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: 21
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Fair enough, but then what will fill the income void of tobacco taxes? I suppose cut funding in education? Since we're on the topic of unfit parents, how bout parents that are alcoholics? Same thing really, a drug dependent parent is a drug dependent parent. How bout the parents addicted to prescription meds, how bout the parents who just don't give a damn? Really how can you legislate your idea without going into ALL the reasons of being an unfit parent? Or is it just that smoking is the worst behavior to be expected from a parent? Damn I could use a smoke

.
edit on 21-2-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


I say this as both a smoker and a methamphetamine addict; quitting smoking is much harder.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ready for this? Good.

The article you linked refers to a series of studies correlating alzheimers and parkinson's disease more strongly with non-smokers than smokers. Nicotine, in cigarette smoke, actually increases insulin sensitivity, which explains why smokers tend to gain weight upon cessation (www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">see here). The connection? Alzheimers has, in recent years, been shown very strongly to be associated with type 2 diabetes, a disease of insulin resistance/sensitivity.

So, the benefit from smoking would be nicotine's effects on insulin senstivity, possibly lowering the risk of developing amyloid plaques and reducing symptoms of dementia.

May be off topic...so to stay on topic....

The influence of nicotine from cigarette smoke on a young child's insulin sensitivities would probably be significantly less, given that it would be second hand exposure. We also have to realize that the study is observational and is in no way has indentified a causal role.
edit on 21-2-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by innervision0730
 


I completely agree with that. It's the whole 'unfit to parent' part that I strongly oppose.

thank you for continuing this discussion.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by innervision0730
 


Okay...but would you call CPS and ask them to declare her unfit as a parent and potentially taker the child away?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
"UNFIT" as in below the required standards for a purpose, bad: physically unsound or diseased,not in good physical or mental condition. (Websters definition of "UNFIT"



Are you kidding me??? I cant believe what someone would feel like this. Lets just start with the facts though, not feelings. First off, you are right in that smoking and second hand smoke has been proven dangerous. (Along with other things such as car exhaust, fumes, burning indoors,fat, sugar, eggs, etc..) BUT.. Parents, or adult's in general should have enough common sense NOT to blow smoke in anyone's face, or NEVER smoke around a child as they are NOT MAKING THE CHOICE to smoke.
Secondly, I take offense personnaly that you compared the habit of smoking to quitting Cocaine or Meth. I didn't see where you stated you had been a coke or meth addict thus qualifing you to make this comment but you have the right not to mention such a private personal trait, as I do too.

Lastly, If you would study impact panels and studies done on ALCOHOL, then I believe you would find it has a much more negative impact on children yet it is legal and oddly more commonly accepted. And I find it odd you didn't make that part of your UNFIT parent thread.


I guess my overall contribution to your UNFIT parent thread is I am appalled that one would suggest we deem parents who smoke UNFIT. Instead of focusing on more important parental morals and guidelines.

PS: Yes a parent, Yes a tobacco user, Yes a previous addict, Yes have quit both at different times in life. and YES I am a child of two smoking parents and One alcoholic parent.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ballsdeep
reply to post by badw0lf
 


I say this as both a smoker and a methamphetamine addict; quitting smoking is much harder.


Indeed it is, the graph on wikipedia says so, too:


[ editby]edit on 21/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by ballsdeep
reply to post by badw0lf
 


I say this as both a smoker and a methamphetamine addict; quitting smoking is much harder.


Indeed it is, the graph on wikipedia says so, too:


[ editby]edit on 21/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


That graph also places heroin at the top of the physical harm scale which is totally wrong =\



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Excuse me Sherlock..... Thats our Constitution you are talking about and you are making me very mad at your trashing it.




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
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.


I know what both ideologies entail, which is why I phrased my initial post as I did.

If someone, of one of these persuasions, is interested in not harming others, rather than hiding behind their position for selfish reasons, then they would have no problem with the government cracking down on parents who smoke in the presence of their children.

Instead, we get wailing and gnashing of teeth, and cries of: ''it's not the job of the government to tell us how to raise our children'', intermixed with the ''two wrongs make a right'' logical fallacy. Then, you have to realise that most of these people are libertarian fanatics/fantasists and über-constitutionalists who are only interested in self-entitlement.

If these people think that it's OK for the gubmint to get involved in cases of parental child abuse, then why are they so defensive of a practice that has strong evidence to suggest that it would physically harm a young child ?

All under the guise of ''freedom''.

Where does the ''right'' to physically damage your child end ?



Originally posted by nunya13
That is completely the opposite of individual freedom.


As is subjecting your child to toxic fumes from a cigarette.

How about the child's right to individual freedom, which would include its parents not needlessly poisoning it ?

The views of ''individual freedom'' are based entirely on ''me me me !''. I have the right to smoke where I want; I have the right to harm my own child.

Never mind anyone else, I have my personal freedom !


Originally posted by nunya13
We believe that you should be able to do whatever you want for and to yourself as long as it does not harm others.


And smoking cigarettes obviously harms the child, so why are libertarian fanatics and über-constitutionalists even challenging this ?

Talk about an agenda !

A sense of entitlement oozes throughout their posts.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

A sense of entitlement oozes throughout their posts.


