lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-11-2007, 12:34 PM   #1
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

Link
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.
As someone that used to beg his mother to roll the window down so he could breathe, I'm very pleased to see this legislation.
*Thinks of lady he saw on the freeway once with a 'At least I can still smoke in my car' bumper sticker*
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 01:41 PM   #2
PoiuyWired
Unregistered User
 
PoiuyWired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,503
Another Reason Not To Have Kids.
PoiuyWired is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 01:44 PM   #3
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,049
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
I’m split on this one.

On one hand I don’t appreciate the government getting so involved in my personal life.

On the other, I feel that if people are so irresponsible to smoke in an enclosed environment with minors then the government should step in to protect those children.

Second the cost of dealing with diseases related to second hand smoke makes this a public issue and an issue the government has deal with.

Distractions in cars lead to accident, cigarettes are often listed as the distraction within the vehicle that contributed to the accident. When you have children in the car you are already distracted so adding another distraction probably isn’t a good idea.

So I applauded California for passing this. I just wish people would use a little common sense and keep the government out of our personal lives.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 02:17 PM   #4
MdKnightR
Senior Member
 
MdKnightR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Feeling Hosed By Your Governme
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
I’m split on this one.

On one hand I don’t appreciate the government getting so involved in my personal life.

On the other, I feel that if people are so irresponsible to smoke in an enclosed environment with minors then the government should step in to protect those children.

Second the cost of dealing with diseases related to second hand smoke makes this a public issue and an issue the government has deal with.

Distractions in cars lead to accident, cigarettes are often listed as the distraction within the vehicle that contributed to the accident. When you have children in the car you are already distracted so adding another distraction probably isn’t a good idea.

So I applauded California for passing this. I just wish people would use a little common sense and keep the government out of our personal lives.

I was contemplating a response to this post, but you seem to have hit the nail on the head! Very well put!

MdKnightR is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 02:26 PM   #5
Gargoyle King
Veteran
 
Gargoyle King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In My Own Little World!
Posts: 895
Jeez! I thought the smoking laws were a tad harsh over here in the UK! I'm not a smoker however and hate smoke in cars, 'specially on long trips so on the most part i agree with this law. I really still can't get over the fact that old Arnie is the governer of Cali, bet you he himself never imagined this when he signed up for The Terminator!
Gargoyle King is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 02:58 PM   #6
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
I pretty much agree with Mimartin. I don't like the invasive government involvement, even though I don't smoke. But because I don't smoke, and I've only had rare occasions of being stuck with smokers in anything, be it a house or a car, like he says, if people are so careless to smoke in a sealed car with a child or children inside, they need to get in trouble.(and be smacked upside the head).

This is similar to the cell phone argument as well. Smoking takes your hand off the wheel, or at least poses a problem for quick reaction, since you've got something in your hand while driving. On that note as well smoking should not be allowed in cars.

but again, kinda 50/50. Children's health is very important, of course these are likly kids who go home to s smoke filled house, so.... I think th best "punishment" for these kinds of cases are either a probation-style infraction, perhaps with a smoke detector in the car? Or some kind of mandatory classes/assistance to quit smoking, or at least to not do it in sealed areas around kids.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 03:32 PM   #7
Darth333
Administraterror
 
Darth333's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In my secret dungeon...
Posts: 8,292
I never liked the smell of cigarette, especially in a car, but I think I dislike that kind of invasive law even more. I think emphasis should be put on education rather than coercitive and punitive methods for that kind of thing. Where will it stop? Will giving children fries and chocolate bars become illegal too as it can eventually make them fat and increase the risk of developping heart diseases? Should we legislate on evrything that poses a threat?

Quote:
Second the cost of dealing with diseases related to second hand smoke makes this a public issue and an issue the government has deal with.
I don't think that banning smoking in cars when there are minors around will be a very efficient way to reduce second hand smoke diseases...
Darth333 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 03:38 PM   #8
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Do you disagree with seat belt laws too, D3? Just curious. The dietary argument was also used by groups against those laws.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 04:32 PM   #9
Darth333
Administraterror
 
Darth333's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In my secret dungeon...
Posts: 8,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Do you disagree with seat belt laws too, D3? Just curious. The dietary argument was also used by groups against those laws.
Seat belts are directly related to the car driving activity. They are known to be the most effective type of device to reduce the the risk of serious injuries/death (and the cost on society) in a car.

Banning smoking in a private car when there are people under 18? It's not a law about "highway safety" and I'm far from being convinced that such a measure can have any noticeable effect on the kids health except in some exceptional cases... Cigarettes are still legal as far as I know and the overall purpose of the law seems more of a way to "set the example" and "increase public awarenes" by using coercitive methods rather than education. (and btw,this is not about the "right to smoke" - I'm a non smoker anyway- . It's a general statement about the implementation and purpose of such a law).
Darth333 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 04:39 PM   #10
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Sounds like a way to make extra cash.

"Citizen, you were endangering the life of others by driving at 100 MPH, and breaking many traffic laws. But, OMG, you were smoking with kids in the car! YOU MUST PAY A FINE!"

And if you are a good driver who doesn't break the law, you don't pay the fine. Simple. Nothing changed except for the fact that police officers can now make even more money on routine traffic stops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by APS
Oh, cool, I found the guy who smokes! I get a bonus $100!
Now, if you like having the governmet make money from tickets, then this is a great law. I am also in support of it. But, if you don't like it, well...
***
As for the arguments that the rights of smokers are being infriged, I have this to say:

"Just because the slippery slope is a fallacy, doesn't mean it's not true."


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 05:06 PM   #11
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Well, the income tax certainly went down the slippery slope. I'm against such invasive govt involvement "in the name of the children" or public health. Where does it end? It is also another way for govt to enhance revenues (you better have indisputable evidence should you decide to contest anything in court, 'cause the judge ain't likely to believe you otherwise) and criminalize another type of behavior. Welcome to the nanny state.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 05:09 PM   #12
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
Cigarettes are still legal as far as I know
Yes, but not for minors. If alcohol was given to minors, that would not be okay. Yet cigarette smoke goes into their lungs without any oversight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
and the overall purpose of the law seems more of a way to "set the example" and "increase public awarenes" by using coercive methods rather than education.
Education has been in place for the past 40 years that cigarette smoke is harmful. There has been a number of ad campaigns over the past couple years in the United States from the American Lung Association educating people of the dangers of second-hand smoke to children and adults.

But going back to what you said regarding seatbelts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
Seat belts are directly related to the car driving activity. They are known to be the most effective type of device to reduce the the risk of serious injuries/death (and the cost on society) in a car.
So then, in the case where safety and health of a person is directly affected, you would say it is okay for the government to apply coercive measures (eg. fines) to prevent actions that would effectively endanger a person's health/safety and, by implication, the cost on society. That seems a fair role for the government, I'd agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
Banning smoking in a private car when there are people under 18? It's not a law about "highway safety" and I'm far from being convinced that such a measure can have any noticeable effect on the kids health except in some exceptional cases...
What I read from this is that you do not believe that second-hand smoke poses a health threat to children, at least not enough to warrant traffic fines. Maybe more education isn't such a bad idea.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 05:29 PM   #13
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
I'm not too excited by restrictive laws, but smoking is known to contribute to the development of childhood asthma and other health problems. Fries and chocolate don't cause harm in and of themselves, while smoking does cause changes in the lungs, bronchi, and other airway passages. Food is essential to life, and smoking is not, so food issues can't be compared to smoking-related illness. The cost of treating asthma in the US in 1998 was $12.7 billion and is likely much higher nearly 10 years later, so it is a big public health concern. Asthma is a big reason of illness-related childhood hospital admissions, and it does cause death in children and adults (1.6 per 100,000 people in 2000). It's a problem that is taken far more lightly than it should, and if smoking contributes to asthma and other childhood problems, then we should do whatever we can to reduce childhood exposure to smoking, mainly for the sake of the affected child but also for the cost to society. I'm not sure that tickets for smoking in a car are entirely the answer, but there should be a lot more done about smoking and children. I've seen kids on ventilators due to asthma flare-ups. If I never saw that again, it would be too soon.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:25 PM   #14
JasraLantill
No One Liners
 
JasraLantill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 2,387
Current Game: SWOTR
The Walking Carpets Guild Member Alderaan News Holopics contributor LFN Staff Member Roleplayer 
I agree with Darth333. The nanny state legislation seems to be getting more and more invasive every year. I'm all for promoting child health, but banning smoking in cars with child passengers doesn't seem to me to be doing all that much, especially when driving in the wonderfully healthy smog-filled air of Los Angeles. Makes me think that this law is nothing more than a good PR stunt for Arnie. There's a seatbelt law in place already--and kids still die each year in car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelts. The no-smoking-in-the-car law will probably be enforced in pretty much the same way.

Hmm...perhaps the next California law will prohibit people with a BMI over 30 from eating in their car. Or, better yet, let's just eliminate all the fast food drive-thrus all together--make you actually get out of the car and *walk* inside to order your food. After all, if you're eating in the car, that's also a dangerous distraction as you have to take at least one hand off the wheel to hold that Big Mac, not to mention the skill it takes to balance that soft drink between your legs because you didn't pay extra for the optional cup-holder when you bought your car.


Veni, Vidi, Velcro. (I came, I saw, I stuck around)
___________________________
JasraLantill is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:30 PM   #15
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
I think that this law stinks because the cop cannot pull you over unless you are commiting another offense. Otherwise I fully agree with this law.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2007, 06:42 PM   #16
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
I'm not pleased about the Government telling us one more thing we're not allowed to do, but this one at least makes sense, you're not just endangering yourself, you're endangering others.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 01:31 AM   #17
MdKnightR
Senior Member
 
MdKnightR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Feeling Hosed By Your Governme
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Do you disagree with seat belt laws too, D3? Just curious. The dietary argument was also used by groups against those laws.

I, for one, do disagree with seatbelt/helmet laws. However, if the person is underage, I think it should be required. Adults, by nature of being, are decision makers and can decide whether or not they use these devices. I ride a motorcycle and I CHOOSE to wear a helmet (and other safety gear) because it is a good idea....not because the law tells me to do so. Same with seatbelts.

MdKnightR is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 09:48 AM   #18
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MdKnightR
I, for one, do disagree with seatbelt/helmet laws. However, if the person is underage, I think it should be required. Adults, by nature of being, are decision makers and can decide whether or not they use these devices.
So, as an adult and parent, I can decide to seatbelt my children while I do not use it, and as a result I might die in a car crash but my children do not?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 11:08 AM   #19
John Galt
Junior Member
 
John Galt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 474
I think this is too invasive and is unconstitutional, as are laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets. I think responsible people would at least roll down the windows, wear seatbelts, and helmets in the case of motorcycles, and I see no reason to get the nanny state involved.

But then again, what do you expect from the People's Republic of California?





Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. -Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
John Galt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 11:35 AM   #20
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
For your reading leisure

A retrospective from 1988 when California first banned smoking on airlines, trains, and buses:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A96E948260
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 11:52 AM   #21
Darth333
Administraterror
 
Darth333's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In my secret dungeon...
Posts: 8,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
What I read from this is that you do not believe that second-hand smoke poses a health threat to children, at least not enough to warrant traffic fines. Maybe more education isn't such a bad idea.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
I've never said that. Re-read the post: I only said that banning smoking in a private car when there are people under 18 (and in addition only when someone will be intercepted for another offense.) is likely not going to be very effective and misses its goal if there was another goal than the state just trying to act as a "nanny"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
A retrospective from 1988 when California first banned smoking on airlines, trains, and buses:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A96E948260
That is a quite different environment from a private car...
Darth333 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 11:57 AM   #22
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
I'm far from being convinced that such a measure can have any noticeable effect on the kids health except in some exceptional cases...
When you referred to kids' health, I assumed you were referring to the effect of cigarette smoke on kids' health, not the indirect of effect of being a distraction to the driver. Therefore I provided a smoking/health link.

Nowhere is it stated (except in this forum) that the goal of this law is anything other than children's health. It has nothing to do with driver distraction. Maybe I'm still not understanding you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
That is a quite different environment from a private car...
You still have people in a confined space who are inhaling 2nd hand smoke against their will --- and doing so on public roads instead of public transportation.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 04:29 PM   #23
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
I wonder if this law can be enforced? It seems highly unlikely that police officers will be able to spot something like that unless they erect barricades and check every car.

Then there's the "myth" of the cost on society. Many want the ban on cigarettes but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Believe it or not, the cost on society is less then the income coming from the taxation of cigarettes. In order to have a good income while minimizing the cost in health care, it's actually more profitable for the State to have around 30% of the population buying cigarettes. Nobody denies that cigarettes are harmful to your health, only that they're not so harmful on the State economy.

Check this out:
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artsocial.html

I also got confirmation of this from many European teachers if it's worth anything in your eyes.

And no I don't smoke.



