When my asthmatic sister was little, we had a cat. Soon after getting the cat, it was determined that my sister was allergic to it.
We found it very hard to get rid of the cat, but my sister’s health was at stake, so we had to.
My mother posponed giving the cat away as long as possible. As a result, my sister continued to have asthma attacks. My sister’s pediatrician eventually stepped in. He said that if we didn’t get rid of the cat, my mother would be charged with child abuse.
Cigarette smoke is something that should not be in anyone’s body and can, on some levels, be compared to an asthmatic being exposed to something they are allergic to.
Cat dander was “poison” in my little sister’s system.
Cigarette smoke is poison in anyone’s system.
Smoking around children is, in my opion, equivalent to putting poison into the child’s body. They didn’t ask for it.
I’m not sure I’d take it quite that far Monty, but I get what you’re trying to say.
I am totally in favor of this law and wish it would be implemented in my area.
It all comes down to this one issue:
You - the smoker - have decided for whatever reason to put poison into your body. Fine. No big deal to me.
It becomes a big deal when you decide to blow that smoke into my - a nonsmoker - lungs. I have not decided to put these poisons into my lungs. You have decided this for me.
I totally agree with you, Angelslantern. While making smoking around your children will most likely never qualify as legal abuse for numerous reasons, it certaintly qualifies as stupid.
Interesting topic, DoperChic. My mom smokes like a chimney, always has. I wish she wouldn’t, but I’m not sure I’d classify it as abuse. What does piss me off to no end, though, is that she buys cartons of cigarettes for my 20 year old brother. Geez, Mom, you know you’re addicted, you’ve tried over and over to quit, you know that cigarettes can cause cancer, you’ve seen loved ones die of cancer, and you still give your baby boy addictive carcinogens for Christmas?!
p.s. Out here on the Monterey Peninsula, darn near every year, we get some fool tourist who thinks it’s a good idea to get a photo of himself standing next to the sign that says “DON’T STAND HERE. THE WAVES WILL TAKE YOU TO SEA AND YOU WILL DIE!” Actually, I forget the actual wording on the signs; however, that’s the message they convey.
And, darn near every year, someone gets washed into the bay and isn’t heard from again.
I just have a hard time mustering up sympathy for those who are too stupid to live when they get hurt doing the things they were told will hurt them.
I just think (no pun intended) that any decent loving parent would want to do everything possible to allow their child to grow in as healthy an environment as possible.
Smoking around them makes their environment that much less healthy. Living in a polluted area also makes their environment less healthy.
If I knew that living in the neighborhood I’m in could harm my child’s health, I would do everything I could to change that. If moving was an option, I would.
I would just do my best to manipulate the things I am in control of to provide the best environment for my child. If that meant moving to avoid high levels of pollution, crime, etc, then so be it. If I lacked the money to do so, then I’d just have to make the best of my situation.
To make a long story short… No, I do not consider having children in LA child abuse. But if it is within your power as a parent to radically lower one health risk for your child, then I feel you should do everything within your power to do so.
When I was nine years old, my mother remarried. My stepfather had been a heavy smoker for thirty years before they married. During the two years they had dated, he didn’t smoke around me particularly often, but once we were all living in the same household, I was exposed to cigar and cigarette smoke constantly.
Within a couple of months, I was having major problems with athsma. One night, I had a nasty attack that resulted in a trip to the ER. Dad drove me there. By the time we got to the hospital, he had made the decision to quit smoking. If you ask my dad now, he’d tell you without a moment’s hesitation that smoking around children is abusive. I owe him many thanks, at the very least, for quitting.
I probably would have developed the athsma anyway; some of my siblings that were grown up and out of the house before Mom (a non-smoker) remarried also had athsma in childhood. But it can’t have helped that I was exposed to a known athsma trigger.
The older of my two children has mild athsma. I’m careful to keep him away from smoky places as much as I can. I can’t keep him away from all cigarette smoke, but I certainly wouldn’t expose him to excessive amounts of it.
Putting a child in harm’s way? Yes.
Abuse? Can be, especially if the parent is aware that their smoking is harming their child, yet they continue to smoke around them.
let’s assume we take one of the more serious cases presented in this thread - groups of adults smoking in a confined space with asthmatic kid, or whatever.
now let’s say said asthmatic kid grows up and experiences some level of health consequences later in life
(it’s not very hard to picture this happening)
would asthmatic kid, if he felt like doing so, have grounds for taking legal action against his parents? i’m not a lawyer, but it seems like a distinct possibility to me.
(aren’t restaurants and bars imposing smoking bans to prevent themselves from being sued by employees being forced to work in smoky conditions?)
anyone who knows what they’re talking about have an opinion on this?
With remarkable timing, this article fits neatly into our debate.
I don’t quite know how to feel about this. I guess it makes sense, but it seems like such an intrusion. Cigarettes are apparently so dangerous that they’ve been banned from public buildings, and now we’re seeing a woman banned from smoking in her house or car because she has a son (even when he’s not there) - so why are they still legal to buy? Surely if they’re so dangerous that they can’t be consumed in the presence (or future presence) of others, they’re dangerous enough to be outlawed? Instead, they’re still available for everyone of legal age to buy. Am I the only one who sees a conflict between the two points? Why are other drugs illegal? Usually the answer is that they’re dangerous/harmful/addictive. The same could be said of cigarettes. Yet a junkie shooting up even in a confined space is only hurting him or herself while second hand smoke is alleged to hurt others.
As anyone who has seen me in a smoking thread before can tell you, I am quite allergic to cigarette smoke. This, obviously, colours my perception of the issue, but I will go on nevertheless.
JohnBckWLD, even if there were no problems with the study (I do not know enough about it to say) and the author of the article was right that the findings that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke got cancer more often are insignificant, it still does not address all issues. Where was asthma mentioned? I can easily find numerous cites that link asthma to second-hand smoke.
Cigarette smoke is indeed an asthma trigger. I personally believe (I’m currently looking for cites) that second-hand (and first-hand as well) can cause asthma in someone who might otherwise not have had it.
As I said before. Abuse does not necessarily present an opportunity for regulation. If your child is suffering because of the smoke as in the case of Trish-Trash or Cletus and Lurlene then they are guilty of abuse on many other levels. Smoking in a car with the windows closes is abusive. Many smokers are concientious enough to keep people from being locked up with their smoke.
As this thread has shown many smokers will do just about anything to justify their addiction. However, forcing other people, including their children is not right. However, as I said before it doesn’t require regulation necessarily. Just as we don’t put a camera in every home to keep people from hitting their kids we wouldn’t put smoke level detectors in every home to make sure that people weren’t smoking in front of their children.
I think the ruling that the woman cannot smoke in her own home is a little bit ridiculous. Sure, while the child is there, that is reasonable. While he is not, it’s pretty unreasonable.
I smoke pot, however I don’t operate heavy machinery while on it, I don’t do it around children and if I did there wouldn’t be any hesitation that I was doing something wrong to those children. How can cigarettes be any different? You don’t spike their apple juice with a little vodka to warm them up. Why would you expose them to cigarette smoke on that level?
I just wanted to point out that there isn’t any factual data to support that second-hand or passive some is harmful in any way. So how, therefore, are you going to pass legislation that would condemn it as child abuse. Once you have concrete and credible evidence that smokers harm non-smokers by causing them to inhale small amounts of smoke, then you can deem parents child abusers.
Jde, those studies refer to general healthy populations only, and the jury is still out as to what type of harm second-hand smoke does, if any. There definitely is credible evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful to people with reactive airway diseases, like asthma. Since reactive airway disease is becoming more and more common these days (possibly due to increased air pollution, like second-hand smoke) and is threatening to be a costly epidemic in our society, something should be done.
"I’m willing to bet that all of those asthma cases lately are indeed caused by air pollution. "
—Well, not really. My Mom has severe bronchial asthma caused by being married for nearly 30 years to a heavy smoker. She can’t be anywhere near smoke now, or she winds up in the hospital. And yes, all her doctors agree that her asthma, which began in her late 40s, WAS caused by second-hand smoke.
That having been said, I also think it’s ludicrous that that woman can’t smoke in her home when her son is NOT there.
In a nutshell, Ms. Di Matteo may not smoke in her home or car *at all, even when her son’s not present *- because the smell bothers him. She currently does not smoke in her son’s presence. He’s not asthmatic nor does he have any condition that non-airborne cigarette smoke would aggravate.
kase: I don’t know if you are a smoker or not, but your posts smack of a smoker trying desperately to legitimize their habit. Smoking IS air pollution, not only is it air pollution but it’s a large amount of it in a small space. So yes, air pollution IS bad for your respiratorty system, however since smoking IS air pollution, smoking is also bad for your respiratory system. See how that works?
Erek