No smoking in car with kids

[DrGreenthumb]

Dr Greenthumb.

You need to reread my reply, and maybe my other replies. Or maybe put the joint down now and then, as I often do. I am a pot smoker, but to say that dealing drugs is a victimless crime is naieve as well as dangerous. I do agree that many laws should be revisisted including the 'controled substances' (haha if they were controled you would not be able to get at them) ..... Not to worry I am a strong advocate of legalizing all drugs. Only smart people will be able to control their drug consumption as so it does not interfere with their responsibilities in their daily lives. The others will kill themselves off. Which is fine by me.

Eyeball

Stupid laws... like banning someone smoking a cigg in their own car with kids present. You cannot claim high ground on this and be hypocritical at the same time by choosing to ignore other stupid laws. Remember you are the one saying that we should follow the laws no matter what they are cause government knows best, the nanny state knows best... right? Well at least this is the impression I have gotten out of you while participating in this thread. Toe that line bro.

Don't worry I have noticed that you are for pot legalization, but to lump drug dealers in with rapists and murderers is pretty hypocritical especially for an admitted pot user. I don't think saying that dealing drugs is a victimless crime is off the mark one bit. If there is any victim it is the addict who victimizes themselves by continueing to buy a product that is harmful to themself. We don't accuse The beer vendor of victimizing the alcoholics who frequent THEIR business do we? There is no difference. Every person who buys drugs CHOOSES to do so and blaming the seller is counter productive. The buyer must be reminded that it is up to him/her what products they would like to purchase, and blaming others for their bad decisions will not help them. Only taking responsibility for their own life/choices will improve their situation.

[gc1765]

Every person who buys drugs CHOOSES to do so and blaming the seller is counter productive.

While I agree with you to some extent, what about the argument that it's only really a choice the first time...after that it's an addiction. Pot and beer are not really addictive, so purchasing them is a choice. But when you're a junkie, how much is it a choice and how much is it simply filling a need?

[DrGreenthumb]

While I agree with you to some extent, what about the argument that it's only really a choice the first time...after that it's an addiction. Pot and beer are not really addictive, so purchasing them is a choice. But when you're a junkie, how much is it a choice and how much is it simply filling a need?

I don't buy that addiction crap for a minute. Every time you choose to buy it it is a CHOICE. Convincing the addicts that they have no control enables them to use "addiction as a crutch. What these people with abuse problems need is to be shown that THEY DO HAVE CONTROL over what they consume and teaching them to accept the idea that inanimate objects (drugs) can control them is simply giving them an excuse to continue behaving badly. I Do not accept the idea that a person cannot choose to refrain from using any substance if that is what they want to do.

[daniel]

She complied didn't she?...

...until that scenerio repeated itself at another time.

You think that's the only example there is?Duh

And that little example of yours - I wonder how many occassions they had asked before they finally got fed up. Duh

Nice comeback. So logical. Duh

Edited March 11, 2008 by daniel

[Drea]

Watched a documentary a couple of weeks ago about heroin addiction.

It was horrid. Those people, while they may choose to do it the first, second or third time (apparently heroin is the most pleasureable experience known to humanity??) were certainly sick. As in ill. They were shells, slaves to getting that pleasure. And of course, each time it takes more and more of the drug to reach it.

People really need to be educated. The horror of it needs to be on every TV repeatedly. Like the new "mouth cancer" ad...

A kid shouldn't reach twelve without seeing thousands upon thousands of horrific pictures of drug addiction.

*that being said, I am talking about herion, cocaine, meth -- the drugs that kill. Not alcohol or marijuana.

[GostHacked]

I don't buy that addiction crap for a minute. Every time you choose to buy it it is a CHOICE. Convincing the addicts that they have no control enables them to use "addiction as a crutch. What these people with abuse problems need is to be shown that THEY DO HAVE CONTROL over what they consume and teaching them to accept the idea that inanimate objects (drugs) can control them is simply giving them an excuse to continue behaving badly. I Do not accept the idea that a person cannot choose to refrain from using any substance if that is what they want to do.

Do anything longterm then quitting cold turkey will have affects on you. Your body becomes used/addicted to the levels of the drug/substance that you are using. It is not only a physical withdrawl but a psychological withdrawl as well. Drug addiction is real, denying it is naieve.

We can look at alcohol fetal sysndrome, where the mother drinks so much durring the pregnancy that the newborne is already in bad health because of it. Smoking might have been the better choice here... maybe.

Drea, what was the name of the documentary you watched? I would love to try heroine for the high, knowing the stories out there of how great it is, but I see the after affects and well... won't do it. Obsesive/compulsive of addictive personalities will have more trouble with drug addictions than the rest of us.

So much for smoking in a car with kids present.

Edited March 11, 2008 by GostHacked

[Drea]

I don't recall the name of the documentary... I think it was on discovery civilization -- couple of weeks back... sorry Gost.

The young American woman started out smoking it and ended up using needles (ewwww!) She is one of the very very lucky ones that has managed to stay away from it for seven years. She said she craves it every minute of every day.

The couple in Europe (Holland I beleive) were so sad. They were sick. Sick of living like dogs on the street but not powerful enough to beat the addiction. It broke my heart to see these two young people WANT so badly to have normal lives yet be unable to break free. If it were me, I would probably committ suicide than have to live like that.

I would never try heroin, the risk is simply too high (pun unintended LOL) and I don't like getting "out of control".

[Wild Bill]

I don't recall the name of the documentary... I think it was on discovery civilization -- couple of weeks back... sorry Gost.

The young American woman started out smoking it and ended up using needles (ewwww!) She is one of the very very lucky ones that has managed to stay away from it for seven years. She said she craves it every minute of every day.

The couple in Europe (Holland I beleive) were so sad. They were sick. Sick of living like dogs on the street but not powerful enough to beat the addiction. It broke my heart to see these two young people WANT so badly to have normal lives yet be unable to break free. If it were me, I would probably committ suicide than have to live like that.

I would never try heroin, the risk is simply too high (pun unintended LOL) and I don't like getting "out of control".

Interesting. While I don't advocate such drugs I can't help but wonder - are addicts not in such difficulty more from the problems and logistics of obtaining illicit drugs than from the drugs themselves?

If heroin was cheap and legal, how well could these people function?

In other words, does our present legal system make things worse or better?

I've always thought that Al Capone is smiling in his grave about the situation with drugs today. I'm also convinced that many politicians are on the take from drug lords to keep the price and profit so high.

[Drea]

Interesting. While I don't advocate such drugs I can't help but wonder - are addicts not in such difficulty more from the problems and logistics of obtaining illicit drugs than from the drugs themselves?

If heroin was cheap and legal, how well could these people function?

In other words, does our present legal system make things worse or better?

I've always thought that Al Capone is smiling in his grave about the situation with drugs today. I'm also convinced that many politicians are on the take from drug lords to keep the price and profit so high.

The key is education, and lots of it.

The true destruction of heroin is not "out in the public eye" enough for it to have an impact. People are told it's bad but not shown.

If drugs were legalized today (all of them) there would be literally millions of people in the US alone out of work.

Drugs is an industry for much more than just the dealers. Judges, police, lawyers, border guards, prison guards, all are products of the "war on drugs". All profit directly from it.

[gc1765]

If heroin was cheap and legal, how well could these people function?

In other words, does our present legal system make things worse or better?

Interesting question. Here's an interesting link . Granted they weren't injecting the stuff, but still...

[Regulus de Leo]

Of course in Toronto there are strict laws preventing bars and restaurants from smoking but for the homeless they get a $5 million dollar shelter built for them complete with rooftop smoking area.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2...923656-sun.html

Edited March 11, 2008 by Regulus de Leo

[Drea]

Interesting question. Here's an interesting link . Granted they weren't injecting the stuff, but still...

..but still... there was no public education.

Have you seen that mouth cancer ad? It is so horrific that if one was thinking about taking up smoking and they saw that probably would never start.

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, not propaganda style "fear" but real education and honesty about what the substance will do to you.

[Wild Bill]

..but still... there was no public education.

Have you seen that mouth cancer ad? It is so horrific that if one was thinking about taking up smoking and they saw that probably would never start.

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, not propaganda style "fear" but real education and honesty about what the substance will do to you.

Well, hard to knock education but it seems to me that if that couple you mention are already living in squalor under the threat of legal troubles, too wound up in illegal means of getting the money for their drugs to keep a real job - isn't it a little late to hand them a pamphlet?

I still haven't gotten a totally clear answer to my question but it's truly beginning to look as if at least with certain drugs like heroin and cocaine that while they are addicting the user could still function just fine in society, as long as they had easy and cheap access to their drug. Surely in this state they would be more receptive to education. At least, they would be far less likely to be a threat or a burden to me and my family.

Granted, addiction is a terrible thing. Education could be a powerful tool in preventing addiction and perhaps ending some of it. The Law, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a positive tool for anyone, except for those making money under it.

It seems to be saying "If you do drugs, you will be beaten hard! So don't do them!" All stick and no carrot.

I don't see much thought or wit in this approach. Not surprisingly, I also don't see much success. I DO see a huge portion of my taxes going to this braindead and futile situation and frankly I resent it! I understand I have to pay taxes but I only respect paying them for things that WORK!

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, hard to knock education but it seems to me that if that couple you mention are already living in squalor under the threat of legal troubles, too wound up in illegal means of getting the money for their drugs to keep a real job - isn't it a little late to hand them a pamphlet?

I still haven't gotten a totally clear answer to my question but it's truly beginning to look as if at least with certain drugs like heroin and cocaine that while they are addicting the user could still function just fine in society, as long as they had easy and cheap access to their drug. Surely in this state they would be more receptive to education. At least, they would be far less likely to be a threat or a burden to me and my family.

Granted, addiction is a terrible thing. Education could be a powerful tool in preventing addiction and perhaps ending some of it. The Law, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be a positive tool for anyone, except for those making money under it.

It seems to be saying "If you do drugs, you will be beaten hard! So don't do them!" All stick and no carrot.

I don't see much thought or wit in this approach. Not surprisingly, I also don't see much success. I DO see a huge portion of my taxes going to this braindead and futile situation and frankly I resent it! I understand I have to pay taxes but I only respect paying them for things that WORK!

Most people can't even begin to imagine the ammount of taxpayers money that funds this prohibition. There is a whole network of government employees from cops through the courts and right on through the "corrections" system earning their livings monitoring people who have been caught with unnaproved medicines. It is funny that people who claim to want small government are mostly the ones who support this. This is not just big government this is big brother. All 80 years of criminal prohibition have given us are more concentrated forms of drugs and steadily rising use. It has also managed to enrich some dishonest people on both sides of the "law".

We should educate about the true dangers of drugs, only real dangers no boogeymen.

We should regulate substances that are legitemitely dangerous with restrictions based on the actual dangers of the individual product.

These regulations should be based on verifiable scientific evidence, not made up stories.

Edited March 11, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[eyeball]

Eyeball

Stupid laws... like banning someone smoking a cigg in their own car with kids present. You cannot claim high ground on this and be hypocritical at the same time by choosing to ignore other stupid laws.

I don;t think anyone can claim high ground on a slippery slope. Its funny how the cops can choose which laws to enforce and when, I've seen cops bust people for a roach and cops give pot back to people.

Remember you are the one saying that we should follow the laws no matter what they are cause government knows best, the nanny state knows best... right? Well at least this is the impression I have gotten out of you while participating in this thread.

I apologize for both admitting and denying facetiousness in this thread. I really am torn when it comes right down to it I guess. I'd be interested in knowing what sort of debates took place when banning drinking and driving first occured. I was too young to remember but I bet the same sort of people that are sneering at this no smoking in the car law sneered at the idea of making it a crime to crack a few cold one's while toodling down the highway. I recall many a parent including my own having a few browns on the way to cottage country when I was a kid. A few summers spent hitchiking around the country also made it obvious this was a fairly widespread practice in the good old days. I don't recall hearing a peep about seatbelts until years after I was a kid.

People seem to think their understanding of airflow dynamics and ability to interpret medical findings should give them the right to judge what's safe for their children. The biggest reason they cite though, is that smoking is perfectly legal. By the same token, its perfectly legal to drive with a .08 blood/alcohol level so why shouldn't people be able to crack a few beers while driving so long as they don't drink over their limit? People are trusted with the responsibility for judging whether they are fit to drive 5 minutes after drinking a few beers so why not while they are actually driving? Why does nanny need to butt into it?

Toe that line bro.

You should walk a mile in my shoes...I have to apply for 12 licences every year to 3 levels of government and 7 different departments/agencies/ministry's. Too top it all off I'm also subject to random drug testing. I'm afraid I really don't have a lot of sympathy for other people's complaints about nanny, she's really not so bad once you get to know her.

I have to enforce smoking rules on the passenger vessels I drive and more often than not I have to be pretty strict about it. There are a lot of paying passengers who expect me to not to mention the owner of the boats. Every so often we may only have a few adults who are travelling togther however and I let 'em smoke em if they got 'em. This makes my deckhands who both smoke like chimneys happy .

As for this airflow thing...I haven't smoked for nearly 25 years and I can smell burning tobacco from a mile away - I found a guy lost in the fog this way once, I shit you not. I can be midships, up on the flying bridge, steaming at 10 knots into a 30 knot wind and if somebody tries to sneak a smoke down below on the back deck, they're busted, I usually smell it within seconds. I see it ALL the time. Smokers don't know squat about airflow not to mention a skipper's nose for trouble. I suspect they know even less about the potential health effects of 2nd hand smoke.

[gc1765]

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, not propaganda style "fear" but real education and honesty about what the substance will do to you.

I can agree to that. The first thing they need to do is stop scaring people when it comes to booze or marijuana. I've known quite a few people who bought into all the propaganda about how bad pot is for you, and then tried it. When they realized it wasn't nearly as bad as what they had been taught, they figured that other drugs must not be bad for you either. Big mistake.

[GostHacked]

Of course in Toronto there are strict laws preventing bars and restaurants from smoking but for the homeless they get a $5 million dollar shelter built for them complete with rooftop smoking area.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2...923656-sun.html

And you know most bars/clubs/restaurants have enclosed areas for smokers. So not sure what you are getting at here. I bet that those homeless people cannot smoke inside the shelter.

Eyeball, comparing drinking and driving to smoking a cigg and driving? Also comparing a work environment to a private environment? And yes, it would be interesting to see how the debates on prohobition went down during that time.

Drinking and driving is just a dumb thing to do. You can argue that smoking will interfere with ones driving abilities, that I can get behind. Just like banning talking on the cell phone while driving, doing your makeup while driving. Most people can only do one thing at a time. A great deal of us are horrible at multitasking while driving.

I am guessing you are a captain of a vessel? Fishing? Tours? Ferry? What kind of smoking rules apply to your work place?

[eyeball]

Eyeball, comparing drinking and driving to smoking a cigg and driving? Also comparing a work environment to a private environment? And yes, it would be interesting to see how the debates on prohobition went down during that time.

Drinking and driving is just a dumb thing to do. You can argue that smoking will interfere with ones driving abilities, that I can get behind. Just like banning talking on the cell phone while driving, doing your makeup while driving. Most people can only do one thing at a time. A great deal of us are horrible at multitasking while driving.

Actually I was comparing this right to discretion and to govern their own behaviour that people seem to insist on maintaining with regards to smoking in their cars. A key argument in defence of this "right" is that smoking is still legal. Driving with some alcohol in your system is legal too so in theory why should driving with alcohol in your hand be any different? Its obvious the intent is to protect other people from the adverse effects of your consumption of a hazardous substance. What's the difference between protecting people from a driver's impairment or a driver's 2nd hand smoke if the state in its wisdom, deems both to be dangerous?

