sologdin Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 as some uppity rightwingers said in the other thread, parents don't own their children; the state is obligated to protect kids from bad parenting. smoking constitutes a battery when it's inflicted upon nonconsensual non-smokers (such as minors, who are statutory non-smokers), and we routinely dispossess child batterers of their kids otherwise. nothing nebulous or insidious there, except the counter-argument reads like backdoor tobacco industry propaganda seeking to create juvenile addicts.no need to skid all the way down the slippery slope, though. whereas the state probably should become involved in some way if kid's diet causes a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, no need to jail parents for serving up cola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Are those in favor of this particular ban also favorable to any law declaring that any and all unhealthful choices made for children are illegal?I'd certainly favor making various forms of religiosity illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Can't multi-quote.Dr Pepper - wow. Calling the police when parents are doing something awful, sure, I'm totally behind that. But smoking in the car? I totally understand the health implications, but I think it's a bit much. I'd like to point out that I'm not claiming the cops will come running. I'm simply stating that kids do tell on their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dr. Pepper,I'd certainly favor making various forms of religiosity illegal.How would you enforce that? And why is your Atheism worthy of being adopted and enforced by the State in such an autocractic fashion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 as some uppity rightwingers said in the other thread, parents don't own their children; the state is obligated to protect kids from bad parenting. smoking constitutes a battery when it's inflicted upon nonconsensual non-smokers (such as minors, who are statutory non-smokers), and we routinely dispossess child batterers of their kids otherwise. nothing nebulous or insidious there, except the counter-argument reads like backdoor tobacco industry propaganda seeking to create juvenile addicts.no need to skid all the way down the slippery slope, though. whereas the state probably should become involved in some way if kid's diet causes a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, no need to jail parents for serving up cola. How is it a "battery?" Because it's unpleasant to be around, or under the premise that any amount of secondhand smoke causes irreparable damage (or something else I might be missing)? I'm not trying to be difficult, but that strikes me as a bit much. Is that how it's being legally defined? In the same way a single soda won't trigger diabetes, an isolated case of secondhand smoke inhalation won't trigger some lasting negative affect on one's health (this is why I used the terms nebulous and insidious in comparison to something like mobile phone bans, which protects against a more acute public safety issue). Worse, sugar is addictive. And it's being given to kids. How are these two things really different? Continued exposure/ consumption leads to health issues on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 How is it a "battery?" Because it's unpleasant to be around, or under the premise that any amount of secondhand smoke causes irreparable damage (or something else I might be missing)? I'm not trying to be difficult, but that strikes me as a bit much. Is that how it's being legally defined? In the same way a single soda won't trigger diabetes, an isolated case of secondhand smoke inhalation won't trigger some lasting negative affect on one's health (this is why I used the terms nebulous and insidious in comparison to something like mobile phone bans, which protects against a more acute public safety issue). Worse, sugar is addictive. And it's being given to kids. How are these two things really different? Continued exposure/ consumption leads to health issues on both counts. If we're talking parents who smoke in the car with their children around, it's not too much to assume it's not going to be a single, isolated instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted01 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'd like to point out that I'm not claiming the cops will come running. I'm simply stating that kids do tell on their parents.Fair enough. Though I can't imagine it'd be that common over here. Wasting police time springs to mind. Butterbumps: I'm inclined to agree with you. You make a very good point. Smoking is still that one thing that people like to pile on, but everything else is fairly balanced. Fizzy drinks have no health benefit either, but most children still drink them. In no way am I saying that smoking is good for you, or that other people should be subjected to it, but the snobbery against smoking is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dracarya,There is an inescapable difference between a cigarette and a "fizzy drink". When I drink a fizzy drink everyone in a room where I am drinking it is not forced to smell the drink. Not so with cigarttes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 If we're talking parents who smoke in the car with their children around, it's not too much to assume it's not going to be a single, isolated instance. sure probably not. Just like how the kid you see eating junk food/ processed food/ candy/ soda in front of his parents is surely not an isolated incident. My issue here is that I think it's disingenuous to ban