Smoking (health insurance, home, to live)

[CarolinaWoman]

Originally Posted by Capo

However, when this changes is when endangerment, especially to children, takes place.

If a parent is physically abusing a child - should the government step in?
If a parent is obviously neglecting (not feeding them, etc.) should the government step in?

Nothing bothers me more than children being abused ... we have raised our kids, educated them and they are out and about surviving on their own ... we have one grandchild. Hubby and I both smoke and started long ago when it was cool and accepted everywhere. We raised 2 non-smokers and they jumped right on the bandwagon with the other non-smokers to crucify us, the bad people of the USA.

I never smoked a cigarette during my pregnancies and only had two in that manner, oldest child was adopted and DSS case worker smoked!

We do not drink ... we do not dope and I have asked my family to promise me when the gov't sends the trucks around to haul the smokers off to camps (like the leper camps you know) they will do whatever they can to protect their parents. Of course fat people and skinny people are next ... then the elderly they smell bad sometimes so off they go ... and children with birth defects or even limiting the number of children a couple may have ... these things are just down the road once the door is open. When we allow the gov't to do and think for us we are no better then other countries living under dictatorships.

If you live in South Carolina ... what have you and others done about the Corridor of Shame ... the local gov't, the state gov't and even the federal gov't has allowed this. So, sheeple don't really care about things like this ... just sweep it under the carpet and go after the evil smokers and stay in their own comfort zone.

Corridor Of Shame

[Maryjane55us]

I'd like to address this issue of *second-hand smoke* harming and abusing children that several posters have brought up.

First of all, I'd say that there's more residual MENTAL health issues stemming from emotional/physical child abuse from living with our parents than from their second hand smoke. Take notice of the number of young adults seeking psychological therapy these days... many times stemming back to childhood/parental issues.

I grew up in the 50's living and traveling in closed cars with smoking parents. The house was full of smoke.. the car was full of smoke. As children, we didn't give much thought to it because most adults did it (it was *PC* back then).

Multitudes of *boomers* kids from smoking parents are still here.. in our mid to late 60's, living maybe a bit longer lives than they did. (My parents died in their mid to late 60's.. heart disease) If we, as boomer children, didn't suffer severely from living with their second hand smoke, then I don't know who's a better example to disprove the current propaganda going on.

So far, I have yet to find proven documentation on cancer deaths in young children caused by second-hand smoke.

In fact, the main synopsis on cancer deaths show that cancers really begin to multiply/increase after age 60... due to AGING and exposures to carcinogens of the past.

NOW.. given that we have an average life span of 70 (the bible even quotes that figure), you're looking at maybe a minus 5-10 years of life.

Cancer & Longevity

If someone can show me a reliable source proving that cancers in young children are caused by second hand smoke, please do so. I really want to read it.

[moneill]

I am not in South Carolina and just looked up the corridor of shame -- I've been spouting off about rural schools in the south for years. It is a pet peeve of mine.

The States that rank in the lower five academically all suffer from the same problem -- not enough funding in the rural areas to support an adequate school system. It's tough though in an environment where taking money from a richer county, city, state to use someplace else is defined as 'redistribution of wealth.' You wouldn't believe the parents in suburban Atlanta that think it is 'their fault' (their being the parents, administrators, students of the rural schools). What can you do with that kind of mentality.

I don't think younger children get cancer but breathing issues are a problem. It is statistically proven that the rate of asthma is higher in families where there is a smoker...that kind of stuff. Infant lungs are so small -- can you imagine if you were in a car with the smoke stack from the paper factory .....I bet that's what it feels like to a newborn.

It would be great if all parents had common sense and the best interest of their child at heart. It would be great if all parents wanted to keep their chidlren safe...but some just don't know how unless you tell them and some just don't care. It would be great if everyone was appreciative of others...but we know that doesn't happen. There is always someone that says -- I can do what I want when I want and i don't care what anyone else thinks. They are usually the ones that scream the loudest when someone infringes on their rights or privileges though.

