The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_ ... gger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

I heard on the radio this morning (3wt aka Washington post radio) that a county in California is trying to ban smoking inside of your home. So yes, the government is trying to get into everyones lives. I personally hate cigarettes and think they are vile and disgusting. I don't care what a person does in his or her home but it does bother me wen I walk into a store or restaurant and someone is standing by the door smoking. I am all for banning smoking inside of restaurants and directly in front of stores.

Cappster wrote:

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

I heard on the radio this morning (3wt aka Washington post radio) that a county in California is trying to ban smoking inside of your home. So yes, the government is trying to get into everyones lives. I personally hate cigarettes and think they are vile and disgusting. I don't care what a person does in his or her home but it does bother me wen I walk into a store or restaurant and someone is standing by the door smoking. I am all for banning smoking inside of restaurants and directly in front of stores.

I don't believe in forcing other people to inhale my smoke. Smoking in public entranceways is rude. I agree. Besides, I paid for that smoke and I want it all for myself. If I am in the car with the windows rolled up, I can keep it all to myself but the government wants to complain about that, too.

If you want all of that smoke for yourself, stick in it a 2ft waterpipe and smoke it. Just like weed heads do. The point being you can't help the fact that the smoke just burns either way. When taking a drag it just causes it to burn faster. Most people who drive their cars do not have the windows rolled up when smoking. The either have it cracked or on a nice day, have the window rolled all the way down. On the nice days when I also have my window rolled down, I get to smell the retched stench of the persons cigarette that is sitting next to me at the red light causing me to roll my window back up. I have no sympathy for smokers but I do recognize the fact that the government doesn't need to come into our lives as much as they are trying to.

Your government takes cash from your pocket, sans due process... why shouldn't they tell you what to do in your car or in your home?

Countertrey wrote:Your government takes cash from your pocket, sans due process... why shouldn't they tell you what to do in your car or in your home?

Just because they attempt to tell me what to do doesn't mean that I will voluntarily do what they tell me to, and since the government is pitiful at enforcing the laws they create, I am less than concerned.

I just think we should be entitled to complimentary vaseline every time the people we elect try to screw us without the courtesy of a reach around.

Great... now lubricants are a government entitlement program. When does it end?

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

This is more a case of children's rights than it is of smoker's rights. The government can take away your kids for reasons of abuse, can't they? Even if it happens in your own home. Also they say you can't do any number of drugs in your own home, why are cigarettes any different?

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

This is more a case of children's rights than it is of smoker's rights. The government can take away your kids for reasons of abuse, can't they? Even if it happens in your own home. Also they say you can't do any number of drugs in your own home, why are cigarettes any different?

Parents grant or revoke the rights of their children. Abuse is not a right. The difference between drugs and cigarettes is that the government made it legal and acceptable for tobacco companies to make cigarettes addictive and even decided to add a healthy tax for revenue.

GSPODS wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

This is more a case of children's rights than it is of smoker's rights. The government can take away your kids for reasons of abuse, can't they? Even if it happens in your own home. Also they say you can't do any number of drugs in your own home, why are cigarettes any different?

Parents grant or revoke the rights of their children. Abuse is not a right. The difference between drugs and cigarettes is that the government made it legal and acceptable for tobacco companies to make cigarettes addictive and even decided to add a healthy tax for revenue.

Parents don't grant or revoke the rights of their children. Rights are a matter of State. Abuse is not a right, which is why parental rights can be terminated, and children taken away by the State. Subjecting kids to second-hand smoke can be seen as form of abuse. And, no, the government didn't make it legal for tobacco companies to make cigarettes addictive. They simply have never made it illegal. Cigarettes fit the criteria for Schedule 1 drugs better than marijuana. Personally, I think all drug laws are unconstitutional, so I'm not arguing for cigarettes to be outlawed, just stating the facts.

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills

At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.

Is it just me or are the state governments getting a little too involved in our personal lives with this? What's next? A law that says I can't smoke inside my own home? A law that allows for the sale of cigarettes but prohibits the consumption of cigarettes?

Shouldn't it be a parent's decision what to do or not to do around their children? Or in our over-priced, donkey-rape interest rate vehicles?

This is more a case of children's rights than it is of smoker's rights. The government can take away your kids for reasons of abuse, can't they? Even if it happens in your own home. Also they say you can't do any number of drugs in your own home, why are cigarettes any different?

Parents grant or revoke the rights of their children. Abuse is not a right. The difference between drugs and cigarettes is that the government made it legal and acceptable for tobacco companies to make cigarettes addictive and even decided to add a healthy tax for revenue.

Parents don't grant or revoke the rights of their children. Rights are a matter of State. Abuse is not a right, which is why parental rights can be terminated, and children taken away by the State. Subjecting kids to second-hand smoke can be seen as form of abuse. And, no, the government didn't make it legal for tobacco companies to make cigarettes addictive. They simply have never made it illegal. Cigarettes fit the criteria for Schedule 1 drugs better than marijuana. Personally, I think all drug laws are unconstitutional, so I'm not arguing for cigarettes to be outlawed, just stating the facts.

This could end up way off-topic but anything can be seen as a form of abuse. It depends entirely upon whose eyes are doing the seeing. In the same way, anything can be seen as a form of discrimination, depending upon who is doing the seeing.

The government made it illegal to commit suicide but who's going to stop me? And what are they going to do, imprison me when I'm dead? Let's see how many useless, unenforceable laws we can create and then complain how nobody enforces the law.

That depends on whether or not your suicide attempt was successful. I think you think I am arguing something I'm not.

Countertrey wrote:Your government takes cash from your pocket, sans due process... why shouldn't they tell you what to do in your car or in your home?

I'm not arguing a specific position, more devils advocate on these, but:

- Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children? I'm totally not for banning smoking, but many kids grow up to have significant health issues. I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe that means you can beat your kids. I'm not equating them, just an analogy, where do you draw the line? Children exposed to smoking while maybe not being the most maliciously intended thing has often had some of the most malicious consequences.

- On the home and car I see as TOTALLY different things. While the more extreme (nut job) libertarians believe roads should be private, normal, rational libertarians think government should in fact own roads. Including the very libertarian founding fathers who specifically put roads in the Constitution.

When you empower the building of roads with that goes regulating the people and vehicles using them. Which is why I have no issue with seat belt laws, gas requirements etc. It is a farce when people are arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't part of regulation. You don't like the rules of the road, don't drive on them. Now vehicles driven on private property are a different thing, but on public roads goes the right to regulate.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Your government takes cash from your pocket, sans due process... why shouldn't they tell you what to do in your car or in your home?

I'm not arguing a specific position, more devils advocate on these, but:

- Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children? I'm totally not for banning smoking, but many kids grow up to have significant health issues. I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe that means you can beat your kids. I'm not equating them, just an analogy, where do you draw the line? Children exposed to smoking while maybe not being the most maliciously intended thing has often had some of the most malicious consequences.

- On the home and car I see as TOTALLY different things. Roads are in the constitution and while the more extreme (nut job) libertarians believe roads should be private, normal, rational libertarians think government should in fact own roads. Including the very libertarian founding fathers who specifically put roads in the Constitution.

When you empower the building of roads with that goes regulating the people and vehicles using them. Which is why I have no issue with seat belt laws, gas requirements etc. It is a farce when people are arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't part of regulation. You don't like the rules of the road, don't drive on them. Now vehicles driven on private property are a different thing, but on public roads goes the right to regulate.

The power to create "Post Offices and Post Roads" is in the Constitution. The power to create vehicles is not, and is therefore governed by the States. I don't smoke inside my home, nor in my car. I just don't think the government should be able to dictate whether or not I can.

GSPODS wrote:The power to create "Post Offices and Post Roads" is in the Constitution. The power to create vehicles is not, and is therefore governed by the States.

In other words, "I'm now not going to actually contradict you, but split hairs in an area you weren't specific enough about and make it sound like I am." OK,

- The Federal government can build and regulate Federal roads.

- By the 10th amendment power goes for non Federal roads to the States or the people (i.e., states can decline to create regulation) and the 9th says just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't make it less of a right. These would be 2 of the 3 amendments not in fact supported by the ACLU. The ACLU's mission is to twist and warp 7 of the 10 Amendments beyond intent or rationality and totally ignore the other three (2, 9 and 10).

So anyway, I was reffering to the philosophy of the founding fathers, who were extremely libertarian, and not referring to which specific roads could be regulated by which specific level of government. I didn't realize this was a contract, I was just focusing on a point.

You can rest assured your post well represents Lawyerdom's great contribution to our society. BTW, I'm just busting on your post for fun, I'm not really irked.

Also, did you hear about the terrorists that hijacked a plane load of lawyers? They threatened to release one an hour until their demands were met.

GSPODS wrote:I don't smoke inside my home, nor in my car. I just don't think the government should be able to dictate whether or not I can.

OK. But the question was on children and the right of government (the "appropriate" level of government, don't go back to that) to regulate automobiles that drive on roads it regulates. No one was arguing home anyway.

Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children?

Possibly... slippery slope. Without sharing my views on the following, might it not also be abusive to repeatedly and incessantly feed your child a diet of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Big Mac's and Mountain Dew, causing them to become type 1 diabetics and morbidly obese?

Currently, parents have the right to refuse to immunize their children. There are those who would seek to declare that child abuse.

Is it abusive to force your child to take piano lessons against her will?

How about spanking?

Who decides?

Countertrey wrote:

Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children?

Possibly... slippery slope. Without sharing my views on the following, might it not also be abusive to repeatedly and incessantly feed your child a diet of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Big Mac's and Mountain Dew, causing them to become type 1 diabetics and morbidly obese?

Currently, parents have the right to refuse to immunize their children. There are those who would seek to declare that child abuse.

Is it abusive to force your child to take piano lessons against her will?

How about spanking?

Who decides?

I think the parents should decide.
The government thinks the government should decide.
Of course, the government believes in micromanagement.
I'd like less government regulation, not more.

Countertrey wrote:

Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children?

Possibly... slippery slope. Without sharing my views on the following, might it not also be abusive to repeatedly and incessantly feed your child a diet of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Big Mac's and Mountain Dew, causing them to become type 1 diabetics and morbidly obese?

Currently, parents have the right to refuse to immunize their children. There are those who would seek to declare that child abuse.

Is it abusive to force your child to take piano lessons against her will?

How about spanking?

Who decides?

How exactly do you not have a "slippery slope?"

For example, when the left argues against parents influencing what books are read in classes in government schools, they say it's CENSORSHIP. So would they allow Hustler to be mandated reading by government employed teachers? Of course not, so it's not a censorship argument, it's a question of where you draw the line.

In this case it's the same. Can parents sexually abuse or beat children? Of course not. So what is "harming" them? Just arguing parental rights gets nowhere since we already agreed it's only a question of where the line is drawn. That is unless you are saying government cannot protect children from being beaten or sexually abused by their parents.

While we both adhere to libertarian philosophy, the problem is what rights to children have? Do they have the right to not be beaten? Abused? What about the right to not spend the rest of their life with Emphasima or other lifelong health issues because of the choices of their parents?

GSPODS wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Looking at the health impacts of parents smoking, is it not a form of child abuse to inflict that on children?

Possibly... slippery slope. Without sharing my views on the following, might it not also be abusive to repeatedly and incessantly feed your child a diet of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Big Mac's and Mountain Dew, causing them to become type 1 diabetics and morbidly obese?

Currently, parents have the right to refuse to immunize their children. There are those who would seek to declare that child abuse.

Is it abusive to force your child to take piano lessons against her will?

How about spanking?

Who decides?

I think the parents should decide.
The government thinks the government should decide.
Of course, the government believes in micromanagement.
I'd like less government regulation, not more.

Ditto. Since I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) you are in fact not arguing children cannot be protected from being beaten or sexually abused by their parents, your argument "parents should decide" is a non-argument.

My problem is not rational and reasonable lines governing parental behavior. It is the clear history of the liberal use of "creeping incrementalism" to get their way. Eventually, they WILL legislate children's diets. Eventually, they WILL criminalize spanking. Eventually, they will establish regulations governing parenting, and dictating to parents. All households will need to be run as daycare centers.

Are children raised today so much more fragile than children being raised 100 or 200 years ago that they need these new protections?

Are you aware that many young parents already believe that spanking is illegal?

Countertrey wrote:My problem is not rational and reasonable lines governing parental behavior. It is the clear history of the liberal use of "creeping incrementalism" to get their way. Eventually, they WILL legislate children's diets. Eventually, they WILL criminalize spanking. Eventually, they will establish regulations governing parenting, and dictating to parents. All households will need to be run as daycare centers.

Are children raised today so much more fragile than children being raised 100 or 200 years ago that they need these new protections?

Are you aware that many young parents already believe that spanking is illegal?

I totally hear you Trey. One big problem that I have with the Libertarian (capital L) party is they want to pay no price for living in a society. On the other hand I would be so far closer to what they want then what we have in this country today.

In the end, there is no solution to some problems, like this one, except being vigilant. There is no clean ideological answer to the question. As I said anyway I was more Devil's advocate in this. While I do consider the long term damage of smoking in kids to be child abuse, for the reasons you say I have to oppose legislation to make it so. In other words it would scare me more to outlaw it then not to.

In the end, there is no solution to some problems, like this one, except being vigilant.

That SHOULD be the function of the Federal Courts... but, we know how that rolls...

Countertrey wrote:

In the end, there is no solution to some problems, like this one, except being vigilant.

That SHOULD be the function of the Federal Courts... but, we know how that rolls...

The Federal Courts can't be expected to wipe their own rear ends. I'd prefer they don't write yet another law that does not affect them directly. We have more than enough of those already, like that healthcare thing.

GSPODS wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

In the end, there is no solution to some problems, like this one, except being vigilant.

That SHOULD be the function of the Federal Courts... but, we know how that rolls...

The Federal Courts can't be expected to wipe their own rear ends. I'd prefer they don't write yet another law that does not affect them directly. We have more than enough of those already, like that healthcare thing.

I think he meant the courts should be vigilant in applying the Constitution, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments. If I could go back to the founding fathers and convince them to change one thing in the Constitution it would be to make the 9th and 10th amendments the 1st and 2nd.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

In the end, there is no solution to some problems, like this one, except being vigilant.

That SHOULD be the function of the Federal Courts... but, we know how that rolls...

The Federal Courts can't be expected to wipe their own rear ends. I'd prefer they don't write yet another law that does not affect them directly. We have more than enough of those already, like that healthcare thing.

I think he meant the courts should be vigilant in applying the Constitution, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments. If I could go back to the founding fathers and convince them to change one thing in the Constitution it would be to make the 9th and 10th amendments the 1st and 2nd.

I'm quite certain you are correct about the meaning. However, I stand by my original post. The Federal Courts can't be expected to wipe their butts. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution which grants them the right to use toilet paper, and therefore that right is granted to the States.