No smoking in car with kids

[kimmy]

Well, not that it changes anything about the right of an adult citizen to make his own choices but who makes the decisions about what's harmful? Obviously, on this issue you've decided passive smoke is dangerous to children and that an open window doesn't work.

I'm not the one who decided that passive smoke is dangerous. The medical community decided that, after extensive research on the topic.

Opening the window doesn't work if the car is stopped at traffic lights, or a drive-through lineup. It doesn't work if the car is idling along at 5 km/h in congested traffic. (The pressure differential is a function of the velocity, according to the highly-touted Bernoulli's Principle that I keep hearing so much about.)

Opening the window doesn't work if the driver doesn't actually open the window because it's cold or it's raining or they can't hear their cell-phone because of the noise.

How you figure that a lingering smell is scientific evidence is beyond me. I would imagine most smokers light up in their cars when they DON"T have their kids with them! Why would they worry about opening the window just for themselves?

If my neighbour wants to tell me what to do, then I would like the chance to return the favour. If it becomes a popularity contest with everyone else in town feeling qualified to enforce their opinion then it's time for me to find another town.

You see no difference between someone telling you not to do something that affects only yourself compared to someone telling you not to do something that's harmful to your children?

This attitude is a slippery slope. There HAVE been calls to put fat and out of shape patients to the end of the line in Ontario! Also "dangerous" sports like parachuting or downhill skiing. The reason given is usually that health care resources are at a premium so why waste it on those to lazy to look after their own health?

How is it that you guys can't argue this issue on it's own? How come you have to make some attempt to conflate it with some other issue, then argue the other issue instead?

Denying people health-care coverage based on risky behavior is a slippery slope. Obviously. There is no denying that point.

But what on earth has it got to do with telling people they can't engage in behavior that's been proven harmful to their children's health?

I'm not saying there's no argument to protecting children or the health of your neighbours from your own actions. I'm just saying that from what I've seen these past few years there are a lot of people just leaping at the chance to make their neighbour do what they say!

It goes to character, and it's NOT pretty!

Ok, so if I know my neighbor is doing something that's harming their kids, I'm a bad person if I try to intervene?

-k

[kimmy]

Kimmy

Being stupid and unsafe is dfferent from long term health effects from smoking. Unsecure in the back of a pickup, can cause instant death. I have yet to see anyone die instantly from a smoke, less from second hand smoke.

Harming your kids is ok provided you do it over a long period and not instantly?

-k

[kimmy]

Back to no smoking in car with kids. They are doing the same thing in BC. Irresponsible to smoke in any enclosed area with children but I wonder how much time the police will be able to devote to this one. I think it may be fairly low on their priority list. Still, if the idea alone puts a few people off doing it, that would be OK.

I doubt they envision special patrols to go out looking exclusively for people smoking with children in the car.

(are there special patrols roving the street looking exclusively for people who don't have their toddlers secured in child-seats?)

If an officer does see somebody driving with an unrestrained toddler bouncing around the car, that person probably gets pulled over and gets a ticket. I see no reason why this new law would be enforced any differently.

In fact, most of the arguments ("it's unenforceable!" "it's telling people what they can do in their own vehicles!" "next thing you know, they'll be telling people they can't go snowboarding!" "don't the police have better things to do?") are just as applicable to child car seats as to this new rule.

-k

[kimmy]

what are the income levels of the smokers?

http://www.health.gov/communication/ehealt...x4/figure44.htm

Family Income Level Percent

Poor 33

Near Poor 29

Middle/High Income 21

also smoking is a bastion of the lower classes.

Of course there are exceptions.

Maybe they'd be less poor if they quit smoking.

Maybe it's just me... but if you're poor to start with, it seems like blowing $100 or more on cigarettes is a pretty stupid way to spend what little money you have.

(Is it just me?)

-k

[eyeball]

I never disagreed that alcohol is frequently a contributor to violence.

What I disagreed with is your claim "The only drug that actually leads directly to criminal behaviour happens to be the one the government approves of and sells."

Alcohol is NOT the only drug that leads directly to criminal behavior. It's one of many.

-k

True enough crack-babies are likely to become sociopaths due to brain damage like FAS babies.

[kuzadd]

Maybe they'd be less poor if they quit smoking.

Maybe it's just me... but if you're poor to start with, it seems like blowing $100 or more on cigarettes is a pretty stupid way to spend what little money you have.

(Is it just me?)

-k

that said, this type of law, which could be passed by any government ( Conservative or Liberal)to score political points for the "caring" government and the "caring" voters , who generally assume some type of moral superiority.

[Wild Bill]

I'm not the one who decided that passive smoke is dangerous. The medical community decided that, after extensive research on the topic.

You see no difference between someone telling you not to do something that affects only yourself compared to someone telling you not to do something that's harmful to your children?

How is it that you guys can't argue this issue on it's own? How come you have to make some attempt to conflate it with some other issue, then argue the other issue instead?

Denying people health-care coverage based on risky behavior is a slippery slope. Obviously. There is no denying that point.

But what on earth has it got to do with telling people they can't engage in behavior that's been proven harmful to their children's health?

Ok, so if I know my neighbor is doing something that's harming their kids, I'm a bad person if I try to intervene?

-k

Well, to me it's not that simple. Please understand that I'm a science buff. My first real book of my own was a science text gifted to me by my first grade teacher, who was impressed at how deeply I had already cottoned on to the subject. My schooling always was heavy on maths and sciences, I've worked in labs and high tech enterprises, I make my living with electronics. So I'm not one of these people who dropped maths and sciences as soon as was allowed yet feel qualified to comment in these areas.

First off, I don't have the confidence in the "medical community" that you do. I've been reading tech articles on the dangers of smoking since the 70's. I won't quarrel with the dangers of smoking but I've always found articles on passive smoke to be "stretched", more political than scientific. After the American Surgeon-General Koop submitted his report on passive smoke those decades ago and then was forced to admit his evidence was flawed I began to believe that the whole issue of passive smoke is simply a very powerful lever to make it more difficult for smokers, in an effort to get them to give up their habit.

That's beside the point. I stopped believing in anything I was told to do by someone in a white coat about the time of the tainted blood scandal. A few botched and very painful "routine" tests done in some local clinics made the issue even more personal. The medical community is made up of human beings, subject to human failings and like-mindedness. They are not gods and can be mistaken but even if they were perfect it is still my life and how I choose to live it, not theirs. My children are my responsibility, not theirs. I decide if I am endangering them, NOT some government body or lobby group!

The point is moot in this case since I'm not a smoker anyway but I'm sure you get my drift. I liken it to those parents who never bothered learning about computers and then started crying when they discovered their children had gotten in danger from chat rooms. The first cry we always hear in these cases is "Why doesn't the government do something?"

Crap! Get off your butt and get computer literate BEFORE you let your kids near one! Stay current on what's going on, understand the technology, keep tabs on what your kids are up to and most of all, BE A PARENT! DON'T ABDICATE IN NAIVE FAITH TO A FACELESS SYSTEM!

I don't buy the passive smoke argument, as I've said. So if I was a smoker I would be upset with this car law. I simply don't share your faith in other people deciding what's best for me or my children. I do my own research and I come to my own conclusions. You're entitled to your own view. I'm not the one pushing any such laws onto my fellow citizens.

When you say "Ok, so if I know my neighbor is doing something that's harming their kids, I'm a bad person if I try to intervene?" I say that it depends on the specific issue. If your neighbour is letting them play with live hand grenades I'd agree with you. If he's smoking while his kids are in his care then I would not. I might take exception if I ever saw you drink alcohol in front of your children but I would never support a prohibition law to take that right away from you.

Again, I'm not advocating compulsory tobacco use or arguing that the damn stuff is actually good for you! I'm simply saying that it appears a good many folks are seizing an opportunity to force their neighbour to do what THEY think they should!

I find that disrespectful and frankly, offensive.

[eyeball]

I do my own research and I come to my own conclusions.

When you say "Ok, so if I know my neighbor is doing something that's harming their kids, I'm a bad person if I try to intervene?" I say that it depends on the specific issue. If your neighbour is letting them play with live hand grenades I'd agree with you. If he's smoking while his kids are in his care then I would not. I might take exception if I ever saw you drink alcohol in front of your children but I would never support a prohibition law to take that right away from you.