smoking in a car with kids without committing to the position that the government has a responsibility to protect children's health unilaterally against any known health hazards. The horrendously poor diets parents increasingly subject their unwitting kids to is, imo, every bit as abusive and risky as subjecting them to secondhand smoke. If one holds the position that the state should get involved in disciplining parents of kids who develop diabetes from having been subjected to horrifically unhealthy diets (so after the effects of inflicting known dietary hazards onto their children manifest), why support disciplining parents who subject their kids to secondhand smoke prior to/ independently of that hazard's risks' manifesting? Butterbumps: I'm inclined to agree with you. You make a very good point. Smoking is still that one thing that people like to pile on, but everything else is fairly balanced. Fizzy drinks have no health benefit either, but most children still drink them. In no way am I saying that smoking is good for you, or that other people should be subjected to it, but the snobbery against smoking is ridiculous.thanks, and yea I think we agree mostly on this! Dracarya,There is an inescapable difference between a cigarette and a "fizzy drink". When I drink a fizzy drink everyone in a room where I am drinking it is not forced to smell the drink. Not so with cigarttes. Scot, no one is concocting the preposterous proposition that consuming soda in the presence of another person presents a nuisance. The issue is that subjecting your children to a diet rich in candy, soda and junk food (so having them consume and digest it) is a known hazard, and abusive in a similar way as subjecting them to secondhand smoke (in that the dangers of both stem from amount and exposure to the hazard over time, I mean). Yet it seems to be tolerated and downplayed when looked at adjacently to the issue of subjecting them to secondhand smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 sure probably not. Just like how the kid you see eating junk food/ processed food/ candy/ soda in front of his parents is surely not an isolated incident. My issue here is that I think it's disingenuous to ban smoking in a car with kids without committing to the position that the government has a responsibility to protect children's health unilaterally against any known health hazards. The horrendously poor diets parents increasingly subject their unwitting kids to is, imo, every bit as abusive and risky as subjecting them to secondhand smoke. If one holds the position that the state should get involved in disciplining parents of kids who develop diabetes from having been subjected to horrifically unhealthy diets (so after the effects of inflicting known dietary hazards onto their children manifest), why support disciplining parents who subject their kids to secondhand smoke prior to/ independently of that hazard's risks' manifesting? Is this really an either/or scenario? Like, we can't ban smoking with kids in the car, without also banning all foods that might contribute to diabetes? Because that's kind of ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dr. Pepper,How would you enforce that? And why is your Atheism worthy of being adopted and enforced by the State in such an autocractic fashion? Can you ever stop it with these ridiculous knee-jerk reactions that usually have little to do with the comment you reply to? But sure, if you want an answer to what you've written....I'd enforce it by monitoring forums to catch people who have ridiculous and annoying knee-jerk reactions. My position is worthy because I said so. Fair enough. Though I can't imagine it'd be that common over here. Wasting police time springs to mind. It's most often young kids who will tell on parents. First they do so because they haven't yet learned to be discrete. Later, it's because they are learning about society, laws and punishments. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone has never overheard a child say "you can't do that mommy, it's against the law". And again, in the event that telling on the parent happens by calling the police, it's very unlikely the police will come running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetiger Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Very good. Shame that it's legal where do I live. Smoking in ALL PUBLIC PLACES should be banned. I don't want me and my family to end with cancer because of guy who smokes in the bus or in shop... ( I hate smell of cigarete smoke, even small amount and I get headaches.... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Is this really an either/or scenario? Like, we can't ban smoking with kids in the car, without also banning all foods that might contribute to diabetes? Because that's kind of ridiculous. I'm asking why there's such a disconnect in people's reactions to these two known hazards as it pertains to inflicting children with them and the extent to which the state has a responsibility to protect said children from these abuses. If the state's role is protect children from serious known hazards, of which both secondhand smoke and terrible diets are, why tolerate one but condemn the other, especially when the one you're tolerating is a problem on a much larger scale? Is the issue really about how concerned we are for children's health or how much we hate smoking? It's hard to tell sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Can you ever stop it with these ridiculous knee-jerk reactions that usually have little to do with the comment you reply to? But sure, if you want an answer to what you've written....I'd enforce it by monitoring forums to catch people who have ridiculous and annoying knee-jerk reactions. My position is worthy because I said so. Arguably, baseless impulses to ban religion is the knee-jerk reaction here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Arguably, baseless impulses to ban religion is the knee-jerk reaction here. Perhaps, though the normal response should probably be "hey, DP, can you clarify that comment you just made" or "surely by 'various forms of religiosity' you don't mean 'ban religion completely'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I think the sheer number of consequences that can occur because of second hand smoke is probably one of the reasons why it's condemned across the board and why there's legislature on it. If one's curious about the consequences, look them up, they are not that hard to find and there are probably more numerous than you think. Also, not all the effects are insidious or over a long period of time, smoking during pregnancy is associated with plenty of adverse outcomes for the infant, including stillbirths. Furthermore, you're more likely to get lower respiratory tract infections, such as pneumonia if you're exposed to second hand smoke. So it's not something that happens over the next 20-30 years. The main point of contention seems to be that giving your children plenty of sugar can also lead to adverse effects. Are they as severe as someone who is exposed to second hand smoke throughout childhood and adolescence? I'm not sure, and frankly, I doubt someone has done any sort of study to compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I'm asking why there's such a disconnect in people's reactions to these two known hazards as it pertains to inflicting children with them and the extent to which the state has a responsibility to protect said children from these abuses. If the state's role is protect children from serious known hazards, of which both secondhand smoke and terrible diets are, why tolerate one but condemn the other, especially when the one you're tolerating is a problem on a much larger scale? Is the issue really about how concerned we are for children's health or how much we hate smoking? It's hard to tell sometimes. Well a big reason why is because there's a disconnect between the products in question. Food is... food. You kind of need food to survive. Cigarettes are a luxury item; a recreational drug. No one needs that. Another reason is because smoking is a single product and diet is not. To smoke or not to smoke is a fairly simple question. To smoke in a car is also a simple question and if there are kids in it, the answer should be a fairly fucking universal NO. (I have never needed a law to tell me not to do this, personally.) On the other hand, diet is a complex issue that can't be addressed in a binary way i.e. banning "unhealthy foods." You can ban a food product, but you can't ban a "diet." Anything, even water, consumed in excess will be hazardous to your health, but the solution here isn't to ban water. What the government should do, and what I think it's made promising steps toward now and then, is educate people as to what foods make up a healthy diet and to encourage people to eat that way. Of course, that kind of relies on an education system that isn't as horribly deficient as the nutritional content of frozen meals is. So we in the US are kind of boned on that end. As to whether this specific case is about hating smoking or being compassionate towards children, well, who can say. Probably a bit of both. As a smoker, though, I don't think this particular law is unfair or unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Cigarettes vs food that is bad for you seems to come down to not wanting to be subjected to something that harms multiple people vs not wantig to regulate something that typically only harms the person consuming it. Your cigarette smoke can enter my lungs, but your pie can't enter my stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 butters--battery, n. 1. Criminal law. The use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.[...]2. Torts. An intentional and offensive touching of another without lawful justification.(black's law dictionary, 8th ed.) that's basic common law battery. it need not cause actual harm, in which case it is merely a dignitary affront. there's old cases where knocking something out of someone's grip is a battery, even without touching the person's person. and it's common now to see battery include poisoning/intoxication. not therefore a large stretch to include battery by smoking. (an interesting aside is whether there can be battery by flatulence. there have been some arrests for flatulent assault on police officer, though am not sure if there's been a conviction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 butters--(black's law dictionary, 8th ed.) that's basic common law battery. it need not cause actual harm, in which case it is merely a dignitary affront. there's old cases where knocking something out of someone's grip is a battery, even without touching the person's person. and it's common now to see battery include poisoning/intoxication. not therefore a large stretch to include battery by smoking. (an interesting aside is whether there can be battery by flatulence. there have been some arrests for flatulent assault on police officer, though am not sure if there's been a conviction.) Sounds like the NYPD missed a possible defense re: their forcible sodomy of Abner Louima. Self-defense from flatulent assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.