Smoking in a car

[HBK-aholic]

So, I had a reply typed out to your whole post, but I've decided to edit it because there are only a few things that A) matter and B) We haven't been through before.

Did I say that smoking does not emit carbon monoxide? No I did not. The amount of carbon monoxide that enters a person's lungs from second hand smoke is so incredibly miniscule, that it's just downright laughable to try and tell me that second hand smoke kills. Laughable.

Honestly, I would love some proof for this.

Yes, I do. Because it's something that a child needs to learn.

LMAO, a child needs to learn about smoking by being around someone that smokes??

You can't safeguard your children from every little miniscule danger, or raise them to think that they have the right to choose what the people around them do with their bodies. Because that's what this law does. Am I advocating for people to grab their kid and light up infront of them? Not at all. All I'm saying is that it's a person's right.

But it's okay to teach them they can affect other peoples bodies?

Because here's something you've failed to think about in regards to this issue: What about the majority of smokers (who don't have children)? Why should they not be allowed to smoke in their own car when it's harming nobody but themselves?

I just LOL'd so hard. Have you not read this thread? Here, I'll jog your memory.

The goverments/municipalities want to create a new law where it is illegal to smoke in your car when you have children under the age of 16 in it with you.

This is the topic we're debating. If we weren't, I'd agree people should be able to smoke.

Wouldn't it simply have been easier to make smoking in your own car WHILE THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE CAR illegal instead of just making smoking in your car all the time illegal? Would that not have made more sense? Can you not see the easily fixable problem with this law?

See above. Did you really not know what we were debating the whole time? Right, so now you've said the law that IS being passed is the solution, are you in agreement the law is okay?

Or you could have taken all of 60 seconds to actually look up the actual study that your article is based on and taken a look at how flawed of a study it is. My evidence I've provided to you above. So please, again, Miss I'm Sixteen So I Clearly Know Everything About the World, tell me again how second hand smoke kills.

Lawls, clearly because I'm 16 it means I don't know anything. Wow your post has made me laugh so much, thanks for that.

Or I could just take about a minute of my time to actually look at the study myself and easily make you look foolish without even batting an eye.

You didn't even know what we were debating, and have said clearly this law is the solution instead of what you thought was happening. Sorry, who looks foolish?

Oh, I don't know, a direct link between second hand smoke and cancer? Something along those lines?

But go on, how would you go about proving that? I mean, if there were people who got cancer who had been around smokers, you'd just say there's no link for that either.

I'm sorry, should I only use words with two syllables and keep my vocabulary at an elementary level? Would it be easier to understand then?

Another laugh. Wow your immaturity gets to me.

It's quite simple what I said. You argue that because smoking distracts a driver from driving, it's a reason for it to be illegal. I countered by saying that a radio distracts a driver from driving (more so then a cigarette), so would that not be a reason to make radios in car's illegal?

It's not that smoking should be illegal simply due to that. It's about the children involved. Sure, it does distract them. But as you so rightly say, so does a radio. I'll make this clear for you. We're not debating smoking in cars being illegal, we're debating smoking in cars with children being illegal.

Do I need to say that again or did you understand me this time?

You're in no position to make comments like that Mr. I don't know what we're debating about.

 

[X]

Honestly, I would love some proof for this.

I've already provided it. But since you apparently ignored it, here you go again.

Minn., Calif. tests prove secondhand smoke not a health hazard
Associated Press

Air quality tests performed in Minnesota and California in smoke-filled bars and restaurants show that secondhand smoke may not be the major health hazard that some claim it is.

The Environmental Health Department in St. Louis Park, Minn., tested for trace levels of nicotine and found results between 1 and 33 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.

The California Environmental Protection Agency tested for trace levels of nicotine in outdoor smoking areas and found (PDF) results between 0.01 and 5 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations specify a limit for nicotine in the air of 500 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

The California study went on to state that people who have only “brief encounters with [secondhand smoke] are likely to be exposed to less than 0.1 [micrograms per cubic meter of air]” over a 24-hour time-weighted average.

LMAO, a child needs to learn about smoking by being around someone that smokes??

You honestly can't understand my vocabulary can you? Do you just read my post, take out a snippet and then deliberately misinterpret and/or totally misunderstand what I've said? I didn't say that a child needs to learn about smoking by being around someone that smokes, and how you came to that conclusion again reinforces the fact that you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. I said that a child needs to learn about the fact that they cannot expect to have everything in their life their way. Such as, you can't shelter your child to the point that he/she fully expects for others to stop smoking around their presence to simply oblige to their convenience. The world doesn't work like that. Now please misinterpret this as well.

But it's okay to teach them they can affect other peoples bodies?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to say that people don't affect the people around them? This makes zero sense.

I just LOL'd so hard. Have you not read this thread? Here, I'll jog your memory.



This is the topic we're debating. If we weren't, I'd agree people should be able to smoke.



See above. Did you really not know what we were debating the whole time? Right, so now you've said the law that IS being passed is the solution, are you in agreement the law is okay?

A) You are not a child at the age of 16. Or 15. Or 14. Or 13.

B) I am quite aware of what the topic we are debating is, and if you haven't noticed I've been arguing about all second-hand smoke laws here. There's absolutely no point in starting a second-hand smoke opinion thread, when we already have one right here. This isn't rocket science.

Lawls, clearly because I'm 16 it means I don't know anything. Wow your post has made me laugh so much, thanks for that.

Yeah actually. Yeah it kind of does. Because I thought I knew everything when I was 16, just like everybody thinks they know everything at 16. I didn't, you don't, and no one does. Nobody wants to admit that they're wrong when their 16.

You didn't even know what we were debating, and have said clearly this law is the solution instead of what you thought was happening. Sorry, who looks foolish?

How is someone at the age of 16 a child? So you're a child then? Please. Childhood ends when a person reaches their teenage years. It's absurd to have smoking in your car illegal because your 16 year old son, who in all likelihood smokes himself, is considered a "child". Perhaps I should've made myself more clear.

But go on, how would you go about proving that? I mean, if there were people who got cancer who had been around smokers, you'd just say there's no link for that either.

It's a fairly simple thing to do actually. You set up an environment with the AVERAGE amount of second hand smoke in it, and you see how long it takes for the subject to develop any illnesses and/or die. The only studies like this that have ever been conducted usually involve an enviroment with about 100 times as much nictone levels in the air as you would actually encounter.

Just being around someone who smokes is not enough to develop cancer. There is no study that has ever shown that, ever. Further more, if that were the case, wouldn't we have about ten times as many cancer patients as we already have? I mean there are millions of cigarette smokers and it's just impossible for someone to avoid it all their life. Do you not see how absurd this is?

Another laugh. Wow your immaturity gets to me.

Why? Because you can't understand my posts? You quite literally don't understand atleast one thing in every one of my posts, as shown by your responses which sometimes not only have nothing to do with what I've said, but are just downright baffling.

It's not that smoking should be illegal simply due to that. It's about the children involved. Sure, it does distract them. But as you so rightly say, so does a radio. I'll make this clear for you. We're not debating smoking in cars being illegal, we're debating smoking in cars with children being illegal.

I've already responded to this in this post about 3 times.

You're in no position to make comments like that Mr. I don't know what we're debating about.

Again, congrats on not being able to understand one of my posts. How do you do it?

 

[HBK-aholic]

I could go through all that, but we've done that about 3 times now, have we not? And the issue of the thread is resolved, and has been since you said this:

Because here's something you've failed to think about in regards to this issue: What about the majority of smokers (who don't have children)? Why should they not be allowed to smoke in their own car when it's harming nobody but themselves?

Wouldn't it simply have been easier to make smoking in your own car WHILE THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE CAR illegal instead of just making smoking in your car all the time illegal? Would that not have made more sense? Can you not see the easily fixable problem with this law?

The whole point of the thread is to debate whether it should be illegal for parents to smoke when their children are in the car. You've said yourself that's a 'easily fixable' solution. So why continue?

As for working out when someone is a child and when they're an adult, I'll agree it's controversial. 16 seems too old to be a child. And I don't think it should be classed as one. However different states and countries have different opinions on that, so I assume they'd do it from what their law was.