No smoking in car with kids

[Renegade]

The Premier said after a government polling, people of Ontario said they wanted the law. I agree. Smokes are so addicted to the nicotine they can't make see what they are doing to themselves or their kids. One way around this and still get your nicotine boost is to wear the patch while in the car.

Smoking in a car or enclosed space is an assault on the others in that space. I'd like to see the law go further than cars and cover any enclosed space, including a private home. The law should go further yet. It should prohibit smoking in an enclosed space in the vicinity of anyone who hasn't explicitly given consent. Since kids aren't legaly capable of giving consent it would naturally include them.

There should be no issue with smokers doing harm to themselves. The issue is should it be legal for them to harm others? I think the obvious answer is no!

While we are at it, we should also make parents liable for negligent harm they cause to their kids. So, it the kids develop cancer later, and it can be reasonably shown that it was due to the parent's second-hand smoke, the kid should be able to sue the parents for damages.

[DrGreenthumb]

Smoking in a car or enclosed space is an assault on the others in that space. I'd like to see the law go further than cars and cover any enclosed space, including a private home. The law should go further yet. It should prohibit smoking in an enclosed space in the vicinity of anyone who hasn't explicitly given consent. Since kids aren't legaly capable of giving consent it would naturally include them.

There should be no issue with smokers doing harm to themselves. The issue is should it be legal for them to harm others? I think the obvious answer is no!

While we are at it, we should also make parents liable for negligent harm they cause to their kids. So, it the kids develop cancer later, and it can be reasonably shown that it was due to the parent's second-hand smoke, the kid should be able to sue the parents for damages.

That is a pile of crap, do you need Harper to come and hold your hand while you take a pee too? Give me a break. Why not take it one step further than government interfereing in private homes over cigarettes? Maybe we need a law where we must ask others for permission before starting our cars, lest they might accidentally breath in some car exhaust. Maybe fat kids should be able to sue their parents for not better controling their diet if they get teased at school for being fat? The harms from an occasional wiff of second hand smoke are so exagerated that they make me laugh. Don't you think we better also ban campfires, perfumes and colognes? Or should we only be allowed to wear a fragrance if we have asked everyone's permission who may smell it?

I'm pretty sure we better also start criminalizing people who fart in cars, elevators, or private homes.

The anti-smoking lobby is made up of a lot more people who simply don't like cigarette smell, than people genuinely conceerned about health. Ex smokers are usually the worst because they would rather pretend to hate the smell than admit to themselves and others that they would in fact really like to join the smokers and have a quick puff.

[Renegade]

That is a pile of crap, do you need Harper to come and hold your hand while you take a pee too? Give me a break.

Probably not, because as far as I can tell, my pee doesn't cause personal harm to another.

Why not take it one step further than government interfereing in private homes over cigarettes? Maybe we need a law where we must ask others for permission before starting our cars, lest they might accidentally breath in some car exhaust.

Yes it is an interesting concept. Perhaps by making it punative to cause direct or indirect harm we would end up with a more sustainable and livable environment.

Maybe fat kids should be able to sue their parents for not better controling their diet if they get teased at school for being fat?

Sure they should if they can reasonably demonstrate that their parents were negligent in setting their diet.

The harms from an occasional wiff of second hand smoke are so exagerated that they make me laugh.

Any proof of this? How do you draw the conclusion that the wiffs will only be "occassional"?

Don't you think we better also ban campfires, perfumes and colognes? Or should we only be allowed to wear a fragrance if we have asked everyone's permission who may smell it?

Sure we should, as soon as proof is avaiable that campfires, perfumes, and colognes cause harm to others in the vicinty.

I'm pretty sure we better also start criminalizing people who fart in cars, elevators, or private homes.

While rude, I have never seen evidence that inhaling a fart is harmful.

The anti-smoking lobby is made up of a lot more people who simply don't like cigarette smell, than people genuinely conceerned about health. Ex smokers are usually the worst because they would rather pretend to hate the smell than admit to themselves and others that they would in fact really like to join the smokers and have a quick puff.

Irrelevant rant. I you can prove that second-hand does not cause harm. I'll agree with you that there should be no government inteference. IMV there is enough evidence that it does cause harm.

[BillC]

1) no smoking in cars when children are present. Does this (or should it) include disabled adults?

whats next...

2) no smoking in your home when children are present (does this include disabled adults?)

whats next after that...

3) no raising children in areas of high pollution (Toronto, Burlington, Windsor etc etc)

4) no letting children drink water that is known to have high levels of metals (heavy metal toxicity) such as in areas around the Great Lakes.

whats next after that...

5) the Government will remove your children at age 5 yrs and move them to a clean environment, educate and socialize them to age 18, then possibly return them to you IF the child chooses. You may have yearly visits for up to two weeks... IF you promise not to smoke or feed them junk food.

what else could out government do to protect our children... hmmm, don't allow uranium miners to have children (because of the increased likelihood of birth defects - which is a financial burden on society)

introduce social darwinism (genetic engineering) to weed out the 'bad genes' (see Human Genome Project for more info)

install electronic monitoring and ID cards under our skin, in our cars, in our children, grandparents...

change the Canadian flag from a Maple leaf, to a Swastika... (ever notice the similarities?)

Whichever way you look at it, the Government will always find new ways to abuse us.

Have a nice day (unless you live in Toronto, Burlington or Windsor)

[Oleg Bach]

1) no smoking in cars when children are present. Does this (or should it) include disabled adults?

whats next...

2) no smoking in your home when children are present (does this include disabled adults?)

whats next after that...

3) no raising children in areas of high pollution (Toronto, Burlington, Windsor etc etc)

4) no letting children drink water that is known to have high levels of metals (heavy metal toxicity) such as in areas around the Great Lakes.

whats next after that...

5) the Government will remove your children at age 5 yrs and move them to a clean environment, educate and socialize them to age 18, then possibly return them to you IF the child chooses. You may have yearly visits for up to two weeks... IF you promise not to smoke or feed them junk food.

what else could out government do to protect our children... hmmm, don't allow uranium miners to have children (because of the increased likelihood of birth defects - which is a financial burden on society)

introduce social darwinism (genetic engineering) to weed out the 'bad genes' (see Human Genome Project for more info)

install electronic monitoring and ID cards under our skin, in our cars, in our children, grandparents...

change the Canadian flag from a Maple leaf, to a Swastika... (ever notice the similarities?)

Whichever way you look at it, the Government will always find new ways to abuse us.

Have a nice day (unless you live in Toronto, Burlington or Windsor)

Awh..heck this is not about kids..there are thousands of abused adults in poverty who have in turn children in poverty..when I hear the liberal terminology "child poverty" - It's so stupid - as if the kids have no parents and all live on their own not being able to pay the electical bill in the condo..It is adult povety that is the issue. My point is this law about smoking is just another move by the liberal commies to take control of our offspring and make them property of the state to be conditioned and programed for utilitarian future use by Trotskite creeps..

Really give me a break..no normal smoker rolls up the windows and puffs away..even smokers like air between injestive inhalations of the drug. When a car is traveling at 100 klicks the pressure inside is lower than out side..with the windows open ALL SMOKE IS DRIVEN FROM THE COMPARTMENT - THERE SIMPLY IS NONE..THE MASS OF AIR IN THE COMPARTMENT IS CHANGED COMPLETELY EVERY SECOND...Inhale and exhale out the window...do a test of air in the car and you will see that there is no damned smoke..it's a crock.

[Wild Bill]

Really give me a break..no normal smoker rolls up the windows and puffs away..even smokers like air between injestive inhalations of the drug. When a car is traveling at 100 klicks the pressure inside is lower than out side..with the windows open ALL SMOKE IS DRIVEN FROM THE COMPARTMENT - THERE SIMPLY IS NONE..THE MASS OF AIR IN THE COMPARTMENT IS CHANGED COMPLETELY EVERY SECOND...Inhale and exhale out the window...do a test of air in the car and you will see that there is no damned smoke..it's a crock.

Just because one knows little or nothing about how their car works doesn't mean that the air intake vents for the heating/cooling system are not STILL THERE! How do they think that button with the pictograph showing re-cycling of internal air for a quick heat boost on cold mornings works? The air has to come from somewhere!

So opening just one window is NOT like blowing air across the top of a pop bottle. It's actually like blowing across the top of a pop bottle that has a bottom opening from under your hood.

I still maintain that the anti-smoking movement is really about telling your neighbour what to do. What's more, the tactic was deliberate! We've all likely heard the stories about how during the 60's and 70's some teacher or professor would divide his class into silly arbitrary divisions, like who had blue eyes. Then he'd select one group to be discriminated against. After just a surprisingly few days the discrimination would get out of hand. He'd stop it and then explain to his class how easy it is for discrimination to take hold in a community.

These experiments were done to show how easy it is to be racist or whatever. This was only 15-20 years after WWII and Hitler's Holocaust 'solution" was still fresh in the public mind. Teachers were trying to make young folks understand how people could hold such illogical and frankly evil concepts as racism. These experiments brought home the message that it appears to be a sad streak of human nature that must be constantly fought.

When I hear many leaders (many self-proclaimed) of the anti-smoking movement speak I am constantly reminded of these tactics. I'm NOT calling anyone against smoking some kind of nazi! I AM saying that a similar propaganda tactic is being used!

And it's a VERY effective one!

To me, the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

[DrGreenthumb]

Just because one knows little or nothing about how their car works doesn't mean that the air intake vents for the heating/cooling system are not STILL THERE! How do they think that button with the pictograph showing re-cycling of internal air for a quick heat boost on cold mornings works? The air has to come from somewhere!

So opening just one window is NOT like blowing air across the top of a pop bottle. It's actually like blowing across the top of a pop bottle that has a bottom opening from under your hood.

I still maintain that the anti-smoking movement is really about telling your neighbour what to do. What's more, the tactic was deliberate! We've all likely heard the stories about how during the 60's and 70's some teacher or professor would divide his class into silly arbitrary divisions, like who had blue eyes. Then he'd select one group to be discriminated against. After just a surprisingly few days the discrimination would get out of hand. He'd stop it and then explain to his class how easy it is for discrimination to take hold in a community.

These experiments were done to show how easy it is to be racist or whatever. This was only 15-20 years after WWII and Hitler's Holocaust 'solution" was still fresh in the public mind. Teachers were trying to make young folks understand how people could hold such illogical and frankly evil concepts as racism. These experiments brought home the message that it appears to be a sad streak of human nature that must be constantly fought.

When I hear many leaders (many self-proclaimed) of the anti-smoking movement speak I am constantly reminded of these tactics. I'm NOT calling anyone against smoking some kind of nazi! I AM saying that a similar propaganda tactic is being used!

And it's a VERY effective one!

To me, the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

This is only the briefest and slightest taste of the discrimination and propaganda that has been directed at cannabis users for about the last hundred years. They came for people like me now they come for the tobacco users, when will the state come for you? Will there be anyone left to complain about it?