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: 22
38
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
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!


It's so ironic how most children from the 40s and 50s survived their smoking parents!




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
All the people justifing their habit is just ignorrant. If you are less then 70 years old you knew cigerettes are as bad for you as my spelling.

It was YOUR decission. It was a Poor one. Live with it.

If you happen to be American I hope Medi care holds out for you.

Cancer w/o health insurance will be a painful bummer.

Peace/Love



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

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


It's not my Constitution, thank goodness !

I can assure you that any ''trashing'' of the US Constitution on my part, is not intended to be offensive...

My intention is to make people see how ridiculous it is to hang on to this document, in its original form, 330 years after it was put in to practice.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Did you ever think that the reason we so "religiously" uphold this "archaic" document is because we have a general consensus that the articles and amendments are still worthy of being "religiously" upheld? The age of the document is irrelevant. The time period in which it was written is equally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the people of this country STILL hold it to be a document that has meaning and worth and is deserving of respect to the point that we will fight to uphold it and defend it.

I'm sorry you don't fell that way about it and I don't care that you don't agree on the issue of freedom of choice for individuals. Where you went wrong is misrepresenting the beliefs of libertarians and constitutionalists on the issue of individual freedom.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I tried other drugs before I ever tried smoking cigarettes. Never got addicted. Then I tried cigarettes. I've been smoking for about 4 years now, averaging about 4 cigarettes a day. It's incredibly habit forming, but it's hasn't become an aggressive addiction. I am not addicted to any other substances. I'm not going to smoke around my kids, but if I have a drag with friends over a glass of wine when the kids are in bed, is that grounds for me to lose my children? Where does the nannying stop?

If I have one cigarette a month after I become a parent, am I more dangerous than the parents who buy Doritos and McDonald's for meals while their kids play 10 hours of video games a day, sipping on Mountain Dew?

Oh, and I love the overarching statements on likely drug use. I am a drug "user". Not a drug "abuser". I HOPE once my kids turn 18, they will be drug "users" at some point as long as it doesn't affect their health. I hope my kids are interested in learning things like the "truth" from personal experiences, the way their bodies work, the positive effects of gaining new perspectives on life. Will that make me a bad parent?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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.




Sorry to say, your'e just full of it. It's the best governmental document in the world to date. Perhaps you would prefer to live under Sharia Law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


He did not say he also wants to be able to blow his smoke in people's faces. He said he wants the individual freedom to be able to smoke and not have people who look down on him for it try to push their opinion on him by trying to outlaw smoking or ban it in certain places or even declare him unfit simply because he smokes and (maybe) has a child.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Laughable post. Ridiculous even.

It's funny how the "I used to be a smoker" crowd are the most bigoted.

Smoke if you want to, it's your birth right, but like all things: be responsible with it – which means don't do it in the company of minors. Simple enough without the infant school mentality that goes hand-in-hand with the ban everything mentality. I'm sick of it. Mind your own ****ing business FFS... as if your own kids are that ****ing great or warrant 'special' treatment. GET OVER YOURSELF. Get off the politically correct bandwagon and do us all a favour & stop whinging on & on.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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


It's not my Constitution, thank goodness !

I can assure you that any ''trashing'' of the US Constitution on my part, is not intended to be offensive...

My intention is to make people see how ridiculous it is to hang on to this document, in its original form, 330 years after it was put in to practice.




It's funny, people like you think you're so forward-thinking by coming up with ways to monitor and dictate how people behave, which is quite reminiscent of the English monarchy's ever-spreading chaperoning of citizens back around 1776.

The right to bear arms aside, the whole point of the Constitution was to provide TIMELESS guidelines, so that when tyranny inevitably spread even in the United States, the people would have a foundation of INALIENABLE rights to look to.

I don't expect to change your views or your mind. Either your experiences will change them for you and you'll someday come to appreciate what freedom, liberty, and respect for your fellow man are really about; or you'll die a very bitter and stressed person who spent his/her entire life worrying about what others did and no time developing your own personal consciousness.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You have obviously not thoroughly read many of the dissenting opinions on this thread. If you had, you would see that we have continuously said that it is not okay to "force" your child to inhale cigarette smoke. This would OBVIOUSLY go against individual freedom.

You keep misrepresenting the stance of libertarians and constitutionalists for the sake of your own argument.

Edit to add: It would also be nice if you quit using your biased and inflammatory phrases: libertarian fanatics and uber constitutionalists.
edit on 21-2-2011 by nunya13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Can you imagine all the heartbroken kids growing up to hate society and the people in it. You smoke we take your kid away. Who cares what the kid wants. Jaxon you don't believe you have a soul and now I my self am beginning to wonder. BTW I'm a non smoker.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SlovenlyGhost
 


Calm down for a second....and maybe you'll realize that I never once said parents who smoke should be found unfit parents. Not once. Go back and read my reply to your post. You asked what the difference was between fumes and cigarette smoke...and I responded (because their is a major difference).

I don't want your sympathy for my concerns (the "deathly afraid" was more of a play on words; poetic). My point was simple, people choose not to smoke because because they want to enjoy a quality in life as they age....a quality that is, generally, not shared by daily smokers.

What quality? Many people would like to avoid the high cost of healthcare that is associated with the ill effects caused by smoking. Some people would rather avoid the suffering. It has little to do with simply trying to live as long as possible. It's a pretty piss poor excuse to say..."Oh...well, I'm gunna die one day, so I might as well ______________ even though it's is associated with a high risk of developing fatal conditions."

It's not even an excuse...it's a justification for doing something that you know is damaging to your health (or your childs). Kinda weak.

PS: The number one killer in America is heart disease, which mianly caused by poor dietary choices and SMOKING.

PPS: I'm a social smoker



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
First of all, let me admit that I am the child of smokers, and that I myself smoked for over 26 years, including the years when my daughter was growing up. I have since quit, and this has changed my perspective on the issue, as I no longer feel the need to defend my addiction. And that is what smoking is, an addiction. It is as strong, if not stronger than any coc aine or crystal meth addiction, and very hard to break. That said, let me move into the topic at hand...








This is not even considering the financial impact that such an addiction has, and once your children have grown up, they then get the increased chance of having to take care of an ailing parent who has emphysema, heart problems or cancer. Considering the myriad of problems the nicotine addiction inflicts upon the children of those addicted to this legal drug, it most certainly SHOULD be considered grounds for finding such parents as unfit to raise children...








Your title for this thread has got to be the most stu__id title that I ever did see on here. Who made you judge?
Or are just another government leach trying to dictate to the people.
We all know the health effects of smoking and we don't need nobody coming in here judging people with words like, parents that smoke should be found unfit to have children. What it is this communist China, yeah you'd probably like that.
to you
edit on 21-2-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
[mor
I'll admit I'm a smoker but I believe there is a difference between blowing smoke in a child's face and smoking outside, away from the child.

Who would regulate such a law, the government? We all know how well the war on drugs is going.

While I sympathize with how you feel, it's unrealistic to happen.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo

Freedom to harm another innocent person? Really? Are you aware that I, as a heavy smoker, have raised two children who are extremely healthy (as I am), resistant to every 'bug' that comes down the pike, happy, and well-adjusted.... not to mention extremely intelligent (my daughter received her AS degree in Psychology at age 19 Suma Cum Laude and my son is the lead student in Precision Machining, heading out to the state finals)?

Oh, yeah, I harmed them by smoking while teaching them moral values and how to succeed in life. I guess I should face a firing squad for that offense.

The point being that I raised them the way I was taught by my parents, along the way incorporating a few adjustments I thought were prudent. It worked, just like it has always worked. I would not have had the opportunity if people like the OP had their way, and my children would have a completely different life. Based on statistics of foster children, they may well have had a dysfunctional life. So it could be said that those who are so determined to decide what others should do in the rearing of children are more responsible for "harming others" than anyone.

You are making assumptions (smoking is bad, smokers are trying to hurt people) based on PROPAGANDA. And if anyone has the ability to determine how others raise their children, then that lone person, who is just as subject to PROPAGANDA as you or I, can be easily manipulated to cause much more harm than all the cigarettes in the world.

It comes down to who decides what is right and wrong for me and mine? I DO for me, and until my children reach adulthood, I DO for them as well! After that, THEY DO.

There is no societal consensus in I or THEY. Sorry, but some things are not the concern of society.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Fine, well I choose to smoke. So let's leave it at that.

I have my excuses and so do you, and so does everyone else for doing the things they do. We know the risks. We live with the consequences.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


The document may be in its original form, but the interpretations of it are always changing. This is the greatness that is the document. It is not rigid in its meaning and was purposefully made ambiguous so that it can be conformed to the state of society at any given time. This is also why there is a clearly defined process on how to change the constitution. There are certain fundamental truths that cannot be denied, however. One of them is that we have the RIGHT to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. And all this is, of course, as long as those pursuits do not harm another and infringe on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. You see how that works?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

My intention is to make people see how ridiculous it is to hang on to this document, in its original form, 330 years after it was put in to practice.

Er, the US Constitution was placed in service in 1783. 1783 + 330 = the year 2113. This is 2011.

Try 228 years.

Apparently smoking improves math skills... or is it history skills?


TheRedneck

ETA: It is also not in its original form. There have been quite a few amendments.

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



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

Let's try this again, since some of you ignored my last warning.

POST ON TOPIC AND IN A CIVIL MANNER

YOU WILL RECEIVE A 3 DAY POSTING BAN.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


While I see your point of view and understand were you are coming from, I do not believe having a cigarette would make someone an "unfit" parent. Nor, do I believe this should be another liberty that should be stripped from the people supposedly living in a "free" country.

I do not agree with a lot of things:

I do not agree with Homosexuality, Abortion as a contraceptive, Marriage even being recognized my the state (it's a religious rite, separation of church and state please), the use of Heroin or Cocaine.

I do, however, believe if a person in this "free" country wants to do any of those things, and they do not infringe upon my civil liberties or those of my neighbors, then they have a right to exercise their own freedom of choice.

OP, do you feel your opinions are so great that everyone in this "free" country with a child should be stripped of the right to make this choice?

OP, where do you draw the line? Are the effects of a mindful parent that smokes more harmful than a parent who brings a child up on McDonald's and other fast food? Should the Government employ a national diet? Tell us what to eat, when to eat?

Might I suggest the notion of "It takes a village to raise a child." How about the notion of self voluneerism by using churches, neighbors, sound parenting, to raise a child instead of depending on Government regulation to raise a child.

As a man who was once a child to parents who smoked, I'd rather have been brought up exaclty the way I was then to have another choice made for me by an incompetant Government.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join