In a recent study in Britain, 314 infants in households were tested for tobacco intake(cotinine & metabolite-two items in tobacco products) According to the research, the number of infants with these elements decreased significantly when the adults gave up smoking. Incredibly enough, those who used 'harm reduction' methods such as using a fan or opening a window did not lessen the environmental tobacco exposure to their children one iota. -source.

A recent BBC article a study where a clear majority of British citizens, even smokers, backed legislation which would ban smoking in the homes of private citizens.

Questions for debate:

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

2.)Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?

3.)Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?

Personally, I'm a cigar smoker and I really enjoy the hobby. There is nothing better than a nice Indian Tabac super fuerte maduro cigar or a harsh Te-Amo Mexican cigar with its rich tobacco aroma. I don't smoke in the home, and have never contemplated it, even during the winter time. I'm horrified that some people allow their children to enter a smoke filled bar and will even put out my $20.00 cigar due to guilt about someone's parent who has no regard for their children.

WOW, I don't think i could accurately express my fear and revulsion at government ever getting that much power--are so many people truly of the opinion that they should bow down and give up all freedom? Do you have your papers citizen?

Talk about being afraid of a knock on the door.

I would have to actively join in to overthrow that government.

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

Well, since you've asked "does the government have abny business..." and not "should the government have any business...", the only possible answer is yes, since governments have laws against child abuse (mainly carried out by parents), against child neglect (almost exclusively carried out by parents or other legal guardians), not to mention laws against consumption of many substances that might easily have negative effects on the competence of parents - heroin, cocaine in all it's forms, etc.

2.)Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?

Yes. Thalidomide has no significant adverse effects on adults, and has severe teratogenic effects on unborn children. It is no longer licenced for use in pregnant women. The health of the (unborn) infant outweighs the private liberty concern of the pregnant mother to take a drug which might give her some therapeuatic benefit.

This is not an issue of industry self-regulation; the licencing of drugs for specific uses is carried out by the FDA - which is a semi-independent government agency whose heads are appointed by the executive branch with legistlative approval?

3.)Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?

I'm not sure this is directly relevant to the BBC survey. A majority of the public might have given an approving response to a survey question. But the question may or may not have been leading; neither the BBC website, nor the JoinTogether site you linked to, nor the DPP charity site (who commissioned the survey) specifically detail the question which got the 75% response.

I can imagine a wording along the lines of "do you support the idea that the health of vulnerable rosy-cheeked kiddie-winkies should be protected from uncaring and uncivilised parents who insist on pumping the air around them full of toxic chemicals?" would have got a very different response from "do you support government intrusion into the lives of responsible adults engaged in legal activities on the abstract scientific premise that children may be protected to an unknown extent from possible ill effects of debatable probability?"

Plus, I think it would be totally impractial to ban smoking in public places and in private places where children are present, but keep it legal in other places. It would be more practical and more enforceable to simply ban the sale of tobacco products (which already happens to an extent in the USA, which is why nebraska29 has to contant himself smoking inferior cigars rather than the premium Cuban brands that aficionados outside the US routinely recognise as the best available, rather than the sour-tasting stogies he's limited to by the US government).

And there is ample precedent for this - cocaine, heroin, ampehtamines, and whole hosts of other psychoactive drugs, none of which has a direct secondary effects (well, not unless they too are smoked) on bystanders, are all illegal and the private liberty concerns of adult citizens are placed lower than whatever the justifications for banning htem are.

Tobacco and alcohol are the intoxicants we know most about, and if they were discovered today we'd probably never have legalised them in the first place.

The appropriate libertarian reponse to all intoxicant or psychoactive chemicals and their various vegetable sources is not to ban them at all, but to legalise and licence them, with appropriate safety steps avoiding possible harm to others taken into account. ("Don't drive stoned", "Don't babysit while on PCP" etc. )

I think the approach we have to alcohol in the West is the most useful way forward. We all accept that there are appropriate and inappropriate locations and circumstances for alcohol consumption. So our public authorities issue licences for the sale and/or consumption of alcohol in certain public public places and not others - you can't buy a beer & a shot in a toy store or a school or (in many US states) in public open spaces (unless the container is in a brown paper bag - one of your less sensible laws, IMO) - and pass laws governing it's consumption elsewhere, including on private premises - you can't drink or be drunk while driving a vehicle.