Again, I'm not advocating compulsory tobacco use or arguing that the damn stuff is actually good for you! I'm simply saying that it appears a good many folks are seizing an opportunity to force their neighbour to do what THEY think they should!

I find that disrespectful and frankly, offensive.

It sounds like you're advocating that people should decide for themselves which laws they should or shouldn't obey or report. I'm just trying to square this with the folks that can't stand the nanny-state who also demand total obedience for law and order.

Should law and order be a matter of how we feel at the moment or what the state says it is? If its the former I think this would encourage even more people to pass judgement on their neighbours.

Edited March 8, 2008 by eyeball

[daniel]

This is one of those Duh laws. If smokers had been more considerate, non smokers wouldn't have been so irritated at them and this law would never have needed to exist.

[Wilber]

This is where this gets sticky for the anti-nanny law and order types. These folks routinely decry the state telling people what they can and cannot do but they also place a very high premium on the state maintaining law and order.

Anti-nani and law and order go hand in hand. The idea being don't pass laws you are not prepared to enforce.

[eyeball]

Anti-nani and law and order go hand in hand. The idea being don't pass laws you are not prepared to enforce.

I haven't seen anything to suggest the governments passing these laws aren't prepared to enforce them, have you?

As far as order goes, whatever happened to the principle that if you don't like a certain law that you challenge it in court or elect a government that's willing to change or eliminate it? Are you suggesting that people should instead just ignore the law if they they don't like it? Is that what you plan to do?

Don't get me wrong I think a healthy dose of anarchy would do you law and order types a world of good.

By the way, what do you think of a nanny-state that's willing to extradite people abroad for a crime its not willing to enforce at home?

Edited March 9, 2008 by eyeball

[Wilber]

I haven't seen anything to suggest the governments passing these laws aren't prepared to enforce them, have you?

The people who pass laws aren't the ones who have to enforce them. They may want to have them enforced but can they and if so at what cost to the enforcement of other laws. The capacity to enforce laws depends on how much you want to spend. Is a particular law worth it?

As far as order goes, whatever happened to the principle that if you don't like a certain law that you challenge it in court or elect a government that's willing to change or eliminate it? Are you suggesting that people should instead just ignore the law if they they don't like it? Is that what you plan to do?

I think it is an excellent principle if your only reason for breaking a law is to get charged and challenge it in court. As long as no one else gets hurt by it of course. No, I am not suggesting people ignore the law if they don't like it. I am saying if you aren't serious about enforcing a law there are always those who will treat it as an empty threat and ignore it as a result, which can be worse than no law. As far as this law goes, I no longer smoke but when I did, I didn't do it around my kids. It wasn't that hard.

Don't get me wrong I think a healthy dose of anarchy would do you law and order types a world of good.

Careful what you wish for. Power loves a vacuum.

By the way, what do you think of a nanny-state that's willing to extradite people abroad for a crime its not willing to enforce at home?

I'm no fan of Marc Emery (I assume this is who you are referring to) but I think if this is the case they should change the extradition treaty with that particular country, because as long as it is an extraditable offense, it is no longer really up to the government.

[Wild Bill]

This is one of those Duh laws. If smokers had been more considerate, non smokers wouldn't have been so irritated at them and this law would never have needed to exist.

Really? The whole issue of passive smoke danger could have been solved by requiring clubs and restaurants to post signs at their doors declaring if they were smoking, non-smoking or mixed. The patron could then have made his own choice.

Of course, this was never even discussed. ALL places had to be smoke free! Yet the reason given was to protect non-smokers from unwanted passive smoke.

We could have had choices for every one. Smokers would have their venues, non-smokers theirs and those that didn't care could have gone anywhere.

Why didn't this happen? I believe the initial format of non-smoking portions of clubs and restaurants led to the more draconian solution. Anyone who patronized such places in those days would remember how no matter how large the non-smoking area it was always sparsely populated, with lineups to get into the smoking sections. This went against the unspoken but actual goal of discouraging smoking PERIOD! The idea of allowing choice and protecting against passive smoke was, if you'll pardon the pun, a mere smokescreen.

