Smoking foes try to stop parents from lighting up

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 16, 2005 | Tarron Lively

[kingattax]

Anti-smoking activists who are driving cigarettes from public places across the country are now targeting private homes -- especially those with children.

Their efforts so far have contributed to regulations in three states -- Maine, Oklahoma and Vermont -- forbidding foster parents from smoking around children. Parental smoking also has become a critical point in some child-custody cases, including ones in Virginia and Maryland.

In a highly publicized Virginia case, a judge barred Caroline County resident Tamara Silvius from smoking around her children as a condition for child visitation. Mrs. Silvius, a waitress at a truck stop in Doswell, Va., calls herself "highly disappointed" with the court's ruling.

"I'm an adult. Who is anybody to tell me I can't smoke or drink?" she said in an interview yesterday.

An appeals court upheld the ruling, but not before one judge raised questions about the extent to which a court should become involved in parental rights and whether certain behavior is harmful or simply not in a child's best interest. Mrs. Silvius says she complied with the decision by altering her smoking habits.

"My children know not to come around when I'm on the front porch with my morning coffee, tending to my cows or out in my garden, because I'm having a cigarette," she said. Still, she thinks this was not a matter for the courts because it was not proven that she posed a risk to her children's health.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Hahahaa! Amazing isn't it? Legal substance is a no no, but what about a possible contact high from wacky tobaccy!

I'm glad he has custody. It's not just the actual smoke, it's possible that she was using more than just pot.

[Gabz]

I'm glad he has custody as well, the last I heard she was in a psychiatric ward.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Let me guess...bi-polar?

[MissouriConservative]

I expected as much. Facts tend to get in the way of agendas these days.

I just look at all the things that scientists have given us.....a new ice age in the 1970s, global warming now, eggs are bad then good, coffee is bad, now good, etc.

Most people who accept crap like the argument on secondhand smoke are like leaves, they follow whichever way the wind blows, no anchor in bedrock principles.

I just hope to catch a passing lurker who might actually think for themselves.....lol

[Gabz]

You got it!!!!!!

[Gabz]

I just hope to catch a passing lurker who might actually think for themselves...

I think that is the reason most of us continue to post.

[thompson]

[Gabz]

Real original.............NOT

[eleni121]

Mike Dore, Secy.
Delaware United Smokers Association
___________________________________________

That's all I needed to see to realize its ridiculousness.

[SheLion]

Mike Dore, Secy.
Delaware United Smokers Association
___________________________________________

That's all I needed to see to realize its ridiculousness.

Gabz, being from Delaware, KNOWS Mike Dore, I remember correctly

Mike Dore, Secy.
Delaware United Smokers Association
___________________________________________

That's all I needed to see to realize its ridiculousness.

Gabz, being from Delaware, KNOWS Mike Dore, I remember correctly

[SheLion]

Gabz? Check out Post # 169

[SheLion]

[gidget7]

Touche' Next they will be monitoring grocery buying to make sure you aren't buying junk food, or the wrong cereal in their nanny-state minds. Oh and heaven forbid you buy soda, and even have it in your house, where the children might drink it!! But being a moral degenerate, now that is wholesome!!

[gidget7]

^5 and Merry Christmas, SheLion!!

[Gabz]

Mike is just the person that posted th information - he did not write it.

I don't believe that either Dr. Whelan or the NY Post thought it to be ridiculous.

I suggets you go back and reread it to learn EXACTLY where the information comes from and you will realize the ridiculousness of your post.

[gidget7]

"The effects of smoking are the most expensive costs incurred by insurers."


Wrong, smokers don't even come close to being the most expensive. By and large, they are in fact, among the healthiest, and the happiest. Obesity and homosexuality (THE most expensive deathstyle), as well as excessive alcohol, are all much more expensive, as far as costs incurred, and all die much younger than smokers, so why is it you and the government are so hell bent on singling out and laying everything, as well as the cost of everything, on the back of smokers?? Just once, I would love an honest answer to that.

[Gabz]

I saw it my friend and my response is in post 175.

And you are correct, I do know Mike Dore, very well in fact.

[gidget7]

YOU are absolutely right! Fireplaces and wood stoves, give off the exact same carcinogens, as smoking. And funny we all live through the use of them too.

Merry Christmas to you!

[Gabz]

Oh and heaven forbid you buy soda, and even have it in your house, where the children might drink it!!

UH -OH...........I'm toast, I picked up a couple of cases of it today................

But you're right, that is the mindset of these nanny staters.

I think I'll have a beer, and save the soda for the kid........ROFL!!!!!!