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.

[Gabz]

Merry Christmas to you as well!!!!

[Calpernia]

>>>However...insurance costs - which we all pay - are based on the "stupidity" (more like deliberate disdain for others) of people who do unhealthy things to others. When people cause harm to others such as smoking or drinking to excess - then somehow there must be a way to assess them higher costs. Maybe by penalizing them with higher premiums they will stop damaging their children's health and insurance costs for the rest of us will go down!

I've got a better idea. If picking up assumed costs of bad behaviors is the issue....let's go after the REAL leeches.

The politicians that like to keep urban blytes to maintain a corrupt voting base and suck federal and state funds!

See, if real issues of costs are fixed, then we don't have to argue over imaginery straw mean for a few pennies.

[patton]

According to the latest study...

[Gabz]

"Big-Daddy-Large-Pants".

ROFLMSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a riot!!!

[patton]

LOL.

[eleni121]

Oh I have no quarrel about lambasting politicians who exploit human blight whether urban or rural. But they keep getting re-elected so unless you have a better idea - there they are and there they will stay...human nature being what it is. Class envy is a frightful barrier to human progress.

Back to smoking and kids. The smoke from burning tobacco harms kids who really have no say in what adults do around them. I disapprove of govt nannies getting involved in this conundrum without the overwhelming approval of the citizenry. For the time being, I do approve of insurance companies /landlords/employers/restauranteurs/etc discrinating against them if that will help.

That said, at some point society as a whole has to determine if the health and social costs of legal tobacco use are so harmful that it should be made illegal. Human beings after all haven't always smoked tobacco...they could get along fine without it - they should be able to get along without it again. For starters I would support a ban on smoking in films. Hollywood has done a lot of damage in that regard.

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

See, if real issues of costs are fixed, then we don't have to argue over imaginery straw mean for a few pennies.

____________________________
I'm not sure what is imaginary here. Could you clarify..

[eleni121]

I don't see govt getting hard on smokers. You can smoke like a chimnney and you won't lose your license like drinkers do. You can smoke pretty much anywhere (except public places indoors) and not harm anyone else except yourself and those who have to breathe the fumes. Smokers are getting off easy compared to the harm they do to themselves and others!

No need to overstate the sanctions against smoking. And I have already posted that tobacco use is among the most expensive costs to health, not the most. Certainly homosexual lifestyles and obesity cause far more harm to the fabric of society and health than smoking does. At the same time however, smoking is the number one cause of upper respiratory problems in children and contributes to a host of medical maladies in adults. That fact alone should give you and everyone else pause to consider its unhealthy aspects.

[nopardons]

That's because smokers don't cause accidents, as drunks and dopers do.

On many places, you can't smoke OUT IN THE OPEN. Are you trying to tell me that cigarette smoke is worse than diesel fumes?

Smokers are being taxed more than drinkers and aren't "getting off easy" anywhere.

And there is NO proof whatsoever, that smokers' health is worse than other peoples or that they "cost" you and/or businesses more money than others.

Smoking "CAUSES UPPER RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS IN CHILDREN? Since when and according to who? That's one of THE most spurious, fallacious statements about smoking, that I have EVER seen posted to FR.

[nopardons]

Exactly so and in spades!

[nopardons]

Then WHY weren't far more children sick unto death from smoke, when cigar, pipe, and cigarette smoking was not only acceptable, but when at least 85% of the American population smoked like chimneys?

[eleni121]

Smoke your brains out if you want but please don't do it with kids around. BTW---you really need to get up to speed on the harm that smoking does.

http://www.maricopa.gov/public_health/tobacco/secondhand/docs/factsheets/TUPP-SHSandAsthma.pdf

[nopardons]

My mother smoked and did me absolutely NO harm whatsoever.

I smoked around my now adult daughter all of her life. She NEVER had an upper respiratory infection/problem, while she lived under my roof; not a one.

I have NO intention of giving up smoking when my grandchild arrives.

You can post every single anti-smoking link that you can find, but you know what? THEY DON'T JIVE WITH HISTORICAL FACT!

Lying about smoking and smokers and posting your brainwashed, biased garbage just doesn't hold up against real life stats.

[armydoc]

Correlation does not equal causation

I agree. The "cornflakes principal"- I ate cornflakes this morning, and that same day the Dow Jones closed up 300 points. A correlation, certainly. Causation, unlikely. So how can we prove causation? By controlling for other factors, obviously. In population studies, we try to match the two groups as closely as possible. We quantify other known risk factors for the independent variable. Yes, sometimes it is difficult to do, and it will never be exact. However, study enough people, repeat the studies enough, we start to "prove" causation. An easier way is animal studies- several of which I referenced. Take animals that are nearly identical genetically, have identical environments, feed them the same food. The only difference is exposure to the agent in question. But you knew all of this, didn't you? Do you want to discuss the particulars of the studies cited?

Since you are so well versed in this could you explain to me why ingestion/exposure ot a substance has an increased relative risk (rr) of 65% for lung cancer is statistically insignificant and no worry is needed. Yet another substance has only a 19% increased RR and is considered to be more toxic, even though ingestion/exposure levels are probably far lower.

I would be happy to comment on that data if you could give me a reference of the study. Would you like to comment on the studies I referenced?

[jerry639]

So, since nobody has the balls to go after either smoking or drinking as legal activities that should be made illegal, let's just find another hobby beside trying to tell people what they can and cannot do in their own homes.

That is a great post and I applaud you for it.
Also, how many times have you listen to someone criticize others for smoking only to catch them later doing the same thing? I have on several on several occasions.

[SweetCaroline]

If you, as a parent smoked, would you be upset if your teenagers smoked in moderate amounts?

I caught my daughter smoking when she was 17 we argued about that for about three months, then you know what happened?

She was killed by a drunk driver.

I had wasted the last 3 months of her life trying to protect her instead of enjoying her.

I learned then, that none of us know when, how or why any of us are going to die.

Only GOD does!

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[jess35]

Smoking "CAUSES UPPER RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS IN CHILDREN? Since when and according to who? That's one of THE most spurious, fallacious statements about smoking, that I have EVER seen posted to FR.

Oh, I don't know..... I've seen some real whoppers over the years.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I am so sorry about your daughter. How terrible. But you did what any respectable parent would do. You're right. God knows the day and the hour.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

smokers don't even come close to being the most expensive. By and large, they are in fact, among the healthiest,

A nurse I know would beg to disagree. She says smmoking is the worse thing anyone can do to their body, worse than diabetes, obesity ot lack of exercise.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

You can post every single anti-smoking link that you can find, but you know what? THEY DON'T JIVE WITH HISTORICAL FACT!

If you care to post some links to scientific articles stating that smoking has no bad effects, I'm ready to be convinced. You must have these references at your fingertips, being that you're so sure smoking is harmless.