Smoking (house, school, camps)

[moneill]

If when I ate a bag of chips -- you got heart disease -- then they should regulate the consumption of chips.

[c99]

Originally Posted by moneill

If when I ate a bag of chips -- you got heart disease -- then they should regulate the consumption of chips.

Good point.

As an aside, my food tax statement was meant to be 'tongue-in-cheek'. Guess I should have put a smiley in that part of the post.

[moneill]

It's a slippery slope.

You do know that some places have banned smoking in cars with kids in them. Seems ridiculous to me but you know some people don't get that you can't smoke in a confined space like that with children. I knew someone who smoked in her car with her newborn. You would pick him up -- nuzzle him and all you would get is that nicotine smell. YUCK and I can't imagine the damage to the kid.

What do we do with idiots like that. Social pressure isn't enough.....so do you just let them and let the kids suffer.......what's the solution if you don't legislate it.

[Chromekitty]

Originally Posted by moneill

It's a slippery slope.

You do know that some places have banned smoking in cars with kids in them. Seems ridiculous to me but you know some people don't get that you can't smoke in a confined space like that with children. I knew someone who smoked in her car with her newborn. You would pick him up -- nuzzle him and all you would get is that nicotine smell. YUCK and I can't imagine the damage to the kid.

What do we do with idiots like that. Social pressure isn't enough.....so do you just let them and let the kids suffer.......what's the solution if you don't legislate it.

Like OTC says...
the government has no place whatsoever putting .02 in there.

It is the individuals car, that they pay for and or own. It is their child and it is their right to smoke.

Again, if you want to use that logic then let's implement a sin tax. To include alcohol, obesity, and the like. Then let's regulate cell phone use as well. Alcohol and cell phone use while driving are more of a killer than cig smoke ever will be.

People have smoked for years and years. One no one has the guts to see or publicly admit is, that up until the government stepped in and tried to *regulate* cigarettes, that it when people started dying from it and being harmed.

What is so sad is that individuals are more on a band wagon about smoking that the REAL issues of this country. Illegal immigration, children in the schools that can't read and write and the tax payer dollars that it takes to keep them up. The out-sourcing and off-shoring of jobs. The list goes on and on....

If you are going to take up a cause take up a real one and stop worrying about who is lighting up. It isn't going to change and no one will ever stop it.

[ohioaninsc]

Those that argue against smoking bans and higher taxes on cigarettes are being ignorant...it's simple, 2nd Hand Smoke affectst the health and well being of anyone around it...you try and argue that drinking and driving is more dangerous, and your right it is, and that is why it's agaist the law, and SC has just strengthened the penalties for breaking that law. If you want to tax alcohol more, fine by me, same w/ if you want to tax fast food or unhealthy food. All these vices end up costing all of us b/c of the health consequences everyone endures...the bottom line though in support of a smoking ban is that employers have to provide a safe working environment for their employees, and a place that allows smoking inside is not a safe environment...2nd Hand Smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other ailments. In fact, it's even worse b/c the smoke drifting off a cigarette doesn't go through a filter like it does when you inhale it.

[Capo]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

Those that argue against smoking bans and higher taxes on cigarettes are being ignorant...it's simple, 2nd Hand Smoke affectst the health and well being of anyone around it...you try and argue that drinking and driving is more dangerous, and your right it is, and that is why it's agaist the law, and SC has just strengthened the penalties for breaking that law. If you want to tax alcohol more, fine by me, same w/ if you want to tax fast food or unhealthy food. All these vices end up costing all of us b/c of the health consequences everyone endures...the bottom line though in support of a smoking ban is that employers have to provide a safe working environment for their employees, and a place that allows smoking inside is not a safe environment...2nd Hand Smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other ailments. In fact, it's even worse b/c the smoke drifting off a cigarette doesn't go through a filter like it does when you inhale it.

I tend to agree.

Smokers should be free to do what they want to themselves when in private. However, when it effects the public - such as at restaurants, public places, etc. then smokers are impeding on the individual rights of others.

My 2 cents.

[Chromekitty]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

Those that argue against smoking bans and higher taxes on cigarettes are being ignorant...it's simple, 2nd Hand Smoke affectst the health and well being of anyone around it...you try and argue that drinking and driving is more dangerous, and your right it is, and that is why it's agaist the law, and SC has just strengthened the penalties for breaking that law. If you want to tax alcohol more, fine by me, same w/ if you want to tax fast food or unhealthy food. All these vices end up costing all of us b/c of the health consequences everyone endures...the bottom line though in support of a smoking ban is that employers have to provide a safe working environment for their employees, and a place that allows smoking inside is not a safe environment...2nd Hand Smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other ailments. In fact, it's even worse b/c the smoke drifting off a cigarette doesn't go through a filter like it does when you inhale it.

Do you realize that the filter which is fiberglass does you more harm than the tobacco itself? My guess is no...

I will say it again, government has no place whatsoever in these issues.

[moneill]

The question is not whether or not there are things more dangerous in life -- sure there are -- nobody is arguing against that....but second hand smoke is dangerous for small lungs. .....

What about car seats.....do you think that parents should be able to decide how they want to transport their kids -- in a back of a pick up -- on their lap in the front seat. It's their baby, it's their car.......

[Chromekitty]

Originally Posted by moneill

The question is not whether or not there are things more dangerous in life -- sure there are -- nobody is arguing against that....but second hand smoke is dangerous for small lungs. .....

What about car seats.....do you think that parents should be able to decide how they want to transport their kids -- in a back of a pick up -- on their lap in the front seat. It's their baby, it's their car.......

I do not believe that the government has a place in any of these issues.
If you look back on the day when our parents, grandparents etc...were raising us, we didn't have ANY of these issues. Common sense was put into play.

When the government began to stick there nose in things that is when society lost all common sense and began to rely on the government. There is a pattern here.

All the government wants to do is create a dependent society and lead the sheeple.

[Capo]

Originally Posted by Chromekitty

I do not believe that the government has a place in any of these issues.
If you look back on the day when our parents, grandparents etc...were raising us, we didn't have ANY of these issues. Common sense was put into play.

When the government began to stick there nose in things that is when society lost all common sense and began to rely on the government. There is a pattern here.

All the government wants to do is create a dependent society and lead the sheeple.

I agree in the general concept of government staying out of our lives in most areas. However, when this changes is when endangerment, especially to children, takes place.

If a parent is physically abusing a child - should the government step in?
If a parent is obviously neglecting (not feeding them, etc.) should the government step in?

Obviously many such examples could be given. I also classify items such as requiring seat belts, car seats, etc. as similar rules. Parents should NOT have the right to not take care of their children in basic, foundational issues.

Personally speaking, I view smoking around your kids as physical abuse (and I say that with all due respect for the people who struggle with the addiction). The reality is that prolonged exposure to 2nd hand smoke, especially over the spand of childhood, WILL several harm the child. There is not debate about that, medical science is clear on the topic.

In situations where parents struggle with the addiction to nicotene, I believe they should always ensure they go out side, out of the car, etc. and smoke away from their kids.

My 2 cents.