Smoking In Cars With Children

[alpine]

How Secondhand Smoke Affects the Brain

"Secondhand smoke has a direct, measurable impact on the brain similar to what’s seen in the person doing the smoking, according to a new study. The finding highlights the importance of limiting exposure to secondhand smoke in cars and other enclosed spaces."

Your article didn't link to a study.

Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain

Nothing about cars in that one either. The SIDS stuff was especially dishonest.

"Participants underwent two bolus-plus-continuous-infusion 2-FA positron emission tomography scanning sessions during which they sat in the passenger's seat of a car for 1 hour and either were exposed to moderate SHS or had no SHS exposure. The study took place at an academic positron emission tomography center."


The reason you don't get it because your parents were smoking in the car... Which makes a lot of sense...

I'm betting it was the lead paint chips. Someone earlier said you build up an immunity to them

The person who claimed that was an exception to that rule I guess

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh brother. You fuckhats just really don't know what jail is for, do you?

My bet is that koshergrl and the others who are defending smoking with kids in an enclosed area do exactly that.

They won't admit it but that's the only possible reason to defend it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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

"... a wisp of smoke ..."???

Scary that you're serious.

You're the kind of person that makes laws like this necessary.

Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force others to smoke - including your kids or the kids of others.

 

[80zephyr]

Once again you're a moron. If someone dies of heart disease but they smoked what will be listed as the cause of death?

Heart disease. Which is my point.

No, cause of death is smoking.

I know thats the real cause but the point is that it wont be listed on the death certificate.

Fox Business pundit: 'No good data' for deaths from secondhand smoke

"
Scientists don’t keep a count of deaths by secondhand smoke as recorded in death certificates. (Death certificates don’t list "secondhand smoke" as a cause of death.) Instead, they rely on statistical methods used by epidemiologists, who are experts in disease patterns within populations. To figure out lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke, for instance, the individual risk of lung cancer is analyzed next to the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke.

"

Yep, like I said, they can't look at a person and tell whether second hand smoke(or even smoking) killed them. The link between smoking and cancer is pretty conclusive. The link between second hand smoke and death is...bullshit.

Mark

Yes they can tell. However, like in the case of AIDs smoking causes the diseases that kill you and trained people working from science can explain the connections that seem to be complex in nature to you.

There isn't one case they can point to and say "second hand smoke killed this person".

Can't happen.

Mark

 

[Asclepias]

Heart disease. Which is my point.

No, cause of death is smoking.

I know thats the real cause but the point is that it wont be listed on the death certificate.

Fox Business pundit: 'No good data' for deaths from secondhand smoke

"
Scientists don’t keep a count of deaths by secondhand smoke as recorded in death certificates. (Death certificates don’t list "secondhand smoke" as a cause of death.) Instead, they rely on statistical methods used by epidemiologists, who are experts in disease patterns within populations. To figure out lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke, for instance, the individual risk of lung cancer is analyzed next to the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke.

"

Yep, like I said, they can't look at a person and tell whether second hand smoke(or even smoking) killed them. The link between smoking and cancer is pretty conclusive. The link between second hand smoke and death is...bullshit.

Mark

Yes they can tell. However, like in the case of AIDs smoking causes the diseases that kill you and trained people working from science can explain the connections that seem to be complex in nature to you.

There isn't one case they can point to and say "second hand smoke killed this person".

Can't happen.

Mark

Actually I personally know of 2 cases.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

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

"... a wisp of smoke ..."???

Scary that you're serious.

You're the kind of person that makes laws like this necessary.

Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force others to smoke - including your kids or the kids of others.

Yes, scientifically, it is a "wisp". It never ceases to amaze what people will believe when an expert claims it to be true.

Sorta like when they told us that trans fats were much better for us than animal fat. EVERYONE believed that for over 30 years....until they didn't.

Use you own mind to access risk.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

No, cause of death is smoking.

I know thats the real cause but the point is that it wont be listed on the death certificate.

Fox Business pundit: 'No good data' for deaths from secondhand smoke

"
Scientists don’t keep a count of deaths by secondhand smoke as recorded in death certificates. (Death certificates don’t list "secondhand smoke" as a cause of death.) Instead, they rely on statistical methods used by epidemiologists, who are experts in disease patterns within populations. To figure out lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke, for instance, the individual risk of lung cancer is analyzed next to the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke.

"

Yep, like I said, they can't look at a person and tell whether second hand smoke(or even smoking) killed them. The link between smoking and cancer is pretty conclusive. The link between second hand smoke and death is...bullshit.

Mark

Yes they can tell. However, like in the case of AIDs smoking causes the diseases that kill you and trained people working from science can explain the connections that seem to be complex in nature to you.

There isn't one case they can point to and say "second hand smoke killed this person".

Can't happen.

Mark

Actually I personally know of 2 cases.

Actually, you don't. There is no known medical way to prove that a person died from exposure to second hand smoke.

Mark

 

[Asclepias]

I know thats the real cause but the point is that it wont be listed on the death certificate.

Fox Business pundit: 'No good data' for deaths from secondhand smoke

"
Scientists don’t keep a count of deaths by secondhand smoke as recorded in death certificates. (Death certificates don’t list "secondhand smoke" as a cause of death.) Instead, they rely on statistical methods used by epidemiologists, who are experts in disease patterns within populations. To figure out lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke, for instance, the individual risk of lung cancer is analyzed next to the proportion of people exposed to secondhand smoke.

