Wouldn’t you know that a Democrat would propose this? They have nothing better to do with their time. Big Brother is watching you at all times. Maybe they will have drones surveying the traffic to see if they can catch a violator.
Ok while I do have issues with police making a habit of ticketing as a measure of self preservation,
This seems like one of those we should actually incorporate.
The effects of smoking around kids are very damaging. The government does exist for a reason. It is even biblical agent. There are many bible quotes stating to submit to your governments, and it is basically spelled out that they are there for your good.
I agree bob, but where would we draw the line? Would vaping instead of actually smoking in a car be illegal too? I know lots of people who started smoking before they were 16…what if the kid was smoking too — would the driver get a pass because 2nd hand smoke obviously isn’t an issue when the kid is smoking themselves?
The kid would be breaking the law if they were a “kid” smoking. I don’t understand this question.
Smoking in a vehicle with a child is something one shouldn’t do.
The line would be drawn with the actual harm. I’m very confused that you sound like agent in your reply. Passing one protective law like this does not lead to laws against vaping, or alternatively, hookah (SP on that one)
June 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Let me try another scenario since you don’t understand.
There’s a car with four 16 year old kids in it, one of which has his/her permit and is legally driving. The 3 passengers are smoking, but the driver is not. The cops pull over the car. What happens next?
a) Does the driver get fined? or
b) Do the smokers get fined?
The article said “Violators…****would not face surcharges or points on their driving or insurance records***”
This implies the driver is liable when his passengers lit up, yet the driver did not contribute to this event at all as it was the passengers who caused the harm.
“I’m very confused that you sound like agent in your reply.”
Don’t be confused. Just try to understand what I’m asking.
“Passing one protective law like this does not lead to laws against vaping, or alternatively, hookah (SP on that one)”
I am not implying that. I am asking what happens when the harm is caused by a passenger, or if the “harm” of second hand smoke would even apply if the 16 year old kid is smoking anyway.
I’m inquiring about parameters of the law and how it will be applied – I am not saying the government wants to take away my right to smoke.
June 9, 2015 at 4:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
I expect that people under 18 would not be charged as adults harming children and there would be some degree of consent considered in the scenario.
If we have 16 year olds driving in a car I’m going to guess this is for a personal choice type of reason as well. The second hand smoke law would be protection for the parent who forces damage onto a child. An adult making a choice to be in a car would be a different story I’m sure.
Also, 16 year olds smoking would be breaking the law for smoking at all. You’re asking if someone would be fined who is breaking the law already. I’m already against someone that young smoking, so in that scenario community service as a punishment would be ok with me for all the kids as well as good for them.
June 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Thank you for your response, bob. I appreciate you taking the time to understand my inquiry, reply accordingly, and us being able to have a civil discussion about this matter. I look forward to more exchanges like this with you, as well as others on this site, in the future.
June 9, 2015 at 4:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agreed Rosenblatt.
This topic seems to have thrown quite a few of us off in expectations.
June 9, 2015 at 2:11 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34
15
Hey Bob, you did realize this was a state issue, not a Federal Government issue, didn’t you? Are you saying that the current Federal Government is doing the right thing for the American people? I could care less what New Jersey does, what they pass, how much they tax or regulate. They are the ones having troubles keeping business in their state, not mine.
If I’m ok with one law it doesn’t mean I’m ok with all government law.
I have vocalized I do not like it when governments harm the people. That is something I probably have not made evident enough when I agree with you. I have said before that I agree with you but for different reasons than Ron thinks. For me, while I believe the government will handle healthcare worse, it is not that I am anti government as to why I don’t like Healthcare being handled by the government. I believe the private system can do better and I am about what is better for the people.
I weigh all laws like that. What is best for the people. Some of our government methods are clearly not for the people, but this is not one of them. This isn’t the same as the tax laws or healthcare laws. All I’m saying is you can be ok with some government without being ok with all government.
June 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
This would also be why I have said I’m ok with a public option and private healthcare.
Like an expanded medicaid type of program, and then private for those who want to pay for it themselves.
