Problem is, the house is a plastic bubble. And some (many) parents do smoke inside that bubble with the kid.
I was in the parking lot at Outback Steakhouse last summer and saw a woman sitting in her car, with her feet out on the ground, grooming her 7-8 year old daughter. She had a cigarette hanging in her mouth, and when the kid waved her hand in front of her face, the mom playfully swatted her in the back of the head.
Beautiful.
The couple was nicely dressed, and the car was a late model BMW, if that matters.
Look, I think smoking indoors is nasty. I couldn’t imagine smoking in a car with all of the windows up either. Yuck.
Thing is, people are gonna do it. Someone’s home is their private property, as is their car. You can’t dictate to them what LEGAL acts they can and can’t do while on their private property. Emphasis on the LEGAL activities.
Not to mention the fact that there would be no possible way to enforce it.
It’s obvious that the anti-smoking brigade wants smoking to be illegal. Fine. Whatever. They can want whatever they want. The point is, until smoking becomes illegal, (which I actually see happening in the distant future, a scary thought as far as personal freedoms are concerned) there’s only so far bans can go.
Giving examples of people smoking around children isn’t really debating the issue, by the way.
Even when the example shows that, in the absence of a ban, adults do indeed willfully subject children to serious health hazards?
I’d say that’s debating the heart of the issue.
And I’d still like to see someone who smokes around children step up and explain why they think it’s ok.
No one’s going to do that. Are you wilfully being obtuse?
The heart of the issue isn’t whether or not people do it. Of course they do it.
The heart of the issue is whether or not there should be a BAN.
I can’t believe you’re actually not arguing your OWN op…
:rolleyes:
I gave up on the ban idea. I realized that a ban would be largely unworkable. But if there were a ban, maybe it would be easier to prosecute parents who harm children by smoking around them. At least maybe a few would get a freakin’ clue. Speaking of obtuse.
Your :rolleyes: hotkey seems to be stuck.
Wow, as of now you are the worst debator I’ve ever seen on this forum. Congratulations. You can’t even debate your OWN OP effectively.
Now that takes skills.
Probably why this thread has had so little replies.
And there are not enough :rolleyes: in the world for someone like you, sweetheart.
Oh, I forgot to mention, if you just want to start a thread with no links, consisting of personal ancetodes and opinions, with no actual issue to debate, the Pit is usually a better place than Great Debates.
IMHO, IMO.
Sorry, I seem to have hit a sore spot. Do you (or someone close tp you) expose children to cigarette smoke? Are you a smoker?
I just want to know why you won’t answer any of my direct questions. Such as, what exactly are you debating, why are you starting a thread that is 100% opinion in the great debates forum? And why you think it’s okay to vehemently bash a group to which you were so recently a part of? Calling people names and insulting them because of a habit the have (especially when you’ve had the habit too at one time) is in very poor taste, not to mention being a sign of EXTREME insecurity.
Actually yes, I am a light smoker (about 1 or 2 cigs a day) don’t have any kids, and pretty much am never around them. Certainly not when I’m smoking. Don’t really know why that should make any difference. I’ve answered all of your questions, you still haven’t answered any of mine. The fact that I smoke don’t make any of my points, opinions or questions any less valid.
And by the way, IMHO, belongs in the IMHO forum. That’s why it’s there.
“And by the way, IMHO, belongs in the IMHO forum. That’s why it’s there.”
That’s what I said. I was replying to your previous post.
You said this thread should be in The Pit. I said it fit better in IMHO.
Questions? Where did you ask any. What do you want to know?
Vehemently bash? Call names? You mean the “hates kids” crack? You’ve got to be kidding.
Insecure I’m not. After all, I was able to quit a really nasty habit.
Upon reflection I abandoned the ban bebate. And said so. That’s where I should have shifted to IMHO, and asked the question about if there’s any excuse for people who smoke around children. I have no big problem with smokers in general. I was one for over 40 years.
Smoking is more addiction than habit. Which is why many smokers can’t wait until thet’re away from kids (and non-smokers) to smoke.
Why are you still argueing with me?
Because you keep responding.
I’ll stop, because this I see this is a lost cause.
Very original exit line. Now for the :rolleyes:.
Peace,
mangeorge
Coming to a pro-smoking thread near you. 
