Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The way around that is to simply give up smoking if you believe in the slippery slope theory. The bad thing about that is its really an illusion. If they want to get in your home there are a host of ways they can do it right now.Enforcement becomes an issue. You can say its illegal all day long but unless you are going to go all big brother then you cant enforce it. Seeing someone smoking in a car with kids is much easier to spot and penalize.Certainly it's downright stupid to smoke around your kids, even in general. Everyone knows it's bad for them. It's bad for them physically and it's likely that this increases the chances that they'll be smokers, although I don't know the stats on that really.
Here's where I get stuck. If a parent is smoking in the home there's not a ton of difference between that and smoking in the car. We can talk about air volume relative concentrations etc., sure, but how many people are rolling around with the windows up smoking. It may be the case, in fact, that the child is exposed to less smoke in the car than they are sitting in the kitchen while mom is puffing away, because the window is generally open in the car. Hard to say, I suppose. Maybe studies have been done and posted here, as I admittedly didn't read all of the posts here.
Can we then say it's also an illegal offense to smoke at home. Somehow I don't think so. We step over that line and there's no going back. That's just as stupid, IMO, but I don't think we have the right to literally poke our noses through someone's kitchen window and tell them how to live/parent, whatever.
I know and actually I'd thought of that, but then my mind went to nosy neighbors and cops using that as an excuse to get into someone's house, Child Services then getting involved etc. which I guess is your 'big brother', but I don't for one second trust that big brother won't do whatever big brother is empowered to do if and when big brother decides to do so for whatever reason may come up.
and I have little, if any, doubt that the next step after cars would be houses. Same arguments would be made, same reasons would be given and that incremental step would seem logical at that point.
Slippery, slippery slope.....
What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.Its not all or nothing. That is the fallacy in an argument such as yours. Some risks are deemed more acceptable than others. Giving your child cancer and aggravating asthma and allergies are not acceptable.Are you for seatbelts in school busses? If it's all about the kids health then maybe we should address some other things. Car windows down in a traffic jam, are you OK with that? How about video games? Are you for them? Riding bikes on anything other than flat concrete surfaces, you alright with that?
What about instant death from a face plant? How about brain chemistry being altered? There's no fallacy at work here, you either care about kids or you don't.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
Of course they react differently. But, almost all smokers live to an old age before smoking kills them. A person inhaling a few wisps of second hand smoke that dies from it is inane.Sounds more like an ill formed opinion to me. Its obvious you are unaware that peoples bodies react differently based on a variety of genetic and environmental variables.Logic, reasoning and common sense told me that. If it doesn't tell you that, maybe you should rethink your positions.Who told you that? You are aware that people are not clones of each other right?No. You obviously havent been keeping up with current events. Lots of people that directly inhaled the smoke have died.So, you are telling me that the people that directly inhaled the smoke didn't get lung cancer, but that those who were exposed sporadically did?
What does logic tell you as to your train of thought?
Mark
If so, then the people that actually smoke should be dying at a rate that should kill every one of them.
Mark
Mak
There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.Its not all or nothing. That is the fallacy in an argument such as yours. Some risks are deemed more acceptable than others. Giving your child cancer and aggravating asthma and allergies are not acceptable.
What about instant death from a face plant? How about brain chemistry being altered? There's no fallacy at work here, you either care about kids or you don't.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
Typically if you live with someone that smokes you get more than a few wisps in a 10 minute period let alone 18 years of your life.Of course they react differently. But, almost all smokers live to an old age before smoking kills them. A person inhaling a few wisps of second hand smoke that dies from it is inane.Sounds more like an ill formed opinion to me. Its obvious you are unaware that peoples bodies react differently based on a variety of genetic and environmental variables.Logic, reasoning and common sense told me that. If it doesn't tell you that, maybe you should rethink your positions.Who told you that? You are aware that people are not clones of each other right?No. You obviously havent been keeping up with current events. Lots of people that directly inhaled the smoke have died.
If so, then the people that actually smoke should be dying at a rate that should kill every one of them.
Mark
Mak
Mark
There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.What about instant death from a face plant? How about brain chemistry being altered? There's no fallacy at work here, you either care about kids or you don't.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.What about instant death from a face plant? How about brain chemistry being altered? There's no fallacy at work here, you either care about kids or you don't.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
No,you don't. Many years ago, St Louis Park in Minnesota conducted second hand smoke tests and found that even in a crowded room they could not get their instruments to measure the "dangerous" chemicals in second hand smoke because the levels were so minute.Typically if you live with someone that smokes you get more than a few wisps in a 10 minute period let alone 18 years of your life.Of course they react differently. But, almost all smokers live to an old age before smoking kills them. A person inhaling a few wisps of second hand smoke that dies from it is inane.Sounds more like an ill formed opinion to me. Its obvious you are unaware that peoples bodies react differently based on a variety of genetic and environmental variables.Logic, reasoning and common sense told me that. If it doesn't tell you that, maybe you should rethink your positions.Who told you that? You are aware that people are not clones of each other right?If so, then the people that actually smoke should be dying at a rate that should kill every one of them.
Mark
Mak
Mark
Typically when a person has AIDs they dont say they died of AIDS on the death certificate. They say they died of any of the many known diseases caused by AIDs. Again you are using logical fallacy and not doing a very good job of disguising it.Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
When you find a cause of death on a death certificate as second hand smoke, let me know.
Mark
You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
Dont get emotional and get all racial cave monkey. There are a host of studies on the internet for you to check. Start here.You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
And you can show me the study on cancer and asthma rates on kids who were in cars when their parents smoked. Or you can go the fuck back to Africa, your choice.
Typically when a person has AIDs they dont say they died of AIDS on the death certificate. They say they died of any of the many known diseases caused by AIDs. Again you are using logical fallacy and not doing a very good job of disguising it.Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
When you find a cause of death on a death certificate as second hand smoke, let me know.
Mark
Typically when a person has AIDs they dont say they died of AIDS on the death certificate. They say they died of any of the many known diseases caused by AIDs. Again you are using logical fallacy and not doing a very good job of disguising it.Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
When you find a cause of death on a death certificate as second hand smoke, let me know.
Mark
I was talking to Rouge Rover. Yes second hand smoke is a crock but it does kill and complicate childrens lives.You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
I never said that smoking wasn't a danger. Just that second hand smoke is a crock.
Mark
Heart disease. Which is my point.Typically when a person has AIDs they dont say they died of AIDS on the death certificate. They say they died of any of the many known diseases caused by AIDs. Again you are using logical fallacy and not doing a very good job of disguising it.Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
When you find a cause of death on a death certificate as second hand smoke, let me know.
Mark
Once again you're a moron. If someone dies of heart disease but they smoked what will be listed as the cause of death?
Dont get emotional and get all racial cave monkey. There are a host of studies on the internet for you to check. Start here.You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
And you can show me the study on cancer and asthma rates on kids who were in cars when their parents smoked. Or you can go the fuck back to Africa, your choice.
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
The government will put out what the leaders want to put out.Dont get emotional and get all racial cave monkey. There are a host of studies on the internet for you to check. Start here.You can start with the tobacco companies billion dollar lawsuit and settlement to clear up any rough spots in your education.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
No there isn't.
And you can show me the study on cancer and asthma rates on kids who were in cars when their parents smoked. Or you can go the fuck back to Africa, your choice.
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use
Heart disease. Which is my point.Typically when a person has AIDs they dont say they died of AIDS on the death certificate. They say they died of any of the many known diseases caused by AIDs. Again you are using logical fallacy and not doing a very good job of disguising it.Actually, there isn't. All the numbers they throw out aren't based on body count, but on a theory.There is a host of medical data that says your opinion is powerless in the face of facts.In the case of smoking, you prefer to protect them 100%, yet you concede about not protecting them 100% in other areas.
Listen, a child in normal health can surely withstand a wisp of smoke from a cigarette. It is the zealots that always have a cause that is turning our world into a version of 1984.
Smoking ain't gonna kill a kid. Lighten up, Francis.
Mark
When you find a cause of death on a death certificate as second hand smoke, let me know.
Mark
Once again you're a moron. If someone dies of heart disease but they smoked what will be listed as the cause of death?
