Replies

Finally, your position becomes clear, minion. So a family raising children in a wood-heated home should be broken up, also, by your logic.

No, they have no choice but the parent who is a smoker chooses to put his children at risk for his own selfish needs. At least with heat there is a trade off for the child. With tobacco there is no trade off. Only risk for the child and no potential benefit.

Or a family that over-indulges their kids' desire for junk food.

Again the child is making his own choices. This isn't equivalent to the parent forcing the child to breath smoke. Such a parent isn't fit.

\ Or are you of the opinion that cigarette smoke contains some special,EE-VIL, ingredients that must be stamped out by any means necessary?

No. I am of the opinion that a small percentage of people might be the victims of extreme damage from SHS, and until it can be proven without a doubt that exposure to SHs is completely harmless in all cases any parent how forces his child to breath SHS is not fit to be a parent.

You are the lowest possible type of person I can imagine.

until it can be proven without a doubt that exposure to SHs is completely harmless in all cases any parent how forces his child to breath SHS is not fit to be a parent.

Who do you think you are to tell me that my parents were unfit parents - and who do you think you are to tell me I am an unfit parent.

YOU have shown yourself to be the anti-smoker that you have attempted to deny you are.

Forget about trying to do your placating routine - you are a tobacco prohibitionist through and through.

"Again the child is making his own choices"

Children don't have the same rights as adults, nor do they have the money. Adults have the choice to allow junk food or to not allow it since they are the ones buying it for the child. So the point headsonpikes made is valid.

"and until it can be proven without a doubt that exposure to SHs is completely harmless in all cases any parent how forces his child to breath SHS is not fit to be a parent. "

Even many vaccines haven't been proven to be completely harmless so I guess you would also call any parent who has their child vaccinated not fit to be a parent. There are children who die due to vaccine related problems. Probably more than die from SHS (since I've never actually seen a valid study, or any study at all, showing that anyone has ever died due to SHS.) Taking a bath isn't completely harmless either (many kids/adults die from accidents in the tub) so bathing children must be abuse as well. Driving is out too. Too dangerous for a child to ride in a car. DO you have kids?

I am of the opinion that a small percentage of people might be the victims of extreme damage from SHS, and until it can be proven without a doubt that exposure to SHs is completely harmless in all cases any parent how forces his child to breath SHS is not fit to be a parent.

What a STUPID statement.
Prove to me, without a doubt, that exposure to ANYBODY by ANYTHING is completely harmless.
Don't waffle, different people are allergic to many many things.
By extrapolation of your own statement you're not fit to be a parent.

Minion,you are an arrogant ass!

According to you,I'm not fit to be a parent.I have five kids,aged 35-41 who wouldn't agree with you and none of them smoke.

My grandchildren love me and I have them overnight and I smoke in my home. Smoking isn't allowed in their homes and that's fair enough.

Thank God I have tolerant children and God help anyone who has to deal with you on a daily basis. Self righteousness is oozing out of all your posts.