Fuckin Pathetic: NJ to Ban Smoking In Cars if Kids are Present

[wArEhOuSePuNk]

^word

 

[garuda]

as for these laws, i have come to realize that while they do interfer with a good citizens lives unnecesarily, there are A LOT of dumb people out there that need the government to hold their little hand, and it ruins it for the rest of us. like, the majority of people that smoke weed do so responsibly. its just the people who go crazy with it that there needs to be laws against it. yeah, it sucks, but there is a reason for the law: so retarded people can be guided through life like sheep.

These types of people should not be guided or handheld, they should be left to their own devices to experience the pain of their actions and then learn from their mistakes, or at the least serve as examples for the rest of what not to do.

It is not the governments job to baby sit citizens period.

I am also totally against government sponsored needle exchanges and methadone programs, there is no reason for the gov to bail anyone out of their own stupidity. But I also believe the government has no business making drug laws, so in my world you would be able to buy syringes and methadone from a pharmacy provided you are not a minor.

The government has no business protecting people except from criminals and foreign governments, and enforcing contract law. Thats it.

 

[motorcyclist]

And, if I remember correctly in NJ they could pull you over just for not wearing it. Unlike PA and other states where they could only pull you over if you commit a violation that warrants a stop. .

Texas is another state where they can pull you over for no other reason than a seat belt. There are billboards everywhere that simply state "Click it or ticket"- a little reminder to fasten your seatbelt or risk a ticket. A couple weeks ago I was driving to work going thru my neighborhood, as I approached a 4-way stop sign, there was a cop standing on the corner (his car was parked off on the side street). All he was doing was looking for seatbelt violators, which he would then simply step out into the intersection and point them over to the side street to write them up.

But Texas also has a dumb law about license plate frames- the way our license plates are designed, the "art" goes all the way to the top and bottom of the plate. By law, any frame that covers any part of the art is illegal, and the cops can pull you over for that alone. The reality is that 90% of the cars have "illegal" license plate frames, and most people never get pulled over for this. All this is, is a law that gives the police a reason to pull a suspicious car over when they can't find any other violation to use.

 

[QuestionEverything]

alright i'm

A) Liberal, not necessarily ULTRA but pretty damn liberal
B) I smoke (cigarrettes) occassionally
C) I hate "stupid" laws that force ppl to do things that should be a choice.

All that said, i agree with this law. Just today i was smoking a cigarette and a couple of really young kids walked by, and i felt uncomfortably, like they should not be around it. btw, i was listening to Loveline (if you dont know its a radio show with a board certified physician) and Adam Carolla was pissed about these smoking laws so he asked dr.drew to do some research. turns out that a study that once said that something like "thousands of people die from 2nd degree smoke a year" was more like "maybe three a year." it is harmful, but not nearly as much as people think.


as for these laws, i have come to realize that while they do interfer with a good citizens lives unnecesarily, there are A LOT of dumb people out there that need the government to hold their little hand, and it ruins it for the rest of us. like, the majority of people that smoke weed do so responsibly. its just the people who go crazy with it that there needs to be laws against it. yeah, it sucks, but there is a reason for the law: so retarded people can be guided through life like sheep.

Are you kidding me? If you want the government coming into your house and telling you what to do, send them a fucking invitation. It is getting to that point.

 

[StagnantReaction]

17 is a bit much. I know many kids who want to pollute their lungs at that age. To punish someone involved like that would be stupid.

However, children under the age of, say, 14, may or may not welcome 2nd hand smoke, and I believe people should be smart enough to cater to such health concerns for the underaged.

Whether or not I think it should be legislated, I'm not quite certain. The idealist in me would like people to not smoke near their children, but some do. I don't think it's a bad thing to push this sort of thing for smaller children involved, but 17 is extremely ridiculous to set the standard at.

 

[QuestionEverything]

What is the point of this law though? It's not children's safety.

Stop and think about it. If it were the safety of children that was the concern here the government would be putting laws in place that (as lacey mentioned) would test pregnant women for drugs (including nicotine) and making it illegal to smoke in households with children present, which is where damage is done.

This law is not about children's safety.

