|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2005 : 12:39:44 [Permalink]
|
I am so embarassed!
I'm sorry. I read the first page and got all worked and whipped off a reply without realizing that there were two more pages |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 13:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Hey Liz,
Don't think you need to apologize. You can edit your remarks or even delete them if you change your mind. And you made some good points. I particularly enjoyed reading:
Smokers make an easy whipping boy for people who want to believe they are crusaders for health, because it is easier to point at someone and say you shouldn't smoke than it is to roll up your sleeves and tackle problems like the woeful lack of effective physical education in schools, or city planning that all but discourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic to name just two.
I think you took on too much in your long paragraph, and your last comment was indeed glib, but I think most people get your point, which I interpreted as - there are always going to be some restrictions for people with various health problems. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/11/2005 13:20:07 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 23:45:20 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox,
I applaud your reconsideration of the situation 2 months ago. I remember that particular thread.
Starman,
Smoking for many is a physiological addiction. One that as Marf pointed out is used by many unknowingly self-medicating for depression. Come to think of it, I had an aquaintance that was encouraged by her dr to continue smoking because they weren't able to stabilize her schyzophrenia through traditional medications, the nicotine seemed to help considerably. This was in the early days of nicotine gum and before the patch, I suppose by now they've probably prescribed something of the sort for her, I recall that she really didn't like smoking.
Before I quit smoking, I used to seek out places to smoke where I would effectively not bother anyone. I would have a cigarette burning in hand, when someone would come up to where I was sitting, sit where the smoke blew their way and then proceed to complain about the smoke. There are those that seek out smokers to harass them.
I agree with HH on the concept that privately owned businesses should be the ones responsible for choosing whether they will be smoking or non-smoking. Village Inn is completely non-smoking between 5 pm and 9 pm and 10 am and 9 pm on weekends. That's their chosen policy in areas where smoking is not banned. And the few non-smoking bars (by choice rather than legislation) actually do rather well.
As for smoking around children, at my worst, smoking was often the only way for me to calm down enough not to yell completely demoralizing epithets at my daughter (the 18 monts my kid refers to as the year of hell). I was self medicating with cigarettes because I couldn't afford health insurance, made too much to qualify for medicaid, and didn't get insurance through an employer. I was off my levothyroxin, which is a hormone substitute that assists in keeping the metabolism straight, but lowered T3/T4 levels or higher T7 levels (TSH) do eventually affect mood, temper, etc. Also recognize that nicotine is a stimulant and hypothyroidism does cause extreme fatigue. I'm in much the same situation now, I don't make enough to use the health insurance that I currently have to get back on my medication.
You don't know why people smoke, many smokers don't understand why they continue to smoke. This is one former smoker who is quite happy to have the little circle of self-derision for continuing to smoke stopped. It feeds back on itself, the more you deride yourself, the more you smoke, the more depressed you become, the more you deride yourself, the more you smoke, the depressed you become................... |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 06:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
So here are my questions for you. There are parents all around in the world that hurt and put their childrens life at risk in this way. Do you think they should be allowed to do this?
Yes. Smoking in the house can lead to a kid having some respiratory problems. It may even contribute to lung cancer later on in life. But a fine takes resources away from a family. I'm not sure what you mean by “more severe consequences”, so I can't really respond to it. We can't solve every unethical behavior with fines and force. The biggest problem with this is that it is totally unenforceable. The exposure must takes place over years to have much of an affect. How do you prove that a parent is exposing their child to cigarette smoke in an enclosed space over a long period of time AND that that activity is causing health problems? It would be such a ridiculous process just proving that any law has been clearly broken, that the kid would be in college by the time any could be established. Unless you are advocating that simply smoking around kids at all should be illegal. And that, IMHO, is ridiculous.
Letting it be legal to hurt other people because it would be dificult to enforce a law is ridiculous.