Is this law going to reduce smoking? Absolutely not. The only truly effective cost of reducing tobacco smoking in our societies is to raise the taxes on cigarettes. But like I said, if smokers bring in a great deal of revenue, you won't see insanely high prices either.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 05:16 PM   #24
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad
I wonder if this law can be enforced? It seems highly unlikely that police officers will be able to spot something like that unless they erect barricades and check every car.
This isn't necessary. In AZ (not sure if other states have this law as well) there is already a similar law surrounding seat belt use. Police can pull you over for speeding (which most people do) and issues a separate citation for not wearing a seat belt. Same thing will apply for smoking in a car with a minor. Sure they won't catch every person that does it, but this law is meant to act as a deterrent against such behavior, nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad
Is this law going to reduce smoking? Absolutely not. The only truly effective cost of reducing tobacco smoking in our societies is to raise the taxes on cigarettes. But like I said, if smokers bring in a great deal of revenue, you won't see insanely high prices either.
I didn't get the impression that this was within the scope of the law that was passed. It seems that the law is concerned with child safety rather than smoking reduction.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2007, 06:14 PM   #25
John Galt
Junior Member
 
John Galt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 474
I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place. It is harmful to consumers and businesses when specific domestically produced and consumed products are subject to restrictive taxation.

In general I don't think the state should be playing "nanny" to citizens. It is the responsibility of individuals to run their own lives, for good or ill, and each person should be responsible for his own actions, and be prepared to accept the ramifications without whining to state and federal governments to solve their (or other peoples') problems for them.





Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. -Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
John Galt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 12:38 AM   #26
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Are you all for drug legalization too John Galt? Full-scale gambling? Prostitution? I mean you could point the finger at the government for "nannying" those behaviors couldn't you?

Yes, my modus operandi is to see how far people adhere to their ideology
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 12:50 AM   #27
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,049
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place.
Ok, but then who is going to pay for the health care cost associated with smoking and tobacco use? Is it fair to push that expense on to those non-smokers that pay taxes and for health insurance?
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 01:38 AM   #28
John Galt
Junior Member
 
John Galt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Are you all for drug legalization too John Galt? Full-scale gambling? Prostitution? I mean you could point the finger at the government for "nannying" those behaviors couldn't you?

Yes, my modus operandi is to see how far people adhere to their ideology
Yes, I have advocated legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution before. They are all currently more or less monopolized (illegally) by organized crime, and as we saw when prohibition was repealed, removing the mafia(I'm using the term as a catch-all for organized crime)'s primary source of revenue greatly reduced its power. With the reduction in the mafia's power came a general reduction in crime, and a decrease in unorganized crime(from desperate junkies who are robbed or who rob other people).

Legalization would open all of these "vices" up to the free market, regulated, of course, by the FDA to ensure that purity standards in drugs are followed. Legalization of needle sales would also reduce disease transmissions, as would requiring licensed prostitutes to be screened regularly.The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.

Just because you asked

back on topic:

@mimartin:

no, but then again I think the entire medicaid/ insurance system is fundementally unjust. Smokers should have to bear the consequences of their addictions and pay their own medical bills, just like everyone else should have to bear the burden of their own retirement and healthcare costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.





Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. -Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
John Galt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 12:12 PM   #29
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
This isn't necessary. In AZ (not sure if other states have this law as well) there is already a similar law surrounding seat belt use. Police can pull you over for speeding (which most people do) and issues a separate citation for not wearing a seat belt. Same thing will apply for smoking in a car with a minor. Sure they won't catch every person that does it, but this law is meant to act as a deterrent against such behavior, nothing more.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how effective it really is. I doubt it'll make much of a difference.



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place. It is harmful to consumers and businesses when specific domestically produced and consumed products are subject to restrictive taxation.
That's always bothered me to some degree. Not taxation, but the ideology. Questions: You mention the FDA regulating certain products. How is the FDA going to pay itself? Are you for a strong US military? Well equipped police forces and firefighters? Good prisons that don't let criminals run out? Good security at the borders? A justice system that pays well its judges so they aren't corrupted (at least too easily)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.
Currently, in the Netherlands, around 9% of prostitutes have a legal license. Most others work illegally. It's relative success, but you have to understand that there's more then simple economical calculations here. Prostitutes are not the most popular people. They tend to hide their jobs from even friends and family. They're not well seen really. So going legal isn't always the best option.

Then there's Belgium which overtaxes its legal prostitutes for moral reasons. It brings up an interesting point. Morality. Many, if not most, people in society, especially religious people and in this case feminists, would oppose to such a legal measure considering it immoral. The legislature would then try to conciliate both those who are for legalization and those who are against. Thus, weird laws get passed. On one hand, you legalize it, on the other, you overtax the workers in order to act as a deterrent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
no, but then again I think the entire medicaid/ insurance system is fundementally unjust. Smokers should have to bear the consequences of their addictions and pay their own medical bills, just like everyone else should have to bear the burden of their own retirement and healthcare costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
While I do agree with you about how people should take care of their own crap, this brings another question to the table. If I get hit by a drunken driver, while safely crossing the street at an intersection, on a green light, am I responsible for this accident? Is it fair that I ruin myself for healthcare costs? You could say make the drunken driver pay. But what if he has no money or at least not enough? Then you could say that it still doesn't justify how society as a whole should pay for it, and you would be right. But where does that leave me?

