hehe! 
Posted on 05/05/2006 6:11:02 AM PDT by BerniesFriend
Bill would ban people from smoking while children in the car
BATON ROUGE, La. -- Parents would have to stub out their cigarettes while their kids are in the car, under a bill headed to the Senate for debate.
The bill would prohibit anyone from lighting up a cigarette, cigar or pipe in a vehicle while a child required to be in a booster seat or car seat is riding along _ a child up to 60 pounds, or up to about eight years old.
The House approved the bill in a 66-31 vote.
Rep. Gary Smith, D-Norco, said he introduced the measure because he wants to prevent health problems that children can have from second hand smoke inhalation. He said children don't get a choice in whose cars they ride.
"I'm just trying to protect those who cannot protect themselves," he said.
Rep. Carla Dartez, D-Morgan City, said the bill infringes upon parents' rights to raise their children.
"I just think you're going a little too far in this Legislature when we can't allow parents of their own children to take care of their own children," she said.
___
House Bill 1010 can be found at http://www.legis.state.la.us
Whether you like it or not, smokers, your smoking in a confined space is noxious to children. My own experience as a child is that one can get used to the stench of a paper mill or a cattle feed lot, but not cigarette smoke. Both of my parents were smokers and, 45 years later, I still remember misery of long car trips in winter. Thank goodness we didn't have a car air conditioner back then!
I'm not a big believer in the health danger of second-hand smoke, but I think that this prohibition is not unreasonable. A parent's right to indulge his addictions should be balanced against his child's right to breathe unpolluted air in a confined space.
They already require child seats and boosters as they grow in cars. You have CPS all over the land ready to "counsel" you if any teacher or neighbor thinks the values you are teaching them is contrary to theirs. On and on and on.
People worry about provisions of the Patriot Act violating liberties, but turn a blind eye as the "I know better than you" crowd slowly invade many aspects of our lives and regulate what we may or may not do.
Like I keep saying, as they gradually prohibit our choices, soon the only choice left will be to abort your unborn child. That seems to be the only "choice" they deem appropriate any longer.
Actually they should pass a law forbidding children in any motor vehicle unless it is a state approved emergency and then they can only be transported in a state approved emergency vehicle.
What this guy is actually saying is enough is enough and the government needs to mind it's own business.
"I like the way that this moron calls blowing carcinogens and poisons in smoke into children's lungs "taking care" of them."
I didn't realize you think that we should ban toxic cleaning chemicals from homes. Why are you advocating that all parents live in filth?
I'm sure "I didn't realize..." is the beginning of a lot of your sentences. (And if parents are harming their kids by using poison to clean their homes, then, yes, they should stop that, too.)
And what about these sick video games the kids spend hours on at home after school? Poisoning their minds. I would much rather my kid be exposed to a little tobacco smoke any day then allowed to wrap their young minds around these sick video games!
"Grand Thief Auto" comes to mind!
He didn't advocate blowing smoke into a child's lungs. He advocates taking care of their own children and when parents "take care of their children" they protect them from certain things. You have completely twisted this man's words. And for that, I resent it. Get the words straight before you feed into them, ok?
.
Thank you!
hehe!
"And if parents"
So, your automatic assumption is that smokers "blow smoke in their children's lungs" but when it comes to other toxic items you would want to only take action "if" the children can be proven to be harmed.
This just shows that your rhetoric is emotional, without logic or thought behind it. Much like the loony left's hate Bush platform, when you wish to rule by emotion you have no firm position and decisions are made with the consistency of the wind.
Your emotional rhetoric is an enemy of personal liberty and freedom.
It was a woman who made this stupid statement. And a parent who smokes around children is not "protecting them" from harm, it is inflicting harm on them.
That would be a good first start. I have parents, I do not need a government nanny for myself or my child.
Enough is enough with the government interferring in our lives.
At this particular point in time, there are more than likely quite a few more important things for the Louisiana Legislature to be worrying about, wouldn't you agree?
Do you think Rush will be all over this today?
"Rep. Carla Dartez, D-Morgan City, said the bill infringes upon parents' rights to raise their children"
At least she has it right. All this is about is CONTROL. If they can get this far, soon they'll be knockin' on your backdoor.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT TOBACCO. It's a convieient excuse,(because we must protect you from evil tobacco users) to give them a reason to get their foot in the door of your home. "We must protect the children", is code for "we will rule every aspect of your miserable little lives."
And once they're in, they will be harder to get rid of than a colony of cockroaches.
IT'S BUSH'S FAULT! IT'S THE SMOKERS FAULT!
Sound familiar? What side of the fence screams THIS garbage? heh!
It was not a stupid statement - it is a valid gripe that it is not up to the government to control every aspect of everyone's lives.
The adherence to this idea "there outta be a law" is what is dumbing down this country and causing even the most intelligent and sincere amongst us to agree that what government says is best.
Okay, Einstein, I'll explain it to you with small words, so you might understand it. Smoking around children increases their risk of harm. That is a bad thing. We should rightly describe it as "child abuse," but don't out of a misguided notion that it might offend the junkies who like to inhale shit into their lungs. I am opposed to harming children, even if it inconveniences these same drug addicts, on a pragmatic, intellectual and moral basis. Should another action cause similar harm (such as feeding children arsenic, running over them with a car, hitting them with a shovel, or damaging their bodies by using poison for cleaning products), I would oppose these other things for the same pragmatic, intellectual and moral reasons.
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.