Smoking ban in cars

[Reanie525i]

I think we as smokers should use common sense when it comes to smoking but do not feel this is the way to go -

 

[GB]

I agree Reanie, that smokers should use common sense. The problem is that while you are a responsible person and have good common sense, there are just so many others out there who either don't know better, or don't care. They do not and will no use common sense. There are children who pay the price because of that unfortunately.

 

[Reanie525i]

GB - So sad, but true.

 

[jennyema]

I think the law show be re-written. I think it should be illegal to smoke in a car that has a child under 18 in it. If it is all adults in the car then the law should not apply. The children do need to be protected, but adults should be able to smoke in their car if they want to. .

Isn't that what she said? "My hometown in Maine is the first in our state to make smoking banned in cars that have children under age 18 in the car. "

And, that is, I believe, just how Bangor's law is written. It's fine by me.

 

[CharlieD]

Good, let them fine my father, he always smokes in the car and having my kids doesn't stop him, no matter how many times I've asked him.

 

[GB]

Isn't that what she said? "My hometown in Maine is the first in our state to make smoking banned in cars that have children under age 18 in the car. "

And, that is, I believe, just how Bangor's law is written. It's fine by me.

Thanks Jenny. You are absolutely right. I should read things a bit more carefully
Since that is the case then I am 100% behind this law.

 

[Renee Attili]

When will it end? I don't have kids, but, I think that the law makers are the last ones to make moral descisions for the population. In their world it is wrong to smoke near children but it is O.K. to get drunk and send them sexual emails. They should leave it to the parents to control the safety of their childrens enviroment

 

[CharlieD]

One doesn't exlude another. I think it's not a good idea to have anything sexual around children, but the fact that there is no law about it, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some kind of protection for children about smoking. One doesn't exlude another. And yes you are corect parents should control the safety of their kids, no matter if there is or there is not a law.

 

[Renee Attili]

But when do we say enough micro managing is enough? If we let them go long enough they will be telling us what we are and are not allowed to teach our children. Again I say let parents do the parenting

 

[GB]

Again I say let parents do the parenting

The problem is that lots of parents don't do the parenting. Look at how many parents do smoke in their cars with their children. Kids are sucking in this dangerous smoke every day.

 

[Renee Attili]

But it still is NOT the governments place to tell people how to parent. Otherwise, if that is their job, maybe they should decide on who gets the right to have children and who does not.

 

[GB]

Well we need to keep politics out of the conversation. If parents are putting their children in danger then something should be done. JMHO.

 

[jennyema]

In point of fact, the government "tells people how to parent" every day. Kids have to go to school, ride in car seats, etc.

The fact that it's the government's job to protect and promote the health and safety of children seems like a very apolitical notion to me.

 

[Andy M.]

Laws are generally written to protect against the lowest common denominator in society.

The idiots that abuse children, poison aspirin bottles in pharmacies, rob convenient stores, etc, etc, are the ones that get laws written.

If you are a responsible parent who puts a child in a car seat and doesn't smoke in its presence, laws aren't needed force you to do the right thing.

 

[suzyQ3]

In point of fact, the government "tells people how to parent" every day. Kids have to go to school, ride in car seats, etc.

The fact that it's the government's job to protect and promote the health and safety of children seems like a very apolitical notion to me.

Thanks, jennyema. You saved me from constructing a long post with your very succinct message.

I wonder whether those who are so concerned about Big Brother telling them not to fill their kids' lungs in a confined area like a car are also against being told to make sure that their kids are either in child-restraint seats or, at the appropriate age, properly belted up and against helmet laws, just to name a couple measures.

The fact is that some policies that may fee intrusive not only promote health and safety but also save society the expense incurred from not taking some action when it is deemed necessary.

As for this thread, I appreciate GB's reminders about the site's policy against political discussion. But I think that given the parent post here, any discussion will touch on the political because the debate inherently involves the nature and scope of government.

 

[skilletlicker]

Note to all forum members and administrators.

This began as a private message to GB but as much as I love this forum, I think it is being abused, and feel the need to speak out. If worst comes to worst, I have enjoyed our conversations and wish you all well.

GB, first let me say that I am not criticizing the administration or moderation of the forum. I have a question about what is allowed and what is discouraged and what is banned. Please be patient with me because these kinds of things confuse me easily.
Amber started by evenhandedly reporting a recent political event, specifically the adoption of a new ordinance in her hometown.

The original post was followed by 11 replies, most of which voiced approval or disapproval. One of the eleven was yours in which you advocated amending the law under discussion and increasing the fine for violation of other laws involving the improper butt disposal. That, it seems to me, was the most politically activist post in the thread.

