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

reply to post by Maslo


First off, don't accuse me of not thinking just because we don't agree on something.

At least now I know you are the person we should turn to to determine what is and isn't more or less harmful for children. So its better that parents contribute to their child's diabetes, high cholesterol, increased risk for heart disease, hormonal imbalances, etc. than it is for those parents to smoke if they have children?

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Really ?! Is it that elementary, My dear esquire Watson?!

I have NEVER been confronted with a medical doctor or a scientist who asked ME and my family to take part in any statistical research.

Neither has any of my immediate, neither my extended family! Neither my friends, and so far not their families.

So........

WHO THE FRAK are these statistics based upon?

People with different compositions and dispositions to allergens than my family? Highly probable.

I smoke and have smoked for 27 years. I am healthy and hardly ever get sick. My husband quit smoking and was sick for many years after. He saw his self as sick and so he was. The mind is a crazy thing. What we think really "is". If we think it is harmful than it is. If we believe that we are healthy then we are. We are at any given time what we believe we are and that is a constantly changing avenue.

We have raised four children, and will soon have a total of four grandchildren. They are all safe, healthy, and are the greatest people I know. They were raised in a home of smokers. They do the honest thing, they help people in need, and they stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Out of four only one is a smoker. I did not harm my children. My children grew up to be who they were meant to be and are doing what they want to do. They live of their own influence.

Smoking, additives, sugar, junk food, etc... We are all conditioned to "think" they are bad for us. If no one had conducted a study, put out a report, or "told" us that these things were dangerous for our health, we would all be healthy. If we were never told, we would not be having this discussion. We hold the power of our own thought. Step out of the condition and let people live free.

What I find rather problematic is the stuff that is actually contained within the tobacco products sold here in the U.S.. I use chewing tobacco (think of a bear, but not a Kodiak bear as the mascot... cough...Grizzly Wintergreen...cough), but I do not smoke because I have a genetic lung disease (hence the coughing ). What I've discovered through being drug tested through probation (DUI, very stupid I know), is that my urinalysis test results showed amphetamines and coc aine (which I don't use, nor had I used any such substances for years prior to being put on probation). I took one urinalysis which showed those results, and wondered what was the cause of such results (my two thoughts were: 1) the water supply; and 2) the chewing tobacco). Therefore, I quit chewing with Chantix, and started drinking more water. If it was the water, then the results would have been higher than my first urinalysis, but if it was the chew, then the substances would have been eliminated from my results. So a month later, I took my second UA (urinalysis), and what do you know , the results came back negative for both coc aine and amphetamines. I never failed any of my UAs because those substances were within the allowed negligible range; however, the fact that they were present in my system at all is what I find problematic. How does amphetamines and coc aine factor into the production and distribution of tobacco? And why has this been allowed? I tried buying a FDA approved, at home urine-drug testing product off the interweb, but they did not test to an accurate enough degree to detect the amphetamines or coc aine in the chewing tobacco. I had mixed a lot of chew with a small amount of water for my experiment, but the results were negative. However, my government mandated probation urinalysis was done in a lab, which has much more sensitive equipment so that they can catch you and put you in jail in order to add to the government's bottom line and raise the value of the Bureau Of Prisons' stock price.

Originally posted by towhisper
I smoke and have smoked for 27 years. I am healthy and hardly ever get sick. My husband quit smoking and was sick for many years after. He saw his self as sick and so he was. The mind is a crazy thing. What we think really "is". If we think it is harmful than it is. If we believe that we are healthy then we are. We are at any given time what we believe we are and that is a constantly changing avenue.

We have raised four children, and will soon have a total of four grandchildren. They are all safe, healthy, and are the greatest people I know. They were raised in a home of smokers. They do the honest thing, they help people in need, and they stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Out of four only one is a smoker. I did not harm my children. My children grew up to be who they were meant to be and are doing what they want to do. They live of their own influence.