Drink-driving is banned because innocent third parties or their property can be harmed by the influence of alcohol on the driver. The car is a private space, but the action of drinking and driving can cause real and measurable harm on third parties.

Government is intruding into our private space for the benefit of others.

How would the principle of a smoking ban while children are present be different from the principle of the ban on drink-driving in this regard?

Wow. I'm glad I don't have children. See, there are nights when I come home and nosh down a pint of mint chip ice cream or a can of Pringles, and I'd hate to think that if I were a Mommy, it would be possible for Big Brother to slap a padlock on my pantry so that my yowuns couldn't be presented with a blatant example of poor dietary choices.

That's where something like this would lead. Much as I disapprove of exposing children to secondhand smoke, much less exposing them to the idea that polluting the air and damaging your lungs is an acceptable pastime, I disapprove even more of the government being the Mother Of Us All.

I see your comparison here. You could argue that if you fed kids mint chip ice cream that they would weigh 500 ibs. and be on a freakish episode of the Maury show. With that being said, the issue is about what adults do and how it effects others around them. When you eat ice cream or chips, you are not harming children. They don't gain weight by your consumption, nor do their lungs become damaged.

In being in society, we give up absolute freedom for basic rights. When some lummox is smoking around his children, he will have taxpayers paying for the medical bills of his children, not to mention hours of lost productivity on his part, and potentially of his children who may or may not due to the paren'ts activity, engage in strenuous activity later on. I'm not certain that it's the government's job to save people from themselves, but to save them from harming others when they know it's bad...well........

Well ... maybe you're not directly buttering fat onto their little thighs, but ... it's a known fact that obesity can run in families. Parents who are chubby tend to raise children who are also chubby. (My family is living proof of this, although I'm the most extreme example of it. LOL)

It could be because some people are just predisposed to overweight, but I also feel sure that it's at least in part a result of children not being taught moderation. An adult who constantly overeats in front of children sends them a message that overeating is okay. I know, because my mother (God rest her soul) sent me that message. I'm not BLAMING my mother for my being fat -- I did that to myself. But her example certainly, er, helped. LOL

They do, but then it becomes an awesome responsibility, one I don't think they want.

They would then have to monitor infant food intake (don't want obese babies now do we?). They "should" not.



The study provided no indication that these babies health were at risk, cotinine, for instance comes from any number of sources. Potato's are an excellent source.



They should not. A Study done in California, for instance, showed that the spouse of a smoker was at nearly an equal risk of contracting a "smoking related" illness as the non-smoking spouse of a non-smoker. The evidence is simply not complelling.

Good point. And a reason not to have government control over health care. Almost every basic freedom could be curtailed because of the government's interest in keeping health care costs down. If the government could ban smoking based on health-care costs, they should be able to ban high-fat foods, alcohol, smoking, skydiving, the list goes on. Our whole lives would be based on actuarial tables. Or, more likely given political realities, lobbyists.

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

NO. Children whose parents divorce are more likely to drop out of school, commit suicide, become delinquent, use drugs, do poorly in school, etc. Shall we ban divorce if the couple has children? I mean, it's for the good of the children, right?

Smoking is merely the cause celebre of the moment. If they succeed in banning smoking in your own home, they are coming for your favorite vice next.

In regards to the fatty foods and smoking thing. The government is weighing whether or not to take steps in regards to the food deal. The problem is obesity, but that stuff(i.e.-mint chip ice cream) by itself doesn't cause it, a sedentary lifestyle does. Government studies and improvement plans for high school physical education courses are but one example of the attempt to fix this to some degree. Not only that, but the government encourages obesity by subsidizing the corn farmers who then have their product in nearly everything. by shifting subsidies to fruits and that kind of thing, then perhaps that would help to counter act the problem of kids eating too much hydrogenated crap. It's one thing to teach kids the food pyramid, it's quite another when private industry shows them greasy hamburger after greasy hamburger that fast food chains produce. Perhaps if the government could have "shock and awe" commercials to counter-act these ads showing heart attack victims and insinuating the cause being hamburgers would do the trick? Before the government could do anything worthwhile, such as switching subsidies and that kind of thing, more than a few politicians on fast food's "take" would have to be removed or turned out of office.

