Except when it comes to decent Freepers because they smoke, eh? Hey, newbie. Welcome to Free Republic!
Posted on 08/13/2004 5:24:43 AM PDT by Hatteras
Mom Sent To Jail For Smoking Around Kids
POSTED: 6:43 am EDT August 13, 2004
BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- A woman was sentenced Thursday to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke around her children.
Tamara Silvius was banned last year from smoking around the youths, now ages 8 and 10, as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Except when it comes to decent Freepers because they smoke, eh? Hey, newbie. Welcome to Free Republic!
It doesn't say this in the article, so I don't know.
I'm wondering if the kids have medical problems that smoking can make worse like asthma and allergies.
I know that I have both, and I cannot be around cigarette smoke or I get very sick. If I am around smoke for more than about an hour then I will get an asthma attack bad enough to land me in the hospital.
I'm assuming the smoke must cause some sort of problem for the kids.
No newbie here. I've been a proud Freeper (mostly just reading though) for a long time. I used to have another name, then I decided to stop hiding behind an alias and use my real name.
I have no doubt there are plenty of decent folks on here. Just because you smoke doesn't make you a bad person.
Blind denial in the face of all logic and common sense just because you do enjoy something that is harmful to yourself and others...well, that doesn't make you bad either, I suppose. Good luck with all that.
"JUNK SCIENCE"
1491: The Earth is round....
1902: Man can fly....
1968: Man will land on the moon....
Today: Cigarette smoke kills....
See? That's why I said I didn't know why I was bothering to post to you. You didn't read anything I wrote to you. Nothing.
You have your mind made up and your right, everyone else is wrong, and you won't be made to see the difference.
If you and your friend hate smokers and smoking so much, why are you on this thread? Just to kick up dust and irritate everyone? I don't get it.
We are Conservatives. We are Freepers. We are Moms and Dads, Grandparents. We choose to enjoy a legal product, but there are always the ugly anti smokers around to come in and pound on us.
And when we stand up for ourselves, you just don't like it, do you? Then you turn on us for being mean and nasty.
Like I said, we are sick and tired of it!
Tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. And if we follow the theory that you spew, it's a wonder any of us have lived this long!
Amazing.
Just amazing.
"Do you really and truly believe that inhaling cigarette smoke DOESN'T cause cancer? Do you REALLY?"
Yes, but I understand the difference between causation and increasing a risk factor. If smoking caused cancer, then every smoker would get cancer and no non-smokers would get cancer. However, one must be genetically at risk for cancer prior to any outside influence causing cancer.
To sum it up for you, yes an increased risk factor is a result of smoking, but smoking does not cause cancer.
If you think that smoking is so harmful, then answer one very simple question. Why is the highest per capita smoking population in the world also the lowest per capita lung and heart disease contracting population in the world? (Hint: Diet and genetics play a much bigger role than tobacco.)
What flavor is the smoke gnatzie kool aide today?
"No, like everyone else in the world, FReepers are just as guilty of saying "hooray for the courts" when they make a decision that fitsd their agenda."
I agree. It is another reason that Conservatism is dead. The current republican contingent prefers to use the same tools as the left, only when it suits their morals......
"#1. You didn't read the entire thread. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I am a STAUNCH conservative who is in favor of anti-smoking laws because they protect the rights of the many (just like most of our laws) against the whims of the few."
What "rights" are being protected? Are those rights worthy of the confiscation of private property? If you are so supportive of government interference (confiscation) of private property use, then I have to wonder how "staunch" you really are.
Protection of private property and individual liberty means that sometimes, some people will chose to engage in behavior with which you may not agree.
"That's fine. I see my position as conservative common sense."
Actually, it should accurately be titled "convenient conservatism."
Like you I have a very hard time with folks who refuse to differentiate between public and private property.
DMV is a public place. Joe's Bar & Grill is a private busines establishment that invites the public in. If you drive or own a vehicle you are FORCED to deal with DMV to remain within the law. You are never FORCED to enter Joe's place of business.
Regarding this woman - the anti smokers have gotten out of control - one of the anti-smoker websites offers information (for a fee) to help divorced couples get anti-smoker language into custody agreements. It would not surprise me if that is where this idiotic condition of the custody agreement came from.
However, as idiotic as I believe it is, the woman did defy a court order and that was wrong........but throwing her in jail for 10 days is even worse.
There's another element of force involved. The government forces Joe to offer a service, smoke-free dining. Why not force him to offer exercise classes at the end of every meal, too? Because the majority of patrons don't want it? I guess that means that smoking bans have nothing to do with rights or objective criteria of public health, just majority whim. By that logic smoking restaurants were fine until the moment the opinion polls tipped against smoking.
Exactly.
And when the government forced Joe to offer the service, they took away Bob's target market, because bob's Place was already smoke-free.
Hey CSM! I was wondering where the troops were. heh!
I've been doing a 'one woman shift' here. LOL!
Protection of private property and individual liberty means that sometimes, some people will chose to engage in behavior with which you may not agree.
It certainly looks like the gnatzies have been busy recruiting. Sorry to have left your back open to attack, but it looks like you held your own!
What upsets me is: I give him two great links from our own Government! And he refused to read them. He wears blinders and has tunnel vision. It's his way or no way.
Well, I felt like typing. LOL!
Yep. Bob risks his time and money to serve the community and the compassionate ones step all over him. Oh well, I guess Bob just couldn't deliver enough votes, just as the NYC restaurant owners couldn't deliver enough for Mayor Bloomberg. It's just too bad for Bob (and Joe) that the Bill of Rights is not so popular at the moment.
Hi, FRiend, you did great today. These cases are another egregious example of legislating through the courts, and the doofuses on the thread are hysterics. I have had it up to here with hysterics who will not listen to reason, I'm in no mood to deal with their empty rhetoric today.
But I'm here, shaking my head, sharpening my vote. ;-D
I agree that defying a court order is generally wrong, however I also agree that the interest of the children was never even the intent of the court order. Proven by throwing her in jail, further harming the children, the court has proven our case that it is about control. They don't even pretend it is about health any more, they just step up and admit it is all about behaviour control.
And it is celebrated and promoted by supposed "conservatives."
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.