Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

[tk102]

Are you all for drug legalization too John Galt? Full-scale gambling? Prostitution? I mean you could point the finger at the government for "nannying" those behaviors couldn't you?

 

Yes, my modus operandi is to see how far people adhere to their ideology

[mimartin]

I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place.

Ok, but then who is going to pay for the health care cost associated with smoking and tobacco use? Is it fair to push that expense on to those non-smokers that pay taxes and for health insurance?

[John Galt]

Are you all for drug legalization too John Galt? Full-scale gambling? Prostitution? I mean you could point the finger at the government for "nannying" those behaviors couldn't you?

 

Yes, my modus operandi is to see how far people adhere to their ideology

 

Yes, I have advocated legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution before. They are all currently more or less monopolized (illegally) by organized crime, and as we saw when prohibition was repealed, removing the mafia(I'm using the term as a catch-all for organized crime)'s primary source of revenue greatly reduced its power. With the reduction in the mafia's power came a general reduction in crime, and a decrease in unorganized crime(from desperate junkies who are robbed or who rob other people).

 

Legalization would open all of these "vices" up to the free market, regulated, of course, by the FDA to ensure that purity standards in drugs are followed. Legalization of needle sales would also reduce disease transmissions, as would requiring licensed prostitutes to be screened regularly.The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.

 

Just because you asked

 

back on topic:

 

@mimartin:

 

no, but then again I think the entire medicaid/ insurance system is fundementally unjust. Smokers should have to bear the consequences of their addictions and pay their own medical bills, just like everyone else should have to bear the burden of their own retirement and healthcare costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[lukeiamyourdad]

This isn't necessary. In AZ (not sure if other states have this law as well) there is already a similar law surrounding seat belt use. Police can pull you over for speeding (which most people do) and issues a separate citation for not wearing a seat belt. Same thing will apply for smoking in a car with a minor. Sure they won't catch every person that does it, but this law is meant to act as a deterrent against such behavior, nothing more.

 

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see how effective it really is. I doubt it'll make much of a difference.

 

 

 

I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place. It is harmful to consumers and businesses when specific domestically produced and consumed products are subject to restrictive taxation.

 

That's always bothered me to some degree. Not taxation, but the ideology. Questions: You mention the FDA regulating certain products. How is the FDA going to pay itself? Are you for a strong US military? Well equipped police forces and firefighters? Good prisons that don't let criminals run out? Good security at the borders? A justice system that pays well its judges so they aren't corrupted (at least too easily)?

 

 

The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.

 

Currently, in the Netherlands, around 9% of prostitutes have a legal license. Most others work illegally. It's relative success, but you have to understand that there's more then simple economical calculations here. Prostitutes are not the most popular people. They tend to hide their jobs from even friends and family. They're not well seen really. So going legal isn't always the best option.

 

Then there's Belgium which overtaxes its legal prostitutes for moral reasons. It brings up an interesting point. Morality. Many, if not most, people in society, especially religious people and in this case feminists, would oppose to such a legal measure considering it immoral. The legislature would then try to conciliate both those who are for legalization and those who are against. Thus, weird laws get passed. On one hand, you legalize it, on the other, you overtax the workers in order to act as a deterrent.

 

 

no, but then again I think the entire medicaid/ insurance system is fundementally unjust. Smokers should have to bear the consequences of their addictions and pay their own medical bills, just like everyone else should have to bear the burden of their own retirement and healthcare costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

While I do agree with you about how people should take care of their own crap, this brings another question to the table. If I get hit by a drunken driver, while safely crossing the street at an intersection, on a green light, am I responsible for this accident? Is it fair that I ruin myself for healthcare costs? You could say make the drunken driver pay. But what if he has no money or at least not enough? Then you could say that it still doesn't justify how society as a whole should pay for it, and you would be right. But where does that leave me?

 

I'd like to talk about the word "unjust" now. Social justice is a strange idea. The left considers it equality among all citizens. Meaning no one is bigger or better then the other. The right consider it differently. The bigger should have the advantage over the weaker because he worked for it or whatever.

Who's right? Who's wrong?

 

Neither. They're different visions on the same concept. As such, the leftist will consider society paying the healthcare costs for X individual as "just" and the right-winger will think the opposite. You can debate until the end of time, there will not be a consensus on the matter.

Not saying you're right or wrong yourself, just something to think about.

[RedHawke]

Banning smoking in a private car when there are people under 18? It's not a law about "highway safety" and I'm far from being convinced that such a measure can have any noticeable effect on the kids health except in some exceptional cases... Cigarettes are still legal as far as I know and the overall purpose of the law seems more of a way to "set the example" and "increase public awarenes" by using coercitive methods rather than education. (and btw,this is not about the "right to smoke" - I'm a non smoker anyway- . It's a general statement about the implementation and purpose of such a law).

Agreed... I do not smoke either, but when I heard about this it sounds to me as just some more of our "wonderful" touchy-feely Californian crap. It gets pretty thick around here on planet California.

[MdKnightR]

I really don't think that the government ought to tax cigarettes(or any other specific product) in the first place. It is harmful to consumers and businesses when specific domestically produced and consumed products are subject to restrictive taxation.