 

[Khadijah]

Yea, i hate how people assume that there is no dark side to the "good" laws too. when theres a law that makes it illegal to test for mad cow disease , for some bullshit reason, everyone knows its all because they dont want the corporations to lose money and all that shit. but when a nice law like this one, with lil angel wings and a halo over its head,, all "To protect the children" No one looks twice and thinks, Hmm, maybe theres ulterior motives under this one too cuz they just see someone "Tryin to make a difference in the world." Awwwwwww.

No the politiccians just use this shit for their own personal gains whether its a bill to protect their homies in the big corporations, or to make themselves look better and they can say "Well I'M CONCERNED with our children, and *I* was the one that helped protect our childrens from the bad smokers!" And all that bullshit.

if you think that this is about protecting anyone , you are pretty naieve. its just a tool like anything else made to A. make more money for the police B. cater to the needs of the anti-tobacco assholes, who are just as bad as the pro tobacco because both are willing to say extreme and unproven shit to promote their position, and C. distract people from the real important political shit that goes on.

The seatbelt law is another great example of somethin along these lines. when they first mad that law it was only supposed to be ticketable if you got pulled over for somethin else. when that law got made, they said "You WILL NOT get pulled over for not havin your seatbelt on." now a decade later theres cops that stand in the intersections checkin you for seatbelts at random checkpoints and writin the ticket right there. Yea, you cant get pulled over just for not wearin a seatbelt. sure.

This is jus another way to bring in revenue for the cops, and another pat on the back for the smug self righteous anti tobacco folks. nothin more.

 

[frizzantik]

ZOMG!!! If i want to poison my kids lungs it should be my right!!

seriously folks: cigarette smoke is known to cause cancer; if you want to smoke thats fine but forcing minors to sit in a small enclosed space while you fill it with carcinogens isn't cool. Compared to the normal punishments given for harming children, a $100 fine seems pretty light. Try punching your kid in the face and coming away with only a fine.

 

[frizzantik]

Stop and think about it. If it were the safety of children that was the concern here the government would be putting laws in place that (as lacey mentioned) would test pregnant women for drugs (including nicotine) and making it illegal to smoke in households with children present, which is where damage is done.

simply because more draconian measures aren't put in place doesn't change the intent of the law.

 

[phr]

seriously folks: cigarette smoke is known to cause cancer; if you want to smoke thats fine but forcing minors to sit in a small enclosed space while you fill it with carcinogens isn't cool. Compared to the normal punishments given for harming children, a $100 fine seems pretty light. Try punching your kid in the face and coming away with only a fine.

But there's no guarantee that a child being exposed to smoke in a car will cause any health problems. But, if you do punch a kid in the face, there's guaranteed damage. It may cause health problems, it may not.

What's next? Banning all indoor somking where kids or other people are present? How about arresting/ticketing adults for feeding their children shit? The gov't can't and shouldn't be able to protect everybody.

 

[Khadijah]

ZOMG!!! If i want to poison my kids lungs it should be my right!!

seriously folks: cigarette smoke is known to cause cancer; if you want to smoke thats fine but forcing minors to sit in a small enclosed space while you fill it with carcinogens isn't cool. Compared to the normal punishments given for harming children, a $100 fine seems pretty light. Try punching your kid in the face and coming away with only a fine.

Yea, it should be my right. ZOMG! Sitting in the back seat of the car with the windows down while someone smokes sure is the same as gettin locked in a sealed compartment with cigarette smoke pumped in for 5 hours.

Smokin in cars is not the shit that yall need to be worrying about. Anyways, honestly, do any of yall even remember bein a kid? It aint like youre a voiceless helpless puppet. If someone was smokin when i was younger and i didnt like it, I PUT THE WINDOW DOWN. OMG! Kids can talk? And do things? You mean they are capable to a small extent, of makin decisions?

People are actin like this is fuckin orca whales or some shit. Kids can speak up too, and many do. i dont know many kids that just sit there if theres somethin goin on that they dont like. so i aint buyin the "speakin for the voiceless" bullshit twist that they are tryin to put on this legislature.

No one should be doin that to their kids, but the law has no fuckin place to come in and do somethin about it.

I never smoke in a car with kids in it anyways, it just aint something im comfortable doin. But i damn sure dont need no goddamn law to tell me this, its pathetic that people see this is a "Well, if its for the greater good, then who cares." Yall are the same people who smoke weed, smoke crack, shoot dope, trip out, pop E pills like no tomorrow, and yet when it comes to smoking its like a fuckin meeting of the Senior Ladies Knitting Circle, yall just sit back like its ok. its pretty sad the double standard on this site against cigarettes. somehow, invasive and unneccessary laws are OK, since smoking is bad.

My mom is a non smoker and hates smoking in all forms and never smoked in her life, she dont just not approve but hates it. But she is against this law, why, because its a parental issue not a legal one.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Interesting. What do you think the point is? Maybe it's tobacco companies trying to cover their asses by "cracking down" on child exposure to nicotine?

I don't think it has anything to do with children. period. It's my opinion, and one that a lot of people have. I think it's another law that's going to be used to pull people over, and just another step in the direction of the government controlling everything we do.

ZOMG!!! If i want to poison my kids lungs it should be my right!!

simply because more draconian measures aren't put in place doesn't change the intent of the law.

Testing pregnant women for nictine is draconian? Makes more sense to me (especially considering they already test for other drugs if there is suspicion), and seems LESS draconian than what's being done already. If the intent is for children's health, I would think they'd go after the instances where it actually does some harm.

I'm not pro-smoking around children, so don't twist it that way. I think smoking in your house with children is wrong but in your car, with the windows down? give me a break.

 

[motorcyclist]

I'm not pro-smoking around children, so don't twist it that way. I think smoking in your house with children is wrong but in your car, with the windows down? give me a break.

I'll confess right now- my wife and I are both smokers, and we have children.

That being said. We never smoke in the house. Obviously, the house is "enclosed" and the smoke will just remain in the house and recycle thru the air conditioner. So we always go outside to smoke.

In the car however, I have no problem with it. If the windows are opened, it basically creates a vacuum that sucks the smoke right out of the car. When I was a kid my father smoked in the car, and he did the same thing- open the window. And in all the time growing up, I never so much as even smelled cigarette smoke while he was smoking. The smoke just got sucked out so fast that there was no smoke to notice. So judging by my first hand experience as a child, I personally see no harm with smoking in a car. Again- I'm operating under the assumption that the smoker has their window at least partially open. Now if someone has all the windows closed and are smoking- that is a totally different story

 

[qwe]

^this law doesnt care whether windows are open or closed

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

So everyone against me, do you think second hand smoke causes no health problems? Then you are an ignorant fool.
Just ignore well researched evidence and light up another cigarette around your kids.
Even if second hand smoke caused no health problems, it is irratating and socially humilitating to kids.
Every day in school kids would make fun of me saying that I smoke even though I didn't. Teachers harassed me relentlessly because I smelled like smoke. Friend's parents REJECTED me from being able to go over to their houses because I smelled like smoke.
I wonder how many of the people against me smoke cigarettes? I'm willing to bet that nearly 100% of the ignorant morons who say "Second-hand smoke doesn't kill" smoke cigarettes themselves.

It's going to be hard for me to be the devil's advocate when 98% of the people replying to this thread smoke cigarettes themselves. I wouldn't expect someone to be against non-smoking laws if they smoke cigarettes themselves, that doesn't mean they have to be dicks about it.

If you want to deny the HUNDREDS of studies pointing towards the harmful effects of second hand smoke, then go ahead. It is a hell of a lot easier to be ignorant when it benefits yourself.

Now if you can accept the fact that second hand smoke is harmful, then what is your problem with this law. Windows down or not it makes barely any difference. I was just in a car today in the back seat when the smoking driver had her windows down, I still coughed and choked. If you can't wait a matter of minutes to not have a cigarrete while driving, then maybe you are just a little bit addicted and should probably consider quitting.
Are you really going to choose to take the drag of a cigarette over your own kids health? If so then shame on you.

