The Instigator
Thefreeman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
HHH0000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Banning smoking in cars while children are present is unconstitutional

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,219 times Debate No: 42473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Thefreeman

Pro

Banning smoking in cars while children are present is unconstitutional and unlawful; not only that, but it can also cause more problems then solutions. True, with this bill enacted it would spare small children's lungs a little, but it could also put them, and anyone else in the car, in even more danger.

These people who are so used to smoking now have their right of smoking with children in the car taken away from them. Well, the lack of smoking can get to them and cause many problems. Paranoia, extra stress, road rage and anger, un-comfortableness, longing/An increase in speed so they can get to their destination to smoke.

I will not address each of these in a section of their own:

Paranoia: The lack of nicotine over time will get to people; make them jumpy, and jittery. Somebody could say something or they could think something, and jerk which would possibly result in them accidently turning the wheel and what-not, causing them to create an accident, that can hurt them, their passengers, and possibly other people in other vehicles.

Extra Stress: Smoking is an amazing way to relieve stress. After smoking so long these people are not used to as much stress and it will build on them the longer they don't have a cigarette. This will lead into my next topic, road rage and anger.

Road Rage and Anger: The lack of nicotine will cause more stress, which will also cause anger. With this anger they could easily turn it into road rage. They could see someone on the road do something that angers them, or someone in the car with them may make them mad in some way. This will lead into them being blinded by anger, and being reckless and careless on the road, quite possibly causing an accident and/or getting in trouble with the law. Also road rage is contagious and could spread to other drivers around them.

Un-comfortableness: The lack of nicotine for a period of time can make people feel bad and uncomfortable. This can cause them to be more distracted by feeling bad then keeping their eyes on the road, so they could wreck and injure themselves, their passengers, and possibly other drivers.

This is my last topic for now. Longing, and an increased speed so hey can get to their destination to smoke. This can cause them get tickets, wreck, cause road rage in others, and cause many other accidents.

Do you really want to risk all of this? I think that these problems are more important then a little second hand smoke, when that is very little maybe once or twice a day in the car on average for little time. We can risk a little cough or earache in the children, or we can risk so many dangers on the road that can cause death and serious injury. I don't want to damage the children's lungs as much as the next guy, but I think these topics I have brought up are much more important than second hand smoke.

~Kenny
HHH0000

Con

For the U.S constitution you can easily read it all since it is not that long. In the U.S the constitution is pretty broad but it talks about the rights of individuals regardless of age, gender, etc. If you own property you are able to do anything you want in that property or to that property. Banning smoking in a car with your kids in it is simply trying to protect the child. Children under 18 are under the responsibility of their parents. But, they are not considered property even do they belong to the parents. Not to draw a fine vague line the country protects and considered children to be their property in technical terms. So it would not be unconstitutional for you not to be allowed to put smoke in children's lungs just like you can't put smoke from cigarettes in government owned buildings or property. By abiding to the U.S and it's constitution and laws you accepted to have minors be protected by the government. Therefore you may not make supra-governmental decisions over children. You can't decide to do whatever you want with them because they are protected by the constitution.
It would be unconstitutional to force children to breathe your smoke.
Debate Round No. 1
Thefreeman

Pro

Thefreeman forfeited this round.
HHH0000

Con

HHH0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Thefreeman

Pro

Thefreeman forfeited this round.
HHH0000

Con

HHH0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by HHH0000 3 years ago
HHH0000
In essence the government is not directly preventing you to do it it's telling it is punishable if you do, do it.
Posted by Bossassbitch1 3 years ago
Bossassbitch1
I think that you should not. My mom used to when I was a kid and I had black lungs because of her it got so bad. Hell no it doesn't go out the window! And besides, why in the Sam-hell would you make your own kid suffer because of your own bad action and bad habits.! It's stupid and disrespectful and that't god dang that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.