# Is second-hand cigarette smoke child abuse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436 "2003-01-18T07:17:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/41 "2003-01-19T20:06:56Z")
Read Kip Viscusi’s article Secondhand Smoke, Facts and Fantasy. > [@](#): > > Cancer researchers generally note that the body is resilient in the presence of some carcinogens. One whiff of ETS is proportionately less likely to be risky than massive and sustained exposures. Government agencies such as the EPA and OSHA have not made such distinctions, **focusing instead on linear dose-response relationships.** It is nevertheless instructive to assess the extent of the risks that the agencies have estimated. It should be noted at the outset that the consensus among economic researchers, including the Congressional Research Service, is that the state of science with respect to ETS is too uncertain to warrant estimation of the health consequences. > > …The EPA’s assessment of the lung cancer risks was based on a review of 11 studies of family members exposed to ETS. Only one of the 11 studies indicated statistically significant effects at the 10 percent confidence level, and in some cases the influences were in the “wrong” direction. **Such statistically significant results can occur on a random basis.** Rather than dismissing the linkages as not well established, the EPA averaged the implications of the studies to obtain a risk estimate. OSHA reviewed the same set of studies and applied different weights to derive a somewhat lower risk estimate. > > The scientific studies used for the EPA and OSHA risk assessments in no way adjusted for the changing character of the cigarettes between the time of exposure and the current period, when tar levels in cigarettes are much reduced. > > …More fundamentally, the studies failed to include the usual kind of detailed multivariate controls that are the norm in economic analysis. > > …The estimates of heart disease costs associated with ETS are considerably higher… **The estimates are based on a single study in the literature, a study that is replete with caveats made by the author** …" Emphasis mine. I’m skeptical that people should be accused of child abuse based on such sketchy data & analysis. But what about the magnitude of the risk, even if it isn’t statistically significant, i.e. no proof exists that there is an effect? Viscusi addresses that question: > [@](#): > > In the 1980 OSHA Benzene case (AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute), the Supreme Court indicated that a one in a billion risk from drinking chlorinated water would not be considered significant, but a one in a thousand risk from gasoline vapors would be significant. Are the risks from ETS significant? > > …The individual who drinks nine glasses per day each year for 70 years will drink 229,950 glasses during his lifetime. If the risk per glass is one in a billion, as hypothesized by the Court, the lifetime risk is two in ten thousand. > > …When translated into lifetime risks as opposed to risks from a particular exposure, **so that both the ETS risks and the chlorinated water risks being discussed by the Court are in the same time dimension, we find that the risks are quite comparable and are of the same general magnitude**. Again, emphasis mine. Recall, this risk if for people living with smokers. If ETS is a risk on par with drinking chlorinated water, then it seems hard to imagine that we should indict smokers for exposing us to smoke. I also tend to find smoking and second-hand smoke to be the least annoying of people’s habits. I’d rather eat with a smoker than someone who chews with her mouth open any day. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/42 "2003-01-19T20:35:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*The parent isn’t creating the pollution from the big city, but is producing the smoke that’s inhaled in a home or a car, which with the windows closed, is at a very high concentration. In the last scenario, the child is for all intents and purposes smoking… \*\* If that were true then cancer & heart disease rates would be as high for family members of smokers as it is for smokers themselves. I respect your use of hyperbole; however, in this case it seems to be inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/43 "2003-01-19T21:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*If that were true then cancer & heart disease rates would be as high for family members of smokers as it is for smokers themselves. I respect your use of hyperbole; however, in this case it seems to be inappropriate. \*\* I’m talking about the affects of the drug nicotine on an infant and the possible link to SID. There is a prohibition against selling cigarettes to a minor for a reason. Nicotine is a drug, and cigarettes are the delivery system. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/44 "2003-01-19T21:51:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*I’m talking about the affects of the drug nicotine on an infant and the possible link to SID. There is a prohibition against selling cigarettes to a minor for a reason. Nicotine is a drug, and cigarettes are the delivery system. \*\* Good eye, I forgot to refer to **Duck Duck Goose’s** post regarding SIDs: > [@](#): > > \*\*And, the NIH is still quoting “sleep position” as the biggest risk factor for SIDS. I don’t see where they even mention second-hand smoke. > [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...thsyndrome.html](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...thsyndrome.html) > > The American Medical Association mentions second-hand smoke, but along with many other risk factors. > [http://www.ama-assn.org/public/jour...e/jpg120402.htm\*\*](http://www.ama-assn.org/public/jour...e/jpg120402.htm**) Notice that in the second reference, no weights or risk estimates seem to be given. (Athough I have not scoured either source.) Smoking does seem to be a pretty good drug delivery system. Being in the room with a smoker as a delivery system doesn’t sound nearly as conclusive. So to say that smoking with an infant in the house is equivalent to having the infant smoke still sounds like a hyperbole which seems inappropriate. Thanks for pointing out my error. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/45 "2003-01-19T23:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*The same benefits as you enumerate about him sitting in New York. Perhaps as they smoke, the parents are teaching him to read, providing him infrastructure, teaching him about other cultures, and so on. > > Were you to agree that a parent who subjects his child to air pollution is no different than a parent who subjects his child to cigarette smoke, then there would exist no double-standard to assail. \*\* I think it’s you that is using convenience to your benefit. Is it possible to provide the benefits of New York to your child while not living in New York, or any other big city (of which in the US, New York is one of the least air polluted). Now, is it possible to teach your child to read without smoking next to them? Again I am not advocating that people should be forced to quit smoking, in fact I am pretty annoyed about the current legislation to end smoking in bars, but I do think that you shouldn’t smoke in a closed area with a child. I think if you’re at home you should smoke outside. If you’re in the car, you should pull over and smoke, rather than smoking in the closed car, or subjecting them to the freezing winds as you do 65 down the interstate. Now, as far as abuse goes. Let’s look at the term more closely. As far as I am concerned, any callous disregard for your child’s well being is abusive. However, there are levels of abuse. Hitting your child with a belt should have your child removed from the home. Smoking in the closed room just means you’re an asshole. So I do not want to equate the two. However, I am personally of the view that the government should not be involved in the affairs of the family unless absolutely necessary. My family had a habit of doing that, and I view THAT as a form of abuse as well. So I am not arguing the abuse from a policy point of view. I just think that if you care more about your cigarette than the fact that it does harm to your child no matter how mild it may be, that you’re a fucking asshole. If your vice affects the childs health in ANY way, and you know that it does, and it’s easily preventable by going out onto the porch to smoke, then you’re being abusive. However like I said, it’s not an offense that warrants the calling of social services. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/46 "2003-01-19T23:32:00Z")
Something else I am seeing here is that people are saying: \*\*But the literature doesn’t provide conclusive proof that ETS causes horrific malady A or horrific malady B. \*\* So what? what about the non-horrific maladies that second hand smoke causes? Let’s eliminate cancer and SIDS from that. Do you think it’s ok to 1) Aggravate a child’s asthma 2) promote diminished lung capacity 3) Reduce immunity to respiratory illlnesses 4) aggravate a nicotine allergy These are all things that can happen from second hand smoke that do not result in the child’s death. Being beaten with a belt won’t kill the child either, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive. I think basically the viewpoint we are trying to get you to understand is that any willful disregard for your child’s health is abusive. If you think that some willful disregard for the child’s health is ok, then you and I are on completely seperate sides of the spectrum. Erek ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/47 "2003-01-20T06:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*Good eye, I forgot to refer to **Duck Duck Goose’s** post regarding SIDs: > > Notice that in the second reference, no weights or risk estimates seem to be given. (Athough I have not scoured either source.) > > Smoking does seem to be a pretty good drug delivery system. Being in the room with a smoker as a delivery system doesn’t sound nearly as conclusive. So to say that smoking with an infant in the house is equivalent to having the infant smoke still sounds like a hyperbole which seems inappropriate. > > Thanks for pointing out my error. \*\* Well I don’t know if it’s hyperbole. Figure an infant at 10lbs is 1/20th the weight of an adult at 200lbs or about 5% the size of an adult. All an infant would need is 5% of the dose of nicotine that the adult gets when smoking a single cigarette. I would think there would be at least 5% of nicotine in the second hand smoke. The real question is whether or not you would want to take those kinds of chances with your infant. For those that say yes, how do you justify it? ---
