New law being pondered for NJ town....

>>Janie, caffeine is bad too. Should be ban that as well?
>What
>>about steak knives? They could be dangerous in the wrong
>>hands. Or Tylenol. People could overdose if they please.
>Where
>>should we draw the line?
>>
>>
>>Carolyn
>>
>>
>
>Carolyn, don't bring the "c" word into this. If you take it
>away from me, I may have to turn this thread into something
>else }( ;-)
>
>
>Debbie
>
>
>I'm not gaining weight. I'm retaining food.

I second that. Anyone who messes w/my coffee risks serious injury if not death.

Huh. After reading my statement I'm thinking I need to be outlawed.
:7
 
"This probably due to too many hockey related head injuries." Thank you for making me laugh out loud, literally! But I think it is true that there is a different perspective and perception. And the fact that we are part of the Commonwealth Realm, and were a British colony for so long probably has a lot to do with the similarities.
 
>>If you want to pass a law to make it illegal to smoke in a car
>for the same reason one is not allowed to use a cell phone
>(unless it is hands-free) then that is fine. Outlaw smoking
>by the DRIVER for reason of dangerous distraction and I will
>not argue...
>
>Just my 2 cent more!:p
>
>
Why would that be OK, but protecting a child not? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm really confused why that would be OK for you but not the purposed law.
 
I have to agree with the premise of the law in that kids need a voice, too. I think it is awful that people smoke around them period. Where do we draw the line for all these crazy rules? Yeah, good question. I think there are so many shades of grey we could be debating this until the cow comes home smoking a cigarette.


Debbie


I'm not gaining weight. I'm retaining food.
 
I grew up with smoking parents. I wish there had been a law to protect me back then. And now that we know better about second hand smoke... why not?

I do get the big brother side of this but how many times have you seen a tiny baby trapped in a car in the winter with the window barely cracked open (like that's going to help) and the driver is puffing away. I've been there.

I stand with the Canadian on this one. Giving a child a voice by not exposing him/her to a harmful substance.

BTW great job to all for intelligent discussion.
 
>>>If you want to pass a law to make it illegal to smoke in a
>car
>>for the same reason one is not allowed to use a cell phone
>>(unless it is hands-free) then that is fine. Outlaw smoking
>>by the DRIVER for reason of dangerous distraction and I will
>>not argue...
>>
>>Just my 2 cent more!:p
>>
>>
>Why would that be OK, but protecting a child not? I'm not
>trying to argue with you, I'm really confused why that would
>be OK for you but not the purposed law.

I'll take a stab at this.

When you regulate something based on the health & welfare of those living in your own home, that's when things start to get "big brotherish." That's more about the government dictating how people should run their private lives. Things get REALLY hairy when you start regulating something based on a parents' behavior around their children.

When you regulate something based on protecting people outside one's private domain for safety reasons, that's more legit. It's political science 101--government was created to protect person & property from the dangers outside their private domain. The old "state of nature" thing--without govmt life would be "poor, brutish & short."

Hope this makes sense. Just the perspective of a sheltered government employee. ;-)
 
>>>If you want to pass a law to make it illegal to smoke in a
>car
>>for the same reason one is not allowed to use a cell phone
>>(unless it is hands-free) then that is fine. Outlaw smoking
>>by the DRIVER for reason of dangerous distraction and I will
>>not argue...
>>
>>Just my 2 cent more!:p
>>
>>
>Why would that be OK, but protecting a child not? I'm not
>trying to argue with you, I'm really confused why that would
>be OK for you but not the purposed law.

I know you are not trying to argue. I don't mind explaining myself...well, atleast I don't mind TRYING to! LOL I don't mind having my stance questioned at all so long as it is done in a respectful manner.:)

If they want to start passing these kinds of laws then they need to start at the very beginning with putting regulations on who is allowed to have children and raise them. I don't think the government should have the right to pick and choose what they may make laws about when it comes to how we raise our kids.

Let's see....so it is legal for "Jane" to smoke but she is not allowed to smoke in her own private car that she pays for when her daughter is in it but she can smoke in that very same car when her daughter is NOT there AND better yet...when she goes home and is chain-smoking along with her husband in their house with all of the windows closed while their daughter plays in the very same room, that is okay??? No. I have to disagree. It just makes no sense to me.

Please keep in mind that I am not debating wether you should smoke around your kids. I am debating a law that I think is ridiculous to pass and try to enforce.

As I said previously, this just screams "Big Brother" to me and if I wanted to live in that kind of society I would not live in the U.S. Our country needs to create and uphold laws to protect it's citizens as best it can, young and old alike, BUT there has to be a line which the government is not allowed to cross. If there is no line then we are not the free country we claim to be. Also remember that no government and no country is perfect. They all have their problems. It would be impossible to protect everyone from everything that could possibly harm them. We have to draw the line somewhere and I think this is a good place to start...

Tell our government to stop taking all that cash from the tobacco companies and make tobacco ILLEGAL! No it won't stop people from getting it but I think it's a much better option then what they are considering. They have outlawed smoking in public places all over the country already! Just do us a favor and do away with it already so you can stop getting on people's backs about it! (I mean the goverment-not anyone here.)

ETA: One last note...I am actually an advocate of smokers rights but I am just so fed up with how the goverment is handling it that I think it should just be illegal. But NO, I still don't think we should smoke around our kids or while pregnant.

Thanks for listening!;)
 
Oh I have a great tobacco story for you. VA was one of the first states to outlaw smoking in public buildings. If I remember correctly, the only indoor places people were allowed to smoke were those that had more than 60% of their business from alcohol (read: bars) and...........

The General Assembly building in Richmond. You walk in to the state capital & it reeks of cigarettes. The very same people who voted to outlaw it everywhere else made sure they could still do it in their own building. RJ Reynolds carries a lot of weight there. ;-)

Furthermore, VA took its share of the federal tobacco settlement & used it to subsidize tobacco farmers, as opposed to most states that used it for community outreach/education. Evidently business has been tough for tobacco farmers since smoking has become less popular.
 
Very well explained, Laura. You get a gold star! :)

This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll try to give some perspective some of us fear the "slippery slope" of where something like this can lead.

When laws are passed, it's important to bear in mind that they will eventually be applied and interpreted NOT from the perspective of common sense, but from a strictly LEGAL perspective where common sense does not always prevail. So in that respect, it's not too difficult to see where a law that is written to protect children from one behavior of a parent could fairly easily be parlayed in to encompassing other behaviors (for lack of a better word), getting into a seriously scary Big Brother realm.

We don't need anymore new laws to protect us from ourselves...
 
I do agree that children need a voice and do have to be protected. I just want to smack those dumbos exposing their kids to secondhand smoke!

However, I also want to smack people who feed their kids McDonalds (or a poor diet in general) and Diet Coke (or soda in general). I think they are contributing as much to a health risk as a smoker does. As far as I am concerned, if they want to pass that no smoking-in-front-of-your-kids law, to be consistent they need to "crack down" on parents feeding their kids a diet so they are obese by the age of 7 years.

My question is just, if we allow the goverment to intrude on our personal lives where will it stop? For example, I am a big proponent of naturopathic/homeopathic medicine, so I try to avoid allopathic medicine as much as I can. I guess that is a little controversial, what if the government all over sudden decided they can intrude in those personal decisions as well. Frightens the crap out of me!

Oh, just one more thing. I don't remember who posted it, but Europe is EXTREMELY concerned with the protection of privacy and in fact is much stricter than the US in enforcing the individuals right of privacy.

Carola
 
I think everyone is missing something as it relates to the "big brother" aspect of this. The laws passed/proposed are not to control smokers, per se. (although most smokers do think everything is about them, so I can see where they would get that). The laws aren't even to tell you how to raise your kids. The laws are being passed to PROTECT others. The law is to protect me FROM you (assuming me is the non-smoker, you is the smoker). Anyone can go out and do all of the drinking they want to - you can get so drunk, you fall down. But, when you do it in public, or get behind the wheel, the law must step in. In other words: WHEN YOUR ACTIONS BEGIN TO ENDANGER OTHERS, THE LAW MUST STEP IN. Almost everything falls in this category: alcohol, tobacco, guns, malpractice, etc. If you have a kid, goes out somewhere with their friends - friends parents drive. You want your child protected. This does that. This is about PROTECTION not about oversight. Therefore, it is just.
(I do, by the way, agree with other posters - just make the junk illegal).
And lastly - where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to endanger someone else's life? I think I missed that day at school.
 
Again, I respect all opinions...with that said what the constitution does is provide certain freedoms and limitations on our government. This law would be one TINY example of a law which would make our fore fathers roll over in their graves I'm afraid.

Edited to correct typo
 
We are all aware of the dangers of smoke and secondhand smoke and seem to agree that responsible parents, knowing what we know today, would not expose their children to such dangers. While I fully support the ban on public smoking, I think this legislation goes too far and is unrealistic. I mean, is it really enforceable? And if so, do you then follow these people into their homes and ban them from smoking there, too? The law has its limitations, and the best the government can do beyond the public smoking ban is continue to educate the public. The anti-smoking campaign of the last few decades has been highly successful as we are one of the most smoke-free countries today. At any rate, I would be interested to hear the council member's rationale for this legislation.

~Cathy :)
 
Making tobacco illegal will just make it another substance that criminals will sell and murder for. Prohibition did nothing but make gangsters rich. If people want to smoke, go ahead. But I have no problem with laws being made so that they can't smoke in public places where it can cause harm to others.

As far as I'm concerned, pot should be legal, but regulated. Get it out of the hands of criminals. I truly believe that the laws against it create more problems than the drug itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top