"

Yep, like I said, they can't look at a person and tell whether second hand smoke(or even smoking) killed them. The link between smoking and cancer is pretty conclusive. The link between second hand smoke and death is...bullshit.

Mark

Yes they can tell. However, like in the case of AIDs smoking causes the diseases that kill you and trained people working from science can explain the connections that seem to be complex in nature to you.

There isn't one case they can point to and say "second hand smoke killed this person".

Can't happen.

Mark

Actually I personally know of 2 cases.

Actually, you don't. There is no known medical way to prove that a person died from exposure to second hand smoke.

Mark

You dont have to convince me. Just dont let me catch you smoking around any kids I know.

 

[Disir]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

 

[alpine]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

They enforce stupid cell phone law quite good.
I know people get fined for peaking at their phone while sitting at a red light.

"wont be able to enforce"
bullshit...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Its a new way to extract cash since seatbelt tickets probably are drying up.......

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Bow down to the State, they know what is best for you.

Youre against abortion but its cool to kill off the children that are already out of the womb huh?

A good parent won't smoke around children...it's idiots that need the state to tell them not to

Amen to this.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Disir]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

Forget the "issue" and look at the mechanics of how this will work. I am not arguing whether or not one should smoke in a vehicle with children. You are seeking to change a behavior and wish to use the courts to alter it without consideration to the total costs. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of using what resources you have. I promise you this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and mete out penalties.

Do you think that a bench warrant issued in one state will translate to a bench warrant in another state?
Sure, but IF you think that the state is willing to extradite for that you may be in for a surprise. In fact, I guarantee it. Subsequently, what was learned? Move.

Do you think that a cop can be saddled for hours on end with five children? Think again. So, what do you think will happen in that scenario?

If what you want is to change behavior then you need to seriously consider other methods.

 

[Disir]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

They enforce stupid cell phone law quite good.
I know people get fined for peaking at their phone while sitting at a red light.

"wont be able to enforce"
bullshit...

You can get around that, can't you?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

Forget the "issue" and look at the mechanics of how this will work. I am not arguing whether or not one should smoke in a vehicle with children. You are seeking to change a behavior and wish to use the courts to alter it without consideration to the total costs. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of using what resources you have. I promise you this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and mete out penalties.

Do you think that a bench warrant issued in one state will translate to a bench warrant in another state?
Sure, but IF you think that the state is willing to extradite for that you may be in for a surprise. In fact, I guarantee it. Subsequently, what was learned? Move.

Do you think that a cop can be saddled for hours on end with five children? Think again. So, what do you think will happen in that scenario?

If what you want is to change behavior then you need to seriously consider other methods.

I am looking at the mechanics of how it would work. I'm talking about issuing tickets not determining if the person has done it previously. Even if a cop had to arrest someone the kids would not stay with the cop. Do you think thats what happens?

There is enough information out there that has given people plenty of opportunity to change on their own which is normally the best method. Children are a priority. Now is a good time to start penalizing those with disregard for the safety of children.

 

[Disir]

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.

You won't be able to enforce this either. You waste cops time. You waste the resources in courts and the jail. All you will see is jail, arraignment, release and additional fines. Underlying charge? DAs will laugh at this. You put people already in debt further in debt.

And then you gotta justify why it is there is this massive release of people from jails and prisons with gun and drug charges but enforcement on cigarettes. It's a feel good thang and at the end of it..................

But, I digress. This thread is really not about laws and enforcement.

Why do you say you wont be able to enforce this? They do a good job enforcing the seat belt law.

"Waste of time" is a subjective term based on your view of the issue. Some people think its vitally important and would view it as more important than the seat belt law. I'm pretty sure this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and met out penalties.

Forget the "issue" and look at the mechanics of how this will work. I am not arguing whether or not one should smoke in a vehicle with children. You are seeking to change a behavior and wish to use the courts to alter it without consideration to the total costs. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of using what resources you have. I promise you this will be reflected among the law enforcement and legal systems that get paid to enforce the laws and mete out penalties.

Do you think that a bench warrant issued in one state will translate to a bench warrant in another state?
Sure, but IF you think that the state is willing to extradite for that you may be in for a surprise. In fact, I guarantee it. Subsequently, what was learned? Move.

Do you think that a cop can be saddled for hours on end with five children? Think again. So, what do you think will happen in that scenario?

If what you want is to change behavior then you need to seriously consider other methods.

I am looking at the mechanics of how it would work. I'm talking about issuing tickets not determining if the person has done it previously. Even if a cop had to arrest someone the kids would not stay with the cop. Do you think thats what happens?

There is enough information out there that has given people plenty of opportunity to change on their own which is normally the best method. Children are a priority. Now is a good time to start penalizing those with disregard for the safety of children.

No. I know what happens with the kids. I also know that faced with that option many will not deal with it. That's why I am saying to fully play this out. Because, if you know what happens to those kids then children are not a priority.

You are only dealing with the first instance of it as if this is going to resolve the issue. It will not. You need to look at what is on the books now and how they are being dealt with AND the direction the US is taking currently.