Even with the laws you see babies in front seats on peoples' laps...you see kids hanging out of a pick up truck.

I do not believe smokers will even be banished to camps. Did you know our new President smokes?

Most places in cities where smoking has been banned for some time have adapted their facilities to allow for areas for the smokers. Clubs still are huge in municipalities with smoking bans.....people adapt and cope.

[guttata]

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

I'd like to address this issue of *second-hand smoke* harming and abusing children that several posters have brought up.

First of all, I'd say that there's more residual MENTAL health issues stemming from emotional/physical child abuse from living with our parents than from their second hand smoke. Take notice of the number of young adults seeking psychological therapy these days... many times stemming back to childhood/parental issues.

I grew up in the 50's living and traveling in closed cars with smoking parents. The house was full of smoke.. the car was full of smoke. As children, we didn't give much thought to it because most adults did it (it was *PC* back then).

Multitudes of *boomers* kids from smoking parents are still here.. in our mid to late 60's, living maybe a bit longer lives than they did. (My parents died in their mid to late 60's.. heart disease) If we, as boomer children, didn't suffer severely from living with their second hand smoke, then I don't know who's a better example to disprove the current propaganda going on.

So far, I have yet to find proven documentation on cancer deaths in young children caused by second-hand smoke.

In fact, the main synopsis on cancer deaths show that cancers really begin to multiply/increase after age 60... due to AGING and exposures to carcinogens of the past.

NOW.. given that we have an average life span of 70 (the bible even quotes that figure), you're looking at maybe a minus 5-10 years of life.

Cancer & Longevity

If someone can show me a reliable source proving that cancers in young children are caused by second hand smoke, please do so. I really want to read it.

Be careful with anectodal evidence. The increased life expectancy over the last 50-80 years may mask some diseases.

Childhood cancers are very uncommon. In total, there may be only 10,000 cases a year in the US. As you mention above, aging, diet and exposure to carcinogen need years, if not decades, to cause cellular damage leading to cancer.

Second hand smoke does not necessarily have to cause cancer to have a profound effect on kids. Many studies have shown that second hand smoke increases the risk of asthma, respiratory infections and use of medical facilities.

Here is one article I found on pubmed.com

Second hand smoke, age of exposure and lung cancer risk.

Asomaning K, Miller DP, Liu G, Wain JC, Lynch TJ, Su L, Christiani DC. Department of Environmental Heath (Environmental and Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology Program), Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
BACKGROUND: Exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) has been identified as a risk factor for lung cancer for three decades. It is also known that the lung continues to grow from birth to adulthood, when lung growth stops. We hypothesize that after adjusting for active cigarette smoking, if SHS exposure took place during the period of growth, i.e. in the earlier part of life (0-25 years of age) the risk of lung cancer is greater compared to an exposure occurring after age 25. METHOD: Second hand smoke exposure was self-reported for three different activities (leisure, work and at home) for this study population of 1669 cases and 1263 controls. We created variables that captured location of exposure and timing of first exposure with respect to a study participant's age (0-25, >25 years of age). Multiple logistic regressions were used to study the association between SHS exposure and lung cancer, adjusting for age, gender and active smoking variables. RESULT: For study participants that were exposed to SHS at both activities (work and leisure) and compared to one or no activity, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for lung cancer was 1.30 (1.08-1.57) when exposure occurred between birth and age 25 and 0.66 (0.21-1.57) if exposure occurred after age 25 years. Respective results for non-smokers were 1.29 (0.82-2.02) and 0.87 (0.22-3.38), and current and ex-smokers combined 1.28 (1.04-1.58) and 0.66 (0.15-2.85). CONCLUSION: All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years.

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by c99

That's not a half bad idea - why not? We have to pay for the bank bail outs et. al. somehow. We'd all benefit by (eventual) lower health care costs. I'd rather have a 'fast food' tax increase than an income tax increase.



