Smoking bans are getting better? - Page 4

Hayttrain · 01-23-2007, 12:49 PM

I absolutely agree with you on your points. My opinion just comes from a lot of research I have done (on the time period and how the reasoning that was used to justify putting it into play is actually somewhat insulting when looking at our society today. Interesting enough you will find when reading a lot of source documents (journals and personal writings) that a lot of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of the people and felt they were to rash and to uneducated to directly have a hand in the decision making bodies of the government as well as the elections. In fact many of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of "the people" because the very same thing that allowed the patriots to mobilize and rally the people (their ability to play off their gut instincts towards the British and their policies) was not necessarily a good thing when it came to other matters. Granted back then there fears were well founded, but I would like to think that the institution has had its time and place in history and now its continued existence is somewhat insulting to the modern day "people". No doubt we are still rash and tend to go with our gut feelings, but our politicians are certainly no better. Also it is somewhat amusing that "the people" are often times more educated and more sensible then those we choose to lead us, but that's another argument all together. I just think that the E. College is very patronizing and doesn't go along with a government elected by the people... unless the people are a group of people that we didn't elect electing the government based on their perception of our opinion (sounds a bit sketchy to me). Once again just my personal perspective on the matter it is certainly no more correct than anyone else’s.

**CingularDuality** · 01-23-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayttrain

I absolutely agree with you on your points. My opinion just comes from a lot of research I have done (on the time period and how the reasoning that was used to justify putting it into play is actually somewhat insulting when looking at our society today. Interesting enough you will find when reading a lot of source documents (journals and personal writings) that a lot of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of the people and felt they were to rash and to uneducated to directly have a hand in the decision making bodies of the government as well as the elections. In fact many of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of "the people" because the very same thing that allowed the patriots to mobilize and rally the people (their ability to play off their gut instincts towards the British and their policies) was not necessarily a good thing when it came to other matters. Granted back then there fears were well founded, but I would like to think that the institution has had its time and place in history and now its continued existence is somewhat insulting to the modern day "people". No doubt we are still rash and tend to go with our gut feelings, but our politicians are certainly no better. Also it is somewhat amusing that "the people" are often times more educated and more sensible then those we choose to lead us, but that's another argument all together. I just think that the E. College is very patronizing and doesn't go along with a government elected by the people... unless the people are a group of people that we didn't elect electing the government based on their perception of our opinion (sounds a bit sketchy to me). Once again just my personal perspective on the matter it is certainly no more correct than anyone else’s.

Nice hijack!

If you've read so much about the electoral college, then you know that it's not about being patronizing towards people, rather it's to keep power in the states instead of centralizing it federally. Our government was designed to be a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Our government was also decentralized with the formation of states that recognize that different people have different views, even within the same nation. The electoral college takes both of these important government concepts into account much better than any alternative that I've seen.

Boxcar0715 · 01-23-2007, 01:36 PM

When I began reading this thread, I was merely irritated by its subject matter. But as I continued through the reply posts, I became nearly enraged. I literally had to step away from the computer to gather myself and my thoughts before I composed my reply.

The health and welfare of children is extremely important. We should make every effort, as individuals, to not expose children to the harmful side-effects of cigarette smoke.

But I believe that the person that proposed this law, an elected official, didn't have the health of children in mind when they began this endeavor. How often do we see politicians do things for the sole purpose of advancing their careers? I don't know the name of the individual responsible for for this law, but I bet that the people in Bangor do.

A couple of things bother me about this law. The first is the premise of its creation - parents smoking in the car with their children inside.

Have you ever been stuck in traffic? Lots of cars sitting still and all of them with engines running. Do you know what is coming out of all of those exhaust pipes? The answer is carbon monoxide, as well as other chemical mixtures produced by the petroleum products our cars use. What comes from cigarette smoke? Carbon monoxide and other chemical mixtures. And as we all know, carbon monoxide causes cancer. What is next, we ban children from riding in cars or being stuck in traffic to protect their health?

Another point of this law that troubles me is the amount of time and money it will take to enforce. Wouldn't a police officer's time be better spent apprehending a murder suspect or a reckless driver? I would be quite upset if my home was burglarized. I would be outraged if the event could have been prevented by a police officer patrolling my neighborhood rather than enforcing a $50 fine. And imagine if someone disputes the infraction, as you know will happen. Now you have the expense of courtroom time. The district attorney, judge, clerks and deputies all cost money. Not to mention increasing the "log-jam" that already troubles the judicial system. Does the cost outweigh the gain?

Lastly, I believe that this truly is evolving us into a society resembling George Orwell's "1984." How much does government need to be involved in the personal lives of its citizens? I am a grown man; a father, husband and war veteran. Do I need someone that doesn't know anything about me, other than my registered voting party, leading my life? I stand defiant against "Big Brother." Do I stand alone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick_the_new_guy

I think we should train the kids to Narc their parents out if they smoke inside.

I wasn't going to respond to this comment but I felt that ignoring it would keep me up at night. Their was another society, not previously mentioned, that used this policy. It was the Third Reich, the Nazis. Those that don't know history are bound to repeat it.

Peace

|TG-Irr| Boxcar0715

Rick_the_new_guy · 01-23-2007, 02:16 PM

That is the main debate at hand.

Further empowering the Feds or further protect the youth from physical abuse from parents. Yes, I see cig smoke as physically damaging to one’s person.

At the end of the day, maybe the kids get thrown under the bus in order to inhibit one more piece of legislation to govern our lives. I feel you man on the whole "Big Brother" thing. Hell fire, I even gave you an illustration on how it would only get worse from there.

But your right, what I am talking about would only bring about the quickening that much faster. And for what, a lousy ticket that does not come with any educational pamplets, only to have them light up again as soon as the police are gone. Very stressful situation being stopped by the police.

I think the reason I am willing to endorse this is because smoking junks the body. And the younger you are the worst it is.

....

Wait, I just googled Smoking while pregnant. Looks like it is legal to smoke while pregnant.

...

o.k.

...

Seems like that should have been put into law first before this deal about being in a car.

o.k., I'll fight my battles one at a time. I'll focus on getting smoking while pregnant illegal at the State and Federal level first, before anymore discussion on this matter at hand.
Here is some material on the matter: http://no-smoking.org/june06/06-14-06-5.html

It is not about more control at the Fed level, it is about getting people to put down the cigs while pregnant. Maybe being labled a criminal will save a few kids from being mentally and physcially retarded by their mom's. I think it is worth the risk of bringing about the quicking at an earlier date.

BTW, I am very familar with the work of the 3rd Reich (1933-1945).
I have studied the issue in order to better look out for the signs of the quicking, here in Americia.

Before leaving, Rick scans the forum room; and before turning to go he says:

"I'll be back."

Kerostasis · 01-23-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick_the_new_guy

...
However, I am confused about your E. College thoughts.

I think back in 1787 it was sound.

...
I believe the founding fathers got this one right. However, around the modern period when actually individual votes could be counted and the Presidential office became more powerful, individual votes should count.

Ah but you forget, we haven't actually reached the stage of being able to count individual votes. Hence our high frequency of recounts and court disputes. What about all of those Diebold-related scandals?

What many people don't think of when talking about the electoral college is fraud. One of the reasons for instituing the electoral college was to limit the ability of heavy voter fraud in one location to impact national results, because at maximum it can only swing one state. Its not like voter fraud wasn't invented until Diebold came along, after all. We've been dealing with voter fraud in one form or another for as long as we've had voting.

Hayttrain · 01-23-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Nice hijack!

If you've read so much about the electoral college, then you know that it's not about being patronizing towards people, rather it's to keep power in the states instead of centralizing it federally. Our government was designed to be a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Our government was also decentralized with the formation of states that recognize that different people have different views, even within the same nation. The electoral college takes both of these important government concepts into account much better than any alternative that I've seen.

Not sure how I hijacked anything. I was explaining why I felt the way I did about the electoral college to Rick because he said he was confused about it and trying to bring some new points to the argument in the process, but if I did I apologize.

I did not say I read so much on the electoral college I said I read a lot of source documents from the time period and it has led me to my current opinion of the electoral college. But yeah I got to admit I have to brush up on my US Government a little more. As for your arguments well if the number of electoral votes any state can cast is based on population how is it that this recognizes peoples different views better than a direct popular vote. I am not arguing with you I really just want to know what you think. It seems you are very well versed with the concepts of our governmental system (a lot more than me), but do you really think that the E. College goes along with the idea of popular sovereignty. If a government is meant to be subject to the will of its people how can a arbitrary system be setup where the majorities wishes can be ruled out by the minorities? Also, even in representative democracy the people are meant to elect there reps, but the electoral reps are appointed. Just my thoughts.

--Hayt

**DudeMan** · 01-23-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I'll not disagree with you.

However, just because there are more harmful or more common problems which are legal doesn't mean that smoking in a car with kids needs to be legal. It would be very difficult to outlaw gorging your kids on junk food without over-reaching. Smoking in the car is much more clear-cut. It's limited and enforceable.

firstly its not enforceable, its, as someone else put it, another thing to add on to why you were pulled in the first place, like police have nothing better to do than sit there watching for smokers in cars.... it will get some, and im not saying its a bad idea logically, what i am saying is the government could give a crap about this, and less people smoke today exposing less people to the fumes, and we are not living in a world of invalids as a result of second hand smoke which in the 50's and 60's was alot worse than it is today. the problem i have, is they are just reeming people for money and nothing else, you pay tax (alot of it) on the ciggs, then they will fine you for smoking them, they need to ban it one way or the other, and educate people as to its effects on children, instead of knee jerk stupid, unenforcable non laws.

secondly, alcohol, fags, (of the tobacco kind before anyone jumps the gun), movies even, have age restrictions because they are harmful to chilldren, however, burgers with a calorie and saturate fat and salt count nearly totalling the daily reccomended ammount for kids are fine, with no health warnings, age restrictions etc. what i am saying is not that the law is bad, my initial distaste for the conversation was the stalinist kids dobbing their parents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Not according to the article.

"The ordinance, which takes effect Friday, allows the police to stop cars if an adult is smoking while a child under 18 is a passenger."

Whether or not the police choose to enforce the law strictly is up to them. However, with the law in place, the police now have the authority to legitamately pull you over if they see you smoking in your car and you look to have an under 18 passenger.

And I fairly much agree with Dude here on this point- the laws seem to be more for trendiness than healthiness. I mean, if we wanted to be healthier, certainly we'd ban cigarettes completely, right?

yes i agree with you here, i still think as i said before though that police are really not going to have the time or resources to do this effectively and therefore it becomes one of those laws, where, something else attracts the police attention, and then they add this on whilst writing the ticket....

ofcourse it depends on what officer does the charging, and i fundementally agree people should not be smoking with their children in the cars, or in front of them, but if you have the childs health in mind and not a non law with a money grabbin sentiment, then you would make the law about the childs health and have a proper repercussion, not a $50 fine which will piss you off and make you feel like big brother is watching and not drive the real message home...

ofcourse i am one of the trend setters i speak of.... how objective am i? i dont know.

Diceman · 01-23-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Lung efficiency (health) is effected by smoking and second hand smoke, sure, but I'm not sure that kids have it worse off. If anything, I'd think that they'd be better off, as the amount of growth hormones that they've got kicking around inside them is going to help out in that regard.

C'mon! Really?

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/st...gId-en,00.html

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-23-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

So many factual errors here...

Healthy children have fully developed lungs at birth. Sure they continue to grow, but they are certainly fully developed. Lung efficiency (health) is effected by smoking and second hand smoke, sure, but I'm not sure that kids have it worse off. If anything, I'd think that they'd be better off, as the amount of growth hormones that they've got kicking around inside them is going to help out in that regard. Oh, yeah, did I mention that a smoker's lungs can heal and regrow if they'd just quit smoking? It's just a matter of time before the lungs are good as new, or at least better than they were when they were in the smoking environment.

The fact that children do regrow tissue faster actually makes them more susceptable to some of the negative affects, such as cancer.

Radiation dosage can be greater for older people because they do not regenerate cells as fast.

Sun exposure is a good example. A child getting a sunburn increases risk of skin cancer more than an adult getting a sunburn does.

**Sirusblk** · 01-23-2007, 06:47 PM

I must say I totally agree with getting smoking while pregnant banned. If ever there was something to put a law on related to smoking that would be it.

I just don't have a problem with this new law, sure they could enact a better law, but they obviously aren't. The only problem I do have with this law is pulling over people just for this. I think it's personally a waste only to be fining them $50. However added on to an offense already in affect it seems justified.

What I'm getting at is, how are children supposed to tell you they don't like your cigarette smoke? Do they know of all the health risks? And even if they did, would they actually tell you? I'm guessing they wouldn't. The thing is when kids can't protect themselves and the parents aren't doing there job either, I believe it's necessary for others to take action.

We know smoking is bad, period.

Saying "We can't protect against Carbon Monoxide from cars in traffic so why should we protect against cigarette smoke?" seems to me like a bit of an odd statement, no offense. With the cigarette smoke it adds onto the Carbon Monoxide from polluting cars, just like your investment in the bank does with compound interest. Believe me I'm all for cleaner running cars though, I personally would love to see it happen.

-Sirusblk

**Rincewind** · 01-23-2007, 06:59 PM

My wife and I were taking our six-month-old to the doctor to get treatment for a respiratory infection a couple of weeks ago. The appointments are usually long and our three year old who was with with us has a less than stellar track record of behaving at the doctor so I opted to stay in the van with him and color / read.

About halfway through the appointment a pickup truck pulled up to the parking spot in front of our van. Inside all I could see was a young lady smoking. The window was barely cracked and the smoke was taking it's time leaving the cab. I didn't think much of it until the lady got out a few minutes later to light a fresh cig. She then walked around the truck to the passenger side door and retrieved a baby carrier!

I was awe struck.

The baby inside was a tiny boy who couldn’t have been more than a few weeks old. And from looking at the shape his mom was in I figured he might have been in for his two week check-up. 'Mom' left for the office baby and cigarette in hand.

I had never felt so pissed off at a stranger in my life (well maybe in CSS a few times

). It was rage. I thought moms OF ALL PEOPLE would want to protect their babies from harm. Instead this selfish, ignorant wildebeest was voluntarily harming her helpless baby. Had I not been so dumbfounded I would have approached her. I don’t know what I would have said, probably, “why the hell are you smoking around your helpless newborn?!” or something as equally confrontational.

Instead I wrote her a note on the back of an envelope. I went over in my head for a good ten minutes what I should write; that’s probably why I still remember what I wrote. I opted for the passively aggressive:

“I hope you realize the damage you’re doing to your newborn baby by smoking around it. It’s one of the most careless and selfish acts I’ve ever seen a mother inflict on their child. I hope you can find it in yourself to quit for the well being of your beautiful, defenseless son.”

I had no idea when my wife would be coming back and I wanted to say something to this young mother. I couldn’t just let it slide. It still irritates me thinking about it—being forced into action.

I quickly placed the note under the windshield wiper of the truck and got back in my van. I was kind of nervous that she would come back and find the note, see me sitting in the van and assume (correctly) that I wrote the note. I was afraid she might get really, really angry and chew me out, “Mind your own God damn business!” type of chewing. She looked like the type to do it to. My wife beat her to the punch and we were gone before the lady got back to her truck.

I’m not a proactive type of guy. I try to avoid ‘fist-fight’ confrontation and like to keep things amicable. But there’s just something that sets me off about people who willingly (however casually) physically harm their children by smoking around them. Gee I wonder what it is...

It’s probably a good thing that ‘mom’ scooted off before I could say something that would have really gotten me into trouble.

Rick_the_new_guy · 01-23-2007, 07:33 PM

I failed to commint on the Narc sentence. It needs to be further explained and edited.

Here is how it works.

I would classify second hand smoke as under the same rules as physical abuse.
This means that teaching them to narc out their parents would not work here. The kid must address the school personnel or the school personnel over hear them talking about it.

So randomly asking would not be wise, and would not get the best results. I concede that, I disagree with my previous remarks now.

Where was I, oh yes, treating this as the same thing as physical abuse. Although, I reckon it would be more like gaseous abuse, but you know what I mean. You know, the whole thing about the lungs and the respiratory system taking one for the team and all.

So the teacher/counselor/administrator would handle it the same way as physical abuse.

The difference is that unlike physical abuse were the social services are more geared to threatening to take your child; here education is what is pushed on you.

Here is a walk through.

A teacher has conversation with kid. Somewhere along the way the kid says there is a lot of smoke from cigs in the house they live in.

The teacher then narcs out the parents to the social services.

A person from social services looks over a laminated piece of paper while they are dialing the parent’s number.

Parent/legal guardian: Hello.

Soc: This is x from social services my I speak to the parents of x.

P/lg: Your talking to x now.

Soc: We regret to inform you that it has come to our attention that your daughter/son x is living in conditions were cig smoke is prevalent.
We would like to spend a few minutes talking with you about the hazards of cig smoke to youths, and provide you with some resources on better understanding the risks to your child.

Here the conversation is based upon what the P/lg says.

Maybe they listen and get to thinking about the issue and about the health of their loved one.

Maybe they right down the name of the website, or phone number to get free info on the matter.

Maybe they just b.s. them, then hang the phone up and get pissed at their kid for Narcing them out.

Maybe they reach for a cig, and then look at their kid playing with their T.M.N.T. toys and gets up, grabs his/her coat, walk outside and light up there.

Maybe years later they do not post this on a forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panz

As a former smoker with a child, Im all for this ban. My daughter has sinus problems and asthma and use to be prone to ear infections. All of these things can be proven to be as a result of being exposed to second hand smoke.

My negligence has caused my child who is now 13 to suffer health issues as a result for the rest of her life! I think that fine is too lenient by far.

If only I could go back.......

____________

That is what is going to help us from with this disgusting behavior that has no purpose but to retard our health and the health of our loved ones..

Education. Education. Education.

Here we are 10 years down the road from the huge meltdown of the lawsuit against the cig companies. I would say we have come a long way. The truth is out there. People are stopping the habit. There are less smokers today than 10 year ago. That is wonderful. We have farther to go. I just want to accelerate the natural death of the cig companies so much I am willing to endorse such things as described above.

Here is why: A healthy person is more self-reliant than one suffering from complications from smoke exposure.

I believe countries and nations are defined best by the individuals that make up the country not the Government that represents them.

In affect I believe the country should be indirectly managed from the bottom up, not from the top down. Meaning, the individual is responsible for their actions and taking responsibility for their actions and debts. Giving persons liberty and free thought and critical thinking on their actions is what I like. Making sure the liberties of others are not disrespected is what I like also.

What I do not like is, “mindlessly”, obeying every tiny little law and big law that is being made on a daily basis in order for the country to be better ran. This is managing from the top down, IMO.

I believe those people who are healthy make better citizens and a better and more secure nation. Therefore, impeding physical and mental retardations for the next generation is high on the list of the to do things.

As we know, the nation is most likely the sickest and in the worst shape it may have ever been in. If the individual is unhealthy, they are distracted by the important things, such as freedom and liberties. When sick and in distress, freedom and liberties become less important than getting help from their immediate illness. So a stronger and more healtheir person is less likely to give up their liberties.

With regards to the 3rd Reich.
The similarities are the German people were distracted by the poor shape of the nation and their bad times from the WWI reconstruction. A lot of strife was had bad many Germans during this time, people. They saw their freedoms and liberties as less important than taking care of their immediate problems (food, shelter, security). They were distracted, allowing the Sith Lords to take command. Keep in mind in 1933 the Reich was not as overbearing as they were later in the decade and in the forties.

It is true; I have shoulded up to the Feds on this issue, but because, damnit, it is important to me. Don’t know what else to say. Tough debate. Tough debate, IMO.

In conlusion mega plus rep to post numba: 53-56. Outstanding posts, IMO.

Hamburglar · 01-23-2007, 07:51 PM

I feel sorry for any kid who has to grow up in a family of smokers. The problem with this law is that it just diverts police efforts onto a problem it won't fix. It is bad if someone smokes in the car with their kid present. But, that isn't the problem. The problem is parents who are irresponsible, and think of their personal satisfaction before their child's well-being. So why only in cars? Why not at home too? It's no different really. Sure, in the car you are in a more confined area... but that is nothing compared to a kid who lives 18 years with smokers! Go big or go home! There is no reason a home-smoking ban should not be passed if they believe their logic is correct. Oh, what is that? Public outrage? It is just as bad to beat a kid in a car as it is to beat a kid at home, so what is their difference in thinking with this law?

People just need to be educated. If it is one thing that this law does, it will be to raise awareness to this problem. I feel that this law is senseless against the real problem. It seems like either one of those fluffy, good on paper laws politicians make to get the vote, or flat out, a poorly though through law. Probably a little of both, though.

xTYBALTx · 01-23-2007, 08:35 PM

There was talk earlier in this thread about removing bad genes from the pool. Well, I got news for you: if you keep intervening, it ain't gonna happen.

And another thing: No amount of junk science will ever make second hand smoke a legitimate health concern. Ain't gonna happen. Waste your time messing with your own lives. Save your outrage for something like gay marriage. At least no one really cares about that.

And finally, don't be so gullible. Put down the junk science and pick up some junk food.

**Rincewind** · 01-23-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

And another thing: No amount of junk science will ever make second hand smoke a legitimate health concern.

OK. I'll bite. Can you cite any proper science that bucks the status quo?

01-23-2007, 12:49 PM	#46 (permalink)
Hayttrain Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Boston, MA Age: 25 Posts: 18	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? I absolutely agree with you on your points. My opinion just comes from a lot of research I have done (on the time period and how the reasoning that was used to justify putting it into play is actually somewhat insulting when looking at our society today. Interesting enough you will find when reading a lot of source documents (journals and personal writings) that a lot of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of the people and felt they were to rash and to uneducated to directly have a hand in the decision making bodies of the government as well as the elections. In fact many of the founding fathers were extremely distrustful of "the people" because the very same thing that allowed the patriots to mobilize and rally the people (their ability to play off their gut instincts towards the British and their policies) was not necessarily a good thing when it came to other matters. Granted back then there fears were well founded, but I would like to think that the institution has had its time and place in history and now its continued existence is somewhat insulting to the modern day "people". No doubt we are still rash and tend to go with our gut feelings, but our politicians are certainly no better. Also it is somewhat amusing that "the people" are often times more educated and more sensible then those we choose to lead us, but that's another argument all together. I just think that the E. College is very patronizing and doesn't go along with a government elected by the people... unless the people are a group of people that we didn't elect electing the government based on their perception of our opinion (sounds a bit sketchy to me). Once again just my personal perspective on the matter it is certainly no more correct than anyone else’s.

01-23-2007, 02:16 PM	#49 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? That is the main debate at hand. Further empowering the Feds or further protect the youth from physical abuse from parents. Yes, I see cig smoke as physically damaging to one’s person. At the end of the day, maybe the kids get thrown under the bus in order to inhibit one more piece of legislation to govern our lives. I feel you man on the whole "Big Brother" thing. Hell fire, I even gave you an illustration on how it would only get worse from there. But your right, what I am talking about would only bring about the quickening that much faster. And for what, a lousy ticket that does not come with any educational pamplets, only to have them light up again as soon as the police are gone. Very stressful situation being stopped by the police. I think the reason I am willing to endorse this is because smoking junks the body. And the younger you are the worst it is. .... Wait, I just googled Smoking while pregnant. Looks like it is legal to smoke while pregnant. ... o.k. ... Seems like that should have been put into law first before this deal about being in a car. o.k., I'll fight my battles one at a time. I'll focus on getting smoking while pregnant illegal at the State and Federal level first, before anymore discussion on this matter at hand. Here is some material on the matter: http://no-smoking.org/june06/06-14-06-5.html It is not about more control at the Fed level, it is about getting people to put down the cigs while pregnant. Maybe being labled a criminal will save a few kids from being mentally and physcially retarded by their mom's. I think it is worth the risk of bringing about the quicking at an earlier date. BTW, I am very familar with the work of the 3rd Reich (1933-1945). I have studied the issue in order to better look out for the signs of the quicking, here in Americia. Before leaving, Rick scans the forum room; and before turning to go he says: "I'll be back." __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html Last edited by Rick_the_new_guy; 01-23-2007 at 02:41 PM.

01-23-2007, 06:47 PM	#55 (permalink)
Sirusblk Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Orange County Age: 19 Posts: 1,028	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? I must say I totally agree with getting smoking while pregnant banned. If ever there was something to put a law on related to smoking that would be it. I just don't have a problem with this new law, sure they could enact a better law, but they obviously aren't. The only problem I do have with this law is pulling over people just for this. I think it's personally a waste only to be fining them $50. However added on to an offense already in affect it seems justified. What I'm getting at is, how are children supposed to tell you they don't like your cigarette smoke? Do they know of all the health risks? And even if they did, would they actually tell you? I'm guessing they wouldn't. The thing is when kids can't protect themselves and the parents aren't doing there job either, I believe it's necessary for others to take action. We know smoking is bad, period. Saying "We can't protect against Carbon Monoxide from cars in traffic so why should we protect against cigarette smoke?" seems to me like a bit of an odd statement, no offense. With the cigarette smoke it adds onto the Carbon Monoxide from polluting cars, just like your investment in the bank does with compound interest. Believe me I'm all for cleaner running cars though, I personally would love to see it happen. -Sirusblk __________________

01-23-2007, 06:59 PM	#56 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,804	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? My wife and I were taking our six-month-old to the doctor to get treatment for a respiratory infection a couple of weeks ago. The appointments are usually long and our three year old who was with with us has a less than stellar track record of behaving at the doctor so I opted to stay in the van with him and color / read. About halfway through the appointment a pickup truck pulled up to the parking spot in front of our van. Inside all I could see was a young lady smoking. The window was barely cracked and the smoke was taking it's time leaving the cab. I didn't think much of it until the lady got out a few minutes later to light a fresh cig. She then walked around the truck to the passenger side door and retrieved a baby carrier! I was awe struck. The baby inside was a tiny boy who couldn’t have been more than a few weeks old. And from looking at the shape his mom was in I figured he might have been in for his two week check-up. 'Mom' left for the office baby and cigarette in hand. I had never felt so pissed off at a stranger in my life (well maybe in CSS a few times ). It was rage. I thought moms OF ALL PEOPLE would want to protect their babies from harm. Instead this selfish, ignorant wildebeest was voluntarily harming her helpless baby. Had I not been so dumbfounded I would have approached her. I don’t know what I would have said, probably, “why the hell are you smoking around your helpless newborn?!” or something as equally confrontational. Instead I wrote her a note on the back of an envelope. I went over in my head for a good ten minutes what I should write; that’s probably why I still remember what I wrote. I opted for the passively aggressive: “I hope you realize the damage you’re doing to your newborn baby by smoking around it. It’s one of the most careless and selfish acts I’ve ever seen a mother inflict on their child. I hope you can find it in yourself to quit for the well being of your beautiful, defenseless son.” I had no idea when my wife would be coming back and I wanted to say something to this young mother. I couldn’t just let it slide. It still irritates me thinking about it—being forced into action. I quickly placed the note under the windshield wiper of the truck and got back in my van. I was kind of nervous that she would come back and find the note, see me sitting in the van and assume (correctly) that I wrote the note. I was afraid she might get really, really angry and chew me out, “Mind your own God damn business!” type of chewing. She looked like the type to do it to. My wife beat her to the punch and we were gone before the lady got back to her truck. I’m not a proactive type of guy. I try to avoid ‘fist-fight’ confrontation and like to keep things amicable. But there’s just something that sets me off about people who willingly (however casually) physically harm their children by smoking around them. Gee I wonder what it is... It’s probably a good thing that ‘mom’ scooted off before I could say something that would have really gotten me into trouble. __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

01-23-2007, 07:51 PM	#58 (permalink)
Hamburglar Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Gig Harbor, WA Posts: 12	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? I feel sorry for any kid who has to grow up in a family of smokers. The problem with this law is that it just diverts police efforts onto a problem it won't fix. It is bad if someone smokes in the car with their kid present. But, that isn't the problem. The problem is parents who are irresponsible, and think of their personal satisfaction before their child's well-being. So why only in cars? Why not at home too? It's no different really. Sure, in the car you are in a more confined area... but that is nothing compared to a kid who lives 18 years with smokers! Go big or go home! There is no reason a home-smoking ban should not be passed if they believe their logic is correct. Oh, what is that? Public outrage? It is just as bad to beat a kid in a car as it is to beat a kid at home, so what is their difference in thinking with this law? People just need to be educated. If it is one thing that this law does, it will be to raise awareness to this problem. I feel that this law is senseless against the real problem. It seems like either one of those fluffy, good on paper laws politicians make to get the vote, or flat out, a poorly though through law. Probably a little of both, though.

01-23-2007, 08:35 PM	#59 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,844	Re: Smoking bans are getting better? There was talk earlier in this thread about removing bad genes from the pool. Well, I got news for you: if you keep intervening, it ain't gonna happen. And another thing: No amount of junk science will ever make second hand smoke a legitimate health concern. Ain't gonna happen. Waste your time messing with your own lives. Save your outrage for something like gay marriage. At least no one really cares about that. And finally, don't be so gullible. Put down the junk science and pick up some junk food. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links