|
|
|
|
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 1/22/2008 4:24:52 PM | As a child, I'd get sick every time I was in my father's car, because he smoked. In his defense, he didn't smoke while I was in the car--it was just the smoke residue that gave me migraines and made me puke.
I smoke now.
I think the law you're talking about is an infringement of the rights of the individual. I don't think smoking around children is child abuse, and to call it that trivializes true child abuse. One might make the argument that serving your children a Happy Meal for dinner every night is also child abuse, as it is unhealthier for them to eat that junk regularly than for them to be around second-hand smoke. Obesity kills more people than cigarettes do. So should we outlaw Happy Meals? Fine mothers for feeding their kids too many french fries?
I respect your right to feel that smoking is harmful. It is; only a moron would say it isn't, at this point in time. But I cannot respect calling it child abuse, which is clearly just inflammatory and not relevent. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 1/31/2008 8:43:27 AM | | WOW, after this string has gone on for so long, it is amazing to me to see the opinions of everyone here.. It is almost split completely down lines of smokers and non-smokers. From what I have read, the "smokers" live in denial or look for any article or hearsay to justify the fact they have the right to smoke anywhere they like, and the "non-smokers" are in total agreement with the law and agree that others should not be exposed to the stink or harmful fumes the Smoker tend to do without thinking simply because it is part of them and their make-up. I personally am a non-smoker, but there were more times than I could count that my parents (both of whom died of lung cancer, imangine that) would smoke in the car with all the windows rolled up. I can fully agree with the law, back then our parents did not know any better, but there is NO excuse for that kind of behavior now, but I still see it constantly. Sometimes you have to make a law for people that are either too inconsiderate or just don't care about anyone else but themselves, including their kids. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/21/2008 4:25:46 PM | Annual deaths in the US by causation....
Cigarettes - 440,000
Automobiles - 42,366
Second Hand Smoke - 35,000
Guns - 29,338
The third statistic, is very telling...says it all.
The first statistic, simply tells you about the people posting on the pro smoking side. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/21/2008 4:51:11 PM | it's just common courtesy. if you have to be "told", you should also be given a hard "boot in the ass".  | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/21/2008 9:17:39 PM |
Annual deaths in the US by causation....
Cigarettes - 440,000
I am astonished at the deceit shown of those who skew numbers, and gullibility and stupidity those who are duped by them.
OK, DO THE MATH
20-25% of the population smoke
= about 70-75 million smokers
US death rate = 8.3/1000
= about 2.5 million/year.
20-25% of them smoked.
= 450,000, = about 20% of all deaths....DUH..
20% of the population smoke, and they account for 20% of the deaths.
If that is the case, then...
NEWS FLASH:
20% DEATHS ARE THE 20% WHO SMOKE
80% OF DEATHS ARE THE 80% WHO DONT SMOKE
DUH. Using this logic, more people die from NOT smoking. LOL
If nobody smoked, then 0% of deaths would be caused by smoking,
and 100% of deaths would be caused by.....DEATH perhaps?? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/21/2008 10:58:03 PM | Your math is wrong, it assumes that every person who dies who smoked dies from smoking related illnesses. Also, if smokers are dying younger than non smokers, (which they do on average) it also wouldn't show up in the statistics in how you're doing the numbers.
| |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:05:15 AM | >>>From what I have read, the "smokers" live in denial or look for any article or hearsay to justify the fact they have the right to smoke anywhere they like
Which, at least in this case, is their own property.
>>>and the "non-smokers" are in total agreement with the law and agree that others should not be exposed to the stink....
Not true- I'm a non-smoker, and I do not side completely with the notion that the world should be forced to do what I do.
Also, I love how the smell is your first concern.
>>>... or harmful fumes the Smoker tend to do without thinking simply because it is part of them and their make-up.
No more harmful than the fumes the car itself is spewing.
>>>Sometimes you have to make a law for people that are either too inconsiderate or just don't care about anyone else but themselves, including their kids.
And sometimes petty people create laws not to make a safer society, but to control people.
