California bans smoking in cars with minors

[oatmeal fetish....]

Jesus christ.

" SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.
ADVERTISEMENT

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.

The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.

A Harvard School of Public Health report issued last year said secondhand smoke in cars can be up to 10 times more of a health risk than secondhand smoke in a home.

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."

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."

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

I'll move this to debate if anyone thinks this isn't absolutely ridiculous.

[oatmeal fetish....]

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. 

Fuck you.

[Rhino......................]

I read a study somewhere that yelling at your kids in cars can be up to 10 times more harmful to their mental stability than yelling at them in a gymnasium or aviary. Everyone sign my petition to ban yelling. It's time people learned that it's the government's responsibility to decide how we can raise our kids.

[Violent Unrest in Allentown]

"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. 

Our nation's top priorities also include preserving democracy, spreading liberty, fighting racism and protecting the American way. VOTE FOR ME VOTE FOR ME VOTE FOR ME

[The Ocean]

That's good ol' fashioned fascism.

[TemporalRift]

When the fuck will people get it into their heads that it's the job of the parents to regulate what their children are exposed to. If you want government to "Protect" your children you don't deserve to be a parent

[Larry Flyntz]

When the fuck will people get it into their heads that it's the job of the parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.

I'm not defending this law, but it's important that we constantly remind ourselves that a lot of people are morons and have no business being parents in the first place.

[oatmeal fetish....]

When the fuck will people get it into their heads that it's the job of the parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.

I'm not defending this law, but it's important that we constantly remind ourselves that a lot of people are morons and have no business being parents in the first place.

I seem to remember a certain debate regarding the requirement of a liscense to have children DO YOU CARE TO MAYBE JOIN THE DARK SIDE HAHAHAHAH

[Larry Flyntz]

I think I will, actually. I've gotten a lot less "everyone should be free to do whatever they want"-ish over the past few years.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

When the fuck will people get it into their heads that it's the job of the parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.

I'm not defending this law, but it's important that we constantly remind ourselves that a lot of people are morons and have no business being parents in the first place.

I seem to remember a certain debate regarding the requirement of a liscense to have children DO YOU CARE TO MAYBE JOIN THE DARK SIDE HAHAHAHAH

If parents need licenses, then your smug sci-fi professor was right about the future. Thus: Big Brother is coming.

[Larry Flyntz]

I don't know if Big Brother is really such a bad idea. Certainly it can be taken in the wrong direction, but the general concept of limiting freedoms (or perhaps simply changing our notion of freedom) for the sake of improving the human race doesn't seem inherently flawed.

[Rhino......................]

I don't know if Big Brother is really such a bad idea. Certainly it can be taken in the wrong direction, but the general concept of limiting freedoms (or perhaps simply changing our notion of freedom) for the sake of improving the human race doesn't seem inherently flawed.

This is a fakepost, right?

[oatmeal fetish....]

I don't know if Big Brother is really such a bad idea. Certainly it can be taken in the wrong direction, but the general concept of limiting freedoms (or perhaps simply changing our notion of freedom) for the sake of improving the human race doesn't seem inherently flawed.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I don't know if Big Brother is really such a bad idea. Certainly it can be taken in the wrong direction, but the general concept of limiting freedoms (or perhaps simply changing our notion of freedom) for the sake of improving the human race doesn't seem inherently flawed.

Hmmmmm....Is this fake? Did the guy who gave you your first swastika tattoo tell you this?

[CadmiumYellow]

flyntz if you're not careful you will one day wake up a DICTATOR !

[The Ocean]

I don't know if Big Brother is really such a bad idea. Certainly it can be taken in the wrong direction, but the general concept of limiting freedoms (or perhaps simply changing our notion of freedom) for the sake of improving the human race doesn't seem inherently flawed.

If you're in charge, sure.

[Larry Flyntz]

I wasn't joking, but perhaps I should've explained a bit more. The whole basis for egalitarianism/liberalism/democracy is a very very "low" understanding of humanity. It understands humans as beings that simply want to stay alive. So, we forged liberal societies in order to allow each other and ourselves that luxury. We don't mess with each other's business because apparently it's none of our own and minding our business is a good way to keep the peace. But is keeping the peace really the ultimate human good? Humans, by nature of being humans, are capable of many great things, but the "whatever" attitude that everyone seems to have doesn't quite inspire that greatness. I'm not at all saying that we should craft a master race or stifle free speech, but I think there are ways that society could be reordered to try to raise our understanding of humanity. Of course, none of them will happen, because such a society couldn't really exist alongside a democracy. Such a society would require things like tests for voting rights and parental rights. But, the point is that we shouldn't just accept that blind egalitarianism is the best thing for humanity. Certainly, people always say "Sure, inegalitarianism is fine if you're in charge!" but I don't think that's a very strong argument against the concept itself. After all, with the right people in charge, it might not be bad at all. Again, people will say "yeah, for you!" But, that in itself assumes that egalitarianism is right. It assumes that the hypothetically oppressed people and those who rule are "equal," and that may not be true. I think a blind acceptance that "all people are equal" is bad for humanity. I think that there are such things as good and bad people, and our political system should reflect that.

In other words, I'm not a Nazi. I just think our society can do a better job of creating good people.

[Rhino......................]

Hahaha. Okay, so explain to me how we distinguish between the good and bad people.

[Larry Flyntz]

I don't necessarily mean good and bad in the moral sense. We make those distinctions all the time. I mean good in the sense of living up to what it means to be human. So, first we try to figure out what it means to be human and what the highest human life would look like. One might argue that the use and perfection of reason is what it means to be human, and the highest human life might look like that of Socrates. In brief, we think about it. People seem so scared to think about and judge different ways of life, as if there were no basis for determining which one is objectively better than another.

The question isn't easy, and we may never reach a satisfactory answer, but that doesn't discredit the act of asking it in itself. Even though perfection may never be achieved, that doesn't mean that striving for it is wrong.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

People seem so scared to think about and judge different ways of life, as if there were no basis for determining which one is objectively better than another.

We actually talked about this in my AP Psychology class my senior year of high school. It was really interesting. We were talking about different societies, and the general accepted idea in this country is that even if we don't understand different societies it doesn't make them wrong. And everyone was pretty much like "Well yeah, I mean just because their customs are different doesn't mean its bad." And then my teacher was like "Actually that's bullshit. We are totally in a position where morally we SHOULD judge other societies because sometimes they ARE bad and people are intelligent enough to know the difference." I tend to agree.