Are Democrats trying to tell me what to do?

[napi21]

I am listening to the Abrams Report. There's a Dem Representative from Calif. that wants to pass a law making it illegal to smoke in a car if there is a child under 18 present.

His argument is that we make it illegal to drive a car without wearing a seat belt, and several other things like that that I've forgotten.

Is it the Dems that are trying to make me safe from me?

[FDRrocks]

1. Not just the Dem's, the whole government

Both parties love to attack civil liberties. Especially note the Patriot Act. The government gives itself the right to do whatever the hell it wants to do in the case that you fall within a very vague definition.

[GirlinContempt]

2. I don't think they give a crap about you

I think they give a crap about your young child who has no choice in the matter.

[napi21]

8. It's not affecting me. My youngest child is 36 years old.

Yes, I did smoke in the car when my kids were younger, but never without a window down....don't do that even when I'm alone.

It's wrong to fine me for not wearing a seatbelt

It's wrong to tell me I can't smoke within 40' of a building.

It's wrong to tell a business owner they can't allow smoking in their establishment.

Just because it's politically correct NOW to be against smoking, lots of people are jumping on the bandwagon.

I would challenge any of you to compare your health records with mine, or my sons.

If you think I'm killing myself by smoking, that's fine. Then I won't be any cost to you by collecting social security, so be glad.

[GirlinContempt]

14. Ok, defensatron....

I wasn't stating that you should agree with it because they care about 'your' kids, just that it's probably the intent of the proposition.

Where I come from, laws are decided upon by elected officals who represent the people that vote for them, so, laws like seatbelts and smoking are, in general, decided by the voting population. Under such a system, you get a pretty fair chance to help decide upon said laws. If you don't agree with the ones that are passed, fine.

But, also, where I come from, you would be a cost to me, as a smoker, with a high potential for cancer, lung disease, stroke, heart attack, whatever. And so are the people exposed to the second hand smoke. A HUGE cost to me, and to the government. It's a bill I'm willing to foot, but trying to reduce the amount spent on healthcare and reduce hospital wait times, thus improving care, and putting funds into other locations, is an amiable goal.

I smoke, and I pay $11 a pack for the privilage. My tax money, theoretically, will help alleviate the burden on the system later when I get sick. Not having clouds of smoke in Chuck-e-Cheese, theoretically, will too.

I suppose support of the issue, in my case, should it be discussed here, is if danger that would be considered illegal or SHOULD be considered illegal can be proven...

[ComerPerro]

3. Well, maybe the "under 18" part is extreme

I think it would be nice to stop people from smoking when someone younger than, say, five, is in the car. Hell, I see people smoking cigarattes with the windows closed with their infants in the back seat all the time.

But the "under 18" part is stupid.

[Terry_M]

4. It's a proposal not an order

It's up for debate.
Also, the purpose of at least the smoking part seems to be not about making you safe from yourself, but about making either the road safer (if smoke can cause visibility problems, no idea) or to protect kids who pretty much have no choice but to go with their parents.
Also, injuries from car accidents will for most people be at least partially covered by insurance, or the government (as far as I know). You not wearing a seatbelt can result in higher insurance premiums for me.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Check out the Law

In every state in the Union -- and that includes what used to be called the Confederacy -- driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege.

I think it's pretty fascistic, too, but it's old law.

As for smoking around kids, it's just common sense that an adult would avoid it. If somebody needs to prove how "rad" they are by smoking around kids, they have some serious issues that go far beyond the power of the law to fix.

--bkl

[GirlinContempt]

6. When they banned smoking...

in my province, first it was in places where minors were permitted, then came the all out ban of indoor public places.
I had NO problem with that, even though I'm a smoker. It sucks ass when it's 40 below, but I make the choice to smoke.
I don't know how I'd feel about the car law... In some ways, I think it would be great... It makes me crazy to see people smoking with kids in the car... I can't even smoke around kids, I feel dirty, let alone in close, enclosed space.
At the same time... I guess its a freedom issue... But what about a childs freedom? They can't exactly say 'Don't smoke around me mom, it makes me sick'
*ramble*
Whatever.

[still_one]

7. Just curious

I do not necessarily have a strong opinion one way or another, but what would you do if your child had asthma, would you still smoke in the car with your child?

[napi21]

9. If my child had asthma no I would not.

And I respect other peoples wishes. If I have company in MY home and noone is a smoker, I don't smoke. That's my decision to respect their preference.

I resent my government trying to force me to be a "nice" person.

[Lexingtonian]

10. well, no

You can kill yourself or amuse yourself anyway you like. But let me point out that smoking is increasingly declassee among middle class Americans and further up the social ladder, so this is rather a "freedom" along the lines of getting drunk or getting stoned or declaring bankruptcy or speeding, or most other things only teenagers find worth flaunting as 'freedom'.

