Smoking in front of children?

[jman507]

I agree that smoking around children is wrong, especially since we now know the consequences. The health effects of passive smoking are often worse than actual smoking.

But the level of sin from doing this is not so clear.

This to me sounds like an extraordinary claim, so I think it demands extraordinary proof. The exposure one has from taking a direct hit off of a cigarette is going to expose one to far more of the potential toxins than one taking them in second hand. Are there any proposed mechanisms associated with the smoke that is more diluted than with a higher concentration? Typically I’ve heard of health problems from overdoses, but not under doses. I’ll give you withdrawal effects, but that doesn’t sound like this.

I’d also propose that possibly due to the complex nature of the human body, including immune responses and ability to clear toxins, that we still don’t fully understand avoidence may not always be option in all cases. I’m not saying that it is certain by any circumstance, but it could be a plausable hypothesis.

If you have any of the claims, I’ll go research them. To me it seems there are lots of health concerns with smoking, but it seems the second hand smoking claims have been overblown. I don’t really care much for headline, nor the stories that come from the media. As they say statistics can lie, and for that matter so can the interpretation of studies. I am skeptical of something that will say second hand smoke is worse than smoking, but I’m even skeptical of my positions, so I’m willing to give it a go.

Yet still, the extent of second hand smoke is only one aspect of my stance. I don’t really see that the principle of telling someone not to do it, supersedes someone’s liberty to do something that can be harmful in this case. I’m willing to do that, but I do not think it is warranted in this case. For that matter, why not go after living in the city, or living close to a farm where the run-off can contaminate the water table.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

---

I have no idea why smoking being an addiction is an excuse for such behavior?? If they were an alcoholic would it excuse them getting drunk around kids? It’s perfectly legal to get drunk (as long as you don’t drive at the same time!) but most would agree it shouldn’t be done around children?

**Very good point.

We are not talking about taking away a smoker’s rights. We are talking about giving rights to children. Children (minors) cannot simply tell their parent(s) not to smoke around them and expect to be obeyed.

Someone needs to protect the children. If their own parents won’t do it then who will? Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

Malia
**

 

[masondoggy]

This to me sounds like an extraordinary claim, so I think it demands extraordinary proof.

The “extraordinary” proof is out there. Plenty of it.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

No, that is an issue between you and your dad.

No, it IS an issue of what was done when I was a CHILD and incapable of knowing what was being done to me. Not to mention, being forced to live with the consequences.

If he smokes at your house, around your children, you should tell him to refrain. If it is at his house, then it is your choice to stay, leave or ask him to stop.

Like I said before, he doesn’t smoke inside anymore. He doesn’t want to expose his grandkids to that kind of stuff. He doesn’t even smoke in his own house (he stopped after my grandmother had a stroke and she lived with us).

Your right to not be exposed to smoke is not mutually exclusive to others right to smoke, at least in almost every city of the country.

My right (and my children’s rights) to not breathe in all that junk should come above someone else’s “right” to poison their own bodies. Thank goodness it’s now illegal, in the town I mostly go to, to smoke in public places.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Someone needs to protect the children. If their own parents won’t do it then who will? Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

Thank you, Malia. Apparently, I am too crazy emotional today to make any good points. Can I blame it on pregnancy hormones??

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Very good point.

**We are not talking about taking away a smoker’s rights. We are talking about giving rights to children. **

Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

hmm, I’m not for children’s rights or even making smoking in front of children illegal.

Maybe what is needed is somethng equal to the law against public intoxication for smokers? Actually, I think that is very nearly what exists with all the rules on where smokers are not allowed to light up.

For the most part, I’m of the mind that what people do in their own home is their business. My mother smoked from the age of 12 until she was diagnosed with cancer died of of it 6 months later at the age of 53. It was her house and that didn’t change just because she had a kid.

**Once we start entering people’s homes, where does it end? Do we make it a legal requirement that the home have a crib before they can bring the baby home and check on them in the night to make sure they don’t co-sleep? **

Again, I’m torn.
I think this is one of those things best dealt with via public shunning/location limitation and education methods.

 

[aurora77]

Someone needs to protect the children. If their own parents won’t do it then who will? Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

I can’t be reading this correctly–you’re advocating that the government step in if a parent smokes? What’s the next step–monitoring food and exercise as well? Take a kid to McDonald’s, pay a fine. Skip that daily walk, another fine.

I’m amazed that people here are equating smoking and child abuse. It makes me wonder if they actually know what child abuse is, that it could be downplayed so much. Very sad.

If you don’t want people smoking around your kids, don’t allow it! Don’t let others smoke in your home or car and don’t take your kids to bars.

 

[jmcrae]

People should not smoke where children are near for the same reasons that we don’t sell cigarettes to anyone under the age of 25 (at least around here - I suppose there are places where the age is lower) - their lungs are not yet fully developed, and the results can include asthma, various different kinds of serious allergies, bronchitis, frequent recurrences of pneumonia, and a predisposition to cancer of the lung.

Someone who is obese, etc. isn’t going to cause the child to have a heart attack, etc., but someone who smokes is causing the child to breathe in all of these various different diseases.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

It’s a tough subject… yes, smoking is legal, but the trouble here is that it affects the health of the people around you. My grandparents’ smoked during my mom’s childhood, and now she gets coughing fits all the time. I’m betting she wouldn’t get those if her parent’s hadn’t smoked. Is it something that could be made illegal? I don’t know… I don’t think it would be something policable. Immoral? I do think so. You’re permanently affecting someone else’s health without their consent. Parents have a moral responsibility to care for their children to the best of their ability, and to me, because smoking and second-hand smoke have been proven to be harmful to your health, that would include not smoking around children.
So: immoral: yes. Illegal: no.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Once we start entering people’s homes, where does it end?

I agree there is a very fine line where these kinds of things are concerned. My particular problem with smoking is that I am unaware of ANY medicinal (or other type of) benefit attributed to the behavior. There are plenty of other physiologically-altering substances that have been labeled dangerous, and thus are illegal even when done in the privacy of one’s own home (I’m thinking of narcotics here, and I know smoking isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as cocaine).

Am I making sense? I’m getting the impression that I’m having an off-day.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

**
Someone needs to protect the children. If their own parents won’t do it then who will? Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

Malia
**

I’ve heard this idea/train of thought before and I think this would be terrible. I don’t smoke, neither does my husband, never will never have, but this is a slippery slope to go down…

I wanted to add… as to the morality of smoking in front of children, I don’t think it is a black and white issue. There are many factors to consider (are they in an enclosed space, is it affecting someone’s health, etc.)

 

[aurora77]

Someone who is obese, etc. isn’t going to cause the child to have a heart attack, etc., but someone who smokes is causing the child to breathe in all of these various different diseases.

No, but someone who engages in behaviors that can lead to obesity can endanger their children in the same way smokers do. If they feed their kids a steady diet of red meat, prepackaged foods, junk food, fast food, etc. and fail to have any sort of excercise, it could be said that they are also endangering their children. There’s a very slippery slope here; if we start banning smoking in private homes, where do we stop?

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately it is because of the selfish and self-centered that the government needs to step in and make stupid laws that shouldn’t have to be made if some people actually used common sense.

Malia

Talk about a slippery slope, indeed. There would have to be a crib law to prevent parents from rolling over and smothering the child in bed, as happens occasionally in the case of co-sleepers. There is also the danger of childhood obesity, so we need a legal maximum calorie intake that parents are allowed to feed their children. Immunizations? Not the parent’s choice. Make them mandatory. Should spanking be outlawed, too?

No doubt we are also concerned more about the eternal life of these children than their anything else. So we also need a law to mandate that children are baptized and attend Mass so they can receive the grace that allows them to go to heaven. What if the majority decide forcing religion on children is intolerant and wrong? Do we legislate against home-schooling and dragging the kids to church?