What the hell am I talkin 'bout! This is 'Merica, I should be able to smoke cigarettes whenever the hell I want to! Who gives a damn if it's gonna bother people around me, I'm a self-centered redneck hick who doesn't give a rats ass about his family and kids.

-Peace

 

[Khadijah]

Bla bla, Secondhand smoke is bad, secondhand smoke kills, secondhand smoke, bla bla, secondhand smoke!

You dont seem to be able to seperate your feelings about smoking from your ability to respond to what the article is actually about. Thats great that you want to talk about secondhand smoke. but this article aint about that. It is about smoking in cars. talk all you want about secondhand smoke bein bad, but youre saying a bunch of irrelevant shit that dont discuss the actual topic here.

Take out "children." And replace it with "non smoker." Would you also support a law banning smoking in any vehicle that non smokers are present? The ends DONT justify the means.


Anyways, heres some readin for ya.

MAJOR IARC STUDY SHOWS THAT SECONDHAND SMOKE POSES NO CANCER RISK TO CHILDREN
October, 1998

"Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in their homes are not at increased risk of cancer, according to a 10-year study commissioned by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The study, conducted in Europe, had been eagerly awaited because it involved a large sample of individuals and special attempts had been made to minimize misclassifications and control for various factors. "

"Adults exposed to second-hand smoke -- which experts termed "a low-level lung carcinogen" -- had a slightly higher risk of lung cancer. The amount of cotinine -- a breakdown product of nicotine -- in their blood was only about 1 percent of that of active smokers. The research involved 650 patients with lung cancer and more than 1,500 healthy people of "all ages" up to 74. Cancer experts said the European study is particularly authoritative because it took into consideration the criticisms of other studies".

(Source: Reuters, "Slightly Higher Cancer Risk for Passive Smokers Found," Washington Post, October 7, 1998.)


http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

 

[SpunkySkunk347]

It's nice to see that you've resorted to changing the text I wrote, I bet that takes a lot of talent and intelligence to pull off.

You dont seem to be able to seperate your feelings about smoking from your ability to respond to what the article is actually about. Thats great that you want to talk about secondhand smoke. but this article aint about that. It is about smoking in cars. talk all you want about secondhand smoke bein bad, but youre saying a bunch of irrelevant shit that dont discuss the actual topic here.

Second hand smoke is irrelevant to smoking in cars with kids? Do you even know what irrelevant means?

Take out "children." And replace it with "non smoker." Would you also support a law banning smoking in any vehicle that non smokers are present? The ends DONT justify the means.

Children don't have a choice on whether or not they want to ride in a car with a smoker. I don't know what type of convenient middle american town you grew up in, but when kids speak up for themselves around here, a lot of parents spank them and/or punish them.

Anyways, heres some readin for ya.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

Alright, and here is some reading for you.
Go to google.com and type in "Second hand smoke". Most of those articles on the first couple of pages are probably worth reading.

Bla bla bla, it is the kids fault, bla bla bla it is the parents fault, bla bla bla i dont want know government dictating my actions with fancy "laws", bla bla smokers should be able to endanger the lives of others if they want to....

lacey k is Online.

 

[phr]

Let's not ruin this thread with personal attacks...

 

[motorcyclist]

then maybe you are just a little bit addicted and should probably consider quitting.

Well DUH!! Of course we're addicted- sheesh. 8)

Yeah, I have considered quitting many times. But "considering" is a long way from actually accomplishing it. And as for actually accomplishing it, that is something you have to "want". And right now at this point in my life, I do not have a strong enough "want" to accomplish it.8(

 

[Khadijah]

SpunkySkunk, cool ya damn jets.

Yes, i know what irrelevant means. Thanks for your concern.

What you said is irrelevant. Why, because all you do is talk about how bad secondhand smoke is, but you dont address any of the issues that we are talkin about in this thread related to how far the government should be allowed to go and where to draw the line.

this thred might be about smoking on the outside but in reality its about personal freedoms and the fact that there used to be limits on how far the gov. could intrude on your life and now its pretty much whatever they want whenever they want. You aint seein the forest for the trees homie. this is much bigger than the personal problems that you have with smokin.