Straggler writes:
Yes you did. You suggested that the law could be implemented on a "I know it when I see it" basis.
No, I didn't. I even spelled it out that I'd let the lawyers work on the wordings of the legislation. Regarding "I know it when I see it", I was referring to the obvious wrongness of the situation.
I am glad to hear that you have retracted this nonsensical notion.
I didn't retract anything because I never said the legislation should be based on my common sense. You're certainly persistent at misreading what I wrote.
Firstly - Just because we don't always use legislation to solve social health problems does not mean we do nothing. Nobody here is proposing that "do nothing" is the answer to the question at hand.
Yes, you did. When you suggested or implied that society should have a hands-off attitude when it comes to the privacy of people's homes and how they raise their kids, you basically said "ok, let them do whatever they want."
Secondly - Thank you for finally conceding that these issues are not as entirely black and white as you have thus far been repeatedly asserting.
Again, your persistence at misreading what I wrote is getting tiring. On a general basis, these issues are complicated. This does not mean if we look at case by case they are just as complicated.
Again, answer the bloody question. 2 adults smoking in the car with their windows up and their baby in the back seat. That's a specific case. That's not complicated. It's a yes and no issue. Black and white.
Example: To see obviously pregnant women smoking in Britain is rare to the point of notable. Shocking even. This is not the result of legislation. This change in personal behaviour and social attitude is the result of a long term and reasonably successful public health awareness campaign.
And what about the ones that insist on keep smoking and drinking while pregnant?
It is not about a slippery slope. I have never used the term "slippery slope". It is about a largely unenforcable and thus ineffectual law that has undesirable consequences for civil liberties.
Yeah, and the pope's religion condemns gay people. But I never used the word catholic...
Just because you never used the word slippery slope doesn't mean you never described it.
Anyway, about the unenforceable part, the same can be said about a myriad other things. That said, I still don't see how civil liberties could be affected by this. Are you referring to the parents' right to cause all kinds of health problems in their kids?
I quoted you the specific example of the actual English anti-smoking laws as applied to public spaces in my previous post. How on Earth do you propose that these, or similar, restrictions be applied to private homes in any practical sense? If a self proclaimed arbiter of "obviousness" such as yourself accuses someone of breaking the laws you are proposing, how do the law enforcement authorities determine whether or not the law has actually been broken?
There you go again. Please understand why I am frustrated. You're like a creationist.
My argument is not and has never been to ban people from smoking inside their own homes. That's a ridiculous position to take. My argument is about exposing children, whose biological systems haven't been fully developed yet and are a lot more susceptible to the various diseases that would result in later parts of their lives. Stop arguing against a strawman, for christ sake.
What about those who are dependent for reasons other than youth (aka adults)? Old age, physical disability etc. etc. Why do you not apply your rationale of choice in these cases?
That's why I referred back to the already existing laws. If you had just think about it for 2 damn seconds and use common sense... there's that magic phrase again. Ever heard of elder abuse? Or the mentally retarded? The disabled?
So, when I said adults could get up and leave, you should have used your common sense and expand on that thought. But no, you had to argue like a creationist and make me spell out each step of the way.
To extend the current laws to private personal spaces has very little effect on solving the health problem in any practical sense whilst having a very major effect on the ability of government authorities to misuse it's powers.
That's it, keep arguing against a strawman.
Most parents will go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children from serious harm.
Yeah, and most people don't walk down the interstate while hundreds of cars are passing by going 70-80 mph. And yet every once in a while, we have someone do that and get hit.
Most parents will not smoke inside a car with the baby in the back. These are rare instances, just like murder and rape. Again, speaking as a public servant, do you have any idea how many cases of child abuse and neglect I come across? Compared to the rest of society, these cases are rare. That's why we have laws against them.
It may not work in every single instance (what will?) but better to utilise this near universal instinct through relentless eduction of the harm caused by passive smoke than to inflict ineffectual laws that are both resented and near impossible to enforce.
Resented? Can you imagine the bill boards of protesters that say "I have the right to kill my child" and "My children love to smoke"?
It is my opinion that the law you are advocating is both practically ineffectual at tackling the health issue under discussion whilst also being a fine example of a badly conceived law that is all too open to misuse.
People said the same about seat belt law in my state just half a decade back. Ever since it came out, the number of fatality in crashes have been at an all time low. In fact, most fatalities I know of happened because those dumbfucks refused to have their seat belts on.
™ Version 4.2
