What is Digg?397 Comments
- NippleNutz, on 10/12/2007, -37/+121Well then it should be considered child abuse if they bring them to McDonalds more then once a week. Obesity is far more a problem. Why we are at it lets install cameras in the parents home to make sure no other abuse is going on. And just in case we should have the children meet with a counselor once a month. They are not YOUR children they are the states children.
Yeah I know a bit over the top, but it is a slippery slope. - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -19/+84And you're saying that it isn't abuse? Even cracking a window, a car is still a pretty small enclosed area.
I'm no big anti-smoking person, but I don't think that it's NOT going to affect the child somehow. I just wonder why they came up with age 7 as the stopping point... - Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -19/+74Growing up with my Dad smoking in the car, my experiences consisted of getting extremely car sick with massive headaches on any trip that lasted more than 45 min.
- Arbinshire, on 10/12/2007, -24/+72My father was a chain smoker, smoked two packs a day and refused to quit even when confronted by the doctor who told him point blank, his smoking was responsible for all my ailments as a child.
+digg - I applaud this bill. - godmode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49Smoking while pregnant, still legal.
- rajkalex, on 10/12/2007, -19/+63I used to get car sick every time I took a trip with my smoking parents. I would puke for hours. It wasn't until I was fourteen that I realized that I didn't have a problem with motion sickness, I had a problem with a car filled with smoke. My parents may be able to claim ignorance on the subject but any parent that smokes with a child in the car is outright abusive. I'm all for smaller government and less laws but why should it be legal to smoke with a child in a car when it is illegal to burn them with cigarettes, break their bones, or lock them in a closet for days. It's all abuse.
What kills me about this is the same supporters of tobacco "rights" are the same detractors from the "rights" of every user of other substances that are harmful and sometimes deadly (ie cocaine, marijuana, etc) - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -17/+51Right on brother. People should have the right to do whatever they want wherever they want unless it kills the people around them. Oh, wait a second...
- cblalock, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43Here's the real bottom line. As a parent, you should be taking every reasonable step to protect your children and afford them a clean and healthy life. Their needs trump any of your wants. Their needs matter a whole lot more than any of your so-called 'rights'. The people I see holding a baby in one arm and smoking in the other drive me nuts. Just how self centered must that person be?
I'm all for less government and less intrusion, but the way I look at it is this. Sometimes you have to have asshat laws for people who don't have anything resembling common sense. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38Then you're lucky. My parents smoked around me and I missed, on average, 30 days of school each year when I was young. Got bronchitis all the time, which is quite rare in nonsmokers. Developed asthma and terrible allergies.
And as things go, that's not all that bad, relatively. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -38/+62I've been wanting something like this in Canada for a long time. It is a clear case of abuse. I can say first hand that my brother, sister, and I often did not enjoy the presence of our grandmother because of her chain smoking . And it wasn't like we could just leave: we were kids and were expected to be at our grandparents' house for whatever occassion.
As an adult, I avoid smokers as best I can but, as a child, I had no choice. Forcibly subjecting children to cigarette smoke is wrong. It is about time somebody did something about it. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35@samdu
I lol at your report.
One report that says smoking is not bad VS.. thousands of reports that say smoking is bad.
So go ahead and stick to your one report, while ignoring all the other evidence in the world. You want to believe in that report so bad that you ignore any other evidence against it. It's what I like to call a blind faith. Kinda like how creationist turn down evolution. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28People who smoke while pregnant or smoke around pregnant women are the lowest form of scum.
- vampirechicken, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Congratulations. Now you know how democracy works, and in our Democratic Republic, the large number of AHs elect a small number of mind-bogglingly huge AHs to try to make everyone else think and act like them.
Thus endeth Civics 101 for today. - jarvelated, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25@samdu
Other things from that website you linked to
Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.
Excluding those with smoking related diseases is a major exclusion i would think. Also 400 cigarettes isn't that many compared to some hard core smokers - geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32"My father is a chain smoker and has been since before I was born and his smoking didn't have any effect on me."
That's what is called "anecdotal evidence". There's plenty of science and studies that say second-hand smoking is bad for one's health. The question is, is it bad enough to constitute as abuse? Apparently the lawmakers think so.
I'm not saying whether I agree or not with their decision, however. - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33Hurray! Now if Oregon would pass a similar law, that'd be great. It really pissed me off the last time I saw 4 smoking adults and a coughing baby packed into a small car with the windows rolled up.
Enjoy freedom, smoke all you want, even in public, but don't force your smoking on helpless others. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32If anything, smokers have proven that they cannot regulate themselves. Even now, where it is illegal to smoke in public places, they all gather outside the entrance to a building, forcing me to walk through the cloud of death before I get into any building. It is actually illegal to smoke so close to public building entrances, actually, but it is not enforced.
When there were smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, I often still could feel the effects of cigarette smoke (it makes me feel physically ill) in the non-smoking section due to.. you know.. there being no wall in between the two sections. And that isn't to mention the workers who are subjected to all the smoke. There's a woman here in Canada who is dying of cancer after being a waitress in a restaurant for many years. She's never smoked a day in her life.
So when smokers say they can regulate themselves, I'm not buying it. - shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24o.O
Maybe if you use the cleaning sprays directly to wash the child. As long as the kids not in the same room while you're using semi-toxic cleaners you should be ok, I think. - Ares139, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28@trajano: I completely agree with you, though I'm sure our two comments will be modded out of existence.
I believe if kids didn't have to smell or see their parents smoking, they would be less likely to pick up the nasty habit to begin with. Though I don't understand how the smell alone doesn't STOP people from starting to smoke. But I suppose it could be attractive to some?
Oh, and to further add to my post above, my parents were told to stop smoking around me (I had asthma) and they managed to do that for about a week. After that, they just started telling me to go outside (with the pollen, of course). It was a catch-22 situation for me. Either stay inside and choke on the smoke-filled air (sometimes you could see the line of smoke a few feet away from the ground), or go outside and be tortured by pollen. Luckily I at least grew out of my asthma. My parents wouldn't listen to my doctor - smoking was more important to them. So yes, it IS child abuse. I had asthma even, for crying out loud. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35"no eating junk food in public"
This doesn't harm others' health.
"no going to bed late at work"
This doesn't harm others' health.
"no watching TV in public restaraunts"
This doesn't harm others' health.
From your thoughts, it's blatantly obvious that you believe this is only done to piss off smokers, or actions to nanny smokers. Well, it's not. It's to save OTHER peoples' lives. If the world has one smoker more dead in lung cancer, I don't care in the slightest. If they send their toxins my way just because they believe they have some sort of human right of doing it, I do. Feel free to intoxinate others, but then please let me point a gun to your head. - trajano, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27They should bump up the age to 18 or something higher. At least to the point where it is legal for the person to smoke.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28My cousin is a smoker. But he makes sure not to smoke around his little kids, because he knows smoking is bad for their health. He's a good parent. There should NOT be a law to tell you what you can or cannot do. But if you smoke around your kids because you want to get your fix(and ignoring their health), then maybe you shouldn't have kids to begin with.
Because seriously, a 10 to 20 minute car ride doesn't take long. Just wait for 10 to 20 minutes, it's not going to kill you. - evilunleashed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16If people are really so concerned with the well-being of the children of the United States, why not take steps to repair the collapsing education system in the country?
I guess it's more important to raise a moron with pristine lungs. - mobber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17- now that we've determined how babies should smell, lets argue how babies are supposed to look and criminalize anyone that does different.
when i was a child, my parents exposed me to country music. i was abused. i was a victim. they wouldn't even roll the window down.
1) smoking is bad for you. this has been proven
2) second hand smoke has not been proven as bad for your health. the fact that "it causes cancer" has not been proven. seems like it would, but it has not been scientifically linked. it does not cause asthma and allergies: it stimulates them (they already exists).
passing laws against smokers over issues that haven't been proven (what they may do) is unconstitutional (no smoking in bars, sidewalks, cars, etc...)
if i'm in a bar, i should expect to be exposed to smoke. if demand was high enough, people would open "smoke-less" bars. anyone smoking in the public is using their own freedom.
i do not smoke. while i think the guy that blows it in my face is a prick, it does not make me feel like a "victim".
exposing others to smoke is not "abuse". it's inconsiderate.
yeah, parents shouldn't expose their kids to smoke (opinion), but you can't (legally) pass a law that prohibits them from doing so. especially if you can not prove the damage.
you can prove with statistics that perhaps they (children) will grow up to be smokers as adults, but if so, it is their (child's) choice. while addictive, tobacco is not to the extent that anyone who tries to quit can't. they just choose not to.
the people should be asked to have strong will and excercise good judgment. not forced.
you can also argue that children exposed to smoke will grow up with negative reactions to smoke and will have a higher chance of not smoking. it's all spin...
there are alot of opinions. shouldn't laws are based on facts?
i'm still open to discussion, but alot of your arguements are just rediculous. - Ares139, on 10/12/2007, -17/+31I wish they would do this on a more national level myself, though of course it wouldn't help me out much now. Both of my parents smoked while I was growing up, and I lost my sense of smell because of the second-hand smoke. I'm 22 now, and I still can't smell anything but lysol, very strong perfume, and cigarette smoke itself (from VERY far away, sometimes even when it's not there). I also get the occasional "ghost smell" where I smell something that I remember but there's no possible way it's there - usually I smell cigarette smoke for no apparent reason. My doctor said a long time ago that the second-hand smoke just burned out my olfactory nerve. Although, some of it seems to be coming back since I moved out, barely (and since my father stopped smoking altogether when I was around 16 - my mother still smokes like a chimney).
I realize there's quite a few times that NOT having a sense of smell comes in handy, but it kind of sucks when you compliment your girlfriend's perfume and you honestly have no idea what it smells like. Not to mention when people tell me to smell something and I act like I'm "sniffing" whatever it is, just so I don't have to explain that I really have no idea what it smells like (though sometimes that could be one of the good reasons not to have a sense of smell haha). Just gets annoying sometimes. Anyway, I think it's a shame for anyone to lose any of their senses due to something like smoking. Not to mention the whole lung cancer ordeal. People need to find healthier habits. :-P
So yes, I do say that burning out your children's sense of smell (among other side-effects) is child abuse. Sure, it's much milder than "regular" child abuse, but I'm 22 and still suffering the "consequences" of having breathed second-hand smoke for so long. Some people talk about how much they love the smell of baking cookies and everything around Christmas time. I honestly have no idea what that smells like.
On the other hand, my sense of taste has been greatly enhanced (contrary to what people say about your sense of smell and sense of taste being so linked). Oh, and when I get a stopped-up nose, I can't taste much of anything, just like "normal" people. But the weird part is, sometimes I can "taste" smells in the air, and tell you what they are (correctly). It's very odd lol. - RBasil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I'm a lifelong smoker (30 years) and I think this is a great idea. People should not smoke around their kids or any other non-smokers in an enclosed area. Maybe I'm just one of the few polite smokers left in the world, but I always ask "do you mind?" before I light up next to someone who does not smoke. Hell, I even ask if it's ok when we are outside!
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31My gut tells me that this is a good thing, on the other hand is this over-governing?
My father is a chain smoker and has been since before I was born and his smoking didn't have any effect on me. - abenton, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Honestly, you can't even argue the other side, your right to kill yourself slowly does not supercede my right not to let you kill me while you're doing it. Get over it smokers, hotbox your car when others arent in it.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20What a slippery slope!
I'm a smoker, let me be forthright about that. But I've got a little boy, and I'd never even consider smoking inside a vehicle with him in it.
Now, that said, I think this may be reaching too far. Where does it end? The McDonald's point is a valid one. Perhaps next will be a citation for taking young'uns to McD and stuffing their faces with greasy high-fat food causing obesity and other health problems?
Anti-Smoking Activists have just gone too far. That's my opinion. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Let's ban every bad behavior there is! No more vices! No drinking, no smoking, no sex, no tv, no computers, no bad food, nothing! Let's make it all illegal.
Please report to your breakfast processing facility by 6:00AM. - TinMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19As a smoker I think this is a good idea. I don't smoke around my children and never have.
- Echnin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Yes, I do believe that stuffing peanut butter down the throat of a person who is allergic to nuts would be illegal.
- MemoryDump, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29I can't wait until the day where smoking is deemed illegal period.
- PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17It's a sad world we live in when the government tells you how to raise your children. Alcohol and guns are allowed everywhere, but cigarettes are forbidden?
- geminem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14in Taiwan they'll fine you if they caught you smoking while pregnant. i noticed flyers informing people about this showing up half a year ago.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"I thought America was the land of the free"
Dude, have you been asleep for the past 6 years? - jaredseth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Mr Underbridge, you're right...loud bass doesn't cause any of those things. However prolonged exposure to overly loud music can result in deafness. So next we should make playing your music over a certain decibel level a crime if you have kids in the car...because after all it's not your right as a parent to risk their hearing.
While I applaud the effort to protect children (and I'm a smoker who doesn't even let children see me smoke since I don't want to be a bad influence), this is one very slippery slope. - Pernz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10While we are at it, lets ban freedom of choice! Why would we trust ourselves with our own life altering choices? Lets let the government do all the thinking and decision making for us!
Yeah, a bit over the top but the government is setting precidents it shouldn't be setting, and we're the ones letting them get away with it! - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Gosh, actionjackson, glad someone feels the same way. It's a sad state of affairs when there's laws like this put into effect (and anti-smoking laws ALWAYS get passed.) Like being a parent is hard enough these days.
The thing is, particularly about this one, is that there's nothing about second-hand smoke that is dangerous. I mean, if you inhale every exhale of the smoker, then sure, you'll be at risk. But, to have a few faint traces of second hand smoke every once in awhile?
Then there's the guy that says "My sister and I hated going to my grandmother's house because she smoked." Okay so we should write laws against it because you didn't like it? Should we write laws that says "no kids shall be fed food they don't like" too? Becuase I could have sure used that one.
We don't have to legislate EVERYTHING. Give people responsibility and they'll take it to the next level themselves. Make them dependant on the laws to tell them what's right and what's not, and you'll have a lot of people that can't think on their own. It's already happening now and it'll only get worse. "Well, it's not against the law, so it must be good!" - spoonman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Government shouldn't be in charge of this kind of thing. This should be common sense to parents. How you raise your kids is not the government's concern until they break a law.
This is not what the founding fathers had in mind as the role of government. - dmclone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I assume that everyone that believes in this bill also believes that all abortions should be illegal? In one way there is about a 1% chance that your actions are going to kill your kid. The other way is 100%.
- durzagott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11From the article:
Violating the bill would be a “primary offense,” Mathis said, meaning police could use violations of the bill to justify pulling someone over.
“And I’m tickled to death about it,” Mathis said.
This, boys and girls, is what's really wrong with these sorts of laws. American police will use any excuse to pull people over. They hate that pesky ammendment to the constitution about "illegal search and seizure". So therefore they invent more and more laws to pull people over and interrogate them.
Papers please. - tex0101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The real idiots are the ones saying this is a great idea, for the government to dictate how someone lives.
Yesterday it was silly sh*t like eggs and cholesterol, today it's smoking, tomorrow it will be something that you enjoy doing. The government will always attack something. The idiots will jump on the bandwagon when it's not something you care for, and scream "WTF?!" when they come and take away something of yours.
And funny how you can scream about cigarette smoke, then drive off in your smog producing SUV/Pickup, go to work in the environment killing factories, and live in big cities where the pollutants in the air are so bad they obstruct your vision... Most of you probably suck down more pollutants from the normal air you breath on your way to work than you ever get out of a cigarette second hand.
Smoking around your kids may not be a great idea, but until they make *all* indirect abuse on a child illegal, they're just nitpicking on the smoking. Any one of you idiots who drives faster than the speed limit with your kids in the car should be charged with child endangerment, and any of you other idiots who drive faster than the speed limit when someone else has their children in the car should be charged with endangerment... you all increase the risk of the children getting injured/killed.
Give me a break... this "law" will be tossed out the first time they try to enforce it... - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Here you go.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
As one of those kids from 20 years ago, I can tell you for sure it causes health problems. When my parents quit smoking, I went from missing 30 days of school/year to 0-2. - Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You do realise we don't even have the right to do that? :P
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21Cancer is not the only side-effect of second-hand smoke. Granted, the occurence of cancer is second-hand smokers is rare. Other health issues--like ashthma--are not rare at all.
But I guess if you're so selfish that you just want to do what feels good, what is convenient, what you're too lazy to quit doing for the sake of your health and everyone around you, then that's ok. You have a right to be a selfish, lazy slob, even if to the detriment and irritation of everyone around you.
Asses. - tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9And folks this is group discrimination lesson 1.
"He said he regularly hassles other drivers when he sees them smoking in a car with children."
Legislation born from hate not science. - demonicume, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12nah, we're burying all the people who support removing personal liberties. the problem with the government is that they think they can legislate how we live our lives. whether you believe it or not, i do have a right to live my life the way i want.
secondhand smoke causes cancer the way nutrasweet causes cancer - in HUGE doses of a long period of time.
i'm not saying people should smoke around their kids - i'm saying that the government is overstepping its boundaries. McDonalds is far more dangerous to your health. maybe the government should put a limit on how many hamburgers you can have a week. liquor kills people first second and third hand. alcoholism is a genetic disorder passed down from parent to child. should those people with genetic markers be banned from liquor? there'd be less spousal abuse, less child abuse, fewer people killed by drunken drivers. its a good law. LETS MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.
wait a tick--- we tried that one. it didnt go so well.
laws that govern behavior is a slippery slope. you lemmings can stand by while the government dictates what you can and cant eat - but by the time you get around to crying foul - it'll be way too late. - CreativeGuy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20I don't care where you stand on this issue or what you believe when it comes to second-hand smoke. Passing a law about what you can or cannot do in the privacy of your home is BAD!
I don't want kids around second-hand smoke, but I don't want the government in my living room even more! This law is stupid and dangerous. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19i totally agree, when will the government step in and tell me what i can and cant do? I'm far too stupid to decide what i want for myself and my life on my own. PRAISE THE LORD, GOD BLESS AMERICA, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!! GO USA #1
-
Show 51 - 100 of 392 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is