Smoking bans in cars and "parental rights"

[Cairber]

Recently a few states have passed laws forbidding people to smoke in vehicles with children inside. I thought there would be general appreciation for these laws by the parents I know, but, instead, many seem to be claiming loss of "parental rights."

They then go and cry out about the "slippery slope" (some have actually said things like 'what's next? take away the right to give formula?').

Some, however, make slightly less ridiculous arguments. For example, should there be laws telling us what food we can and cannot feed our children?

While the argument is a red herring, does the idea of parental rights as seen through this example have any merit at all?

[Cairber]

An add on question:

Has SCOTUS ever created a "zone of privacy" that covers the car? I know that numerous search cases have concerned cars, but has it ever been referred to as an issue of privacy within one's car?

[General Zod]

What the fuck kind of right are they losing anyways? The right to poison their child's lungs with smoke? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see any kind of problem with this law. . . .exept smokers aren't happy that they can't do as they please without regard to anyone else's health.

[Cairber]

How would you answer arguments about being able to smoke in the home with children but not the car? Is this basically a privacy issue at that point?

[General Zod]

How would you answer arguments about being able to smoke in the home with children but not the car? Is this basically a privacy issue at that point?

I'd say a child's health trumps privacy. There's laws against giving alcohol to minors, why the fuck shouldn't there be laws against exposing minors to second hand smoke? Especially young children? In this case it actually is a legitimate case of protecting the children. (Especially since smoking is strictly a privilege).

[Sriad]

How would you answer arguments about being able to smoke in the home with children but not the car? Is this basically a privacy issue at that point?

(Especially since smoking is strictly a privilege).

I've gotta take issue with just that particular point. People have a right to ingest whatever recreational poisons they want (that the government doesn't ban under pressure from alcohol and tobbaco lobbiests at least) and unlike, say, driving there isn't any proof of competence that needs to take place. Like voting if you can provide evidence that you're the right age, then you can.

Certainly there's a lot of moral room to say other people have the right not to have the consequences of someone smoking inflicted upon them, particularly children who cannot choose to be elsewhere. But we don't need to pretend the case against smoking is stronger than it is.

[General Zod]

I've gotta take issue with just that particular point. People have a right to ingest whatever recreational poisons they want (that the government doesn't ban under pressure from alcohol and tobbaco lobbiests at least) and unlike, say, driving there isn't any proof of competence that needs to take place. Like voting if you can provide evidence that you're the right age, then you can.

If it was a fundamental right, then there wouldn't be age limitations placed on the substances. Nor would the government have bans on substances that are otherwise relatively harmless. (16 marijuana deaths as opposed to several thousand tobacco related deaths in the UK, for example). Frankly, this is about as idiotic as arguing that driving is a fundamental right.

Certainly there's a lot of moral room to say other people have the right not to have the consequences of someone smoking inflicted upon them, particularly children who cannot choose to be elsewhere. But we don't need to pretend the case against smoking is stronger than it is.

So what? I fail to see how anyone's rights being violated by not smoking in a car with a child in it. Unless you'd care to demonstrate otherwise, you're just blowing hot air out your ass.

[Darth Wong]

How would you answer arguments about being able to smoke in the home with children but not the car?

A house has far more air volume than a car, and you could have a HEPA filter in the room with you when you smoke. It's not as bad.

Nevertheless, if it were up to me, it would be illegal to smoke indoors if you have kids, even in your own home. "Parental rights" do not include the right to neglect basic care for your children, so I don't see why they should include the right to poison them.

[Aaron]

Recently a few states have passed laws forbidding people to smoke in vehicles with children inside. I thought there would be general appreciation for these laws by the parents I know, but, instead, many seem to be claiming loss of "parental rights."

They then go and cry out about the "slippery slope" (some have actually said things like 'what's next? take away the right to give formula?').

Some, however, make slightly less ridiculous arguments. For example, should there be laws telling us what food we can and cannot feed our children?

While the argument is a red herring, does the idea of parental rights as seen through this example have any merit at all?

I have recently (a few months ago) heard of a law being in the works in Ontario. I haven't heard anything new on it but I am encouraged and haven't heard anything negative about it. Frankly though I am unsure how well it will be enforced.

[The Aliens]

Very likely on a complaint basis, as doing random cigarette checks probbaly wouldn't fly.

[Darth Wong]

Very likely on a complaint basis, as doing random cigarette checks probbaly wouldn't fly.

Why not? It's not exactly difficult to see somebody smoking a cigarette in his car. I see it all the time. You just use your eyes.

[Stark]

Wow, smokers complaining about their 'right' to poison other people? Shit, I've never heard of that before. Just tell them they're right, and they should be able to ruin their children's life because of their pathetic addiction.

[Aaron]

Why not? It's not exactly difficult to see somebody smoking a cigarette in his car. I see it all the time. You just use your eyes.

I was more thinking along the lines of whether the police will bother to enforce it. Or if we'll see spot checks like we see for seat belts and drunk driving.

[Darth Wong]

Why not? It's not exactly difficult to see somebody smoking a cigarette in his car. I see it all the time. You just use your eyes.

I was more thinking along the lines of whether the police will bother to enforce it. Or if we'll see spot checks like we see for seat belts and drunk driving.

I think the police should face penalties for non-enforcement of certain rules. It's all well and good to give the police disgression to let somebody off with a warning for doing 115 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, but it's quite a different matter when guys get off with a warning for driving drunk (something that's happened many times to many people, including some people I've known personally).

[Wanderer]

I'm a pipe smoker who smokes once a month and I support this ban. When I smoke my pipe I go to the jazz club my Uncle owns and we smoke and eat together in hs private booth. This far away from anyone.

[Agent Fisher]

As a smoker, I support this ban as well. I smoke about once a day and then I smoke outside, in a graveyard at night. I dont think people should smoke near kids if they are in a confined space like a car.

[Batman]

People shouldn't smoke near kids period. We decide to endanger our lives, that's our decision. We do NOT have the right to endanger the lives of others, especially not minors who don't know they're endangered in the first place.
I fully support this ban.

[PrinceofLowLight]

If it was a fundamental right, then there wouldn't be age limitations placed on the substances. Nor would the government have bans on substances that are otherwise relatively harmless. (16 marijuana deaths as opposed to several thousand tobacco related deaths in the UK, for example). Frankly, this is about as idiotic as arguing that driving is a fundamental right.

So dissidents in China aren't having their human rights violated because the government decides not to offer them? The law doesn't determine what's right.

And yeah, it's extremely screwed up that using cannabis or MDMA on yourself can get you years in prison and no one bats an eye, but the right to inflict noxious poisonous smoke on small children is being defended.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So dissidents in China aren't having their human rights violated because the government decides not to offer them? The law doesn't determine what's right.

And yeah, it's extremely screwed up that using cannabis or MDMA on yourself can get you years in prison and no one bats an eye, but the right to inflict noxious poisonous smoke on small children is being defended.

What determines what is a right? Just for reference? Who does? We aren't naturally born with them, so the they have to be bestowed by something, somwhere. It seems rather like an abstract concept society created in general, but that's all nice and good unless you have a government that doesn't give a shit about all those nice abstract concepts we hold in common. It might as well be that the government decides what is and isn't a right.

[General Zod]

So dissidents in China aren't having their human rights violated because the government decides not to offer them? The law doesn't determine what's right.

If you could somehow prove that the ability to smoke in a tiny enclosed space with a fucking child is a right, you might just have a point. Otherwise you're an illiterate dipshit with two functional braincells who enjoys splitting hairs.

And yeah, it's extremely screwed up that using cannabis or MDMA on yourself can get you years in prison and no one bats an eye, but the right to inflict noxious poisonous smoke on small children is being defended.

You've clearly missed my point. I suggest taking several remedial reading classes.

[Shrykull]

Recently a few states have passed laws forbidding people to smoke in vehicles with children inside. I thought there would be general appreciation for these laws by the parents I know, but, instead, many seem to be claiming loss of "parental rights."

They then go and cry out about the "slippery slope" (some have actually said things like 'what's next? take away the right to give formula?').

Some, however, make slightly less ridiculous arguments. For example, should there be laws telling us what food we can and cannot feed our children?

While the argument is a red herring, does the idea of parental rights as seen through this example have any merit at all?

So, could they pull you over for smoking with children, that being the only reason? I think the way it is here with seat belts is they must have another reason to pull you over first, before they can give you the fine.

[skotos]

Is there any evidence that smoking in a car actually harms non-smoking passengers? I'd take it as a given that smoking in a car with the windows rolled up is at least as harmful as typical second hand smoke, but with the window down, how much smoke are the other passengers actually exposed to?

On the other hand, I'd also be curious to see just how dangerous smoking in a car is to other vehicles. One has to fumble around to light the cigarette, and after that the driver is basically driving one handed. I'd guess it's not as dangerous as driving with a cell phone, since it doesn't take much attention to actually smoke a cigarette, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some added danger.

[Edi]

Is there any evidence that smoking in a car actually harms non-smoking passengers? I'd take it as a given that smoking in a car with the windows rolled up is at least as harmful as typical second hand smoke, but with the window down, how much smoke are the other passengers actually exposed to?

Quite enough, thank you very much. Even with the windows rolled down, the other passengers are going to be exposed to a lot of the smoke before it swirls out the window and it's fucking gross. It also permanently stinks up the car, which makes the experience of being a passenger very unpleasant for any non-smoker at all times, regardless of whether or not the driver smokes during that particular ride.

It also lowers the resale value of the car, because if you change vehicles later on, you are not going to get as much money from your used car at a dealership since a non-smoker is not going to buy it on account of the ambient stink. So not only are you endangering your passengers' health and making them uncomfortable by smoking in the car, you're actually doing yourself financial harm above and beyond what the cigarettes cost you up front.

On the other hand, I'd also be curious to see just how dangerous smoking in a car is to other vehicles. One has to fumble around to light the cigarette, and after that the driver is basically driving one handed. I'd guess it's not as dangerous as driving with a cell phone, since it doesn't take much attention to actually smoke a cigarette, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some added danger.

Of course there is added danger. Anything that distracts the driver from the task of driving increases the risk of an accident, it's just a question of magnitude. The worst window of risk would be the process of digging the cigarettes out and lighting one, because it requires far more concentration than the smoking phase itself.

Edi

[Seggybop]

While we're on the subject, how about those pieces of trash who toss lit cigarette butts out their window as they go by? Total lack of regard for anything that exists outside their nice metal box.

[General Zod]

While we're on the subject, how about those pieces of trash who toss lit cigarette butts out their window as they go by? Total lack of regard for anything that exists outside their nice metal box.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything, since we already have littering laws in most states. . .unfortunatley these are a bit harder to enforce unless you have evidence to prove they were the ones who threw something out, and the act is usually over and done with in seconds.