**Author:** ![Davebear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@Davebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Davebear)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/48 "2003-01-20T18:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Virgowitch \* > \*\*So, is causing children to breathe second-hand cigarette child abuse? \*\* No. Child abuse is defined by law, and exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke isn’t covered. All the other blather is just arguing about whether it should be. My opinion is that it shouldn’t, until and unless scientific evidence is produced that proves it’s actually a hazard. We, in our guise of government, already intrude too much into each other’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![Virgowitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9fc348/32.png) [@Virgowitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgowitch)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/49 "2003-01-20T19:09:12Z")
Calling smoking in the presence of infants and children “the most prevalent yet least reported form of child abuse,” Banzhaf said that deliberately exposing minors to a substance which doubles their risk of contracting lung cancer – and may cause them to go into respiratory distress – is inexcusable, and that doctors can no longer stand idly by while their young patients are “literally being poisoned by their parents.” WHAT COURTS HAVE DONE Courts have now recognized that parental smoking may be a deciding factor in custody disputes, and have issued orders prohibiting parental smoking in the presence of children. In one case a judge even ordered a child removed from a home where parental smoking threatened the child’s health, and both mother and father refused to modify their smoking behavior. Another indication of how far courts may be willing to go to protect children from harmful parental habits is the growing number of situations in which they have ordered the incarceration of pregnant women who use illicit drugs, or permitted the women to be prosecuted as criminals. Asking courts to deal with parents who smoke in the presence of their children should be far less contro- versial, suggests Banzhaf, for at least three reasons. First, he says, court-imposed restrictions on smoking in the pres- ence of a child apply equally to both sexes, unlike the incarcerations or prosecutions which only impact women. Second, a child is a “person” who is clearly entitled to the full protection of the laws, whereas the legal interests of a fetus – which in many cases may lawfully be aborted – are generally less than those of its mother. Third, and most importantly Banzhaf claims, is that a court can simply order a parent to smoke in a garage or porch, or even in another room, whereas forcing a female addict to cease using illicit drugs is far more difficult and more intrusive. Indeed, says Banzhaf, in the overwhelming majority of cases in which parents are told that smoking in the presence of a child may have to be reported as child abuse, they are likely to take the simple step of simply agreeing to do it elsewhere. Otherwise, they would risk having the doctor learn from a spouse, older sibling, or even the child himself that smoking was continuing to aggravate the child’s medical condition, or from a routine blood test which detected elevated levels of carbon monoxide or nicotine’s breakdown products. In cases where parental smoking in the presence of a child with serious asthma or other breathing problems can literally endanger the minor’s life by triggering respiratory distress, a doctor has a clear obligation to his young patient to report the situation to the authorities, says Banzhaf. “Where a child has had to be rushed by ambulance repeatedly when parental smoking triggered an asthmatic attack and prevented him from breathing, and the parents refuse to heed the doctor’s warnings and continue smoking next to the child, a physician’s moral, professional, and legal obligations are clear,” he says. Even in situations where immediate physical harm cannot yet be detected, physicians may nevertheless be justified in reporting their suspicions for evaluation by the authorities, says Banzhaf. Noting a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine proving that parental smoking can literally double a child’s risk of eventually contracting lung cancer, he suggests that forcing a child to bear those risks constitutes “maltreatment.” After all, he says, if a doctor found out that a child was being needlessly exposed to significant levels of asbestos, benzene, radioactive particles or other proven carcinogens at home, he would certainly be justified in taking action before a malignancy was detected, and tobacco smoke contains all of those substances as well as thirty other chemicals known to cause cancer. Calling smoking in the presence of infants and children “the most prevalent yet least