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

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

How is my statement hypocritical ?

I think that babies and young children should be protected, by law, from the harmful habits of parents, and that those parents who smoke cigarettes in the close vicinity of their children should be considered as unfit parents, and their behaviour should be classed the same as those ''parents'' who physically abuse their children in other ways.

The ''sense of entitlement'' is something that runs through some of these poster's comments and attitudes.

For example, 'the gubmint has no right to tell me how to raise my children'', roughly translated as: I'm entitled to raise my children how I want... I'm entitled to bring them up in the basement, away from the real world... I'm entitled to chuff on a cigarette and let my child inhale the fumes...

It's almost as if they think that children are some kind of ''property'' - rather than an individual human being with societal rights...

I believe that it's society's business to monitor and check up on its citizens, no matter how ''un-PC'' that may be.
I tend to deal in logic and reality.


I never said that everyone who disagrees with me has a sense of entitlement...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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 have no problem with someone smoking ( I enjoy the occasional smoke, myself ); my problem is with parents who smoke, and who continue to do so in situations where a child is present, and where the child is a ''captive audience''.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

...of course. There are always exceptions to the rule. No scientist ever said smoking WILL cause cancer; rather that there is a high risk for cancer development.

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

And there's no doubt studies that were poorly designed; studies that were riddled with bias; studies with the big hand of industry influence.

Originally posted by oconnection
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.

Excellent point on who would regulate. Britain already has nannycams in people's homes as an experiment and also as a type of remedy to make sure that parents are making their kids do their homework and/or eat their broccoli. Folks, this is George Orwell's 1984....Here's an article on the Brits CCTV in homes of parents to monitor....www.wired.com...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

For example, 'the gubmint has no right to tell me how to raise my children'', roughly translated as: I'm entitled to raise my children how I want... I'm entitled to bring them up in the basement, away from the real world... I'm entitled to chuff on a cigarette and let my child inhale the fumes...

True enough, but your own postings show a sense of entitlement as well... as in, I am entitled to make decisions for others, I am entitled to determine how others may raise their children, I am entitled to determine who is and is not an unfit parent based on my own opinions.

Not real sure where the basement part plays in, but oh well...

You have quite a few entitlement mentalities in your posts as well... the real difference I can see is that your sense of entitlement extends to telling others what they can or cannot do, while those you berate claim an entitlement to personal choice. I personally see a huge difference in those two degrees of entitlement.mentality.

To decry someone else doing a thing when you yourself do the thing to a greater degree is hypocrisy.

And I will repeat, again, the fact that others as well as myself have posted links to scientific studies that counter the accepted conclusions of the Surgeon General of the USA. Secondhand smoke is not a health risk, meaning that your entitlement is based on faulty information.

TheRedneck

reply to post by JaxonRoberts



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...


Yes, it is an addiction but a meth and coke addiction looks alot different. Smoking a cig doesn't get children removed out of the home. Smoking meth does and for good reason. Meth and kids don't mix. In my years working in Social Services I can say I've neen seen parents found "unfit" by the court for smoking cigs. I know friends who smoke and have kids and they go outside to smoke. It wasn't like in my day when my parents and their friends smoked in the house, in the car, all whilst bouncing their babies on their lap. I could say that parents who feed their kids nothing but junk food, fast food, and soda pop should be unfit to be parents. I think it would be a terribly frightening world when the government comes into our daily lives and regulates every single thing we eat and consume. It's bad enough the way it is. Obviously, adults who choose to smoke should do so away from their kids but to say they are "unfit" to be parents is ridiculous.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


As a smoking mother of 2 children, it would be rude not to put myself in the firing line of abuse. I absolutely agree that smoking around children is potentially harmful, (note potentially, I shall elaborate on my personal experience in a jiffy) however, and in this day and age, with all we are exposed to, there comes a point where you have to say, you know what yes there is copius amounts of research, and evidence to show that smoking really is bad for you, however, it has also been legal for x amount of centuries to induldge in, and in todays high pressured environment, where drugs, and alcohol are not only rife, but exponentially far more life threatening, it on occaision could well also be considered a far more acceptable outlet than alcohol, please allow me to explain what I mean, the child who grows up with the parent binge drinker, who can for the best part of the time remain sober, who has a bad day, and puts their child at risk, lashes out a child, looses control, and well I'll leave it up to your imaginations. I have first hand knowledge of how damaging living with alcohol can be, and before you all feel I have veered off topic, what I am trying to explain here is, however harmful smoking can be, and inspite of all the evidence which tells us your body is speeding up not calming down whilst you have a smoke, many would concurr, you do indeed feel calmer after having had one, so that heated moment where your child is testing your limits of how far he/she can push, can be made (allbeit a false perception, a perception nonetheless) easier to bare, and in instances could well be the difference in some families between a child being loved or abused, controversial this may seem, you cannot deny this has to be a consideration when you are taking risk factors into account of a childs health and long term wellbeing. For the record as promised, I don not drink, other than if I'm on a night out with friends or work colleagues (which is few and far between), never drink at home, but I do smoke, have done since before I had my children. One child is 4 yrs, the other 7yrs, from most of what is described in your op of effects, I smoked before I found out I was pregnant with both my children, and gave up til the babes were born, however also in that time they were exposed to second hand smoke. Both my children were born healthy weights 8lb 4, and 8lb 11 respectively, neither child has asthema, interestingly the one time my son got pneumonia, it was when NOBODY SMOKED around him, or in the house, yet incredibly he got it, but he was sleeping in a room which had, had damp work done to it, which is what I attribute the episode to, plus apparently pneumonia is rife in the under 5s, which is why here in the uk, we now immunise against it, unfortunately my son was 6 months too old for the jab the year they rolled it out, so a failure in government policy can also be blamed for my son's bout of pneumonia but not smoking. One last thing before I go the OP is a reformed smoker, and we all know they are the worst in terms of venting their reformed opinion, of which I deeply respect, however, in turn an opposing opinion in return must be respected too, and I'm sorry this is long, but sometimes you got to tell a story. Oh and before anyone say's it yes I know I may die earlier, but I may also get knocked down by a bus tomorrow, and as all my family lived late into their 80s, and the fact I have NEVER had a chest infection, I am hedging my bets a bus would kill me off faster, might be wrong, but lifes a risk

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

How is my statement hypocritical ?

I think that babies and young children should be protected, by law, from the harmful habits of parents, and that those parents who smoke cigarettes in the close vicinity of their children should be considered as unfit parents, and their behaviour should be classed the same as those ''parents'' who physically abuse their children in other ways.

The ''sense of entitlement'' is something that runs through some of these poster's comments and attitudes.

For example, 'the gubmint has no right to tell me how to raise my children'', roughly translated as: I'm entitled to raise my children how I want... I'm entitled to bring them up in the basement, away from the real world... I'm entitled to chuff on a cigarette and let my child inhale the fumes...

It's almost as if they think that children are some kind of ''property'' - rather than an individual human being with societal rights...

I believe that it's society's business to monitor and check up on its citizens, no matter how ''un-PC'' that may be.
I tend to deal in logic and reality.

I never said that everyone who disagrees with me has a sense of entitlement...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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 have no problem with someone smoking ( I enjoy the occasional smoke, myself

); my problem is with parents who smoke, and who continue to do so in situations where a child is present, and where the child is a ''captive audience''.

Yep you have the British CCTV nannycam attitude. If youre in Britain, you're already under Sharia Law. I hear that theres a special parliamentary dedicated to enforcing it.

Originally posted by Lkelly1965
reply to post by FPB214

 

So your 19 and harping on your mother not to smoke in the house. The same house she is paying for. Why don't you grow up a little and get an apartment with a friend and stop all the harping! Then you can go outside and have a smoke and see the stars and keep your window closed! If it annoys you that much, you can find a way to move out. If my child yelled at me for something I was doing in my house, the bags are at the curb. I see this as a symptom of what is really going on in America these day's. Children think they are in charge and the parents allow them to make the rules. It is time for parents to man up to their children AND to the busy bodies trying to control our lifestyles. By the way, there is no study that supports the theory that second hand smoke is harmful to others, if you look at each one that they claim does so, they all conclude that second hand smoke MAY contribute to these aliments, along with other factors like genetics or occupation etc...Not one conclusive study pointing directly at second hand smoke. Read the studies and you'll find out it's true!

Well, let me just re-post what I posted to someone else who took my statement the wrong way:

"Well I have a job and give my mother money. As for moving out, wish I could. Fact is I landed a job after looking for months, where I live jobs are probably a little more scarce than in some areas. Im still in school and have been making up 10 credits in the last year, and glad to say I will be done in March and have my diploma before the next class graduates. I thought at the time I was going to be stuck getting my GED. I've been longing to join the Army Rangers since I was 6 and plan to do so this year. My mother loves me, and knows my situation. She does not mind if I live with here a few more months until I get everything together, and get a real job supporting myself.

I love my mother to death and we have conversations about everything. We talk about smoking, she's a very strong woman and has what it takes to quit, I think with her situation right now though she has that fear. Although she knows she'd save alot of money as well as be healthier. I would love for my mother to live until shes around her parents age (80), and I know if she continues on the path right now she is more at risk of not seeing those days.

Not saying we dont encounter deadly things everyday in life, but just from the research and love for my mother i'd like to see her without cigarettes and happier."

You are just flipping your top. My mother has always been in control of me, I do not try and be "in charge" of my mother in any way, any son who loves and respects his mother feels the same way. She raised me, and im here because of her. I love her to no end, so don't try and act like im the type of kid who is like the rest of my generation, I grew up learning respect and how to treat others from an early age. Yes, boy scouts actually shapes you as a young man of 6 years old.