----
>>>Annual deaths in the US by causation....
I frankly cannot trust any source that claims that ONLY smokes killed that many people- seems to me that alot of people were grouped together to make a handy stat
According to the CDC, circa 2004;
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Septicemia: 33,373
>>>The first statistic, simply tells you about the people posting on the pro smoking side.
And what does that same statistic say about people who use cars? Are you going to say there are less car drivers in America than smokers? Or that a car exhaust is less dangerous than a cigarette smoke? What does my stats say about people who eat at McDonald's? Should we treat them in the same condescending manner? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/22/2008 7:53:15 AM | Your math is wrong, it assumes that every person who dies who smoked dies from smoking related illnesses.
That is the beauty of this post. The math is surely not wrong, double check it. Triple check it. Prove the equation backwards.
x + y = z
z = y + x
y = z - x
x = z - y
It only proves this glaring and misleading stat is wrong, as you state. It shows that, according to this astoundingly untrue stat, EVERY smoker is dying from smoking, and even the most ardent anti sm0ker knows this is wrong.
Annual deaths in the US by causation....
Cigarettes - 440,000
Automobiles - 42,366
Second Hand Smoke - 35,000
Guns - 29,338
The other half of that post shows the intended spin to try to show that smoking is somehow an out of control, epidemic plague by not only blatantly parroting a skewed smoking stat as shown, but also grouping it with those stats that are so much less as to brand the skewed smoking number to look shockingly large in order to garner a reaction .
The most disturbing part of it is grouping a CORRELATION stat in with CAUSATION stats. Smoking stats are correlation, not causation. This is typical agendist behaviour.
Example: If you die in a fiery car crash, you are an automobile statistic. The fatal crash CAUSED your death. CAUSATION
If you smoke and die of a heart attack, smoking can be attributed as a CORRELATING factor. It did not CAUSE your heart disease. CORRELATION.
This is where the agendists get part of that 440,000 number. That is an insulting abuse of stats.
Because, if you never smoked, you will still probably die from heart disease. But if you never step into an auto, you will never die in a fiery car crash.
You cannot mix different groupings of stats to further your agenda. The math exposes this deceit and proves it wrong. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/22/2008 11:56:39 AM | LOL!!! I am a Dr. and that is the latest from the CDC. They also claim it to err, on the side of being too conservative!
Take it up with them.
Slice and dice it any way you wish. Fact is though, even if it is off by 100%...Cigarettes should be a major focus...if indeed saving lives is the true priority...and not just shoving your warped perspective down someone else's throat.
I can see that emotions are all you have to offer here. Do you know how pathetic that really is!!!
Never confuse true believers...with the facts.
This is an emotionally charged issue that you will argue vociferously and endlessly, but the facts are in. Second hand smoke kills...period!!!
Does a minor have a choice?
Stop saying what you think is true...and apply logic...the facts. Opinions...no matter how loudly you proclaim them...are just that...opinions. They carry absolutely no weight in the search for truth. Factually, they do not even make a good logical hypothesis. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:43:07 PM | And that is what I have done sir. I have applied logic to your chosen stats, and have only shown that it shows that every smoker dies from smoking, due to the way these stats are abused. Remember, I didnt raise the stat...it merely raised my eyebrows.
Of course, you stating that you are a doctor only furthers my belief in this agenda of abuse. It is because of a doctor that I am considered a smoker, even though I dont smoke.
I smoked in my youth. When I applied for employment when I was 18, I was asked if I smoked, and I said yes to him. I am now branded a smoker for the rest of my life, my medical history shows that I smoked, no matter how brief it was...that is no matter. My insurance rates are different than that of a "non smoker"...which I am. The important thing is that I touched a cigarette to my lips. Organised medicine will not pardon that charge. That is the timeless firebrand that is my albatross, and at the same time is your statistical treasure trove .
No matter that I spent 25+ years in a filthy steel mill, if I die of lung cancer, it will be due to touching a cigarette breifly to my lips. Whether I like it or not, I will surely be one of those 440,000 "smoking causation" deaths. That is not my choice - that is your's and the CDCs choice.
Heart disease runs rampant in my NON SMOKING family. I, so far at 50, have outlived a paternal uncle, maternal great grandfather, and am soon to overtake a paternal grandfather and my own father, all non smokers, all who died from heart disease prematurely.
Why are they not smoking statistics, but I am destined to be?? Whatever I die from, it will be twisted into a smoking statistic. Extrapolate that into every smoker, and THAT is how you , or the CDC, can come up with the 440,000. If you have ever touched a cigarette to your lips, you are automatically a smoking statistic. That is the only way. Correct me NOW if I am wrong, and show me how it is wrong, because I know of no other magical mathematical equation to show otherwise. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 5:08:54 AM | >>>Cigarettes should be a major focus...if indeed saving lives is the true priority...and not just shoving your warped perspective down someone else's throat.
And which of us is letting each person view the facts to come to their own conclusion, while the other is pushing for legislation to control what people do in their own property?
>>> I can see that emotions are all you have to offer here. Do you know how pathetic that really is!!!
Which of us is talking about saving the children, while the other is talking about rights and freedoms?
Seriously dude- your doublespeak is disturbing.....You claim to be saving lives and protecting children, but deny your stance has any emotional basis. You claim that we are forcing others to accept our beliefs by giving people the freedom to decide, but you are pushing for laws to punish us if we do not follow yours beliefs.
>>>Does a minor have a choice?
Does a minor have a choice to eat healthy, or do they depend on their parent or guardian to attend to that? Couldn't that argument be taken all the way to the government controlling everything about your life in the attempt to defend a minor's choice?
Not to mention, my favorite argument- car pollution- do I have a choice to not inhale your cars poison? Why are you ignoring my choice for your convenience? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 1:49:53 PM | That is the beauty of this post. The math is surely not wrong, double check it. Triple check it. Prove the equation backwards.
x + y = z
z = y + x
y = z - x
x = z - y
It only proves this glaring and misleading stat is wrong, as you state. It shows that, according to this astoundingly untrue stat, EVERY smoker is dying from smoking, and even the most ardent anti sm0ker knows this is wrong.
Yes I can show you where your math is wrong. Simply because you're ignoring other factors.
If a smoker dies in a car accident, he won't have died of smoking, so where does the extra death come from?
The pool of smokers. One of the reasons for the shrinking population of smokers is that older ones die, and efforts have been made to reduce the recruitment of new smokers from the young.
Essentially you're forgeting that while x=A+B+C+D Smokers are not in fact x, nor are they A,B ,C or D, they're a third group, a subset of the entire population, which also dies from A, B, C, and D.
It's an error that's easy to mistake because it sounds right, especially if you haven't taken any statistics classes.
If you smoke and die of a heart attack, smoking can be attributed as a CORRELATING factor. It did not CAUSE your heart disease. CORRELATION.
Correlation does not neccesarily require causation, but it indicates a relationship. Often with an intervening factor. Feel free to indicate your theory of what the cause is that would account for this relationship. Remember it not only has to cause people to get cancer, but it also has to cause them to smoke.
Good luck.
Hey if you want to take issue with the entire scientific field of entimology that's fine. Of course you're going to have a hard time being taken seriously by anybody in the health field. Considering it's also how we know about issues such as diabetes being linked with obesity, and basically any life long habits and their effects on the human bodies.
And which of us is letting each person view the facts to come to their own conclusion, while the other is pushing for legislation to control what people do in their own property?
Your children arn't your property. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 2:19:29 PM | I can remember both MOM and DAD puffing away with the three of us in the back seat, sometimes the WINDOWS UP! I am now 50, I will never put one of those nasty things in my mouth, and Im glad laws are getting strickter and strickter, its repulsive and nasty, and most smokers agree, but when you have an addiction sometimes it's hard to admit it.
Bravo for this law and MORE POWER TO THE KIDS!!!!!!They need this law........
footloose~~~
side note, Dad died years ago to Heart Disease, shall I say more. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 2:26:15 PM | Passive smoke is bad for children with asthma. It also increases the risk of ear infections by 30%, maybe of throught infections too. But passive smoke never has killed a child. A big WHO study actually shows that people exposed to lung cancer have LESS lung cancers later on that those that haven't. this of course doesn't make any sense, as the rest of this and most studies about passive smoke doesn't either.
But in any case, just a few hours in a smoky car is of no harm for a non-asthmatic child. It's at most a transitory effect, much less than constant exposure at home, and it's precisely because children's cells are still growing that they recover faster. Talking about "child abuse", "pooring poison in a babies milk" and whatsoever, is absolutely outrageous. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 2:45:36 PM | | I am a smoker and a parent and wholeheartedly agree with this law...I also do not smoke inside....ever. Quitting is the best option as I know!!!....but I am respectful of both children and non-smokers! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 3:14:47 PM | Most people aren't arguing that smoking is harmful. At least I'm not. I'm a smoker, I know it's harmful, and while I won't go as far to say that I don't care, quitting isn't a priority for me right now. I'm 23, have no children, and smoking relieves my stress. For me, right now, at this age, that's enough. That said, of course smoking is harmful, but imposing laws like these are farther-reaching than that. Like others have said, what else is next? Jailing parents with obese children? Cops at the drive-thru, watching how many fries you let your kid have? Disallowing parents from having alcoholic beverages in their homes? Forbidding parents from owning Playboys if there are minors living at home? Requiring parents to install WebNanny on their computers? Requiring them to install ratings-blockers on television so that they must punch in a code every time they want to see anything rated M?
All the examples I cited are things that would conceivably be for the sake of kids, but at the expense of the rights of adults. Smoking in your own car is your decision. While I don't think parents should chain smoke around children (particularly in enclosed areas, like cars) I also don't think it's the law's place to step in.
The reason many people think this issue is so simple is because it looks simple. Cigarettes=evil and kids=good. I don't think people bother to scratch deeper than that and see why intrusive laws like this one aren't necessarily a good idea. | |
|
| |
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 4:47:38 PM | Yes I can show you where your math is wrong. Simply because you're ignoring other factors.
I truely understand your thought process in this, but remember, that 440,000 is the key figure here that caught my eye and led me to crunch numbers to try to see how it is attained. It plugs perfectly into this scenario I show. If not, I never would have even posted it. I am either right, or it is a DaVinci code -type profoundly uncanny coincidence that it all adds up perfectly. Which is it??
If a smoker dies in a car accident, he won't have died of smoking, so where does the extra death come from?
The pool of smokers
But that pool of smokers is a fixed constant in this annual statistical snapshot. At the time of the snapshot, it is about 20-25% of the population, or about 70-75 million people. Any fluctuations matter not; it is a snapshot. So any extra death from that pool of smokers will only reduce the original 440,000, because if a current smoker dies in an accident, he cannot be a once, or future smoking stat. The only way to sustain that stat is to add people like me to it when I die.
That is one reason this bloated 440,000 stat raised my eyebrows. Of course every smoker doesnt die from smoking as you pointed out, and as we all know. That should reduce the 440,000 even further, but it doesnt, does it?
Neverless, there is a fixed amount of smokers. non smokers, and causes of death spread amongst them in this annual statistical snapshot. These are constants that do not change.
One of the reasons for the shrinking population of smokers is that older ones die, and efforts have been made to reduce the recruitment of new smokers from the young.
That is a fluid variable in this sea of constants and cannot apply - we are dealing with snapshot statistics....fixed amounts in a stastical formula.
Lets crunch the numbers a different way:
The fixed amounts are:
2.5 million deaths US per year
According to the CDC, circa 2004;
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Septicemia: 33,373
These add up to about 1.9 million. If the rest of the smaller causes were listed, it would be a bit more than 2 million. Add in the bloated figure of the smokers' 440,000, and you magically end up with....
2.5 million!!
It still adds up perfectly.