I tend to actually be this way quite a bit and I am amazed for all the times I have shown it that it isn’t understood.
June 10, 2015 at 9:55 am
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32
8
Bob, I would much rather the Police ticket a driver for texting while driving than smoking in the car. A responsible parent should know not to smoke in a car with children in it. We don’t need another law passed by a legislature to enforce it.
I would rather the Police not ticket either incident and let us maintain some freedom and liberty. One can just as easily say, a responsible driver should know not to text while driving. We don’t need another law passed by a legislature to enforce it.
June 10, 2015 at 12:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I really don’t understand the difference here in terms of why you want one and not the other.
Are you aware the affects of second hand smoke on children?
Yes, texting and driving causes deaths more often, but I see these both as bad.
Is your issue over inflated ticketing by the police as a revenue stream?
If so, why are you ok with ticketing just one and not the other? Wouldn’t you be against both equally?
If it is about the affect, wouldn’t you be against them both equally?
Why one and not the other? I know I complain about false equivalency a lot, but that is when there are tangible differences.
What is the difference in this scenario?
June 11, 2015 at 10:00 am
Agent says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
27
25
Ron, do you have any common sense at all? Do you realize that texting while driving is totally out of control in every state in the union and is a very serious public safety issue? People are getting killed and maimed daily because of distracted driving with those cells. Cell addicts are like drunks and think they can handle it. They can’t and the statistics keep piling up. Do try to keep your eye on the ball for once in your life.
June 11, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
36
32
Agent,
Since drunk driving laws have not stopped drunk driving, what makes you think laws banning texting and driving will be any difdferent? It is just another “feel-good” law that will have minimal impact.
Allmorelawsdo is create crinimals and allow the government top have more control over our lives. Why are you pro-government?
If laws stopped behavior, we would not have prisons.
June 9, 2015 at 1:40 pm
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
94
66
Agent,
HYPOCRITE!!
How come it is OK to ban cell phone use/texting and driving to protect innocent drivers, but not innocent children from second hand smoke?
I see that bob just handed you your head. Are you going to call him a Socialist since he is for bigger government?
I only made the “handing Agent his head” comment because that what he says when you disagree with me. Just being a smart-ass, which is better than being a dumb-ass (Not mentioning any names).
June 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm
bob says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
1
I will be reasonable especially when someone makes sense.
I am a little thrown for a loop on this one. I am surprised by agent’s response, considering that pot regulation is something I believe he is ok with (though maybe I’m double thrown for a loop and I’m wrong about that) I expected he would actually be ok with this law.
June 10, 2015 at 8:11 am
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55
40
bob,
Agent probably would have been OK with the law if it was propsed by a Republican. Do you agree with me that he displays an unusal level of hypocrisy? After his insistence in labeling me without real evidence, it is his hyopocrisy that bothers me the most.
June 10, 2015 at 11:16 am
Agent says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
51
47
Bob, you have me confused with someone else if you think I am for legalization of pot in any state. I know you are a big enough man to admit you were wrong on that, unlike Socialist Ron who tells you that you handed me my head. What a laugh I got out of that.
By the way Ron, a Republican would not have proposed this bill. Only Progressive Democrats think the issue is important enough to introduce it. Republicans are more about creating jobs and reducing taxes and leave the social issues to the clowns on the Democratic side.
June 10, 2015 at 11:57 am
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
34
32
Agent,
Of course you are against less laws and for more government. And you call me a Progressive Socialist. Look in the mirror.
You said, “a Republican would not have proposed this bill. Only Progressive Democrats think the issue is important enough to introduce it. Republicans are more about creating jobs and reducing taxes and leave the social issues to the clowns on the Democratic side.”
1. How exactly does a law banning texting and driving create jobs and/or reduce taxes?
2. Then why do Republicans try to pass laws that increase the influence of government on the lives of individual citizens? For example, banning abortions, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana. Those are all social issues that they constantly stick their noses into.
June 10, 2015 at 12:24 pm
bob says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
1
Agent,
I said pot regulation, not pot legalization. That’s my point.