Driving with a coffee or a Pepsi in hand is legal. Can you imagine the howl of outrage if the state tried to ban driving with a can of pop or a coffee? You can bet people will point at their built in cup-holders and scream they're legal and WTF at nanny for trying to micro-manage them.

I am guessing you are a captain of a vessel? Fishing? Tours? Ferry? What kind of smoking rules apply to your work place?

I skipper a range of 30 - 65 foot whale-watching boats. Out of consideration for non-smokers, and prompted by the number of complaints from these about others smoking on board in the past, there is generally no smoking on our boats now. As I mentioned, even on a windy day you can smell tobacco burning upwind of a smoker. Sometimes all it takes is a whiff of tobacco smoke to make someone on the verge of being sea-sick to start hurling. "Do you mind if I smoke?" "Do you mind if I puke in your ashtray?".

There are times on private charters or when hosting special party's that smoking is up to the discretion of the skipper and customers. Democracy on a boat, go figure. We have liquor licences on some boats and the deckhands have serving-it-right certificates. They sometimes have to be able to judge whether a land-lubber is drunk or just doesn't have any sea-legs. We do get the odd moron who takes Gravol and then a few drinks which is a really bad idea.

It goes without saying you'll be keel-hauled for smoking when fueling up.

[Wild Bill]

And you know most bars/clubs/restaurants have enclosed areas for smokers. So not sure what you are getting at here. I bet that those homeless people cannot smoke inside the shelter.

Not true! Most cities here in Ontario don't allow roofs over smoking areas! And many inmates of halfway houses smoke inside them with impunity, mostly because the staff don't carry to provide their own muscle to enforce the rules. Some of those inmates are BIG!

Also, just this fall it became an issue that the CBC had had smoking rooms inside their buildings all these years! The loophole was that their buildings were under federal and not provincial rule and smoking laws have all been provincial. MPs in Ottawa have no problem finding a comfortable place to smoke either!

Go figure. As always, some pigs are more equal than others.

[Topaz]

IF we can get a generation to stop smoking then we will help stop cancer and other diseases connected to smoking. Grade 7 and up should visit the cancer centers and see the people who are going through their treatments. They should talk to these people and let them tell them of what it is like having cancer. How they have to travel some distances away to get to the hospital for treatment and the costs they goes with it. The stress of waiting hours to see the doctor, the stress of the waiting for the test results and sitting there wondering , am I going to be alive this time next year???

[daniel]

IF we can get a generation to stop smoking then we will help stop cancer and other diseases connected to smoking. Grade 7 and up...

It doesn't work. I grew up with a (anti)smoking education in school beginning when I was 11 years old. Even before then, I knew I didn't like my Dad or older relatives smoking around and in the car. As I grew up, some people with the same education and environment as me took up smoking anyways - we all knew about cancer and emphysema. But young people think they will live forever. The more you nag, the more they'll smoke. It's not a health thing. It's about rebellion.

The only education is consideration. We shouldn't say that smokers don't have the right to smoke, they do. What they don't have is the right to is to impede against the right of others. Smokers have a choice for the quality of air they wish to breathe. Non-smokers don't.

[Wild Bill]

It doesn't work. I grew up with a (anti)smoking education in school beginning when I was 11 years old. Even before then, I knew I didn't like my Dad or older relatives smoking around and in the car. As I grew up, some people with the same education and environment as me took up smoking anyways - we all knew about cancer and emphysema. But young people think they will live forever. The more you nag, the more they'll smoke. It's not a health thing. It's about rebellion.

The only education is consideration. We shouldn't say that smokers don't have the right to smoke, they do. What they don't have is the right to is to impede against the right of others. Smokers have a choice for the quality of air they wish to breathe. Non-smokers don't.