The problem with smoking in enclosed spaces in which children are kept is that children develop asthma from it at pretty serious rates from prolonged exposure. And for the population that smokes- which is more or less blue collar workers, these days- that amounts to their kids getting, at substantial rates, an unnecessary handicap, for which said kids will be oh-so-grateful.

Secondly, it means health insurers and state Medicaid programs are paying for large proportions of the cost of treatment. That in turn means middle class folks are subsidizing a selfdestructive and semi-voluntary behavior associated with blue collar folks. If the 1980s gave us any kind of lesson, it is that this is exactly the kind of thing middle class people hate without mercy and are seemingly always willing to send their government officials out to stop.

Btw, do you call yourself a libertarian?

[napi21]

16. No I thought I was a Democrat.

and I disagree with your statement that smoking give children asthma. If that were the case, it would have been a much bigger problem years ago when smoking was the thing to do. Since it seems to be a much bigger problem today, it seems to me the problem must be something else. Maybe a different kind of polution.

I also sense that you have a bit of a problem with blue collar folks. I'm sorry to hear that. Even though I was an accountant for 40 years, the friendliest and most sincere people I've ever met were blue collar "folk". They don't put down those who disagree with them.

[Lexingtonian]

17. well, it's not entirely mutually exclusive

being libertarian and Democratic. Though very rare now.

Children spend a great deal more time indoors these days- more TV, more daycare, more shuttling to and from 'activities', with more traffic and the boogyman child abductor getting every kid who strays more than a block from home as the disincentives. The correlation is with enclosed spaces and high pollution levels, not pollution levels alone. If not, every kid in Long Beach would be asthmatic. That's not the case in Long Beach- but they do have the highest lung cancer rates in the U.S. there.

No, I don't 'have a problem' with blue collar folks. If anything, middle class people have less in the way of excuses for their bad behavior and resentments. I've been there on both sides of that line, I'm no classist but I do notice the class warfare and, against American social convention, point it out. My attitude is that of (I think) Gladstone, who as Prime Minister was asked something about what would happen if 'the ruling class' should lose power to some other group. He famously said something like 'Ruling class? No class is fit to rule, and one is as good as the other.' They're simply different and serve different functions in the whole of society, and when parts become egregiously dysfunctional relative to the rest, the other parts focus anger or generosity on them. Anger being cheaper and easier, but not often efficacious.

Personally, I find passive aggression and class hatred in the form of anti-snobbism probably the most odious forms of the hostility.

[aquart]

11. No one can make you safe from you.

They are trying to make sure your children (the future of this nation) are safe from you.

However, if you prefer to indulge your addictions at their expense, go to.

I remember a little boy who wasn't in a child seat, though. Remember when that wasn't a law? He was in his loving mother's cherishing arms. So he took the blow that would have killed her. He was 27 months old.

But you do what you want no matter how it affects your children. You have the right.

[DaveSZ]

12. UGH

It pisses me off when liberals attack civil liberties.

It stings more than when wingnuts do it.

[YankeeFan]

13. And That Is Why

So many gun owners flock to the Repubs.
The Democrats are the sponsors of all, if not most, of the anti gun legislation in America. And wherever the laws became more stringent crime soared.
Back in march Kerry voted for the renewal of the “Assault Gun” ban. How many gun owners are going to remember that in November? Remember, Bush said that if a Law extending the Ban were to appear on his desk he would sign it. That has angered many gun owners.

[GirlinContempt]

15. Maaaaaybe

someone needs to couple gun laws with societal issues for once.
It works other places, and strong gun laws don't increase crime.

[Lexingtonian]

19. oh, right

And wherever the laws became more stringent crime soared.

At the time it also 'soared' in lots of places where gun control wasn't changed.

You do know that every single 'study' published by John Lott, the pro-proliferationist who published most of the 'more guns less crime' propaganda, has been proven fraudulent? (Chances are that he never did even a single one of his 'survey's.)

Reevaluation of the data that is genuine has shown some decrease in crime rates and violence level of crimes coincident with gun control law enforcement. But poverishment and drug use and high levels of unemployed young men tend to be the core components of the statistical explanation of crime rates.

The energetic support for the assault weapons ban lies in the ghettos. It only takes one 17 year old gang member spraying your block with a Tek-9 once or twice to make 200 converts to an assault gun ban.

[nonconformist]

18. Amazing.

I think this is bullshit, pardon my french. Before you know it the only way you'll be able to smoke is if you hide in a closet, under a blanket, blow the smoke into a balloon, dispose of it as hazardous waste and then rush to the decontamination showers.

[Piperay]

20. Eating, smoking and drinking

are all distractions while driving and really should be avoided regardless.

[doni_georgia]

21. Repugs in GA just passed a similar law n/t