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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I sort of agree with the idea of it...

I hate to say. I'm sort of on the fence.


Being a former smoker and a parent of a child, (who is now 25) with chronic asthma, I see no problem with this. Honestly, I am appalled at people who need to be told to not smoke with kids in the car. If you don't know any better, then perhaps you need a police state. I've seen the effects 2nd hand smoke can have on a person.

I'm with you on this one.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by General.Lee
 


so the answer is to persecute people for doing something which is legal to buy? surely banning smoking is a better route, if it is so harmful to people?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Truth_Hz
 


common decency would be to give smokers somewhere to smoke without being made to feel like criminals.
i agree with what your saying on the surface but what about a smokers right to smoke? it is not illegal to smoke.

also if it is illegal to smoke in a car with kids, no doubt they next step will be not being allowed to smoke in your own home if kids are present, adding to the endless places smokers cannot smoke, and are criminals if they do so.

soon smokers will gather under bridges, tossed aside, for buying something that is legal but very addictive, along with all the illegal drug users. the drug users will be laughing because they are not followed around and fined for leaving crack pipes and needles all over the place.



Of course you are correct, it is not illegal to smoke, as I said, it is a lifestyle choice, I don't know what it's like in the US any more but in the UK most if not nearly all restaurants / bars / clubs / offices etc provide covered outside smoking areas for their clients / workers. Most of these were constructed at very little cost when the smoking ban came into effect.

Again if you have kids you shouldn't be smoking in your house anyway, in fact I don't know why anyone would want to smoke in their house. It stains your wallpaper, paint, curtains etc makes your house smell stale and decreases the value of your property all because someone can't be bothered to get off their arse and walk to the back door.

As for the last comment that's just plain ridculous and sensationalist akin to a red top paper. If you want to smoke, by all means, smoke just don't infringe on other people's choice not to..



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by redgy
 


It's not a conspiracy it common decency!!



I agree entirely, though the smokers image nowadays has become as scum or scurge of society for those who push for and also sometimes overstep their mark in justice and decency in retaliation against them who won't conform of their unwaranted addiction.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Well lets be honest...we all know that this law is very unlikely to pass. I agree with the law as some parents are just too damn ignorant to know any better. I saw an example of this just yesterday and I felt bad for the kid as he has no choice. We all know the reason why cigs have not & will never be banned right? It's to keep a control on the human population.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Interesting replies, and the whole point of what all is going on. The government is nudging the people to be healthy, right now, by going after fast food and smokers. Oh it is small right now, but it is starting there the government is trying to tell people how to live and what all they may do with their bodies, and what all they can consume. One must wonder when they will go after alcohol again. Let us take a brief look at the history of tobacco. The use of tobacco goes back into human history, it is believed that it started at 1 BC when it was prevalent in the Americas, as part of ritual use. Around 470 to 630 BC it was documented and consumed by the Aztec and Mayan tribes. It was the Mayans that caused it to spread further north among the different native American Tribes, and south, as part of religious ceremonies. 1492 AD Columbus mentions it, and Jerez tried it and became the first European Smoker. During the 16th century roll of tobacco was used by the Spanish lower classes, and was popular, seeds were spread, planted and cultivated. In Germany, in 1571 was the first Medical promotion of the use of Tobacco, which spread through out Europe. During the 1600’s was the rise of people using pipes to consume tobacco, though in 1602, was the first work condemning the use of tobacco. This also led, in 1604 to the first tax on tobacco, by King James I of England. Tobacco got a boost during 1614 when King Philip III of Spain, worked to prevent a tobacco glut, and only would allow it grown in certain areas, and protected it. In Mongolia, 1617, the first laws banning it was introduced, with the death penalty. In the 1700’s, there was more, the use of Snuff became popular. And more taxes on the shipment of tobacco, along with the quality of such.
Many of the companies that are now established as tobacco companies were started during that time frame.
During the 1800’s saw the rise and popularity of cigars, along with the first discussion and the actual point of where finding that nicotine in its pure form, concluding it was a poison. It was in 1833, when religion got involved against tobacco use, from the Mormons.
1840 was the first ban on tobacco, in Boston Mass. It was during 1846, the Mexican American War, that US soldiers, coming back from the southwest, had a taste for cigars, and the darker tobaccos, though the south still remained attached to chewing tobacco. Cigarettes from the middle east were cheap.
During the 1900’s, it saw the rise and popularity. During this time frame, it was found that there were different bans and laws against its use. It was during this time frame, that the first use of the public media, namely the newspapers, and radio, tobacco businesses. In New York, women were forbidden from smoking in public. There was a large public event, where women were given cigarettes, and then held them up, as symbols of liberty, during a parade, that led to the repeal of that bill, as the zymology was reminiscent of the statue of liberty.
Doctors were divided by the use of cigarette use, during that time frame, and you can still find some of the old adds of such.
This debate continues to this day and age. Are smokers discriminated against, as was suggested by the prior poster, in some sense the answer is yes, as more and more laws are invading people right to do what they desire. What should be disturbing, is that the government is trying to regulate behavior. If you look at the other current legislations, that are coming out, there are similar legislation, from alcohol and especially fast food.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   