The conversation then evolved into a discussion, mostly between you and Andy, about what might be the next child protective mandate logically required if the original premise was correct. This was a question I posed earlier and Andy restated without the question mark. A couple post later, I was amazed to see you admit that regulation in the home would indeed be the next logical step.

At this point, barring a retraction, the debate is over and somebody lost. No shame in that; it happens every day. Doesn't even mean the loser is necessarily wrong, just out-argued today. Better luck next time. All that's left is to discover the decorum with which the participants accept the results. No more arguments are necessary. A laugh is shared, here and there, in honor of recuctio ad absurdum.

And then rank is pulled.

OK folks this is starting to go down a political road and we all know we can't do that here. Lets try to get this back on track and just discuss the topic at hand without the politics involved. Thanks.

In the words of my NBA forum friends,

This whole thread has been about politics, but the least political posts are clearly the ones you are objecting to.

Okay I calm down and don't say anything more and think that the political discussion has been ended but lo and behold, you resume your political advocacy here and here and here. Then a relative newcomer to the forum disagrees and you bully her (him?) with,

Well we need to keep politics out of the conversation. If parents are putting their children in danger then something should be done. JMHO.

JMHO indeed! I seen nothing humble about it.

 

[amber]

It is indeed a very touchy topic not only on here, but in my hometown. I went to buy cigarettes today, and a woman that I know there mentioned this very topic today. She was obviously angry that people can no longer smoke in cars with children under 18 and she doesnt have children. I bit my tongue, nodded alot to her in respect to her thoughts, and really what more can I do? People want to smoke in cars but they will be fined here.

I really dont think children should be subjected to smoke in confined spaces such as cars. Sure as GB mentioned, there could be confined spaces in houses, but lets face it, cars are a one room vechicle people.

This woman concluded that, much like our seatbell law, the police will be adamant at first, but then will not bother pulling people over after some point in time because they have better things to do. Lets hope not because I cannot stand to see little babies and even young children belted into the back seat sucking up second hand smoke, whether or not you open the window.

I agree though, lets keep politics out of this thread, it was not my intention at all, I simply wanted to focus on smoking in cars with kids under 18 and your thoughts.

Woops, I was writing while skilletlicker was apparently, and so my post came up after I read the above statement by skilletlicker. I did indeed bring about a thread in an even-handed manner, however I now realized this type of topic can get off topic and heated, so I do apologize for setting off what I meant to be a nice even-keeled topic.

 

[TATTRAT]

I like the fact that it involves minors who have no say, but I think it is really an infringement on private rights. If you OWN the vehicle, and have paid taxes, you should be allowed to do whatever, WITHIN reason in it. What next, no smoking in your house? I dunno...

It ultimately is a smokers decision to stink there car up, and take the health risks. if the Government, FDA, ATF, and local governments are sooooo concerned about when and where a smoker can smoke, why not just ban it all together? Oh, thats right, tobacco helped found this country. Tobacco and alcohol are the LAST LEGAL vices in this country and they make too much money to prohibit.

I am NOT a smoker, but think that some of the laws are getting ridiculous. Granted, I don't like going in a bar that you can cut the smoke with a knife, or a restaurant that has a smoking section butted right up next to the non section, but that is the way it is. As a non smoker, it is my choice to move or not patronize those places, no biggie.

 

[amber]

I like the fact that it involves minors who have no say, but I think it is really an infringement on private rights. If you OWN the vehicle, and have paid taxes, you should be allowed to do whatever, WITHIN reason in it. What next, no smoking in your house? I dunno...

It ultimately is a smokers decision to stink there car up, and take the health risks. if the Government, FDA, ATF, and local governments are sooooo concerned about when and where a smoker can smoke, why not just ban it all together? Oh, thats right, tobacco helped found this country. Tobacco and alcohol are the LAST LEGAL vices in this country and they make too much money to prohibit.

I am NOT a smoker, but think that some of the laws are getting ridiculous. Granted, I don't like going in a bar that you can cut the smoke with a knife, or a restaurant that has a smoking section butted right up next to the non section, but that is the way it is. As a non smoker, it is my choice to move or not patronize those places, no biggie.

I appreciate your input, however the thread was about minors in cars, not about adults that can make decisions for themselves.

 

[GB]

skilletlicker, if you have a problem with me then you should take it to PM's. You could PM me directly or you could PM any of the other staff members. If you feel I said something in any of my posts that broke any rules then there is a report post feature next to every post that you can use as well. You already know, as you alluded to in your post, that things like this are not to be posted on the public forum.

I am closing this thread because it is obvious that politics are going to continue to be discussed no matter what. If anyone would like to discuss anything regarding the rules and what is or is not allowed then feel free to start a new thread or put it in a PM, but this thread is now closed.