Smoking in a car with a child is child abuse.
Rush makes an idiotic comment that if smoking is so bad, why not ban it. Well, adults are free to make their own decisions. So are waiters in smoking restaurants (don't work there).
Children, however, are not able to make these decisions. Hence there is a state interest. No one here opposes the state preventing child abuse. As the son of someone who was an in-car smoker and suffered asthma-like illeness because of it (along with my sibling who did have asthma), and knowing that 2nd hand smoke is full of poison, I disagree fully with Rush and told him so in an email.
Nanny state is telling adults what they can and cannot do. Preventing children from being poisoned by their stupid parents is the reason government exists.
Interestingly, I sort of agree with you...
If you put a gun to my head and forced me to pass one of the following two stupid nanny state laws:
Ban smoking in cars with chilruns or
Ban smoking in bars with degenerate drunks and lard asses
I would ban the former.
Woah, that's a little scary....so what are you going to say if the government decides that Christian values are hateful "mind poison" and children should be protected from parents who stupidly adhere to them?
Preventing children from being poisoned by their stupid parents is the reason government exists.
PROVE IT!!!!
When children are "protected", then (liberal) children don't grow up.
I think that many people who don't smoke (or who were subjected to it as children as you were) have a very strong (and perhaps justified) reaction to this particular issue, but how about we correct it ourselves rather than having the Nanny State step in? Besides, there is no guarantee anywhere that says that you have the right to perfect parents. Face it, not all parents are going live up to our expectations, but we love them anyway and we deal with it and we try to do better (as we see it) for our children.
Do you also oppose awarding custody or permitting adoption/foster home placement of children with homosexual couples?
Or do you think that this poses no harm to the child’s mental (if not physical) well-being?
Care to prove that with scientific fact?
The three largest studies done to date disagree with that opinion.
Studies run about 80% against there being any lasting physical harm from ETS to an otherwise healthy human being.
Having a child in a car is dangerous too. How many kids are killed in car crashes every year? Should we ban that too?
Really? I don't see that among the enumerated powers of the federal government in the US Constitution. And most of the restrictions in Bill of Rights Amendments and Fourteenth Amendment apply also to state and local governments. American law traditionally recognizes that the citizen has the right to be left alone (vis-a-vis government at any level, unless there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But then again, you sound like you know nothing about the Constitution and the legal tradition of the country, perhaps because you were miseducated in a decadent public school system.
I don't know the particulars in your case, but isn't it better for the child who old enough to talk to tell his or her parent that the smoke is bothering him or her, rather than to have a stranger from a government bureaucracy intervene. 90+ percent of the time, the parent would respond in some positive way, either not smoke altogether in the car or open the windows when he/she did. Government intervention in family squabbles should be the last resort, and that only when serious injury or death is a distinct possibility. It usually isn't in cases such as this and therefore government shouldn't be intervening except in the most urgent of circumstances.
No, it is not, and it is no business of any governmental authority.
In my mind, eating Big Mac's in a car is "child abuse".
Listening to Marilyn Manson in a car is "child abuse". DRIVING with a child in the car is "child abuse".
Just stop it.
Sorry I missed this.
The reason government exists is to defend the populace and the borders, maintain the roads, put out the fires, fill the potholes, collect the trash, and then stay the hell out of whatever else it is that the citizens may want to do for fun or enterprise.
God! you people are incorrigible!
You ever hear of cracking a window?
I smoke with my kids in the car, but the window is cracked open so that all the smoke go outside.
Why is simple physics so hard for some folks to understand.
“Smoking in a car with a child is child abuse.”
So is teaching the bible, according to some folks.
“Preventing children from being poisoned by their stupid parents is the reason government exists.”
And you just provided the liberals the tool to ban home schooling.
Exceeding the speed limit with a child in the car is also child abuse through reckless endangerment, should we have two sets of speed limits or perhaps increased penalties when a child is present?
Where would you see these distinctions end?
.
“Preventing children from being poisoned by their stupid parents is the reason government exists.”
I don’t think so. If govt existed to protect children, it would not allow them to be murdered now would it?
I was a child who had asthma and allergies and my dad smoked in the car and I hated it.
Now that I'm an adult: I SMOKE cigarettes and it doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, the smoking LESSENS my fall allergies significantly.
So...I'm a 'child abuser' because my 2 girls (4 and 8) LOVE the smell of my pipe tobacco smoke? They BEG me to light it up and blow the smoke their direction.
Most of the time I say, "no" because I'm not interested in smoking a pipe that evening, (caution sarcasm ahead) thus crushing their dear little hearts. They are upset. They cry. I've hurt them emotionally...it's child abuse...it HAS to be. These little girls WANT daddy to light up the pipe and blow smoke in their direction and he doesn't do it ALL THE TIME. Can someone in the government step in and save these little girls from a dad who won't light up his pipe and let them enjoy the smoke?