Smoking, additives, sugar, junk food, etc... We are all conditioned to "think" they are bad for us. If no one had conducted a study, put out a report, or "told" us that these things were dangerous for our health, we would all be healthy. If we were never told, we would not be having this discussion. We hold the power of our own thought. Step out of the condition and let people live free.

Amen.

Puto ergo sum - or Cogito ergo sum.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Here we go again, agreeing. You're going to destroy our reputation, BH.

I have to agree that any substance should be considered in light of its total detriment to society, but I will take issue with the detrimental effects on the user being considered in that equation. For instance, alcohol has a detrimental effect on the body, primarily on the liver. As long as the user has the information about such an effect available to them, I have no problem with their decision to use alcohol.

However, driving while intoxicated has a high incidence of harm to others... so I also agree that driving while drunk should be outlawed. The difference is that the user has a chance to make an informed decision whether or not to drink; the guy who happens to be driving down the road where the drunk hits him has had no such chance to make an informed decision as to his choice to drive.

Applied to cigarettes, yes, there is evidence to support an increase in lung cancer from smoking in some individuals. That is not a big secret. Every pack of cigarettes has this huge Surgeon General's warning pasted across it promising all sorts of nasty outcomes should one dare to smell the tobacco, and the advertising signs now have the warning larger than the advertisement! Not to mention the number of TV shows and movies which carry the implied messages of how dangerous cigarettes are. The only thing left to see here is graphic pictures of mutilated corpses on every cigarette pack, along with a little fine print on the inside of the wrapper telling which brand it is.

As for the effects of secondhand smoke: yes, it is annoying to some, I suppose. Strong perfume is annoying to me. But there are not any serious scientific studies which support this assertion about secondhand smoke being so deadly. This post from page 4 has some great information on actual scientific studies into the effects of secondhand smoke. Apparently it has escaped the attention of most readers of this thread... propaganda 1, truth 0. Not surprising, unfortunately.

So while I agree with your premise about dangers, I do not agree with your belief that secondhand smoke is dangerous. And I will also state for the record that everything I own is automatically considered a smoking area... my land, my home, my sheds, my barn, my car, my truck. I am concerned that someday I will come to own something in an are that is under the influence of anti-smokers, and that is going to be one heck of a fight!

TheRedneck

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


You still didnt explain why YOU smoke outside? Anger solves nothing. You seem to have enough all by yourself. God Bless ya anyway!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


More Do Flippin Gooders!!!! Have we not had enough of this? cant do this cant do that lifestyle? If someone who smokes has kids and quits Good on em but if they continue to smoke, by this ethos they are the equivilent of a paedo? This is a stupid idea and an insult to The millions of good parents out there now and in the past!

Good God do gooders!!! leave everybody else alone! get on with your own lives..

Git

reply to post by TarzanBeta


It is probably based on people that had lung cancer. If you are interested in how scientific study is done, I am sure you will find plenty of studies and material on the internet.

Ever see those commercials in which testimonials are used to push a product...and at the tail end of the commercial comes the disclaimer, "Results are not typical!" ????

There's a reason why anecdotal evidence, such as the personal stories and "testimonials" presented throughout this thread, are generally disregarded in health science. Assuming that your personal experiences or results are typical is as fallacious as assuming "5 Minute Abs" will make you as ripped as the demo model.

So...can we stop with the "Well, my grandpa lived to the ripe old age of __ and smoked __ packs a day!" or "Well, my friend's son died of lung cancer when he was 40." Such anecdotes are irrelevant when discussing the effects that certain lifestyles can have on one's health.

reply to post by TheRedneck

As for the effects of secondhand smoke: yes, it is annoying to some, I suppose. Strong perfume is annoying to me. But there are not any serious scientific studies which support this assertion about secondhand smoke being so deadly. This post from page 4 has some great information on actual scientific studies into the effects of secondhand smoke. Apparently it has escaped the attention of most readers of this thread... propaganda 1, truth 0. Not surprising, unfortunately.

This. Thanks for bringing it up. If second hand smoke is not harmful, or only negligibly, then this topic is meaningless.

Originally posted by Super Katsurio
How does amphetamines and coc aine factor into the production and distribution of tobacco?

Don't you mean production, distribution and addiction? I fully believe that "'additives" in many products are actually "addictives" in order to keep the customers coming back for more. There are 599 Additives in cigarettes and burning a cigarette creates over 4000 chemical compounds...

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by RelentlessLurker

 

You still didnt explain why YOU smoke outside? Anger solves nothing. You seem to have enough all by yourself. God Bless ya anyway!

Are you that ignorant? Why do we smoke outside? Maybe due to the fact smoke smells. It smells it makes your walls yellow over time. I could go on. Why not smoke outside? There are many reasons to not smoke inside I only listed a few.

When did this thread turn into smoking causes cancer smoking is bad. Isnt this thread about if a parent is unfit that smokes? Wait its not because parents that smoke are not unfit parents we all already know that. Its people who say stuff like this who are unfit as individuals. Parenting isnt judges based on someones smoking habit and never should be.

Again I will state that I smoke and am probably 10times the parent the OP is and my child is probably a lot more intelligent then his child. Obviously with crap like this if his kid is learning that he is an unfit parent.

reply to post by Maslo

Doctor: "Mr. X, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is, you have advanced lung cancer and will probably die within hours. The good news is you get to participate in our statistical survey!

"Now, question 1: have you ever associated with known smokers, and if so, how often for how long, and under what conditions? Do you know whether they smoked regulars, lights, or ultra-lights? How many packs a a day did they smoke? How often...."

God, save me from those who want to save me...



TheRedneck

I agree smoking is bad for infants/kids and probably everyone around you but what I don't agree with is people who feel its their place to pass judgment on who's fit or not fit enough to be a parent.

Smoking is a choice. It's my choice not yours. I don't go around invading your house telling you what to do so why do you feel this need to do it to smokers? Soon we'll have an anti-smoking police. Or new type of Supremacist group. THE HEALTH ZEALOTS

reply to post by Maslo


You missed my point but that's probably due more to my wording...I'm referring to non-smokers with lung cancer here, as in the girl in the commercial. I do not believe that it can be proven that a non-smoker got lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke vs another source, nor do I believe that banning smoking in air-polluted ares like Chicago or L.A.or N.Y.C. will show a decrease in lung cancer found in non-smokers. If it could the law would not make her say "probably", it would have been more like "my doctor is 100% sure I got lung cancer because my room-mate smokes and I sued her and won 9 bajillion", not "my doctor thinks um maybe uh...but yes I drive an Outback for no good reason".

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I don't think they are irrelevant. I think they are needed to show that you can't have a blanket "solution" to a perceived problem because many people have different results for different situations. The point is, that you can't say all parents who smoke are unfit when there are many people who have grown up to be successful, productive, intelligent individuals completely regardless of whether or not one, both, or neither parent smoked. I dont' think the stories should be used to prove a person's stance because that is a subjective argument which is not logical; however, the story itself is relevant to show that having a parent who does or doesn't smoke is not directly related to how an individual turns out. It should not be used as a deciding factor when considering the ability of a parent to care for, raise, and teach a child.

reply to post by Zaanny


Absolutely right! I am not a smoker and never have been. However the anti-smoking fascists are the first to jump into their 4x4s and pollute the streets. You don`t hear them saying one word about pollution when they are doing it though.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Here we go again, agreeing. You're going to destroy our reputation, BH.

If we keep at it long enough, we usually agree more than we disagree.

And here we go again. When I said a danger to one's self, I misspoke. I should have left it at a danger to others. Because if someone wants to do meth until their face falls off and their house burns down, it's none of my business and I don't care.

I'm not actually sure about the effects of second hand smoke, so I chose not to smoke around other people (and that's one of the reasons I decided to quit - it was so isolating). But I'll read the link you posted. Whether it's dangerous or not, I don't think any laws should be made regarding the fitness of a parent based on second hand smoke.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Too bad the reality of smoking parents is too true to be ignored ..