[nky]

I agree, but I take it one step further! In the true spirit of government, let's ban Tobacco of all sorts. It's bad for you, so ban it. Then Alcohol, let's ban that too. Since drivers between the ages of 16-20 die in more accidents than any other age, can we please change the legal age of driving to 21. Since the age varies at so many levels for what is considered an adult, can we please have enactment of 21 as the age of being legally an adult, and require anything with an age requirement to be pushed to this age. Since cell phones cause so much injury, can we make it illegal to carry a turned on cell phone when performing anything that could cause injury to another person -such as the open container law, if the phone is on, it's considered "Open", and the law carries all the way into public places, such as you cannot walk down the street with an open container, you cannot walk down the street with a cell phone "on". Let us please create laws for all of life.

unfortunately prohibition doesn't work

[Wildcatk23]

I agree, but I take it one step further! In the true spirit of government, let's ban Tobacco of all sorts. It's bad for you, so ban it. Then Alcohol, let's ban that too. Since drivers between the ages of 16-20 die in more accidents than any other age, can we please change the legal age of driving to 21. Since the age varies at so many levels for what is considered an adult, can we please have enactment of 21 as the age of being legally an adult, and require anything with an age requirement to be pushed to this age. Since cell phones cause so much injury, can we make it illegal to carry a turned on cell phone when performing anything that could cause injury to another person -such as the open container law, if the phone is on, it's considered "Open", and the law carries all the way into public places, such as you cannot walk down the street with an open container, you cannot walk down the street with a cell phone "on". Let us please create laws for all of life.

Your Right, We should allow people to sell drugs, free the use of cocaine, meth and other abusive drugs. Why have laws at all? Lets let the kids kill themself instead of their parents. Thats a much better idea!

[nky]

Your Right, We should allow people to sell drugs, free the use of cocaine, meths and other abusive drugs. Why have laws at all? Lets let the kids kill themselves instead of their parents. That's a much better idea!

Libertarianism at it's best

[Hoot Gibson]

Your Right, We should allow people to sell drugs, free the use of cocaine, meth and other abusive drugs. Why have laws at all? Lets let the kids kill themself instead of their parents. Thats a much better idea!

Think about how many people die or are injured in this world everyday because of violence associated with the illegal drug trade. I am very skeptical that even more people would die if our government just admitted defeat in the drug wars, repealed prohibition of drug use by adults, and spent the money that would be saved to convict and incarcerate violent criminals instead.

As for those (few, IMO) adults who would take advantage of legal drugs and lower prices that legalization would bring and die of overdoses - good riddance. Their loss would make more room for a productive member of society.

Adult Americans deserve the freedom of previous generations and the responsibilities that come with it. The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and it is time to seriously consider changing our approach. Our laws should protect us against harm from each other, not from our own stupidity.

[Wildcatk23]

Think about how many people die or are injured in this world everyday because of violence associated with the illegal drug trade. I am very skeptical that even more people would die if our government just admitted defeat in the drug wars, repealed prohibition of drug use by adults, and spent the money that would be saved to convict and incarcerate violent criminals instead.

As for those (few, IMO) adults who would take advantage of legal drugs and lower prices that legalization would bring and die of overdoses - good riddance. Their loss would make more room for a productive member of society.

Adult Americans deserve the freedom of previous generations and the responsibilities that come with it. The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and it is time to seriously consider changing our approach. Our laws should protect us against harm from each other, not from our own stupidity.

But someone else's stupidity usually leads to a Productive member of societies death.

[Wildcatk23]

Libertarianism at it's best

I believe that people should have enough common sense to live the life they want to. But when it harms others then something should be done. If someone wants to drink, so be it, Drink your tail off. You get in a vehicle and endanger mine or your family, go to jail.

[Hoot Gibson]

But someone else's stupidity usually leads to a Productive member of societies death.

Right now, productive members of society are being killed everyday during robberies committed by junkies financing the high cost of their habit. Thousands die every year in this country with thousands of laws and regulations on the books prohibiting the use of cocaine, marijuana, etc. Few people who want to use drugs are dissuaded from doing so because of existing laws.

There is really no evidence that even more would die if the drug trade was made less profitable for the importers and dealers. Currently, government is assisting the drug traffickers by keeping prices high through restrictions on supply.

As for stupidity, it kills more stupid people than smarter by standers. It's the law of natural selection, which is one law that does not need to be repealed, IMO. :biggrin:

[jetpilot]

Just what we need. A politician once found passed out drunk behind the wheel of a car on the shoulder of a public highway who escaped a DUI charge because of his political clout dictating how Kentuckians must raise their children.

I would rather see Stumbo sponsor a bill outlawing dishonest politicians and then retire to set an example for others like him to follow.

Exactly...Stumbo is an idiot. I have no clue how in the world these politicians convince themselves they are smarter than everyone else.

[TheRealVille]

Just what we need. A politician once found passed out drunk behind the wheel of a car on the shoulder of a public highway who escaped a DUI charge because of his political clout dictating how Kentuckians must raise their children.

I would rather see Stumbo sponsor a bill outlawing dishonest politicians and then retire to set an example for others like him to follow.

I'm wondering if he had the keys out of the ignition when they found him? If he did, they couldn't get him for DUI. I'm not debating or arguing for him, I was just wondering if he decided he was too drunk to drive and pulled off and took the keys out. If he did, he was 100% legal.

As to the topic, I'm with the crowd saying that if people don't have enough sense to self police, somebody needs to step in. Smoking with defenseless kids in the car is a problem, I see it everyday.

[OrangenowBlue]

The law concerning smoking is going to far although I do blame arrogance by smokers as part of the reason for all the anti-smoking laws. Greg Stumbo has been a Hypocritical crook for many years, just like Elliot Spitzer and all those Republicans who tried to impeach Bill Clinton while they were going out at night and banging their mistresses, misters, and their teenage male interns.

[Stardust]

I believe that people should have enough common sense to live the life they want to. But when it harms others then something should be done. If someone wants to drink, so be it, Drink your tail off. You get in a vehicle and endanger mine or your family, go to jail.

So, doing ANYTHING in life that COULD cause harm to another, should be regulated? Anything???? There either has to be a yes or no to this, there is no grey, right? I'll be interested to hear your one word response.

[SKINNYPIG]

How many of you people HONESTLY believe that this law will stop any of these folks from smoking in their cars (with their kid)? Don't be stupid!

[Stardust]

How many of you people HONESTLY believe that this law will stop any of these folks from smoking in their cars (with their kid)? Don't be stupid!

Since it's a Stupid Law, it won't stop anyone!

[nky]

How many of you people HONESTLY believe that this law will stop any of these folks from smoking in their cars (with their kid)? Don't be stupid!

exactly it's an enforcement issue

[Stardust]

^ Well it has stopped texting and driving!

[Hoot Gibson]

^ Well it has stopped texting and driving!

If you are texting, you cannot be watching for police cars at the same time. Smoking does not require much thinking, so it is possible to smoke, see a police car, and lower your cigarette to below window-level - all while not taking your eyes off the road.

This proposed law will do nothing to curb smoking in cars. The second enforcement step will be for the nanny staters to argue that the $25-$50 fines are too low to deter smokers.

That is the problem with these kind of laws. When they do not produce the results that were promised, then liberals just argue that the fine is too low, the program is "under-funded," etc. Bad laws that do not work and would cost more to enforce than they are worth are rarely repealed.

Liberals think that if a little more government does not solve a problem, then a little more government surely will. It is a vicious, non-ending cycle.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Im anxious to see how police officers are going to enforce the texting bill.
First off lets say you get pulled over for texting and were but you deny it and say you had something else in your hand, like a cup getting something to drink.
The cop cannot force you to give him your cell phone so that he can see if you texted. First off, thats an invasion of privacy and secondly he would need a warrant. While that warrant was coming, or while you were in the process of being pulled over, you could delete all text.
I just dont see how its possible, all you would have to do then is take a cell phone report into the courtroom and show the judge you did not text at a certain time by simply using records off of a different cell phone under your name and matching up the times.

[Hoot Gibson]

Im anxious to see how police officers are going to enforce the texting bill.
First off lets say you get pulled over for texting and were but you deny it and say you had something else in your hand, like a cup getting something to drink.
The cop cannot force you to give him your cell phone so that he can see if you texted. First off, thats an invasion of privacy and secondly he would need a warrant. While that warrant was coming, or while you were in the process of being pulled over, you could delete all text.
I just dont see how its possible, all you would have to do then is take a cell phone report into the courtroom and show the judge you did not text at a certain time by simply using records off of a different cell phone under your name and matching up the times.

I agree with everything that you said but somebody would have to be an absolute moron to commit perjury to avoid paying a small fine for texting. It is possible to prove which phone you were using at the time your were pulled over. Not cost effective for the state but it is definitely possible and I would not want to take a chance on becoming their example by lying under oath.

[goscots56]

I agree that it might not be good to smoke with a child in the car....but ****...at what point are we going to be able to do anything in this counry?

[Wildcatk23]

So, doing ANYTHING in life that COULD cause harm to another, should be regulated? Anything???? There either has to be a yes or no to this, there is no grey, right? I'll be interested to hear your one word response.

You can't respond to this by just one word. And you know it. Smoking in a car just doesn't cause harm. It causes cancer. This would be considered murder right?

[LWC]

To sum this up: Good idea, but unenforcable.

I really do wish that smoking could be banned, but it would never work. The government will never do it because prohibition didn't work and because it is a sin-tax, and the government makes a pretty penny off of them.

[nky]

You can't respond to this by just one word. And you know it. Smoking in a car just doesn't cause harm. It causes cancer. This would be considered murder right?

In a state that permits minors to get an abortion without their parents knowledge, Isn't using the term "murder" a little over the top?

[Wildcatk23]

In a state that permits minors to get an abortion without their parents knowledge, Isn't using the term "murder" a little over the top?

Abortion is murder, And so is giving your kids Cancer,

[nky]

Abortion is murder, And so is giving your kids Cancer,

Smoking in a car isn't 100% effective on giving you child cancer, Abortion is 100% effective in ending an innocent life

[Wildcatk23]

Smoking in a car isn't 100% effective on giving you child cancer, Abortion is 100% effective in ending an innocent life

I'm not saying one is better than the other. Abortion is fatal. But do you want to risk your childs life just for a puff of cancer?

[nky]

I'm not saying one is better than the other. Abortion is fatal. But do you want to risk your child's life just for a puff of cancer?

Personally I don't but I think the government should be passing laws that are not enforceable

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm not saying one is better than the other. Abortion is fatal. But do you want to risk your childs life just for a puff of cancer?

It is irresponsible and selfish to smoke in enclosed spaces with any non-smoker, let alone one's own child. But do you know anybody who knows anybody who was subjected to second hand smoke only, never smoked themselves and yet contracted lung cancer? I cannot think of a single person myself.

The risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke is wildly exaggerated at best. Very few non-smokers will ever contract lung cancer and of those few who do, genes likely play a bigger role than second hand smoke. And of those few deaths that are attributed to second hand smoke, I wonder how many former smokers have been included in the studies. A smoker who kicks the habit reduces his risk of lung cancer but the risk remains much higher than for a life-long non-smoker.

[OrangenowBlue]

The only law I wish they would enforce on smokers is criminal littering for throwing those annoying cigarette butts on the ground. It looks awful. They blame it on having to smoke outside in many places but they have actually always done it so it is a lame excuse. You drive down the road and have a lit cigarette bounce off your windshield. The lack of respect by smokers with incidents like this and blowing smoke and leaving lit cigarettes in ashtrays has contributed to them being ostrasized. Laws for smoking in cars is useless and dumb. I think businesses should decide if they would allow smoking or not. I do believe that government buildings and medical facilities that everyone uses should be smoke free.

[Wildcatk23]

Personally I don't but I think the government should be passing laws that are not enforceable

I said myself it would be very difficult to enforce. But i like the idea.

[Wildcatk23]

It is irresponsible and selfish to smoke in enclosed spaces with any non-smoker, let alone one's own child. But do you know anybody who knows anybody who was subjected to second hand smoke only, never smoked themselves and yet contracted lung cancer? I cannot think of a single person myself.

The risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke is wildly exaggerated at best. Very few non-smokers will ever contract lung cancer and of those few who do, genes likely play a bigger role than second hand smoke. And of those few deaths that are attributed to second hand smoke, I wonder how many former smokers have been included in the studies. A smoker who kicks the habit reduces his risk of lung cancer but the risk remains much higher than for a life-long non-smoker.

Don't believe i know any, but then again ive never seen kangaroo, but im sure its real.