way it was meant to be. A limited democracy where the government had virtually no power over the day to day lives of its citizens.

[3speed]

Its common sense for the government to tell you what you can do around your own children while driving your own vehicle?

Bull****!!!

To put young children in an enclosed environment and force them to breathe second hand smoke is nothing short of abuse. Other forms of child abuse are illegal - against established laws. Why should this be any different?

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Its common sense for the government to tell you what you can do around your own children while driving your own vehicle?

Bull****!!!

This is Canada though so I shouldn't be surprised. If this type of thing ever becoms common down here I hope we have the balls to finally revolt and recreate our system of government the way it was meant to be. A limited democracy where the government had virtually no power over the day to day lives of its citizens.

x2

Next up you'll be jailed for buying your kid a 'Happy Meal'.......... (actually, I look for this to come down the pike under the "O" Administration)

Seriously, folks making their kids 'fat' is alot worse for their health than a few minutes of second hand smoke.

The inmates are running the funny farm!

[Guff]

I remember being a kid choking in our van with both of my parents puffing away. I have lung issues to this day which doctors suspect to be caused from having smoking parents.

[dbx]

Its common sense for the government to tell you what you can do around your own children while driving your own vehicle?

Bull****!!!

This is Canada though so I shouldn't be surprised. If this type of thing ever becoms common down here I hope we have the balls to finally revolt and recreate our system of government the way it was meant to be. A limited democracy where the government had virtually no power over the day to day lives of its citizens.

Agreed. And don't suppose there's a clause about having the windows rolled down and traveling at "X" mph? Just flat out...you get a ticket, eh? Bull**** indeed.

x2

Next up you'll be jailed for buying your kid a 'Happy Meal'.......... (actually, I look for this to come down the pike under the "O" Administration)

Seriously, folks making their kids 'fat' is alot worse for their health than a few minutes of second hand smoke.

The inmates are running the funny farm!

And there lies the rub; a slippery slope indeed.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that smoking in an enclosed vehicle probably isn't a good thing for your kids. But it also doesn't take a genius to know when the government's nose is bigger than it needs to be. To those of you would support this law and laws like it, F'ck all of you sanctimonious, self righteous bastards.

Sincerely,

A reformed smoker

[djl_ottawa]

x2

Next up you'll be jailed for buying your kid a 'Happy Meal'.......... (actually, I look for this to come down the pike under the "O" Administration)

Seriously, folks making their kids 'fat' is alot worse for their health than a few minutes of second hand smoke.

The inmates are running the funny farm!

totally agree! (edit: forgot to add this line oops!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rans-fats.html

Just saying. Folks are finally noticing that the crap parents are feeding their kids are what is now starting to cause Super Obesity. I never fed my kids fast food till they were about 8-9. I was in the mall this weekend and some lady was feeding 1 year old fries. WTF?

[Dad_in_KC]

Yeah I am a sanctimonious bastard because I support a law that protects the health of children - what?

I do not like laws that are intended to protect me from me, i.e. helmet laws. But when a law is passed to protect someone else from the actions of others I trust that the process will work and that we will not slip on the "slippery slope" mentioned in the previous post. And if we do slip, I trust that we will "know it when we see it" and vote out the folks who slipped.

[dbx]

Yeah I am a sanctimonious bastard because I support a law that protects the health of children - what?

I do not like laws that are intended to protect me from me, i.e. helmet laws. But when a law is passed to protect someone else from the actions of others I trust that the process will work and that we will not slip on the "slippery slope" mentioned in the previous post. And if we do slip, I trust that we will "know it when we see it" and vote out the folks who slipped.

OK, let's do it your way:

I can easily make a case for each of the following that they endanger a child;

1. Big Mac- Check!
2. Hand gun in home- Check!
3. Rifle in home - Check!
4. Lawnmower in garage - Check!
5. Table Saws in shops/garages - Check!
6. Fried Foods - Check!
7. Soft Drinks - Check!
8. Potato Chips - Check!

and on and on......... And the thing is, you'll probably laugh and dismiss each of those as ridiculous. But I can guarantee you...that any smart lawyer or lobbyist group can make a case with any of them. That is, if you want to open the door for them. I don't.

Maybe you need a warning sign on a ladder that tells you not to place it on melting ice. I don't.

[chodan9]

that slippery slope has already been greased in the US. They are called drug laws.
I am a recovering narcotics addict, yet sometimes I feel the drug laws are a bit outdated. But when you get down to it its legislating a personal choice, and its arbitrary. It isn't even based on whats more dangerous, tons of people die from alcohol poisoning every year, but I dont think there has ever been a case of marijuana overdose, "maybe a cookie dough overdose after some did some heavy toking LOL" yet which one is illegal?

[dbx]

But when you get down to it its legislating a personal choice, and its arbitrary.

Exactly!

And Dad in KC, I don't think you're an idiot or actually a sanctimonious bastard . Not at all, I don't think anyone here in their right mind would say that smoking in a car is an acceptable practice. But anyone familiar with litigation could tell you how dangerous it becomes when we try to legislate moral behavior. You can call it endangerment, someone else may call it bad judgment. But one thing is almost certain; that you can't prove that in each and every case of exposure (being subjected to smoke in close proximity) that everyone will be affected by it. And again, we didn't even determine the little things like "rolled up windows", lol. And this is largely what makes opening the door to what we all would otherwise consider to be common sense, a scary place to go. The idea of protection itself is noble...but the actually carrying out of prosecution of such is a different story.

[Dad_in_KC]

EDIT: Sent before reading DBX's last reply

Dude you made quite the illogical leap there. I said I trust the process and agree with the Ontario ban in particular - not any of the listed items. But I would not dismiss anything on your list as ridiculous as each one has application to this discussion. For example:

Hand gun/Rifle in home - I'm not a gun guy, but you are entitled to arm yourself. Leave a loaded one lying around the house when you're babysitting though and you have a problem.

Smoking (not on your list but applicable) - If you wanna light up fine, no one is stopping you. Unless you are in a public place or in an enclosed area with children.

The metaphorical door you mentioned that you do not want opened has always been open. There has been some outrageous legislation passed over the years and repealed, see prohibition and sodomy laws for examples. It's part of the whole democracy thingee.

OK, let's do it your way:

I can easily make a case for each of the following that they endanger a child;

1. Big Mac- Check!
2. Hand gun in home- Check!
3. Rifle in home - Check!
4. Lawnmower in garage - Check!
5. Table Saws in shops/garages - Check!
6. Fried Foods - Check!
7. Soft Drinks - Check!
8. Potato Chips - Check!

and on and on......... And the thing is, you'll probably laugh and dismiss each of those as ridiculous. But I can guarantee you...that any smart lawyer or lobbyist group can make a case with any of them. That is, if you want to open the door for them. I don't.

Maybe you need a warning sign on a ladder that tells you not to place it on melting ice. I don't.

[GuyJin]

Dad in KC,

I can see where you're going with this and I'll halfway agree. But the problem remains that if you start legislating what is proper moral and ethical behaviour in one area, it is very easy--and frightening in concept and scope--to legislate in another.

Most people with some common sense wouldn't smoke in their cars with their children inside--or anyone else's. Or leave guns lying around the house, or sharp instruments, or anything that could endanger a child's (or adult's) life.(Although I have to admit, a lot of people don't have common sense, but that's another story). The difficulty lies in that should the gov't start legislating this behaviour, it is a very easy thing to make laws somewhere else. Religious freedoms, school prayers, acts between consenting adults (I'll leave this to your imagination) and so on; I do not want ANY gov't telling me how I can act in the privacy of my own home/car. Once we traverse this slippery slope, it becomes increasingly harder to climb back up.

Now, you might think "Oh, well, it's for their own good." "It's not hurting anyone." "This law will help people," and so on. Maybe. But once you take away their right to act freely, then you're left with Communism or Fascism (both ends of the same continuum, so to speak). As Wesley Snipes's character so aptly put it in "Demolition Man"--"You can't take away people's rights to be a--holes."

