Smoking in a vehicle where a child under 17 is present would be illegal under a bill filed by House Speaker Greg Stumbo.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lexington Herald-Leader.
#29 Jan 12, 2011
Smoke smoke smoke that cigirette, smoke smoke smoke until you smoke yourself to death.
#30 Jan 12, 2011
You must eat to live, you only smoke to die.
#31 Jan 12, 2011
Hitler was a vegetarian he abhorred meat. So you must be a Nazi, how many Jews have you killed Nazi?
How about this why donít you take your so-called freedom and Goose Step right down to the nearest concentration camp where sadistic people like you enjoy seeing helpless children tortured.
You make me sick.
Just so we can get things straight. Hitler was a Socialist, Mussolini was a Fascist and Stalin was a communist. Amazingly enough Roosevelt was a socialist as well who fought fellow socialist Hitler in defense of communist Stalin.
"Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate personal health .... "'It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke"
#32 Jan 12, 2011
Letís examine your form of argumentation. You give no theories whatsoever as to the benefits of smoking in an automobile while infants are present.
Instead you point out that something else is bad. I believe in the online world that is what is referred to as a red herring, when a person has nothing to say but wants to be heard anyway.
So by your logic, if a murder and a thief lived on the same block and the police arrested the murder and not the thief then since the thief wasnít arrested the police should allow the murder to go free.
Do you see how your logic appears when put in perspective?
#33 Jan 12, 2011
ROLMAO! I love a good steak you fool, I simply can't stand self righteous hypocrites who hammers others lifestyle choices when they feed their children things that are known to cause cancer. That is simply the epitome of hypocrisy. Good lord you are a moron.
I'm not the one using children to push hate of a politically unpopular minority group. That accusation fits your pathetic propaganda to a tee. Anyone who uses children to push their agenda of hate and control deserves nothing but contempt...particularly when they willingly and knowingly feed their own children things that are known to cause cancers in HUGE numbers.
The only goose stepping going on here are those who push the master anti-smokers propaganda of hate and control while using children in the process, so take a good look in the mirror.
I'm not the one using children to push my hate...once again look in the mirror.
Hitler was a Fascist by virtually any definition, but at least we agree that FDR was a socialist and he did much to harm this nation.
You mean your strawmen...yes...it has gone up in flames.
Yep, Hitler was a fanatical health nut, and he also pushed a fanatical anti-smoking agenda that is virtually identical to what we are now witnessing in our nation.
Here's an excellent article from the Anti-Defamation league that describes his tactics of demonization that your kind is now using in our nation.
The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."
First they came for the smokers...
#34 Jan 12, 2011
You have to eat things that are known to cause cancer to live?
Where on earth did you learn logic from?
You meat heads really hate having the tables turned on you...don't you.
Tell us...what kind of person uses children to push their hate of a minority group, who then willingly and knowingly feeds their own children things that are known to cause LUNG and many other cancers in HUGE numbers when healthier choices are readily available?
There is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
#35 Jan 12, 2011
I never claimed there were any benefits, so why would I theorize such? I simply can't stand people who use children to push their political agenda on a minority....especially when the do far worse to their own children.
Pointing out extreme hypocrisy is no red herring. Claiming that pointing hypocrisy is a red herring is hypocritical beyond belief and is in fact a poorly constructed strawman.
Oh brother, it more like you are a thief who thinks what they are doing is OK, and then you point fingers at other thieves.
In a fair and just world that was not built upon hypocrisy both would be arrested if both criminals were equally accessible. What person in their right mind would allow any dangerous criminal off the hook because another was caught? That was another poorly constructed strawman.
You are the one advocating allowing the thief to go free because you only pick on one and not the other.
In my world all should be treated equally, and keep in mind I'm not the one trying to remove rights from anyone and you are.
It is your side that picks and chooses which carcinogen they hate, and since the carcinogen they enjoy is basically the same as the carcinogen they attack, it simply proves they are a bunch of hypocritical fools.