Excellent point! If there are government sponsored health care programs, the government has an obligation to the tax payers to try and keep their costs low. This means encouraging healthly behavior. Does this mean they should be able to deny service to people who are overweight or smoke? That's an impossible situation to legislate and would be totally impractical to implement. Seems like a good reason for gov't to get out of the healthcare business.

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?
A strangly worded question. Yes, the gov't has the right, but only as long as they are incurring costs from these choices, such as providing healthcare to the smokers and their children.

2.)Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?
Perhaps, but it's a moot point because nothing will come of it unless you can show and direct and immediate link between smoking and the poor health of a child. However, as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for the healthcare of someone who's made the choice to be a life-long smoker in the face of considerable evidence that it's damning to their health. Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?

3.)Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?
No, such a policy is too hard to enforce. I can think of two alternative solutions that would have the same general effect but be simpler to enforce.
1. Ban tobacco. Growing, processing, selling, and importing. Just like any other drug. This would probably have the added benefit of considerably reducing the amount of litter in this country.

2. Eliminate all subsidies and/or benefits received by the tobacco industry. This should help to make tobacco more expensive and reduce smoking. Outlaw the agreement between the state governments and the tobacco companies under the commerce clause, which current limits their liability in civil cases.

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

I think the government does have the responsibility to protect each individual's life, liberty, and property, and that includes protecting infants and children from real abuse from their parents. To me, making a child breathe in your second-hand smoke is abuse.

There is definitely a fine line between protecting basic rights, and nannying citizens, however. Although I would support a ban against smoking in the home if children are present, I would be fearful that it would next lead to monitoring their calorie and fat intake, or the number of minutes you read with them each night, or some such. It's a very real slippery slope.

I think the line I would like to see is a ban on actions that directly harm children, and have those actions specifically enumerated; also a restriction on the power of the government to prosecute indirect harm, such as children getting fat because they learn by example how to wash down a pizza with a two-liter bottle of Coke.

I'm not sure how to keep this line from getting holes poked in it by future politicians, though.

2.)Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?

"One man's rights end where another man's begin." Can't remember where that quote comes from, but it's an apt one (assuming you extend it to women and children as well). One man has the right to smoke himself to death as far as I'm concerned. He does not have the right to smoke his children to death. If exercising his liberty to smoke would have such an effect, his liberty needs to be curtailed.

3.)Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted?

I think we should, so long as it contained an exception for homes that do not have children in them. I don't have a particular preference for the penalty, but I think violations should be treated as child abuse.

Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?

That is going too far. Innocent until proven guilty. I am very much opposed to any invasion of privacy without due cause. If a person is charged with a crime, that is one thing, but the idea that the government can poke its nose in to verify compliance, is wrong.

Sure...so long as those actions are illegal...Smoking isn't, therefore the government can't stop you from doing it...anywhere [with few exceptions, like at a gas station]. Once you start criminalizing some things sometimes, you start sliding down a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

That depends on what liberty concern you're talking about...If you mean the libery to perform legal acts in your own home, then yes.

Yes, and while were at it, there should also be a government agent in my house making sure that I don't put too much salt in my child's soup and to make sure his/her bath water isn't too hot or cold.

CP

To those who think that we are smoking on your dime [as it were]:

What do you think that the various federal and state taxes on cigarettes go for? And if they aren't helping to pay for my future medical treatment for lung cancer, then why not? Here is an item from the last part of the last century:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba231.html

Some select portions from the same:

"Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy have joined forces to establish a new government program to finance children's health insurance. They propose to fund the program by increasing federal cigarette taxes from 24 cents to 67 cents per pack - an increase of 43 cents. The Hatch-Kennedy tax promises to raise $30 billion over five years, with $20 billion to go for children's insurance and $10 billion for deficit reduction."

"Smokers Already Pay Their Way. One argument for higher cigarette taxes is that smokers increase costs to the health care system, draining public money that could be targeted toward other populations - such as children. But the truth is that smokers already pay their own way, according to a 1989 study conducted by Willard Manning of the Rand Corporation, Joseph P. Newhouse of Harvard University and other health economists and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors estimated a number of the costs associated with smoking such as the need for medical care, higher premiums for life insurance and the increased possibility of a fire or an auto accident. While factors such as increased medical care and life insurance premiums raise the social costs of smoking, the study also factored in decreased life expectancy, which lowers costs that arise from Social Security and Medicare.

According to the Rand study's authors, the combined 1989 federal and state tax of 37 cents per pack was more than double the 15 cents direct cost of smoking. Even after adjusting for inflation, the direct cost of smoking - 21 cents per pack in 1995 dollars - falls well below the 1995 average total of 63 cents per pack in federal and state taxes. Since smokers continue to overpay their incremental costs, an additional tax is unfair."

So, may I ask non-smoking you for a refund of my overpaid taxes? Or at least your pro rata share of the same? You can mail my check courtesy of America's Debate [Jamie & Co. can recoup their costs plus 10%].

And what are we to make of the government keeping the sale and consumption legal but overtaxing the same? The same thing we made of the Brits' argument that selling opium to the Chinese was the only way to offset the cost of imported Chinese tea?

And not that I'm his biggest fan, or a fan at all, since I'm not, but:

"Although the EPA's report had more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese under assault by a ravenous mouse, its greatest weakness was its refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there's only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about simply by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.

Why would it do such a strange thing? Yup. Because its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal post to the three yard line because the football had fallen two yards short of a touchdown. There's a technical scientific term for this kind of action – dishonesty."

http://www.fumento.com/smoke.html

And see also: http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html

Not intending or meaning to pick on anyone, but one of the reasons why we don't tell other people what's best for them and theirs is that we might very well be wrong [and in certain instances, dishonest as well].

As some have already said, where does it otherwise stop? No more BigMacs, Whoppers and/or Jumbo Jacks? No more Cookies 'n Cream by the gallon? Or better yet, do we declare all of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, federal disaster areas and prohibit persons from entering the same, owing to the air pollution/smog [I mean, how healthy can it be when they tell you to not engage in any strenuous activity and to otherwise remain indoors as much as possible?].

As a final sidenote, and not that I want anyone else to smoke, since I don't [and do as I say and not as I do, at least in this instance], but something else one never hears:

"While much is written about the hundred or so toxic components in cigarette smoke, little is published about the numerous nontoxic smoke components that have been shown in various bioassays to counteract the effects of the toxic ones. In some cases the inhibiting components are also listed as toxic, eg., nicotine inhibits the mutagenicity of N-nitrosodimethylamine; the promoter phenol inhibits the tumorigenicity of benzo(a)pyrene; the weakly tumorigenic benz(a)anthracene negates the potent tumorigenicity of benzo(a)pyrene. On a one to one molar basis, many bicyclic, tricyclic, and tetracyclic nontumorigenic PAHs conteract the tumorigenicity of benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene."

But if you truly wish to help, legislate a ban on fiberglass filters.

Sorry, one more, from someone other than Mr. Fumento:

http://www.junkscience.com/news3/mrets.htm

And please note that such explains why Faux News is no more unworthy than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., since every and all has an agenda.

Just to add a bit of perspective to this discussion. The two major categories of deaths that are said to be associated with second hand smoke are Heart Attack and Lung Cancer:

This study clearly indicates that, in States that instituted strict indoor smoking bans, Heart Attacks did not decrease, but in most actually increased:

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?...rticle&sid=2385

From the study:



Lung Cancer accounts for 3000 second hand smoking deaths per year, this according to the American Cancer Society.

Put into perspective. The average American has roughly a 1 in 96,000 chance of death by Lung Cancer from second hand smoke even if these numbers are true.

The average American has roughly a 1 in 7,250 chance of death in an automobile accident.

I am seeing no rush to take children away from parents who strap their children into an automobile to take them to Grandma's house for Christmas.

EDITED TO ADD:

Even more perspective for those who do not think there is a "second hand effect" in regards to obesity:

From an earlier post:



Then from Nebraska 29's earlier post:



No link? see:

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/fightobesity.htm



It amuses me how we judge this issue. Why?

Now the thought of the Government taking children for "risky life choices" should become a bit more real to a larger number of the population.

If you still need to eat that Ice Cream, I suggest you do it in the closet.

1.)Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

At a certain point, obviously. I'm at a loss as to how the government would enforce a home smoking ban. No-knock raids probably won't be accepted unless we have all gone insane from air, water and food pollution.

2.)Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?

Doesn't seem to affect corporations who pollute the air, water and food.

3.)Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?

I'll gladly sell the doctors my blood. It is $500,000 per ml. Maintaining this blood isn't cheap! I have to buy clothing and housing to keep it from turning to ice and food to keep it from turning to water, and all that requires transportation.

Pony up, doc.

Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most
vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

Sure they do. That's why we have so many laws already in place that are
specifically for the protection of children. Try driving your child around without
a car seat and/or a safety belt. If caught, you will be fined quite heavily.

Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?


I would hope so. Isn't it time we started treating our kid with the respect and
care that they deserve?

Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a
law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to
measure compliance with the law?

Such a policy would be difficult to enforce. A lot of the perpetrators would
undoubtedly be from low-income homes, so fining them wouldn't work,
and taking the child out of the home and placing him into foster care would
only overload an already burdened CSD.

I have a simple solution. Place even higher taxes on cigarettes, to the point
where a pack costs $15.00 or more. Use the proceeds for educational purposes;
teaching children of grade-school age the facts about cigarettes and the damage
they cause. I've never met a smoker (or an ex-smoker) who didn't, at some
point in his "smoking career," feel disgusted with himself for becoming
a slave to nicotine. Prevention is the only foolproof cure for this epidemic.

The whole “second hand smoke” issue has gotten so far out of hand it has become absurd.

This debate started with the, as one of the “factors” for the threat of removing children from homes, the elevated level of continine in some children’s blood levels:

First, understand what continine is. It is simply a “marker” that some claim is proof of nicotine exposure. It is an old game that has been exposed for years, but not in the general knowledge base of most people. Continine has never killed or injured anyone as that would be impossible. Markers do not injure.

More to the point, continine, as even a marker is bogus. Anti-Tobacco advocates will tell you it is proof of exposure, even though continine has been found in the blood stream of people with no exposure to second hand smoke, and sometimes at a higher level then in the bloodstream of bartenders who work in smoke filled environments.

The reason for this is that the consumption of certain foods increases the level of continine in the bloodstream. I am not speaking of some exotic food source, but of potatoes.

Here is where the fun with misrepresentation really begins.

Smoke free advocates will test the blood of bar workers to look for increased continine levels, but they look to test workers who, by simply looking at them, represent the most likely people to have higher then normal continine levels. Anyone overweight gets tested, slim workers do not. Potatoes, being a staple food of most American’s, and especially so with the overweight, creates a higher then normal continine level in these test subjects.

The conclusion is not that these subjects have higher continine markers due to a combination of the consumption of Potatoes and the work environment, but only the work environment itself is responsible for the elevated level.

By way of example:

During a recent City Council hearing on a proposed local smoking ban, two employee’s came forward, both worked at the same bar. The first was a non-smoking male that, by his own words described himself as 50 to 60 lbs overweight who was chosen by the Health Department to participate in the “continine study”. The second was a slim employee who was not chosen to participate in the study, but who independently had a blood analysis done.

The first employee showed elevated continine levels in his bloodstream, the second showed almost no continine in his bloodstream.

Ahhhhh, but now the fun really begins.

The first employee was only a part time bartender who worked in the facility 6 hours per week, did not smoke and held a regular job in a Government office where smoking was banned.

The second employee worked 40 to 45 hours per week, again as a bartender, in the same bar.

Employee #1 daily had Hash browns for breakfast, French fries for lunch and Mashed Potatoes for supper.

Employee #2 disliked most potato dishes, but about once a week had a small order of fries.

No reason that Employee #1 should have higher continine levels then Employee #2 except that #1 ate a lot of Potatoes, and Employee #2 ate hardly any.

How does this relate to continine in infants. The study does not give good background information on the diets of the Mothers, but simple observation for Mothers that breastfeed will show, even the casual observer that Women that breastfeed have dang good appetites, which normally includes the “good ol Potato”.

There is no group better at playing games with Science then the “Anti-Smoking” advocates.

The study I provided earlier nearly destroys the idea that second hand smoke is the cause of most Heart Attacks. These are Government numbers that anyone can check for themselves’s, so one of the “fears” of second hand smoke related illnesses should be put to rest. If anything can be gleaned from these studies, it is that banning smoking in most public and private institutions has not slowed the pace of Heart Attacks, and Heart Attacks is said to be the #1 threat of second hand smoke.

The second biggest threat is Lung Cancer (or so it is said). Taking a purely statistical approach to risk analysis of Lung Cancers due to SHS shows that the risk is miniscule, especially when put into proper perspective.

The chance of anyone getting a lung cancer, due to SHS is roughly 1 in 96,000.