While there is always that line that may be crossed--if it hasn't already been crossed--one needs to ask oneself where it needs to be drawn in the first place.

[chodan9]

I can honestly see both sides to this
what right minded person doesn't feel moved to want to take some sort of action to protect kids from smokers who feel that there addiction is more important than their kids health, also the law isn't aimed at those who know and do better its aimed at those who know better and still don't do better.
Still it does blur some lines, especially in the area of civil liberty.
Of course in a few years these same kids will probably file a civil suit against their parents for inflicting the second hand smoke on them, and win, maybe rightly so. Really what defense does a smoker have against that? "I didn't know" no longer cuts it.
I know many smokers who go out of their way to keep their addiction from affecting those around them.

[Deborah_Lyn]

When I was growing up, my Mom smoked like a chimney. In the car, she cracked the window. It doesn't take a big brain to just open the window a tad so the smoke goes outside rather than stay in the car.

imo - keep gov't out of the private life of the individual. But, I still don't but the 2nd hand smoke argument. I never had allergies until my tonsils were removed and our family room (where Mom smoked the most) used to have a haze present.

This is a great film btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_Y..._Smoking_(film)

[Do_Somethin]

Sometimes common sense needs a law.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...6:g25:r3:c0:b0

Its common sense for the government to tell you what you can do around your own children while driving your own vehicle?

Bull****!!!

This is Canada though so I shouldn't be surprised. If this type of thing ever becoms common down here I hope we have the balls to finally revolt and recreate our system of government the way it was meant to be. A limited democracy where the government had virtually no power over the day to day lives of its citizens.

So a person's drug addiction (nicotine) is more important than a child's health breathing in something that will cause severe health problems and potentially kill them?
Revolt? Just so you have the right to murder children? Don't sugarcoat it because that's exactly what it is.
That... is bull****.

To put young children in an enclosed environment and force them to breathe second hand smoke is nothing short of abuse. Other forms of child abuse are illegal - against established laws. Why should this be any different?

A point lost on some people...

x2

Next up you'll be jailed for buying your kid a 'Happy Meal'.......... (actually, I look for this to come down the pike under the "O" Administration)

Seriously, folks making their kids 'fat' is alot worse for their health than a few minutes of second hand smoke.

The inmates are running the funny farm!

Agreed. And don't suppose there's a clause about having the windows rolled down and traveling at "X" mph? Just flat out...you get a ticket, eh? Bull**** indeed.



And there lies the rub; a slippery slope indeed.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that smoking in an enclosed vehicle probably isn't a good thing for your kids. But it also doesn't take a genius to know when the government's nose is bigger than it needs to be. To those of you would support this law and laws like it, F'ck all of you sanctimonious, self righteous bastards.

Sincerely,

A reformed smoker

Yeah I am a sanctimonious bastard because I support a law that protects the health of children - what?

I do not like laws that are intended to protect me from me, i.e. helmet laws. But when a law is passed to protect someone else from the actions of others I trust that the process will work and that we will not slip on the "slippery slope" mentioned in the previous post. And if we do slip, I trust that we will "know it when we see it" and vote out the folks who slipped.

Addictions are addictions and sometimes people will defend those regardless of how defenseless the victim is. What can you do?

When I was growing up, my Mom smoked like a chimney. In the car, she cracked the window. It doesn't take a big brain to just open the window a tad so the smoke goes outside rather than stay in the car.

imo - keep gov't out of the private life of the individual. But, I still don't but the 2nd hand smoke argument. I never had allergies until my tonsils were removed and our family room (where Mom smoked the most) used to have a haze present.

This is a great film btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_Y..._Smoking_(film)

It doesn't "take a brain" to see that rolling down the window doesn't work. Read the article and it's quite plain.
Surprised and disappointed that people on this board are defending smoking.

[Deborah_Lyn]

It doesn't "take a brain" to see that rolling down the window doesn't work. Read the article and it's quite plain.
Surprised and disappointed that people on this board are defending smoking.

I only related what I LIVED with an extreme smoker as a parent- about 3 packs a day.

