 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh!
|
|
|
Subject: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Clinton Hammond Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:51 PM the url The article...
Not around kids, you don't Judge William Chinnock's ruling said the eight-year-old girl is healthy, and it did not mention any testimony about possible health threats posed by adults smoking in her presence. Instead, he cited in detail dozens of studies on the harms caused by second-hand smoke and concluded that the court was obligated to act in the child's best interests and limit her exposure to smoke. "A family court that fails to issue court orders restraining persons from smoking in the presence of children under its jurisdiction is failing the children whom the law has entrusted to its care," Judge Chinnock wrote in the Aug. 27 decision in Lake County. John Banzhaf, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, said many divorce proceedings now include agreements not to smoke around the children, usually when a non-smoking parent specifically cites concerns about a child's health. "This is the first one I have heard of where the judge on his own suddenly raised the issue," he said. Judge Chinnock also ordered the girl's parents not to let anyone else smoke around her. The family was not identified. The girl lives with her mother and the mother's boyfriend, and one of the adults smokes, Judge Chinnock's order said. He wouldn't comment on the case, citing privacy rules of juvenile court. Karen Lawson, the lawyer for the girl's mother, said the judge issued the smoking order without prodding from either parent. Ms. Lawson said she had not decided whether to appeal. Paul Boynton, a lawyer and contributing editor for Ohio Lawyers Weekly in Cleveland, said the order raises troubling questions about the limits of a court's authority to dictate a child's home environment. "This really gets into the right to privacy," Mr. Boynton said. "Where do you draw the line?" John Lawson, who helps parents resolve custody and child support issues through the Cleveland Works social services program, was skeptical that the ruling could be enforced, although he said it did seem to be within the court's authority. "The judge has absolute discretion to make decisions that are in the child's best interest," Mr. Lawson said. Protecting children from second-hand smoke "is not that far-out a concept." The judge has been involved in several other high-profile cases. In 1998, he issued a report saying that Cuyahoga County's military-style boot camp did not reform juvenile delinquents but rather "simply make hoodlums into stronger hoodlums." The county closed the facility. He also ordered four teens involved in making an X-rated movie to work with a shelter for abuse victims. Enjoy! ;-)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: greg stephens Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:02 PM How about hamburgers, computer games and driving in cars. And then there's swimming, climbing mountains, and sunbathing.And guns. And food containing traces of nut-products. There's a lot of areas that court should have been looking at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: smallpiper Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:18 PM Wow can he also rule that the child should be protected from the treat of global warming and global war? Is he going to issue a restraining order against congress, the president and the pentagon in case the endanger her life by going to war? Where the hell do you draw the line guys? Passive smoking kills (possibly) but so do "green house gasses" can he force the US gov to comply with pressure from the international communnnity to reduce emissions or is that un-patriotic? Not looking for an argument just curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Midchuck Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:07 PM Could we merge this with the Warren Zevon thread somehow? I think smoking should be encouraged. It's one of the few instances of evolution working properly in a high-tech society, to breed out the stupid. But protecting those who can't protect them selves is part of society's job. If someone asks me if I mind if they smoke, I say, "No, if you don't mind if I pick my nose and flick the boogers at you," (and they say I'm disgusting), but a little kid can't get away with that... Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Gypsy Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:24 PM Weeeeeeeeelllllllllll...lemme give you the other side of this issue. As the child of heavily smoking parents: i have had two operations on my ears, and still have constant tinnitus, which is a common side effect of second hand smoke in children. I don't blame my parents, they didn't know. But people do know now, and should perhaps smoke outside. It's not that onerous, when i was still smoking, that is where i went. And i certainly would never smoke around children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Allan Dennehy Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:25 AM Funny thing about smoking............20 years ago it was blamed as the most likely agent to cause allergies in kids. 20 years on, kids are much more allergic even though the number of smokers has dropped dramatically. I've often wondered who the witch hunters are going to go after next when the last cigarette smoker had disappeared from the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Mark Cohen Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:50 AM Allen, even the tobacco companies have (mostly) stopped saying that smoking doesn't cause health problems. You are of course quite welcome to believe that smoking is harmless, but there are a few hundred carefully controlled scientific studies you might want to read first. As far as the claims about allergies, smoking does not "cause" allergies, but it makes allergy symptoms worse and increases the likelihood of complications among people who are allergic. I think it's difficult to draw reliable conclusions based on an imprecise and undocumented statement like "kids are much more allergic." I understand the point, but I don't think it holds water scientifically. But that's just my opinion. I'm not going to join the debate about whether or not the judge should have ruled as he did. But the facts show very clearly that children whose parents smoke do have a higher incidence of asthma, pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, sinusitis, and sudden infant death, among other things, than children whose parents don't smoke. Whenever I heard the parent of one of my patients say, "We try not to smoke around him," I knew that kid was getting a good dose of second-hand smoke. If they say, "We make everybody go outside to smoke," that's a bit more reassuring...but stopping is the best way to protect the child. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Mark Cohen Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:52 AM Oops--sorry for misspelling your name, Allan! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: katlaughing Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:58 AM Allan, would you please cite a source for this: the number of smokers has dropped dramatically? Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,Boab Date: 14 Sep 02 - 02:08 AM It should be possible to bring a charge of assault against anyone [parents or not] who knowingly exposes a minor to "second-hand smoke". [ A namby-pamby term for the deadly unfilterd filth that pours from the end of a lit cigarette propped in an ashtray, by the way.] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Liz the Squeak Date: 14 Sep 02 - 02:39 AM Both my parent smoked. At the age of about 4 I remember taking a puff to see what it tasted like.... horrible and the filter made my lips swell, although I did quite like the taste of burnt match heads (and wall plaster but that's another story). It put me off smoking for ever. I had a lot of bronchial problems in later life, but can't decide if that was due to the passive smoking or catching pleurisy (which is an infection affecting the lung lining)when I was 18. As for the asthma, I didn't acquire (or have it diagnosed) until I moved to London, and in '92 couldn't walk for more than 10 mins without getting breathless. I'm sensitive to air pollution, and now, smoky rooms. Can I blame my parents for that? I grew up in the country, all that fresh air.... did moving to London trigger it? I don't know. I don't think anyone can prove totally that parental smoking causes bronchial illnesses, but they are a major contributing factor. I think that the early exposure to smoking put me off long enough not to get into the habit. I never went with the 'in' crowd, so never felt the need to smoke to look big with them. In fact, I probably didn't smoke because I wanted to be different from them! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:42 AM I really think that the article reads as just one more reason to not have kids... ,-)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,Patrick, the guy from the Insurance Commerci Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:53 AM When I saw Clinton Hammond performing last month at Murphys, he was smoking up a storm. Now I'd guess that Clinton is in his early thirties and probably smokes a pack a day. Average life expectancy for a Canadian male is now 83 years, seven months. Assuming Clinton started smoking at age 16 and continues at an estimated rate of a pack a day (25 cigarettes), his chance of living to average life expectancy is only 11%. His chance of living to age 70 is only 34%. He does have a 50% chance of living to age 60 and a 63% chance of living to age 50. That means there is a 37% chance that Clinton will be dead before hitting 50. A 50% chance that Clinton will be dead by age 60, a 66% chance he will be dead by 70 and an 89% chance that he will die before the average guy. Of course, Clinton's chances of surviving would be greatly improved if he stopped smoking. He should also check with Rick Fielding about how much money he's put in his pocket since smoking almost killed him in his fifties.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:00 PM What does this thread have to do with how much I do or don't smoke? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: C-flat Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:16 PM There are a lot worse things that parents can do to children. Why single out smoking? I'm not defending smoking in any way, that's up to the individual, but I think it's ridiculous for a judge to make custody awards using this as a criteria. There are many ways a bad parent can "damage" a child, not least by bad diets. The increase in obesity among children poses a greater health risk but can you imagine a judge denying custody because the parent is fat and prefers burgers to vegetables? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:23 PM "There are a lot worse things that parents can do to children." True... but if the poisons in the smoke coming off the burning end of a cigarette were present in say a mine, or a factory, no one would be allowed to work there... So I donno... I just figured that some Catters here would be interested in reading the article... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Liz the Squeak Date: 14 Sep 02 - 06:55 PM Of course, using the child as an ashtray is a bit insensitive too.... it happened to a 2 year old not that far from where I live... she was found starved to death with over 60 wounds on her, of which many were burns where cigarettes had been pushed into her flesh and the burning ember crushed well into the skin. Yet another reason not to let anyone smoke in the house. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: toadfrog Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:56 PM O.k. Courts normally can't take children away from a woman who uses cocaine. That idea is thought to give rise to a serious women's rights issue. I take it there are a lot more smokers than users of cocaine, so that's a much bigger issue. If we take the children away from all the smokers, who is going to look after the children? And what about people who are convicted of felonies? Do you think their children should be taken away? It looks to me like somebody isn't thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Liz the Squeak Date: 15 Sep 02 - 04:29 AM Hell, you can't get a child taken away when it is obvious to everyone, the world, his wife and the dog that a child is being abused. The case I mentioned earlier? Social Services closed her case because they had "done all they could by mentioning in their report that she was at risk". I'm an anti smoker, I won't allow it in the house unless it is pouring down or snow is on the ground. But I'm not going to deny others the right to do what they like in their homes... Who's to say animals don't feel the same as me? Goldfish - they can't get away from anyone, and yet smoke is surely absorbed into their bowls and tanks - why haven't various animal protection agencies jumped on this yet? Let's take away the pets of all those people who smoke, because hey, animals have rights too.... And yes, this is tongue in cheek so don't get all upset - I'm trying to highlight just how ridiculous and impossible to police this judgement is. LTS
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Allan Dennehy Date: 15 Sep 02 - 09:55 AM Kat I can't quote a source, but will someone please correct me if there hasn't been a large fall in the nimber of smokers in the Western World in the past 20 years. Every relevant news article has certainly given me this impression. Mark, once again I don't have an official source but I've been reading in Denmark for the last ten years that the number of kids with allergies has increased on a very large scale. I KNOW that it's bad for a kids health to smoke around him of her but I believe that the permanent psychological damage done to maybe 20 per cent of children by parents that are unable to cope with life is a much more important issue. I also believe that there will always be people who will projecting all their fears and negative thoughts outwards towards some thing or people in society. This used to manifest itself for example in witch hunting and, in my opinion, in the beliefs of some of the most extreme anti-smokers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,'backy breath Date: 15 Sep 02 - 10:39 AM The case is interesting because it showcases the "I know what's good for everybody" activism that comes from the political left, but inherited methods and attitudes from the political right. There's a direct line linking the WCTU and contemporary feminism. What's really happening with smoking in the US is, it's becoming a matter (for the most part) of etiquette -- most people know better than even to ask if they can smoke around others. A good thing. But some are never satisfied to let customs do what can be legislated, and that can provoke some otherwise politically healthy contrariness. Yes indeed, the second-hand smoke studies are indeed under fire for poor controls and discarding data that don't lead to the conclusion sought(nobody, but nobody, is subjected to the level of airborne particulates our fireplace-poking, woodstove-tending, peacoal-shoveling grandparents were). Having said all that, and as a fifteen-butts a day person, smoking is allowed in my house only in what used to be the coal bin (repainted, with lights and a bench), and then only in foul weather. Wouldn't want to invite friends to a place they think stinks. Now if MY friends would only euthanize their reeking cats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 15 Sep 02 - 10:45 AM (quote) "I've often wondered who the witch hunters are going to go after next when the last cigarette smoker had disappeared from the planet. " Oh get out violin section , please , because this sounds like atleast a 3-handkerchief "smoker's aria" and , pray , is that a tear I feel welling up in my good eye. Puh-lease. Because cigarettes and cigar are *proven* carcinogens and wind up killing off the greater proportion of the 2 legged labrats of the PhilipMorris's ,RJReynolds and BAT's of the world, even its addiction ,and thus projected profits , have numbered days and thus the profiteers have to make damn sure a next generation needs to be addicted to keep the R.O.I. acceptible to their shareholders. So , rest assured , everything is being done to make sure there will be a new wave of victims. And ,since 'right-to-smoke' advocates always fail to mention how much this addiction adds to the higher health care premiums that healthy people have to "subsidize" as well , I've often advocated that it would truly be fairest if the Tobacco companies pool their capital and create a new profit vehicle of "smokers health care" insurance policies for smokers only. You know , like the coupons on Camel cigarettes . Surely the farce of "no fault" health care insurance mixing in self-inflicted pathogens could use a healthy dose of the disinfectant of sunlight. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 02 - 10:48 AM Aren't second-hand cats a health risk, too?? What's the big conspiracy of silence about _those_ dangers? I wwould also like to point out here is a significant psychological risk to a young person's mental health when exposed to significant level of second-hand clothing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: greg stephens Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:07 AM OK Taliesn, youve spotted that smoking is bad for people, perceptive chap that you are (so is smoking salmon, incidentally, but that's another story). The discussion here is about about ripping children from their parents because of said parents' bad habits. And which of the grand selection of possible bad habits are the latest preoccupation of the unco' guid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Hrothgar Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:06 AM Just working my way through my new copy of Carl Sandburg's "American Songbag" as I read this. Page 335:
Cigarettes will spoil yer life, Given that the Songbag was published in 1927, are we dealing with a really modern concept here, or just expressing it slightly differently? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:27 AM (quote) "OK Taliesn, youve spotted that smoking is bad for people, perceptive chap that you are (so is smoking salmon, incidentally, but that's another story)." Yeah , I know , that's why I'm down to 2 or 3 smoked salmon a season . ( Having been taking 3 grams of Vit.C ,100mg of selenium ,and other anti-oxicdents a day for decades helps ) Ofcourse I can never just light up a salmon in a public place anymore, but that's life. ;-) (quote) "The discussion here is about about ripping children from their parents because of said parents' bad habits..... Originally yes. However I was responding to Allan Denehey's resort to an overised whine of smokers defending their habit as if they were a threatened religion , like Tibetians in Beijing , rather than a self-endangering species. I've heard it all before and , thus ,whenever I hear or read resorting to this ..."after the last cigarette smoker has disappeared from the planet"-hog-wallah I just have to chime in . You are, ofcourse , free & cordially invited to dispute the facts of Tobacco companies employing strategies to ensure replenishing generations of the addicted to keeps the smoking herds robust . However to just graciously imply that my bringing this up is somehow playing foul and thus corrupting the discussion while suggesting that I may also be unaware of smoked foods' health risks and therefore I was just "blowing smoke" was a nice try , but sorry, no cigar my friend ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Allan Dennehy Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:47 AM Reply to Taliesn (or was it Taliban?) Car fumes in a city of one million people kill several thousand every year and damage the health of countless kids. Should the judges make sure that the kid stays with the parent who lives furthest out of town? Should cars come with a health warning painted on them? Should all car be banned of the face of this planet and their owners called whiners? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 16 Sep 02 - 10:45 AM (quote) "Reply to Taliesn (or was it Taliban?)" Oh now let's get real shall we? Supposedly "libertarians are the first to support "States Rights" ( unless they are of the kind of waco ( or Waco?) who pretends they can declare their plot of land independent sovereign territory . ). Since this court ruling was in a State court , one would think the solution would be to found a smoker's majority in that state or move to another. You're over-reaction to the judgement as if to accuse me of defending this particular judgement rather than addressing my just "specifically" calling you to task for uttering what has become the standard "chapter & verse" libertarian-themed talking points written for the pro-Tobacco Industry P.R. campaign which was launched with a vengence during those Tobacco CEO hearings , is really rather telling. About the auto pollution in dense packed cities posing health risks ,you're right. Should cities publish a truth in labeling "health risk" evaluation ? Well we both know that those cities with a record worth bragging about will and those that can't will dodge the issue altogether as they do now until those days when those cities figure it's best for their P.R. to atleast admit the dangers and broadcast periodic "health warning alerts". I suppose that's the closest to a *Warning: This City's Air is Hazardous to Your Health* label. Should the complete chart of any city's history of air quality be posted on the internet? probably already is. Atleast that way a potential litigant wouldn't be able to plead ignorance. Hell , might even "circumvent" such litigation altogether. It's all supposed to be about being free to exercise *informed choice*, right? BTW: Beijing's air is so hazardous to health it will be ordering the shutting down of entire industries and banning traffic in order for the air to clear in time to make it at all breathable by the athletes for the next Olympics. That's *real* heavy-handed Big Gov't. Who knows , perhaps G.E. will be selling them city-sized air scrubbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: SharonA Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM Liz the Squeak sez: "...why haven't various animal