Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Smokers are banned from fostering

Health Smoking 2008

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:40 AM

I thought this was quite interesting:

Quote

Smokers in a north-east London borough will not be able to foster children from January 2012 - unless there are "exceptional circumstances".

The ban was passed on Tuesday evening by Redbridge councillors who voted unanimously in favour of the policy.

Redbridge Council wants to protect children from "the damaging effects of passive and second-hand smoke".

But the Fostering Network said it was concerned the policy could prevent good people from becoming foster parents.


This is another attempt to stigmatise smokers and separate them from the rest of society
Forest, smokers' rights group

Cabinet member for children, Tory councillor, Michael Stark, said: "We know this is a difficult issue because some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms, but we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood."

A spokesman for the national charity Fostering Network said: "We certainly view this as a good move in terms of creating a smoke-free environment for a child, but we don't agree that a blanket ban on any smokers becoming foster carers is the right thing."

What do you think?

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#2 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:46 AM

A Good call. It keeps them from the second hand smoke, and helps prevent the kids from the example.
Can't Touch This!!

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:58 AM

Yeah smokers are so evil. Now if we could ban them from being on the planet or simply round them up and kill them the whole world would be better off.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:59 AM

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#5 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:59 AM

Tough call. Of course it's bull that it's about "stigmatizing smokers". Once again, a smoker has made it about them and not about what's really important - the child.

Second-hand smoke kills. Children shouldn't have to be put in such an environment, though I'm sure a number of smokers would agree to only smoke outside. And foster care is probably better than a lot of alternatives.

#6 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:59 AM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Yeah smokers are so evil. Now if we could ban them from being on the planet or simply round them up and kill them the whole world would be better off.

Glad to see that now that the elecions are over you are back to your usual restrained self.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#7 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:00 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.

Overweight people aren't shoving Twinkies down the throats of foster children. If a smoker is smoking inside, they're forcing the kids to breathe the 2nd hand smoke. What about the children's "civil liberties", or more importantly, their health?

#8 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:05 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.

Overweight people aren't shoving Twinkies down the throats of foster children.

Wrong. They are setting as much a negative example as smokers do. Or do you think that when the family goes to eat fish and chips, the children will somehow be dropped off at the nearest deli?

Quote

If a smoker is smoking inside, they're forcing the kids to breathe the 2nd hand smoke. What about the children's "civil liberties", or more importantly, their health?

Call me crazy, but I consider a smoking foster family to be better than no foster family at all. And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument, let me point out that there are several degree's of smokers. Obviously, a chain smoker would be a very strong danger to children and I would argue against them being allowed to foster. Someone who only smokes outside and only a few cigarettes a day? Not so much.

Edited by Paul, 05 November 2008 - 07:07 AM.

"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#9 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:13 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.

Overweight people aren't shoving Twinkies down the throats of foster children.

Wrong. They are setting as much a negative example as smokers do. Or do you think that when the family goes to eat fish and chips, the children will somehow be dropped off at the nearest deli?

Paul; please read my posts carefully and respond to what I actually wrote. When a smoker smokes, there is 2nd hand smoke that is produced. If one is in the same room as the smoke, one will breathe that smoke. I said nothing about example; I said quite literally that overwieght people aren't stuffing Twinkies down the throats of children. Your correction of my statement is quite incorrect.

Quote

Call me crazy, but I consider a smoking foster family to be better than no foster family at all.

Um, I already covered that point; or at least questioned the alternative.

Quote

And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument, let me point out that there are several degree's of smokers. Obviously, a chain smoker would be a very strong danger to children and I would argue against them being allowed to foster. Someone who only smokes outside and only a few cigarettes a day? Not so much.

Yes; I already covered various degree's of people smoking cigarette's. Although I'll point out that often smokers claim to "only smoke outside" or "only smoke a couple a day", but if you closely examined their lives, you'd find that they don't live exactly to those standards. My mother had us all convinced that she had quit smoking; it was only after her death that I found out that she had started again. Smoking is illegal on the train platforms where I arrive in town, yet I noticed a half dozen smoked butts on the platform this morning.

#10 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:14 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 06:59 AM, said:

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.


Well that is next and then soon those who are not true Aryans will be kept from the children. Yes and no they cannot have patients or costumers that are of true blood.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#11 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:19 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I am concerned about the example it sets for civil liberties though. I mean, what's next, banning overweight people from fostering? Because their lifestyle is unhealthy as well.

Overweight people aren't shoving Twinkies down the throats of foster children.

Wrong. They are setting as much a negative example as smokers do. Or do you think that when the family goes to eat fish and chips, the children will somehow be dropped off at the nearest deli?

Paul; please read my posts carefully and respond to what I actually wrote. When a smoker smokes, there is 2nd hand smoke that is produced. If one is in the same room as the smoke, one will breathe that smoke. I said nothing about example; I said quite literally that overwieght people aren't stuffing Twinkies down the throats of children. Your correction of my statement is quite incorrect.

Wrong again. Even if we interpret that statement in that way, do you really think that the families will change their eating habits because of children? You can addicted to food as well, or is that concept unfamiliar to you? And yeah, they will shove that food down the throat of the children.

Quote

Quote

Call me crazy, but I consider a smoking foster family to be better than no foster family at all.

Um, I already covered that point; or at least questioned the alternative.

Good for you, I covered it again just to make sure. Call it a homage if you will. So you do agree that the smoking ban is stupid because it does ban all potential foster families who are smokers?

Quote

Quote

And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument, let me point out that there are several degree's of smokers. Obviously, a chain smoker would be a very strong danger to children and I would argue against them being allowed to foster. Someone who only smokes outside and only a few cigarettes a day? Not so much.

Yes; I already covered various degree's of people smoking cigarette's. Although I'll point out that often smokers claim to "only smoke outside" or "only smoke a couple a day", but if you closely examined their lives, you'd find that they don't live exactly to those standards. My mother had us all convinced that she had quit smoking; it was only after her death that I found out that she had started again. Smoking is illegal on the train platforms where I arrive in town, yet I noticed a half dozen smoked butts on the platform this morning.

Yeah, personal anecdotes are real valuable to an argument. Even if we take your statement to the extreme and agree that all smokers are liars, how is that relevant to the argument that a smoking foster family is still better than none? You do agree that there are several degrees of smokers and that there are therefore different degrees of potential harm and that therefore a blanket ban is stupid, do you not?
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#12 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:38 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

Wrong again. Even if we interpret that statement in that way, do you really think that the families will change their eating habits because of children? You can addicted to food as well, or is that concept unfamiliar to you? And yeah, they will shove that food down the throat of the children.

Paul, I don't think you're actually reading my posts.

Quote

Good for you, I covered it again just to make sure.

It didn't seem like you had read my post; your reply was quite defensive.

Quote

So you do agree that the smoking ban is stupid because it does ban all potential foster families who are smokers?

Well, I don't think it's stupid, so no, I don't agree with your statement. I think you're making a broad overgeneralization without sufficient facts. For instance, we don't know how many children this will affect; we don't know how many smoking foster parents there are. We don't know if this ban might help some smokers quit the habit, which would be a good thing.

Quote

Yeah, personal anecdotes are real valuable to an argument.

That's a really dismissive attitude. I was merely pointing out that I have 1st hand experience with smokers and was merely demonstrating that things aren't as black and white as you had presented them.

Quote

Even if we take your statement to the extreme and agree that all smokers are liars, how is that relevant to the argument that a smoking foster family is still better than none?

Your argument is completely unsupported! One might just as easily say that an ax-murdering foster family is better than none.

#13 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:48 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Yeah smokers are so evil. Now if we could ban them from being on the planet or simply round them up and kill them the whole world would be better off.

Glad to see that now that the elecions are over you are back to your usual restrained self.

About the post, not the poster please. Don't make me start issueing cool-its.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#14 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:49 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

Wrong again. Even if we interpret that statement in that way, do you really think that the families will change their eating habits because of children? You can addicted to food as well, or is that concept unfamiliar to you? And yeah, they will shove that food down the throat of the children.

Paul, I don't think you're actually reading my posts.

Neither, apparently, are you. Here is it again:

A) Overweight people are often overweight due to bad eating habits and little exercise
B) Families tend to eat the same food and have similar behaviour and ideas
C) Therefore, it stands to reason they will pass that on to their children.

Do you understand it now?

Quote

It didn't seem like you had read my post; your reply was quite defensive.

Your assessment is quite wrong.

Quote

Quote

So you do agree that the smoking ban is stupid because it does ban all potential foster families who are smokers?

Well, I don't think it's stupid, so no, I don't agree with your statement. I think you're making a broad overgeneralization without sufficient facts.

The smoking ban will affect children who will be unable to find foster families. What part of that is so hard to understand? And how is that an overgeneralization? It is a logical prediction based on expert testimony.

Quote

For instance, we don't know how many children this will affect; we don't know how many smoking foster parents there are.

And that is a reason for defending a blanket ban? Why? We already know that there will be some detriments because foster organizations have spoken out against it. It is your job to show that the potential benefits to those children who will be unable to find foster families will be greater than the detriment of not having a foster family.

And then you have the hypocrisyof banning one unhealthy choice and not banning another.

Quote

We don't know if this ban might help some smokers quit the habit, which would be a good thing.

Funny, the foster experts do not seem to agree with you.

