New law being pondered for NJ town....
- Thread starter Fit_mommy
- Start date
nancy324
Cathlete
Oh, my. I discussed this issue with my DH tonight and he convinced me of the opposite view. I can't believe it. I now think the law sounds fine. I'm not kidding. 
My DH's arguments:
Laws are usually a balancing act between the rights of one group and the rights of another. In this case, the law banning smoking in the confined area of a car has to strike a balance between the adult's right to smoke and the minor child's right to not be subjected to an injurious and harmful substance. In this instance, my DH feels that the balance needs to favor the child since the child cannot independently refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment.
There are precedents for this. Laws prevent adults from providing minor children with cigarettes and alcohol, from allowing them to view certain movies, from allowing them to drive, compelling them to attend school... The lawmakers have to weigh the importance of the freedom being protected, and children have the most compelling need for protection. The freedoms of adults are not as compelling.
Most of all, he convinced me that these are not the kind of laws that will turn this country into Nazi Germany. Amending the constitution to ban flag-burning, that's your Nazi Germany. Not protecting kids.
I stand corrected.
My DH's arguments:
Laws are usually a balancing act between the rights of one group and the rights of another. In this case, the law banning smoking in the confined area of a car has to strike a balance between the adult's right to smoke and the minor child's right to not be subjected to an injurious and harmful substance. In this instance, my DH feels that the balance needs to favor the child since the child cannot independently refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment.
There are precedents for this. Laws prevent adults from providing minor children with cigarettes and alcohol, from allowing them to view certain movies, from allowing them to drive, compelling them to attend school... The lawmakers have to weigh the importance of the freedom being protected, and children have the most compelling need for protection. The freedoms of adults are not as compelling.
Most of all, he convinced me that these are not the kind of laws that will turn this country into Nazi Germany. Amending the constitution to ban flag-burning, that's your Nazi Germany. Not protecting kids.
I stand corrected.
hiitdogs
Cathlete
>Laws are usually a balancing act between the rights of one
>group and the rights of another. In this case, the law
>banning smoking in the confined area of a car has to strike a
>balance between the adult's right to smoke and the minor
>child's right to not be subjected to an injurious and harmful
>substance. In this instance, my DH feels that the balance
>needs to favor the child since the child cannot independently
>refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment.
>
Nancy,
I understand your and your DHs point of view and it has a lot of merrit. Just on the basis of protecting the child, I would support it 100 %.
By the same token, if we take your argument and apply it to parents overfeeding their kids or feeding them nothing but junk, we would have to intervene on that too and pass a law, wouldn't we? I don't think there is any dispute that the longterm effects and health risks of a diet high in fat, sugar, preservatives, etc or highly processed foods (which I would say is a harmful substance) is not far behind the health risks of secondhand smoke.
I think childhood obesity is a major problem that this country is facing.
I think my only concern would be, where would it end, where would we be able to draw a line?
Carola
>group and the rights of another. In this case, the law
>banning smoking in the confined area of a car has to strike a
>balance between the adult's right to smoke and the minor
>child's right to not be subjected to an injurious and harmful
>substance. In this instance, my DH feels that the balance
>needs to favor the child since the child cannot independently
>refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment.
>
Nancy,
I understand your and your DHs point of view and it has a lot of merrit. Just on the basis of protecting the child, I would support it 100 %.
By the same token, if we take your argument and apply it to parents overfeeding their kids or feeding them nothing but junk, we would have to intervene on that too and pass a law, wouldn't we? I don't think there is any dispute that the longterm effects and health risks of a diet high in fat, sugar, preservatives, etc or highly processed foods (which I would say is a harmful substance) is not far behind the health risks of secondhand smoke.
I think childhood obesity is a major problem that this country is facing.
I think my only concern would be, where would it end, where would we be able to draw a line?
Carola
seeking_guns
Cathlete
This is exactly my train of my thought. Where would the arm of the law stop? If you ban it in the car, then you would also have to ban smoking in the home, and how is that enforceable? Excellent point, Carola, that the next step would be policing what parents *feed* their children. Undeniably, obesity is costing us and killing us as a nation. Yet the law cannot realistically regulate every aspect of a person's life in order for folks to make more health-conscious decisions that will protect themselves and their children. The key is educating people.
Cathy
>
>Nancy,
>
>I understand your and your DHs point of view and it has a lot
>of merrit. Just on the basis of protecting the child, I would
>support it 100 %.
>
>By the same token, if we take your argument and apply it to
>parents overfeeding their kids or feeding them nothing but
>junk, we would have to intervene on that too and pass a law,
>wouldn't we? I don't think there is any dispute that the
>longterm effects and health risks of a diet high in fat,
>sugar, preservatives, etc or highly processed foods (which I
>would say is a harmful substance) is not far behind the health
>risks of secondhand smoke.
>
>
>I think childhood obesity is a major problem that this country
>is facing.
>
>I think my only concern would be, where would it end, where
>would we be able to draw a line?
>
>Carola
Cathy
>
>Nancy,
>
>I understand your and your DHs point of view and it has a lot
>of merrit. Just on the basis of protecting the child, I would
>support it 100 %.
>
>By the same token, if we take your argument and apply it to
>parents overfeeding their kids or feeding them nothing but
>junk, we would have to intervene on that too and pass a law,
>wouldn't we? I don't think there is any dispute that the
>longterm effects and health risks of a diet high in fat,
>sugar, preservatives, etc or highly processed foods (which I
>would say is a harmful substance) is not far behind the health
>risks of secondhand smoke.
>
>
>I think childhood obesity is a major problem that this country
>is facing.
>
>I think my only concern would be, where would it end, where
>would we be able to draw a line?
>
>Carola
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
That thought had come to my mind as well, Carola and Cathy....about how this nation feeds it's children and the childhood obesity problem we are having. There is NO way to enforce that unless this country OUTLAWS unhealthy foods and that is beyond absurd, don't you think?
Nancy's DH made excellent points and I can understand that point of view better then I did before BUT I still don't like it...
The bottom line in imo is that parents need to take a more active role and be more responsible. They need to educate themselves, as Cathy said, if there is something they do not know about or understand.
The law simply can not be there to protect every child from every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to. It just isn't possible...
Nancy's DH made excellent points and I can understand that point of view better then I did before BUT I still don't like it...
The bottom line in imo is that parents need to take a more active role and be more responsible. They need to educate themselves, as Cathy said, if there is something they do not know about or understand.
The law simply can not be there to protect every child from every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to. It just isn't possible...
I apologize if someone has brought this up already, but has anyone heard of the new SCRAM device that people who are waiting for trial or on probation, are now being required to wear. I heard a talk show with Tracy Morgan the other day, and because of his history, he is going to have to wear this electronic bracelet indefinitely. It takes an alcohol reading through the bracelet every half hour and then sends the results directly to the agency monitoring it. Paris Hilton is also going to have to wear one. It's costly and the wearer must pay all fees up front. It just seems to me this is a classic BIG BROTHER issue. Pretty soon we'll all be monitored for any kind of infraction. Probably not us, but our grandchildren, will be living in a very controlled world.
In our state, there was recently a law past that anyone under 18 must wear a bike helmet. It of course is not enforced and seems to have had the opposite effect, at least in my home town. I see teenagers (boys mostly) that never wear a helmet. It must be the "cool" factor of, hey, I'm breaking the law (or dude, I'm not messing up my hair). Our local police officers will stop for kids who have a helmet on and give them a sticker for encouragement, but they cannot stop someone who is sans helmet. I'd like to know the cost of getting this bill passed into law and the posters and pamphlets that are in every government building.
It just seems to me our government is seeping into every area of our lives. When will we have to stand up and say "enough"?
In our state, there was recently a law past that anyone under 18 must wear a bike helmet. It of course is not enforced and seems to have had the opposite effect, at least in my home town. I see teenagers (boys mostly) that never wear a helmet. It must be the "cool" factor of, hey, I'm breaking the law (or dude, I'm not messing up my hair). Our local police officers will stop for kids who have a helmet on and give them a sticker for encouragement, but they cannot stop someone who is sans helmet. I'd like to know the cost of getting this bill passed into law and the posters and pamphlets that are in every government building.
It just seems to me our government is seeping into every area of our lives. When will we have to stand up and say "enough"?
kathryn
Cathlete
>I STILL say they should just outlaw tobacco completely and be
>done with it!}(
Perhaps once the tobacco companies that are powerful lobbyists transition into another field, they will! (They've already gotten into the stop-smoking products, so they can continue to make money off of those who are quitting smoking).
I'm not sure what to think about the new law. I do think that it is meant to protect those who can't speak up for themselves, and isn't going to lead to some totalitarian goverment (some of the new Homeland security and 'terrorism' acts are doing that). But I don't see how it can possibly be enforced.
Better, for everyone's safety, would be to ban the use of hand-held cell phones and cigarettes by drivers. And if someone is doing both at once (I've seen it!) they should REALLY be slapped with a heavy fine.
>done with it!}(
Perhaps once the tobacco companies that are powerful lobbyists transition into another field, they will! (They've already gotten into the stop-smoking products, so they can continue to make money off of those who are quitting smoking).
I'm not sure what to think about the new law. I do think that it is meant to protect those who can't speak up for themselves, and isn't going to lead to some totalitarian goverment (some of the new Homeland security and 'terrorism' acts are doing that). But I don't see how it can possibly be enforced.
Better, for everyone's safety, would be to ban the use of hand-held cell phones and cigarettes by drivers. And if someone is doing both at once (I've seen it!) they should REALLY be slapped with a heavy fine.
nancy324
Cathlete
"..I do think that it is meant to protect those who can't speak up for themselves, and isn't going to lead to some totalitarian goverment (some of the new Homeland security and 'terrorism' acts are doing that)."
I agree Kathryn. I think I had a knee-jerk reaction because of the things you mention, and many others, that have been moving our government towards totalitariaism lately. Once I was able to see that this proposed new law is not in that category, I was able to see its merits.
I agree Kathryn. I think I had a knee-jerk reaction because of the things you mention, and many others, that have been moving our government towards totalitariaism lately. Once I was able to see that this proposed new law is not in that category, I was able to see its merits.
nancy324
Cathlete
"The bottom line in imo is that parents need to take a more active role and be more responsible. They need to educate themselves, as Cathy said, if there is something they do not know about or understand.
The law simply can not be there to protect every child from every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to. It just isn't possible..."
Of course I agree with you, Wendy. But you know, if a pediatrician sees that a kid's asthma is getting worse, does a chest x-ray and sees effects of smoking, I'd like to know that the doctor can call child services and send someone over to investigate. All in all, at least in NY, far too many kids fall thru the cracks of the welfare system. I don't like too many laws invading people's privacy, but when it comes to those who have rights they can't possibly assert for themselves, we need more, not less. That's particularly true here in the city.
This has been a fascinating discussion! Thanks so much for posting, Wendy.
The law simply can not be there to protect every child from every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to. It just isn't possible..."
Of course I agree with you, Wendy. But you know, if a pediatrician sees that a kid's asthma is getting worse, does a chest x-ray and sees effects of smoking, I'd like to know that the doctor can call child services and send someone over to investigate. All in all, at least in NY, far too many kids fall thru the cracks of the welfare system. I don't like too many laws invading people's privacy, but when it comes to those who have rights they can't possibly assert for themselves, we need more, not less. That's particularly true here in the city.
This has been a fascinating discussion! Thanks so much for posting, Wendy.
One of the most disgusting things I've ever seen was a mother feeding a bottle to her 2-month old baby while smoking. You can pass as many laws as you like but how much do they really help. I'm sure her children would not benefit by this law and I can't help to think about how people would skirt around the law. Smoking a quick one before they got onto the main roads, having one while buckling everyone up? And the big question for me is how does this get enforced? Is it okay in the summer (windows open) and not okay in the winter? The intention is good but do people really change for the good when a law like this is passed?
Diane
Diane
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
>>>I apologize if someone has brought this up already, but has anyone heard of the new SCRAM device that people who are waiting for trial or on probation, are now being required to wear. I heard a talk show with Tracy Morgan the other day, and because of his history, he is going to have to wear this electronic bracelet indefinitely. It takes an alcohol reading through the bracelet every half hour and then sends the results directly to the agency monitoring it. Paris Hilton is also going to have to wear one. It's costly and the wearer must pay all fees up front. It just seems to me this is a classic BIG BROTHER issue. Pretty soon we'll all be monitored for any kind of infraction. Probably not us, but our grandchildren, will be living in a very controlled world.<<<
I actually AGREE with devices like these when they are used on repeat offending criminals, or to make sure someone does not try to skip town to avoid trial, etc. The fact that the offender must pay the fees associated w/it makes it even BETTER! This a topic for another thread though...
I actually AGREE with devices like these when they are used on repeat offending criminals, or to make sure someone does not try to skip town to avoid trial, etc. The fact that the offender must pay the fees associated w/it makes it even BETTER! This a topic for another thread though...
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
>"The bottom line in imo is that parents need to take a more
>active role and be more responsible. They need to educate
>themselves, as Cathy said, if there is something they do not
>know about or understand.
>
>The law simply can not be there to protect every child from
>every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to.
>It just isn't possible..."
>
>Of course I agree with you, Wendy. But you know, if a
>pediatrician sees that a kid's asthma is getting worse, does a
>chest x-ray and sees effects of smoking, I'd like to know that
>the doctor can call child services and send someone over to
>investigate. All in all, at least in NY, far too many kids
>fall thru the cracks of the welfare system. I don't like too
>many laws invading people's privacy, but when it comes to
>those who have rights they can't possibly assert for
>themselves, we need more, not less. That's particularly true
>here in the city.
>
>This has been a fascinating discussion! Thanks so much for
>posting, Wendy.
Hi Nancy. Hmmmm...As contradictory as it may sound, I tend to agree with you on the child with asthma example. I guess IMO the only feasable solution then is to make smoking while in the company of a child a form of CHILD ABUSE. If that becomes the case, wether it's done in the car or in one's home, then I can see possibly passing the law. At that point though, it would not be needed because smoking in the car with a child would fall under the blanket of child abuse at that point.
BTW, I'm glad I could peak interests here and start an intelligent, non-flaming discussion about this!
>active role and be more responsible. They need to educate
>themselves, as Cathy said, if there is something they do not
>know about or understand.
>
>The law simply can not be there to protect every child from
>every harmful substance that a parent introduces him/her to.
>It just isn't possible..."
>
>Of course I agree with you, Wendy. But you know, if a
>pediatrician sees that a kid's asthma is getting worse, does a
>chest x-ray and sees effects of smoking, I'd like to know that
>the doctor can call child services and send someone over to
>investigate. All in all, at least in NY, far too many kids
>fall thru the cracks of the welfare system. I don't like too
>many laws invading people's privacy, but when it comes to
>those who have rights they can't possibly assert for
>themselves, we need more, not less. That's particularly true
>here in the city.
>
>This has been a fascinating discussion! Thanks so much for
>posting, Wendy.
Hi Nancy. Hmmmm...As contradictory as it may sound, I tend to agree with you on the child with asthma example. I guess IMO the only feasable solution then is to make smoking while in the company of a child a form of CHILD ABUSE. If that becomes the case, wether it's done in the car or in one's home, then I can see possibly passing the law. At that point though, it would not be needed because smoking in the car with a child would fall under the blanket of child abuse at that point.
BTW, I'm glad I could peak interests here and start an intelligent, non-flaming discussion about this!
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
>>>One of the most disgusting things I've ever seen was a mother
feeding a bottle to her 2-month old baby while smoking.<<<
Things like this were common place even as recently as when I was an infant in the early 70's. My mom was a smoker (she quit 2 weeks before my son was born!)and used to smoke while holding myself or my sister in her arms. Ofcourse she would not blow the smoke AT us but she would smoke none-the-less.
I only brought this up because I find it interesting how times have changed. Back then smoking was more common place then not smoking and not looked upon in a negative light. Today the majority of people are non-smokers or ex-smokers and smoking is frowned upon more and more every day.
feeding a bottle to her 2-month old baby while smoking.<<<
Things like this were common place even as recently as when I was an infant in the early 70's. My mom was a smoker (she quit 2 weeks before my son was born!)and used to smoke while holding myself or my sister in her arms. Ofcourse she would not blow the smoke AT us but she would smoke none-the-less.
I only brought this up because I find it interesting how times have changed. Back then smoking was more common place then not smoking and not looked upon in a negative light. Today the majority of people are non-smokers or ex-smokers and smoking is frowned upon more and more every day.
nancy324
Cathlete
"As contradictory as it may sound, I tend to agree with you on the child with asthma example. I guess IMO the only feasable solution then is to make smoking while in the company of a child a form of CHILD ABUSE. If that becomes the case, wether it's done in the car or in one's home, then I can see possibly passing the law. At that point though, it would not be needed because smoking in the car with a child would fall under the blanket of child abuse at that point."
Wendy, I just want to say that I DO understand and appreciate the distinction you are making, and I'm impressed by your reasoning. You would make an excellent lawyer or judge (if you were able to sit still all day :+ ).
Wendy, I just want to say that I DO understand and appreciate the distinction you are making, and I'm impressed by your reasoning. You would make an excellent lawyer or judge (if you were able to sit still all day :+ ).
nancy324
Cathlete
>Thank you, Nancy! How nice of you to say that!
>
>I actually sit still for longer then you realize! I love to
>work out but look at how many posts I have under my belt!? I
>spend ALOT of time sitting and staring at this darned PC.
>It's like my television set! :7 :7 :7
Wendy, seriously, you should not take your ability to put your emotions aside and make fine logical distinctions lightly. You should make use of it. My Mom is like that. She never went to college, but when we were teenagers, she got a job as a clerical assistant for the State of NJ. She worked her way up to become an administrative law judge. Some of her written decisions were even upheld and quoted by the higher courts of the State, and not a single decision of hers was ever overturned!
Just an idea for you because I know you want to work, but not necessarily go back to school. BTW, the benefits of working for the government are great.
ETA: Apologies for the blatant hijack.
>
>I actually sit still for longer then you realize! I love to
>work out but look at how many posts I have under my belt!? I
>spend ALOT of time sitting and staring at this darned PC.
>It's like my television set! :7 :7 :7
Wendy, seriously, you should not take your ability to put your emotions aside and make fine logical distinctions lightly. You should make use of it. My Mom is like that. She never went to college, but when we were teenagers, she got a job as a clerical assistant for the State of NJ. She worked her way up to become an administrative law judge. Some of her written decisions were even upheld and quoted by the higher courts of the State, and not a single decision of hers was ever overturned!
Just an idea for you because I know you want to work, but not necessarily go back to school. BTW, the benefits of working for the government are great.
ETA: Apologies for the blatant hijack.
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
>Wendy, seriously, you should not take your ability to put your
>emotions aside and make fine logical distinctions lightly.
>You should make use of it. My Mom is like that. She never
>went to college, but when we were teenagers, she got a job as
>a clerical assistant for the State of NJ. She worked her way
>up to become an administrative law judge. Some of her written
>decisions were even upheld and quoted by the higher courts of
>the State, and not a single decision of hers was ever
>overturned!
>
>Just an idea for you because I know you want to work, but not
>necessarily go back to school. BTW, the benefits of working
>for the government are great.
>
>ETA: Apologies for the blatant hijack.
I started this thread and I don't mind the blatant hijack so it's cool! LOL
Thanks Nancy. I will keep this in mind. I am working on getting certified as a personal trainer but there are no garuntees in life...for one thing-that I will even pass the test! LOL For another, that I'll like it or that I'll be successfull at it so who knows what I could end up doing down the road. You are definately right about school! I had to do some home study for the PT cert and that was quite enough "school" for me!
>emotions aside and make fine logical distinctions lightly.
>You should make use of it. My Mom is like that. She never
>went to college, but when we were teenagers, she got a job as
>a clerical assistant for the State of NJ. She worked her way
>up to become an administrative law judge. Some of her written
>decisions were even upheld and quoted by the higher courts of
>the State, and not a single decision of hers was ever
>overturned!
>
>Just an idea for you because I know you want to work, but not
>necessarily go back to school. BTW, the benefits of working
>for the government are great.
>
>ETA: Apologies for the blatant hijack.
I started this thread and I don't mind the blatant hijack so it's cool!
LOLThanks Nancy. I will keep this in mind. I am working on getting certified as a personal trainer but there are no garuntees in life...for one thing-that I will even pass the test! LOL For another, that I'll like it or that I'll be successfull at it so who knows what I could end up doing down the road.
You are definately right about school! I had to do some home study for the PT cert and that was quite enough "school" for me!My mother did the same thing. I would be in the high-chair and she'd be feeding me with one hand and smoking a cigarette in the other!! the horror!! She smoked through our entire childhoods (and still does). I've already told her if I get lung cancer or some other such disease, I will never forgive her! How anyone can think that is not a problem, regardless of the era, boggles my mind. At least it's in the public forum now! hooray
Fit_mommy
Cathlete
>My mother did the same thing. I would be in the high-chair
>and she'd be feeding me with one hand and smoking a cigarette
>in the other!! the horror!! She smoked through our entire
>childhoods (and still does). I've already told her if I get
>lung cancer or some other such disease, I will never forgive
>her! How anyone can think that is not a problem, regardless
>of the era, boggles my mind. At least it's in the public
>forum now! hooray
While I respect everyone's oppinion on this forum and mean no offense I have to say that I think you are being extemely harsh and unfair to your mother. Things were different back then and people didn't know what they know now. Our parents didn't smoke around us with the intent of making us sick later in life. I don't understand how you can say that you would never forgive her if you contract lunger cancer, etc. YIKES! I don't know...maybe it's just me but I just couldn't and wouldn't do that. My mom has done more for me in my lifetime then ANYONE on this earth and all I will ever be is THANKFUL to GOD for her! She is one of my best friends and I can't envision my life with out her!
>and she'd be feeding me with one hand and smoking a cigarette
>in the other!! the horror!! She smoked through our entire
>childhoods (and still does). I've already told her if I get
>lung cancer or some other such disease, I will never forgive
>her! How anyone can think that is not a problem, regardless
>of the era, boggles my mind. At least it's in the public
>forum now! hooray
While I respect everyone's oppinion on this forum and mean no offense I have to say that I think you are being extemely harsh and unfair to your mother. Things were different back then and people didn't know what they know now. Our parents didn't smoke around us with the intent of making us sick later in life. I don't understand how you can say that you would never forgive her if you contract lunger cancer, etc. YIKES! I don't know...maybe it's just me but I just couldn't and wouldn't do that. My mom has done more for me in my lifetime then ANYONE on this earth and all I will ever be is THANKFUL to GOD for her! She is one of my best friends and I can't envision my life with out her!