I see no need to prove that the exposure has been going on for a long period. If it is illegal to expose children and a smoker expose a child at one occasion that should be enough. Like most offences.
"A fine takes away from the family"? Well its not a reward is it?
If you can't afford to pay the price, don't commit the offence!
The whole point of making something illegal is to stop people from doing that thing.
People will still be able to smoke but, and this is what makes the smokers squirm, they will have to show real (though enforced) consideration to other people.
Should littering be legal?
Tossing garbage in the street doesn't hurt anyone and if you give a litterer a fine it could take away resources from his family.
quote:
Regarding that last thing, if you have a repertory problem and have business with a smoker, you can always politely tell them about the problem and they will refrain from smoking in your presence. You don't need a legal ban to deal with something like that.
Unfortunately I can tell you from personal experience that you are wrong here. Dead wrong.
(Though there are many smokers that show consideration, when it is asked of them.)quote:
The studies that show that passive smoking in businesses is detrimental to the health of non-smokers has been debunked. Someone posted this last time: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html but you can do the research yourself. Those studies were done with bad science.
The link you provided does not support your claim. Its about whether second hand smoke causes cancer and the conclusion is that there is not enough evidence do claim it does.quote:
From the Straight Dope
I agree ETS is harmful, broadly speaking; the question is whether it causes lung cancer and other significant health problems
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 08:02:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
When we try to dictate to people the way they have to care for their own bodies, because it may be possible that it will effect us, the slope becomes slippery pretty quickly.
This is what I found most annoying with this debate. Smokers that whine about their personal freedom and their freedom of choice.
(Not saying that LizW is a smoker, but she uses this argument)
I don't care if you smoke!
What I do care about is when you expose people who does not want to smoke to your smoke.
Use whatever legal drugs you like, but don't force me to use them.
quote:
As for people with asthma don't go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.
No, I can assure you that most of them were quite aware of this.
Don't go to bars at all (because almost all allowed smoking)!
Don't go out in the streets (because there might be people smoking)!
Stay indoors and close your windows (because your neighbors might be smoking)!
Stay at home so these people can enjoy their drug habit!quote:
Smokers make an easy whipping boy for people who want to believe they are crusaders for health, because it is easier to point at someone and say you shouldn't smoke than it is to roll up your sleeves and tackle problems like the woeful lack of effective physical education in schools, or city planning that all but discourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic to name just two.
Classic red herring.
So we should not take care of this problem because there might be other problems? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 09:05:55 [Permalink]
|
Wow! Lots of emotion but very little substance. Starman, you may believe that parents should be considered child abusers and therefore criminals if they smoke around children, or anyone else for that matter. Time to provide some support here. Has any long-term damage been verified by studies? I'm sure some studies support your belief but are they good studies? Are there studies that support opposite conclusions? Is there a meta-analysis that you can point to that confirms the seriousness of the problem? Emotional appeals are nice and everything but they are ultimately meaningless.
Your opinion of smokers in general is obvious. Whatever…
And you can't just wave away the argument that allowing children to eat crap, since it is a way bigger health problem at this time, is not relevant to this discussion. Childhood obesity is at epidemic proportions but, and this is the important part, that problem does not seem to raise the emotional hackles of folks like you who are seemingly concerned with protecting our children's health. Passive smoking is small potatoes compared with childhood obesity as a health concern. Are you also prepared to call parents abusive if their kids are fat? I don't think it is a coincidence that those who yell the loudest about passive smoking also have a very low regard for smokers.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 09:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Whether there is long term damage or not from passive smoking - while certainly relevant - is certainly not required for a ban on smoking in at least most public areas. For the purpose of institutions such as schools, libraries, government facilities in general and sports facilities and the like it should be enough that it is considered unpleasant by so many people. I say unpleasant, but really much more colourful words come to mind...
As to locations such as bars and cafés, it should be enough that there are short term effects. The effect of carbon monoxide on a person is well documented, and pretty immediate. There is plenty of carbon monoxide in smoke from cigarettes.´
Furthermore there are some practical difficulties inherent in testing the long-term effects of passive smoking. There is simply no control group to compare results to. Everyone will be exposed to it in most developed countries and comparing between cultures is not viable as there are plenty of other factors which you have no hope of controlling. As such the lack of statistical evidence is to be expected.
I am aware that this does not constitute an argument that passive smoking does have harmful long-term effects, but it is fair to believe that they exist if no evidence to the contrary can be procured because the passive smoker does inhale smoke which contains much the same substances as that inhaled by the active smoker. No one here is going to deny the harmful effects of smoking I presume? Of that there is plenty of evidence... |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 10:55:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
Whether there is long term damage or not from passive smoking - while certainly relevant - is certainly not required for a ban on smoking in at least most public areas. For the purpose of institutions such as schools, libraries, government facilities in general and sports facilities and the like it should be enough that it is considered unpleasant by so many people. I say unpleasant, but really much more colourful words come to mind...
As to locations such as bars and cafés, it should be enough that there are short term effects. The effect of carbon monoxide on a person is well documented, and pretty immediate. There is plenty of carbon monoxide in smoke from cigarettes.´
Furthermore there are some practical difficulties inherent in testing the long-term effects of passive smoking. There is simply no control group to compare results to. Everyone will be exposed to it in most developed countries and comparing between cultures is not viable as there are plenty of other factors which you have no hope of controlling. As such the lack of statistical evidence is to be expected.
I am aware that this does not constitute an argument that passive smoking does have harmful long-term effects, but it is fair to believe that they exist if no evidence to the contrary can be procured because the passive smoker does inhale smoke which contains much the same substances as that inhaled by the active smoker. No one here is going to deny the harmful effects of smoking I presume? Of that there is plenty of evidence...
The existance of these things are not questioned. The concentration is. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 20:44:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
When we try to dictate to people the way they have to care for their own bodies, because it may be possible that it will effect us, the slope becomes slippery pretty quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by Starman
This is what I found most annoying with this debate. Smokers that whine about their personal freedom and their freedom of choice.
(Not saying that LizW is a smoker, but she uses this argument)
I don't care if you smoke!
What I do care about is when you expose people who does not want to smoke to your smoke.
Use whatever legal drugs you like, but don't force me to use them.
We all step on each others toes all the time. The list of things that someone else could find irritating, rude or even detrimental about anyone else is, as far as I can tell, endless.
Sometimes people are going to change in order to be more accomodating to you. Sometimes they are going to plant their feet and force you to accomodate them.
You cannot expect everyone to change their habits just because it may have a negative effect on you. There comes a point when you have to realize that your wants are no more important than anyone else's.
Smokers have been pushed outside and that is as far as most of us are willing to go.
quote:
As for people with asthma don't go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I can assure you that most of them were quite aware of this.
Don't go to bars at all (because almost all allowed smoking)!
Don't go out in the streets (because there might be people smoking)!
Stay indoors and close your windows (because your neighbors might be smoking)!
Stay at home so these people can enjoy their drug habit!
I don't know where you live but in the DC metro area and surrounding suburbs there seem to be more bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking than those that do.
If your asthma is going to be triggered by passing someone who is smoking outdoors or because your windows are open and your neighbors smoke, then I am pretty sure it would also be triggered by one or all of the following: pollen, dust, vehicle exhaust, pet dander, hair spray, perfume, petrochemicals, solvents, molds and spores...
If you can't always have control of your environment, have control of your medication.
quote:
Smokers make an easy whipping boy for people who want to believe they are crusaders for health, because it is easier to point at someone and say you shouldn't smoke than it is to roll up your sleeves and tackle problems like the woeful lack of effective physical education in schools, or city planning that all but discourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic to name just two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic red herring.
So we should not take care of this problem because there might be other problems?
The point I was trying to make was not whether the problem needs to be addressed, it was that many people become militant anti smokers because it requires very little effort but allows them to feel smug, superior and self important.
P.S. I never whine about what I see as my rights. I do, however, whine about Ben and Jerry selling out to the man.
|
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 04:21:02 [Permalink]
|
Let's re-light this one:quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Starman, you may believe that parents should be considered child abusers and therefore criminals if they smoke around children, or anyone else for that matter.
I don't think it should be legal to subject others to smoke against their will.
Criminal and child abuse are loaded terms. I have been fined for speeding, and parking offences. Does that make me a Criminal?quote:
Time to provide some support here. Has any long-term damage been verified by studies? I'm sure some studies support your belief but are they good studies? Are there studies that support opposite conclusions? Is there a meta-analysis that you can point to that confirms the seriousness of the problem? Emotional appeals are nice and everything but they are ultimately meaningless.
There are studies linking carciogenic, coronary and respiratory effects to second hand smoking.
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/faq/en/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm
Some studies are of course better than others, some numbers might be more correct than others.
Which ones do you want to dispute? Which numbers would be acceptable to you?quote:
Your opinion of smokers in general is obvious. Whatever…
I have friends that smoke and I dont mind if they want smoke. I base my opinion of people of more than this.
I don't despise people for being stuck in an addiction, nor do I contemn people who enjoy smoking and wants to do that.quote:
And you can't just wave away the argument that allowing children to eat crap, since it is a way bigger health problem at this time, is not relevant to this discussion. Childhood obesity is at epidemic proportions but, and this is the important part, that problem does not seem to raise the emotional hackles of folks like you who are seemingly concerned with protecting our children's health. Passive smoking is small potatoes compared with childhood obesity as a health concern.
Are you also prepared to call parents abusive if their kids are fat?
No, I would not call it abuse.
I think you have a obligation as a parent to try to give your kids the best possible start in life. Obesity cause serious social and health problems. (There are also other medical problems with unhealty diets.)
If you ignore this and your children becomes obese, your neglect of this have certainly caused your kids harm. Then of course some kids (and people) have a natural tendency to put on weight and you are not neglecting your kids just because they happen to be fat, overweight, underweight, obese or whatever.
Still, this has no bearing on an argument on whether or not people should be allowed to expose their kids and other people to second hand smoke. Obesity is a serious problem but here its a red herring. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 05:14:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
We all step on each others toes all the time. The list of things that someone else could find irritating, rude or even detrimental about anyone else is, as far as I can tell, endless.
Sometimes people are going to change in order to be more accomodating to you. Sometimes they are going to plant their feet and force you to accomodate them.
You cannot expect everyone to change their habits just because it may have a negative effect on you. There comes a point when you have to realize that your wants are no more important than anyone else's.
Smokers have been pushed outside and that is as far as most of us are willing to go.
If you are going to argue like a egomaniac you run the risk of being mistaken for one.
Your want to use your drug without caring about other people is not equal to other peoples need of oxygen and health.quote:
If your asthma is going to be triggered by passing someone who is smoking outdoors or because your windows are open and your neighbors smoke, then I am pretty sure it would also be triggered by one or all of the following: pollen, dust, vehicle exhaust, pet dander, hair spray, perfume, petrochemicals, solvents, molds and spores...
If you can't always have control of your environment, have control of your medication.
Pollen, dust, dander, molds and spores are natural substances, all except pollen are often controllable. Petrochemicals, solvents and vehicles have a use. Smoking is neither natural nor useful. Medication is rarely perfect (limited effect, side effects).quote:
The point I was trying to make was not whether the problem needs to be addressed, it was that many people become militant anti smokers because it requires very little effort but allows them to feel smug, superior and self important.
Fascinating!
Which people? Was this this found in a survey? Do you have a reference? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 22:13:19 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: No, I would not call it abuse.
I think you have a obligation as a parent to try to give your kids the best possible start in life. Obesity cause serious social and health problems. (There are also other medical problems with unhealty diets.)
If you ignore this and your children becomes obese, your neglect of this have certainly caused your kids harm. Then of course some kids (and people) have a natural tendency to put on weight and you are not neglecting your kids just because they happen to be fat, overweight, underweight, obese or whatever.
Still, this has no bearing on an argument on whether or not people should be allowed to expose their kids and other people to second hand smoke. Obesity is a serious problem but here its a red herring.
Nothing in the above paragraphs clearly demonstrates how the problem of childhood obesity is irrelevant as a comparison to the problem of children's health being damaged through exposure to second-hand smoke.
We talked about the cupcake earlier. A cupcake is loaded with far more fat and sugar than is needed for health, and the worst kinds of fats and sugars possible. Not only that, but when people get used to certain junk foods it becomes more difficult to resist those foods.
Exposure to occasional second-hand smoke has absolutely ZERO proven effects on one's health. The only solid studies that show passive smoking to be a health risk is constant exposure over a period of years.
So… what's more dangerous to a child's health: being exposed to a moderate amount of second-hand smoke on occasion in restaurants or at family picnics and such, or eating the occasional cupcake?
If occasional exposure to second-hand smoke isn't a provable health risk then it should not be illegal to occasionally smoke around kids. But if we try to make it illegal to constantly smoke around children, we create a law that is completely unenforceable.
So what's the point? Any law against smoking around kids could be so abused and used against people who aren't actually abusing their kids, it would be a total waste of time and taxpayer money to try to enforce.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/21/2005 22:15:46 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 02:41:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Nothing in the above paragraphs clearly demonstrates how the problem of childhood obesity is irrelevant as a comparison to the problem of children's health being damaged through exposure to second-hand smoke.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
It is a Red Herring! The problem of obesity might be interesting as a comparison, but it has zero relevance on whether second hand smoking is a problem or if and how the problem should be addressed.
I didn't bring this red herring into this debate so I'm not the one who have to show its relevancy.quote:
Exposure to occasional second-hand smoke has absolutely ZERO proven effects on one's health.
This blatantly false for people that are asthmatic. For the rest of us I doubt that it is true either. It might be that we suffer no danger or permanent health effects, but there are effects, coughing running eyes, sore throats. Do you seriously want to dispute this?
Again, not everything that is illegal is dangerous, some things are illegal because they are a nuisance to others.quote:
So… what's more dangerous to a child's health: being exposed to a moderate amount of second-hand smoke on occasion in restaurants or at family picnics and such, or eating the occasional cupcake?
If the kid has asthma, smoke. If the kid has diabetes, the cupcake. I think it should be illegal to force feed diabetic kids cupcakes. Any objections?quote:
If occasional exposure to second-hand smoke isn't a provable health risk then it should not be illegal to occasionally smoke around kids. But if we try to make it illegal to constantly smoke around children, we create a law that is completely unenforceable.
So what's the point?
Completely unenforceable? Says you.
Making something illegal, in this case it would probably be a misdemeanor, shows that this thing is not acceptable. The problem will of course not vanish, but it will probably be reduced.quote:
Any law against smoking around kids could be so abused and used against people who aren't actually abusing their kids, it would be a total waste of time and taxpayer money to try to enforce.
The fact that laws can be difficult to enforce or that they can be abused are still not enough reason not to have them. |
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 12:09:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
by Starman
Let's re-light this one:
Well, since you implied that I was an egomaniac, I am willing to do more than relight it, I'm willing to burn it to the ground.
quote:
We all step on each others toes all the time. The list of things that someone else could find irritating, rude or even detrimental about anyone else is, as far as I can tell, endless.
Sometimes people are going to change in order to be more accomodating to you. Sometimes they are going to plant their feet and force you to accomodate them.
