Outlawing smoking in the home

[betsy]

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....

Yes, it can happen! See what happens when they tamper with rights and casually accomodate special interest groups at the drop of the hat? Who knows where the ripple effects might lead.

[Drea]

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.

I smoked while pregnant.

My son didn't die from SIDS (I even put him on his tummy to sleep!)

He was reading at age 3.

He definetely doesn't have ADHD (or any other touchy feely "label" for children who weren't raised properly).

He is not allergic to anything (one time he got a rash from eating too many strawberries -- outlaw strawberries!)

He has awesome aerobic capacity! He can run and run and run and still not be tired out.

I smoke in my house and have no plans, as of yet, to stop.

Be damned if someone is going to tell me I can't. Legislation or not -- you can't "guilt" me into thinking I'm a bad parent because I smoke.

Frig.

The personal intrusion -- where will it end?

[crazymf]

...besides, anyone can quit smoking. It takes a real man to face lung cancer.

[betsy]

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.

How do you prove that everything is all due to second-hand smoke?

That there are no other factors at play?

Like poor genes? Immunity system problems? Other deficiencies that makes a child more susceptible?

For all you know it could be just about who knows what that acts as a TRIGGER! Maybe we have weakened some children during and/or after our pregnancies by following fads and diets....overdosing on herbal stuffs, inhaling those aromatherapy candles, drinking filtered water, too much granola etc..,

ADD! A lot of ADD are frauds! I've had several of them who were allegedly ADD....but do not behave any different than any normal active children! Sure they never listen....to anyone who don't know how to make them listen! Why do they listen to me?

ADD my foot. A lot of these allegedly ADD just know how to tune you guys off and put you on "ignore."

I've got a three year old right now! He's actually my model child in this batch so far...for good behaviour! His older siblings (8 and 10) are apparently diagnosed as ADD too. I've blasted those two for mis-behaving the first time they came to me. Never had any problems ever since!

[gc1765]

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?"

You don't have an opinion on the subject?

[BubberMiley]

I get the feeling Betsy doesn't want to quit smoking around children.

[betsy]

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?"

You don't have an opinion on the subject?

That's my opinion. I, myself, do not believe that second-hand smoke is that big a deal. And I do not support the idea of anyone telling me how I and my family should live our lives. But of course it might come to pass...knowing the clout of this powerful lobby groups! So just let them be the one to decide whatever charges they'd want to lay on "caught" parents. Oh, they'd just love that!

They might even charge them with all three!

It's ludicrous! Really.

[betsy]

I get the feeling Betsy doesn't want to quit smoking around children.

Oh if I want to smoke in my house....it will be for the parents to choose if they want their kids to be around me. I had chosen to quit...because I wanted to. It was for MY health.

Of course if I remember correctly....you've always maintained that recreational drugs such as heroin and crack are not really that bad. You even dismissed the ads on tv as "not true."

So you smoke only pot at home. I'm curious...do your kids get high with second-hand smoke?

Hmmm...somehow, I get the feeling you're not just limited to pot....

[gc1765]

That's my opinion. I, myself, do not believe that second-hand smoke is that big a deal....

I would disagree with you there, as would most doctors & scientists. But there is enough information out there already on the dangers of second hand smoke, so I won't bother debating it.

[scribblet]

Boy, I really can't believe that we are actually debating allowing the gov't to intrude even more into our personal lives, talk about Orwellian. And no, I'm not a smoker. What's next, monitering the food we eat, how much time we allow the kids to watch TV, the list could go on. Why not just take the kids and put them in one big day care centre, heck we can all be parents.

[jdobbin]

Boy, I really can't believe that we are actually debating allowing the gov't to intrude even more into our personal lives, talk about Orwellian. And no, I'm not a smoker. What's next, monitering the food we eat, how much time we allow the kids to watch TV, the list could go on. Why not just take the kids and put them in one big day care centre, heck we can all be parents.

Nest thing you know, they'll be telling people what gender to marry!

[Higgly]

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.

Absolutely. Both of my parents smoked. They both told me they would beat me if they caught me smoking. They both hated it, but they were hooked. I never smoked myself until I went away from home to go to university. At parties, I took cigarettes that were being offered. Within a year I was smoking, just like mom and pop.

Second hand smoke is addictive. It is disappointing that the fight has taken so long, but this is a cancer on our society.

I feel badly for tobacco farmers, but what can I say? It is either us or them.

[BubberMiley]

Of course if I remember correctly....you've always maintained that recreational drugs such as heroin and crack are not really that bad. You even dismissed the ads on tv as "not true."

So you smoke only pot at home. I'm curious...do your kids get high with second-hand smoke?

Hmmm...somehow, I get the feeling you're not just limited to pot....

I never said crack or heroin aren't that bad; I said criminalization of them makes a bad situation far worse.

I don't have kids, but I would never smoke anything in front of any kid. It's a bad habit and I don't want to set a bad example.

I'm not limited to pot. I also enjoy coffee.

[BubberMiley]

Boy, I really can't believe that we are actually debating allowing the gov't to intrude even more into our personal lives, talk about Orwellian. And no, I'm not a smoker. What's next, monitering the food we eat, how much time we allow the kids to watch TV, the list could go on. Why not just take the kids and put them in one big day care centre, heck we can all be parents.

Why is encouraging parents not to poison their kids Orwellian?

[betsy]

That's my opinion. I, myself, do not believe that second-hand smoke is that big a deal....

I would disagree with you there, as would most doctors & scientists. But there is enough information out there already on the dangers of second hand smoke, so I won't bother debating it.

Oh well, keep your home smoke-free then. Do what you think is best for YOUR OWN children. That's your choice...and your right... as their parent. Nothing's wrong with that, is there?

[betsy]

Boy, I really can't believe that we are actually debating allowing the gov't to intrude even more into our personal lives, talk about Orwellian. And no, I'm not a smoker. What's next, monitering the food we eat, how much time we allow the kids to watch TV, the list could go on. Why not just take the kids and put them in one big day care centre, heck we can all be parents.

Why is encouraging parents not to poison their kids Orwellian?

Corrections. It's no longer called "encouraging" when they're talking of legislating. It means, "dictating."

It's another way of saying, "by hook or by crook, you'll do as I say. Because I know it's good for you."

I hope you don't feed your children hotdogs or any processed meats. That's poison too, you know!

And do you know how much poison there is in Tim Horton's doughnuts?

[betsy]

Hey guys, know what?

Europeans and North Americans have been smoking heavily for over a hundred years. Over that same hundred years, our life spans, birth rates and quality of life have all improved dramatically. It's only in the last ten or fifteen years that smoking has decreased dramatically.

In light of the fact that extensive studies involving thousands of subjects in England over 20 years showed no significant difference in life span or health problems of the spouses and children of smokers and non-smokers...AND recent studies have shown an alarming increase in lung cancer of non-smokers who have not been exposed to second hand smoke, better watch out!

Perhaps we should brace ourselves for new evidence that will probably show that smoking has been a positive influence in the betterment of our health.

Think RED WINE!

[jefferiah]

I dont know if I am in favour of out-lawing smoking in the home. That seems pretty harsh. But I know that for a non-smoking kid growing up in that environment can be very annoying. I think the anti-smoking lobby does get pretty out of hand sometimes nowadays. At one time there were ads of cigarettes that are good for you, and such things like that. And tobacco was a big bad guy. But now in some cases I think the anti-smoking groups are getting a little wierd. For instance, I dont see why RJ Reynolds cant portray a camel smoking if he wants. And alot of anti-smokers make a really big huff about passing smokers outdoors. Little things like that. Like smokers are lepers or something. But I think alot of people nowadays do not smoke in their homes anyway. Its hard to judge really. I mean would this proposed ban on smoking in the home mean a person could be fined. for having one cigarette once in a while in their homes when their kids are away. Or something. Or sneaking one by the window. Could these people be prosecuted as criminals because of this proposition. There is a lot to think about here.

[gc1765]

Oh well, keep your home smoke-free then. Do what you think is best for YOUR OWN children. That's your choice...and your right... as their parent. Nothing's wrong with that, is there?

Betsy,

I must say I am a bit surprised by you. I thought you were a Christian who is pro-life (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that in another thread, and my apologies if I'm being presumptuous)? Yet you go on and on about parents being free to choose whether to smoke or not in their homes. Why do parents have the right to choose whether or not they kill their kids through second hand smoke, but they shouldn't have the choice to decide if they want an abortion? Now, I really didn't want to bring up the abortion issue, but I just can't get my head around this contradiction. Sure, second hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill someone they way abortion would, but it's certainly a huge step in the direction of death.