Text Originally posted by Truth_Hz Of course you are correct, it is not illegal to smoke, as I said, it is a lifestyle choice, I don't know what it's like in the US any more but in the UK most if not nearly all restaurants / bars / clubs / offices etc provide covered outside smoking areas for their clients / workers. Most of these were constructed at very little cost when the smoking ban came into effect. Again if you have kids you shouldn't be smoking in your house anyway, in fact I don't know why anyone would want to smoke in their house. It stains your wallpaper, paint, curtains etc makes your house smell stale and decreases the value of your property all because someone can't be bothered to get off their arse and walk to the back door. As for the last comment that's just plain ridculous and sensationalist akin to a red top paper. If you want to smoke, by all means, smoke just don't infringe on other people's choice not to..


well i never said i smoke in MY house, i said that will be the next step, i choose to smoke outside in the backyard, but if it is legal to buy them i believe people have the right to choose what they do in their own home with them, or in their car for that matter. if the governments are so concerned about their effects or who ever it is that push these regulations, instead of persecuting people for doing something legal, they should ban them.

the last comment was never serious, but it is how smokers are made to feel, and not unrealistic considering....


edit on 18-1-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


My apologies for not picking up on the humour, the internet strikes again!

Regardless of whether it should or not the government would never be able to ban smoking in your house as it would never be able to enforce it.

Smoking will remain legal regardless of restrictions and laws that are put in place to regulate it, it generates far too much revenue to even contemplate a ban.

If they did ban smoking it would still be persecution of smokers in much the same way as if the US banned guns due to the actions of a few irresponsible people. They should be enjoyed in an environment that does not bring harm to anyone else...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
First...I am a smoker (in the process of quitting)

With that said...here is my take on the subject. I 100% support the idea of keeping our children healthy, safe, etc. I have two daughters myself. I agree 100% that people should not smoke in the car, the house, etc. with children. What I am 100% opposed to is anyone (especially the government) mandating what I must do, or not do, to keep my children safe.

What else do these people want to control about my children? Their food intake? The opinions and teachings parents can bestow upon them? The religious beliefs they are taught? What, for example, should happen if I preach a dislike of liberalism to my children? Should I be fined for not being fair, and corrupting their minds to whomever is in charge at the moment? Maybe that is the goal.

The government, in my opinion, doesn't protect any citizen from anything. They make laws, rules and impose fines, etc. "if" you do something wrong...but the wrong is still done. They do what they do for the purpose of income and control...nothing else. The government (and the big corporations) don't want us to be smoke-free, alcohol-free, they don't want us to stop speeding, stop drunk driving, etc., etc., etc. They want us to keep doing such things and then pay up. So what are the costs of our "freedoms"?

Tax revenue from smoking: Link

Tax revenue from alcohol: Link

Removing traffic cams for income: Link

An individual's cost for a DUI: Link

The war on drugs...the other wars...etc. (no links needed to explain)

These incomes are made up by a combination of fines, continued employment of state and government workers, paperwork, etc. For example...if no one ever drove a car under the influence again...how many people would loose their jobs (judges, lawyers, counselors, etc.) in addition to the fines being lost? They are sustaining themselves, their income and their power with the full knowledge that they are stopping nothing.

Keep in mind also that anything you smell...cigarette smoke, gas fumes, pollution, etc...means you are breathing in particles of that item. Yes...if you can smell a fart, you are breathing in particles from someone's ass. So why doesn't the government get more involved in eliminating pollution and other fumes that are unhealthy? Because they would be restricting corporations...and they would much rather restrict, and income from, the individuals.

But then again...who am I? Just some anti-government nut. Maybe I should be fined for passing such opinions to my children. Maybe someone would think such opinions are hazardous to children. Maybe...just as hazardous as smoking in the car.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
A young woman got in my taxi the other day. She was very pregnant and smoking. I didn't have the courage to ask her why she was doing that, but does anybody think there should be a law to stop pregnant women from smoking. I do.

Having said that there could be a very long list of things that pregnant women could/should be prevented from doing, eg drink, drugs, dangerous sports,



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
A young woman got in my taxi the other day. She was very pregnant and smoking. I didn't have the courage to ask her why she was doing that, but does anybody think there should be a law to stop pregnant women from smoking. I do.

Having said that there could be a very long list of things that pregnant women could/should be prevented from doing, eg drink, drugs, dangerous sports,


I do, too. The fact that pregnant women are allowed to smoke, drink etc. is a disgrace, and it should have been banned long ago.

edit on 18/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
This is one of those cases where I agree with the overall premise - smoking in enclosed areas is bad for anyone who breathes it. Especially children who have no choice. And in the wintertime where I live riding with the windows down or cracked is cause for pneumonia.

Looking at the overall picture though I am against this law. I don't smoke and it doesn't affect me but what will be next? When will it end?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by bigyin
A young woman got in my taxi the other day. She was very pregnant and smoking. I didn't have the courage to ask her why she was doing that, but does anybody think there should be a law to stop pregnant women from smoking. I do.

