Outlawing smoking in the home

[Ladyjen]

Do you think that there should be a law banning smokng in homes of people who have children? This is putting kids at risk and especially babies.

[margrace]

All right where do we start. I grew up on the midst of a very smoky atmpsphere. As a result I have a continuing problem with my sinus. 26 years ago I made a rule, no smoking in my home, got a lot of flack but it worked.

Time we followed the saying Let there be health on earth and let if beging with me, Paraphrase of course.

[betsy]

Do you think that there should be a law banning smokng in homes of people who have children? This is putting kids at risk and especially babies.

When property rights of bars and restaurants' owners were tampered with......it's just a matter of time when good old Cushman and company will be breaking down our castles' doors.

I can't wait to see what the Green Party will do if it becomes our government.

Anyway, the government should operate 24-hour a day drop-in centers in every corner of every street...so people who want to smoke in their houses (which is probably the only place left to be able to puff away), can drop off their children everytime they want to smoke at home.

Or the government should issue gas masks for every child in every household!

If the government can build shooting galleries for drug addicts...then the government should be able to build puff-houses for cigarette smokers!

Otherwise, better for you guys to scream at the government to ban cigarettes altogether. That's preferable than losing your own right to do as you please within the walls of your own home!

Then after cigarette smoking...let's move right on to Barbeques!

Crackdown time! No mercy!

[Ladyjen]

Smoking is an addiction and there should be facilities available to help people kick the habit. Apparently, from what I've read, it is harder to kick than heroin. I know, I know, there aren't even enough dry out centres for drugs and alcholol let alone cigarettes. With all the big surpluses of money that the Government is hiding, they should spend some on addiction centres. That would be proactive in bringing down health care costs, decrease crime and help out kids who suffer as a result of addictions in the family environment.

[BubberMiley]

I think there's a big difference between outlawing smoking in the home and forcing kids to breathe carcinogens. I would be very opposed to the former, because I think people have every right to hurt themselves on their own property. But given that secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer, forcing kids to breathe smoky air, even in your own home, is clearly a form of abuse.

[Who's Doing What?]

Is not smoking in the home knowingly endangering a childs health?

I used get so car sick as a kid because of the chain smoking my dad and his girlfriend did. Now is not much different, other than it is when my wife and I go out with my mom and her boyfriend to my uncle's and her boyfriend smokes. I get headaches, nausea and just feel shitty all around. I feel sorry for all the people I made sick when I smoked for 12 years.

[crazymf]

I think there's a whole load of personal responsibility needs to be administered here. Most people I know that smoke simply walk out to the garage or outside and don't even smoke inside their homes. Those people that do smoke in their houses would continue to do so regardless of laws. Argueing this point is moot because it's largely unenforceable anyway. I cannot see a government staying in power long when they start to legislate what people can and cannot do in their own homes. Hell, even I agree that queers can do whatever they want, in their own home. This is no different.

People shouldn't smoke where their small children are affected. Agreed.

[betsy]

People I know smoke out of their houses. They go to their porches or garage.

We don't need any legislations and more bannings. Most parents think of their children's health.

Besides how do you enforce this? Get neighbors spying on each other? And how do you know the spy's report is accurate? Not trumped up charges just to cause mischief?

There is already a law against child abuse or neglect or endangerment. That should be sufficient.

[BubberMiley]

I cannot see a government staying in power long when they start to legislate what people can and cannot do in their own homes.

Really? It's already illegal for me to smoke in my own home, because all I smoke is pot.

[crazymf]

I cannot see a government staying in power long when they start to legislate what people can and cannot do in their own homes.

Really? It's already illegal for me to smoke in my own home, because all I smoke is pot.

Bubber, I'm disappointed in you for saying that.

[gc1765]

There is already a law against child abuse or neglect or endangerment. That should be sufficient.

If, Hypothetically, someone were caught smoking inside their home, should they be charged with child abuse/neglect/endangerment?

[Posit]

Well, I think it is time that we ask the police to charge any parent engaging in sexual deviant behavior (of course any parent that has sexual relations that is not to procreate in the missionary style). These behaviors encourage lascvious acts in children and corrupt the moral ethic of society.

Punishment should consist of 100 strikes with a cat of nine tails and second offenses should result in one or both parents being subject to cruxifiction.

Never mind smoking in the home, there are far worse acts that affect society in general enough to warrant the thought police to enter every bedroom in Canada.

[Who's Doing What?]

I cannot see a government staying in power long when they start to legislate what people can and cannot do in their own homes.

Really? It's already illegal for me to smoke in my own home, because all I smoke is pot.

That is one law that should be changed. Puff on BM.

[Melanie_]

I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in a legal sense, but I would support a public health campaign. Kids who live in homes with smokers are at higher risk for upper respiratory infections, asthma, and allergies. Babies are at a higher risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Children who were exposed to smoke in utero are at higher risk for attention and learning delays - there has been some research linking it to ADHD. Parents shouldn't need to be legislated to think about thier children's health.

[bradco]

No new laws should be needed but I wouldnt mind seeing enforcement of child protection laws. Parents who smoke in their houses need to get slapped on the hand....maybe a fine at first, give them the chance to change their ways. After being nabbed there should be follow up check ins to make sure they are not killing their kids and escalating punishment. People who want to smoke and kill themselves can do so but they have no right to affect their kids lungs or anyone elses.

[betsy]

There is already a law against child abuse or neglect or endangerment. That should be sufficient.

If, Hypothetically, someone were caught smoking inside their home, should they be charged with child abuse/neglect/endangerment?