You're quite right! I've read accounts from the 40's that show that even back then everyone knew smoking was an unhealthy habit. And it is about rebellion, particularly with teenagers but even adults can resent being nagged and forced towards quitting.

I just wish that we could have smoking and non-smoking venues. As I've said before, I prefer the company of smokers. They tend to be a lot more fun and far less preachy and judgemental! The smell doesn't bother me and I've never been impressed by the science behind the claims of the dangers of passive smoke. Some of those nico-nazis are so obnoxious I swear I'd consider suicide rather than be forced to sit in their company!

[DrGreenthumb]

You're quite right! I've read accounts from the 40's that show that even back then everyone knew smoking was an unhealthy habit. And it is about rebellion, particularly with teenagers but even adults can resent being nagged and forced towards quitting.

I just wish that we could have smoking and non-smoking venues. As I've said before, I prefer the company of smokers. They tend to be a lot more fun and far less preachy and judgemental! The smell doesn't bother me and I've never been impressed by the science behind the claims of the dangers of passive smoke. Some of those nico-nazis are so obnoxious I swear I'd consider suicide rather than be forced to sit in their company!

Yeah kind of like some of those in the anti-cannabis camp.

[freakinbox]

who's kidding, the next ban will be homes with children. If they really wanted us to quit they would give us numbers to help lines in the packs of smokes like the states do. Here in Ontario you get what it does to you and so on. Who cares? not many people any more since most of us even an hour plus away from Toronto are dealing with the unhealthy smog from there! Barrie used to be a nice place in the summer. Last year it was like a perma fog... For what you breath in walking around from all the factories in the world. Yes that includes other countries are the planet does have a jet stream, smoking isn't really hurting you that much.. If you think quitting smoking will stop you from getting cancer your sorely mistaken.

I personally think alot of the health effects of smoking are bogus. Seems like something new causes cancer every day. I'm not saying it's making your heath better, but it's not doing as much damage as people think. You could not smoke a day in your life or be around smokers but still get any of the things that smoking causes. If smoking is a gaurnteed cause of all those things then why are there alot of people who have smoked for 40 - 50 years that have non of them? It just apparently increases your chance. It's all about money, people forget that. This law, the stuff to get us to quit smoking and even the smokes themselves are all about MONEY! Very little in this world now a days is about anything else. Rights are bogus, they can do what they want when they want. We voted them in, and if you didn't vote STFU!

And I'm with Wild Bill, alot smokers (and people who used to smoke) are more fun. I usually ended up standing outside with them when I didn't smoke because the conversation was more lively than inside with the non smokers.

I also want to agree with the stuff on the first page about the window open... UNLESS you have more than 1 window open. If you open 2 windows it's just circulating it around till it leaves the car.

Edited March 18, 2008 by freakinbox

[Wilber]

I don't buy that addiction crap for a minute. Every time you choose to buy it it is a CHOICE. Convincing the addicts that they have no control enables them to use "addiction as a crutch. What these people with abuse problems need is to be shown that THEY DO HAVE CONTROL over what they consume and teaching them to accept the idea that inanimate objects (drugs) can control them is simply giving them an excuse to continue behaving badly. I Do not accept the idea that a person cannot choose to refrain from using any substance if that is what they want to do.

It is a choice but a choice influenced by addiction. For years I would not smoke for extended periods of time before I became a non smoker. I used to think that I could quit any time I wanted but but in reality I was just a smoker who was choosing not to smoke. I was still addicted because the desire was still there and if I was around other smokers, I would often end up having a few myself. Looking back, I really think the withdrawal every time I stopped and started influenced my behavior in a negative way. Now the desire for cigarettes has gone and I haven't smoked anything for quite a while but under the right circumstances, the offer of a decent glass of port and a good cigar would still be pretty tempting.

In my opinion, tobacco is a powerful addiction and I am also of the opinion that those who indulge in a habit forming substance while claiming they are totally in control are for the most part, full of it, because the only way to prove that control is to walk away from it for good. You may control how you consume, but not the compulsion to consume.