Posted on 08/16/2007 3:00:02 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Suppose Marijuana is legalized in some state, say California.
Would you be opposed to the government "going after your favorite demon" by passing a law that made it illegal to expose children to Marijuana smoke?
Resisting arrest is in itself a crime, but I agree it shouldn't result in the use of deadly force unless absolutely neccessary (to protect the lives of the cops or bystanders).
As much as I'm for smokers' rights it's a stretch to say that they can use deadly force against you "for smoking". At least so far!
Well,See, then it’s your own damn fault for not paying the fine and necessitating the visit.
If you were a good submissive citizen you wouldn’t have lit up in the first place.
People should take care of themselves out of a sense of personal responsibility. I work out 6 days a week. Gym, martial arts. The Tae Kwon Do workouts are brutal. I do it because I enjoy it. That doesn't mean I am in favor of a Gubmint law or coercion, taxpayer funded ads forcing you to perform the same workout for your own good.
Also, none of your studies appear to study young people/children. Children, because of their smaller physiology, have a cannary in a coal-mine like response compared to consenting adults.
Ok - so you tried the left wing tactic of cutting and pasting a bunch of studies you didn't read as 'proof.' I checked the abstract of the first three. Shall you read them with me?
From the first: The total number of deaths from lung cancer attributable to exposure to tobacco smoke from spouses and other sources (mainly the workplace) was derived by applying estimated age- and sex-specific rates of death from lung cancer attributable to such exposure to the population of Canadians who have never smoked; about 330 deaths from lung cancer annually are attributable to such exposure.
Second study you listed but didn't read: There is highly significant (p < 0.001) heterogeneity between estimates from 47 studies of the lung cancer risk in lifelong non-smoking women associated with each 10 cigarettes per day smoked by the husband or with whether or not the husband smokes.
Ok - here's the third one you cite but didn't read because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Never smokers married to smokers had about a two-fold increased risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk in never smokers also increased with duration of exposure to a smoking spouse, but not with increasing number of cigarettes smoked per day by the spouse. Our findings are consistent with previous reports of elevated risk for lung cancer among never smokers living with a spouse who smokes cigarettes.
Done reading your spam. Three strikes and you're out. Too bad you can't make a point without cutting and pasting stuff you don't even read. Lame, very lame.
Hi buddy ;)
Such laws already exist as penalty enhancements in several states when people are found to be speeding or DUI. A similar mindset is penalties for children who are not in car seats, etc.
Do you want to play the game the other way? What is now illegal that you want to legalize regarding child abuse? The line for distinctions is not 100% clear. Hell - I think that day care is child abuse. But legal enforcement comes down to the art of the practical and what can be made a consensus and doesn't overly burden individual rights. Asking some dumbass not to puff a cancer stick in a closed car with a minor is not too much.
Yup. Already started.
Annoys? See 43. Evidence. Anything the government does to stop someone from doing something is what you can catagorize as authoritarian.
Conservatives used to be for smaller, less intrusive government. It's funny how so many forget about that when it comes to their particular pet peeve.
Yes, conservatives have always stood for the right for abortion on demand. Right.
Smoking in a car with kids is not, has never been, and never will be child abuse.
Sounds similar to something I've heard before... 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation fo-evah!'
Cheers.
What do you do for fun, tear wings of baby moths?
These studies are peer related and use epedemiology.
Know anything about the subject?
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Are you that obtuse? You exhale entirely out of the window? Ask your kid (if they can speak over the wheezing and asthma) if they can smell your cigarette smoking when you are in the car. If they can smell it, they are inhaling carcinogens.
I'll make it easy. Drinking is legal. Driving while drinking is not. Owning a gun is legal. Shooting unarmed non-agressors is not. Smoking is legal. Poisoning minors with smoking similarly should be illegal.
I just checked your info page; you seem to be one of many rather new arrivals here whose pastime is more antagonistic than interrogatory, just where would you draw the line on what level of your personal life the state can delve?
Is that really practical in places with lots of heat or cold?
Filling a kids lungs with carcinogens is sufficient. I guess the resolution is to have it decided by our elected officials, whom we elected, and then adjudicated.
I'm sure this will be thrown out like other laws requiring that kids wear seatbelts, that children not under 18 cannot by cigarettes, and criminal enhancements for driving while drunk or at high speed with minors in the vehicle.
BTW - I think the term you are looking for is selective inclusion re: amendments being applied to states/munis.
I agree it shouldn't be legal. But if you are tanked and get in your car and drive home safely - the law would penalize you , but who is the victim?
I only bring it up because anytime someone says 'what would you ban next' I can't help but ask 'what would you unban?'
Have you ever envisioned what your life would be if "for the children" didn't exist?
Would it have been as dreary as you fear?
If only those bastards had chosen you in that pickup game of ball, it all might have been so different.
Now's your chance, isn't it?
.
Ok. So where do you want to draw the line on when the state can interfere or can't? Is it acceptable to inject a child with heroin? It's really silly to make a 'slippery slope' agreement on this stuff because you wind up either eliminating all protections or making stupid ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.