reported form of child abuse,” Banzhaf said that deliberately exposing minors to a substance which doubles their risk of contracting lung cancer – and may cause them to go into respiratory distress – is inexcusable, and that doctors can no longer stand idly by while their young patients are “literally being poisoned by their parents.” Parents may be investigated as child abusers if they smoke in the presence of their infants or young children, especially if the minors have asthma, hay fever, allergies, or other conditions making them especially sensitive to secondhand tobacco smoke, suggested ASH Executive Director John Banzhaf In many cases where a parent continues smoking in the presence of a young child, there will be another spouse, or unrelated adult, or an older child living in the home, and therefore in a position to report and document the action. Where there is not, a simple blood, urine, or saliva test for the breakdown product of nicotine would provide conclusive proof that the child was being exposed to high levels of tobacco smoke. [http://www.totse.com/en/law/high\_profile\_legal\_cases/abuse.html](http://www.totse.com/en/law/high_profile_legal_cases/abuse.html) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/50 "2003-01-20T21:29:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Davebear \* > \*\*No. Child abuse is defined by law, and exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke isn’t covered. > > All the other blather is just arguing about whether it should be. My opinion is that it shouldn’t, until and unless scientific evidence is produced that proves it’s actually a hazard. We, in our guise of government, already intrude too much into each other’s lives. \*\* It’s amazing that there are people who still believe that there isn’t scientific evidence proving smoking is a hazard. It may not cause SIDS and it may not give them cancer but as I mentioned above there are plenty of hazards that cigarette smoking is most definitely linked to. It doesn’t have to be life-threatening to be a hazard. Erek ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/51 "2003-01-20T22:42:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mswas \* > \*\*It’s amazing that there are people who still believe that there isn’t scientific evidence proving smoking is a hazard. \*\* Did you mean to say “…evidence proving **second hand smoke** is a hazard”? I’ve not heard anyone suggest that smoking itself isn’t repleat with hazards. The question is what and how much risk is attributible to ETS. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/52 "2003-01-20T22:46:50Z")
If any risk at all is attributable to ETS then it’s inappropriate to smoke in front of children. Erek ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/53 "2003-01-21T00:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > If any risk at all is attributable to ETS then it’s inappropriate to smoke in front of children. I don’t know if I buy this. Literally every action performed by every person every day has some sort of risk associated with it. As I sit here and type at my keyboard, there’s a risk that some electrical surge could course through my fingers and kill me. When you drive your kid around in a car, there’s a chance you could be in an accident, killing your child. The question is if there’s a risk that’s significantly high to place your child in reasonable danger. If the chance of your kid normally getting Nasty Disease X is 1:1,000,000, and SHS increases that to 1.01:1,000,000, it’s not significant, IMO. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Virgowitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9fc348/32.png) [@Virgowitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgowitch)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/54 "2003-01-21T01:11:07Z")
Risk implies that something may or may not occur. As in electrocution by computer or a car accident. With smoking, you know for a fact that the child is inhaling a measurable amount of known carcinogens and nicotine. Chance and risk do not apply in this case.There is no debate or question that this is unhealthy and possibly lethal, the only real debate is over exactly how much damage is being done. Any parent who isn’t trailer trash is going to give their child the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/55 "2003-01-21T03:14:33Z")
ElJeffe: Do a cost benefit anaylisis of the benefit of allowing your child to use a computer, or taking them to soccer practice in a car, and then compare it to the cost benefit analysis of any benefits derived from having smoke blown in their face vs the cost. In otherwords cigarette smoking is an UNECESSARY risk, there is no benefit for them, and it is far too easy to avoid any risk for smoking in front of them to be justified. Now if you just hear that your mother died and you light up to relax and hte child is there, I think it’s forgiveable, but an average day, of an average week, I can’t think of any conceivable reason why you’d want to smoke in front of your child, other than callous disregard for their health, in favor of your vice. Erek ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/56 "2003-01-21T04:04:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Virgowitch \* > \*\*Risk implies that something may or may not occur. …With smoking, you know for a fact that the child is inhaling a measurable amount of known carcinogens and nicotine. Chance and risk do not apply in this case. There is no debate or question that this is unhealthy and possibly lethal, the only real debate is over exactly how much damage is being done. \*\* Hardly. If eleven studies of people living with smokers in the '70s turns up no evidence better than chance, then there is no reason to think you’re doing harm. How about people who drive their kids to school instead of having them take the bus. Or people who drive on vacation rather than flying. There are myriad risks which we expose our kids to, and no evidence has been offered that ETS is significantly more pressing than those others. Some in this thread have offered asthma, etc., which is worth mentioning, but if the evidence for those is no better than the “rock solid” evidence for cancer & heart disease that got smoking banned in a number of places, that complaint is moot as well. ---
**Author:** ![unigolyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e79b87/32.png) [@unigolyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unigolyn)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/57 "2003-01-21T04:18:32Z")
Umm, are you aware of what the per annum carcinogen/nicotine intake of a non-smoker living and smoking in a smoke-filled environment is? Equivalent to smoking SIX king size cigarettes. Per YEAR. This is literally saying that one drop of alcohol in a bucket of milk makes the milk unsafe for children. ETS studies are a complete load of BS, perpetuated by the out of control Jihad against smoking. Smoking is bad, and nanny types tend to think they have the right to tell other adults what to do, because they’re _addicted and don’t know any better_. Since the argument of ‘we should ban it because it’s bad for you’ doesn’t work, they came up with ETS and yelled ‘we should ban it because it’s a menace to others’. Governments, of course, are all too happy to comply, as this justifies insane levels of taxation on an addictive substance. ETS doesn’t cause cancer. However, filling an unventilated room with an infant in it with thick tobacco smoke and carbon monoxide is dangerously reckless, and I’d happily consider this child abuse, and punish the parents. Most smokers do NOT smoke in front of infants, or young children, they do it in another room, or outside, if weather and living arrangements allow it. A ten or twelve year-old, however, isn’t in any danger from being in the same room with smokers. If you claim otherwise, offer proof. Here’s mine: [link](http://www.lcolby.com/) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/58 "2003-01-21T04:58:21Z")
I’d be willing to accept the idea that it’s not abusive to smoke around a 12 year old. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Virgowitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9fc348/32.png) [@Virgowitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgowitch)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/59 "2003-01-21T05:34:58Z")
At some point it all comes down to personal character, and the choices we make that define it. If it were my twelve year old son or daughter, we’d have a problem. Is twelve the magic age at which it’s suddenly ok for a child to inhale all those poisons and nicotine? Not to mention, even if the child is yours, what gives you the moral right to gamble with that child’s health in order to indulge your own addiction. (rhetorical question, don’t bother) I have to wonder what the agenda is of those who still dispute the danger of second hand smoke. If the possibility of SIDS being increased by smoke even exists, is it worth a life? BTW I believe the average age for a smoke to start is 12. Funny you should pick that age. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436/60 "2003-01-21T06:08:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Virgowitch \* > \*\*I have to wonder what the agenda is of those who still dispute the danger of second hand smoke. \*\* That is insulting and completely out of line. You should apologize. From the fact that you don’t understand the nature of statistics and hypothesis testing it does not follow that those who disagree with you have a nefarious agenda. Your ignorance does not imply poor character on the part of others; your ignorance implies that you should keep your mouth shut until you are able to understand the issues involved. How _dare_ you accuse me of malign intent in order to benefit from a habit I don’t practice and an industry whose well being has no impact on me. “Only one of the 11 studies indicated statistically significant effects at the 10 percent confidence level, and in some cases the influences were in the ‘wrong’ direction. Such statistically significant results can occur on a random basis.” If you don’t know what that quote _means_, then you are the one at fault–for being ignorant of one of the key tools we use to understand the world around us. I’m seriously considering reporting your post to an administrator. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-second-hand-cigarette-smoke-child-abuse/149436.md?page=4)