Posted on 03/24/2014 12:12:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
No, I haven't, but common sense and tips from moms and dads trump classes, IMO. Of course, that only applies to families who have common sense.
Even armed with that, one of my children decided to dip her finger into the dishwasher detergent I had just placed in the door. Bad move. She burned her throat and I called poison control. All ended up well despite a scary situation.
My 2-year-old son stood on his little locomotive, behind my back, because he was curious about the flame on the gas range. That was unpredictable and I was upset that he burned his finger.
It is a balancing act to protect our children without smothering them.
They all completed college---one as an accountant and CPA, another as an electrical engineer and the youngest as a joint business owner with her husband. We have also been blessed with grandchildren we would be happy to take anywhere.
You have to target someone so you point out hungry, sick children suffering from parental smoking. That's bad, but it's not every smoker!
If you want to talk about abuse of children, there is a very long list to address. Have you considered taking on some of those many problems?
Thanks for the ping
Some people find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who can be excellent parents without taking any classes, reading parenting books, or any other mass marketed outside influences.
But caffeine is addictive....not as addictive as nicotine, but it is still addictive. Please see my definition for addiction in my previous response to you. You want to deny established science and something the medical community has understood for a long time.
Smoking is both behaviorally addicting and physiologically addicting. Again, you're denying legitimate science, but you will find plenty of company on the internet who live their lives in denial of sound science.
Again, human physiology is a remarkable thing. Some people are easily addicted to things that are only mildly addictive, while a small percentage of people are not affected by substances that are highly addictive. But these people represent a very small percentage of the overall population.
You're going to hurt yourself trying to stretch the acceptance of homosexuality with smoking being a habituation. Your denial of the addictive properties of nicotine flies in the face of well established science. You will continue to believe what you want to believe, science notwithstanding. That falls into the same category as believing that C02 is going to destroy the earth. Neither one is backed by legitimate science, but there are people who choose to believe it anyway.
No, Y'all keep it out of the public places. You do what you want in your own home or on your own land.
Y'all are the ones wanting to pollute the air I breathe. You've lost this battle already. All we're doing with the e-cigs is making sure we don't lose the gains we've made.
No, Y'all keep it out of the public places. You do what you want in your own home or on your own land.
Y'all are the ones wanting to pollute the air I breathe. You've lost this battle already. All we're doing with the e-cigs is making sure we don't lose the gains we've made.
When you bring it into a public place, then it’s my body. So my vote goes to stopping you from bringing it into public places.
Do what you want in your own home or on your own land. But wear a bubble suit when you go into public if you are too weak to set it down for that long.
And now they are not legally allowed to. And the burden of proof that e-cigs will not pollute the air or emit smells is on them, before we stop applying the same regs to e-cigs as to cigs.
Studies have shown that 98% of all cancer patients have been within 100 yards of a smoker at least once in their lifetimes, or at least seen a lit cigarette out on the street, or on TV. Therefore... the mere sight of a cigarette can kill.
That's great. But we can't tell the difference, and according to the FDA there are things other than nicotine like minerals in the vapors that could be harmful to health as well.
So just smoke them at home. If they don't have nicotine, you ought to be able to put them down long enough to eat in a restaurant without fouling the air.
But I wouldn't put a complete ban on it. People need the right to do stupid stuff including stuff that kills them and leaves their relatives with huge medical bills.
I do like the current anti-smoking public service campaigns. They are finally getting serious and telling people the real downside to smoking. I've lost a number of relatives to smoking related cancer, including my own brother at 31.
We will do what we damn well please in places where it is permitted. If you don’t like it, leave.
And you are confusing battles with wars.
Same attitude that got you banned from smoking in public places in the first place. I'll leave and then I'll vote. Then I'll come back.
If they're subsidized AT ALL, they're socialist bullshit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.