As for second hand smoke, I believe it probably has to do with genetics and the individual themselves. I don't think it affects everyone the same. I stated that also in another post. All I know, is i've had pneumonia twice, once as a baby and once later in life, probably because my mother smoked while pregnant with me. So im pretty sure it affects you in some way, whether its severe or less severe.

As for the "bi***" statement, I didn't literally mean I go off on her. We just have down to earth discussions about it every blue-moon. So I see I shouldn't have said that because people like you then get this idea I am some 19 year old brat kid who has no life and disrespects his mother. If you read all of this, you should get a better idea of what I am like, and that's not me.


Don't know why I got sent a warning to my inbox, from GradyPhilpott. If you read this, please actually send people warnings who deserve them. I didn't say anything wrong whatsoever, and have seen things that are worse than anything i've ever said on this website, that go untouched. Or maybe you just did it for kicks.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts
The key words are "more likely"I've smoke on and off for the last 20yrs,I don't defend it,and I know its not good any way you look at it.I have always smoked outside not one of my children fall into any of these categories.To me this is another one of those studies that will contradict itself in a couple of months from now,I have seen these come and go in my life I suggest people use their common sense and if your blowing smoke in the same room with your children they will be health consequences.....sounds easy enough...right?

Totally agree

Originally posted by nunya13
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?

No, I thought the reason that you still paid homage to this archaic document was to reassure and convince yourselves that this document was some kind of ''truth''.

It's not.

Originally posted by nunya13
The age of the document is irrelevant. The time period in which it was written is equally irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant !

Please don't try and hide the reality that I'm putting across.


Oh, hang on a minute... Please stop these slaves from wandering across the room when I'm attempting to write the First Amendment to the US Constitution... Signed, George Washington.

''All men are created equal'', unless you are from West Africa...

Originally posted by nunya13
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.

Which adds support to my theory of backwardicity.

Why would people hold on to this backward concept, when societies throughout Europe have shown American society to be ''behind the times'', shall we say...

Originally posted by nunya13
Where you went wrong is misrepresenting the beliefs of libertarians and constitutionalists on the issue of individual freedom.

In what way did I ''misrepresent'' these beliefs ?

Your joking right??

reply to post by Justagyrl


If the parent smokes outside, away from the child, then no. They are being responsible. But if you are a sick selfish person like my sister-in-law who smokes with my niece and nephew in your lap, then yes, YOU ARE UNFIT!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by oconnection
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.

Excellent point on who would regulate. Britain already has nannycams in people's homes as an experiment and also as a type of remedy to make sure that parents are making their kids do their homework and/or eat their broccoli. Folks, this is George Orwell's 1984....Here's an article on the Brits CCTV in homes of parents to monitor....www.wired.com...

Strange. I'm English and have never met anyone with a camera inside their home.

One article does not represent the UK.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Sorry to say, your'e just full of it. It's the best governmental document in the world to date.

According to who ?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Perhaps you would prefer to live under Sharia Law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you'd prefer to live in the USA, where you can, by the text of the Constitution, validate your deviancy with a cowardly and forlorn cry of: ''She ( the child ) acquiesced to the tobacco fumes that clogged up her young lungs''...

Originally posted by whitl103
It's funny, people like you think you're so forward-thinking by coming up with ways to monitor and dictate how people behave

Of course we're forward thinking.

Originally posted by whitl103
which is quite reminiscent of the English monarchy's ever-spreading chaperoning of citizens back around 1776.

Oh Lord ( ! )

A 300-year example of backwardicity provides an opportunity to attack my socially and culturally developed country ?

European society is far more mature on a societal and cultural level...It's just a shame that you lot are so hamstrung by your antiquated and archaic documents !

Uh-oh !

Originally posted by whitl103
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.

''Timeless'' guidelines that were penned in the late 18th-century... Harf ! Harf !

Originally posted by nunya13
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.

Nah, I've read the discussion throughout the previous 20 pages. Make no mistake about that.

Right, you say that it's wrong to ''force'' a child to inhale cigarette smoke. Where are the ''quirky'' libertarian demonstrations about this ?

What about the individual freedom of someone who wanted to smoke cigarettes with his/her young children ?

Originally posted by nunya13
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

Please provide me with an example of me ''misrepresenting'' an ideological or political stance.

Cheers...

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Two of my brothers came out prematurely because of our mom just couldn't put that damn cigarette out while she was pregnant. She almost my youngest brother, but did she quit smoking? Nope. She smokes about 30 to 40 cigarettes a day, and that's after she'd cut back!

People like her, just cannot quit smoking. "Oh, it's not hurting anyone" or "I won't get cancer", nope, it never happens to you does it?

I don't mind smokers, and I absolutely think that the extreme hate many people put them in should stop. A little second hand smoke here and there absolutely won't kill you. BUT, I agree that when having young children around you constantly (like mothers, fathers etc) you need to consider your actions. Take it outside for example.

I also agree what the fourth or fifth poster said about the toxins already around us. We live in a society which produces so much CRAP that cigarette smoke seems almost trivial.