It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents who smoke should be found unfit to be parents...

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TarzanBeta

The really ironic part of this thread is that since I started reading it, my smoking has picked up at least another pack a day...


I'll also take this opportunity to relate the tale of one of my great uncles.... the guy lived alone way back in the woods, smoked cigars (and inhaled the smoke
), loved to drink iced gin, and believed as I do that cooking = frying in grease. He didn't even know how old he was, just that he was in his 90s, the day he literally worked me down... and I was in my prime!

He died at the age of 99 of stomach cancer, primarily because he refused to see a doctor until it was too late. The day he passed on, I am told he was lying in bed smoking a cigar, drinking his iced gin through a straw, eating a piece of greasy fried chicken, and when they found him dead, he had this big peaceful smile on his face.

Everyone dies. If that is my fate, then I choose to at least try to go out with the happiness, dignity and self-pride he had. The OP of this thread and his supporters can make their own choice.

TheRedneck


If there was ever any dignity in death, I think that is about as close as it gets.





posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
What a ridiculous idea- parents who smoke should be prosecuted as bad parents! Give me a break. Where do you stop if you go down that road? Next would be parents who dared drink alcohol and would end somewhere near parents being prosecuted for having a "deadly salt shaker on their dinner table!
You can't dismiss the fact that smoking, and secondary smoke, is harmful but lately the scientific bods who seem to have nothing better to do than scare the meek and mild #less with their ridiculous warnings have gone over the top! Coffee, salt, sugar, the list is endless... I can see the headlines now...
"Parents In Court, Death By Nescafe!"



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


I starred your post before I was finished reading it - and then I tried to star it again when I had finished. Very well said.
And I agree.

Maslo, I really understand your point and I don't disagree with it easily. But the answer is education, not force. I believe most people, if they really knew what they were doing to their kids by smoking around them; if they saw the x-rays and the darkened lungs of their own children, saw how their lungs and heart were smaller than other kids... they would probably stop smoking around the kids, at least. It's education that is needed.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Way to miss my point... does smoking cause a loss of motor control? Delusions? Hallucinations? Loss of inhibitions? Violent tendencies?


Oh! I see. I did misunderstand your point. Sorry. I thought you meant long-term.

My point still stands, however. Maybe if I state my position more specifically. The legality or illegality of a substance doesn't indicate its overall danger to the user. And comparing tobacco and other legal drugs, such as alcohol and even refined sugar, to illegal drugs, such as coc aine and cannabis, makes absolute sense in quantifying the risk of the overall danger to one's self and to society. That risk could be brought into play when deciding which drugs should be legal and which are too much of a danger to society. My point is that, if we are to make laws according to the OVERALL danger of a substance, some that are now illegal should be legal and vice versa. They all fit into the same category of substances that people use and abuse. So that's why I say it's not unreasonable to compare tobacco with illegal drugs.



As far as lowering intelligence... just say as a smoker for 40 years with a two-pack-a-day habit, I guess I am the poster-boy for the anti-smoking campaign...


Yeah, I doubt it.

edit on 2/21/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You're absolutely right.

You are getting attacked chiefly by libertarian fanatics/fantasists and über-constitutionalists, who have a nauseating sense of entitlement, and think that they should be allowed to do as they wish regardless of how negatively it affects other people, just so long as they have their mythical ''freedom'' from the bogeyman.


These people have a warped ''me me me !'' attitude, and think that personal ''freedom'' should prevail for ''freedom's'' sake, no matter how illogical or harmful the results of that stance may be.

Parents who smoke cigarettes in the close vicinity of their children should be considered in exactly the same way as those who physically abuse their offspring.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Please as if drugs are marked legal or illegal simply based on the danger they pose to society. Nicotine and Alcohol are only legal because of the big tobaco and alcohol companies throwing their money around. Cocaine and Marijuana illegal because of cartels again throwing their money around. Nobody gives a # about you or your child's safety.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


By your logic, we should fine parents who give their kids soda, sugary cereal, buy them a McD hamburger and french fries, sit in traffic with them, let them be around sick people, etc. Ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree also that the "legality" of a substance is just a play on words and does not define the realities of said substance and the responsibility which should be used when meddling with said substances!

And understanding the risks involved with all of these is important to making informed decisions.

I still argue though that I have always had the common sense to know what can and cannot hurt me in relative excess. I just can't imagine being a person who has to refer to research to realize it... the brain is an excellent communicator of discomfort and disharmony. I think we fool ourselves as to what actually feels good.

But such is the way of the human. Mind over matter...

Which also brings into question the ability of the mind to deter the side effects of matter (But of course, the carnal nature is one difficult to evade, so I am not claiming that people should rely on mind-trickery to not get sick). But even the dungeons and dragons nerds got it right with understanding that willpower is your "saving throw" versus sickness!

Oh man. Yeah, I did go there.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Smoking is NOT hard to quit....i have quit several times in my life....for years at a time. Its more to do with personality....like some people cant be hypnotized.

i

edit on 20-2-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)


[snip] its not hard to quit? then why do you keep picking the habit back up?? apparently several times..get real. and to the soldier who only smoked for a year. yeah i could have easily quit after a year also, because youre not even really addicted at that point, not at all, you just like them. My grandpa always talk about how easy it was for him to quit but then he'd tell you he only smoked 3-5 cigs a week and for only a year, so people who arent really addicted, shouldnt act like they know what their talking about.
edit on 21-2-2011 by elevatedone because: Mod Edit removed profanity



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You're absolutely right.

