Posted on 12/18/2005 7:16:44 AM PST by cloud8
Children's health will be put at risk from passive smoking if the government bans smoking in all restaurants and bars, according to dramatic new research out today.
The study, which will provoke fresh controversy over whether a partial ban would be the better option, concluded that parents, particularly poorer ones, who are prevented from smoking in bars tend to smoke more in front of their children at home. Passive smoking has been linked to breathing difficulties and asthma among children.[snip]
[Researchers] concluded that parents smoke more at home if they are prevented from lighting up in bars or restaurants. The 'displacement' activity of transferring smoking to the home appears to affect poorer families more than the middle-classes. Other tobacco bans, such as those imposed on trains, shopping areas, or workplaces, do not appear to result in children being exposed to more harmful fumes at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.guardian.co.uk ...
Isn't it?
Cool counterattack on the anti-smokers. "It's for the children"
Hey, why not? Maybe they can dish it out, but not take it.
No, because the next move of the Marching Nannies will be to have the State remove children from the homes of smokers.
Well, that's probably true, but that may be what starts the counter-revolution (desperately needed).
Maybe the frog will finally realize the water in the pot is boiling, but my guess is he won't -- because the only people that will have their children removed will be the proletariat, and of course they are all form Jesusland and wouldn't vote Democrat anyway.
> Isn't it?
Hard to say. The article implies that the children of people who go to pubs are at greater risk, and that lower class people go to pubs. I'm not sure that's true. Town where I live, smoking appears to be a part of bluecollar culture, yet in the next town over, smoking is an affectation of the university elite. (I.e., Harvard.)
This is one of those issues where both Dems and Repubs are Equal Opportunity Oppressors.
Don't laugh. Taking kids away from smoking parents is being proposed in several states. IIRC, they include Oklahoma and Virginia.
I am a non-smoker who hates to breathe smoke, but my attitude is that you should have the freedom to do as you please so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
As far as taking kids away from smoking parents, that is totally nuts! I agree that it's not good for the kids, but how many of us are perfect parents? If they take away your kids because you smoke, what's to stop them from taking away your kids because you don't serve them enough vegetables or you let them watch too much TV or they find out that you voted Republican?
"As far as taking kids away from smoking parents, that is totally nuts! I agree that it's not good for the kids, but how many of us are perfect parents? If they take away your kids because you smoke, what's to stop them from taking away your kids because you don't serve them enough vegetables or you let them watch too much TV or they find out that you voted Republican?"
Excellent points that deserve repetition. The "danger" of second hand smoke is so over stated as to be a virtual lie. If we work the numbers, we would find that a trip to grandma's in an automobile is far more dangerous than a years worth of exposure to second hand smoke.
No, this is going to end up causing the niconazis to ban smoking in your HOME.
I don't really know what to believe about the medical danger of second-hand smoke. The smokers all want us to believe that it is perfectly benign. The anti-smokers all want us to believe that we'll all die from it.
Regardless of the truth about the medical danger, it is undeniably unpleasant to those of us who don't smoke. I am very glad that most restaurants are non-smoking in my area. I think, though, that it would be fine to have some smoking restaurants to cater to smokers. I don't see why all restaurants have to be either one or the other. I DON'T think that having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is a good solution, though. That's like having a non-peeing section in a swimming pool.
Well, I've already banned it in my home. But I would defend your right to smoke in your home.
It's interesting to me that the left, which is so adamantly tries to preserve freedom and privacy for terrorists is the same group that wants to take away away freedom and privacy from you and me.
that sounds pretty reasonable
I'm not so sure it is strictly the left that is trying to ban smoking. I know plenty of republican co-workers who support this nonsense.
The husbsnd and wife next to us rent their house, but the owner says no smoking. So they stand out on the porch when it is 10 degrees and smoke. Can't wait until it goes below zero to watch them.
"I don't really know what to believe about the medical danger of second-hand smoke."
The above statement is ITSELF an example of the effectivness of the tobacco nazis tactics.
Your lungs are under seige every second of the day and night by more particles, smokes and chemical fumes, pollens, dusts dampness and irritants than could be listed here in a day but all anyone really thinks about is tobacco smoke. What makes tobbacco dangerous is the MASSIVE doses people take day in and day out for YEARS.
To get THAT much smoke into the lungs of a non smoker would require an atmospheric saturation level that would be intolorable to even the most addicted smoker (not to mention impossible to create).
Do you mean the pro-tobacco nazis or the anti-tobacco nazis?
You bring up the issue of all the other pollutants that we breathe (not to mention those that we eat or that cross the skin barrier). I think one impossible problem that is overlooked in ALL of the studies is what happens when all of these *bad* things combine. People who want to pooh-pooh various studies often like to point out that you would have to smoke 1000 cigs a day/drink 500 cans of Coke a day/eat 50 tubes of lipstick... Of course no one would or could ingest these massive amount, which makes the study appear ludicrous. But when you add up *all* the stuff we do, each in its tiny amount, it seems to me that some of these results would be cumulative. I would like to see a study that tries to account for something like this. It would be unable to point the finger at any particular toxin, but it would be a demonstration of the affects of the accumulation of multiple toxins and/or their interactions.
Bizarro world.............an argument against smoking bans 'for the children"
too hilarious by far.
I have seen the same argument against the 21-yo drinking laws...
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.