Personal Freedoms and Second Hand Smoke :: Free Realms

#29 Sep 12 2006 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good

Guru

14,454 posts

NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:

DSD wrote:

how is my parenting up for question then?

I think it was more of a comprehension and critical thinking test. You know, intelligence and such.

Ahhhh. Well I guess I have going for me at least the intelligence of knowing not to smoke in front of my child Smiley: wink

#30 Sep 12 2006 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent

Driftwood

I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning

Scholar

9,395 posts

This thread makes me really want a smoke...

____________________________

10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.

Alan Watts wrote:

Eske wrote:

I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.

#31 Sep 12 2006 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good

Kakar

Sage

6,760 posts

Jophiel wrote:

DSD wrote:

Quote:

Well, yes. Your car is your private property being used privately by you. A restaurant is a privately owned but opened for public use.

true. But where does one persons rights overshadow anothers? How hard is it for one who chooses to smoke get out of the car versus a child choosing and being able to get out. While it maybe conisdered private property, does ones ownership of said car then overrule the rights of people passenging when it comes to being forced to inhale intoxications we know is not healthy?

It doesn't matter "how hard it is". The point I'm making is that smoking is still a legal thing to do. Thus far, various local and state legislatures have worked to make it difficult to smoke in public and now are working to encroach upon private property in a backdoor attempt to illegalize smoking. The real effect on the children is probably negligible considering that anyone smoking with kids in the car is most likely smoking at home anyway. But it does set another precedent towards the government poking their nose into your private business nominally for the public good.

If the California legislature wishes to outlaw smoking, then let them issue a blanket ban on smoking and fight it out in court. I'm not comfortable with incremental removals of personal liberties, especially on my own property, regardless of whether it's regarding search warrants, anti-terrorism measures or stopping smoking.

Joph is damn good at verbalizing what the hell I'm thinking. If he wasn't taken I'd start PM'ing him cyb0rz.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

#32 Sep 12 2006 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good

Guru

14,454 posts

Jophiel wrote:

DSD wrote:

Quote:

Well, yes. Your car is your private property being used privately by you. A restaurant is a privately owned but opened for public use.

true. But where does one persons rights overshadow anothers? How hard is it for one who chooses to smoke get out of the car versus a child choosing and being able to get out. While it maybe conisdered private property, does ones ownership of said car then overrule the rights of people passenging when it comes to being forced to inhale intoxications we know is not healthy?

It doesn't matter "how hard it is". The point I'm making is that smoking is still a legal thing to do. Thus far, various local and state legislatures have worked to make it difficult to smoke in public and now are working to encroach upon private property in a backdoor attempt to illegalize smoking. The real effect on the children is probably negligible considering that anyone smoking with kids in the car is most likely smoking at home anyway. But it does set another precedent towards the government poking their nose into your private business nominally for the public good.

If the California legislature wishes to outlaw smoking, then let them issue a blanket ban on smoking and fight it out in court. I'm not comfortable with incremental removals of personal liberties, especially on my own property, regardless of whether it's regarding search warrants, anti-terrorism measures or stopping smoking.

My point isnt how hard it is either, but the rights of one person being stomped upon by anothers, and by a group who can not legally (yet) get up on their own and refute this.

I dont think there will come a time when lawmakers will have the ability to sneak into your home to see if you are smoking inside with kids. Even if this law passes, you might be in your private property of your car, but you are using public property (the road). Are you allowed to speed on the road since you are in your car? No because it is a danger to others using a public area.

#33 Sep 12 2006 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good

Kakar

Sage

6,760 posts

damn errors.

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 11:47am EDT by Kakar

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

#34 Sep 12 2006 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1594570947417

Scholar

6,318 posts

Kakar the Vile wrote:

If he wasn't taken I'd start PM'ing him cyb0rz.

What should that matter?

#35 Sep 12 2006 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent

Kakar

Sage

6,760 posts

DSD wrote:

My point isnt how hard it is either, but the rights of one person being stomped upon by anothers, and by a group who can not legally (yet) get up on their own and refute this.

I dont think there will come a time when lawmakers will have the ability to sneak into your home to see if you are smoking inside with kids. Even if this law passes, you might be in your private property of your car, but you are using public property (the road). Are you allowed to speed on the road since you are in your car? No because it is a danger to others using a public area.

Nope, they won't. But they can't sneak into your house to see if you are shooting up heroin with your kids either. That's not the point.

By your argument a person's vehicle is public property as long as it's not in their driveway. With that reasoning, police wouldn't need probable cause or a warrant to search a person's car as long as they are driving down a road. If you say that a car isn't private property for smoking, then it opens it up to everything, not just for smoking. You can't differentiate it like that.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

#36 Sep 12 2006 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good

Guru

14,454 posts

Kakar the Vile wrote:

DSD wrote:

My point isnt how hard it is either, but the rights of one person being stomped upon by anothers, and by a group who can not legally (yet) get up on their own and refute this.

I dont think there will come a time when lawmakers will have the ability to sneak into your home to see if you are smoking inside with kids. Even if this law passes, you might be in your private property of your car, but you are using public property (the road). Are you allowed to speed on the road since you are in your car? No because it is a danger to others using a public area.

Nope, they won't. But they can't sneak into your house to see if you are shooting up heroin with your kids either. That's not the point.

By your argument a person's vehicle is public property as long as it's not in their driveway. With that reasoning, police wouldn't need probable cause or a warrant to search a person's car as long as they are driving down a road. If you say that a car isn't private property for smoking, then it opens it up to everything, not just for smoking. You can't differentiate it like that.

I made the point about the house because Joph was using the argument that this is the next step to invading our privacy at home. Nothing more.

But if there was a law passed to prevent smoking while driving with kids that *would* be probable cause to stop a person. Same as if they saw a beer can opened in the car. Drinking is legal. Drinking while driving is not. Speeding is against the law. Its only differentiating if it is not a law

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 11:55am EDT by DSD

#37 Sep 12 2006 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

DSD wrote:

My point isnt how hard it is either, but the rights of one person being stomped upon by anothers, and by a group who can not legally (yet) get up on their own and refute this.

If the "right" to be in a smokeless environment extends to private property then the thing to do is make smoking illegal. Whether or not the other party is a child shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter in public places. However, for as long as smoking remains legal, I can't agree with the government deciding when I can and can not do in my own property.

Quote:

Are you allowed to speed on the road since you are in your car? No because it is a danger to others using a public area.

For a variety of reasons, the two are not at all comparable.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#38 Sep 12 2006 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good

Guru

14,454 posts

Quote:

If the "right" to be in a smokeless environment extends to private property then the thing to do is make smoking illegal. Whether or not the other party is a child shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter in public places. However, for as long as smoking remains legal, I can't agree with the government deciding when I can and can not do in my own property.

your car may be your private property but if you do not act responsibly when out on the road (public area) can it not be taken away? Or your rights to drive? It doesnt matter what *it* is you are doing, if it is considered illegal, your rights to your private property on public roads still does not give you the *right* to do whatever you please. The argument is moot though since as of yet, this law has not come to pass.

Quote:

Are you allowed to speed on the road since you are in your car? No because it is a danger to others using a public area

.
For a variety of reasons, the two are not at all comparable.

How so? And what about drinking being legal but not legal in your private property of said car when on the road? How do they not compare? You are using your private property in a dangerous, irresponsible way on a public road, thus endangering others

#39 Sep 12 2006 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

DSD wrote:

I made the point about the house because Joph was using the argument that this is the next step to invading our privacy at home. Nothing more.

I never once said that. I said that someone smoking in their car with their kids was most likely smoking at home with their kids, making the health benefits of a car ban on smoking negligible at best.

Quote:

Same as if they saw a beer can opened in the car. Drinking is legal. Drinking while driving is not. Speeding is against the law. Its only differentiating if it is not a law

Drinking while driving is illegal because it impairs your ability to use the vehicle. When you get your license, it is in good faith that you are capable of operating a motor vehicle. Being drunk removes that ability. Smoking while driving does not (or at least not to any greater extent than fiddling with the AC or looking at your map).

The point of a vehicle smoking ban is not to prevent auto accidents.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#40 Sep 12 2006 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good

Kakar

Sage

6,760 posts

DSD wrote:

But if there was a law passed to prevent smoking while driving with kids that *would* be probable cause to stop a person. Same as if they saw a beer can opened in the car. Drinking is legal. Drinking while driving is not. Speeding is against the law. Its only differentiating if it is not a law

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 11:55am EDT by DSD

Alchohol is proven to impare a driver's judgement and performance behind the wheel. Smoking does not.

It's differentiating if you allow that a person's car is not private property for smoking, but is for things like transporting drugs, or illegals, for example. What I'm saying is if you open up formally private property for one thing, it's open for everything else as well.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

#41 Sep 12 2006 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent

Guru

14,454 posts

smoking can impair driving skills. The first cig of the day can cause lightheadedness. Searching for and lighting up a cig while driving takes your attention off the road. Dropping a lit cig in your car can distract the driver. And while the effects may be different to the health dangers of second hand smoke and drinking, they are still detrimental to you and those around you in a small, enclosed area.

#42 Sep 12 2006 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1616977010829

Sage

13,880 posts

No hot-boxing with children present in California. Got it.

#43 Sep 12 2006 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Edit because I'm late. The point about drinking is that it's regulated not only because of the harm you could cause yourself (and really, who cares about your dumb ***), but because of the harm you could cause others.

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 12:13pm EDT by Atomicflea

#44 Sep 12 2006 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

DSD wrote:

smoking can impair driving skills. The first cig of the day can cause lightheadedness. Searching for and lighting up a cig while driving takes your attention off the road. Dropping a lit cig in your car can distract the driver.

As I said, no more so than a bunch of other things one does or may do in their car. If there's reason to believe that cigarettes cause an excessive amount of impairment, then the thing to do is ban them entirely. The presence of children shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Quote:

And while the effects may be different to the health dangers of second hand smoke and drinking, they are still detrimental to you and those around you in a small, enclosed area.

Which has nothing to do with driving at all and goes back again to my previous point.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 11:40am by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#45 Sep 12 2006 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

I don't get it. Drinking is still legal as well, but that's regulated.

It's regulated by the level of impairment upon your ability to drive. So long as the children aren't tossing back beers, their mere presence doesn't regulate whether or not you can drink.

For that matter, a DUI is legally a DUI. There's no special catagory for "DUI with children in car" (although a judge might personally decide to take that into account during sentencing).

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 12:15pm EDT by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#46 Sep 12 2006 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Which has nothing to do with driving at all and goes back again to my previous point.

I don't think it *has* to do with driving. It has to do with the fact that at home, I can at least go into another room or go outside and play, while in a car my *** is strapped into the seat and even with the windows rolled down, there's no way to escape it.

#47 Sep 12 2006 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good

Guru

14,454 posts

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Which has nothing to do with driving at all and goes back again to my previous point.

I don't think it *has* to do with driving. It has to do with the fact that at home, I can at least go into another room or go outside and play, while in a car my *** is strapped into the seat and even with the windows rolled down, there's no way to escape it.

bingo

#48 Sep 12 2006 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592338551681

Scholar

2,016 posts

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

I don't think it *has* to do with driving. It has to do with the fact that at home, I can at least go into another room or go outside and play, while in a car my *** is strapped into the seat and even with the windows rolled down, there's no way to escape it.

Exactly. In my opinion, it shouldn't be legal to force a child into an enclosed area and fill that area with cigarette smoke. There are those that will argue that this is ok as long as you are the parent of said child and the enclosed area is your own "private property".

Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 12:24pm EDT by CrescentFresh

#49 Sep 12 2006 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Jophiel wrote:

For that matter, a DUI is legally a DUI. There's no special catagory for "DUI with children in car" (although a judge might personally decide to take that into account during sentencing).

Good point. I should write my state and federal Congressional Reps so they can lobby for it.

#50 Sep 12 2006 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1596990078323

Sage

19,727 posts

Easy solution: make it a game and put the kids in the trunk. Kids fUcking love the trunk.

#51 Sep 12 2006 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Which has nothing to do with driving at all and goes back again to my previous point.

I don't think it *has* to do with driving.

That's my point Smiley: laugh

Other laws regarding drinking, speeding, etc are about driving. This law, regulating what you may do in your car, has nothing to do with driving at all. It's completely about controlling when you're allowed to smoke and extending that control into your private property.

Really, a closer example might be noise statutes but even that has to do with causing a public nuisance which isn't the case when you're smoking in your own car.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.