 

In general I don't think the state should be playing "nanny" to citizens. It is the responsibility of individuals to run their own lives, for good or ill, and each person should be responsible for his own actions, and be prepared to accept the ramifications without whining to state and federal governments to solve their (or other peoples') problems for them.

 

 

I am really starting to like you! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear we were the same person.

 

Yes, I have advocated legalization of drugs, gambling, and prostitution before. They are all currently more or less monopolized (illegally) by organized crime, and as we saw when prohibition was repealed, removing the mafia(I'm using the term as a catch-all for organized crime)'s primary source of revenue greatly reduced its power. With the reduction in the mafia's power came a general reduction in crime, and a decrease in unorganized crime(from desperate junkies who are robbed or who rob other people).

 

Legalization would open all of these "vices" up to the free market, regulated, of course, by the FDA to ensure that purity standards in drugs are followed. Legalization of needle sales would also reduce disease transmissions, as would requiring licensed prostitutes to be screened regularly.The legalization of prostitution would also serve to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by pimps, which we are currently unable to do anything about because of the womens' status as criminals.

 

Just because you asked

 

Ditto! As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal. ****ing's legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal?" and "Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?"

[tk102]

Raise your hand if you have kids and you disagree with this law.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Raise your hand if you have kids and you disagree with this law.

 

 

What does it have to do with anything? Even if I had kids, I don't smoke, so it wouldn't affect me in particular or any non-smoking parent as a matter of fact, unless their kids ride often with a friend's parents that they do smoke.

 

Even then, if the parent really doesn't want his kids to be exposed to cigarette smoke, he can always ask the other parents to avoid smoking in the car.

[Ray Jones]

Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?

[SilentScope001]

Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?

 

Because you asked nicely. Smokers can be nice people, you know.

[tk102]

What does it have to do with anything?

I used to think that too.

[Jae Onasi]

I am really starting to like you! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear we were the same person.

 

Ditto! As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal. ****ing's legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal?" and "Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?"

 

Who's going to pay for all the health care of the people who are on disability for smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? Who's going to pay for the intensive care unit stays of these people when they end up on respirators when they get pneumonia? Who's going to pay for all the extra police required to deal with whacked out druggies shooting up on Friday night? Who's going to pay for their health care when they finally discover they have AIDS? Who's going to pay for rehab for the addicts?

 

If you're going to get drunk, smoke cigarettes, or indulge in other risk-taking behaviors, then I think you should pony up and pay for your share of the taxes required to pay for all your medical care you'll need for yourself and those exposed to your vice(s) when said vice finally catches up to you.

 

Why would someone bother to avoid smoking when my kids are in his car when he doesn't with his kids in the car?

 

Because my kids have bad allergies and smoking makes it worse.

[Achilles]

I used to think that too.

Funny how that happens.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I used to think that too.

 

 

Because it makes someone more easily accept a "Save the children!" argument?

[Ray Jones]

Because you asked nicely. Smokers can be nice people, you know.

Oh yeah, that's why they made a law instead of asking nicely.

[MdKnightR]

Who's going to pay for all the health care of the people who are on disability for smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? Who's going to pay for the intensive care unit stays of these people when they end up on respirators when they get pneumonia? Who's going to pay for all the extra police required to deal with whacked out druggies shooting up on Friday night? Who's going to pay for their health care when they finally discover they have AIDS? Who's going to pay for rehab for the addicts?

 

 

Uh, isn't that what our government is already doing with our taxes? Legalization wouldn't change things for the worse in those situations.

[Jae Onasi]

Uh, isn't that what our government is already doing with our taxes? Legalization wouldn't change things for the worse in those situations.

 

Well, they'd have to do a lot more of it if it were all legalized, and I think it'd have a huge negative impact on public health (mainly drugs). Hait Ashbury's a pretty good indicator of what would happen if illegal drugs in particular were legalized.

[MdKnightR]

Well, they'd have to do a lot more of it if it were all legalized, and I think it'd have a huge negative impact on public health (mainly drugs). Hait Ashbury's a pretty good indicator of what would happen if illegal drugs in particular were legalized.

 

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

 

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

 

Harry Browne (RIP), the Libertarian who ran for President in 2000, said his first act of office if elected would be to pardon all nonviolent (key word there) drug offenders. Can you imagine an end to prison overcrowding? That would do it! Sure, keep the bass turds that commit violent crime locked up, but people being put in jail for possession is a travesty to a free society.

[Totenkopf]

As regards nonviolent offenders, house arrest and community service seems like a much better idea (keeps the lib judges happy and minimizes the pressure on jail overcrowding). Always thought that minimum sentencing guidelines were a bit draconian and even counterproductive to a degree.

[John Galt]

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

 

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

 

Harry Browne (RIP), the Libertarian who ran for President in 2000, said his first act of office if elected would be to pardon all nonviolent (key word there) drug offenders. Can you imagine an end to prison overcrowding? That would do it! Sure, keep the bass turds that commit violent crime locked up, but people being put in jail for possession is a travesty to a free society.