Quote

Quote

Yeah, personal anecdotes are real valuable to an argument.

That's a really dismissive attitude. I was merely pointing out that I have 1st hand experience with smokers and was merely demonstrating that things aren't as black and white as you had presented them.

How was my statement black and white?

Quote

Quote

Even if we take your statement to the extreme and agree that all smokers are liars, how is that relevant to the argument that a smoking foster family is still better than none?

Your argument is completely unsupported!

And your argument is supported more...how? Do you agree that being overweight is a serious health risk? Do you agree that therefore people causing other people to be overweight is damaging to those other people? Seriously, are you drunk or stoned right now? Because there seems to be some  logical disconnect here.

Quote

One might just as easily say that an ax-murdering foster family is better than none.

Yes, because axe-murderes are totally the same as smokers  :sarcasm:.

Edited by Paul, 05 November 2008 - 07:56 AM.

"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#15 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:14 AM

Good!  Any time a child is spared the stink of secondhand smoke, that's already good, but sparing the child the danger of it, even better.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#16 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:17 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Neither, apparently, are you. Here is it again:

Actually, I am. Please read back the post where I said "I said nothing about example; I said quite literally that overwieght people aren't stuffing Twinkies down the throats of children."

Teaching someone to do something is different from doing it to them.

Do you understand it now?

Quote

Your assessment is quite wrong.

"And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument"

Defensive.

Quote

The smoking ban will affect children who will be unable to find foster families.

From the article (which you may not have read)

"The plans met with mixed reactions from foster carers before the vote but the majority of fostered children consulted previously were in favour of the policy. "

The children would rather be in orphanages or have other arrangements than be in smoking households.

Quote

It is a logical prediction based on expert testimony.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.

Quote

And that is a reason for defending a blanket ban?

Actually, it's a reason for not dismissing it out of hand. You're dismissing it without having any actual facts and figures. I'm saying that the people who came up with this ban have probably reviewed the figures and are coming up with alternatives. The ban won't take effect for 3 years; it's not like it's happening tomorrow.

Quote

We already know that there will be some detriments because foster organizations have spoken out against it.

No; a smokers' rights group has spoken out against it. The fostering groups have given a mixed response. And the children themselves have been in favor of it.

Quote

It is your job to show that the potential benefits to those children who will be unable to find foster families will be greater than the detriment of not having a foster family.

In the immortal words of Paul, wrong again. It's the job of the Redbridge councillors and or the smoking foster parents.

Quote

And then you have the hypocrisyof banning one unhealthy choice and not banning another.

A strawman argument isn't hypocrisy. Sorry, but it had to be said.

Quote

Quote

We don't know if this ban might help some smokers quit the habit, which would be a good thing.

Funny, the foster experts do not seem to agree with you.

Um, the article said nothing about foster experts having an opinion on helping foster parents to quit smoking. The only statement about giving up smoking was "Existing foster carers who smoke will be given help to give up. " No opinion on this was given.

Quote

How was my statement black and white?

Oh brother.

Quote

Do you agree that being overweight is a serious health risk?

Can we get off strawmen and actually focus on the question at hand? If someone is starving in my town, do I say that there are more people starving in China and because of that I can't give him any food? Smoking in foster homes is a problem. They're dealing with that problem.

Quote

Seriously, are you drunk or stoned right now?

This is your second personal attack against someone in this thread.

Quote

Yes, because axe-murderes are totally the same as smokers  :sarcasm:.

It's called hyperbole.

#17 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:27 AM

And I'm now officially issueing a cool-it.

We've had three snipes at fellow posters in a dozen posts, no more.  

Next one will get warned. Please don't make me prove the point.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#18 FlatlandDan

FlatlandDan

    Sophisticate

  • Islander
  • 8,824 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:31 AM

I don't think smokers should be allowed to foster children.  If fostering children is that important to them, they'll quit.  I would hope that anyone who was serious about fostering a child would be able to make that effort.

Obese parents are an issue as well, but with that it's at least something that the children have some control over and it's something that nurses/gp can easily pick up on and hopefully deal with.  Second hand smoke is just that, something that's second hand that you didn't have initially and wouldn't have to deal with if someone else wasn't around.
My candle burns at both its ends;
It will not last the night;
But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends --
It gives a lovely light."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay

#19 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:45 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

Teaching someone to do something is different from doing it to them.

Do you understand it now?

So when the foster mother puts the food on the table, how is that different?

Quote

Quote

Your assessment is quite wrong.

"And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument"

Defensive.

No, a standard debate tactic to avoid a misconception.

Quote

Quote

The smoking ban will affect children who will be unable to find foster families.

From the article (which you may not have read)

"The plans met with mixed reactions from foster carers before the vote but the majority of fostered children consulted previously were in favour of the policy. "

The children would rather be in orphanages or have other arrangements than be in smoking households.

