Maine:DHS creates smoking rules for foster homes, vehicles

bangordailynews.com ^ | 2-26-04 | Nok-Noi Hauger

[SheLion]

BANGOR - Protecting the lungs of little ones in foster care from the effects of secondhand smoke is the primary reason behind a new law in Maine." Secondhand smoke is really dangerous for kids," said Janet Spencer, director of Bangor Region Partners for Health. "Their lungs are in a developing stage and anything that is pulled into their lungs can potentially be harmful in the long run. In a lot of ways secondhand smoke is more harmful."

The law, which was enacted last fall, calls for the Maine Department of Human Services to "adopt rules on smoking by foster parents in family foster homes and in foster parents' private vehicles. The rules must include ways to protect foster children from secondhand smoke."

DHS drafted new smoking rules for a Jan. 1 deadline tied to the new smoking law and provisionally adopted the rules on Dec. 23, 2003. The Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services started to review the proposed rules on Jan. 7.

On Tuesday, the committee held a public hearing to review a revised draft of the rules, said Newell Augur, director of legislative and public affairs for the Department of Human Services. 

The rules need legislative approval before DHS can adopt them, said Jane Orbeton of the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, because they are a mandated part of the new law.

"A work session will be held this coming Tuesday," she said. "At that point they'll [the committee] make the decision on whether to approve the rules, disapprove or approve with modifications."

The committee meeting is at 1 p.m. March 2 in Room 202 of the Cross Office Building in Augusta.

The committee's recommendations then would be brought to the floor of the House. 

The draft version of the rules is basic, said Augur.

"Smoking is prohibited in a foster home when a foster child is in placement," the proposed rules state.

The new rules also would prohibit smoking in vehicles whenever a foster child is present or within 24 hours of a foster child entering the vehicle. 

Under the new rules, foster parents would be allowed to smoke in their homes when foster children are absent from the home. However, "smoking is prohibited within 24 hours prior to their expected return."

There also would be a 24-hour restriction on smoking before the arrival of a foster child placed in respite care. The proposed new policy falls under the licensing rules for family foster homes for children.

The smoking law was weakened from the original version, which sought to impose a flat-out smoking ban in all foster family surroundings. The enacted version orders the DHS to adopt rules that take into account the rights of foster parents, said its sponsor, Rep. David Trahan, R-Waldoboro.

According to the Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine's Web site, one Mainer dies every day from exposure to secondhand smoke.

The new law passed during the first regular session of the 121st Legislature on June 13, 2003.

[SheLion]

Is this a bonifide AD???????? Or did someone make this up? No smoking in a CONVERTABLE? You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!!

[SheLion]

Don't they have enough trouble getting foster parents.

It's sad, isn't it? I wonder how many foster parents get drunk at night and sprawl on the couch!

[VRWC_minion]

Great news, the children should not be subjected to the smoke, plus this is the first step toward banning smoking around all children.

[swarthyguy]

These nanny laws make me ashamed to be American.

We have become a nation of ninnynanny hypochondriacs, scared of our own shadows, prostrate worshippers at the altars of state power, wanting the Leviathan to control behavior and exulting in the warm and fuzzy glow of the warm benevolent embrace of the state, ignoring liberty and individual behavior for the coercive whip of the state.

At least the Bush administration is smart enough not take asinine US smoking laws to Iraq.

[Gabz]

I don't know if it is bona fide or not......OTOH a car is a car, regardless of whether it is a convertible or not. I would venture to say the Maine rule would apply to converts as well.

I drove a convertible for 15 years (I still miss that car)and even my SIL who has health problems that can be aggravated by tobacco smoke (and other smoke) never had a problem with anyone smoking when we were in that car.

I would suggest Maine be more concerned with foster kids being in convertibles to begin with rather than worrying about a non-existant problem with smokers.

