|
|
|
|
|
| |
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 8:40:28 AM |
Have you noticed how many health problems our generation has? This subject came up on TV. Turns out that the main reasons are toxic chemicals in everything from toothpaste, to air fresheners (some of which damage your ability to smell, so you can't smell the bad smells as well as the good smells), to food. They reckoned your child is absorbing about 1000 different chemicals a day. Not possible types of chemicals. Your child is very likely actually absorbing 1000 different chemicals a day. 200 different chemicals is contained in one additive alone, which is listed in many hair products, make-up and other chemicals. By cutting out a lot of these chemicals alone, there was a marked improvement in their skin alone.
Now, 40 years ago, there were a lot less cars and a lot less chemicals about, but a lot more smoking than today. Yet, you claim health problems have gone up by a large margin? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 9:29:32 AM |
Now, 40 years ago, there were a lot less cars and a lot less chemicals about, but a lot more smoking than today. Yet, you claim health problems have gone up by a large margin?
Yes, I do.
There is no denying that the things you have mentioned are unhealthy. Feel free to start a thread about them, because this thread is about second-hand smoking, which is even more dangerous. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 10:15:40 AM |
There is no denying that the things you have mentioned are unhealthy. Feel free to start a thread about them, because this thread is about second-hand smoking, which is even more dangerous.
I said it once, and I'll say it again, we can worry about more than one thing at a time.
Smoking is deadlier than those other factors, and additionally is much easier to fix than widespread chemicals. most smokers don't want to deal with smoking, they don't really want to deal with the other issues either, it's just pure deflection. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 11:58:01 AM |
There is no denying that the things you have mentioned are unhealthy. Feel free to start a thread about them, because this thread is about second-hand smoking, which is even more dangerous. I wish this was true, but it's not. That's why less people are smoking than ever, but health concerns are going up.
It's just much easier to pin a scapegoat on the average person than it is on multi-national corporations that have millions of dollars and loads of lawyers ready to sue you, and tie court cases up for years, and regularly offer big payouts to politicians. Most politicians who are or were in The Cabinet, the group of ministers that together govern the UK, have ended up as directors, active or passive, of many large corporations, and get the large payouts accrued to those jobs. How do you thbink they get these jobs, when they don't have the skills to fulfil their roles? Because its a return for the corporations they helped while they were in power.
Smoking is deadlier than those other factors, and additionally is much easier to fix than widespread chemicals. most smokers don't want to deal with smoking, they don't really want to deal with the other issues either, it's just pure deflection. Actually, it's deflecting the real issue when someone tries to address the issue of smoking with a smoker. The issue is addiction. One can get over the main cravings of heroin addiction with places where they induce a 24-hour sleep. Others have gone cold turkey. The main problem with addiction is NOT chemical dependency. It's the emotional addiction, and that is down to emotional issues. Until you've addressed the emotional reasons and the emotional need for the addiction, the cigarette is the chosen form of addiction, but the addiction remains and will return to cigarettes or something else, and all things become dangerous in addiction, even exercise.
That's why if non-smokers want smokers to stop, the only way is to address the emotional needs of society that are not being met, that keep smoker reliant on such a knowingly harmful material. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 1:11:36 PM | scorp
200 chemicals in just ONE additive? Sorry, I don't buy that. That would be cost prohibitive to produce. So you're a smoker? If you have all this insight into nicotine addiction why don't you follow your own suggestions and deal with the root causes.
I have no trouble with you smoking, if you do, because both of my parents smoked, as well as various older relatives. But please, please quit telling us that smoker who wants to quit can't because of his/her emotional problems. The truth is if someone wants something badly enough, they will do whatever it takes. Example? The guy who climbed Mt. Everest -- blind.
Like a that 750 lb man they featured on one of the science/medical channels on cable, that ate himself to death. He got help too late, and even while in the hospital -- and knowing it was killing him -- he wanted ten times the calories he was getting, and had people sneaking stuff in to him because at that point he'd been bedfast for over 2 years because of his size... Simply put, he'd rather eat than live. And it killed him. He didn't really want to lose the weight, he just wanted the complications of weighing so much to go away.