Not every smoker gets cancer and grant money (or any study imo) is highly suspect to promote an agenda, a soft form of social engineering. (Don't even get me started on global warming a.k.a. now 'climate change' as they want to call it now that temps have been cooling. It's all a big spin with the powers that be and PR firms.)

I'm a Libertarian. imo - the gov't can NEVER do anything better than private industry and I don't trust bureacrates as they are rarely ever held accountable. People are sheep for the most part and surrend their civil rights in order to 'feel' safe.

The movie is hilarious btw, the smoking/cigarette aspect is just to highlight the hypocracy that goes on.

FYI: My Mom only quit smoking after she slipped into a semi-coma brought on by on set of diabetes. I smoked less than a pack every year (usually when out drinking socially) until I got asthma when working out after a nasty URI when I was 26 years old. I don't like what it does to my lung capacity, so I don't smoke. It never became an addiction for me, but I sympathize for people that do smoke and are treated like lepers.

The general public needs to mind their own business and focus on real issues like homelessness, hunger and those out of work. But, this is imo a social engineering thing to control behavior, hence my disdain for it and response.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Folks, if you can't see that the ultimate end result of this intrusion into your personal rights is you being left to consume your nutrition from a tube of government issued nutritional paste........... well I'm sorry.

There should be a revolt......... against the knot headed politicians that are trying to wrench control of our every move from us.

I'm opposed to all smoking ordinances and laws, and this comes from a guy whose family suffers from asthma. If a bar is smoky, we don't go there.... simple enough.

[uncleroman]

good, some parents need to go jail for that. my trashy neighbors kid comes over here reaking of cigarette smoke. and as far as smoking on planes, restaurants and bars im glad it is being banned. smoking is not allowed in bars and restaurants in houston but it is here and its horrible. smokers should have to wear a space suit type thing. your gonna need one sooner or later anyway when enfesima{sp} aand cancer set in.

[chodan9]

It doesn't "take a brain" to see that rolling down the window doesn't work. Read the article and it's quite plain.
Surprised and disappointed that people on this board are defending smoking.

I don't think I read any posts defending smoking,

[Old-Time-Lifter]

I don't think I read any posts defending smoking,

Correct, it's a matter of personal liberties.

Smoking is no doubt bad for one's health. I wish everyone had the common sense to give it up. HOWEVER, I'm opposed to the government stepping in and playing mommy and daddy to the masses........ it will not end well.

Think about this folks, there are studies that link weight lifting to heart troubles, do you want the government to ban all weight training?

Do not start down that slippery slope........ we have already taken steps down it, now is the time to back track not move farther into the mire!

[wide lats]

totally agree! (edit: forgot to add this line oops!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rans-fats.html

Just saying. Folks are finally noticing that the crap parents are feeding their kids are what is now starting to cause Super Obesity. I never fed my kids fast food till they were about 8-9. I was in the mall this weekend and some lady was feeding 1 year old fries. WTF?

Funny you mention that, i watched a programme on T.V. about a 19 yr old guy who weighed half a ton!! You should of heard the crap his mom talked, like she was talking to a 2 yr old "Hi honey, mommas puttin on some fries now, you hungry sweetie?" WTF??? Who in hell talks like that, i blame the parents living a apple pie lifestyle and not seeing what they are doing to their kids.

[uncleroman]

Correct, it's a matter of personal liberties.

Smoking is no doubt bad for one's health. I wish everyone had the common sense to give it up. HOWEVER, I'm opposed to the government stepping in and playing mommy and daddy to the masses........ it will not end well.

Think about this folks, there are studies that link weight lifting to heart troubles, do you want the government to ban all weight training?

Do not start down that slippery slope........ we have already taken steps down it, now is the time to back track not move farther into the mire!

wouldnt that be more like me forcing my 3 year old to weight lift?

[ASWEDE]

Correct, it's a matter of personal liberties.

Smoking is no doubt bad for one's health. I wish everyone had the common sense to give it up. HOWEVER, I'm opposed to the government stepping in and playing mommy and daddy to the masses........ it will not end well.

Think about this folks, there are studies that link weight lifting to heart troubles, do you want the government to ban all weight training?

