What are you talking about? Do you want a kid to stay with a parent that does not care if the kid can breath or not? I specifically talked about an asthmaitc kid going to the hospital repeated with an asthma attack whose parents smoke, I have seen little kids come in wheezing so you could hear them accross the ER and they reeked of cigarette smoke. Think about Maslow, which is more important Oxygen or family relationships?
An egregious home environment would have to consist of more than just smoking cigarettes to justify removing children from the home. Like I said earlier, that, at MOST, would be considered a form of neglect and is FAR from the most serious kinds. You really should look into real physical/sexual abuse that children endure and how slow CPS are to move and how they fail a lot of children in their care. Then you would see how ridiculous it would be to overburden that system with parents who smoke.
The PROBLEM is that you would have to prove that in court in order to have the child removed. You would have to prove that the cigarette smoke is the definitive CAUSE instead of just an exacerbation of asthma, which some people get quite often due to many, many different factors. Do you realize how difficult that is?
Not being able to breath is no big deal?
Actually the case that broght the up, the child was removed. No one I know of denies cigarette smoke can cause an asthma attack. The kid comes in reeking of smoke and is turning blue, damn right the child should be taken from the parents. Sucks not being able to breath.
Only if we stray hopelessly from the topic. Facts:
a)cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen with links to numerous health problems (including death)
b)opening a window does not actually prevent cigarette smoke from entering the entire vehicle, as any smoker or passenger already well knows.
c)children have extremely limited powers in preventing parents from smoking. Sure, they can ask the parent to stop smoking, but if the parent insists then the child is crap out of luck.
The rest of this thread has been amusing navel gazing, but the above is what's important. As I said earlier, we don't need to bring the slippery slope into this since the ban can be defended on its own merits.
Well, thank you for your opinion. I have mine, and it obviously differs from yours.
None of what I said in that post was subjective and open to interpretation. That's why I called them "facts."
Of course it can. I don't deny that either. I am saying that you cannot prove the cause of an asthma exacerbation. It could be caused by allergens.
I don't consider much of anything in your post to resemble facts. That's why I thanked you for your opinion. So, thanks for your opinion, again.
a)cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen with links to numerous health problems (including death)
Not an opinion. The science settled this one a long time ago.
b)opening a window does not actually prevent cigarette smoke from entering the entire vehicle, as any smoker or passenger already well knows.
Not an opinion. I understand that it doesn't enter the rest of the vehicle from your perception, but no nonsmoking passenger in a car will support this. It's a smoker's fantasy and nothing more.
c)children have extremely limited powers in preventing parents from smoking. Sure, they can ask the parent to stop smoking, but if the parent insists then the child is crap out of luck.
Not an opinion. The parent makes the rules, feeds and clothes the child, provides the shelter, etc. That a child has limited decision making powers is not up for interpretation.
b)opening a window does not actually prevent cigarette smoke from entering the entire vehicle, as any smoker or passenger already well knows.
Not an opinion. I understand that it doesn't enter the rest of the vehicle from your perception, but no nonsmoking passenger in a car will support this. It's a smoker's fantasy and nothing more.
Except is lacks the proof of the smoke actually getting to the other person. It certainly might get there, but it doesn't always get to them. This is not an opinion.
Yes, for the sake of the child's health, he must cease breathing in the presence of smokers, particularly in an automobile.Except is lacks the proof of the smoke actually getting to the other person. It certainly might get there, but it doesn't always get to them. This is not an opinion.
Yes, for the sake of the child's health, he must cease breathing in the presence of smokers, particularly in an automobile.
why not outlaw smoking, texting, use of cell phone and dvd players while driving. There lots of things soccer moms practice that endanger the welfare of children
Well you and I will have to agree to disagree on the banning issue. I think it is unenforceable and a waste of time, money and human resources.
Nothing better than taking money from parents with small children?
Not being able to breath is no big deal?
IMO, smoking in a closed area with children, even others, is going over the line..
What we need is a better education and a better people.
Having a law against this is too difficult and costly to effectively enforce.
So ban cigarettes?