protection agencies jumped on this yet?" I don't know about the animal-protection agencies, but medical researchers have jumped on it! Reprinted below from this article: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/07302002_nw_catsmoking.html Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Cat BOSTON – July 30, 2002 — Second-hand smoke could be a hazard to your – cat. Researchers report that cats in homes with smokers have double the risk of getting a potentially fatal feline cancer. Veterinarian Antony Moore says he hopes his study will cause cat-loving smokers to think twice. He says there are a lot people who won't quit smoking for themselves or their families. But he says they just might kick the habit for their cats. The study is published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Grab Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:31 AM Allan, car manufacturers already do have to make cars less polluting, under the threat of not being allowed to sell their cars if the average emissions over their whole range exceed some limit! Catalytic converters, unleaded petrol, particle traps on diesels, etc - all to do exactly what you say. In the meantime, most of us don't have too much of a choice over where we live - we're limited by the location of our job and the house we can afford. But everyone has a choice over whether they smoke or not. When the last tobacco smoker disappears from the planet, all medical services across the world will heave a sigh of relief that they don't have to waste money on ppl who can't be bothered to help themselves. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Bagpuss Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:35 AM For those that were asking, here's a URL of a site which mentions changes in smoking prevalence: http://www.lungusa.org/data/smoke/smoke_1.pdf The gist of it is that the prevalence of smoking decreased between the 60's and about 1990 and has remained level since then. However, the level of consumption has continued to decline, indicating that those who smoke are smoking fewer cigarettes (possibly due to laws limiting where and when they are allowed to smoke). Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Bagpuss Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:38 AM Thats USA data btw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Bagpuss Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:45 AM And for global trends: http://www.ash.org.uk/html/international/pdfs/globaltrends.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Bagpuss Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:48 AM I should really have put this all in one post, but here's the UK data. http://www.sghms.ac.uk/depts/laia/982.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: greg stephens Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:30 PM Grab(graham). like many of in your position, you havent spotted the fact that if you dont smoke, you're still going to die of something. And you'll draw your pension longer. Cigarette smokers may be the scourge of the universe, but they are not an economic drain on the welfare services. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM "The discussion here is about about ripping children from their parents because of said parents' bad habits."
It's not actually. It was about settling custody arrangements between the two parents following a break-up, and we only have minimal informatin about the whole situation.
From the report there's no way of telling whether it's a setup where the people involved are light smokers, and the judge is coming on heavy handed, or whether they are the kind of heavy smokers where heavy-handed makes sense, the kind of homes where it nearly knocks you out when you go in.
But I wish they'd take other health hazards a bit more seriously.
My understanding about smoking is that overall its gone down a lot - but there are some groups where it's gone up. Notably mothers bringing up children on their own in some places, which suggests it's a symptom and a result of the kind of stress people have to live under. Attacking symptoms isn't the best way of dealing with the real problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: Allan Dennehy Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:38 PM Personally I went back on the ciggies last April after a two year break when I became so ill that it doesn't matter weather I smoke or not. I love 'em! They are incredibly soothing for the nerves and they make the severe pains that I have to live with more tolerable. Becoming severely ill reminded me that life is now and its quality and not quantity that counts. My asthma is a lot worse now but my quality of life is a lot better. I respect (or avoid) no smoking areas and understand that some people hate smoking with a passion but I think that it borders on fanaticism when a judge tells a father/mother when and where to smoke or, for that matter when a bar or restaurant can't decide their smoking/no smoking rules for themselves. By the way anyone got the stats on how much extra we smokers cost the health authorities compared with how much we contribute through our cigarette taxes? PS. Wanna live forever? Give up booze, ciggies and women. OK, you won't live for ever, it'll just feel that way. By the |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Smoking Around Your Kids Eh! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:55 PM I remember years back when I hadn't quite given up my young son comes in, sees me smoking and shouts out "Mum - Dad's smokng again!" And then he took a sniff, and he cried out in a horrified voice "And it's TOBACCO!" |