ND House Comittee Dares To Question The Wisdom Seventh Graders

• March 25, 2009

Don’t these idiots know that the children are our future?

BISMARCK – Athough the bill that would ban smoking in cars when children younger than 16 wasn’t debated in the House on Tuesday, it was on the calendar with a “do not pass” recommendation from the House Transportation Committee.
“I was surprised at how it came out,” said Sen. Stan Lyson, R-Williston, who sponsored House Bill 2070 on behalf of a group of seventh-grade students from Williston.
Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said the committee appreciated the great job the students did presenting the bill but said the majority of the committee members felt that the bill would be taking a step toward infringing on the rights of people in their personal vehicles. They gave the bill the “do not pass” recommendation by a vote of 7 to 6.

Is it good to smoke in your car? Not really. Is it good to smoke in your car with the kids in there with you? Not at all. But, put simply, the government does not exist to protect us from ourselves. Nor does it exist to raise our children for us.
This bill was written and submitted, by way of Senator Lyson, by a group of seventh graders. Perhaps the most important lesson for these youngsters should be what the appropriate limits of government are. And that freedom doesn’t just mean the freedom to do good, productive things but also sometimes stupid and unhealthy things too.
That’s an important lesson to learn, but somehow I get the feeling that the people organizing those kids aren’t going to teach it. Which is a real shame.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Nanny State, North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array HG

I fail to see where either, when practiced by another individual, is any of your business or the government’s.

Fair enough. It isn’t my business really, it’s is my opinion that behaviour which results in the injury of another, whether it is the smoker’s child or another’s, is within the purview of the law because to injure another violates that one’s liberty. This is keeping within the definition of civil liberty.

I too would rather have the problems of too much liberty than too little. Those who share this mindset are exactly the types of individuals I want in government making these type of decisions, as opposed to those who think liberty too permissive.
ec99

One has to wonder how a seventh grade class came up with that particular bill. Could it have been the idea of their teacher?
HG

“Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.”
-Webster’s 1828

Given the injury that smoking in a car will do to the child, it makes sense to protect them by law if necessary. Does that mean smoking in your car with a child present should be banned? Surely there are other less restrictive options like rolling down a window, or one of those air purifiers.

Before even going there it would seem that this behavior would need occur frequently enough to warrant such intervention. But it is already illegal to provide underage persons with smokes so why would it be ok to put them in a situation where they must smoke involuntarily and to their own injury?
HG

This is not a place we want to go.

I agree Rob. That is why my own judgment would first require a number of occurances that would prove a blatant disregard for the health of children in general, not just a few instances or some liberal school teacher trying to make a liberal difference with a wild hair up their collective butt.

I also think we ought to have the sense to discern between diet and smoking. The two are not even remotely on the same level. You’ll probably say government is too inept to expect sensible judgment to prevail. You’d be right. You can see now why the founders knew this republic would only continue if the people retain good moral character. Character that places a higher value on liberty than political expediency. That values honest above ambiguity designed to accomplish a political end. That value integrity above political popularity. Our founders had it right. This Republic is designed for a moral people. Morally strong enough not to unecessarily risk the life of a child for their own bad habit. Morally strong enough to restrain one’s political ambitions.
http://www.dakotalifestyle.com/ gwen

Just a quick note: the children were inspired by the “Chokecherry Kids” of last session and at first wanted to write a bill proposing a state vegetable. Their teacher told them no. Some of them came up with the idea of a smoking ban in cars from a newsletter…something like Weekly Reader or Scholastic News…and they ran with it when it came time to practice writing persuasive letters.
WOOFX

Son, hand me the Cuervo and light me Pall Mall.

the bill would be taking a step toward infringing on the rights of people in their personal vehicles

.

the most important lesson for these youngsters

Is that the state won’t protect them from cigarette smoke in confined spaces.

Grandma the window won’t go down.

You kids will wear down the car battery.
Want to sit in the parking lot waitng for your no good uncle and his skinny jumper cables?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I think that’s likely. I’m not sure that many 7th graders see smoking in cars as a priority.

And wasn’t some legislation enacted this session to form some sort of a statewide youth council that would submit this kind of legislation on a regular basis? Sounds like a mechanism for big government liberals who teach/handle these kids to introduce legislation that will be politically difficult to oppose.

Because it’s for and by the children. And you just can’t oppose anything that’s for the children.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I also think we ought to have the sense to discern between diet and smoking. The two are not even remotely on the same level.

I fail to see where either, when practiced by another individual, is any of your business or the government’s.

As Thomas Jefferson said, I’d rather attend to the problems of too much liberty than the problems associated with too small a degree of it.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Is that the state won’t protect them from cigarette smoke in confined spaces.

They shouldn’t want the state’s protection, lest the state take it upon itself to protect them from things they do want.

The government that’s powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away, Poodle.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

A child’s health is the purview of the parent, not the government.

What’s next? A restriction on feeding kids fast food? A restriction on what kind of toys parents can buy them?

In Great Britain, parents are accountable to the government for their child’s diet.

This is not a place we want to go.

SayAnythingBlog.com

ND House Comittee Dares To Question The Wisdom Seventh Graders

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments