Should parents smoke around children?

[Alexia]

Parents shouldn't use any sort of recreational drugs around their children. Doing so is sending a message that it's OK. Smoking tobacco is particularly bad as it creates an unhealthful environment and causes chronic and sometimes severe diseases.

My philosophy is you can smoke anything you like as long as it's outside, downwind, and only in the company of other adults.

I don't think drug use is acceptable in the company of adults or children. I do feel that this maybe also a class issue as those who are working class may tend to feel it's okay to smoke in front of children, and those who are middle class opt not to.

My school friends were mainly working class and their parents would smoke in front of them and even let them smoke at home (under age) whereas my friends who were more middle class would not do that. I'm not sure you can force people to do things within their own homes, but to educate them so they understand the consequences.

 

[PLC1]

I don't think drug use is acceptable in the company of adults or children. I do feel that this maybe also a class issue as those who are working class may tend to feel it's okay to smoke in front of children, and those who are middle class opt not to.

My school friends were mainly working class and their parents would smoke in front of them and even let them smoke at home (under age) whereas my friends who were more middle class would not do that. I'm not sure you can force people to do things within their own homes, but to educate them so they understand the consequences.

I can't, of course, impose my values on others, but the idea that smoking is somehow different from using other drugs is simply not supportable. Teach kids that nicotine is OK, and why not cocaine?

And, why not indeed? Nicotine is at least as addictive as cocaine. Treating it as anything other than a serious chemical dependency is simply self delusion IMO.

 

[hades_leae]

This is how we raise our minds. We choose to ignore many things just because there is not an effect right away. People don't care to learn the details about something that can cause harm.

If I tell someone that the smoke from a cigarette being inhaled by a child who is obviously still developing will have problem with their lungs, and might be more likely to get lung cancer much faster, and they aren't the ones doing the smoking, the parent will let it go in one ear and out the other.

 

[Colonel]

No - it harms children and passive smoke is more harmful.
This is child abuse and potentially a child could have respiratory issues in the future.
The law below has just been brought in in England & Wales.

From today, new legislation in England and Wales makes it illegal to smoke in a vehicle carrying someone who is under 18. It is now also against the law for a driver not to stop someone smoking in these circumstances. The fine for both offences is £50.

 

[filmjunkie08]

Smoking is a bad habit whether it is pot or tobacco. Pot shpuld never be smoked in front of children. If a parent is smoking tobacco, have the consideration to do it outside so that the children are not exposed to second hand smoke.

 

[clair02]

In my view it's massive child abuse. The children are forced to breathe tobacco smoke against their will. Of course the damage is out of this world. Note, I mainly see this as a cultural problem, as some people still live in the 1980s. They really think the smoke isn't hurting their children, even the small ones and babies.

I totally agree with you on that one, parents should not be allowed to smoke around children. It's bad for their health and it sets a really bad example for the kids. Even if they are not inhaling the smoke, they are learning really bad habits from an early age, and that is as bad as them inhaling the smoke because chances are they are going to grow up to smoke as well.

 

[dogtowner]

I totally agree with you on that one, parents should not be allowed to smoke around children. It's bad for their health and it sets a really bad example for the kids. Even if they are not inhaling the smoke, they are learning really bad habits from an early age, and that is as bad as them inhaling the smoke because chances are they are going to grow up to smoke as well.

What about those who don't cover their mouths when they yawn ?
That's a bad habit too.
Putting the matter to law is serious.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I totally agree with you on that one, parents should not be allowed to smoke around children. It's bad for their health and it sets a really bad example for the kids. Even if they are not inhaling the smoke, they are learning really bad habits from an early age, and that is as bad as them inhaling the smoke because chances are they are going to grow up to smoke as well.

How about drinking? Eating junk food?Not exercising? At what point should society control the actions of the parent?

 

[palerider]

This is how we raise our minds. We choose to ignore many things just because there is not an effect right away. People don't care to learn the details about something that can cause harm.

If I tell someone that the smoke from a cigarette being inhaled by a child who is obviously still developing will have problem with their lungs, and might be more likely to get lung cancer much faster, and they aren't the ones doing the smoking, the parent will let it go in one ear and out the other.

If you tell someone such a thing...you are giving them your opinion as opposed to hard supportable fact and as such should go in one ear and out of the other... The fact is that there is no clear link between second hand smoke and lung cancer and numerous large studies have born this out. If the child is an asthmatic, then you could rightly say that their smoke would aggravate the condition but making unsupported claims that smoking will cause them to get lung cancer faster is just lying...based on the current research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...een-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#4ad59cdc623f

A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.

The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.

The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.” Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes “there’s no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It’s either significant or it’s not,” and the reported hazard ratio was not.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200907/is-second-hand-smoke-really-dangerous

The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion. This must have been very embarrassing to the WHO because they subsequently tried to do an about face with a paper titled Don't Let them Fool You. I read it carefully and had to wonder just who was trying to fool whom?

http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-cana...ution-be-careful-what-you-claim-from-a-study/

here have been dozens of peer-reviewed articles on the subject in question published in the last two decades. Using a “weight of evidence” approach standard in epidemiology, the Surgeon General concluded in 1986 and reaffirmed in both 2006 and 2014 that SHS does cause cancer in non-smokers.

The claims of second hand smoke causing cancer are much like the claims of manmade global warming...widespread, but unsupportable insofar as the actual research goes...it is interesting to note that even though the journal of the national cancer institute published one of the largest studies ever done regarding second hand smoke...finding that it did not cause cancer...if one goes to their public web site, they still claim that it does....this is political support of a social narrative, not science in support of the facts.

 

[PLC1]

The question is not, "Should parents be allowed to smoke around their children," but "Should parents smoke around their children."

And the answer is a resounding no. Smoking stinks, it causes fires, and is a form of recreational drug abuse. Smoking around children gives a loud and clear message that doing drugs is OK.

 

[palerider]

The question is not, "Should parents be allowed to smoke around their children," but "Should parents smoke around their children."

And the answer is a resounding no. Smoking stinks, it causes fires, and is a form of recreational drug abuse. Smoking around children gives a loud and clear message that doing drugs is OK.

Then I don't think they should because it sends a message...an unhealthy one at that...but if one lies and says that second hand smoke causes cancer it negates the actual message sent by not smoking. Lying to someone in an attempt to get them to not do a thing is just one more case of believing that the ends justify the means and nearly always ends up failing....and puts your credibility with them on future issues in question.

 

[dogtowner]

The question is not, "Should parents be allowed to smoke around their children," but "Should parents smoke around their children."

And the answer is a resounding no. Smoking stinks, it causes fires, and is a form of recreational drug abuse. Smoking around children gives a loud and clear message that doing drugs is OK.

Much better to leave out that allowed part. Nobody ought to smoke as its really bad for you. If you had watched loved ones die as a result you would know this. I have and it's terrible.

I am an over the top former smoker, I have a bias.

 

[PLC1]

Much better to leave out that allowed part. Nobody ought to smoke as its really bad for you. If you had watched loved ones die as a result you would know this. I have and it's terrible.

I am an over the top former smoker, I have a bias.

and I am an over the top anti smoker who can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke.

Not that I'd support a law against it. They can smoke anything they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they do it outdoors and downwind.

 

[palerider]

The US used to be great because we were free...free do do pretty much whatever we wanted so long as what we were doing didn't encroach on the rights of others....then people started imagining that they had certain rights and the courts, at great cost to our freedom went along with them in their belief of rights that didn't exist...such as the right to not have to smell cigarette smoke...

 

[Old_Trapper70]

and I am an over the top anti smoker who can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke.

Not that I'd support a law against it. They can smoke anything they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they do it outdoors and downwind.

I'm an ex-smoker, and the smell of tobacco makes me crave a cigarette. I'm also an ex-drinker, and yet the smell of alcohol does not make me crave a drink, nor does the smell of coffee make me crave a cup. The smell of pot actually makes me ill to my stomach although I used to smoke a joint, or two.

It is a wonder as to how the body/mind works.