Posted on 05/05/2006 6:11:02 AM PDT by BerniesFriend
Bill would ban people from smoking while children in the car
BATON ROUGE, La. -- Parents would have to stub out their cigarettes while their kids are in the car, under a bill headed to the Senate for debate.
The bill would prohibit anyone from lighting up a cigarette, cigar or pipe in a vehicle while a child required to be in a booster seat or car seat is riding along _ a child up to 60 pounds, or up to about eight years old.
The House approved the bill in a 66-31 vote.
Rep. Gary Smith, D-Norco, said he introduced the measure because he wants to prevent health problems that children can have from second hand smoke inhalation. He said children don't get a choice in whose cars they ride.
"I'm just trying to protect those who cannot protect themselves," he said.
Rep. Carla Dartez, D-Morgan City, said the bill infringes upon parents' rights to raise their children.
"I just think you're going a little too far in this Legislature when we can't allow parents of their own children to take care of their own children," she said.
___
House Bill 1010 can be found at http://www.legis.state.la.us
I think Katrina showed the politicians of Louisiana are not the smartest on the proverbial block.
These are the same people who sat back and argued while thousands of their constituents were maimed and killed.
Then these same idiots had the gall to go crying to the public and blame the president for their stupidity and graft.
All ready the politicians are proving that they can not be trusted with public money.
Before this is over lots of good ole boys (Democrats) will get rich off the backs of the poor black plantation dwellers.
No, it wasn't. This, OTOH:
The junkies are so hooked on their addiction, they don't care if they hurt their kids, so long as they get their fix.
....is a fine example of a stupid statement.
"Or maybe if the parent feeds the kid poison? Oh, wanting to help the kid is just emotionalism. The Legislature has other things to do"
I believe that is already illegal.
Last I checked, poisoning was murder.
The difference, of course, being that there is absolutely no benefit to the child derived from the junkie filling his lungs around the kid. So the increase in the risk of harm of an activity with beneficial aspects to it is irrelevant to this question.
In addition, explain how the rates of asthma and allergies in children have increased as the smoking rates decrease. Based on that correlation alone, then not smoking around children increases their risk of contracting harmful life long health problems.
That's the dumbest, most ignorant, illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement I've read on FreeRepublic in a while. Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy. I mean, you have to be REALLY stupid not to see the fallacy in that statement. (Here's a hint: if other causes of allergies and asthma increase at a greater rate than the rate of smoking decreases, do you think the rate of allergies and asthma would increase, decrease, or remain the same?)
is it just me or does all the politicians in Louisiana seem to have a 'D' by their name?
We could be related.....
Did you know that if you move to Louisiana and go to register your cars, the state of Louisiana requires you to pay the sales tax on your cars AGAIN to them? I'm still in shock over that news!
Oh, oh, catch that buzz, love is the drug, I'm thinking of... Roxy Music
"All the child-rapist parents are cheering for more people like you in this world..."
Yeeeeeeeeeesssssssss!!!! You are learning. I didn't think anyone could inspire me like ray does, but, here you are.
YOU ARE GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!!!!!!!!
"....being that there is absolutely no benefit to the child derived..."
So, you want to limit allowable behaviour to those that have measurable benefits? Who gets to do the measuring, or who gets to define benefit?
"Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy."
Nice admission that using correlation to push a platform is not appropriate. Now, how do you explain your use of correllations to push government control of parental activity?
Actually, I saw a tv program where this action was pending. The school's physician, nurse and coach were irate that the parents of the child were not adhering to the diet and exercise regimen they recommended for the child. They turned the parents over to CPS for neglect.
Both my parents smoked when I was a kid, and I loved the smell of cigarette smoke.
"That's the dumbest, most ignorant, illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement I've read on FreeRepublic in a while. Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy."
A#%WNDHC6734HJWCJ""""@@$^GUDBICH8SVE85423I5943JT9FG.
rIGHT-ON BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello, Madame. It's another beautiful day in anti-land, isn't it?
I am not at all in disagreement with you. I wasn't saying I thought it was good law. Just good sense. On the other hand, prohibiting smoking in a barroom is senseless to me.
Look at his acolytes who've appeared on this thread.
Who wouldn't want to be just like them??!!
If I can improve my life to be only 1/10th as virtuous as Raycpa and WildHorseCrash, why then the loss of personal freedoms is a small price to pay.
For the children.
As for me, I'd rather my kids not be in a smoke-filled car or bar. I'll take my chances with video games warping their minds.
I love the smell of hysteria in the morning.
Funny, but Eric and Dylan were big into gross video games.
You are 100% correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.