The children be darned! Tobacco taxes.

[Pinot's Mom]

Yes, it is ludicrous to ban smoking in your car - that's just a waste of time, money and an abuse of the law enforcement system. I never think anyone should smoke in the car with kids (human or fur) anyway; it's irresponsible.

Now, back to Puckstop31: Yes, I do choose where I live and I greatly appreciate the opportunity and freedom (financial and otherwise) to do so. It is therefore my choice to pay for the taxes that support the educational system so others may benefit-I believe that is a responsibility of all, to make sure the next generation is given the opportunity to be educated and cared for in the best manner possible. If I didn't feel this way, there are many other places I could live where the taxes and schools wouldn't be an issue. I have a relative that chooses to live that way; he lives in Heber, Utah, and that is just not where I want to be.

You make some fine points, and, as you said, are entitled to your opinion. I think the biggest point of difference between us is the issue of the responsibility of the education of children.

[Nomilynn]

Smoking in your car with children inside is now illegal here where I live. They have also banned smoking within 3 metres (approx. 10 feet) from any public intake into a building including patios.. so any doors, windows, apartment patios (altho I don't think that is really enforced) etc, and there is no smoking on any restaurant patio. In Vancouver, the distance is twice that.

I think this is FANTASTIC. I am not a smoker, and I am very allergic to it. It makes me incredibly ill. If someone wants to smoke, go ahead, but don't subject me to your second hand smoke because I don't want to breathe it in and get sick from it. There are dsignated smoking areas still, they are just farther away from the non-smoking public and that is a-ok with me. As for not smoking with children in the car - I think it's sad that a law needs to be passed for that, because it really should be common sense.

[Puckstop31]

Now, back to Puckstop31: Yes, I do choose where I live and I greatly appreciate the opportunity and freedom (financial and otherwise) to do so. It is therefore my choice to pay for the taxes that support the educational system so others may benefit-I believe that is a responsibility of all, to make sure the next generation is given the opportunity to be educated and cared for in the best manner possible. If I didn't feel this way, there are many other places I could live where the taxes and schools wouldn't be an issue. I have a relative that chooses to live that way; he lives in Heber, Utah, and that is just not where I want to be.

You make some fine points, and, as you said, are entitled to your opinion. I think the biggest point of difference between us is the issue of the responsibility of the education of children.

Thank you for this. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic.

I fully understand where you are coming from when you talk about education being the community's responsibility. Not all people have the ability, time and/or money to carry out the massive task of properly educating their own children. As such, no child should be denied a proper education because of these issues. Thus while it hurts to pay those taxes at times, I do understand their purpose. Now if only that purpose was the only thing they were used for... Also, it would be better if those taxes were collected in a way, other than a school property tax, the most repressive tax we have. We never REALLY own our homes.... But I digress...

My wife and I are going to home school our child(ren). We are doing this for a lot of different reasons. The main one being the ability to customize Hannah's education to a manner that best suits her learning style, whatever that turns out to be. We are also blessed to have a very large community of homeshoolers in our area. This helps when the kids get older and get into more advanced subject matter. Several times a week, the kids are moved around to the homes of parents who are better prepared to teach the appropriate subjects. This also allows the added bonus of additional "socialization" time. (The lack of 'socialization' time being the main outcry of those opposed to homeschooling.) Another reason is we are utterly appalled at how education has become such a massive political issue. Plainly put, the Federal Government has ZERO authority to dictate to anyone how children are to be educated. This is plainly understood if you know the Constitution. The way things work today, the Federal Government holds States and local school districts hostage. You either toe the line and do it their way, or you don't get the Federal funds. Finally, for now (LOL), there is NO WAY in heck I will allow my child to be a pawn at the hands of a corrupt union that has no REAL intrest in educating our posterity. The teachers might, but the union????

There are those who would try to deny us this ability to educate our own children. They will say that we are simply trying to brainwash our children into thinking the way we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want our children to learn to THINK for themselves, more than anything else. Not simply to regurgitate information (often false) and pass some fake exams so that the district can keep its funding levels.

Finally, please do not misunderstand me. While I believe that the public education system is quite broken in most areas, it may not be in yours. You should be proud that you have good public schools that turn out well educated kids. It must be as my Uncle's kids grew up in the Ellicott City/Columbia area. They are all very successful and happy. But with such things come responsibility. Be wary of intrusion into it from sources outside YOUR community. (google Arne Duncan. He is President Obama's choice for Secretary of Education. This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.)


Thanks again for the opporunity to discuss this. A breath of fresh air it is.

[Grace]

This has turned into a very interesting discussion. My 'child' is long gone from school; I have one grandson in college, and the other is in a magnet school that is heavy on math and science - he is thriving there.

I pay taxes to support my local schools, and have no kids there. I also support them with my physical presence. I have been a volunteer in one of the elementary schools for over 10 years. I'm so impressed with the teachers; and with the parents who also devote hours of their time to helping the kids.

Puck - may I inquire about this comment - This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.

[joycenalex]

[QUOTE=Puckstop31;2136932]Here is my $.50 on the tax issue....
Personally, I would MUCH prefer to live in a area with as low of taxes as possible. Just the basics is all I need/want. Roads, trash removal, public water, fire/police. I'd LOVE to not have to pay school taxes as my children are not going to public schools. I believe that educating MY children is MY responsibility, not yours or "ours". ...." end quote
puck, where does the money for education for the doctor who delivers hannahs' kids come from? it comes from all of us, and it is our responsibility.

[Puckstop31]

Puck - may I inquire about this comment - This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.

Well, for starters, he is a EXTREME anti-gun advocate. Which by itself is fine. Every person is entitled to their opinions on the subject.

(For the record, what comes next is off the top of my head, my references are not in hand right now.)

While a member of the Chicago school system, he lead a mass protest of a legal gun store. During the protest, several people, including (IIRC) Jesse Jackson and "Rev." Micheal Pfleger were arrested. Further, during this protest Mr. Duncan literally threatened the store owners LIFE. He later claimed that he did not fully understand the meaning of the term "snuff out". Not good for a "educator", would you not agree?

IF pure education was this mans goal, more power to him. But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

[Puckstop31]

[QUOTE=joycenalex;2137076]

Here is my $.50 on the tax issue....
Personally, I would MUCH prefer to live in a area with as low of taxes as possible. Just the basics is all I need/want. Roads, trash removal, public water, fire/police. I'd LOVE to not have to pay school taxes as my children are not going to public schools. I believe that educating MY children is MY responsibility, not yours or "ours". ...." end quote
puck, where does the money for education for the doctor who delivers hannahs' kids come from? it comes from all of us, and it is our responsibility.

Keep reading and you will see this....

I fully understand where you are coming from when you talk about education being the community's responsibility. Not all people have the ability, time and/or money to carry out the massive task of properly educating their own children. As such, no child should be denied a proper education because of these issues. Thus while it hurts to pay those taxes at times, I do understand their purpose. "

All that said... I do not believe in the idea that "it takes a village" to raise child. You might and that is fine. I'll keep paying my taxes to support a broken system, but i'll never let any government tell me that I can't educate my own children if I choose to and do it right.

[lizbud]

Smoking in your car with children inside is now illegal here where I live. They have also banned smoking within 3 metres (approx. 10 feet) from any public intake into a building including patios.. so any doors, windows, apartment patios (altho I don't think that is really enforced) etc, and there is no smoking on any restaurant patio. In Vancouver, the distance is twice that.

They did that in Indy some years ago & I think most people accept it.
The car ban was a surprise to me. I don't think it's healthy for children
to be subject to seconhand smoke in a car or a house. I agree that
it's a shame a law was needed to do the right thing for children.

[Grace]

Well, for starters, he is a EXTREME anti-gun advocate. Which by itself is fine. Every person is entitled to their opinions on the subject.

(For the record, what comes next is off the top of my head, my references are not in hand right now.)

While a member of the Chicago school system, he lead a mass protest of a legal gun store. During the protest, several people, including (IIRC) Jesse Jackson and "Rev." Micheal Pfleger were arrested. Further, during this protest Mr. Duncan literally threatened the store owners LIFE. He later claimed that he did not fully understand the meaning of the term "snuff out". Not good for a "educator", would you not agree?

IF pure education was this mans goal, more power to him. But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

So you oppose him because of his stance on guns, not his education policies?

But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

Source - or is this just your own opinion based on the gun thing?

[Puckstop31]

So you oppose him because of his stance on guns, not his education policies?

Because his education policies delve deep into things other than education. He sees himself as an arbeiter of what is right "for the children." His job is to provide an education for our kids, not to impose HIS world view.

I've got more, but time is short. Din din in the over. I will ad some more, if you like, tomorrow.

Source - or is this just your own opinion based on the gun thing?

My own, IMHO, educated opinion. I look at his past, the things he has done in other education leadership roles and come to this opinion.


I'll toss some source at ya later if you like. But if you Google him, you will get the current administrations take on him, which of course is glowing.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am seriously opposed to the government nosing into my home. (Assuming I do not have a meth lab going in there.) There have been some communities that have banned smoking in homes here in California but.... those are instances of condo, rentals...places where one man's ceiling is another man's floor... It is a tough one. I can tell if someone is smoking two cars away from me. Many times I have been in my hotel room in a non-smoking hotel and I can smell that someone...somewhere in the hotel is smoking.

So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

So does that infringe on someone's "right" to paint the house next door bright purple? Maybe.

But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

[blue]

I am seriously opposed to the government nosing into my home. (Assuming I do not have a meth lab going in there.) There have been some communities that have banned smoking in homes here in California but.... those are instances of condo, rentals...places where one man's ceiling is another man's floor... It is a tough one. I can tell if someone is smoking two cars away from me. Many times I have been in my hotel room in a non-smoking hotel and I can smell that someone...somewhere in the hotel is smoking.

I was under the impression that certain areas of Kaliforia had bans on smoking in cars due to the threat of wild fires as well.

So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

So does that infringe on someone's "right" to paint the house next door bright purple? Maybe.

But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

If you buy a house or condo in an area that has tenants you know what you can and cant do on your own property. In such a case you have voluntarily infringed on your own rights, nobody forced you into it. Your "rights" and "rules" comparison fails.

ETA: If someone moves into a nonsmoking rental and smokes inside of the unit, they are in breach of contract and in the wrong. If the rental is not specific on smoking or the renters are smoking outside, the nieghbor is SOL on comfort.

[Puckstop31]

It is a tough one.

Not really...

So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

You chose to live in such a community. I am happy that you are happy with your choice.

I could never live that way. Does not make me right nor you wrong.

Re: The smoking thing. If the community rules do not prohibit smoking, the home owners expectations/confort prevails.

But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

But only if you choose to live in a community that invokes such rules upon itself. If you want to live that way, giver. Just don't try to force other people to live the way you do. It is really, really simple.

[carole]

Blue you are gonna become a lot richer now that you have given up smoking, not only will the wealth be in the bank but in your well being as well,I hope you carry through with it and do it, no matter what the reasons are behind you choosing to give up,good for you and I have been there, done that,and it really is not that hard.,and i was a chain smoker.

[Catty1]

Ironically...any 'laws' to prevent or stop smoking will only result in defiance in many smokers themselves (addicts are notorious for being defiant!) - and I suspect many will still smoke in defiance, to maintain individuality.

Unfortunately, that's like fighting for freedom by banging yourself on the head with a hammer...it will only hurt you.

At the other extreme - if NO one smoked (very hypothetical situation) then other ways of establishing individual freedom would have to be found.

I wonder if the smoking issue and laws could be a whole red herring here...