I’m not denying pot is bad (from my opinion) but I’m stating that smoke in the presence of kids is worse (from my opinion) and that I expected you would share the opinion that smoking around kids needs to be regulated, just like pot consumption.
June 10, 2015 at 12:39 pm
bob says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23
12
Agent usually demonstrates an unusually high level of conservative anger, in terms of sounding a bit like a libertarian.
But I don’t think he usually contradicts himself as much as he is passionate and misspeaks. It is kind of like Bill Reilly. He has good points, but on occasion he is more pissed off and looking for the bad from democrats than he is actually weighing the whole scenario. So while he has a part of the picture the left doesn’t have, he can mar the picture a little. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong or a hypocrite.
In most cases I think this is why people are wrong in general actually. They see something and due to some sort of bias want it to be something it isn’t, either in favor of their side or against the other.
June 11, 2015 at 7:59 am
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
49
40
bob,
Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Example 1. Agent has compained abouthigh taxes yet adbvoctaesto increase taxes on at least 47% of the country
Example 2. He complains that President Obama wants to redistribute wealth, yet advocates thet the increases in the previous example should lead to lower taxes on the other 53%.
Example 3.He is for a law that bans texting and driving,but against a law that bans smoking in cars
Example 4. He complains that others redirect conversations, yet does that constantly
Example 5. He complains that President Obama has increased the debt more than all presidents combined (which itself is a false statement), but has no problem with the fact that Presidents Reagan and GW Bush actually did accomplish this feat.
This is not misspeaking, it is hypocrisy, period. Stop making excuses for him.
If you have any examples of me being a hypocrite, I would like to see them.
June 10, 2015 at 4:42 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
75
31
Socialist Ron, if cigarette smoke is dangerous for kids riding in a car with an adult, what do you think legal “pot” smoke would do to their undeveloped brains and lungs? My guess is that they would turn into zombies like their parents or guardians and be unable to learn the basics in school.
So, you are advocating for more government control of our lives and you call me a Socialist? Interesting.
Funny thing is, I am against this law. I am advocating for less laws to increase our liberty and freedom.
Does it actually bother you that I am not a Socialist? In some of these debates, I believe I am more Conservative than you. That must really bug you.
Please provide proof that anyone ever said smoking pot while driving or driving under the influence of pot should be legal? Should we ban all alcohol again? Same argument.
June 11, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23
10
Ron, do you type much or spell much? Your post is worse than usual, words running together, misspelled etc. Are you high at work? Hmm!
Have you ever heard of DUI’s? I think they tend to raise premiums, make affordable coverage almost non-existent for the offenders. Jail time for repeat offenders.
How does stopping someone for a traffic violation equate to more government? We already have traffic courts and texting violations should be subject to heavy fines and possible loss of license for repeat offenders.
Good old Agent – ignoring questions and instead insulting people who asked those questions. Classic deflection away from the fact that bob and Ron have pointed out your misplaced anger and Ron has pointed out your hypocrisy. Now go ahead and play your little game of hiding this post like you do to all the other posts you don’t agree with. Maybe one of these days you will stop acting like a spoiled child who throws temper tantrums when someone says something you don’t fully agree with.
June 11, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34
9
Agent,
My apologies for the poor typing. My keyboard needs to be replaced.
You did not answer my question. Shocking.
You said, “Have you ever heard of DUI’s? I think they tend to raise premiums, make affordable coverage almost non-existent for the offenders. Jail time for repeat offenders.” So you are admitting that laws do not stop behavior.
I win!!
The police and courts are part of the government. If you keep increasing laws, then we need more police and court employees, not to mention prisons and COs. How is that not more government?
Why are you so against liberty and freedom and formore government controlover our lives?
June 11, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29
17
Ron, the keyboard is not the issue, it is your brain that needs replacing. Too much Progressive Liberal thinking and pretty soon, there is a major problem putting thoughts together in a coherent way.
You don’t win anything. DUI offenders are taken off the street all the time where they cannot run over anyone else while drunk. It may not stop all offenders, but it does get some of them. With no laws and officers to enforce it, we would have a lot more running around drunk. We are not adding more traffic courts and judges. The ones we have are effective at meting out punishment. That is not more government idiot. I win!