I guess you could point the casual reader to a thread where you have been advocating removing rights from those who feed their children things that are known to cause cancer, but I already know you have a special minority that you pick on because you are more than likely guilty of poisoning your own.
Prove me wrong on this by giving us a link that shows otherwise.
Yes, I see my logic is far superior to yours. You wish to keep your carcinogen because you enjoy it, and you wish to apply a different standard to a carcinogen you don't like.
Let's test this shall we?
Would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculously hypocritical standard of "no safe level" to all carcinogens...or only to those you don't like?
Just what other forms of smoke qualify for the "special" standard of no safe level"? How about a list of the top 10?
If you fail to produce such a list, it will simply prove once and for all that your position is built on shear hypocrisy and blatant exaggerations.
#36 Jan 12, 2011
You really do hate it when I prove you self righteous fanatics are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites...don't you Candid.
Now why don't you be a good little health Fascist and go find some salt lovers or trans fat junkies to demonize and hassle?
Come to think of it...you really should be on the "Ban the Happy Meal" discussion board as that fits your MO to a tee.
You are always using children to push your fascistic bigotry and desperate need to control others.
#37 Jan 12, 2011
Smoking is far healthier than Fascism.
This is from the British Medical Journal.
After the war Germany lost its position as home to the world's most aggressive anti-tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti-tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced.
Karl Aster, head of Jena's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.
Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti-tobacco activist,committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme.
Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as "the greatest enemy of the people's health" and "the number one drag on the German economy"(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years, after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again returning to public service.
Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, the guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity.
It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement.
The chain smoker:'You don't smoke it « it smokes you!" (from Reine Luft, 1941)
First they came for the smokers...
#38 Jan 12, 2011
Explain how I am a fool or moron; I make some of the most lucid posts on this section of Topix.
You spend 2 posts championing the evils of red meat then you think people are stupid because you love steak?
Perhaps it is you that needs to understand how to make sarcastic point more clearly.
Do you know another minority group? Child abusers, the ones that take sadistic joy in beating children black and blue.
I will look at your logic for a minute. You know what I despise (aside from criminals and drugs), is people that abuse their children. Not someone that gives a child a stout whipping when it does something bad but people that burn children with cigarettes or beat them with a frying pan.
I have seen a lot of that and I volunteered for causes that helped prevent child abuse. The one thing I never figured out is how I could further the cause without using children as my motivational point.
According to you if I used children as a motivational point against child abuse my argument is negated completely.
Just curious, was every single thing Hitler did wrong? Exposing the evils of smoking and the importance of a good healthy diet were two of his overlooked main points as you so willingly point out. So because he did this then the rest of us shouldnít.
You have yet to explain the benefits of strapping an infant in an enclosed environment and forcing them to breath in second hand smoke from 1-3 other people.
You use quotes from a Jewish organization that describes their greatest enemy in the last thousand years. I have not looked at it but I wouldnít count them to be 100% unbiased.
#39 Jan 12, 2011
Do you have any idea what they did to war criminals? Let me assure they didnít put them in a cell and give them H.B.O. What does a war criminal committing suicide instead of facing a horrific punishment none of us can imagine have to do with the effects of smoking?
This guy spent years sterilizing people, do you think they were going to give him a Coke and a smile? He was in for some serious torture for the rest of his short life.
They were about to get medieval on him and he chose the most logical way out.
Did you know the A.D.L is one of the largest lobby groups in Washington today? They are not the good guys looking out for our best interest.
Special Interest groups donít look out for the common good that is why they are Special Interest groups instead of good for all people groups.
If what they were doing was good they wouldnít have to spend BILLIONS of dollars to buy politicians to back their nefarious schemes.
You donít have to spend 25 Billion dollars to convince people what you are doing is a good thing if it is indeed a good thing.
Oh FYI you still make me sick, just more so than before.
Since: Jun 08
#45 Jan 13, 2011
Good articles,i applaud you.I dont understand either the benefits of forcing kids to breathe secondhand smoke in a car either,i've seen it before.Smokers dont care about their health,but they should at least refrain from that nasty smoking around their kids.It also sets a very bad example for them,seeing their parent(s) smoking,they're likely to pick up that filthy disgusting habit.I always wondered why smokers cracked the window for,if they love the smell of cigarettes.Stop flipping your butts out the car window,lazy bums.
#46 Jan 13, 2011
Dude...you posts are filled with non sequiturs and strawmen. I suppose one could claim that is lucid, but anyone with an ounce of logic see's right through your non-sense.
Just because you lack the ability to comprehend sarcasm does not mean everyone is as thick as you. I was not demanding red and processed meat be restricted or even demonized for that matter, I was simply pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of those who apply HUGE double standards. Try to remember that I'm not the one trying to remove rights from anyone, and you are.
And what on earth does that non sequitur have to do with anything I posted? Good Lord man...get a grip.
What person in their right mind would defend beating a kid senseless or intentionally burning them? Is this bit of common sense supposed to impress anyone? What is disgusting however are those who claim others harm their children and then willing feed their own known carcinogens. Those people deserve extra scorn.
Your kinds arguement is negated because you apply one standard to things you like, and another to things you hate...all while using children to push your hate of a minority. Does this really go over your head?
Asking people to eat healthy is one thing, demanding it by law is another. The autobahn will never attempt to remove rights from a minority. Audio tape will never seek to remove the right of freedom of association. His beloved smoking bans and yours as well remove rights. Does this actually go over your head as well? Sheesh!
There you go again using children to push your agenda while ignoring what I already posted. I never claimed there was any benefit, so why on earth do you keep mentioning this silly strawman?
Might I suggest you go to the ADL website and then address what I posted? What I posted was historical fact, so it is up to you to point our where I am wrong. Face it, the Nazi's passed Fascistic bans that are virtually identicle to what you are pushing today. This is simply a fact, or do you deny this?
Next time try to lay off the non sequiturs and strawmen and try to take a position that is intelligible.
#47 Jan 13, 2011
You must be joking...right? The Fascists I pointed out were all leaders of the fanatical anti-smoking movement in the 3rd Reich for Pete's sake. They were fanatics who held a similar view of smoking that you hold. They also felt the individual came behind the collective as they places the states rights above individual rights...just as your kind does. They also used children to push their agenda of hate and control, just as your kind is doing right now. How can you be so blind?
Once again, we are dealing with a left wing philosophy that places the rights of the collective above the rights of the individual. This is a common trait among all Statists, and you share a common thread with this ideology. You are a collectivist, and so were those who demonized tobacco under the 3rd Reich. In the end...look what the end results were you Fascistic fool.
Aaahhh. I see you are not only a fascistic collectivist that has no respect for the rights of the individual, you have anti-semitic tendencies as well. Please tell us about these "nefarious schemes" that you now accuse the jews of. You make it obvious that you have much in common with the 3rd Reich and how they saw life in general.
Coming from one who hammers the ADL and claims the Jews have "nefarious schemes" up their sleeves, that really hurts.
Let's see, you use children to push your hate, you are a left wing collectivist, and you accuse the Jews of having an evil plan.
History knows your kind.
#48 Jan 13, 2011
I do not find myself agreeing with Stumbo much on policy. But here I support this purposed legislation 100%. It is not "if" smoking or second hand smoke will kill one it is only "when".
#49 Jan 13, 2011
Your mythness, say it ain't so.
#50 Jan 13, 2011
Also, all I mean all smokers quite before they die if no stricken by a heart attack. My sister easily quite about six month before she died. Smokers, by most part are like dope dealers, one can not find many old dope dealers, they are either shot, or in prison. The old dope dealers usually will not partake of their own posion (the big time one)but peddle to others so they can die or go to jail.
#51 Jan 13, 2011
First off, it has never been proven that SHS has killed anyone. To prove me wrong all you have to do is name a few names. That should be easy if it supposedly kills thousands every year... eh?
All your side has are manipulated statistics that completely ignore HUGE counfounders. You are the victim of exaggerated propaganda, just as the global warming fanatics have convinced so many of the gullible. See how that so called "settled science" is working out for those fools these days? Those fanatics have egg all over their faces, and the tobacco cult is really no different.
