04 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf statistics' purpose is solely to manipulate, wouldn't somebody have already found a correlation between being a first responder to the WTC on 9/11 and having developed cancer?
I equate stats such as these with man made global warming stats. Its the same ol same ol. The liberals pick something to demonize and then run with it. More laws, more laws, give more and more power to the government and less and less freedom for the people.
What is it about those second-hand-smoke statistics that you find disputable, anyway?
04 Aug 11
2 edits
I'm not convinced the law is unreasonable. A child could go outside or to another room when he and his parent are at home to avoid the second-hand smoke; a car as a confined space is pretty much a direct exposure to second-hand smoke (and I know from experience that rolling down the windows doesn't help worth a flip). One thing I would want to know is whether the law applies as a primary or as a secondary offense; i.e., can a policeman stop a car on the road if he sees a parent smoking in the presence of children, or if the policeman stops a car for speeding, and then walks up to the car afterward and sees the parent smoking, only then could he tack on the penalty for smoking in the presence of a child?
On a different note, I definitely have no qualms with any and all health agencies continuing to run aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaLong as you and all your like minded buds are paying for them and not forcing your views on others (i.e. not making them contribute to your propaganda), go for it.
On a different note, I definitely have no qualms with any and all health agencies continuing to run aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194040
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, we do agree that child welfare is the state's business, and that children are not merely chattel without independent rights. We know that parents are not allowed to starve, neglect, or severely beat a child. We know they aren't allowed to endanger the child, to a certain extent.
Arkansas currently has a law that prohibits smoking in the car with very young children. The law has been extended to include children under 14 years of age, claiming that it will spare children from secondhand smoke. The law includes all children, even one’s own. There is a $25 fine. IN California, the fine is $100.
[b]The debate :
Is ...[text shortened]... differ from a child seat law or a helmet law? Bottom line, is it any of the state’s business?[/b]
So the question has to be posed, like many other issues of liberty and balancing individual rights with collective interests - what is the degree of risk to the child as weighed against the level of intrusion to freedom.
If a child is fed too much fast food, I don't believe it's a state matter. However, if the sole diet is twinkies and the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, severe health detriment as the result, it may be a state matter.
Does second hand smoke present a danger serious enough to warrant state intervention? I don't have enough information.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonPersonally, I think they should ban all cars in Arkansas, but that's just me. Do we really want Jethro driving around that monster truck?
Arkansas currently has a law that prohibits smoking in the car with very young children. The law has been extended to include children under 14 years of age, claiming that it will spare children from secondhand smoke. The law includes all children, even one’s own. There is a $25 fine. IN California, the fine is $100.
[b]The debate :
Is ...[text shortened]... differ from a child seat law or a helmet law? Bottom line, is it any of the state’s business?[/b]
As for smoking in Arkansas, that is pretty much all there is to do there isn't it?
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by utherpendragonI don't know. I think lighting something on fire while driving a car is kind of retarded to begin with, but that's just me.
Arkansas currently has a law that prohibits smoking in the car with very young children. The law has been extended to include children under 14 years of age, claiming that it will spare children from secondhand smoke. The law includes all children, even one’s own. There is a $25 fine. IN California, the fine is $100.
[b]The debate :
Is ...[text shortened]... differ from a child seat law or a helmet law? Bottom line, is it any of the state’s business?[/b]