I'd like to talk about the word "unjust" now. Social justice is a strange idea. The left considers it equality among all citizens. Meaning no one is bigger or better then the other. The right consider it differently. The bigger should have the advantage over the weaker because he worked for it or whatever.
Who's right? Who's wrong?

Neither. They're different visions on the same concept. As such, the leftist will consider society paying the healthcare costs for X individual as "just" and the right-winger will think the opposite. You can debate until the end of time, there will not be a consensus on the matter.
Not saying you're right or wrong yourself, just something to think about.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2007, 12:47 PM   #30
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth333
Banning smoking in a private car when there are people under 18? It's not a law about "highway safety" and I'm far from being convinced that such a measure can have any noticeable effect on the kids health except in some exceptional cases... Cigarettes are still legal as far as I know and the overall purpose of the law seems more of a way to "set the example" and "increase public awarenes" by using coercitive methods rather than education. (and btw,this is not about the "right to smoke" - I'm a non smoker anyway- . It's a general statement about the implementation and purpose of such a law).
Agreed... I do not smoke either, but when I heard about this it sounds to me as just some more of our "wonderful" touchy-feely Californian crap. It gets pretty thick around here on planet California.


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 01:26 AM   #31
MdKnightR
Senior Member
 
MdKnightR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Feeling Hosed By Your Governme
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place. It is harmful to consumers and businesses when specific domestically produced and consumed products are subject to restrictive taxation.

In general I don't think the state should be playing "nanny" to citizens. It is the responsibility of individuals to run their own lives, for good or ill, and each person should be responsible for his own actions, and be prepared to accept the ramifications without whining to state and federal governments to solve their (or other peoples') problems for them.

I am really starting to like you! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear we were the same person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt
Yes, I have advocated legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution before. They are all currently more or less monopolized (illegally) by organized crime, and as we saw when prohibition was repealed, removing the mafia(I'm using the term as a catch-all for organized crime)'s primary source of revenue greatly reduced its power. With the reduction in the mafia's power came a general reduction in crime, and a decrease in unorganized crime(from desperate junkies who are robbed or who rob other people).

Legalization would open all of these "vices" up to the free market, regulated, of course, by the FDA to ensure that purity standards in drugs are followed. Legalization of needle sales would also reduce disease transmissions, as would requiring licensed prostitutes to be screened regularly.The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.

Just because you asked
Ditto! As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal. ****ing's legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal?" and "Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?"

MdKnightR is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 02:15 AM   #32
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Raise your hand if you have kids and you disagree with this law.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 04:00 PM   #33
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Raise your hand if you have kids and you disagree with this law.

What does it have to do with anything? Even if I had kids, I don't smoke, so it wouldn't affect me in particular or any non-smoking parent as a matter of fact, unless their kids ride often with a friend's parents that they do smoke.

Even then, if the parent really doesn't want his kids to be exposed to cigarette smoke, he can always ask the other parents to avoid smoking in the car.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 05:35 PM   #34
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 10:31 PM   #35
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?
Because you asked nicely. Smokers can be nice people, you know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 11:05 PM   #36
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad
What does it have to do with anything?
I used to think that too.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2007, 11:25 PM   #37
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MdKnightR
I am really starting to like you! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear we were the same person.

Ditto! As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal. ****ing's legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal?" and "Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?"
Who's going to pay for all the health care of the people who are on disability for smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? Who's going to pay for the intensive care unit stays of these people when they end up on respirators when they get pneumonia? Who's going to pay for all the extra police required to deal with whacked out druggies shooting up on Friday night? Who's going to pay for their health care when they finally discover they have AIDS? Who's going to pay for rehab for the addicts?

If you're going to get drunk, smoke cigarettes, or indulge in other risk-taking behaviors, then I think you should pony up and pay for your share of the taxes required to pay for all your medical care you'll need for yourself and those exposed to your vice(s) when said vice finally catches up to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?
Because my kids have bad allergies and smoking makes it worse.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2007, 12:34 AM   #38
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
I used to think that too.
Funny how that happens.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2007, 12:48 AM   #39
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
I used to think that too.

Because it makes someone more easily accept a "Save the children!" argument?


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2007, 12:07 PM   #40
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
Because you asked nicely. Smokers can be nice people, you know.
Oh yeah, that's why they made a law instead of asking nicely.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.