It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

KY proposes smoking ban in cars with kids

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by badw0lf
 


You got to be the biggest idiot i have ever seen try to troll.


I'll take that as you just do not get it.

great,

Now sod off.....





posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SNAFU38
Thats been the law here in Australia for a while & theres no problems with it.

Seriously, if you cant make that tiny sacrifice for your kids health something is wrong.



I wish it had been the law when i was a kid. God damn both my parents for making me breathe their second hand smoke in the car. Smokers are one rung up (barely) from heroin junkies.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostviking

Of course, if we ban smoking in cars, next it will be in the home. Then it will be no junk food in the car, no chemicals in the home, etc....


Slippery slope fallacy.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused

Originally posted by StarLightStarBright2
I'm a smoker and think its a good idea.......I live in calif and think we might have that law......I have not smoked around kids or adults who do not smoke in many many yrs.....We also do not smoke in the house.....If my grandkids are out side when we smoke we make them go inside or in another area so as not to be near the smoke.If everyone did THIS we would not need this law.....Unfortunately many don't care and subject others and kids to there smoking.


Lol you make your grand kids go in the house when your outside in the open air ?
Dude you are beat and broken man.
Do you tell your grandkid's to put on a gas mask when you pass gas ?
Or when you start your car?

Common...
Your care put's of more toxin's as you drive down the street kid's in stoller's breathe it.
Doesnt make you a bad guy lol
DOES IT?
A cigarette put's off 1000000 less emission's than the best car's exhaust.
LOL
this is why i don't live in California...
No offense.


Im not a DUDE ok,OR a beat and broken MAN...Are you perhaps a beat and broken man?What a odd statement to make,but i am sure this IS not your first!...Glad i gave you a laugh tho.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
what's the legal driving age in kentucky?

When they passed this law in Ontario, Canada there were a couple of stories about 16 and 17 year olds being ticketed for smoking in the car with their friends who were under 16....



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by badw0lf
 


You got to be the biggest idiot i have ever seen try to troll.


I'll take that as you just do not get it.

great,

Now sod off.....



Mate, Im just going to go headbutt the brick wall for a few hours. Maybe then this conversation might make some sense.

Sure all governments suck one way or another, but fighting their every word for the sake of opposing them ??? Some people will never get it.

Now, I might go have a smoke, & make sure it doesnt get into the lungs of my innocent birds & cat, or is that too considerate you think ??



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
They banned Happy Meal toys in San Francisco.
They banned soda machines in schools.
They banned smoking in bars, some parks, restaurants.

Now cars with kids in them.

*sigh*
I'm soooo glad the nanny state is looking out for me, because I'm not smart enough to make these decisions on my own!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by SNAFU38
 

i am not making my kid's suffer.
I am sick and tired of this tired old diatribe.


Au contraire chap.

You might not be giving them cancer but you are increasing their risk of contracting asthma or other respiratory diseases.




CHANCE CHANCE CHANCE
they have a bigger chance of getting hit by a car...Should i not allow them to go outside anymore sir?



This argument is invalid, it is you after all that is in control of the situation when you are smoking therefore it is not down to mere chance but blind stupidity severely increasing the odds.



You got to see my point here...
I never said i smoke around my kid's..
I said if i wanted to..i have a right..if it's in my home and my car...i OWN them.....
They are my children to raise as i see fit.


I see the point you are trying to make but it is simply not the case. You are not free to raise them as you see fit, you are free to raise them as you see fit within the confines of the laws that are created, not to tread on your freedoms, but to ensure a safer environment for the children that you have brought into this world.



It is not abuse..NOR has it ever been in the entire existence of cigarettes been called abuse to smoke with kid's present.
TO label as such now after what 1500 years or more is flat absurd dont you think?


This is just plain ignorant, for 1460 of your 1500 years people were not aware of the effects of smoking and it is only with recent scientific advances have we been able to attribute smoking to respiratory diseases and cancer.
.


But not a soul her care's if dad or mom drink's beer or whine every day in front of there kid's.
Should we ban sale's of alcohol ?
Or just make it illegal for parents to drink around there kid's?
it teaches them its ok to drink..daddy drink's 3 beers at the bar every night before he come home hunny...


Again an invalid argument, if you were force feeding your kids alcohol then this would be an issue, but your drinking does not directly and physically affect your children.

Also in reply to one of your previous posts, burning wood on a fire and smoking tobacco are completely different. The amount of harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke far exceeds that of wood smoke due to the chemical processes that are involved in actually making cigarettes.

In conclusion it is incredibly selfish, irresponsible and downright ignorant to smoke in a car with a child in it anyway so this law should not have even have needed to be passed if common sense prevailed but, obviously there are people who are more concerned with themselves than others...

After all that I'm dying for a smoke..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
well guys if you know anything when you are born you get a birth certificate now read what is on the birth certificate it will say basically that you are the carer of that child so they aren't yours so you have no rights and really you shouldn't be doing this anyway same as feeding ya kids crap food everyday. you will soon see that the rights you think you have you never really had in the first place and they are tightening the grip more and more now.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I agree, there are too many pointless laws imo.

But, if people were more responsable, TPTB wouldn't have the ammo to bring these new laws in.

If people want to smoke, go for it, I respect you choice, but it should be a two way respect, smokers should respect those that choose not to smoke, that should extend to their children.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I think that the most overlooked fact about the whole anti-smoking ban is that the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

Tobacco is not an illegal substance and since it is not illegal, people have every right to smoke. That being said, people have every right not to smoke.

I have seen the bad arguments of both the smoker and non-smoker.what makes the smoker's look bad is when you see people on the street bumming for smokes and smoking in clearly marked non-smoking areas. When this happens, then the smoker is trampling on the rights of the non-smoker.

At the same time, when we make laws telling people that they cannot exercise their rights because we don't like it, it starts a slippery slope. What's next? Diabetes is rampent, let's make a law that fast food, confections & soda are illegal. In fact, you cannot have any sugar with your morning coffee.Would that be fair if you're not diabetic?

You see, the fact that taking away rights because of health reasons is not good enough. Too many people have died for our freedoms just to throw them away because of what may seem like a good intention. As individuals, we make our own choices. That's what all this really comes down to.

For the smokers, be more considerate where you light up. For the non-smokers, be careful at what laws you support, it will be a matter of time before the lawmakers use the same "intention" as justification to take away a right that you exercise later and for those on the fence, this isn't really about saving the children or a healther tommorow, it's about you sitting on the fence while your rights are being stripped away and make no mistake, they are your rights wether you choose to exercise them or not. It's your right to choose for yourself as and idividual is what's at stake here ladies and gentlemen.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   


I said if i wanted to..i have a right..if it's in my home and my car...i OWN them.....
They are my children to raise as i see fit.
I


I'm sorry to break this to you, but if you have registered your car with the government, then you don't own your car, you are just the registered keeper or the car and TPTB can take it from you when ever they feel like it.

Same goes for your children, if you have registered their births and got birth certificates, you don't own them, the state does, you gave them to the state and the state has the right to tell you how to look after their property. They can also take them from you if they choose or if they have reason to believe you are not looking after their property how they want you to.

edit on 17/1/11 by NonKonphormist because: to do editing type stuff



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NonKonphormist


I said if i wanted to..i have a right..if it's in my home and my car...i OWN them.....
They are my children to raise as i see fit.
I


I'm sorry to break this to you, but if you have registered your car with the government, then you don't own your car, you are just the registered keeper or the car and TPTB can take it from you when ever they feel like it.

Same goes for your children, if you have registered their births and got birth certificates, you don't own them, the state does, you gave them to the state and the state has the right to tell you how to look after their property. They can also take them from you if they choose or if they have reason to believe you are not looking after their property how they want you to.

edit on 17/1/11 by NonKonphormist because: to do editing type stuff


What? I like to inform you that he does own his car. Registration is so you can get tags to legally drive it, but you can own an unregisterd car and keep it in you garage and it wouldn't be against the law and no, TPTB cannot just take it whenever the want as long as no illegal action is being perfomed.

The state doesn't own people, especially when the court hasn't awarded custody to the state and if so, that will only do until the children turn 18. Finally, The government doensn't own your house, it has no right to tell you what to do in your home any more than I.

Do you live in China or miss the old USSR? Just wondering.....



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


States will be passing more intrusive rules and laws to entrap people for fines and fees. Sin taxes are going to sky rocket as a new revenue stream.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by TheAmused
 


States will be passing more intrusive rules and laws to entrap people for fines and fees. Sin taxes are going to sky rocket as a new revenue stream.



So much for the TEA Party.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cincykid
 


Hi Cindy kid, just a thought for you about you owning your house. Yes you may have the title or deed to your house, you are obligated to pay taxes on your house and your land. Therefore the govenment dictates whether you live in your house by if you pay your taxes or not. Try not to pay your taxes for a few years and see who ends up with your property. This is an example of how the gov't runs the show and that while you own your property, the powers that be can make you forfeit your proprety rights for failure to obide by the rules set forth by the officials.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Dont know if this has been posted or not but smoking in avehicle with a child has been illegal in Ontario for some time now.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 

I agree with everything you say.
Passive smoking is as big a lie as global warming, in my opinion.
I`m in my fifties and we had none of this crap until it slowly kicked off around 20 years ago.

It`s closing all the pubs and clubs.
It`s stopped people going out for a drink, making them stand outside in the rain with strangers.
All social life is being dumbed down.
I remember visiting a family friend in hospital and the consultant standing at the side of the bed smoking a pipe !

Stop selling them.......otherwise, leave us alone.
There`s more important things going on in this world without a new law against the smokers yet again.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cincykid

Originally posted by NonKonphormist


I said if i wanted to..i have a right..if it's in my home and my car...i OWN them.....
They are my children to raise as i see fit.
I


I'm sorry to break this to you, but if you have registered your car with the government, then you don't own your car, you are just the registered keeper or the car and TPTB can take it from you when ever they feel like it.

Same goes for your children, if you have registered their births and got birth certificates, you don't own them, the state does, you gave them to the state and the state has the right to tell you how to look after their property. They can also take them from you if they choose or if they have reason to believe you are not looking after their property how they want you to.

edit on 17/1/11 by NonKonphormist because: to do editing type stuff


What? I like to inform you that he does own his car. Registration is so you can get tags to legally drive it, but you can own an unregisterd car and keep it in you garage and it wouldn't be against the law and no, TPTB cannot just take it whenever the want as long as no illegal action is being perfomed.

The state doesn't own people, especially when the court hasn't awarded custody to the state and if so, that will only do until the children turn 18. Finally, The government doensn't own your house, it has no right to tell you what to do in your home any more than I.

Do you live in China or miss the old USSR? Just wondering.....


Ok, if that's the way you want to see it, that's your choice, but the small amount of research I have done leads me to believe that I am correct.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by gemineye
 


You have noticed that your kids, who were protected from second hand smoke, have asthma (and I would bet anything that they also have food allergies because the two go hand in hand). You have also noticed that your boyfriend's kids, who were NOT protected from second hand smoke, DON'T have asthma, allergies and don't get sick as often.

This is not a coincidence.

Here is a link to study that was done in Sweden;

www.data-yard.net...

The study shows that kids who are exposed to second hand smoke DON't get asthma and allergies as much as kids who are protected.

Now if there is someone on this site who is anywhere near intelligent, then they will find a study that purports to show that kids exposed to second hand smoke get asthma and allergies MORE than kids who are protected. And we could build an argument based solely on duelling studies.

Please don't be fooled by this. This types of studies are called epidimiology. It is the science of observing things in the general population and then trying to build links and see if one thing correlates with another. The weakness of epidimiology is that it is based on studying samples of the wider population. Unfortunately, the sample group being studied don't always reflect the general population nearly as much as they should.

In order to solve this issue - we need to look at the broader population.

The incidence of smoking in the general population started going down in the 1960s - since that time childhood asthma has INCREASED by over 800 %

Mankind has almost always lived in a shroud of smoke because we have always burned organics (like wood and oil and even manure) to cook our food and heat our homes. At about the same time that asthma incidence started increasing - we started heating our homes with cleaner fuel (like electricity or natural gas). This removed smoke from our homes. But our respiratory systems evolved under the stress of breathing smoke and without that stress some people are developing hyper-sensitive respitory systems.

This theory provides a biological explanation for the increased incidence of asthma and allergies in our children that we have all observed (and that you have intuitively sensed when you noticed that your kids were sick but your boyfriends wasn't.

Please don't tell your children that they are allergic to cigarette smoke. There is no protein molecule in smoke to trigger an allergic reaction. What you may be observing is that your children respond in a hyper-sensitive manner to air borne pollutant. You can see the smoke and you can see your children responding to it but what you can't see is that there may also be another pollutant at work (like pollen or cockroach poop) both of which are far more irritating to asthmatics than second hand smoke.

Here is a link:
ezinearticles.com...?&id=3138213

So now the question I have is this....if the government regulates exposing children to second hand smoke and your child develops asthma and food allergies as a result.....can you sue the government?

Should the government be interfering in this manner? Afterall, if you are going to regulate that children can't be exposed to second hand smoke, then why wouldn't you regulate exposure to the sun, which is also a Class A carcinogen?

So how about a fine for the parent of any kid who gets a tan?

Tired of Control Freaks




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join