I’m sure this has come up in another thread before… but I feel compelled to point out:-
The impetus for the ‘secondhand smoke’ outcry was an EPA report issued sometime in 1993 (perhaps someone could provide a publication date) which suggested that those routinely exposed to secondhand smoke had a 1 in 30,000 risk of developing lung cancer at some point in their lives.
Now, this may seem rather severe, but consider that “one in three individuals will develop some type of cancer in their lifetime” ( http://www.cancercare.org/Genetics/Geneticsmain.cfm )
Doesn’t seem quite so bad now, does it?
Ban it as part of a city beautification program, if you want- I will freely admit that we smokers are messy- or because its an addicting substance, but if you’re going to ban it on the grounds of public health, why not require all beachgoers to use sunscreen? (chances of getting skin cancer in your lifetime: 1 in 6 (http://www.wfubmc.edu/school/Archives/05-21-02_FreeCancerScreening.htm) )
Parents also bear responsability for their children’s welfare.
Which includes **not ** exposing them to toxic chemicals that uncreases their risk of contracting or developing a respiratory disease. It could and should be called neglect. I don’t believe there is anmyone left on this earth that does not know that smoking is harmful for you.
Wilfully ignoring those risks for yourself is not only stupid and arrogant, especially of you have a family to support, but wilfully exposing your family to those same risks, is criminal.
Do you really want to risk your kids developing emphysema? So they drown in their own mucus?
http://www.nietrokers.nl/ae/a01030.html
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventlungdiseases.htm
I believe people should be allowed to smoke, I also believe that non-smokers should not be exposed to cigarette smoke, and I believe the onus is on the smokers to make this happen.
Polluter pays, is my motto.
Hmm, for all the posters saying they would not vote for a ban , err , I have not seen one location thats actully voted for it in a referendum. Its always been an endrun with some health department nazis.
And second , as per the original post , its not workable as stated simply because of the fourth amendment( I think) in the US , other nations , domestic con law may vary.
Declan
What about it. Crypto-fascist are already beginning the lawsuits and planning the legislation.
The simple matter is this: Antismokers are fascists. They hate democracy. They hate liberty. They hate civil rights. They only love imposing their will upon others. They are control freaks and deserve to be treated as such.
If they try to cite the EPA study on ETS, then they are also dishonest control freaks who foist off junk science onto people.
Funny you should say “nazis”. Indeed, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and antismoking had a very long and strong association. They were intimately tied together.
Step
outside
and
smoke
your
freakin’
head
off.
So simple. Did it for years. Rarely did any “health nazi” bother me.
Peace,
mangeorge
I was standing next to the Games of Berkeley store on Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley a few years ago, having a smoke, when I noticed a woman standing at the Bart station across the street with her hands on her hips and glaring at me. She went to the crosswalk, waited for the light, and then came stomping up to me. She said “Do you think other people enjoy you blowing smoke in their faces, asshole?” I replied “Did you actually come all the way over here to say that?” She said “Didn’t you see me watching you? I could smell it all the way over there.” So I said, respectfully, “Go fuck yourself”.
My point? She was right, except the part about “smelling” it. There is no defense for smoking around people who don’t smoke. None. You can only get nasty, and call them Nazis. And pretend that anyone who doesn’t enjoy, or at least endure, your smoke is one of them.
For a change, here’s a little bit of good news for smokers - you’re less likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_791183.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery
The media has been very wary with this story, in case it is seen as encouraging smoking - the message is it’s the nicotine, not the cigs as such, that preserves your memory.
The whole smoking issue should be a simple one - a matter of information, liberty and mutual respect. Smokers should be properly informed about the dangers of their addiction and then either (a) helped to give up or (b) left in peace to enjoy their habit - a risky habit, yes, but so are many human pleasures.
Separate smoking areas should be available in bars, offices etc wherever practical. For their part, smokers should respect non-smoking areas and avoid smoking over other people, especially those who are not in a position to object (like small children). It should not be necessary to legislate for what should be a matter of good manners.
So why isn’t it simple? Well, there’s the bar-employee-lawsuit problem of course, but I suspect that there’s a darker emotional impetus behind the more extreme anti-smoking sanctimoniousness. Being a non-smoker seems to give some people the feeling they have a passport to purity, and provides them with a convenient group of people they can insult with impunity.
I think it’s also part of the modern tendency to confuse physical health with moral worth.