Some smokers are probably doing what some eating disorder people do: they feel they have no control over most of their life so they decide that since they can control this particular behavior they will do so and to hell with anyone who tries to get them to stop that behavior even though they know, down deep, it's self-destructive.
My dad quit cold turkey one day. Mom was still smoking 20 years later. She only stopped because I refused to be her dealer by buy them for her. I told her if she wants to smoke, fine, but she would have to get them for herself from then on. Eventually, she decided going and getting a pack of cigarettes wasn't worth the effort anymore.
 | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 1:28:55 PM |
Actually, it's deflecting the real issue when someone tries to address the issue of smoking with a smoker. The issue is addiction. One can get over the main cravings of heroin addiction with places where they induce a 24-hour sleep. Others have gone cold turkey. The main problem with addiction is NOT chemical dependency. It's the emotional addiction, and that is down to emotional issues. Until you've addressed the emotional reasons and the emotional need for the addiction, the cigarette is the chosen form of addiction, but the addiction remains and will return to cigarettes or something else, and all things become dangerous in addiction, even exercise.
That's why if non-smokers want smokers to stop, the only way is to address the emotional needs of society that are not being met, that keep smoker reliant on such a knowingly harmful material.
I agree with you. Hell I WORK in addictions. One of the big thing in dealing with addiction at a cultural level is "social liberation" essentially along with cognitive awareness of the effects of their addiction on them personally, one of the best things you can do for people who are borderline about quitting is to increase the available healthy alternatives. Non smoking areas, smokeless bars, so on so on, at the same time, this measure isn't directed at making people quit.
It's directed at making people quit smoking with their kids in the car. They can smoke with their kids NOT in the car. They can smoke with their kids at home, hell they can smoke outside with their kids.
It's a seperate issue, and I do agree with you (on your issue) | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/20/2007 1:41:27 PM |
I wish this was true, but it's not. That's why less people are smoking than ever, but health concerns are going up.
I agree with your concerns about other health issues, but don't agree that they are more dangerous than being exposed to second-hand smoke. I'm not going to argue this though, as that is not what this thread is about. As I stated earlier, you have perfectly valid points for another thread.
Actually, it's deflecting the real issue when someone tries to address the issue of smoking with a smoker.
If you'll go back through the thread, you'll see very people are trying to convince smokers to quit. That is the smoker's concern, not ours. The topic is about smokers not being allowed to smoke in a car with children, and to a lesser degree, second-hand smoke exposure in general. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/21/2007 5:19:35 AM | To gageforfun in msg #231:
200 chemicals in just ONE additive? Sorry, I don't buy that. That would be cost prohibitive to produce. It was one of these health programmes we have on TV. They had doctors on it. I cannot remember the name of the chemical, but if the program is shown again, I'll tell you. IMHO, it would have been cost-effective, because the same additive was used in a variety of different types of products and brands.
So you're a smoker? If you have all this insight into nicotine addiction why don't you follow your own suggestions and deal with the root causes. I am. It's a lot harder to sort my own emotional problems than when I quit smoking for 3 weeks a few years ago. Particularly when most people are not encouraging of it.
I have no trouble with you smoking, if you do, because both of my parents smoked, as well as various older relatives. But please, please quit telling us that smoker who wants to quit can't because of his/her emotional problems. I used to think like you, till I watched a programme on Heroin addiction, that pointed out that if you remove the heroin, you just leave a gaping void in that person's life, and he/she will keep coming back to the heroin to fill it, unless you fill that void with something else, that solves the issues that the heroin solved. I used to think that only applied to things that were like heroid, until an article in New Scientist last year was published that stated that ALL forms of addiction work exactly the same in the mind, and make the same behavioural problems. Now, I learned the scientists are actually finding stuff about how smoking works, and why some people quit and others don't, through lookin laterally at the subject, and noit just logically.