Let's leave that decision to the Nicotine Nannies. They seem to have a lot of time on their hands, and I'm sure their overwhelming concern for everyone's health that fuels such creativity in finding ways to control, and impose, and dictate...will probably inspire them to come up with a new criminal offense. "Baby Tar-ring?"

[Posit]

Kids who live in homes with smokers are at higher risk for upper respiratory infections, asthma, and allergies. Babies are at a higher risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

There are no medical studies or statistics that support this assertion. This is one of those myths perpetuated by anti-smoking lobbies.

In fact the kids at greater risk from these ailments are farmers kids, suggesting that either the pollen laced air, or prolonged exposure to the chemicals used in the production of food, poulty and cattle are the antagonists. If there is a link to city children it is more likely that it is from the food rather than any other connection.

There are no medical studies that have ever been made that support health effects from second hand smoke are anything but a myth. If anyone can find them I would be interested in reading them. However, be careful and read the article you present first, since there is a preponderance of opinion being presented as fact. I have studied many......

[betsy]

Anyway, there is a strong argument regarding the dangers of second-hand smoke.

"NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a casual relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

[betsy]

"DID YOU KNOW?... - Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease says: >NO CONNECTION< - April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention!

The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore, more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation. Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE STUDY

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

[betsy]

No new laws should be needed but I wouldnt mind seeing enforcement of child protection laws. Parents who smoke in their houses need to get slapped on the hand....maybe a fine at first, give them the chance to change their ways. After being nabbed there should be follow up check ins to make sure they are not killing their kids and escalating punishment. People who want to smoke and kill themselves can do so but they have no right to affect their kids lungs or anyone elses.

I say, do the same to those blasted parents who feed their kids nothing but Hot Dogs! Or Pizza! Or McDonald's! ESPECIALLY Kraft Dinner!

They have no business clogging their kids' arteries! Actually, this is even worse! I say, flog them too!

And close down all Tim Horton's! At least, until they agree to drop all the doughnuts! I swear I'm sick and tired of timbits coming into this house! Every parent seem to think a treat of doughnuts is necessary. So figure one parent bringing "treats" for everyone...a different parent each day...so what do we get? Doughnuts everyday! Of course they end up in the garbage.

And do the same for couch potato parents. No parents should sit in front of the tv for more than 2 hours. I don't care if it's hockey season....you get your butts off that couch and start leading by example.

Or we take away your kids!

And the hogs? You don't need to spy on them. Just check out the grocery stores and usually you'll find two or three-generation family members waddling out of there, all the same tubs, I mean sizes....surprisingly, grandma usually come out slimmer than the two. They're definitely eating wrong!

So whack them good. Start with grandma!

And just to make sure...we should start monitoring what goes into everyone's grocery cart!

Have we covered all the bases in the "eating dis-order" section so far?

[cybercoma]

Do you think that there should be a law banning smokng in homes of people who have children? This is putting kids at risk and especially babies.

Except the WHO report on second hand smoke exposure by non-smoking spouses and children did NOT indicate any significant raise in risk of lung cancer....

[cybercoma]

Do you think that there should be a law banning smokng in homes of people who have children? This is putting kids at risk and especially babies.

When property rights of bars and restaurants' owners were tampered with......it's just a matter of time when good old Cushman and company will be breaking down our castles' doors.

I can't wait to see what the Green Party will do if it becomes our government.

Anyway, the government should operate 24-hour a day drop-in centers in every corner of every street...so people who want to smoke in their houses (which is probably the only place left to be able to puff away), can drop off their children everytime they want to smoke at home.

Or the government should issue gas masks for every child in every household!

If the government can build shooting galleries for drug addicts...then the government should be able to build puff-houses for cigarette smokers!

Otherwise, better for you guys to scream at the government to ban cigarettes altogether. That's preferable than losing your own right to do as you please within the walls of your own home!

Then after cigarette smoking...let's move right on to Barbeques!

Crackdown time! No mercy!

Oh! oH! Create a black market for cigarettes! Fantastic! Drug related killings aren't bad enough... I think "tobacco houses" would be a fashionable new trend like "crack houses".

Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic towards you, i'ts just the idea.

Take a drive through southwestern ontario rural communities off the 401. You'll see fields upon fields of tobacco...I wonder what would happen to small towns like Ridgetown, Morpeth, etc...

[betsy]

Oh! oH! Create a black market for cigarettes! Fantastic! Drug related killings aren't bad enough... I think "tobacco houses" would be a fashionable new trend like "crack houses".

Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic towards you, i'ts just the idea.

Oh, they'll love the idea of puff-houses I'm sure...otherwise they're being unfair and inconsistent. And don't worry about blackmarket. They'll end up lobbying for the government to provide the cigarettes in these puff houses...to remedy the cigarette-related killings!

[cybercoma]

Oh, they'll love the idea of puff-houses I'm sure...otherwise they're being unfair and inconsistent. And don't worry about blackmarket. They'll end up lobbying for the government to provide the cigarettes in these puff houses...to remedy the cigarette-related killings!

And would the vigilantes burn down the puff-houses? I mean, they'd just be creating more of the 'environmental tobacco smoke' they're trying to fight in the first place....

[Posit]

On the other hand, alcohol consumption HAS been proven to be detrimental to society. Higher risks for cancer, and heartt desease. The most lost work hours in the workplace. Highest among causes of accidents and death. Yet, where are the concerns in society about alcohol consumption and abuse?

Oh wait....the majority drink, now don't they.....

("Do as I say, not as I do")

Sounds a whole lot hypocritical.....