Monroe County Bans Smoking in Cars with Children

[indyjoe]

Hello my friend.
Actually, I think he was directing that statement at me. I did say that second hand smoke was harmless, and I stand by that.

So the nose bleeds that my fiancee has after spending 2 hours in her dads smoke filled house, that never occur during any other time, are purely psychological? I agree that second hand smoke cannot be as harmful as actually smoking. However, many people are much more sensitive to smoke than others. The Anti-Smoking zealots do a disservice by over stating the effects. However, there is enough evidence out there that saying there is no effect is ignorance, plain and simple.

It is not the governments role to police this, but saying that smoking in a car with kids is not potentially dangerous to kids is ignorant. I do not even need all the research. I have too much evidence from people close to me that have been affected by it.

 

[zimzum]

This is a tough issue for me. I certainly don't like the government telling me what to do in my own car, house, etc.

But, we're talking about kids here. They don't have a choice. Sadly, there are many horrible parents who don't look out for what's best for their children. Kids are not capable of doing what's best for themselves.

Which is why so many things the govt. does is all about the children. Will someone please think about the children!!!

In our country many of these politicians are all about protecting children...unless they haven't been born yet.

 

[CulpeperMM]

Which is why so many things the govt. does is all about the children. Will someone please think about the children!!!

In our country many of these politicians are all about protecting children...unless they haven't been born yet.

sad but true.

repped.

 

[Dr Falken]

There is no reason that a filtering device couldn't be created in a car that would allow a person to smoke and not effect others in the vehicle. There is a market for someone in these hard economic times, and I won't even charge you for the idea. Actually I stole the idea, but why can't science solve this issue, instead of impinging on Individual Liberty and children's health?

 

[SavageEagle]

There is no reason that a filtering device couldn't be created in a car that would allow a person to smoke and not effect others in the vehicle. There is a market for someone in these hard economic times, and I won't even charge you for the idea. Actually I stole the idea, but why can't science solve this issue, instead of impinging on Individual Liberty and children's health?

That would involve either rolling up the windows and a small exhaust fan with filter, OR windows down with a suck-you-up-in-it-clean-you-up-spit-you-out-rinse-repeat exhaust fan and bigger filter!

Look, with anything else like SPANKING or letting them ride their bike across town, it's all about parenting choices. Whenever government oversteps that boundry and says yes-no-no-yes then it's time to say :fawk: YOU, I made them, not you, GO THE :fawk: AWAY HOBO!

 

[techres]

There is no reason that a filtering device couldn't be created in a car that would allow a person to smoke and not effect others in the vehicle. There is a market for someone in these hard economic times, and I won't even charge you for the idea. Actually I stole the idea, but why can't science solve this issue, instead of impinging on Individual Liberty and children's health?

Smokeless Ashtrays

The problem is this, you have two choices:

The government gets to protect all children, and thus take you ability to parent.

-or-

Parents get to be parents and do it with soverignty. The reality is some will be bad parents, raise bad kids, and harm them with their stupidity.

So in the end, the only way each of us gets to be real, full, parents is to accept that there will be bad parents and sadly kids that will be harmed as a result.

That being said, the above choices are devoid of two logical failures: That is government as a failed protector and that government is really limiting itself to that role.

If we do not trust the government to effectively run schools, heath care, vet benefits, whatever - why would they suddenly be so much better at raising kids? In fact the foster care system is rife with failures to protect even in the most extreme circumstances. Why should resources be available for smoke detection and safety when the resources to protect the most vulnerable children are already stretched thin.

The second is that government is never limited in it's role as protector. You let them in your car to save kids from smoking, then why not your home? And would they need anything more than the smell of smoke on a school kids clothing? Here in Bloomington it was argued that all these parents need is educating. That only makes sense if you think the masses are simply uneducated asses (the fallacy of liberalism). If people are simply making their own choices, then you have to punish. That's where verification has to happen and liberty is gone.

I could go on and on. I hate smoke smell, and I wish no one smoked. But if we are to have any freedoms it means that we have to have the freedom to make bad choices - even if we have kids.

 

[zimzum]

...But if we are to have any freedoms it means that we have to have the freedom to make bad choices - even if we have kids.

Exactly.

The government is not your mommy.

 

[dross]

The opinions here that trouble me are the ones that imply there's no line at all where government interest takes over. I disagree with this law, I think the government steps too far. But there is a line you can cross, even with your own children, where society, in the form of the government, has an interest in protecting your children from you. I don't think second-hand smoke rises to that level, but I think the argument is weakened when you can't admit that it's stupid to smoke in enclosed places around your children.

So in other words, I'm saying that parental judgment is an important enough right that we must err on the side of children being harmed. But it's not an absolute right, and there is a point where government intercession is just. This is an issue where we're talking about where to draw the line, not an absolute black and white freedom vs. tyranny issue.

 

[techres]

The opinions here that trouble me are the ones that imply there's no line at all where government interest takes over. I disagree with this law, I think the government steps too far. But there is a line you can cross, even with your own children, where society, in the form of the government, has an interest in protecting your children from you. I don't think second-hand smoke rises to that level, but I think the argument is weakened when you can't admit that it's stupid to smoke in enclosed places around your children.

So in other words, I'm saying that parental judgment is an important enough right that we must err on the side of children being harmed. But it's not an absolute right, and there is a point where government intercession is just. This is an issue where we're talking about where to draw the line, not an absolute black and white freedom vs. tyranny issue.

I think it is bad to smoke around kids. I also think it is a health risk at some level in enclosed spaces. No arguments there.

HOWEVER, until smoking around people is a form of assault that is criminal then the state has no business in it, even when around kids.

This law is simply an attempt to get people to stop smoking, not to stop assaults on children. Spanking is the same way. Until spanking is a form of assault, then it is of no business of the government.

In England they are already taking fat kids from parents since obesity is a form of abuse there and they need to "save the kids". Before long they will have kids in summer camps for exercise wether the parents want them there or not.

Just as the violation of the home cannot happen without a very good reason, and with a judge's name on a warrant, the same should be true of the family. Violating it should require the same level of cause and involvement. Otherwise, my kids aren't mine and neither are yours.

 

[dross]

I think it is bad to smoke around kids. I also think it is a health risk at some level in enclosed spaces. No arguments there.

HOWEVER, until smoking around people is a form of assault that is criminal then the state has no business in it, even when around kids.

This law is simply an attempt to get people to stop smoking, not to stop assaults on children. Spanking is the same way. Until spanking is a form of assault, then it is of no business of the government.

In England they are already taking fat kids from parents since obesity is a form of abuse there and they need to "save the kids". Before long they will have kids in summer camps for exercise wether the parents want them there or not.

Just as the violation of the home cannot happen without a very good reason, and with a judge's name on a warrant, the same should be true of the family. Violating it should require the same level of cause and involvement. Otherwise, my kids aren't mine and neither are yours.

I think we're in fundamental agreement. You've drawn the line at "assault" which I'll have to think about, but at first glance looks like a pretty reasonable place to draw it.

I think there's a level between what the government should do - meaning where force should be used - and the level of social disapproval. I tried to make this point in another forum and had next to no agreement. I think there should be a social punishment for those who use their protected freedoms in harmful ways. If we say the government has no place in protecting kids from their parents short of assault, doesn't that leave me with a moral obligation to at least condemn that kind of behavior. Shouldn't I try to persuade them to change a behavior harmful to their children.

I guess the bigger question I'm asking is if this is a digital solution - we either use force or leave them completely alone. Isn't there some interim steps that can can/should impose socially?

 

[antsi]

I think we're in fundamental agreement. You've drawn the line at "assault" which I'll have to think about, but at first glance looks like a pretty reasonable place to draw it.

When you talk about kids - meaning an adult is responsible for taking care of them - then neglect also comes in to play.

If a parent refuses to feed their kids or won't provide them with water to drink, then I think there's a case for .gov intervention even if there is no direct assault involved. Taking a newborn baby outdoors in subzero weather wearing nothing but a diaper. I go for liberty and freedom on most issues, but I agree that there is some scope for government intervention when parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities.

I work in perinatal medicine and we occasionally have state authorities involved with parents. Not over second hand smoke, nor should they be, but when there are serious questions whether kids would be safe with these parents. In my experience, it takes some very egregious behavior for the state to take a baby away from a mother. For instance, a mom who let her boyfriend beat her previous child to death, and she's still with the same boyfriend. In these kind of cases, yes, they take the kids away as soon as they're born. Usually what they have to do is make the parents consent to home visits by social workers, take parenting classes, have their kids well being monitored, etc. I honestly do not know what good any of that does, but it is downright scary to watch some of these folks who can barely function themselves take a newborn baby home.

 

[Richard]

I can't help but wonder how long.

How long before we each have to wear a device which will constantly monitor our behavior and "correct" any deviations from the acceptable/state mandated.

 

[dross]

When you talk about kids - meaning an adult is responsible for taking care of them - then neglect also comes in to play.

If a parent refuses to feed their kids or won't provide them with water to drink, then I think there's a case for .gov intervention even if there is no direct assault involved. Taking a newborn baby outdoors in subzero weather wearing nothing but a diaper. I go for liberty and freedom on most issues, but I agree that there is some scope for government intervention when parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities.

I work in perinatal medicine and we occasionally have state authorities involved with parents. Not over second hand smoke, nor should they be, but when there are serious questions whether kids would be safe with these parents. In my experience, it takes some very egregious behavior for the state to take a baby away from a mother. For instance, a mom who let her boyfriend beat her previous child to death, and she's still with the same boyfriend. In these kind of cases, yes, they take the kids away as soon as they're born. Usually what they have to do is make the parents consent to home visits by social workers, take parenting classes, have their kids well being monitored, etc. I honestly do not know what good any of that does, but it is downright scary to watch some of these folks who can barely function themselves take a newborn baby home.

Clearly because of your job you've thought a lot more about the fine points of these issues than I have.

As I said in my first post in this thread, issues with children are tough ones for libertarians. The line isn't always so clear.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In England they are already taking fat kids from parents since obesity is a form of abuse there and they need to "save the kids". Before long they will have kids in summer camps for exercise wether the parents want them there or not.

It's happened in the US at least once.
YouTube - Insanely Fat Girl

YouTube - Jessica - WAS Worlds Fattest Child

In this case I kinda have to agree with cps getting involved.
A kids a few lbs heavy gets McD once a week or so, oh well. A child so heavy it immediately endangers their life?

To compare it to smoking. A parent smokes in the car with the window cracked compared to a parent that locks their kid in the car with a blower forcing smoke in to the point of needing treatment for severe nicotine poisoning.

And if they can ban smoking in cars with children, how about banning children from gun ranges? We all know lead is bad for kids , then banning lead bullets from homes with children. Then any gun that has fired lead bullets because it may still contain traces of lead.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If a parent refuses to feed their kids or won't provide them with water to drink, then I think there's a case for .gov intervention even if there is no direct assault involved. Taking a newborn baby outdoors in subzero weather wearing nothing but a diaper.

I would consider that assault at the least. In the case of a newborn I'd almost have to consider that attempted homicide.


For instance, a mom who let her boyfriend beat her previous child to death, and she's still with the same boyfriend. In these kind of cases, yes, they take the kids away as soon as they're born. Usually what they have to do is make the parents consent to home visits by social workers, take parenting classes, have their kids well being monitored, etc.

Here's a thought, instead of having to worry about taking kids away as soon as their born, lock up the boyfriend and mother for life the first time it happens. Problem solved.

 

[techres]

Perhaps, again, the assualt analogy works. That is to say, the gov't has to prove a specific medical risk for a specific child. That is very, very different than a blanket rule.

A good example is that a doctor can, with a judge's ruling, override parental choices with medical care. That is different than letting all doctors just decide or to say that parents cannot deny care that is offered by any doctor.

The cases need to be specific and narrow, not general and wide. A valid reason for interference in the family must be proven on a case by case basis.

 

[CulpeperMM]

... it takes some very egregious behavior for the state to take a baby away from a mother. For instance, a mom who let her boyfriend beat her previous child to death, and she's still with the same boyfriend...

we already have a law for this. its called murder/ manslaughter. if the prosecutors/judges/juries would just enforce the law... with some common sense. in this case, this boyfriend should no longer exist. end of story... imo

 

[haldir]

yesterday while doing some mall walking with the wife, I saw a very obese woman buying some ice cream treats from a vending machine and giving to her already fat little kids. I think that is every bit as abusive as smoking. Being fat myself and suffering from high blood pressure and prediabetes because of it, you can not convince me otherwise. Sure it is heart breaking what some parents do to their children but it ain't my business and it sure as hell ain't the governments.

 

[SavageEagle]

yesterday while doing some mall walking with the wife, I saw a very obese woman buying some ice cream treats from a vending machine and giving to her already fat little kids. I think that is every bit as abusive as smoking. Being fat myself and suffering from high blood pressure and prediabetes because of it, you can not convince me otherwise. Sure it is heart breaking what some parents do to their children but it ain't my business and it sure as hell ain't the governments.

You're right it isn't your buisness, but there is a line that can be crossed and people need to be reported for the safety of those kids.

Like the day I was delivering for Eby-Brown in Shelbyville and a van pulled up with a van load of kids. Not one of them could have been 7-8. All little kids. Not one of them in a seat belt, not one in a booster or baby seat, nothing. Just hopping around in the van like monkeys. Well, mom, or whoever she was, got out and went into the Gas America. I stood in the back of that semi for 30 minutes watching those kids fight, flip lights, honk the horn, shake the van... Oh and did I mention the van was RUNNING the whole time????????????

I was going to call the police at this point but I didn't need to. By the time I got out to the cab to get my phone the cops had already been called and pulled her over the moment she left the gas station. I was happier then as she was arrested. Most likely for child neglect and endangerment I'd hope.

It may be none of my buisness what other parents do with their kids or how they raise them, but I have my boiling point. I've dealt with CPS before and I know where THEY draw the line. Luckily my line and theirs run right together.... I do believe that CPS abuses their power and that they unjustly take kids from good parents. They really need some good trained staff that knows how to investigate and actually CARES and isn't there just for what little money they make.

 

[haldir]

I read recently that teaching children Christianity is a form of child abuse (search for study by Richard Dawkins). Looks like we need to move that line some more. Gotta protect them children.