You are getting attacked chiefly by libertarian fanatics/fantasists and über-constitutionalists, who have a nauseating sense of entitlement, and think that they should be allowed to do as they wish regardless of how negatively it affects other people, just so long as they have their mythical ''freedom'' from the bogeyman.


These people have a warped ''me me me !'' attitude, and think that personal ''freedom'' should prevail for ''freedom's'' sake, no matter how illogical or harmful the results of that stance may be.

Parents who smoke cigarettes in the close vicinity of their children should be considered in exactly the same way as those who physically abuse their offspring.



If someone stinks do you run up right next to them and scream in their face? call the cops and demand he take a shower? No? So why do you do it to smokers? Learn to mind your own damn business nobody is forcing you to place yourself or your child right next to someone smoking a cigarette and guess what? Those that smoke infront of their children? Hey its their children not yours. Its not your job to tell other people how to raise their #ing kids.

You know people want freedom until that freedom leads to people doing something they theyselves dont agree with and then they go off and call other people entitled. Unreal.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You're absolutely right.

You are getting attacked chiefly by libertarian fanatics/fantasists and über-constitutionalists, who have a nauseating sense of entitlement, and think that they should be allowed to do as they wish regardless of how negatively it affects other people, just so long as they have their mythical ''freedom'' from the bogeyman.


These people have a warped ''me me me !'' attitude, and think that personal ''freedom'' should prevail for ''freedom's'' sake, no matter how illogical or harmful the results of that stance may be.

Parents who smoke cigarettes in the close vicinity of their children should be considered in exactly the same way as those who physically abuse their offspring.



Wait a minute. Are you God?

Holy crap. I didn't think that Sherlock Holmes was God.

Are you joking me? Who are you serving and why are you serving them?

If you think that serving people is an obligation, then you are mad!

FREEDOM is a CHOICE because when people do "the right thing" only because they are told to, they are USELESS Human beings.

When people do "the right thing" because they CHOOSE to, then they are a beautiful human being.

That is why freedom matters, lord Sherlock.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


If you had any idea what libertarian or constitutionalist meant, you would not have said that we believe you should do whatever even if it negatively affects others. That is completely the opposite of individual freedom. We believe that you should be able to do whatever you want for and to yourself as long as it does not harm others. The extent to which you should be punished for doing that harm is what is up for discussion here, i.e. that parents should be declared unfit for "harming" their children by smoking.

edit to add: I find the idea by some here that I should have been taken away from my PARENTS who gave birth to, cared for, and raised me and put with someone else who didn't smoke remarkable. As if that is a deciding factor as to whether or not my parents deserved me and I my parents. I mean, really? You really think the government should have come into my home and taken me from my parents because they smoked? Do you really think I would be a better, happier, more successful person if I was taken from my loving parents who taught me great values and to think for myself and put with people who would never love me like my parents EVER could ? Not to mention likely being bounced around from home to home, some potentially physically/mentally/verbally/sexually abusive? You think being a ward of the state is better than being raised by parents who smoke? Do you even consider the myriad of dysfunctions I would have because of being raised by "more fit" people other than my parents?????
edit on 21-2-2011 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


You didn't leave anything out. That was a beautiful tribute to your son and to your parenting.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You are getting attacked chiefly by libertarian fanatics/fantasists and über-constitutionalists...


Yeah, what's so great about the Constitution, huh? Freedoms? Rights? Bah!




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


So you have volunteered to go to prison or pay fines for your 26 years of smoking and the abuse it heaped upon your child?

Have you paid your child a direct sum of money for your smoking abuse?

Have you made any sort of amends, outside of going on net forums and saying smoking is bad?

Before I can address the rest of your post I would need to know this.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


So medical science can now distinguish damaged caused by cigarettes vs tailpipes and smokestacks huh? Amazing. Maybe you know a doctor or scientist who can explain how they do that. Haven't you ever noticed (of course ygou haven't) how in the commercials they have to say "my doctor said my lung cancer was PROBABLY caused by 2nd hand smoke" wow probably is quite the scientific term, as in, sitting in her suv on the cell with the engine running PROBABLY didn't help.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Maslo
 


By your logic, we should fine parents who give their kids soda, sugary cereal, buy them a McD hamburger and french fries, sit in traffic with them, let them be around sick people, etc. Ridiculous.



These things are far less harmful than smoking around children. Why do you think soda, sugary cereal or hamburgers are legal for children to buy, but cigarettes is not? Come on people, think..



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Parents who are aware of the dangers involving second hand smoking yet still choose to smoke around children are bad parents period. They care more about their "high" than their children.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by KAOStheory
 


Lung cancer causes can be quite accuratelly estimated by comparing statistics of cancer of those that smoke and those that do not. So yes, science can do it easily, this is elementary stuff.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Maslo
 


By your logic, we should fine parents who give their kids soda, sugary cereal, buy them a McD hamburger and french fries, sit in traffic with them, let them be around sick people, etc. Ridiculous.



These things are far less harmful than smoking around children. Why do you think soda, sugary cereal or hamburgers are legal for children to buy, but cigarettes is not? Come on people, think..


Right because Aspartame and MSG are totally safe. Neither can cause Cancer. Na only those nasty cigarettes should be worried about.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





Right because Aspartame and MSG are totally safe. Neither can cause Cancer. Na only those nasty cigarettes should be worried about.


If asparmate or MSG is so harmful, it should be banned or regulated as cigarettes are. What is your point?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





Right because Aspartame and MSG are totally safe. Neither can cause Cancer. Na only those nasty cigarettes should be worried about.


If asparmate or MSG is so harmful, it should be banned or regulated as cigarettes are. What is your point?


That is my point..



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join