I see that oozing through yours as well.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Yes, I saw the correlation between smoking and Alzheimers/Parkinsons as well... but that article also covers allergies and inflammation resistance. I don't for a moment disagree with your analysis on insulin resistance, because my own personal experience is that my gastro-intestinal disorder (genetic) shows a marked improvement if I have that after-dinner smoke (or two, or three, or four, or...). So even if what you say is correct (and I have learned to at least listen to your viewpoints on such issues), quitting smoking may be as dangerous as starting it.

I also have to state that that one article is far from the only one. It was the first good link I found after a quick google. There were plenty more that I simply don't have time today to sort through and digest.

The bottom line is that what we are hearing here in this thread is a lot of propaganda regurgitated. Cigarette smoke may indeed be uncomfortable for some, but it is far, far, from a death sentence or even a guarantee of health issues. To treat it as such based on studies which were unscientific at best and staged/manipulated at worst is actually more dangerous to society than smoking itself.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
So where is the OP in this whole thread? Dude makes 2 posts after saying us as smokers are unfit. This is crap if you ask me glad you are racking up flags and stars for your post that is complete BS.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

OK, I cannot keep quiet on this any longer...

The views of ''individual freedom'' are based entirely on ''me me me !''. I have the right to smoke where I want; I have the right to harm my own child.

Never mind anyone else, I have my personal freedom !

Possibly the most hypocritical statement I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You do realize that you are posting on an Internet forum, vigorously defending your position, which apparently is that your opinion should be law... and in doing so you accuse others of a sense of entitlement? You post that it is the responsibility of everyone to enforce your personal views (which as I have pointed out are a lot of regurgitated propaganda from unsound studies) on each other. You believe that it is your 'business' to monitor the daily lives of everyone on the planet. You believe anyone who disagrees with you is doing so in response to a sense of entitlement.

Guess what? We are. We want our individual freedoms and rights. We do not want you to control us. Yes, that includes my being able to enjoy a smoke, regardless of how much it irritates you to know that I am actually doing something I enjoy.

I am entitled to live my life as a free, sovereign individual just as you are. Even if you disagree.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
You need to wake up to what an abusive parent is. You have a right to your own opinion, but it is idiots with thinking like yours that gets innocent people labeled with tags like abusive. Yes, I smoke cigars and no, not in my house. That is beside the point and no ones business anyway. Yay for you, you quit. So, now you feel entitled to pass judgment on the ones who still smoke. Well, then I guess that gives me the right to slander anyone who still drinks seeing as how I quit 10 years ago. Yes? NO. It is none of my business and does not give me the right to say whether those who do are bad parents or not. Apparently quiting smoking turns people into hypocritical judgmental asses. At least in your case.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Parents who smoke are no better then pedophiles who rape children. These parents if you can even call them that do nothing but abuse their children by torturing them day in and day out with their filthy habit. If they have no problem destroying the lives of their children there is no telling what other deviant behaviors the parents are involved in. Someday we will have a president who realizes that all across the country childrens lives are being destroyed. Then he will pass legislation that we can remove those children from the home and place the parents in prisons for abusing children. Torture of children in the US or any country is wrong and destroying their lives without giving them a choice is killing off our children everyday!

These people have no concern for the welfare of their own children. By contributing to our countries collapse its the same as treason. I had a neighbor growing up who smoked cigars and he lived like an animal. His yard was unkept. These people have no morales if their willing to ruin the lives of their own children and cant be trusted with our nations most valuable resource, that resource being our children who are the future leaders of tomorrow.
edit on 21-2-2011 by tigpoppa because: IM AWESOME!



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Guess what? We are. We want our individual freedoms and rights.


This is where we disagree. You dont want individual freedom. You want much more - freedom to harm another innocent person.

If second hand smoke is not harmful, then it is OK, of course.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Unfortunately, lung cancer rates are still going up in people that have never smoked in their life and this is true for the study in Japan also.

Because of the stigma of smoking attached to lung cancer, it receives less funding than any other cancer and is the No. 1 cancer killer. Even our armed services helps fund research for pancreatic cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer but not to lung cancer research.

More and more people who have never smoked before are being diagnosed daily.

thestar.com.my.../2008/8/31/lifefocus/1900762&sec=lifefocus

So far, there is still no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful. Let's stick with scientific fact, instead of putting all blame on smokers. Unfortunately, there won't be any scientific facts that show that the two groups of mice that were given radiation and tar fared better than the ones that were not given tar. The statistics are not accurate, because the scientific community feel that all lung cancer cases are caused from tobacco and will bury every study that proves otherwise.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah, what's so great about the Constitution, huh? Freedoms? Rights? Bah!


And you just prove my point.

The ''freedoms'' and ''rights'' that were supposedly allocated to Americans 300-hundred years ago were formulated in a completely different era, yet people are still trying to apply the words of this archaic document to situations in the 21st-century.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but the concepts of personal freedom and rights were not coined in the US Constitution.



It's very telling that every new country's constitution never includes a ''right'' to own guns.

The US Constitution is just an historical document, and the fact that it is still held up religiously by Americans, as some kind of an hallowed document, offers circumstantial support to us - outside the USA - that American society is centred around backwardicity.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
38
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join