Again, the risk is 1 in 7,250 that this same American will die in a Car Accident in the next year, or, you are 13.24 times more likely to die in a car accident, then to die, from Lung Cancer due to second hand smoke.

The same people that claim that a child’s welfare is better served by taking the child out of a home that creates a 1 in 96,000 risk factor, seems to be at ease with the knowledge that, when the child is removed, it will be placed into an automobile and driven away.

Odds the child dies from ETS in the existing home: 1 in 96,000
Odds the child dies during the drive away from the existing home: 1 in 7,250

A child under the age of 6 years old dies, every thirty seconds, in Africa alone, from Malaria. That is more then 1 million children alone that die each year a horrible death. That is more then 1 million Mothers that watch their child lowered into tiny graves each year, and 1 million lost futures, all because someone with “good intentions” wrote a piece of bad science that doomed them by banning the one substance, DDT, that would have saved them.

Why are we swatting at gnats, when we could be using our knowledge to sleigh dragons.

EDITED TO ADD:

I found it interesting to note that the very thing that started this debate "continine, the Nicotine matabolite" is actually thought to improve memory and is beneficial to fighting Parkinsons and Alzheimer’s. see below:

http://www.mcg.edu/news/2003NewsRel/cotinine.html

Since there is no known health danger associated with continine, but there are long term health benefits, perhaps...........

I'm not understanding how your statistics of deaths in Africa figures into this
debate, other than to take the focus off of the issue at hand. There are children
dying in Africa, so let's allow parents to smoke within their homes, where their
children live and breathe.

You claim you are a father. Do you smoke in the house in front of your children?
Do you allow them to inhale what you are exhaling and what is floating off the
end of your cigarette? Do you not see how that could be detrimental to your
child's health!!?? Gee whiz. The way you throw statistics around.
You don't need 'em, when all you have to do is light up a smoke and blow it
into the oxygen stream of your child and see what happens.




You must really be in the Christmas spirit if you want to "sleigh dragons."

Are you a mother? Do you strap your kids in a car?

I demonstrated the risk factors:

Risk of death by second hand smoke 1 in 96,000

Risk of death in car accident 1 in 7,250

Which is the greater risk?

I do not smoke in the house. Yet I do allow my kids in a car. Guess I'm a bad person because if I did the opposite they would have a far better chance of surviving to adulthood.

Do you allow showers to be taken in your home? How about a dishwasher? Boil Water?

If you answer yes, you can place yourself in the same category you lump those "evil smokers in"

Read this:

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=21&db=3&C0=7



Paranoia is a great weapon that the "anti-smoker" forces have mastered, but when they threaten to break up families, they cross the line.

My Kids?

Oldest: Just received her Masters Degree in Management
#2: Special Forces US Army
#3: Rated third in the State in his sport - "A" average in High School

Typical of abused children?

EDITED TO ADD:

I was going to hold off on this, but since this happened it seems appropriate.





This whole debate is centered around removing children (even during the holidays) because:



Allrighty then:

We have been debating this on these terms. Am I correct? No one has called this into question. Am I again correct?

The sentence, that is the basis for this entire debate, is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Cotinine is A metabolite of Nicotine. Not two separate "items".

Second the debating point is misleading. It leads you to believe that the ONLY source of cotinine is "tobacco products".

Imagine the terror of a Mother who takes her child to a Doctor, after reading the sentence and the Doctor runs a test on the child and reports that he must report her to the authorities because "His test shows a elevated level of Cotinine, a matabolite of Nicotine".

Oh my GOD! She swears she doesn't smoke. She swears that she doesn't allow smoking around her children, but her Ex-Husband testifies in court that Mom was a closet smoker all of her life (he wants custody and can avoid a messy and expensive Court battle by proving the Ex is an abusive parent).

What possible defense does she have in today's anti-smoking world?

POTATO CONSUMPTION!

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html



But then again, maybe rhetoric, and not knowledge should determine who is afforded the right to raise there own children.

And maybe the coolest aspect of this entire rhetoric driven debate is that the very substance that that determines the guilt of our poor Mommy, appears to be good for the person that has it in there system:

http://www.mcg.edu/news/2003NewsRel/cotinine.html

But hey, we wouldn't want that, would we!

Hey, Dig this. Tea also metabolizes into cotinine!

Tea tottlers, the people that most desperatly seek these types of draconian laws on the books, could ALL BE ACCUSED OF CHILD ABUSE IF THEY ALLOW THEIR KIDS TO DRINK TEA!

Now that DP is irony

The first two questions for debate are quite a bit broader than this specific case. With that in mind:

1. It seems clear that the government must, under some circumstances, protect children from the action (or lack of action) of parents or guardians. Child abuse and neglect are very serious crimes, and must be dealt with properly. Sometimes the government must remove a child from its home, although this should happen only under extreme circumstances.

2. Sometimes the government must take action in a way which limits the rights of the parent or guardian. For example, some courts have ruled that a devout Christian Scientist cannot deny vital medical care to a child.

Now we can get down to the real issue:

3. No. Let me say, first of all, that you will find few people who are more strongly anti-smoking than I am. In particular, I would utterly disdain a parent or guardian who would routinely expose a child to tobacco smoke. This does not mean that I favor, at all, restrictions on smoking in private places. I actively seek out restaurants which have adopted a complete ban on smoking; when I travel, I only stay in establishments which do not allow smoking. Despite my personal preference, I cannot support government restrictions on smoking in private.

The best way to fight the war on tobacco abuse, I think, is the way which has already proven to be quite effective. Education, with accurate information about the dangers of tobacco, has led to a dramatic drop in tobacco use over the last few decades. That drop has leveled off in recent years, of course. You will never reach the hard-core smokers, and there will always be young people who smoke because it is the cool, rebellious thing to do. The struggle must be to win the heart and mind of one smoker at a time.

Two points I would like to make in regards to this. First, "tobacco abuse". The use of these two words together is to lump those who legally use this product in the same category as drunks and illegal drug use. No one would ever call someone who drinks a beer after work a "alcohol abuser", yet change the use to tobacco, and the word usage is valid? Do you really want to "fight a war" against your own people who use a legal product? That seems absurd.

Which leads to my second point. Education. Much of the education about second hand smoke seems to always come back to the ill's that might become of the smoker? I have posted, on this thread, an accounting of Emergency Room admissions for Heart Attacks pre smoking ban vs. post smoking bans. These admission rates were promised to fall immediately after these bans were instituted (Helena study). That was part of "the education", yet, overall they not only did not fall, but rose.

Propaganda became education. The number one cause of death by Second Hand Smoke, according to education, was Heart Attack. Yet, in practical terms, it was proven wrong. Yet, we continue to hear the propaganda that "53,000 non-smokers die each year from second hand smoke".

Heart attacks are on the rise since bans have become the norm. Asthma is up, while smoking has dropped dramatically, and places where smoking is prohibited has risen incredibly.

Nothing seems to fit the scenario that ETS is a "proven killer", in fact, quite the opposite appears true. It isn't an effective killer at all, but one better described as inept.

Smokers are being fired today, not for smoking at the office, but while off the clock. They are losing their homes, paying higher taxes and fee's and now being threatened to have children taken away. Why?

Propaganda has become Education.

How do you come to this conclusion? Is there some data to support this? I am trying to figure out how low income homes would undoubtedly be the perpetrators?

I am not sure there is any firm data on the income level of smokers (so much of it has gone underground and many more who smoke have found a way around the high taxation, that getting firm demographics would be incredibly hard), but I have heard this stated before. From my own personal observations they pretty much span the economic spectrum. This is just another way of placing a stigma on people who choose to smoke, that they are poor, uneducated and stupid.

So that list would have to include, and the children of these people would have to be removed from their homes:

Albert Einstein, JFK, FDR, Winston Churchill, Johnny Cash, CS Lewis...........

The list goes on and on.

I'll bite the bait about why low-income people are more likely to consume unhealthy diets, resulting in overweight: most people know that starches are cheap sources of nutrition. Rice, potatoes, and noodles can help "fill out" a meal, at a fairly low cost.

Poor people are less likely to be able to afford good meats and vegetables, so they lean more heavily on starches, which cause overweight.

Also, sometimes low-income people live in slumlord apartments with no working refrigerator and/or stove, so they buy convenience foods which are also less healthy. If they come from a multigenerational poverty life, perhaps they didn't learn to cook either.

I said that a lot of people who smoke fit into the category of low-income
citizens. Is it not inevitable that many of the people who would be committing
this crime would be from low-income homes. What is so startling about that
statement?

Smoking prevalence tends to be higher among men with less education and
lower incomes, so they bear a greater health risk. Also, the opportunity cost
of money spent on cigarettes is obviously higher for people living on low incomes –
money spent on tobacco products could help feed families. Tobacco is often a
significant part of family expenditure: From this website..

The point that I was trying to make is this: Putting heavy fines on this crime
isn't the solution. Especially considering the financial hardship it would be to
those who are in the lower income brackets.

Preventing children from becoming smokers, in the first place, is the only
way to solve this problem. There is no talking to die-hard smokers about
why they shouldn't smoke in front of their children. It's like trying to tell
a heroin addict why he shouldn't stick the needle in his arm. He listens
to his addiction, not to logic.

Does the government have any business protecting the youngest and most vulnerable people(infants in this case) from the actions of their parents?

Sure, to an extent. Most of the laws people have cited here are laws that pertain to places outside the home (i.e. cars) or pertain to direct physical abuse.

Now, while the government does have a vested interest in protecting our children, protecting them from our lifestyle choices at every turn is an eggregious breach of personal freedom.

I'm trying hard not to add on to the absurd examples of this, but they do make a great point. What about children of alcoholics? What about children of obese couples? What about children of people with dangerous occupations? Children of people with a criminal history? Where does it stop?

Does the health of infants outweigh private "liberty" concerns of other citizens?

No, and here's why. There's this little thing called responsibility. If you lack some of it, I don't want to suffer for it.

I don't want to suffer because of someone else's actions that in now way affect me. If my kid is at a birthday party and someone is smoking, I'll ask them to do it elsewhere, or I'll accept the risks.

Should the U.S. adopt a similar policy? What should be the penalty if such a law were enacted? Should doctors routinely be required to draw blood to measure compliance with the law?


No way. I don't smoke myself, but I see no way how this protects children.

"Do your parents smoke, Jimmy?"

"No, they don't"

"So you must feel more healthy than the kids that do, right Jimmy?"

"No, not at all sir."

"Why is that?"

"Because I'm 13 years old and weigh 150 pounds."

When did we become so inept a culture that we had to let the government make decisions on our personal lives?

Then make a logical, reasoned argument.

If a child is allergic to peanuts, no parent would be called responsible if they served the child peanuts.

Yet,

If a child is not allergic to peanuts, yet they are aware that some children are allergic to peanuts, then the parent is not considered irresponsible for serving peanuts.

The knowledge of the allergy is the difference.

If your logic then is, because some children are allergic to smoke, then smoking should be banned around all children, the logic then holds that:

If some children are allergic to peanuts, then peanuts should be banned around all children.

A parent that smokes around a child with asthma or a smoke allergy is irresponsible. But, so is a parent that consumes peanuts when they have a child that is allergic to peanuts.

Neither is any more, nor any less irresponsible.

The California study, the largest ever performed studying non smokers who live with smokers (performed by the State of California's EPA) showed that the health of these study participants were on par with non smokers living with non smokers.

Unless you have proof that the California study is bogus, then there is no proof that smoking, in a home, with a non smoking child (unless the child has asthma or a smoke allergy) can be considered irresponsible. It is actually less responsible to drink a beer while a child is present. Know any smoker who sexually assaulted a child while under the influence of nicotine?

But thats OK right? After all, we all enjoy a beer once in awhile.

Pardon me for the double posting, I was unable to edit my last post on the subject, but this seemed pertinent, especially since the subject is:



Earlier I posted a caution when it comes to "bans", when the Science behind the ban is questionable. When Political Correctness becomes more important then fact.

As an example I wrote this:



Tonight 20/20 did an extensive piece on how the Rachel Carson book, Silent Spring, led to a movement to ban DDT, even though it's use caused little or no damage to the environment, or humans.

Because it was "trendy", the United States banned it's use and the world followed. Over 50,000,000 lives have been lost because a cause became more important then fact, PROPAGANDA BECAME EDUCATION.

The same kind of irrational thought process is what drives this current debate, now to the point that Parents are threatened with the loss of their children?

USAIDE, after being questioned by 20/20 has finally decided to take a closer look at once again using DDT in Africa to stop the millions of lost lifes every year. History has caught up with the bad science behind that ban. History will catch up to the Bad Science about ETS as well.