I can relate, I had the same situation.

Now, please be kind, some of us step witches really tried to do our best. LOL

@BeeHappy This woman was toxic as all get out. But then my dad was no bargain. They made each other miserable for almost 30 years. I learned from her how to escalate arguments. As for you, though we've never met, I get the vibe we could get along very well.

@HippieChick58, I tend to agree, friend!

It's stupid for anyone to smoke in a car. My troublesome child used to hot box with friends. She got in trouble for some other stuff and in the fallout of that was out of school for a semester, and grounded until she was able to go back to school. I made her stop smoking cold turkey. She hated me then, but she has never smoked again.

@HippieChick58 Tough love mama! Sometimes you have to be that way when you’re a parent.

@balou I used to say she was the one that made me grow as a parent. And she's an amazing young woman now.

@HippieChick58 Good for you and her!

I think it's a great idea, but concern for the children is not the main force behind why it would be enacted.

There ya go!

The California law that just became effective legalizing recreational cannabis smoking, does not allow for smoking in public places. Not sure about edibles.

Until a proposed law makes it legal for everyone, I'll never vote to legalize.

I'm in favor of the ban against marijuana being lifted.

That being said. I still favor the ban against smoking in public places.

Whether it be marijuana or other inhalants, my own body reacts badly, and I must avoid the areas where they are smoked.

I feel that public places should be open to all of the public, and if there is a potential health risk in these areas, it needs to be eliminated.

@JeffMurray Not sure I understand what you are writing? Would you be OK with Marijuana being treated with the same rules as, say, whiskey?

@Dick_Martin Not exactly. Places of employment can test for alcohol, which they should be allowed to because a positive test for alcohol means you are currently under the influence of it. Marijuana, on the other hand, can test positive for weeks or months after the high is gone. If weed is going to be legal, it should actually be legal for everyone. The law would need to carry with it a provision that employers are not allowed to test for prior marijuana use. Without that, I am 100% certain my employer (and many others) would still test and fire people for using. I don't believe in half measures.

@JeffMurray Wow. I was not aware of this issue. wow. On a side note, on several occasions in the past I have worked closely with high-functioning alcoholics. The results have been spectacular.

@Dick_Martin My employer even tests for nicotine for new hires and will deny employment for that alone, even though all forms of nicotine are legal.

@JeffMurray addicts are desperate and resentful. ..2 attitudes that lead to theft from employers. ...

@JeffMurray must be an interesting place to work?

@Dick_Martin It's actually a great place to work. Best job I've ever had. Took a pay cut to go there and it was worth every penny. I'm just stating facts.

@GreenAtheist are you referring to nicotine?

There is not much that money can't buy.

On another thread i mentioned a sci-fi story which ended with the punchline that such petty crimes resulted in the criminal being exterminated, dismembered and the body used for spare parts and medical research. Already happening in China, I'm surprised that the American corporatisation of prisons hasn't already seen it occur there.

@FrayedBear -- It may well.

I'm shocked you and I are not on the same page on this issue...

Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it should be a law. I think it would be a good idea if all religion were to vanish. But I would oppose a law that tried to limit our freedom to try to accomplish that.

@TommyMeador I think this is significantly different than even bans on smoking in public places. I can see why a business would like to maintain the ability to let their patrons smoke inside and then leave it up to the public whether or not to patronize the establishment (for most places). But these children do not have the ability to not "patronize" their parents' cars.

Also, we don't need to outlaw free thought because it doesn't exist.

Being a free thinker myself, if you mean free thought as in not caused I would agree with you 100%.

I know! Next they're going to take away the right for priests to rape children.

What? That's already illegal?!? What is this world coming to?

I think it's state by state.

@BeeHappy Thanks

A. It's your right to harm your child?

B. Same-sex marriage takes away rights?

C. Seat belts, helmets, etc. are not about taking away your rights, it is about protecting the rights of others to not have to pay increased premiums for the dumb fucks that don't wear proven safety devices and then require more treatment when they get into an accident. You really need to learn to look at things from multiple perspectives.

@ Steve

Because unfortunately and sadly, people tend to be self-willed and lacking in good ethics. Many times without the laws, people lack the respect of common courtesies and without laws, will not extend these courtesies without force.

I don't really want more restrictions on people's choices or freedoms than are necessary, but sometimes they are necessary or justified.

@JeffMurray It's about we the people making the choices. When your told wear a helmet or seat belt your choice is made for you. I personally wear both, but that's not the point. This country is under the illusion of being free. There are so many examples of freedoms taken from us. And yes when they tell you you can't be with a same sex partner thats taking away your rights.

@steve148 Are you not able to see the other side of that coin that I already pointed out in my last comment? There are tons of potential consequences that we can anticipate when someone "exercises their right to be stupid". Let's say Joe Freedom wants to ride his motorcycle without a helmet. While doing so, he gets into an accident and become severely injured and gets life-flighted to a level 1 trauma hospital where he spends months in the neuro intensive care for a head injury that could have been prevented by a helmet. Should the insurance company have to pay for the bill and pass the cost along to all of their other insured customers? Should the state pay with taxes and pass the cost along to all the citizens in higher taxes? Should those costs get as mitigated as much as possible by bankrupting his family? Should insurance companies be allowed to deny payment because their insured was taking unnecessary risk? What about the patient that needed that ICU bed that had to be placed on a step-down unit because he wasn't as acute? What about the rights of all of the other people that are compromised because of his choice?

Have you ever heard of the adage, "Your rights end where another's begin"? You need to think about other people's rights when evaluating these situations.