It seems we disagree on a few things... Society has the right to say we don't want our children exposed to cigarette smoke in a confined area... It's bad for their wellbeing........................You care so much about your liberties that you're willing to sacrifice anothers health for them... That's hypocritical.

It seems we disagree on a few things... Society has the right to say we don't want our children exposed to cigarette smoke in a confined area... It's bad for their wellbeing... It seems some feel that it's their right to damage youngsters just so they can fill their lungs with toxins and feed their jones.

Values? What value is there in poisoning children?

You care so much about your liberties that you're willing to sacrifice anothers health for them... That's hypocritical.

Please quote anyone who has said they want to "poison children". When you do that I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you as we corporately flog them ok?

If you are so concerned about "poisoning children" then perhaps you ought to live in a tent since your home has more carcinogens in it than ciggy smoke ever will.

In the meantime, remember that this "Great Scociety" you speak of is made up of all of us and not just the Annointed Elite.

Dictating what a grown adult can do in their own home is Fascism or worse. Period. It smacks of the Middle Ages Inquisition. IMO

Yes I agree that it's bad for a child's wellbeing. But you're wrong when you say society has the right to say what our children are exposed to.

It's the parents who have that right. I know of a few couples with children who smoke but never smoke in their home. There are parents who do and I'm appalled by it. I'll even add that any parent of young children who smokes is very selfish.

Speaking of childrens' wellbeing: There are far more obese children today than 20 years ago. Biggest reason is obvious...with both parents working today the kids have poorer eating habits. Too much sugar, soda, junk food etc. Obesity is unhealthy and eventually can lead to death.

I don't think neither you nor I would want big bro to monitor what parents have in their refrigerators. Now if you are against food monitoring and in favor of smoke monitoring I would call that hypocritical.

I agree with Hersheyboy that this if fascism. I won't willingly give up my liberties.

Although the government may take them...and have. I'm not defending smokers but I'm defending freedom. Don't give up your liberties...even if that one liberty doesn't affect you because one day it will.

Mothers and fathers worry to death about exposing their children to 2nd hand smoke, yet
they will sit in Macdonalds & smile contently as their precious child consumes a Happy(crappy) meal and sugary soda for lunch. Later in the day he/she will prepare a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, home made fudge, and Kool-Aid for them. They dont need to breathe 2nd hand smoke because it pales in comparison to their unhealthy upbringing. Your derelict society's selective apathy, ignorance and tunnel vision will kill them. Double standard and hypocritical.

This is truly where the hypocritical double standard shines for all to see. I cant say it enough times either. The most vocal antismokers who claim health as the #1 priority will load their families into their big pig American dinosaur-mobiles, spewing massive amounts of complex hydrocarbons into MY air as they drive to MacDonalds to wolf down a Fatburger, fries and chocolate sugar shake.

What irony - you wont let people smoke in Macdonalds but you & your children wil eat the food there, ingesting obscene amounts of cancer causing carcinogens, fat, sugar, etc., ultimately contract heart disease, diabetes, etc., set the stage for your children to follow in these same unhealthy footsteps and ultimately become a burden to MY society. Double standard and hypocritical.

A few years ago I used to have a sheet of stickers. They said "American Lung Association/American Cancer Society: spending LESS on research and MORE on their political agenda. Donate to your church instead." They are gone now - I used them all up. I should print more of them.

What irony - you wont let people smoke in Macdonalds but you & your children wil eat the food there, ingesting obscene amounts of cancer causing carcinogens, fat, sugar, etc., ultimately contract heart disease, diabetes, etc., set the stage for your children to follow in these same unhealthy footsteps and ultimately become a burden to MY society. Double standard and hypocritical.

I don't support any kind of monitoring, I do however support fixing a problem when we recognize it.

But apparently you're in favor of the premise of this thread. If there is no monitoring how will we know the problem is being solved?

I won't argue with you on the welfare of children and I understand your points, though your metephors are a little overboard. But if we allow the government to to tell us we can't smoke in our homes then they're going to go after something else the next time.

When does it all end? That's why I'm against this.

anyone smoking in the same room as a child is poisoning them... Plain and simple... If they didn't want to, they wouldn't.

That is precisely my meaning... Believe it or not, we are the annointed elite as are the children who have no choice whether they are poisoned or not.

There is no real irony here... There is a cure for obesity and the health problems it creates... More children are put in harms way from cigarette smoke than from a mcnugget... There is no cure for cancer yet (that we know of officially).

This point of argument falls sickly flat.

BOSTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The number of obese children will grow dramatically in the coming years and so will their death rates from heart disease, according to a pair of studies from the United States and Denmark published on Wednesday.

"If we don't take steps to reverse course, the children of each successive generation seem destined to be fatter and sicker than their parents," said David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston in a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine, where the studies appear.

The Danish study, which tracked more than one quarter of a million school children in Copenhagen from 1930 to 1976, found that overweight children grew up to have more heart problems, particularly the boys.


The heavier they were as youngsters, particularly entering their teens, the greater the risk.

For example, a 13-year-old boy who was 25 pounds (11.2 kg) above the average weight was found to be 33 percent more likely than a child of normal weight to have a heart attack or some other problem caused by coronary heart disease (CHD) by age 60.

The finding "suggests that more children than ever before are facing increased risks of CHD in adulthood," said the team led by Jennifer Baker of the Center for Health and Society in Copenhagen.

About 17 percent of boys and 16 percent of girls now in the United States -- more than 9 million total -- are overweight.

The second study reported that out of this group, 25 percent of the boys now are obese, and that number is expected to increase to 30 to 37 percent by 2020, when they turn 35.

For females in that group, 32 percent of whom now are obese, the ratio will rise to 34 to 44 percent, according to that research team, led by Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo of the University of California, San Francisco.

That will lead to more heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure at a younger age, and even aggressive treatment will not be able to stem the trend, they reported.

By 2035, the prevalence of heart disease will have increased by 5 to 16 percent, they estimated.


"Barring a major advance in the treatment of either excessive weight gain itself or its associated alterations in blood pressure, lipid levels and glucose metabolism, current adolescent overweight will have a substantial effect on public health far into the future," they concluded.

"My colleagues and I have predicted that pediatric obesity may shorten life expectancy in the United States by 2 to 5 years by mid-century -- an effect equal to that of all cancers combined," said Ludwig.

He also warned that "without effective intervention, the costs of obesity might well become catastrophic, arising not only from escalating medical expenses but also from diminished worker productivity caused by physical and psychological disabilities."

When does it all end? That's why I'm against this.

When all are considered equal and no one suffers for the choices of others.

I think it is time that all smokers go to a public place or gov't building and light up at the same time. Imagine hundreds of smokers lighting up at the same time, in one public place.

You won't answer a question without deflecting the question to your agenda. You won't answer the question because you know you will be shown for what you are.

Big Brother or deterrent?

Another tactic of the fascist "elite".

Since you admitted to being among the self improtant "elite" (see below) we are done.

Speaking of child abuse, someone needs to get all kids away from such arrogant B*st*rds like you. They grow up and turn into control freaks foisting their poison upon others and often times become violent when opposed.

Far more kids are harmed by their self indulgent parents who haven't the spine to control such a simple thing as what they eat, than by the miniscule % of parents who smoke in their homes.

Far more children are harmed by their self centered parents who give them booze. And far more children are killed everyday by drunk drivers than smokers lighting up.

And the gov't wackos can stay OUT of my home, or they may not get the chance to leave on their own power.

Arrogant d*ckhead.
Arrogant d*ckhead.
You need to get some perspective pal.

Stoney, you don't think your metaphors are overboard? I'll play your game.

You think it's ok for a 14 year old to be out until 3am unsupervised and roaming the same streets as prostitutes and drug dealers. It's not dangerous nor is it potentially harmful.

You think it's ok for a father of two young kids to come home in a drunken stuper. They hear him pulling into the driveway as he drives right into the their Mother's car. They witness him stumbling in the front door with slurred speech and then he throws up on the floor. A night that the kids will remember the rest of their lives. And that's ok.

In the same vein, you are also responsible for what you feed that same child. But the carboholic non-smoking crusader who fattens up their precious spawn sees nothing at all wrong with this type of barbaric and criminal behaviour. They want to kill them as only they see fit. This is a perfect example of one who" suffers for the choices of others."

Double standard and hypocritical.

This could be considered an intelligent argument if we were talking about Mcdonalds... I have no idea why you think that because I don't think we should be allowed to poison childrens lungs that I support eating garbage as a healthy idea!

None of us said there was value in poisoning a child.
None of us said we consent to child abuse.
None of us said leaving arenic in the frige is ok.
None of us said having a loaded gun in the same home as children is ok.
None of us said parents have the right to abuse their children.
None of us said children are not considered people.

None of us said it was ok to smoke in a home where there are children (that's now the 3rd time I've stated that)

This would be tearing down the Bill of Rights. Some people think it is the Bill Varietz and he plays second.

Now when I said you think it's ok for children to be raised by an alcoholic parent it was metaphor.

Either you can't take what you dish out or you really do think that we want to poison children, abuse them, leave arenic and a loaded gun in the house, or that we don't think children are people.

I don't know any smokers who smoke in their cars with their kids or in their homes; I don't know who these posters are hanging around with or referring to ..

This would be tearing down the Bill of Rights. Some people think it is the Bill Varietz and he plays second.

Parents are the most powerful role models... is it not important to model healthy behaviour? Or is it preferable to show them how to make excuses??