Essentially you're forgeting that while x=A+B+C+D Smokers are not in fact x, nor are they A,B ,C or D, they're a third group, a subset of the entire population, which also dies from A, B, C, and D.
So you are saying a smoker's death can count for more than 1 death cause?? If a smoker died of heart disease, he would be listed as a smoking AND a heart disease death both?? Then the numbers in these stats would NOT add up here.
None of the individual death stats would add up to 2.5 million, as it does correctly here.
That is because , as I pointed out, if you touched a cigarette to your lips, then die of a heart attack 45 years later, you are a smoking stat. Your twin brother is identical to you, weighs the same, dies of the same health problems as you, but never touched a cigarette to his lips, and dies the same day as you, he is considered a heart disease stat.
That is the only way it can work with these provided numbers, otherwise these stats would mean absolutely nothing. They would be just numbers assembled haphazardly and without formulation, assigned at the whim of the designated assigner. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/23/2008 5:05:12 PM |
I truely understand your thought process in this, but remember, that 440,000 is the key figure here. It plugs perfectly into this scenario I show. I am either right, or it is a DaVinci code -type profoundly uncanny coincidence that it all adds up perfectly. Which is it??
No, because I've actually shown how you are wrong. The math doesn't work unless you conclude that absolutely no smokers die in car accidents, or gun related incidents or food poisoning? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 12:27:10 AM | | You'll still be allowed to puff smoke in your nephew's face though, right? 'Cause I really don't want to be fined for that. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 5:44:30 AM | >>>Your children arn't your property.
I wasn't talking about the children- your car is your property. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:04:34 AM | Your car is your car but your child's heart and lungs are theirs. Your children are separate people, not property.
I would like to see a link to just one peer-reviewed study that disputes the idea that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:24:56 AM | As an ex smoker yes you should not smoke around your kids.
Until your in their shoes don't bashem. Smoking is the one of hardest thing to quit, it is second on the list behind Heroin. You just can't quit. I quit on 2/12/08, haven't had a cig, even taking the drug Chantix. I still want a cig.
You can not classify smokers in the same category as alcoholic and junkies. Geez, cause someone smokes doesn't make them a awful parent.
So, if a alcoholic or a lunkie goes outside to get drunk or shoot up thats ok?
Smoking does not take away you ability to make good judgments. Alcohol and drugs does take away your ability. Two totally different beast. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:48:48 AM | Basically though...your rights leave off...where another person's rights begin. It is a simple concept. Who is looking out for the rights of those minors, if you are a dyed in the wool smoker? Obviously then, you have your own agenda...gotta have that smoke...regardless.
Maybe your efforts would be better served by getting laws passed, to explain what actually is in chew tobacco and cigarettes, that causes such addiction. There is a list of ingredients as long as your arm on a can of soda...on chewing gum...on breakfast cereal. Nothing at all is listed on any tobacco products. Basically they can throw anything in there, and get away with it. Don't you think it is time to learn exactly what it is you are taking into your system. I do not find that to be at all an unreasonable request, and suspect it would be very enlightening.
From experience also, women have a much more difficult time than men quitting tobacco...for some unknown reason. Would it not be nice to understand why? The first step would be, to learn what actually is in these products. I really do not understand how the tobacco interests get away with not publishing this, on each package they sell. Why are they excluded from the FDA rules? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 2/24/2008 9:35:29 AM | I wasn't talking about the children- your car is your property.
The thread is about no smoking in car with children. So if the kids arn't in the car, then there is no problem no?
Maybe your efforts would be better served by getting laws passed, to explain what actually is in chew tobacco and cigarettes, that causes such addiction. There is a list of ingredients as long as your arm on a can of soda...on chewing gum...on breakfast cereal. Nothing at all is listed on any tobacco products. Basically they can throw anything in there, and get away with it. Don't you think it is time to learn exactly what it is you are taking into your system. I do not find that to be at all an unreasonable request, and suspect it would be very enlightening.
Most smokers are aware of this, hell I don't know about where you're from but up here the education efforts to reduce smoking have been tapped out. | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