Did you know the that the vast majority of the so called "studies" that supposedly prove the terrible dangers of SHS never included confounders that are well known today? Tell us, what use are studies that leave out HUGE counfounders that are common to the vast majority of the population? I'll tell you how useful they are...they are nothing but worthless scrap that should be relegated to the dustbin of bad science history.
Am I saying that it is impossible for SHS to kill? No, just that it is highly unlikely and the so called dangers are completely overblown by ridiculous proportions.
Let us see how consistent you are, or if you are selective in your approach to this issue... like most on your side are.
Those who you side with make the preposterous claim that there is "no safe level" of tobacco smoke which flys in the face of known science such as the first rule of toxicology for goodness sake.
This standard is not based on science at all, but is instead the product of a religious ferver that needs to sensationalize to fool the masses. Basically what you have are a bunch of religious nuts who claim science is on their side, when they abuse even the most basics of science itself.
Allow me to easily demonstrate this...
Just what other forms of smoke qualify for the "magical" standard of "no safe level"? Can you name even one? How about the top ten? Can't find any? How on earth is that possible when some forms of smoke can kill in minutes?
Google to your hearts content and all you will find is tobacco smoke listed as such. Weird eh? Not really if you understand where this ridiculous standard came from. It is the statement of fanatics who treat science like a religion.
Now tell us...would you be willing to apply your sides ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens, or only to those you do not like or find useful?
There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody who abuses science to push an agenda...all while applying a HUGE set of double standards...eh?
#52 Jan 13, 2011
There was a study reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal assessing the effects of second hand smoke in cars carrying children.
The authors reported "The evidence does not show an absolute risk threshold because a range of environmental, biological and social factors contribute to the risk equation." They said the health impact is hard to determine due to all the different chemicals and toxins a person is exposed to in their lifetime.
The authors did however state there is a significant health risk because 1. exposure to smoking in cars is still commonplace 2. children are particularly susceptible 3. children are open to further contamination if their parents are smokers.
After stating the evidence does not show an absolute risk threshold, the authors went on to say the evidence shows "conditional truths" and further say "policy based on science and evidence has to exist amid uncertainty and this is 'managed' by acknowledging the contingencies".
Did they say they couldn't prove it but it must be true?
Since: Jun 08
#53 Jan 13, 2011
What does all this nonsense have to do with an individual wanting to pass a ban against smoking in cars with kids?If you truly love and care for you children,than dont smoke anywhere around them,which is a nobrainer.Than they can turn around and take care of you when your older from heart disease,stroke and several other smoking related diseases.When i was a kid,my dad would smoke in the car when we went on family road trips.With the windows up or down,you can still smell and inhale those noxious fumes.This same man(dad) who said cigarettes were his "friend" had a stroke and his lungs are ruined from decades of smoking.In regards to all this mumbo jumbo that you type,you still set a bad example when you smoke around your kids,who watch everything you say and do.Every relative i had or have who smokes has had heart attacks,stroke,carotid surgery,lung cancer,among other ills.Stop spewing your junk to people who care about themselves.Im pretty sure if my father had never smoked,he would be a lot better today.One last thing,when we were on a vacation recently,we were in an antique shop where the owner was the same age as my dad,and looked great.Guess what?He dont SMOKE,lol.The habits when your young,can affect you when your older,is my point.This man runs a business and my dad is in a nursing home.
Add your comments below
|Bullitt Co. Sheriff says he doesn't have enough...||1 hr||concerned||5|
|Last Post Wins (Mar '11)||1 hr||San Antonio Texas||8,184|
|Labcorp-Shelly L W||1 hr||Paul||2|
|BHHS-The Miller Team||2 hr||Tay||1|
|Ford's pre-employment test (Aug '11)||4 hr||Bobnar||151|
|The Louisville Scandal and the Need to Look in ...||5 hr||Fart news||23|
|Justin Lewis (Nov '12)||6 hr||honest one||6|
Find what you want!
Search Louisville Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC