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

#61 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:15 PM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

View PostSparkyCola, on Nov 5 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

Broph- do you believe that a blanket ban is the right thing to do? Or do you think that occasional smokers should be allowed in for consideration?

I don't think we'll get them, but I'd like to know the numbers. How many kids are being affected, how many smokers, etc.

A foster home may be better than an orphanage, but I'd hate to think that the health of some kids are put at risk.

But people do change - what if someone is an occasional smoker when interviewed, but starts smoking heavily after taking on foster kids?


The same argument goes the other way as well - what if someone who is a heavy smoker cuts down and becomes an occasional smoker?
"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

#62 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:58 PM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

^But it's the same argument that I give regarding smoking in a restaurant. Why should the roof over their head and the food on their table come at the cost of having to breathe someone else's smoke?

This isn't about the smoker. It's about the kids.


Odd I seem to remember peoiple here saying they were not worried to much about the truck or Bus with it's thick ploom of smoke hitting them in the face but let the smoke from asingle ciggarette get near them and suddenly it is like watching bad acting 101. The chock and retching.

Odd when that ploom has within it a few hundred tiomes the contents of the tobacco.

But hey lets making so smokers cannot have a children in their homes  or smoke in anyplace where anyone can possible ever go to.

In short this is the next stpe to only blonde haired  blue eyed people can have children or raise them. Or be on the planet with them.
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.

#63 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:06 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Nov 5 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Nov 5 2008, 06:46 AM, said:

A Good call. It keeps them from the second hand smoke, and helps prevent the kids from the example.


Yep, let's just hope the kids don't starve on the streets, rather then have people who can provide for them and care for them. Yep, some would rather these kids starve, have to fend for themselves, rather then be fostered by the evil incarnate smokers.

Not saying that you are one of those people, Kosh. But there are some out there like that.


There are always extremist, and i see your point.

I learned to smoke from relitives, and I suspect that is where most of it starts. My Uncle ended up dieing of Lung Cancer, and i miss the guy to this day. Wonderful man, you could ask for more from an Uncle, and he married into the family.

Things Kids need to learn not to do, Overeating, Smoking, Drinking/Drugs. Even the ones who can handle it and not go nuts and kill somoen else or themselves end up spening Megabucks. I'd love to have the money back that I've put into Drink/Drug/Smoking over the years. I could buy that Tesla.
Can't Touch This!!

#64 LaughingVulcan

LaughingVulcan

    Isn't it about time you got a little more LV in your life?

  • Islander
  • 3,445 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:18 PM

The other wheat-from-chaff aspect is this:

Who says that foster kids would be exposed to secondhand smoke?

Me, I go outside, and the PNBW rightfully rails hard on me if I come in early enough that she can *smell* the cigarette odor -- let alone actual smoking.  Many smokers I know do not smoke inside their homes.

If I had a foster child (or a child borne by my wife) I'd do my damndest to not expose the to the smoke products.  In fact, I'd do my damndest to quit, but haven't been able to do so yet for Nikki's sake.  And I'd let said child know why I started smoking, how, how it makes me feel some mornings, what's bad about it and why, and what addiction feels like.

In fact, it's what I did with my two nephews and niece.  And despite having two grandparents who smoke (smoked for my late father,) two parents who smoke (my brother-in-law has since quit,) and their only uncle on the Mom's side who still does smoke....  They don't smoke.

Smart kids, them.  And not every kid of a smoker ends up smoking.

I'd offer the right of choice to the kid to turn the potential foster down because of smoking, and require the kids to not be exposed to it.

Then what would the problem be?
Posted Image
Nikki's Loving LV.  Property of the PPD.  Aka "Mr. Peppermint"
The Vulcan-Pixie alliance is strong.

#65 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:47 PM

View PostG1223, on Nov 5 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Odd I seem to remember peoiple here saying they were not worried to much about the truck or Bus with it's thick ploom of smoke hitting them in the face

Buses don't drive in my living room.

Quote

Odd when that ploom has within it a few hundred tiomes the contents of the tobacco.

The killer in exhaust is carbon monoxide. Smoke has carcinogens.

#66 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:24 PM

I think there's a difference between setting an example and actually exposing someone to a toxic substance.

That said, it's pretty radical imo.

Is the next step to disallow smokers from HAVING children the natural way?
Posted Image

#67 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:38 PM

View PostLaughingVulcan, on Nov 6 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

I'd offer the right of choice to the kid to turn the potential foster down because of smoking, and require the kids to not be exposed to it.

Then what would the problem be?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  Loving foster parents who maybe smoke outside or no foster parents?  

I know I suffer from my mother's smoking - also from the fact that in college they let people smoke in the larger lecture halls, not to mention restaurants, dorms, etc. etc.  (1960's)  Still, I had parents and a stable home life, so that part was a fair trade.  I've skipped a few pages here, but we are talking fostering, not adopting, or are the terms interchangeable?  In the US kids can go from one foster home to another.   If the kid is old enough to make a reasonable and informed choice, let it be the kid's choice.  We can't protect kids from everything without putting them in plastic bubbles - at some point they need to be exposed to the real world and make their choices.  Kids are exposed to smoking by peer groups, movies, tv, etc. etc., so even if the foster parents have never so much as touched tobacco, doesn't mean the kid won't try it.  I like Laughing Vulcan's approach.
Cats will never be extinct!

#68 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 11:31 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Nov 5 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

Is the next step to disallow smokers from HAVING children the natural way?

I don't see why it wouldn't be. The PC crowd is doing everything in it's power to stigmatize smokers....The next logical step, in their warped way of thinking, will be to eliminate any chance of reproducing. Cause in their minds, children of smokers will become smokers, so better just to not let any be born.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#69 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 09:38 AM

Quote

I don't see why it wouldn't be. The PC crowd is doing everything in it's power to stigmatize smokers....The next logical step, in their warped way of thinking, will be to eliminate any chance of reproducing. Cause in their minds, children of smokers will become smokers, so better just to not let any be born.

There's a lot wrong with this statement. A LOT. I can't guarantee I'll go through it methodically either...

First of all, this has nothing to do with setting an example, and that's a major place you're going wrong. Secondhand smoke isn't a bad example, it's PHYSICALLY HARMFUL to a child. It has ZERO, note, ZERO to do with a child possibly becoming a smoker. I can't tell you just how much I think it has absolutely *nothing* to do with that, whatsoever. I think I've made my point on that one....

Now. Onto the "PC" crowd's *omgwarped* attempts to protect children from serious lung damage (eeevil eevil people...). Obviously the use of hyperbole or logic is going to be dangerous here, and it's almost certain to get misinterpreted no matter how many disclaimers are on it. But I'll try anyway. Smokers are not drunks. I can't state it any more plainly than that. If you choose to interpret what follows as anything else, that's your own problem. It really is.

Your argument is absurd, sorry Lil. I'll show you why, by showing that the logic you use, can be applied to a situation which is *patently absurd*.

The News: They're stopping drunks from fostering children.
Lil: What?! What the hell's next- stopping drunks from HAVING children?!
LotS: Well that's the logical next step to these warped people.

How ridiculous is that argument? Utterly.

And I don't wanna HEAR the "b-but you're comparing smokers to drunks." - re-read until you understand that IS NOT what I'm doing by any stretch. I'm using your logic in a different situation and showing that it's clearly not true. If you can't use it above- you can't use it with smokers either.

So no, LotS, it is NOT the next logical step in my "warped" mind. Children with natural parents face luck of the draw. They might get great parents, they might get crappy parents. But children in orphanages- they can be protected from that. They have carers who can say "Actually, no. This child is going to have parents who meet a suitable standard.". What's wrong with that? If you have a chance to protect a child from that, why wouldn't you? Crappy parents are better than no parents is NOT a good argument.

Drunks don't meet that standard. Where's your indignation? Come on. I want to see you defending the civil rights of poor alcoholics- who MADE A CHOICE to drink, just as smokers make a choice to smoke, and now want to inflict harm on children, and can't take it when someone tells them they have to change first. They have another choice. Smoke, or child. Alcohol, or child. Anything harmful to a child, OR child. You can't have it both ways. Choose. The children made a choice too. Their health, or a new home (which may or may not turn out well for them. The alternative is not the street. Stop with that strawman already. It's the orphanage, or another foster home.). You're disgusted with them for prioritising their health. For children, I'm impressed that they understand how important their health is. Good on them.

I've already said I'm not for a blanket ban. If you try to make my views on this black and white- I don't wanna hear it. If you start Godwinising or Orwellising or using excessive rhetoric or strawmen - I don't wanna hear it. And you probably won't get a response from me if you do those things. I really haven't any time for such tactics. So debate, I know full well you have something interesting and thoughtful to contribute here, you always do, only so far you've let outrage get the better of you. But I'm not a warped freak, and that's something you have to deal with before you can debate with me.

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

#70 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 10:13 AM

Quote

Odd I seem to remember peoiple here saying they were not worried to much about the truck or Bus with it's thick ploom of smoke hitting them in the face but let the smoke from asingle ciggarette get near them and suddenly it is like watching bad acting 101.

Signs hanging around WV schools now read "Idle Free Zone."


http://www.wvdtp.org...e Free Zone.pdf
Can't Touch This!!

#71 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 10:17 AM

View PostSparkyCola, on Nov 6 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

So no, LotS, it is NOT the next logical step in my "warped" mind. Children with natural parents face luck of the draw. They might get great parents, they might get crappy parents. But children in orphanages- they can be protected from that. They have carers who can say "Actually, no. This child is going to have parents who meet a suitable standard.". What's wrong with that? If you have a chance to protect a child from that, why wouldn't you? Crappy parents are better than no parents is NOT a good argument.

First things first. I said in the Politically Correct crowd....I did not say you. If you consider yourself to be "in the PC crowd" that's your decision and call. I don't do PC...period.

Quote

Drunks don't meet that standard. Where's your indignation? Come on. I want to see you defending the civil rights of poor alcoholics- who MADE A CHOICE to drink, just as smokers make a choice to smoke, and now want to inflict harm on children, and can't take it when someone tells them they have to change first. They have another choice. Smoke, or child. Alcohol, or child. Anything harmful to a child, OR child. You can't have it both ways.

As for alcohol....Don't even get me started on that one. Have you lived witha alcoholic parent? I have. I know exactly what alcoholism does. So don't even go there...I don't want to hear it. But, then again, I'll admit I'm biased when it comes to alcoholism in the home. Are you biased when it comes to smoking in the home? (serious question)

Quote

I've already said I'm not for a blanket ban. If you try to make my views on this black and white- I don't wanna hear it. If you start Godwinising or Orwellising or using excessive rhetoric or strawmen - I don't wanna hear it. And you probably won't get a response from me if you do those things. I really haven't any time for such tactics. So debate, I know full well you have something interesting and thoughtful to contribute here, you always do, only so far you've let outrage get the better of you. But I'm not a warped freak, and that's something you have to deal with before you can debate with me.

Sparky

I'm against ANY ban....And the MAIN reason is because it gives Gov/Big Brother powers they should never have. If they are allowed to come in and say: "You can't foster kids because you smoke"...it's not a very far step from: "You can't HAVE kids if you smoke"....Why you don't see that is beyond me.

The bottom line is it should be the PARENTS, or foster parents, decision....Not some government telling you what to do in your own home. I'm a die hard smoker....probably always will be. But there are times I will not smoke. I have 2 newborn nieces, one of which I am Godfather to. With one, the parents don't smoke...so when I'm around them, or the baby, I don't smoke. I even had the child in MY car...and didn't smoke. Even though I could've I respected the parents wishes that there be no smoking around the child.

With the other niece, the parents smoke...but not around the kid. When they want to smoke, they go outside. Same with me.

Now if they were over my place, would I smoke in the house? Honestly, not sure...I do know it definately would not be in the same room...I might go into a different room, or if the weather was nice outside...but that would be MY CHOICE. Not some government coming in and telling me what I could and could not do in my own house...especially when it is something legal. I can see the government saying: "You can't make Meth in your house." "You can't kidnap and torture people in your house", ect...those activities are illegal. But legal ones....they have no RIGHT to say what you can do, regarding legal activities.

But, then again, IMO, the fanatical PC crowd will stop at nothing short of telling smokers they can't smoke at all, no matter where. And if you consider yourself one of them...then you and I will be disagreeing til the end of time.

I will NOT sit by and say nothing while smokers are being stigmatized and made into second class citizens.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#72 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 10:37 AM

^ I may respond in more depth later, but I just wanted to say a big *thank you* first :hugs: That's exactly the kind of response I was hoping for, I will give it the time and thought it deserves in response later (when I have more time) except this one's easy to answer:

Quote

As for alcohol....Don't even get me started on that one. Have you lived witha alcoholic parent? I have. I know exactly what alcoholism does. So don't even go there...I don't want to hear it. But, then again, I'll admit I'm biased when it comes to alcoholism in the home. Are you biased when it comes to smoking in the home? (serious question)

No, neither of my parents smoked or drank excessively.

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

#73 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 11:34 AM

There is a difference between alcohol in the home and alcoholism in the home.  

Children of smokers don't necessarily become smokers - I hated my mother's smoking (and she was nowhere near a chain smoker) so much I refused to even try it.  

It's the luck of the draw for natural-born children, and I don't think that will or should ever change.  But in this thread we're talking about children who are legally wards of the state, so the state has both the right and the duty to safeguard their health.   While I think it should be according to the individual circumstances, a decision to not place a child in a home with smokers isn't that different from not placing a child in a home with faulty electrical wiring, lead-based paint or a resident pit bull.  


A tangent might be not-so-natural children - in vitro, etc. where medical help is necessary to get the child started.  I suppose a doctor could refuse services to smokers, which would be as much a decision of conscience as medical decisions about birth control.
Cats will never be extinct!

#74 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 11:39 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Nov 5 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

You know, I can't wait for the day that the US elects a President who is a smoker.

Well Clinton did.  Though he didn't inhale....;)

Also I have to object to certain characterizations about alcoholism too.

I understand that there is such a thing as pre-screening both for fostering and adoption.

But I honestly think that unless they're going to start policing parenting across the board except in extreme circumstances that this is an extremely slippery slope.
Posted Image

#75 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 11:56 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Nov 6 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on Nov 5 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

You know, I can't wait for the day that the US elects a President who is a smoker.

Well Clinton did.  Though he didn't inhale....;)

Clinton got smoked, if you know what I mean ;)

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.


#76 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:04 PM

:blink: :blink: :blink:  

Oh no you DIDN'T!!!!!!!
Posted Image

#77 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:18 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Nov 6 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

:blink: :blink: :blink:  

Oh no you DIDN'T!!!!!!!

watcha going to do about it ;)

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.


#78 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:24 PM

^You mean besides clamoring for a congressional investigation into the dangers of getting smoked?
"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

#79 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 November 2008 - 12:26 PM

I guess that would depend on whether there exists an abuse of smoke enjoyment enhancing substances....

:insanosmile:
Posted Image



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