Smoking Foes try to stop PARENT from SMOKING IN THEIR HOME?

In a way I can see it as a rule for foster parents - they are, after all, paid by the state to raise children in a healthy environment.

But then you get into a whole weird deal about should parent's receiving TANF have to meet the same requirements?

And if they do, what about other parents?

And so on and so on and so on.

I'm not quite ready for a government nanny, personally.

Smoking around kids has all kinds of heath risks for the children. Increased risks of SIDS, for one.

Kids don't have the opportunity to move to a smoke-free environment if their parents smoke.

Kids have rights, too.

I agree with you DrewDad - smoking around kids is not okay but when it comes to toxic environments I can think of a lot of things that are worse.

How far are we willing to let the government intrude?

Ask Terri Schiavo.....

No kidding.

I think it is dumb to smoke around kids but if I had to choose having a kid live with a smoker or a drinker I'd have to go with the smoker.

I think the "second hand" effects of alcoholism are more severe than those of second hand smoke.

I smoke outside. I do not smoke in confined areas with anyone, let alone my children. It's called respecting other peoples space and right to breath clean(er) air.

I don't need the government to tell me to do so.

What squinney said.........................!

I guess their argument is that there are parents who are careless enough to not respect the rights of their children to be in a free-smoke environment.

Like being born?

(Just had to throw that in there...)

That IS a tough one.

Clearly smoking presents a large and well researched risk to kids.


I have known of Family Court rulings here where access can only occur if the parent having the access agrees not to smoke around kids who are sensitive to the smoke.

The fact is, no normally sane and responsible parent SHOULD smoke around kids.

I once worked for a homeless family shelter. Even with long experience, i was still amazed by the incredible stupidity of people, who were nonetheless possessed of sufficient competence to screw one another--although not sufficient competence to ever use birth control or calculate the cost of alcoholism and drug abuse.

I stopped in to check on one of the families one evening, a "family" in which the mother of five children, having four different fathers, lived with a boyfriend who was not the father of any of the children. After delivering their food aid to them, i asked if there were anything i could help them with before i left. The "father" asked if i would drop him off at the hospital. I told him sure, and asked him what the matter was . . .

Oh, that annoying little son of a bitch over there was smart-mouthin' me, so i aimed a kick at his backside. But he dodged real quick, and i hit the door frame. I think i broke my toe. It hurts real bad.

This clown was referring to a six year old who probably did not weight 40 pounds. He was, himself, about six feet tall and probably weighed two fifty. If he had connected with the boy, i'd have been taking the boy to the hospital.

We arrived there, and when the physician asked what had happened (i usually stayed with the clients, many of whom were functionally illiterate, and could not have navigated the bureaucracy in anything under two hours, otherwise), he gave her a suspicious look, and then gave me an inquisitive look. I told him to tell her what he had told me. He did. Before he was released, the folks from Children's Services showed up to tell him he could find someplace else to stay, and that they'd secured a temporary restraining order to prevent him entering that domicile.

At the hearing on the charge of child endangerment (to which he plead, for a reduced sentence), he glared at me, and on the way out said he oughta get me for that. I told him his own big mouth had landed him in hot water, and that if he really felt that froggy, why didn't he just wind up and try to kick me as hard as he could.

Some people ought not be allowed to reproduce--but as i don't want to live in a society in which anyone gets to make decisions like that, i guess we'll all just have to continue to deal with people having children who are themselves, mentally children.

Give kids a chance, I say. Stop polluting them with smoke, alcohol, processed food and sadistic behavior.

Someone who smokes three packs a day around a baby is really thwacking out the harm, especially if it was going on during the pregnancy. We've learned a lot in, oh, forty years.

I worry about the edge of control though, as others do here.

I am chary about the rule imposing.

Plus... y'know, a bunch of us in my generation were born living with that. Not that that solves anything, just a comment.

More preventative health services with education, less bombing, please.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this. Most of you I have seen on other threads and you all seem to be anti right wingers. The beaty of this thread is that it is the liberal left wingers that are trying to impose this.
I do love the irony of all this.
Oh, and I don't smoke so I could care less how much of a smoking ban they put on people.

Are you trying to sound like an idiot, or was this an accident?

Conception->embryo->fetus->birth->kid

Too hard to follow?

why? because people are bound and determined to smoke and create unneeded health risks around other people.

I must be the same level of idiot you are.

My point is that if one only cares about items that affect one directly, then one is a fool.

My point is that there is no constitutional right for a person to smoke. We agree and two different levels. Most(notice I do not say all) smokers only care about their next cigarette and they do not care about other peoples health issues. In this case the smoker only cares about the effect the cigarette has on them.