BTW - I still have my anti-Delaware ban bumper stickers on my vehicle. yesterday we had lunch in Maryland and a gal who pulled into the parking lot just after we did asked me "who is Ruth Ann?" We were walking in the door as she asked and I explained she is the Governor of Delaware......She had the whole place (it's just a small tavern) roaring laughing when she said - "no wonder you want to ban her - she's killed half the bar business in that state with the stupid smoking ban."

Until yesterday, I had never before met this woman, so she had no idea about me. But here is someone that lives in southern Maryland and is totally aware about how devastating the smoking ban has been to Delaware businesses. For the hour or so we were in there 90% of the conversation was about smoker bans, increased tobacco taxes and all the hardhips and problems both cause.

As an interesting note - every person in there, including the owner and the waitress/bartender were smoking except for one guy, who like us had come in for some lunch......and even he agreed that smoking bans were absolutely stupid. His attitude was that if you don't like being around smoke go to a place that doesn't have it.

[Old Professer]

No matter how well reasoned and researched the information you present, the main argument against active smoking and the influence of ETS will remain; it stinks.

And this simple aesthetic concern will be the nail that seals the coffin on tobacco users.

The state's use of our children against us as a means of behavioral modification will not stop at this one funeral.

[Old Professer]

See post#26.

[VRWC_minion]

Whether the health claims are true or not, they have been accepted as if they were true. Therefore, whem a state has laws that are designed to protect adults from the harm of second hand smoke, its illogical for them not to have laws to protect children from SHS.

[philetus]

If it's bad for foster kids it's bad for anyones kids.

The next step will be privats homes.

All foster parents in Maine should take the kids back to the gestapo.
If they did this, this smoking ban would be gone in a week.

[VRWC_minion]

The next step will be privats homes.

Yes, of course and its about time because its abusive to the child to smoke in the same vicinity.

[philetus]

The next step will be privats homes.

Yes, of course and its about time because its abusive to the child to smoke in the same vicinity.


Prove it.

[Gabz]

Prove it.

There is no proof for the allegation - but just more of the anti-smoker propaganda. They believe that if they tell the lie often enough it will considered proof in and of itself just because the sheeple believe the lie.

[VRWC_minion]

Prove it.

If any parent deliberately, continuously and needlessly burns something which releases potential carcinogens and other chemicals within close proximity to the child on a regular basis, that parent is abusive.

But if you believe burning who-knows-what in the vicinity of a child is okay, then you should be able to argue with a straight face that we should smoke in neonatal units, pipe tobacco smoke into a child's room to help calm his nerves while he sleeps, and stick him in the middle of a crowded car full of smokers.

[philetus]

Most cities' air is as bad as smoking a pack a day.
I and two siblings were raised in a smoking household.
I raised four kids in a smoking household.
I know many people who were raised in a smoking household.

If second hand smoke was anywhere near as bad as you and all the enviro wackos make it out to be,no one raised in a smoking household would live to be an adult.

[VRWC_minion]

Key words: deliberately, continuously and needlessly

[philetus]

Keep posting garbage.

Show me some rock solid proof.

[VRWC_minion]

Show me some rock solid proof.

If you think its not abusive to subjedct a child to constant any smoke in enclosed spaces then I agree I cannot prove it to you. However, this is ample proof to reasonable people and these reasonable people are moving toward making it illegal to abuse children by smoking in their vicinity.

[philetus]

If there was solid medical or scientific proof that second hand smoke was harmful, there would be REAL laws enacted, outlawing smoking around children or ANYONE and I don't mean laws because people don't like the smell.

[VRWC_minion]

Do we wait for conclusive proof that a child might be poisoned by smoke or do we act as if he might and avoid there exposure accordingly.

I maintain that a parent that needlessly smokes in front of their child causes them to take unnecessary risks and such a parent is selfish and unable to put others well being ahead of their own. Its abusive.

[philetus]

So, your saying , for reasonable people, NO proof that something is bad is ample proof to them that it is bad and if they have no proof that it should be banned, that is ample proof that it should be banned.