I will agree with everyone here that smoking in front of children in a way that they have to breathe the second hand smoke is unhealthy for the child and bad. But we simply must quit this mentality of legislating parental behavior.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I agree there is a very fine line where these kinds of things are concerned. My particular problem with smoking is that I am unaware of ANY medicinal (or other type of) benefit attributed to the behavior. There are plenty of other physiologically-altering substances that have been labeled dangerous, and thus are illegal even when done in the privacy of one’s own home (I’m thinking of narcotics here, and I know smoking isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as cocaine).

Am I making sense? I’m getting the impression that I’m having an off-day.

You are paking perfect sense to me, even when we disagree. Yes, smoking is not on par with cocaine, but maybe marijana is a better example??

---

The point remains the same though, the legality doesn’t change the the problem.

---

Do we really want to make the use of cigarettes on par with the use of pot or crack??

---

Because the use is going to happen and making it illegal just makes it more dangerous to use it, not safer for anyone.

---

Personally, I think if they are legal they can be regulated. Cost and chemical composition can be fixed or at least controled to some degree.

---

Making it illegal does not do any of that. It just makes it illegal.

---

People need to stop thinking that making something illegal equals moral change. It simply doesn’t have that effect on society or individuals.

---

Regulation has a much greater impact, imho.

 

[ack]

This to me sounds like an extraordinary claim, so I think it demands extraordinary proof. The exposure one has from taking a direct hit off of a cigarette is going to expose one to far more of the potential toxins than one taking them in second hand. Are there any proposed mechanisms associated with the smoke that is more diluted than with a higher concentration?

The smoke that the smoker breathes goes through the filter. The secondhand smoke is unfiltered.

 

[jmcrae]

No, but someone who engages in behaviors that can lead to obesity can endanger their children in the same way smokers do. If they feed their kids a steady diet of red meat, prepackaged foods, junk food, fast food, etc. and fail to have any sort of excercise, it could be said that they are also endangering their children. There’s a very slippery slope here; if we start banning smoking in private homes, where do we stop?

I don’t know, but in the rental apartments that we have, we do, in fact, forbid smoking - it’s not illegal for us to evict a tenant for smoking indoors on our property. (We allow pets and children, but not indoor smoking.)

 

[aurora77]

I don’t know, but in the rental apartments that we have, we do, in fact, forbid smoking - it’s not illegal for us to evict a tenant for smoking indoors on our property. (We allow pets and children, but not indoor smoking.)

We’re not talking about the same issue. If you, as a landlord, want to forbid smoking, pets, kids, etc., you can do so. That has nothing to do with parents smoking in front of their children.

 

[jmcrae]

The smoke that the smoker breathes goes through the filter. The secondhand smoke is unfiltered.

The person who is smoking is actually breathing in both the filtered and the unfiltered smoke. Presuming it is an adult, their immune system and the fact that their lungs are strong and fully developed helps them avoid any of the diseases associated with smoking. Children have no such protection - their lungs and their immune systems are not yet fully developed, so it is a bad idea to smoke in the presence of children.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I’m not certain about the legal aspect of smoking around children, but I believe it’s terrible and in bad taste. My primary issue with smoking is that it affects everyone, not just the smoker. Alcohol, as long as you control your intake, only affects the drinker and can be beneficial to your health (well, certain drinks can. Red wine in moderation is known to prevent heart disease). With smoking, it doesn’t have any health benefits and everyone else is exposed to carcinogens. Respiratory illness runs in my family so it really drives me nuts when people breathe smoke in my face.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

**I just want to clear up that I am NOT for legislation against this issue (or any other parenting issue). My point was that the government wouldn’t even be able to think about stepping into our homes if more people used their common sense.

I agree that making it illegal would be treading on a VERY slippery slope and that scares me. So if I don’t want there to be laws that affect where* my*** child sleeps, what they eat, or who they play with, PLEASE stop smoking in front of your (or anyone else’s) kids!!! Even if you don’t BELIEVE that it’s dangerous, why not err on the side of caution? I can’t believe any parent would want to intentionally put their child in harm’s way.

malia