Before you not, they’ll start checking the kitchens and pantries for junk food too….

Though I personally hate smoking, I don’t think that prohibition should be forced inside family. But definitely, there should be a provision of acting on an appeal from a family member.

I agree - people in this world don’t have enough to do.

Did you even read the article you linked to? It clearly says FOSTER parents. When you are a foster parent, you are taking on the responsibility for a ward of the state thereby giving the state every right to come and check in on you to make sure that you are not doing anything that damages the health of the child. I bet you wont even publish this post because you never publish comments that prove you wrong.

Ck, I have never, ever not published your comments so don’t be such a martyr! If I didn’t publish comments that prove me wrong, then there wouldn’t be any comments on most of my posts. Every single post you can see on the front page has atleast one commenter disagreeing with me.

Secondly, in case you are too reading-challenged, here is a part I clearly quoted in my post - “Parental smoking also has become a critical point in some child-custody cases, including ones in Virginia and Maryland.” What part of child-custody cases involves “foster parents”? Can you please explain, O all-knowing-one?

Both in the cased of foster parents as well as child custody cases, the parents voluntarily ask the government to come into their lives and the lives of their children. In the case of child custody, parents who have equal rights over a child, invite the government into their homes to judge who is a better parent. If one parent smokes, it is clear that the parent is not providing a suitable environment for their child and the other parent can use that to their advantage. I take it you are not arguing here (as some do) that second hand smoke is not at all harmful to a child.

As far as comment not being posted, I did post a couple of comments which were not posted for whatever reason (I’m sorry I cannot provide time or post but I really don’t track my blog comments in that detail). I appreciate your posting this dissenting view and look forward to reading yor response.

Ck, what I am worried about is the slippery slope here. It is right that for now parents are “inviting” government into their homes. But how do they really regulate something like this? (I unconditionally agree that second-hand smoking is bad.)

A parent might smoke 100 feet from a child, but might still smell of the smoke for a while afterwards - would that be grounds for a parent to falsely claim child-endangerment? This is child-custody cases and bitter spouses we are talking about here and some parents might go to any lengths to impugn the other’s character.

Also, will there soon be anti-smoking legislation for pregnant women? anti-drinking legislation? Since arguably a pregnant woman smoking and drinking causes her baby way more harm than second-hand smoking could.

This is like MADD - initially they were against driving drunk - now they are against even one drink before driving and soon it will be don’t drink at all. (See how they are legislating against parents who provide older teenagers a safe place to drink so they won’t binge-drink and drive drunk). This is why I am against legislation against such silly things.

I take things on a case by case basis as you can use the ‘this is a slippery slope’ argument for practically anything (good or bad).

In the case of smoking it is a question of rights. An individual has a right to a smoke free environment. If you and I don’t like second hand smoke, we have a choice not to frequent establishments that allow smoking. A child does not have this choice as he/she can not really choose to live in another house. So who stands up for the rights of the child? The parent is the only legal guardian and for now the government only steps in when requested to do so.

Anti-smoking regulation for pregnant women is an interesting issue. It depends on when you feel the rights of a child start - at conception or at birth. If the former then it is still the woman’s body (albeit with a child inside it) so she can do whatever she wants with it. However it is clear that once a child is born it is no longer up to the woman. You can have an abotion but you cannot kill a newborn child - the difference - a couple of months. In the eys of the law, one is a medical proceedure, the other murder. So if you are pro-life, you would be for an anti smoking measure for pregnant women (I am pro-choice on this issue).

I say all of this as an ex-smoker (pack a day for 6 years) who has been clean for a year now. It is a nasty, filthy habbit but I believe in an individuals right to do harm to themselves if the wish but not in a right to harm others - which smoking very clearly does. In the hypothetical custody case that you mentioned, the father has to prove that his smoking does not harm the child - he is the one engaging in a potentially harmful activity so the burden of proff is on him to prove that 100 feet is a ‘safe’ distance.

Ck, I am busy trying to meet a deadline at work (was at work till 9 last night) - I will get back with you once I have a little time.

Generally speaking, I’m annoyed by “nanny government” intrusions into our lives. I don’t think we’re served well, in the long run. Just this past week, I had an occasion to rent a car. Without realizing it, I signed an agreement that said I would not allow smoking in it while I drove it. That makes sense, economically, but it was a new restriction to me that annoyed me.

I suppose that unless someone can come up with a valid reason why the right to smoke trumps the right of everyone else to be free of the smell of smoke and the dangers of breathing it’s vile effects, I come down on the side of “banning smoking” as a reasonable response to it’s negative effects.

I smoked for twenty years. It was the toughest monkey I ever got off my back. Cigarettes should be put into the same category as alcohol and marijuana: okay to use at private, not in public. A foster family forgoes most of its privacy by volunteering to represent the state as custodian of children. You’d think they wouldn’t want to smoke in front of the children anyway, wouldn’t you?

As much as I love freedom, i hate passive smoke, and I hate parents smoking near their kid.. It is a call hard to take but forcing a helpless kid into smoking is a worse thing to do than a moral nanny.

yes, ban em everywhere!

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.