So it would appear it was the non-smokers who were obnoxious. Smokers were obviously perfectly happy to avoid non-smokers in their non-smoking areas.

I guess the non-smokers got lonely and by eliminating ANY smoking area they FORCED smokers to come sit with them!

[daniel]

Really? The whole issue of passive smoke danger could have been solved by requiring clubs and restaurants to post signs at their doors declaring if they were smoking, non-smoking or mixed. The patron could then have made his own choice.

Of course, this was never even discussed. ALL places had to be smoke free! Yet the reason given was to protect non-smokers from unwanted passive smoke.

We could have had choices for every one. Smokers would have their venues, non-smokers theirs and those that didn't care could have gone anywhere.

Why didn't this happen? I believe the initial format of non-smoking portions of clubs and restaurants led to the more draconian solution. Anyone who patronized such places in those days would remember how no matter how large the non-smoking area it was always sparsely populated, with lineups to get into the smoking sections. This went against the unspoken but actual goal of discouraging smoking PERIOD! The idea of allowing choice and protecting against passive smoke was, if you'll pardon the pun, a mere smokescreen.

So it would appear it was the non-smokers who were obnoxious. Smokers were obviously perfectly happy to avoid non-smokers in their non-smoking areas.

I guess the non-smokers got lonely and by eliminating ANY smoking area they FORCED smokers to come sit with them!

I read your argument and my interpretation still applies. I once asked a person in my car to please put out her cigarette. She complied while going on for the next five minutes how considerate she was.

[eyeball]

Really? The whole issue of passive smoke danger could have been solved by requiring clubs and restaurants to post signs at their doors declaring if they were smoking, non-smoking or mixed. The patron could then have made his own choice.

Of course, this was never even discussed. ALL places had to be smoke free! Yet the reason given was to protect non-smokers from unwanted passive smoke.

Actually I think the reason was to protect workers from dangerous materials in their workplace i.e. the carcinogens and particles from 2nd hand smoke.

[Drea]

I read your argument and my interpretation still applies. I once asked a person in my car to please put out her cigarette. She complied while going on for the next five minutes how considerate she was.

She complied didn't she?

Waaaaay back when I was a married teenager my inlaws hated my smoking. I never ever smoked in their house. Anyway one day we were all sitting around the table after dinner and I was back in after having my ciggy and they were lambasting smokers. I said "I'm not smoking NOW but you are all FAT 24 hours a day!" Then I stomped out and drove away leaving my husband with his judgemental family. Slamming my smoking was the final straw with inlaws who lambasted me about not eating as much as they did (dessert? errr...No thanks). So maybe they hated my smoking less than they hated the fact that I was thin and pretty.

[Wild Bill]

Actually I think the reason was to protect workers from dangerous materials in their workplace i.e. the carcinogens and particles from 2nd hand smoke.

Well, that's the official line! I don't recall ever hearing if anyone actually asked waiters and servers. They could have made a choice about what kind of venue they wanted to work in. Many were smokers themselves!

I DID talk with many servers who lost their jobs when their place went out of business! That process seems to have mostly worked itself out by now but through the entire 90's it was quite commonplace.

I still remember anti-tobacco activists in the media answering this point with claims that there were thousands of non-smokers who only stayed away from clubs and restaurants because of the tobacco smell. Once they were smoke-free these patrons would flood inside and the owners would actually not just have replacement business but even MORE trade!

I can only speak for my own town but this seems to have been a total crock. As I said, restaurants seem to have adapted, perhaps with fewer of them. It took at least 10-15 years.

As far as clubs with live music, the hit was even harsher. Non-smokers never seemed to replace the lost business. So once the smoke cleared out you could see the empty tables. I guess for the most part non-smokers didn't go to clubs anyway! Makes you wonder what all the bitching was about.

There are probably a lot of other factors to account for the decline but it is the club scene that saddens my heart the most. It was a huge cultural shift! We had 60 or 70 years of the custom of going out to clubs for dancing and drinks. As a boomer I grew up with rock and roll. Not only was it a large part of the social scene but it provided an entry path for young musicians. There was enough beer being sold to afford to pay a reasonable wage for entertainers. Even the "low caliber" band I worked for could go on a province wide tour for months at a stretch, playing 3 and 6 nighters in small towns from Wallaceburg to Hurst and Kappiskasing.