[betsy]

Oh well, keep your home smoke-free then. Do what you think is best for YOUR OWN children. That's your choice...and your right... as their parent. Nothing's wrong with that, is there?

Betsy,

I must say I am a bit surprised by you. I thought you were a Christian who is pro-life (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that in another thread, and my apologies if I'm being presumptuous)? Yet you go on and on about parents being free to choose whether to smoke or not in their homes. Why do parents have the right to choose whether or not they kill their kids through second hand smoke, but they shouldn't have the choice to decide if they want an abortion? Now, I really didn't want to bring up the abortion issue, but I just can't get my head around this contradiction. Sure, second hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill someone they way abortion would, but it's certainly a huge step in the direction of death.

You must be running out of gas...for you to dig up and bring out Christianity in this discussion.

Gotta go. Ciao! I'll be laughing all the way to bed...

[BubberMiley]

I dont see why RJ Reynolds cant portray a camel smoking if he wants.

Because it's a cartoon character, which appeals to children. Do you have no problem with this Flintstones ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ikOTXbxwhM

[gc1765]

You must be running out of gas...for you to dig up and bring out Christianity in this discussion.

Gotta go. Ciao! I'll be laughing all the way to bed...

Well that's one way to avoid a question...

I guess you can't defend your contradiction. Oh well

[betsy]

Betsy,

I must say I am a bit surprised by you. I thought you were a Christian who is pro-life (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that in another thread, and my apologies if I'm being presumptuous)? Yet you go on and on about parents being free to choose whether to smoke or not in their homes. Why do parents have the right to choose whether or not they kill their kids through second hand smoke, but they shouldn't have the choice to decide if they want an abortion? Now, I really didn't want to bring up the abortion issue, but I just can't get my head around this contradiction. Sure, second hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill someone they way abortion would, but it's certainly a huge step in the direction of death.

You must be running out of gas...for you to dig up and bring out Christianity in this discussion.

Well that's one way to avoid a question...

I guess you can't defend your contradiction. Oh well

I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into another religion thread....besides, there is really nothing to debate about your perceived premise. SIMPLY because there is no contradiction. As far as I am concerned.

You either have not read the exchanges...or you have read but did not understand the whole implication.

I'll give you only one simple reason why your premise on this supposed "contradiction" is groundless.

Read my lips: I do not buy into that second-hand smoke bull. I don’t believe it is the “terror” that you and the anti-smoking busy bodies say it is. Anymore than I believe in your other god, Kyoto.

Your premise begs the question – PETITIO PRINCIPII . You base your conclusion on an unproven premise. In fact the evidence I posted clearly refutes your premise.

Your anti-smoking doctrine, to me, is nothing more than one of the many doctrines that the anti-religion groups are desperately embracing…probably to fill the void in their lives…and make some meaning and purpose to an otherwise meaningless existence and stark realization that once they’re dead, they’re forever gone.

Sorry, but I ain’t converting to your “religion,” brother.

If you insist on pursuing your religion-route....kindly create another thread for it.

But I’m warning you, I’m still in no mood to dance in any liberal merry-go-round polka!

[jefferiah]

I dont see why RJ Reynolds cant portray a camel smoking if he wants.

Because it's a cartoon character, which appeals to children. Do you have no problem with this Flintstones ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ikOTXbxwhM

As a former child, I can tell you right now: Camels dont make you want to try smoking. Thats ridiculous. Its just an ad. And I think businesses should have the right to advertise their product. If they advertise cigarettes as being pleasurable and having great taste I think that is just business. You wouldn't advertise a product by saying it tastes horrible and telling people not to buy it. Same with people who are now trying to stop fast food ads. McDonalds is not forcing people to eat there. People have to take some amount of responsibility for their own actions.

People nowadays know that smoking is bad for them. Some people enjoy it and still choose to do it in spite of the risks. Nobody can claim ignorance any longer though. No one buys light cigarettes cuz they think these are the vitamin rich healthy cigarettes. The tobacco companies are not brainwashing people. Sometimes a camel is just a camel.

[BubberMiley]

People nowadays know that smoking is bad for them.

See Betsy's post above. That isn't always the case.