Having said that there could be a very long list of things that pregnant women could/should be prevented from doing, eg drink, drugs, dangerous sports,


I do, too. The fact that pregnant women are allowed to smoke, drink etc. is a disgrace, and it should have been banned long ago.

edit on 18/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


So how would you propose making this illegal and enforcing it? I guess all women old enough to get pregnant would have to carry an ID card stating the state of pregnancy (or not pregnant). They would have to present this to police (at least) upon demand. Unless, of course, you are suggesting they present it to anyone who asks. Then, once it is determined that the woman is pregnant, do we fine her the first time or immediately put her in jail? I guess the fine would make sense and some counselling on what she is doing to her unborn child.

We, of course then, would have to either keep pregnant women from being allowed in smoking areas (to avoid 2nd hand smoke). Maybe to resolve all of this management of the individual person, we simply require a license (thus making pregnancy a privilege) before you are permitted to get pregnant. But since we can't guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant by accident...maybe the license should be so you can have sex in the first place. And of course...you would have to sign something swearing under penalty that you won't smoke, won't drink, won't drive too fast, won't eat fast food, won't fall down, won't engage in dangerous sports, won't...well...you get the idea.

Then, if we license the men and the women...we can weed out a lot of undesirable choices. How about we deny sex/pregnancy licenses to people who are racist? Stupid people? That would be cool...no more spreading the stupid gene. In fact...we could eventually build a superior race of people with such restrictions.

What a wonderful, free world this would be for the fortunate few children that are sanctioned by the government.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Thats one hell of a straw man along with slippery slope logical fallacy you have just commited there.. please criticise what I said, instead of what you imagined in your head.

Smoking, drinking etc. should be illegal for pregnant women, because it harms the child in development.

As for the enforcement, restricting access for certain substances to certain people is common everywhere - drug laws, age limits, prescription drugs and so on. This should be enforced in similar way.
edit on 18/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/1/11 by Maslo because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused

Originally posted by NonKonphormist
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.

And will you complain when...
They come after your alcohol?
You fast food?
and you sugary drink's?

I bet money you do and all of the above kill more each year than 2nd hand smoke.
When you allow them to pass law's like the above.
It allows them to basically control anything and everything they deem not good for you.
And that is not the American way of life i am sorry folk's.


You quoted me, but I don't think you took the time to actually read what I had written!
I am against bringing it in as law, so what's your point in quoting me as if I had?
My main point, just to help you understand, is...

More laws....WRONG.
Making children breathe in toxic fumes.....WRONG.

I hope this clears things up.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 



I totally agree with you m8 ... I don't agree with having laws that are not enforceable.

On the other hand I am concerned that children and even unborn are having their health affected by numbskulls.

Perhaps we should just let the kids be damaged and then later when they figure out what happened to them to make them sick or retarded they can hire a lawyer to sue their parents.

Another part of me says these numbskull parents if they wind up with retarded or damaged kids then they got what they deserve and their whole life can just go into a downward spiral of despair.

All I'm saying is it's sad to see people harming their kids that way, and people like me who want to point out what they are doing is wrong somehow feel it's not their place to do that. Hence we look to our government to tell them. But maybe there's another way.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by lifeform11
 




If they did ban smoking it would still be persecution of smokers in much the same way as if the US banned guns due to the actions of a few irresponsible people. They should be enjoyed in an environment that does not bring harm to anyone else...


it's persecution which ever way it is done, but i would much rather be persecuted for using an illegal substance than one that is legal to buy. at least i would feel the persecution is justified.

also one of the main reasons people find it hard to quit is because they can easily walk into a shop and buy something to smoke when they are finding it hard to quit. will power varies between people, so banning it is far more productive if people are really worried about kids breathing it. it is harder to walk into a shop and just buy something if they are illegal, almost all people will have to dig harder to get over the habit.

seems better to me than making criminals out of people having a habit that is legal and bad for kids health.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Part of my point, friend, is that we can't simply say "don't allow this person to do this". Every action has a reaction and enforcement is required for every law. If you don't cover all the possibilities of what this action will cause or mean (or in this case, what powers it bestows), we are in for a lot of trouble.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
reply to post by Maslo
 


Part of my point, friend, is that we can't simply say "don't allow this person to do this". Every action has a reaction and enforcement is required for every law. If you don't cover all the possibilities of what this action will cause or mean (or in this case, what powers it bestows), we are in for a lot of trouble.


Existence of law does not depend on its ability to be enforced in practice. Law defines something that is morally wrong because it harms third person in some way, and usually a punishment appropiate for breaking the law.

Actual law enforcement in practice is defined by criminal procedure rules that regulate what to do to find and punish violators of the law, while respecting rights of other people. These rules are distinct from the law itself.

For example, if police for some reason is unable to prevent or punish murders in their jurisdiction, it does not mean we need to legalize murder. It means criminal procedure rules for this law should probably be revised, if needed.
edit on 19/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
It is amazing, though predictable how many people are willing to argue or fight for the right to subject their children to second-hand tobacco smoke, which is proven to cause "premature death and disease" in these children. As long as the parents get their drug fix, I suppose that is how addicted minds operate.

CDC Link on the subject




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join