I do see your point about personal property rights ... I am not for more government intervention than absolutely necessary. The gov't usually messes things up. In my opinion, the role of the gov't should be to protect the people (from themselves). If non-smokers steadfastly discontinue patronizing bars/restaurants that allow smoking, market economics will work things out and there wouldn't be a need for gov't intervention.

Really, this whole thing doesn't affect me all that much, but I am looking at those who are more personally affected. I feel badly for the non-smoking workers who may not have the education or the means to obtain jobs other than as a server in a restaurant or bar. Then, we're talking about second-hand smoke primarily affecting a certain socio-economic class. What's right about that? I don't think it's anybody's "right" to force them, or anybody else, to breath second-hand smoke. You're affecting a non-smoker's "right to choose" to NOT smoke.

If you want to smoke in public around others - keep it to yourself so it doesn't affect others - don't exhale; swallow all your smoke - or is that just too unhealthy?

Show me where second hand smoke has affected someone in an adverse way, other than just being uncomfortable....

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by moneill

If when I ate a bag of chips -- you got heart disease -- then they should regulate the consumption of chips.

If they could prove that second hand smoke gave you heart disease or cancer or any other ailment I am sure it would be all over the news....

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by moneill

It's a slippery slope.

You do know that some places have banned smoking in cars with kids in them. Seems ridiculous to me but you know some people don't get that you can't smoke in a confined space like that with children. I knew someone who smoked in her car with her newborn. You would pick him up -- nuzzle him and all you would get is that nicotine smell. YUCK and I can't imagine the damage to the kid.

What do we do with idiots like that. Social pressure isn't enough.....so do you just let them and let the kids suffer.......what's the solution if you don't legislate it.

My mother smoked three packs aday, and my father two, my lungs are as healthy as anyone elses because I chose not to smoke myself.....

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

Those that argue against smoking bans and higher taxes on cigarettes are being ignorant...it's simple, 2nd Hand Smoke affectst the health and well being of anyone around it...you try and argue that drinking and driving is more dangerous, and your right it is, and that is why it's agaist the law, and SC has just strengthened the penalties for breaking that law. If you want to tax alcohol more, fine by me, same w/ if you want to tax fast food or unhealthy food. All these vices end up costing all of us b/c of the health consequences everyone endures...the bottom line though in support of a smoking ban is that employers have to provide a safe working environment for their employees, and a place that allows smoking inside is not a safe environment...2nd Hand Smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other ailments. In fact, it's even worse b/c the smoke drifting off a cigarette doesn't go through a filter like it does when you inhale it.

All false statements. Show me the proof backed up by science.....

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by Capo

I tend to agree.

Smokers should be free to do what they want to themselves when in private. However, when it effects the public - such as at restaurants, public places, etc. then smokers are impeding on the individual rights of others.

My 2 cents.

Restaurants are not public places they are privately owned businesses run by private citizens not the government. The government has already banned smoking in all government buildings.

[OleTomCat]

Originally Posted by Capo

I agree in the general concept of government staying out of our lives in most areas. However, when this changes is when endangerment, especially to children, takes place.

If a parent is physically abusing a child - should the government step in?
If a parent is obviously neglecting (not feeding them, etc.) should the government step in?

Obviously many such examples could be given. I also classify items such as requiring seat belts, car seats, etc. as similar rules. Parents should NOT have the right to not take care of their children in basic, foundational issues.

Personally speaking, I view smoking around your kids as physical abuse (and I say that with all due respect for the people who struggle with the addiction). The reality is that prolonged exposure to 2nd hand smoke, especially over the spand of childhood, WILL several harm the child. There is not debate about that, medical science is clear on the topic.

In situations where parents struggle with the addiction to nicotene, I believe they should always ensure they go out side, out of the car, etc. and smoke away from their kids.

My 2 cents.

Once again false information, show me this science that you are talking about....