The truth is if someone wants something badly enough, they will do whatever it takes. Example? The guy who climbed Mt. Everest -- blind. There's a blind kid who learned to cross the road by himself and even play video games successfully. Would you tell all blind people that they can do it if they want it badly enough? Of course not. But you could tell they HOW the guy did it, and where he can get the help to learn to do it themselves. Why should smoking be any different?
Some smokers are probably doing what some eating disorder people do: they feel they have no control over most of their life so they decide that since they can control this particular behavior they will do so and to hell with anyone who tries to get them to stop that behavior even though they know, down deep, it's self-destructive. The problem is the amount. If it's in the vast minority, it's probably not the main reason people smoke. If it's in the vast majority, it's probably the main reason that people smoke. Unless you have the figures, it's going to be difficult to say one way or the other.
To msquared in msg #233:
Concern over chemicals brain risk
Toxic chemicals may be causing a pandemic of brain disorders because of inadequate regulation, researchers say.
A report in the Lancet identifies over 200 industrial chemicals, including metals, solvents and pesticides, which have potential to damage the brain.
Studies have shown low-level exposure of some can lead to neurobehavioral defects in children, the US and Danish team behind the report said.
UK experts remained divided over the findings.
One in six children worldwide has a development disability such as autism and cerebral palsy.
The authors have put their finger on something which is important and which will not go away
Professor Mark Hanson, of Southampton University
The causes are unknown, but the researchers trawled through a range of previous studies and data to show how some chemicals can effect the brain.
The team, from the University of South Denmark and New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said pinning down the effects of industrial chemical pollution was extremely difficult because symptoms may not develop for several years.
The report said lead, which was used in petrol from 1960 to 1980, illustrated the risk of even low exposure of industrial chemicals for children.
Based on what is known about the toxic effects of lead, this may have reduced IQ, shortened attention span, slowed motor co-ordination and heightened aggressiveness.
The researchers said developing brains - defined as from foetus to adolescence - were much more susceptible to toxic chemicals than those of adults.
Chemicals
Several other chemicals, including methylmercury, arsenic and polychlorinated biphenyls, were also studied in depth and shown to cause neurobehavioral problems.
The scientists identified 202 industrial chemicals with the potential to damage the human brain, and said they were likely to be the "tip of a very large iceberg".
More than 1,000 chemicals are known to be neurotoxic in animals, and are also likely to be harmful to humans.
THE HIDDEN DANGERS
Lead - The neurotoxic effects of lead in adults were known in Roman times, but a report from Australia 100 years ago was the first description of epidemic poisoning in children. Source traced to ingestion of lead-based paint.
Methylmercury - The developmental toxicity of this organic mercury compound became evident in the 1960s in Japan where mental illness and blindness was seen in infants born to mothers who had consumed fish from contaminated waters
Polychlorinated biphenyls - PCBs used to be widely applied in electrical equipment insulators. Development toxicity of PCBs was seen in children exposed to high concentrations in Asia where cooking oil had been contaminated during manufacturing
Lead researcher Dr Philippe Grandjean said: "The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences.
"Only a few substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of protecting children.
"The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the foetus or a small child."
Of the 100,000 chemicals registered for commercial use in the EU in 1981 and the 80,000 in the US, fewer than half had been subjected to even the most basic testing.
Researchers said it was only recently that the tide has started changing with the EU's Reach programme, which will lead to strict regulation of chemicals if there is an early indication of the potential for a serious toxic effect.
Professor Mark Hanson, director of developmental origins of health and disease at Southampton University, said: "The authors have put their finger on something which is important and which will not go away."
But he said the findings were extremely hard to prove as the effect of the chemicals did not seem to lead to gross abnormalities, "but rather change the way that the normal control systems work".
However, Professor Alan Boobis, a toxicology expert at Imperial College London, said: "The authors of this review have raised an issue of significant concern, but some of the evidence in support of the conclusions lacks rigour."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6126082.stm My issue with chemicals and smoking is that some of the chemicals put into cigarettes, and to a lesser degree in tobacco, are addictive, and put there to make people keep smoking.
On top of this, a lot of these chemicals are very harmful. They weaken the body and the mind, and can weaken the body's ability to reject the smoke, and weaken the mind's willpower to stop smoking.
Removing both of these factors can make it significantly easier for a smoker to either quit completely, or to have the self-control to not smoke in certain situations, such as in a car with minors.
So IMHO, it is very relevant indeed to this thread.
To CharlesEdm in msg #232:
RE ensuring that smokers avoid smoking in a car with minors, or exposing anyone to second-hand smoke.
I agree with you. Hell I WORK in addictions. One of the big thing in dealing with addiction at a cultural level is "social liberation" essentially along with cognitive awareness of the effects of their addiction on them personally, one of the best things you can do for people who are borderline about quitting is to increase the available healthy alternatives. Non smoking areas, smokeless bars, so on so on, at the same time, this measure isn't directed at making people quit. Thanks for acknowledging the issue. I quite agree that making sure that you have no-smoking zones does encourage people to quit. However, if any person is given only one alternative, they tend to find another way to get their "fix". After all, I'm sure that most se-crazed teenagers were told they couldn't have sex in their parents' house. What do they do? They go somewhere else.
Now, contrast anti-smoking laws with a cinema. How many people leave a cinema to have a smoke in the middle of the film? Hardly any at all, and usually only those who aren't enjoying the film anyway. But these same people say they cannot quit? There is a major point here.
Our ability to psychologically encourage people to not smoke without "pushing" it on them, is far more powerful and has a far greater effect than any law.
The most effective place I found for helping me cut down my smoking and encourage me to quit, was a place where the building was completely non-smoking, except for one room in the corner of the canteen. It was cut off from the canteen by decent walls. It had windows so I didn't feel like I was in a dark closet, but only the windows that opened to the outside could be opened, so the smoke didn't spread into the canteen. It was fairly sized so I didn't feel like I was being denied my rights, but it was in the minority of the room, so I felt that non-smoking was the norm. When it came to lunch, I would go and have my lunch in the non-smoking canteen by choice, and then went for a cigarette in the smoking section. But most of my friends, including the smoking ones, would obviously still be eating lunch in the non-smoking section, so I tried to wait before I went in the smoking section, while I was talking to my friends during lunch. I ended up having very few cigarettes.
What I realised was that by providing me with a proper place to smoke that was cut off from the rest of the building, I had a way to express my addiction. But because this smoking room was far away from my workplace, and was cut off from the non-smokers, I would prefer to be with the majority. So I avoided smoking where possible, without being forced to. I chose to cut down on my smoking naturally. Once I had entered the building, I didn't even go outside for a smoke, unless I wanted to go outside for a bit of fresh air and a walk anyway, which is something I would have done if I didn't want to smoke at all.
However, when I went to restaurants with non-smoking and smoking sections, the smoking section was NOT enclosed. As a result, I felt no psychological division between smoking and non-smoking areas. As a consequence, it felt like I was always smoking, even when I was sitting in the non-smoking areas, and when I was smoking, I was sitting in the same room but 6 feet away from my friends. It just made me feel stupid. Plus, it did nothing to stop the smoke going into my friends' lungs.
Other places had a completely non-smoking policy, and so I went outside. But then, I associated the outside with smoking and ended up smoking whenever I went outside, even if I didn't want to smoke.
Smoking is like any form of addiction. The main issue that seems to be for me is a lack of self-control in my life, over emotional situations, physical activities, and a whole host of other things.
As a result, I need to put myself in situations that encourage control. By having 2 separate and distinct places, such as a smoking room and non-smoking rooms, that self-control is encouraged. I have a decent place I CAN smoke, and a decent place I CANNOT smoke. If the smoking room is reasonably decorated,but is the smaller (but not tiny) room, then I don't feel like I am being pushed into not smoking. So I feel that I have the control to smoke or not smoke, which makes me realise I have the control to not smoke for as long as I want.
However, if I am in any environment that says "You CANNOT smoke here at all", my control to smoke is taken away, and so is my control to not smoke as a consequence. if I am in any environment that says "You can ONLY smoke only in a dark dingy basement", then my control is again taken away, as I am being pushed into not smoking again.
That is what I think was the problem with the anti-smoking laws. No adequate facilities provided for smokers, so smokers sense of control was taken away from them, and they need that self-control to not smoke any more. Without that control, they will end up smoking somewhere else, even if it is in an illegal establishment. Just like prohibition.
It's directed at making people quit smoking with their kids in the car. They can smoke with their kids NOT in the car. They can smoke with their kids at home, hell they can smoke outside with their kids. This issue is directly relevant to the process of addiction. When you tell people they cannot do it, it ensures they will find a way of doing it anyway. By telling people they can NEVER smoke around their car, you are subconsciously challenging them to do it anyway.
I suspect that there will be a lot of infringements, as people don't have to smoke all the time. Plus, if a cop is around the corner, all they have to do is stub it out real quick, dump it in the glove compartment and spray the air with lots of air freshener. But they will avoid opening the windows when they smoke, in case a cop will smell the smoke. The cop probably can't smell the smoke through the exhaust fumes, but that's probably how it will appear in their minds, so they'll do it.
You can tell people they can stop and smoke, but where? There aren't any proper areas to stop. By limiting a smoker's freedom, it is encouraging a sense of rebellion in them, to smoke where they are going to be caught, but then they are thinking about themselves, and not the kids, so they won't think to smoke away from the kids.
Now, suppose that you put up "smoking stops" on the freeways, and "smoking areas" in the way-stations. Then people would think: "I cam smoke there". So they who want to be considerate, would think "I'll wait till I get to the smoking stop, because I KNOW I can smoke there, and the kids can stretch their legs. It benefits both the kids, and gives the smokers a sense of control, so they will psychologically be encouraged to not smoke in the car. By saying they CAN smoke at the smoking stop, they receive a psychological implication that they CANNOT smoke anywhere else.
In my experience, it is the unsaid implication that people follow, not the publicly-stated order.
It can have an even greater effect if the smoking stop is in a transparently enclosed area, protected from the rain and the snow, but visibly able to see the rest of the world. It makes people aware of the world outside them, but feel a psychological sense of distance and separateness from the rest of the world, which encourages them to associate smoking to being AWAY from others. The transparency allows the smokers to keep an eye on their kids, while not smoking around them. This psychological implication allows the smokers to associate smoking with being able to watch over their kids and protect them from harm, while making sure that their kids do not inhale their smoke. Psychologically, this implication will likely filter through to other areas of their lives, unless they see a reverse message in other situations. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:10:02 AM | How on earth can anyone say something this stupid...and this out of touch with reality...with the actual published information out there? I do not understand what planet of the solar system, you have to be on, to say something so utterly ridiculous. Put your head into the sand a bit deeper, and let the world pass you by entirely...you have absolutely no grasp of reality...obviously...and do not see the forest for the trees. Medically...this is not even a bone of contention at all anymore...it is a given.
Keep on smoking...look older than your years...prematurely (pretty obviously too!)...make it so you spend your later years on disability...with your little tank of oxygen...supported by others (usually public assistance...the costs of smoking...to the general public...is absolutely staggering)...as you have absolutely no quality of life at all. Take the significant risk of acquiring a pneumoconiosis...and very likely eventually cancer...not just lung cancer either. After all...it is your life...right? Never mind the damage done to others as you do this...as all that matters is your own rights...to do as you please to others you have contact with...especially those closest to you...the ones you love. Such a loving caring person! I certainly hope you have your old age home picked out ahead of time...you'll likely need it before you know it.
Sometimes the arrogance of smokers is beyond belief! None of them will ever see anything they do not wish to see...no matter how openly it is discussed...and how much actual evidence is presented by real scientific forums and research...or even how little application of minimal common sense is actually required to go there. How utterly ridiculous! The idiotic and childish mindset...simply boggles the mind. Never confuse a dyed in the wool smoker...with the facts. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:14:18 AM | | Stubborn people like you, are exactly the reason such laws are necessary. People like you, more than anything else, make the case for regulation. This mindest...is exactly what makes it necessary. As long as you can smoke...you really do not care! Enough said! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:28:22 AM | How many volumes would you like to see? It would not matter though...you will always see whatever you wish to see. This is now not open to question...it is definitely a given.
Look in the mirror lady..she what has happened to you already...maybe we should commission a few more studies, that people like you would not believe anyway...no matter how well done they are. If you do not like what the research says...you discard it and interject your own personal thoughts...hardly scientific...definitely not realistic...at all! | |
|
| |
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:43:18 AM | | I dont see anyone complaining about the polution that comes out the car exhaust easy to forget that huh we are ****in up the ozone and breathing that in everyday but no one says shit its the smokers who are killing people right not the cars or mabey its just easyer to bully smokers i dont want to breath car exhaust while i jog on the side of the road lets ban cars .Or is this issue kind of like wasting money busting pot smokers when we have child molesters rapists and murderers that need caught to hard though cops could get hurt so lets pick on the easy smokers the non violent pot smokers people who cant or wont fight back looks like bullys are still big in america Frank | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:46:01 AM | | I am sorry...I am addressing SunnyTexas...and I put my post on the end of her imbicilic statements...but apparently it goes here instead. CeeCeeKitty appears to only have one oar in the water, as she speaks, so I do not go there...but this stubborn fool ...SunnyTexas...just frosts me with her complete arrogance! She is the reason for having the laws...that mindset! The laws would not be necessary, if people were civil about it, and applied common sense. It is very obvious though, in reading her posts, that she really gives a damn about anyone else's rights...or what effect she has on anyone else's rights. Like I said before...never try to confuse a smoker with the facts! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:51:47 AM | | If you do not hear complaints about exhaust fumes, you are not listening, and catalytic converters are making things worse...not better...making acids in the air we breath. That however is not the topic of this post. It is an application of an argument technique called deflection, and it does not belong in any real discussion. This discussion is basically about personal rights versus the public good...not what is the most significant source of our air pollution. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:02:27 AM | >>>I am sorry...I am addressing SunnyTexas...
You're addressing someone who hasn't posted for two pages, or for over two weeks....
....k....
>>> she really gives a damn about anyone else's rights...or what effect she has on anyone else's rights
Well, like I've said before, I'm conflicted when we're discussing children, but when it comes to Adults, the choice is clear- people should be responsible for their own choices- because of that, socialist healthcare is inheritly flawed and should be scrapped, and people should be expected to accept responsibility for their own choices. Equally, there should be no laws protecting you from yourself or having me protect you from yourself- if your choices have negative consquences, be it through poor eating habits, poor exercise, or the use of drugs, it should be you who are responsible for the consquences of those choices, no one else.
>>> This discussion is basically about personal rights versus the public good...
But it is exactly what you are arguing- that people should not smoke because its for the public good- that people who do not smoke should not be exposed to cigarette smoke, because that harms their health- but then again, I don't drive, and yet I am exposed to poison in the air- why do you fight for the right to clean air when concerning smoking, but believe it is your right to pollute my air because you prefer to commute to work. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:44:09 AM | It is the simple point of the law that irritates the hell out of me.
I happen to agree w/ the concept; human beings who smoke (and I am one) should not be smoking around their children.
I take issue however w/ this being made a law strictly for the fact that I do not want to live in a dictatorship. I felt the exact same way many yrs back (and I was only young at the time) when government chose to inflict a law that requires us to wear seat belts. Regardless of the arguements for and against this issue, it is again the point of it- they have dictated that we must wear that seat belt even though by making the personal choice to not wear it is not effecting anyone other than myself !
I realize that those who do make the personal choice to smoke around their children are effecting others but to make it law is still moving more and more towards that dictatorship where personal choice and freedom will no longer exist. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:59:29 AM | | this like everything else has to be taken on a case by case decision. I smoke but not around small children in enclosed spaces. if i smoke in my car with a child they are over the age of 8, i have the sunroof cracked to draw up the smoke, and the kid has to be asthma/allergy free. Also i only smoke in the car if the ride is over an hour. with all the other toxins in the air, food, and toys a little second hand smoke from time to time isn't going to hurt anyone. they have proven a link between vaccinations and autism yet kids still get them. if we limited everything unhealthy from our society we would all be miserable. bottom line is the education wasn't there when most of us got addicted, almost everybody smoked when i was young, and it is up to us to do a better job then the generation before NOT be perfect. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:33:42 PM | Your address to me imatigerinu, does not make sense.
Did you describe me as arrogant, imbicilic (which isn't even a word), stubborn, ridiculous, idiotic and a fool ?
Well, well. Are YOU being "civil about it"? I'd say you need a cigarette stuck in every orifice of your body, you're so uptight !
I do believe you must be one of those people who believe they are the only one to make sense.
Tuff. Not everyone is going to agree with you and I understand everyone is NOT going to agree with me.
That's just the way it is.
My point is the government - over governing where it doesn't need to.
I have already said many many times, I do not smoke in my car with any child or adult who may be offended by it. PERIOD !
Just last night a friend of mine got a ticket from a policeman, for parking his vehicle with the window rolled down ! Another instance of too many rules. Too many rules to be broken. Don't tell me the fines for this such violation aren't what they're after. Because they all have quotas. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:28:32 PM |
I smoke but not around small children in enclosed spaces. if i smoke in my car with a child they are over the age of 8, i have the sunroof cracked to draw up the smoke, and the kid has to be asthma/allergy free
Alright, this is a concept that makes NOOOOOOOO sense to me. Kids over 8, huh. There is a law here that you can't smoke in the car with a child under....oh, I think it is 6, maybe. So who got to decide how old they should be when we start killing them. I look at my children and I am no more eager to kill (or less concerned about the health of) my 10 y/o than I am my 6 y/o. They never had some magic birthday when I said "oh, to hell with their health..."
My husband and I are both smokers. If we can drive the entire trip from Alaska to Arkansas and not one time smoke in the car with the kids, I think it is something everyone could manage on their trips around town. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:59:49 PM | Type in the word...do a google search...then tell me it is not a word. Vocabulary is very much a part of me.
I reacted badly to your postings on page four...which is where I last saw you, and had it bookmarked.
Those postings earned what they got. I was not in a good mood...and they really pushed my buttons...ergo...the response.
The word imbicilic actually has two meanings...but now I suspect that I will have to go back to it's french/latin origins, to prove it to you. H-m-m-m-m...but since you do not believe the evidence is in on smoking and cancer...I realize that there is no evidence you would ever accept...no matter what anyway...unless of course it agrees with your point. I'm sorry, but in today's world...that is very much a given. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 5:10:41 PM | whats the big deal miners breathe coal dust in the mines all day long, a little smoke aint gonna hurt them | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 5:47:22 PM | OMG (msg 9) ecaepydal you are saying people that smoke are dirtbag parents and kids should be taken away from them.....and they are like drug addicts and they will do anything for a smoke....................YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I work in a place where I see drug addicts and alcoholics and aids and believe me they are nothing like a person that just smokes...
Both of my parents smoked and worked there ass off for all of there children (5 of them)and happen to be the greatest parents any kids could have!!! How dare you say this about people just because they smoke.......So in your words my parents were dirtbags,lazy,dumb, and didn't care about there kids!!!!!!!!! Well I say you are full of SHIT and don't know what in the hell your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I hope your kids are growning up a little kinder then there mother.........   | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 11/1/2007 5:59:30 PM | Yup, that's what I'm saying.
Further, you're a fool if you defend smoking parents.
Also, yes, my son is very kind and thank heaven he doesn't have the second hand smoke related breathing problems I do.
Alas, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
With all your fervor my guess is that you smoke, too. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