 

I support this message.

 

I think people ought to have the freedom to run their own lives how they wish. This includes the freedom to ruin their own lives, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process the government should not intervene. This also increases the importance of personal responsibility in society, so implementing Libertarian ideals might cause a few bumps in the road, simply because of the people who have relied on Uncle Sam to do their moralizing for them would have to come to grips with their newfound freedoms.

[lukeiamyourdad]

As regards nonviolent offenders, house arrest and community service seems like a much better idea (keeps the lib judges happy and minimizes the pressure on jail overcrowding). Always thought that minimum sentencing guidelines were a bit draconian and even counterproductive to a degree.

 

 

I 100% agree with this. Although it has little to do with the subject, I have a friend who committed a crime, was sentenced to house arrest but allowed to pursue his studies nonetheless, going out only for school on a tight schedule.

 

He's one of the most amazing mathematicians I've ever met. It would have been such a waste if there was minimum sentences for certain offenses. The Conservative party (of Canada) proposed minimum sentences for offenders. Obviously, if my friend had been to prison because of such measures instead of being judged properly, based on his past and wish to redeem himself, he would have continued to be a drain on society after he came out of prison.

 

Everything must be judged on a case by case basis.

 

 

I think people ought to have the freedom to run their own lives how they wish. This includes the freedom to ruin their own lives, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process the government should not intervene.

 

 

Most of the time, people do have the freedom to do as they wish with their lives as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

 

 

This also increases the importance of personal responsibility in society, so implementing Libertarian ideals might cause a few bumps in the road, simply because of the people who have relied on Uncle Sam to do their moralizing for them would have to come to grips with their newfound freedoms.

 

Ironic really. In a way, laws represent morality in a society. Technically, Uncle Sam does your moralizing for you. The State puts limits on what you can and what you can't do, even a minimal one, would have certain laws prohibiting certain behaviors. Telling people not to harm each other is a form of moralizing. That's how I take your statement.

 

In fact, it's quite childish to say that the government is the one telling its people what to think, especially in a democracy. On one side, the people do elect the legislators, so they have a legitimacy to make laws that represent the wishes of those who voted for them. I think it would be more correct if someone said the government tells you what you can and can't do. If anything, you should blame certain radical non-governmental organizations for forcing their ideals upon the populace, but hey, that's democracy.

[MdKnightR]

 

On one side, the people do elect the legislators, so they have a legitimacy to make laws that represent the wishes of those who voted for them.

 

In a perfect world......

 

 

 

 

By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

[Rev7]

By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

Actually the United States of America is both a Republic and Democracy.

[lukeiamyourdad]

In a perfect world......

 

I think you missed the point. The legislators have legitimacy to act. Of course, who has been elected with 100% of the vote? No one. The fact that you disagree with certain laws does not make the entire system illegitimate. This is the system you chose to live in. Personal responsibility no?

 

It's a form of dictatorship of the majority. It's not a perfect system, but people are generally happier under working democracies then under working dictatorships.

 

 

By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

 

 

Don't know what a democracy is eh?

 

Rev7 said it already, America is both. If you're so picky, the word democracy wouldn't even exist. No country would be one. For reasons of logistics. Can you imagine referendums every day? Does a regular citizen, with job, wife, kids and hobbies have the time to get up every day, get properly informed on every subject, foreign or local, that's going to be involved in referendum of the day, read every bill which will be voted and then decide what to vote? 24 hours isn't enough.

 

America elects its leaders. It's a democracy.

[Jae Onasi]

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

 

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

 

Alcohol does not have the same addictive qualities of heroin and some other illegal substances, nor does it cause extensive health problems like crack or ice do. Why do you think we have to give prescriptions for some medications? Because the risk of serious health problems associated with incorrect medication usage (under- or over-) makes it mandatory that someone who knows what they're doing instructs the patient on the correct way to take it. A reasonable number of my patients are health-savvy and could make their own decisions on these things. A lot of my patients could care less. A lot of my patients are blessed in other areas besides intelligence and would not be able to learn enough to figure out how to take it on their own. A great majority of patients think that if some medicine is good, even more must be better, when in fact 'even more' could become risky or even deadly. A few of my patients, God bless them, are complete and utter morons and would be a danger not only to themselves but to others if they had to try to figure some of this out on their own. A very few would actually use the meds for malicious reasons.

 

You cannot equate alcohol with any illegal drug with the exception of maybe marijuana. Heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, meth, PCP, etc are so dangerous either physically/lethality or in terms of addiction potential that they should never be legalized. If you need some more convincing, go volunteer in an ER or a police department (preferably a larger city one) on some Friday or Saturday nights, if you haven't already--you'll get to see the destructive effects of these drugs first hand on a regular basis. After you see a few people come through who are in withdrawal because they can't get their fix, or who've destroyed their bodies with meth (if they haven't caused an explosion trying to make it at home), or the kids who've been beaten to a pulp because their parent(s) were strung out, you'll have a different perspective.

 

I'm all for personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean you should hand someone a gun to shoot themselves with, and legalizing highly addictive and/or dangerous illegal substances would be akin to doing just that.