June 12, 2015 at 7:44 am
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30
15
Agent,
Has drinking and driving stopped since it was made illegal? Of course not. Laws do not stop behavior. They only create more government control which does lead to bigger government. Why do you think they abolished prohibition?
How can you be so obtuse?
June 8, 2015 at 2:42 pm
brian boss says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27
0
if the senator and state of new jersey agree to make the payment on the car loan, sure, why not allow the no smoking deal. but we know they “ain’t” going to make the car payment, so back off and figure a way to reduce taxes in NJ idiots!
Bob, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not a Libertarian. Ron & Rand Paul are a bit goofy to suit me. I am just a very Conservative American who is sick and tired of liberals and Socialists who are ruining our country with each passing year. They think excessive taxation, regulation to the max, running up huge deficits spending unwisely is the way to go. $18 Trillion in debt and climbing daily. By the way, it is Bill O’Reilly. I don’t watch him much because he has too many liberals on and gives them free reign to spout off their philosophy, then gets into a screaming match with them. Bob, I am on the right side and Socialist Ron is on the left side. You may be somewhere in the middle. I forgive you because you are in Blue Washington State.
So Ron, if I understand your latest rant against the rule of law, you favor letting drunks drive without repercussions, pot intoxicated drivers go without punishment, allowing distracted driving by texting which is causing more and more accidents. God forbid that we encourage public safety by fining and punishing drivers who choose to endanger public safety.
Who said anything about going unpunished? If a drunk driver casues an accident, he will still need to answer to his insurance company and in civil court.
How about this for punishment? If someone causes an accident while intoxicated, they must surrender all of their assets to the other party and start over again. If they are both intoxicated, both have to surrender all of their assets to the government. This will apply whether or not there is any injuries. If financial ruin is not enough to stop the behavior, courts and prison will definitely not work. Feel free to apply this to those texting and driving.
Iam not vehemntly against redistribution of wealth. I am against the continued redistribution of wealth upwords to those who do not need it.
With that said, this would be a voluntary distribution of wealth by the person who chose to drink and drive. Not the government forcing people to redistribute their wealth to others.
Does that help?
June 12, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Hey Ron – yeah, that definitely helps and certainly makes sense to me. I agree people would think twice about DUI’ing (or more than twice if they already thought twice before :) if they knew one accident could literally take everything they worked so hard to obtain away from them.
Although I do need to apologize for my reply. I messed up. I thought Agent wrote that theory, but it was you writing TO Agent. My bad.
June 12, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Rosenblatt,
We’re good.
Agent is all for redistribution of wealth, if it is being redistributed upwards.
One would have to believe that Senator Vitale ( a Democrat), should have much more important matters on his mind than to invade one’s auto – next, I would suppose, he would want to invade one’s living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.
Try to stop spending taxpayer’s money like a “drunken sailor”, senator, there’s lots of improvements that can and should be made in that area.
Suuuuuuuuuuure. Next the government will put cameras in your bathroom, they’ll call you to tell you not to run with scissors in your hand, or that you put in too much sugar in your cake, or you can’t keep throwing dirty laundry on your bedroom floor. Puh-lease
This probably some personal issue of his or one of his “friends” ($$). As many of these types of bills are.
Somebody’s kid probably got a ride home from the soccer field from a friend’s parent who smoked in the car. Of course they were outraged and immediately ranted, “There ought to be a law!!!” Oh, wait, I’m a Senator, “There WILL be a law!!”
ok, so if you are sitting in traffic with your kids and roll down the windows to get some air, will you be sited for your kids breathing exhaust???? How about some important laws??? so much for a free country. Unless you are paying for my vehicle, insurance and gas, and the cost to raise my kids, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do!!
This has been law in Ontario, Canada since January 2009 and the reason is:
Second-hand smoke in motor vehicles can be up to 27 times more concentrated than in a smoker’s home.
Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.
Second-hand smoke can also influence a child’s ability to reason and understand, and can negatively impact behaviour and attention span
Wow……can you say “meddling”??? And no, I do not smoke.
Wouldn’t you know that a Democrat would propose this? They have nothing better to do with their time. Big Brother is watching you at all times. Maybe they will have drones surveying the traffic to see if they can catch a violator.
THE SKY IS FALLING
Ok while I do have issues with police making a habit of ticketing as a measure of self preservation,
This seems like one of those we should actually incorporate.
The effects of smoking around kids are very damaging. The government does exist for a reason. It is even biblical agent. There are many bible quotes stating to submit to your governments, and it is basically spelled out that they are there for your good.
I agree bob, but where would we draw the line? Would vaping instead of actually smoking in a car be illegal too? I know lots of people who started smoking before they were 16…what if the kid was smoking too — would the driver get a pass because 2nd hand smoke obviously isn’t an issue when the kid is smoking themselves?
The kid would be breaking the law if they were a “kid” smoking. I don’t understand this question.
Smoking in a vehicle with a child is something one shouldn’t do.
The line would be drawn with the actual harm. I’m very confused that you sound like agent in your reply. Passing one protective law like this does not lead to laws against vaping, or alternatively, hookah (SP on that one)
Let me try another scenario since you don’t understand.
There’s a car with four 16 year old kids in it, one of which has his/her permit and is legally driving. The 3 passengers are smoking, but the driver is not. The cops pull over the car. What happens next?
a) Does the driver get fined? or
b) Do the smokers get fined?
The article said “Violators…****would not face surcharges or points on their driving or insurance records***”
This implies the driver is liable when his passengers lit up, yet the driver did not contribute to this event at all as it was the passengers who caused the harm.
“I’m very confused that you sound like agent in your reply.”
Don’t be confused. Just try to understand what I’m asking.
“Passing one protective law like this does not lead to laws against vaping, or alternatively, hookah (SP on that one)”
I am not implying that. I am asking what happens when the harm is caused by a passenger, or if the “harm” of second hand smoke would even apply if the 16 year old kid is smoking anyway.
I’m inquiring about parameters of the law and how it will be applied – I am not saying the government wants to take away my right to smoke.
I expect that people under 18 would not be charged as adults harming children and there would be some degree of consent considered in the scenario.
If we have 16 year olds driving in a car I’m going to guess this is for a personal choice type of reason as well. The second hand smoke law would be protection for the parent who forces damage onto a child. An adult making a choice to be in a car would be a different story I’m sure.
Also, 16 year olds smoking would be breaking the law for smoking at all. You’re asking if someone would be fined who is breaking the law already. I’m already against someone that young smoking, so in that scenario community service as a punishment would be ok with me for all the kids as well as good for them.
Thank you for your response, bob. I appreciate you taking the time to understand my inquiry, reply accordingly, and us being able to have a civil discussion about this matter. I look forward to more exchanges like this with you, as well as others on this site, in the future.
Agreed Rosenblatt.
This topic seems to have thrown quite a few of us off in expectations.
Hey Bob, you did realize this was a state issue, not a Federal Government issue, didn’t you? Are you saying that the current Federal Government is doing the right thing for the American people? I could care less what New Jersey does, what they pass, how much they tax or regulate. They are the ones having troubles keeping business in their state, not mine.
What?
If I’m ok with one law it doesn’t mean I’m ok with all government law.
I have vocalized I do not like it when governments harm the people. That is something I probably have not made evident enough when I agree with you. I have said before that I agree with you but for different reasons than Ron thinks. For me, while I believe the government will handle healthcare worse, it is not that I am anti government as to why I don’t like Healthcare being handled by the government. I believe the private system can do better and I am about what is better for the people.
I weigh all laws like that. What is best for the people. Some of our government methods are clearly not for the people, but this is not one of them. This isn’t the same as the tax laws or healthcare laws. All I’m saying is you can be ok with some government without being ok with all government.
This would also be why I have said I’m ok with a public option and private healthcare.
Like an expanded medicaid type of program, and then private for those who want to pay for it themselves.
I tend to actually be this way quite a bit and I am amazed for all the times I have shown it that it isn’t understood.
Bob, I would much rather the Police ticket a driver for texting while driving than smoking in the car. A responsible parent should know not to smoke in a car with children in it. We don’t need another law passed by a legislature to enforce it.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I really don’t understand the difference here in terms of why you want one and not the other.
Are you aware the affects of second hand smoke on children?
Yes, texting and driving causes deaths more often, but I see these both as bad.
Is your issue over inflated ticketing by the police as a revenue stream?
If so, why are you ok with ticketing just one and not the other? Wouldn’t you be against both equally?
If it is about the affect, wouldn’t you be against them both equally?
Why one and not the other? I know I complain about false equivalency a lot, but that is when there are tangible differences.
What is the difference in this scenario?
Ron, do you have any common sense at all? Do you realize that texting while driving is totally out of control in every state in the union and is a very serious public safety issue? People are getting killed and maimed daily because of distracted driving with those cells. Cell addicts are like drunks and think they can handle it. They can’t and the statistics keep piling up. Do try to keep your eye on the ball for once in your life.
Agent,
Since drunk driving laws have not stopped drunk driving, what makes you think laws banning texting and driving will be any difdferent? It is just another “feel-good” law that will have minimal impact.
Allmorelawsdo is create crinimals and allow the government top have more control over our lives. Why are you pro-government?
If laws stopped behavior, we would not have prisons.
Agent,
HYPOCRITE!!
How come it is OK to ban cell phone use/texting and driving to protect innocent drivers, but not innocent children from second hand smoke?
I see that bob just handed you your head. Are you going to call him a Socialist since he is for bigger government?
I will have to agree on this.
Other than handing Agent his head…That would be rather arrogant of me.
This was about the point I had above though. Some laws do indeed have purposes, and good affects.
bob,
Thank you for the respectful response.
I only made the “handing Agent his head” comment because that what he says when you disagree with me. Just being a smart-ass, which is better than being a dumb-ass (Not mentioning any names).
I will be reasonable especially when someone makes sense.
I am a little thrown for a loop on this one. I am surprised by agent’s response, considering that pot regulation is something I believe he is ok with (though maybe I’m double thrown for a loop and I’m wrong about that) I expected he would actually be ok with this law.
bob,
Agent probably would have been OK with the law if it was propsed by a Republican. Do you agree with me that he displays an unusal level of hypocrisy? After his insistence in labeling me without real evidence, it is his hyopocrisy that bothers me the most.
Bob, you have me confused with someone else if you think I am for legalization of pot in any state. I know you are a big enough man to admit you were wrong on that, unlike Socialist Ron who tells you that you handed me my head. What a laugh I got out of that.
By the way Ron, a Republican would not have proposed this bill. Only Progressive Democrats think the issue is important enough to introduce it. Republicans are more about creating jobs and reducing taxes and leave the social issues to the clowns on the Democratic side.
Agent,
Of course you are against less laws and for more government. And you call me a Progressive Socialist. Look in the mirror.
You said, “a Republican would not have proposed this bill. Only Progressive Democrats think the issue is important enough to introduce it. Republicans are more about creating jobs and reducing taxes and leave the social issues to the clowns on the Democratic side.”
1. How exactly does a law banning texting and driving create jobs and/or reduce taxes?
2. Then why do Republicans try to pass laws that increase the influence of government on the lives of individual citizens? For example, banning abortions, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana. Those are all social issues that they constantly stick their noses into.
Agent,
I said pot regulation, not pot legalization. That’s my point.
I’m not denying pot is bad (from my opinion) but I’m stating that smoke in the presence of kids is worse (from my opinion) and that I expected you would share the opinion that smoking around kids needs to be regulated, just like pot consumption.
Agent usually demonstrates an unusually high level of conservative anger, in terms of sounding a bit like a libertarian.
But I don’t think he usually contradicts himself as much as he is passionate and misspeaks. It is kind of like Bill Reilly. He has good points, but on occasion he is more pissed off and looking for the bad from democrats than he is actually weighing the whole scenario. So while he has a part of the picture the left doesn’t have, he can mar the picture a little. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong or a hypocrite.
