I'm trying to rationalize the thought that a legal behavior (smoking) could be illegal in one's own car. And how does one rationalize making smoking in a car with children illegal, but not in one's home (where it's likely that people smoke more)? I don't think it's good to smoke around children. But at what point does the line get crossed into intrusion into one's personal space? And I'm having a hard time with: You can't smoke in a restaurant, and now, as you leave the restaurant after not smoking, you can't light up in your car if you have your kids with you.

It is tricky, I know.

 

Strange to think marijuana is becoming less and less criminalized and smoking is heading the opposite direction.

On the car issue, I guess I don't have a problem with it because every time I see someone smoking in their car with a child in the backseat strapped into a car seat I just want to yank them out of the car and pound them.

On the car issue, I guess I don't have a problem with it because every time I see someone smoking in their car with a child in the backseat strapped into a car seat I just want to yank them out of the car and pound them.

I think it's disgusting to see someone feed their child a diet of fast food only. You cool with having the government telling you what food you can feed your child? It's all in the name of protecting the public health...especially the children.

I think it's disgusting to see someone feed their child a diet of fast food only. You cool with having the government telling you what food you can feed your child? It's all in the name of protecting the public health...especially the children.

 

I get furious when I see people not paying attention to their kids as they wreak mayhem on their surroundings....can I vote for making inattentiveness illegal? I mean...the kid could hurt themselves or me...

I know, how about a McDonald's Credit Program along the lines of the Carbon Credtit program that has been floated around. Parents could only buy a certain amount of "non-nutritious" food for their children but could purchase credits from other parents if they so chose. Or by documenting that their child participated in regular exercise to offset the deleterious effects of fast food they would be allowed to increase their Big Mac footprint.

I think it's disgusting to see someone feed their child a diet of fast food only. You cool with having the government telling you what food you can feed your child? It's all in the name of protecting the public health...especially the children.

 

Point taken and after thinking about it more I don't like the idea. I probably posted out of emotion instead of reason.

Would you three be in favor of banning smoking inside someone's house if they have children?

 

yes

yes

 

I really wish I could say I'm surprised.

Heard a little snippet of Stumbo being interviewed on WLW 700 today.

 

He said we have to protect the most vulnerable who have no other choice but to sit in a car and breathe in the smoke.

 

Made me think, wow, right to protect their air and it is not right for the mom to make them breath cigarette smoke but acceptable in this country and the Democrat party for the mom to take the baby's life in an abortion.

 

Breathing in smoke bad and needs to be outlawed and not the mother's choice.

Taking theiir baby's life while in the womb, her choice and legal.

I assume you're saying not smoking is the easier, which leads me to believe you don't understand the powers of the smoking addiction. For many smokers, and it's sad, but true, not smoking for an hour or so is a heck of a lot more difficult than it is for you or I to go to a different establishment. JMO.

UKMustangFan--I understand what you are saying about ther "powers of smoking addiction", and that it is more difficult to "not smoke" for and hour or two than for a non-smoker to choose a different establishment. This is not directed at you, but I just need to "rant" on the overall general attitude of so many to "avoid the difficult."

 

LIFE IS DIFFICULT!!!

If you are a drinker, it is difficult to get sober; if your are a "leadfoot" it is difficult to drive the speed limit; if you are a drug abuser, it is difficult to get clean; if you are a spender, it is difficult to put away the plastic and get out of debt; if you are a gambler, it is difficult to stop instead of saying, "just one more time"; if you are a "pack-rat", it is difficult to de-clutter and get organized; if you are overweight, it is difficult to diet; raising kids is difficult; sustaining a marriage is difficult, etc, etc. My point? Nobody is immune from DIFFICULT. Not even the smoker who can't go for an hour without a smoke.

 

(wow---I feel better now! Thanks BGP for letting me get that off my mind!)

Why does their right trump mine? Why do you feel that a smoker is better than me?

 

It's not the right of the smoker vs the right of the nonsmoker.

 

It's the private property rights of the buiness owner who are being trumped.

 

It's his property, his business, his money at risk, etc. It's NOT public property. It's a private business that serves the public. You can choose not to go there, and you should make it known to the owner that you don't come there because of his policies.

 

I have no issue with true public property, government buildings, schools, etc. I do have an issue with private properties.

Everyone keeps asking where does it stop?

 

The answer is pretty simple: The antismoking people will not stop until smoking is against the law.

 

This has been the ultimate goal since day one.

 

Use the foot in the door approach. It always starts out as something simple and reasonable. "You shouldn't be able to smoke on flights under an hour." That is a reasonable request, hence we have a law banning smoking on flights of less than an hour. That has now escalated to no smoking in any building that serves the public.

 

Next your car, your home, then illegal to smoke.

 

You want to know why gun enthusiasts fight every attempt to impose any kind of restrictions on guns? Because they know the ultimate goal of the gun haters is to ban guns just like the ultimate goal of the antismoking people is to ban smoking.

 

For the record, I smoked for 20 years and quit 10 years ago.

Everyone keeps asking where does it stop?

 

The answer is pretty simple: The antismoking people will not stop until smoking is against the law.

 

This has been the ultimate goal since day one.

 

Use the foot in the door approach. It always starts out as something simple and reasonable. "You shouldn't be able to smoke on flights under an hour." That is a reasonable request, hence we have a law banning smoking on flights of less than an hour. That has now escalated to no smoking in any building that serves the public.

 

Next your car, your home, then illegal to smoke.

 

You want to know why gun enthusiasts fight every attempt to impose any kind of restrictions on guns? Because they know the ultimate goal of the gun haters is to ban guns just like the ultimate goal of the antismoking people is to ban smoking.

 

For the record, I smoked for 20 years and quit 10 years ago.

 

Great post.

Everyone keeps asking where does it stop?

 

The answer is pretty simple: The antismoking people will not stop until smoking is against the law.

 

This has been the ultimate goal since day one.

 

Use the foot in the door approach. It always starts out as something simple and reasonable. "You shouldn't be able to smoke on flights under an hour." That is a reasonable request, hence we have a law banning smoking on flights of less than an hour. That has now escalated to no smoking in any building that serves the public.

 

Next your car, your home, then illegal to smoke.

 

You want to know why gun enthusiasts fight every attempt to impose any kind of restrictions on guns? Because they know the ultimate goal of the gun haters is to ban guns just like the ultimate goal of the antismoking people is to ban smoking.

 

For the record, I smoked for 20 years and quit 10 years ago.

I disagree. I don't want smoking outlawed.

 

I would just prefer to be able to take my family out to a dinner without my wife and daughter not being able to breath when we leave because they are allergic to smoke. Would also prefer that they have the opportunity to go shopping without the same issues.

 

If they want to kill themselves, so be it, but don't force that illness on others with their behavior.

I disagree. I don't want smoking outlawed.

 

I would just prefer to be able to take my family out to a dinner without my wife and daughter not being able to breath when we leave because they are allergic to smoke. Would also prefer that they have the opportunity to go shopping without the same issues.

 

If they want to kill themselves, so be it, but don't force that illness on others with their behavior.

 

 

You can do both those things very easily. Go to dinner at smoke free establishments. Never seen a store/mall that allows you to smoke in it before. :confused: