| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Smoking around kids https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1393 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Smoking around kids |
I think they should make a law that severely punishes parents who smoke in their house or their car if they have children or if they allow other people to smoke in their car or their house when children are present. I was stupid when I was in my early 20s and smoked in the house and in the car when my son was little. (I quit smoking in the house when he was 3 and came home from pre-school with a smoke-free-home pledge for me to sign.) The damage was done though and he gets bronchitis easily and every time he gets a cold and coughs, I feel bad. Plus, he comes back from his dads house every other weekend coughing and reeking of smoke. Maybe if someone had fined me or made me spend a couple of days in jail a few years ago I would have realized just how serious it was. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I believe they recently passed a law here doing just that. Don't think there was jail time involved, just a fine. Personally if there's anything that'll make me stop for good, it'll be to get knocked up. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: I believe they recently passed a law here doing just that. Don't think there was jail time involved, just a fine. I wish they would do that here, but I don't think it will ever happen. Americans get too caught up sometimes in our "rights" to a certain freedom to think about the harm it may be causing. Quote: if there's anything that'll make me stop for good, it'll be to get knocked up. Yup! That'll do it!  Of course, the trick is to not start back up again after the baby is born. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
LadyKate wrote: I wish they would do that here, but I don't think it will ever happen. Americans get too caught up sometimes in our "rights" to a certain freedom to think about the harm it may be causing. well you can still do it outside of the house, you just get in trouble if it's inside. We already suck it up and can't smoke anywhere with a roof so this is only a tad more annoying. LadyKate wrote: Yup! That'll do it! Of course, the trick is to not start back up again after the baby is born. only problem with that is one usually require 2 donors for such an operation. I have problems finding a suitable 2nd donor with enough intellegence and commitment to fit the bill. So until such time, I'll stick with my 3 a day policy =P edit. just to clarify, 3 ciggies a day, not 3 donor application reviews a day >.< |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Meh, I have a jihad going against all smoking anyway. Around kids? Anything I say on this is going to be fanatical. Smoking around kids is a horrifically bad idea. Find a new home for them with nonsmoking parents who will love the kids more than your asswipe smoking self does. Then commit yourself to a mental hospital for endangering your kids lives. See, I'm a real jerk on the topic. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smoking around kids |
We can't get people to smoke away from the hospital, they are absoulty certain they have a right to just because they are "outside" how are you going to make them not smoke in cars/vehicles they pay to use/own. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We've had this discussion before, and I seem to remember people being very...vehement about their "right" to pollute the air of their children in their homes and automobiles. I expect the same thing here, but I will go on record as saying I fully agree with penalizing someone who forces his or her child to imbibe such dangerous filth. I believe people have a right to smoke. I do not believe they have right to force it on anyone else who wishes not to breathe it. /inc arguments equating smoking around kids to breathing automobile fumes, eating fatty foods, etc... |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: Eating fatty foods, etc... It's a direct correlation. Should parents who feed unhealthy diets to their children also be criminally penalized? |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DFK! wrote: FarSky wrote: Eating fatty foods, etc... It's a direct correlation. Only in the way that supporting drunk driving laws has a direct correlation to teetotalism. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
FarSky wrote: DFK! wrote: FarSky wrote: Eating fatty foods, etc... It's a direct correlation. Only in the way that supporting drunk driving laws has a direct correlation to teetotalism. They're related, and strongly, yes. Done evading the question? |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a false equation. Fatty foods have some value, and only when taken to the extreme do they have a negative effect on the body. Second-hand smoke has no value, is always detrimental, and has no positive effects. And that's not even delving into the choice of a child to eat certain foods vs. being forced to breathe cigarette smoke. Having a "no-smoking" section of a building is like having a "no-peeing" section of a pool. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: It's a false equation. Fatty foods have some value, and only when taken to the extreme do they have a negative effect on the body. Second-hand smoke has no value, is always detrimental, and has no positive effects. Also, fatty foods are not illegal. Minors smoking cigarettes are illegal....shouldn't second hand smoke be too? |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Also, fatty foods are not illegal. Yet. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: It's a false equation. Fatty foods have some value, and only when taken to the extreme do they have a negative effect on the body. False. Farsky wrote: Second-hand smoke has no value, is always detrimental, and has no positive effects. True, false, true. Farsky wrote: And that's not even delving into the choice of a child to eat certain foods vs. being forced to breathe cigarette smoke. Having a "no-smoking" section of a building is like having a "no-peeing" section of a pool. Irrelevant. We're not talking about public areas with no smoking sections, we're talking about criminal penalties for parents who smoke around their children. Since CPS would remove those children from those parents, you're effectively advocating removing the children from those homes. I know which is more detrimental to children. Apparently you don't. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok, DFK how can you just spout off true and false without saying why? And who said anything about CPS removing children from their homes? Parents get DUIs and don't have their children removed. I don't see how you could jump to the conclusion that if there where penalties for smoking around your kids that they would automatically be removed from the home. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Was the child in the car when the DUI occurred? CPS tends to become involved when the parents are committing crimes that endanger the children directly. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Was the child in the car when the DUI occurred? CPS tends to become involved when the parents are committing crimes that endanger the children directly. Yes the child was in the car at the time. It was a dad with visitation rights, not full custody so that may be why. They didn't take away his visitation rights as far as I know. I don't see why there can't be a penalty for smoking around your kids without taking away custody. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's because children are just being used as a smokescreen. The people who cry most fervently for us to think of the children don't really care about them except as puppets to tug at the heartstrings of naive adults in order to get laws passed. As for laws penalizing people for smoking, those are simply the last resort for anti-smoking jihadists. It is not enough to persuade the majority of Americans that smoking is bad for your health. They are so self-righteous that they can't comprehend how a free-willed autonomous human being would make a different choice than they have, and find the very notion to be offensive. Since you won't make their choice, they will use the law to force it on you. Ultimately what it comes down to is a point I have made numerous times on this board: Freedom is the single most offensive concept that humanity has ever dreamed. We don't like it, and we are constantly trying to get rid of it. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The great morass of reproductive rights. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Ok, DFK how can you just spout off true and false without saying why? He's positing things that are provable or disprovable. The burden of proof in such a debate is not on me. Fatty foods only are bad in extreme? False: read any nutrition journal. Second hand smoke is always detrimental? False: understand medical risk is only related to correlation, not causation. CPS takes children from parents who violate the law? True: if the child's health is involved. The only way to ban smoking in the home is on health grounds. Therefore, endangering a child's health is child endangering on a recurring and habitual/constant basis, DUI is an acute/isolated incident. If you want penalties for smoking in the home with children, do it without infringing upon freedom: create a civil, not criminal, cause of action once kids turn 18. In other words, grew up around smoke? Sue your parents when they no longer hold your rights in stewardship. Making it a criminal action is simply small-minded. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well that sucks. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DFK! wrote: If you want penalties for smoking in the home with children, do it without infringing upon freedom: create a civil, not criminal, cause of action once kids turn 18. In other words, grew up around smoke? Sue your parents when they no longer hold your rights in stewardship. Making it a criminal action is simply small-minded. Are you being serious here? (I can never tell). Let them suffer for 18 years, and then let them take civil recourse? |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DFK! wrote: If you want penalties for smoking in the home with children, do it without infringing upon freedom I'm curious as to why exactly parents should have the freedom to smoke, but children shouldn't have the freedom to breathe freely. Abrogation of one non-intrusive freedom in order to satisfy a freedom that causes harm to others, really? Adults have a choice to put themselves in those situation. Kids don't. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
FarSky wrote: DFK! wrote: If you want penalties for smoking in the home with children, do it without infringing upon freedom I'm curious as to why exactly parents should have the freedom to smoke, but children shouldn't have the freedom to breathe freely. Abrogation of one non-intrusive freedom in order to satisfy a freedom that causes harm to others, really? Children don't hold rights, their rights are in trust. Farsky wrote: Adults have a choice to put themselves in those situation. Kids don't. True. How about this: parents can drop their kids off at the nearest foster care group home, and save us all the paperwork of the consequences of criminalizing smoking in the home? Midgen wrote: DFK! wrote: If you want penalties for smoking in the home with children, do it without infringing upon freedom: create a civil, not criminal, cause of action once kids turn 18. In other words, grew up around smoke? Sue your parents when they no longer hold your rights in stewardship. Making it a criminal action is simply small-minded. Are you being serious here? (I can never tell). Let them suffer for 18 years, and then let them take civil recourse? I'm being only partly serious. The point is that you can't criminalize smoking in the home without risking a FAR worse outcome for the children. |
|
| Author: | Gorse [ Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Smoking around kids |
Seems to me that this belongs in another forum. There's no need to let it spread to other places. Otherwise this will just become another forum for me to no go into. |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|