Do not start down that slippery slope........ we have already taken steps down it, now is the time to back track not move farther into the mire!

This. I don't smoke. It's a bad habit. I won't defend smoking but the govt. is the one that needs to butt out. Pretty soon they'll be telling us not to pass gas because of the environment implications.

[GuyJin]

Tell you what, Joe (Do Something),

Next time the Cdn. gov't passes an idiotic law like this, ask yourself: "What's next?"

As a former smoker myself, I'm well aware of how annoying the act can be; I'm also aware of the possible consequences not only for myself and for those around me. And I see nothing wrong with individuals taking it upon themselves to keep their homes smoke/alcohol/drug and dangerous implement/dangerous firearm free if they so choose. An ounce of common sense preventing a pound of idiocy and all that...

However, there is a big difference between making the choice onself and having it thrust upon you. While YOU may not see your freedoms steadily eroded, others have. It is only logical that the gov't will make further intrusions upon your life. Education--what may or may not be taught. Religion: Should one be forced to say the Lord's Prayer in school or at least forced to stand up for it? In my day, it was mandatory in Toronto (I don't know about now), and I got suspended a few times for refusing. However, iit was policy among the Board of Education and it was for my own "spiritual" good--says who.

Laws like these make a mockery of the democratic process, and in doing so, pave the way for a whole host of other restrictions. The whole thing should be left to the individual to opt for what's best within the limits of common sense; I do not want anyone telling me how to run my life.

[StressMonkey]

Funny you mention that, i watched a programme on T.V. about a 19 yr old guy who weighed half a ton!! You should of heard the crap his mom talked, like she was talking to a 2 yr old "Hi honey, mommas puttin on some fries now, you hungry sweetie?" WTF??? Who in hell talks like that, i blame the parents living a apple pie lifestyle and not seeing what they are doing to their kids.

That show was "Half Ton Teen". That mom really disturbed me.

[Tyrbolift]

It's actually more risk to have kids in a car subject to an accident than what second smoke would or will do. Therefore, anyone that takes a kid anywhere in a car should be fined and jailed.

I hear that many children drown in 5 gallons buckets filled with water every year. Filling buckets around kids should therefore be illegal. So should filling a bathtub.

I've heard of kids being killed by bears and mountain lions in the wild. Therefore, taking kids camping should be illegal.

[jellodirt]

<----- waiting for smokers to start whining (or wheezing) about there rights being infringed LOL

Nobody complains about the revenue that tobacco users pay in taxes every year. I agree people shouldn't smoke in their homes or in their vehicles but it's not for the government to decide.

[thepainter5]

When my niece was first born everyone on my ex's side smoked. This smoke affected my neice to the point that she ended up in the hospital. The inlaws and my ex were told that they could not smoke around the niece, not in the house, not in the car, not around her at all.
At first they all smoked outside because they loved Jenn and it was best for her. Then winter came and it was too miserable outside so if they smoked by the patio door with it cracked open just a bit it would be okay. That lasted for a while but it was so damn inconvient to watch tv. Before long they took up just smoking in the house and car, where ever they needed to. The solution to Jenn's coughing was simple, don't take her to the doctor.
Jenn is older and yes she survived through the ordeal. Hell she even smokes now, even around her own young daughter. Jenn isn't healthy by any stretch but she does pay taxes on her cigarettes.
My mom has smoked all of her life. She lost my step-father to lung cancer 18 months ago and last year she was in the hospital four times because her lungs are growing very weak from her smoking. She was released yesterday with an air tank which she wouldn't have gotten if she had not agreed to stop smoking. Mom now wants to breath better but it took 5 hospital stays and 60 years of smoking to get to that point.
My ex has always smoked and she never cared where or when. After all no one was going to tell her she didn't have the right to smoke.
The moral of these stories is that my personal opinion of "most" smokers is that they are arrogant, inconsiderate, selfish and ignorant to think that they have a right to "pollute" the air of those who choose to not smoke. If it takes laws the get the air cleaned up for those unable to stand up for themselves, then where do I get my badge to enforce those laws?