In most cases I think this is why people are wrong in general actually. They see something and due to some sort of bias want it to be something it isn’t, either in favor of their side or against the other.
bob,
Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Example 1. Agent has compained abouthigh taxes yet adbvoctaesto increase taxes on at least 47% of the country
Example 2. He complains that President Obama wants to redistribute wealth, yet advocates thet the increases in the previous example should lead to lower taxes on the other 53%.
Example 3.He is for a law that bans texting and driving,but against a law that bans smoking in cars
Example 4. He complains that others redirect conversations, yet does that constantly
Example 5. He complains that President Obama has increased the debt more than all presidents combined (which itself is a false statement), but has no problem with the fact that Presidents Reagan and GW Bush actually did accomplish this feat.
This is not misspeaking, it is hypocrisy, period. Stop making excuses for him.
If you have any examples of me being a hypocrite, I would like to see them.
Socialist Ron, if cigarette smoke is dangerous for kids riding in a car with an adult, what do you think legal “pot” smoke would do to their undeveloped brains and lungs? My guess is that they would turn into zombies like their parents or guardians and be unable to learn the basics in school.
Agent,
So, you are advocating for more government control of our lives and you call me a Socialist? Interesting.
Funny thing is, I am against this law. I am advocating for less laws to increase our liberty and freedom.
Does it actually bother you that I am not a Socialist? In some of these debates, I believe I am more Conservative than you. That must really bug you.
Please provide proof that anyone ever said smoking pot while driving or driving under the influence of pot should be legal? Should we ban all alcohol again? Same argument.
Ron, do you type much or spell much? Your post is worse than usual, words running together, misspelled etc. Are you high at work? Hmm!
Have you ever heard of DUI’s? I think they tend to raise premiums, make affordable coverage almost non-existent for the offenders. Jail time for repeat offenders.
How does stopping someone for a traffic violation equate to more government? We already have traffic courts and texting violations should be subject to heavy fines and possible loss of license for repeat offenders.
Good old Agent – ignoring questions and instead insulting people who asked those questions. Classic deflection away from the fact that bob and Ron have pointed out your misplaced anger and Ron has pointed out your hypocrisy. Now go ahead and play your little game of hiding this post like you do to all the other posts you don’t agree with. Maybe one of these days you will stop acting like a spoiled child who throws temper tantrums when someone says something you don’t fully agree with.
Agent,
My apologies for the poor typing. My keyboard needs to be replaced.
You did not answer my question. Shocking.
You said, “Have you ever heard of DUI’s? I think they tend to raise premiums, make affordable coverage almost non-existent for the offenders. Jail time for repeat offenders.” So you are admitting that laws do not stop behavior.
I win!!
The police and courts are part of the government. If you keep increasing laws, then we need more police and court employees, not to mention prisons and COs. How is that not more government?
Why are you so against liberty and freedom and formore government controlover our lives?
Ron, the keyboard is not the issue, it is your brain that needs replacing. Too much Progressive Liberal thinking and pretty soon, there is a major problem putting thoughts together in a coherent way.
You don’t win anything. DUI offenders are taken off the street all the time where they cannot run over anyone else while drunk. It may not stop all offenders, but it does get some of them. With no laws and officers to enforce it, we would have a lot more running around drunk. We are not adding more traffic courts and judges. The ones we have are effective at meting out punishment. That is not more government idiot. I win!
Agent,
Has drinking and driving stopped since it was made illegal? Of course not. Laws do not stop behavior. They only create more government control which does lead to bigger government. Why do you think they abolished prohibition?
How can you be so obtuse?
if the senator and state of new jersey agree to make the payment on the car loan, sure, why not allow the no smoking deal. but we know they “ain’t” going to make the car payment, so back off and figure a way to reduce taxes in NJ idiots!
Bob, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not a Libertarian. Ron & Rand Paul are a bit goofy to suit me. I am just a very Conservative American who is sick and tired of liberals and Socialists who are ruining our country with each passing year. They think excessive taxation, regulation to the max, running up huge deficits spending unwisely is the way to go. $18 Trillion in debt and climbing daily. By the way, it is Bill O’Reilly. I don’t watch him much because he has too many liberals on and gives them free reign to spout off their philosophy, then gets into a screaming match with them. Bob, I am on the right side and Socialist Ron is on the left side. You may be somewhere in the middle. I forgive you because you are in Blue Washington State.
This explains a lot — you watch Fox News and turn off a program that gives both sides of an argument equal time to express their stance.
Note that I said sounds like, in tone.
I know. I don’t hold anything against you. I’m sometimes over the top myself. I think of us all as equally in offense.
So Ron, if I understand your latest rant against the rule of law, you favor letting drunks drive without repercussions, pot intoxicated drivers go without punishment, allowing distracted driving by texting which is causing more and more accidents. God forbid that we encourage public safety by fining and punishing drivers who choose to endanger public safety.
Agent,
Who said anything about going unpunished? If a drunk driver casues an accident, he will still need to answer to his insurance company and in civil court.
How about this for punishment? If someone causes an accident while intoxicated, they must surrender all of their assets to the other party and start over again. If they are both intoxicated, both have to surrender all of their assets to the government. This will apply whether or not there is any injuries. If financial ruin is not enough to stop the behavior, courts and prison will definitely not work. Feel free to apply this to those texting and driving.
Allow me to quote a wise man.
“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely only after they have exhausted all other options”. Abba Eban, Israeli Ambassador to US.
When do you exhaust all your other options and finally start to behave wisely? You really should not set yourself up like that.
“If someone causes an accident while intoxicated, they must surrender all of their assets to the other party and start over again”
Sooooo, you are now advocating for the redistribution of wealth. Very interesting. I thought you were vehemently against that.
Rosenblatt,
Iam not vehemntly against redistribution of wealth. I am against the continued redistribution of wealth upwords to those who do not need it.
With that said, this would be a voluntary distribution of wealth by the person who chose to drink and drive. Not the government forcing people to redistribute their wealth to others.
Does that help?
Hey Ron – yeah, that definitely helps and certainly makes sense to me. I agree people would think twice about DUI’ing (or more than twice if they already thought twice before :) if they knew one accident could literally take everything they worked so hard to obtain away from them.
Although I do need to apologize for my reply. I messed up. I thought Agent wrote that theory, but it was you writing TO Agent. My bad.
Rosenblatt,
We’re good.
Agent is all for redistribution of wealth, if it is being redistributed upwards.
The Peoples Republic of New Jersey strikes again…
Do you think Christie would sign this bill or tell them to go fly a kite?
Good question…which one gets him votes?
One would have to believe that Senator Vitale ( a Democrat), should have much more important matters on his mind than to invade one’s auto – next, I would suppose, he would want to invade one’s living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.
Try to stop spending taxpayer’s money like a “drunken sailor”, senator, there’s lots of improvements that can and should be made in that area.
Suuuuuuuuuuure. Next the government will put cameras in your bathroom, they’ll call you to tell you not to run with scissors in your hand, or that you put in too much sugar in your cake, or you can’t keep throwing dirty laundry on your bedroom floor. Puh-lease
This probably some personal issue of his or one of his “friends” ($$). As many of these types of bills are.
Somebody’s kid probably got a ride home from the soccer field from a friend’s parent who smoked in the car. Of course they were outraged and immediately ranted, “There ought to be a law!!!” Oh, wait, I’m a Senator, “There WILL be a law!!”
ok, so if you are sitting in traffic with your kids and roll down the windows to get some air, will you be sited for your kids breathing exhaust???? How about some important laws??? so much for a free country. Unless you are paying for my vehicle, insurance and gas, and the cost to raise my kids, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do!!
This has been law in Ontario, Canada since January 2009 and the reason is:
Second-hand smoke in motor vehicles can be up to 27 times more concentrated than in a smoker’s home.
Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.
Second-hand smoke can also influence a child’s ability to reason and understand, and can negatively impact behaviour and attention span
Thank you Karen. Great info, without a hint of bluster.