And children are known throughout the world to be capable of making rational choices.

Quote

Quote

It is a logical prediction based on expert testimony.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.

No, there is a difference between the two. Which might not be clear, but it exists anyway.


Quote

The ban won't take effect for 3 years; it's not like it's happening tomorrow.

Which has no bearing on my central argument whatsoever.

Quote

Quote

We already know that there will be some detriments because foster organizations have spoken out against it.

No; a smokers' rights group has spoken out against it. The fostering groups have given a mixed response. And the children themselves have been in favor of it.

Actually, the group that called for someting to be done, has said the following:

Quote

The Fostering Network has expressed concerns that the policy could prevent good foster carers from coming forward.

A spokesman for the national charity said: "We certainly view this as a good move in terms of creating a smoke-free environment for a child, but we don't agree that a blanket ban on any smokers becoming foster carers is the right thing.

"If a person has the right qualities and skills to be a foster carer, they shouldn't be put off coming forward just because they have the odd cigarette at the end of the garden or on a night out. Fostering is about much more than just smoking."

Which is exactly the same thing I have been saying all along. A blanket ban is not the right thing to do.

Quote

Quote

It is your job to show that the potential benefits to those children who will be unable to find foster families will be greater than the detriment of not having a foster family.

In the immortal words of Paul, wrong again. It's the job of the Redbridge councillors and or the smoking foster parents.

No, they would be forced to prove a negative. That is completely impossible. The supporters of the ban have to prove their proposal is viable and positive. Which, btw, the fostering network does not agree with.

Quote

Quote

And then you have the hypocrisyof banning one unhealthy choice and not banning another.

A strawman argument isn't hypocrisy. Sorry, but it had to be said.

Show me how my statement is a strawman.

Quote

Quote

Quote

We don't know if this ban might help some smokers quit the habit, which would be a good thing.

Funny, the foster experts do not seem to agree with you.

Um, the article said nothing about foster experts having an opinion on helping foster parents to quit smoking. The only statement about giving up smoking was "Existing foster carers who smoke will be given help to give up. " No opinion on this was given.

The article I am looking right now at (the telegraph) has said exactly the opposite. See the quoted text above.

Quote

Quote

How was my statement black and white?

Oh brother.

The only one who has advocated a strong black and white position is you in this thread when you spoke out in favor of a blanket ban.

Quote

Quote

Do you agree that being overweight is a serious health risk?

Can we get off strawmen and actually focus on the question at hand?

No, I'd like for you to actually answer the question. Would you support a ban against people with unhealthy lifestyles?

Quote

If someone is starving in my town, do I say that there are more people starving in China and because of that I can't give him any food? Smoking in foster homes is a problem. They're dealing with that problem.

And they are dealing with it in a wrong way.

Quote

Quote

Seriously, are you drunk or stoned right now?

This is your second personal attack against someone in this thread.

As if your thinly veiled accusations of me not having read the article are any better. In any case, if I have hurt your feelings in any way, I apologize.

Quote

Quote

Yes, because axe-murderes are totally the same as smokers  :sarcasm:.

It's called hyperbole.

I didn't recognize it as such, but if you say it is, alright then.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#20 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:07 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Actually, the group that called for someting to be done, has said the following:

Right; they said that it was a "good move". That's not "speaking out against it".

Quote

Which is exactly the same thing I have been saying all along. A blanket ban is not the right thing to do.

Note what else it said in your article: "Redbridge council said the new policy, which does not extend to private foster carers" So much for a "blanket ban".

Quote

No, they would be forced to prove a negative.

Paul, I don't think your rhetoric is helping. You charged me with a job that wasn't mine; I merely pointed that out.

Quote

Show me how my statement is a strawman.

You're saying that because something isn't being done about one [arguably] perceived problem that we should just ignore another.

Quote

The article I am looking right now at (the telegraph) has said exactly the opposite. See the quoted text above.

I repeat. No statement was made by The Fostering Network about a smoking cessation program for foster parents. You can't say that the opposite was said when they didn't address the matter at all.

Quote

The only one who has advocated a strong black and white position is you in this thread when you spoke out in favor of a blanket ban.

1) it's not a blanket ban.
2) all I said was that it wasn't a stupid idea
3) you're the one who is saying that there shouldn't be a blanket ban; sounds pretty black and white to me.

Quote

And they are dealing with it in a wrong way.

That honestly sounds like a black and white statement to me.

Quote

I didn't recognize it as such, but if you say it is, alright then.

The simple fact is that smoking is harmful to children. What if it was a guy who is a great father, but at the end of every night, he slaps the child in the face. Is that any better?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health, Smoking, 2008

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users