We made ~$1600 for a 3 nighter and ~$2400 for a six night gig, at a time when gasoline was 0.25 a GALLON and a package of evil cigarettes was maybe 0.35. All that playing made you a much better performer. Canadian icons like Dominic Troiano and Frank Marino cut their teeth playing those clubs.

Now 3 and 6 night gigs are almost unheard of. Clubs are much smaller. With maybe 40-50 people clustered around a few pool tables at the "neighbourhood pub" you can't possibly sell enough beer to pay for a decent band. You're lucky to get a Friday or Saturday gig. The going rate is maybe $250. After expenses and split among the band it doesn't amount to much. Especially when the politicians tried to help the hurting clubs by letting them stay open an extra hour into the morning. So you play to a half-empty house till 2:00 am instead of just 1:00. That's why most bands are only 3 piece in these venues. They can't afford a fuller band.

So the world was changed over a single decade. We saved everyone's lungs whether or not they asked us to but we did pay a price. Sadly, as I had said the ones driving the social change paid nothing. They don't appear to have cared for that kind of entertainment anyway. I did know one old couple who had ran a bar/club that perhaps were typical of who paid the real price. They had owned the club all their working lives. They of course had no company pension. Like farmers, they depended on selling their operation to finance their retirement. Now they couldn't sell it! Any real estate agent will tell you that the hardest thing to sell today is a restaurant or club. Asking about financing will make them chuckle for at least 10 minutes!

I feel sorry for my daughters. No clubs like their parents used to frequent. Just a few techno-rave dance clubs where you have to worry about someone slipping something in their drink. Or hiphop clubs, where someone might hit them with a stray bullet!

Still, we saved their lungs, eh! Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to join the toast...

[Wild Bill]

She complied didn't she?

Waaaaay back when I was a married teenager my inlaws hated my smoking. I never ever smoked in their house. Anyway one day we were all sitting around the table after dinner and I was back in after having my ciggy and they were lambasting smokers. I said "I'm not smoking NOW but you are all FAT 24 hours a day!" Then I stomped out and drove away leaving my husband with his judgemental family. Slamming my smoking was the final straw with inlaws who lambasted me about not eating as much as they did (dessert? errr...No thanks). So maybe they hated my smoking less than they hated the fact that I was thin and pretty.

Good for you! This just lends more evidence to my point that much of the nico-nazi movement is just a power trip. This was YOUR house! Yet at least on this topic they felt free to judge you!

You shouldn't have left. You should have shown THEM the door!

[Drea]

I agree WildBill

I spent my twenties at the cabaret and had an absolute blast.

We'd go to the cabaret (didn't call them "clubs" back then) every weekend -- I have so many good memories of my best friend and I flirting and dancing and... all kinds of "bad" fun that never hurt anyone -- what a hoot we had!

edited to add: I did, I divorced "them". My husband (him age 21, me age 17) didn't even know how to wash his own hair when I met him. They bought us our first home -- they felt they owned us I guess... well they couldn't own me! I left everything but my little car and my two siamese cats and never looked back.

Saw them in 2001 -- they are still the same, still trying to control people's lives.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Drea

[eyeball]

Even the "low caliber" band I worked for could go on a province wide tour for months at a stretch, playing 3 and 6 nighters in small towns from Wallaceburg to Hurst and Kappiskasing.

Ha, you probably deserve some of the blame for my tinnitus then. You bastard! If only I'd been forced to go outside to smoke back then, I might have heard the ringing in my ears in time to save them. I bet you'll be singing out the other side of your mouth if you get 2nd-hand lung cancer.

They should make a new rule that says bands either have to pass out earplugs or go play outside.

[GostHacked]

This is where this gets sticky for the anti-nanny law and order types. These folks routinely decry the state telling people what they can and cannot do but they also place a very high premium on the state maintaining law and order. They want politicians to make laws, instead of judges and they expect the state to enforce the laws it makes and the public to do their duty and obey them. They have very little tolerance for scofflaws and particularily young ones, but here they are advocating that parents not only hold the law in contempt but to actually break it in front of their children.

If you have never dissagreed with a law or actions of government, then I would call you a liar. So this is a hypocritical stance to take.

We want lawmakers to make laws that make sense, and make laws regarding things that people actually care about. This no smoking in cars with kids present is a freakin waste of government's time, taxpayers money, and wastes valuble policing resources by going after petty crimes. Hell, I cannot even consider it a crime.

How about combating those larger problems, like ohh,, murderers, rapists, defrauders, drug dealers. Stop micromanaging everything one does in life.

Freedom?

[eyeball]

I routinely ignore stupid laws all the time and I when I try to justify why it usually doesn't take long before people are talking about the greater threat to society of allowing scofflaws and anarchy and slippery slopes and so on. I usually hear this from people who hate the nanny-state and this new law in particular. I'm just wondering how far they are willing to take their dislike. To the edge of the slippery slope or beyond? I'm betting they'll toe the line and when nanny says jump they'll say how high.

[DrGreenthumb]

If you have never dissagreed with a law or actions of government, then I would call you a liar. So this is a hypocritical stance to take.

We want lawmakers to make laws that make sense, and make laws regarding things that people actually care about. This no smoking in cars with kids present is a freakin waste of government's time, taxpayers money, and wastes valuble policing resources by going after petty crimes. Hell, I cannot even consider it a crime.

How about combating those larger problems, like ohh,, murderers, rapists, defrauders, drug dealers. Stop micromanaging everything one does in life.

Freedom?

I guess you just mean drug dealers who deal in drugs you personally don't approve of? Nicotine and alcohol are also drugs. There is no moral superiority in dealing legal drugs over illegal drugs when the legal ones are just as "dangerous" as the illegal ones. Tony Clement, currnt health minister and pharma stockholder could be considered a "drug dealer". He even uses the same intimidation techniques that the illegal dealers use to protect his "turf". The difference is he has a virtually army of cops to protect his monopoly.

Are you saying that busting people who use cannabis is not "petty"? Why should I be forced to use expensive, addictive pharmaceuticals, when I get better pain relief from a natural herb that I can grow for free? Growing plants is not hurting anyone and laws that dictate a mandatory minimum of 6 months in prison for growing one plant protect nobody but the manufacturers of chemical substitutes for that plant.

There is no more reason to go after people who use any drug if there is no need to go after those that use/sell alcohol. If the potential for harm coming from use of the substance is the benchmark to decide what drugs are to be legal, then alcohol by any measure is as dangerous as any illegal drug. Not just in terms of damage to the user, but in the potential for users under the influence to cause harm to others. This government plans to put a lot of people in jail for growing plants/using unnaproved medicine. There would be no shortage of cops to look after crimes if they only investigated "crimes", what this government intends is turn even more of our cops into Health Enforcement Officers.

Do not put "drug dealer" in the same category as rapists, murderers and child molestors, for they are not victimizers. This is a common tactic of people who ,not being able to justify cannabis prohibition on its own, try to associate cannabis use with serious offences. Real crimes have a victim, a drug deal is a consensual act between 2 people, if both parties cannot agree to to terms that both are satified with there is no deal. Nobody has ever forced me at gunpoint to buy a bag of Cannabis. I have never felt victimized by anyone who sold me drugs of any type. I wanted something they had and I chose to buy it.

Cigarette smokers have only had the smallest taste of the state sanctioned discrimination that users of other substances like cannabis have been facing for nearly a hundred years. You think a ticket for smoking in a car with kids in it is rough? How would you feel if just owning that pack of smokes could get you a 6 month mandatory minimum sentence? Saying "well they are legal" is a stupid strawman argument, plant medicines like cannabis coca, and opium were legal for thousands of years, and have become illegal only in the last 80-90 years. You'll notice that is also the time period that has seen pharma companies become the most profitable companies in the world.

[DrGreenthumb]

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/u...687#Post1393687

I wonder how much of these kind of anti- tobacco laws are based on press releases cherry picking data like they do to cannabis studies?

The link shows the tactics of the prohibition minded quite clearly. How long do you think it will be before tobacco is also made illegal?

First moralize then demonize, then criminalize.

[GostHacked]

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

I routinely ignore stupid laws all the time .....

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.