You cannot expect everyone to change their habits just because it may have a negative effect on you. There comes a point when you have to realize that your wants are no more important than anyone else's.
Smokers have been pushed outside and that is as far as most of us are willing to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------by Starman
If you are going to argue like a egomaniac you run the risk of being mistaken for one.
Your want to use your drug without caring about other people is not equal to other peoples need of oxygen and health.
If you: eat meat, wear leather, drink soft drinks, drink alcohol, eat fast food, eat packaged candy, drive a car anywhere you could reasonably go on foot, travel for pleasure, set your home thermostat above 60 degrees in the winter or below 80 degrees in the summer, buy anything new that you could buy used, fertilize your lawn, use storebought household cleansers, barbecue,..I could go on almost indefinitely.
Then you have put your wants above other people's need for oxygen and health.
Remove the beam from thine own eye, before bitchin' about the eyelash in mine.
quote:
The point I was trying to make was not whether the problem needs to be addressed, it was that many people become militant anti smokers because it requires very little effort but allows them to feel smug, superior and self important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Starman
Fascinating!
Which people? Was this this found in a survey? Do you have a reference?
Nope, no reference. Shot this one straight from the hip based on personal observation.
Being an anti-smoking proponent does not require one to make any personal sacrifice. All that is required is the desire to point out someone else's weakness, while ignoring your own (see the above list).
When I was younger and less cynical, I used to work for Greenpeace. I eventually had to quit because I realized that I was being a hypocrite. If I had done everything within my power to protect the environment, my life would have been miserable, and I wasn't willing to suffer for the good of the environment. So I felt it wasn't my right to point out the negative points of others.
When you have done everything possible within your own life to protect the health and well being of everyone around you, then you will have earned the holier than thou attitude you are fronting. Then and only then will you be worthy to hand someone else a hair shirt to wear.
|
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 15:13:47 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: The problem of obesity might be interesting as a comparison, but it has zero relevance on whether second hand smoking is a problem or if and how the problem should be addressed.
The relevancy was already made clear by the person who brought it up. They asked if you think there should be laws against parents encouraging obesity in their children through neglect or poor feeding, and they said they brought it up because childhood obesity is a growing epidemic, while childhood health issues from living with smokers is NOT an epidemic. And despite it being an epidemic, you said no, there shouldn't be a law against giving kids junkfood. You seem to be inconsistent in your logic.
You keep bringing up special circumstances like kids with asthma. Courts dealing with possible child abuse already do take into account special circumstances. For instance, if a kid has an allergy to nuts (that the parent knows about) and a parent cooks with nuts all the time regardless, that can be considered legal abuse. Or if a kid has a blood sugar problem and the parent gives them sugary desserts every night, which could also be considered abuse. But we don't make it illegal to give all kids nuts or cupcakes. We don't make laws that will apply to everyone because of people with special circumstances because such instances will be dealt with individually.
You have advocated a special law that makes it illegal to smoke around ALL kids, regardless of whether that kid has a repertory problem and regardless of whether that smoking is done constantly, or in enclosed spaces, or over a period of years. That's dumb.
No one here is advocating a law that saw parents absolutely cannot be prosecuted under any circumstances for abuse if that abuse involves smoking around the kids.
Starman also wrote: Making something illegal, in this case it would probably be a misdemeanor, shows that this thing is not acceptable. The problem will of course not vanish, but it will probably be reduced.
Yeah, that's the argument I hear all the time for keeping marijuana illegal. The problem is that the legal consequences themselves do harm. Paying a fine, having to take time off to go to court, these things hurt families with little money. And it seems so ridiculous to penalize any people who smoke around kids when the majority of them do not do so constantly, in enclosed spaces, over a period of years, or around sick kids, so the majority of smokers are NOT doing any harm to children!
The fact that laws can be difficult to enforce or that they can be abused are still not enough reason not to have them.
Those factors should be, and are, considerations.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
