|
|
Please note that any comments expressed in these forum posts do not reflect the opinions of Medical News Today in any way at all. Opinions posted in this forum do not constitute medical
advice, which should be sought from qualified medical advisers. Disclaimer.
Smoking In Cars With Children Present
posted by Thomas Laprade on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:28 pm
I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.
Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.
If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.
On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.
This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.
If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.
We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.
And more:
Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;
Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
Owning a wood-burning stove;
Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;
Not boiling their babies'’ bottles before serving them milk;
Not breastfeeding their infants;
Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;
Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;
Serving alcohol at a party;
Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and
Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.
One could easily argue that 'If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.
The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one's children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?
I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.
It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Read the news article that this opinion was posted about:
Aim Is To Ensure Canadians "Butt Out" When Driving In Cars With Kids
I Feel Sorry For Thomas' Children
posted by Julie Morgan on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:06 am
I feel sorry for Thomas' children.
I am 16. I have a friend whose father reminds me of Thomas. He is sanctimonious, argumentative, and has his children and wife totally dominated. He is a bully and does whatever he likes. However, he makes the rest of the family feel guilty about this. He is an expert in making people feel guilty about complaining about his drinking.
I hate parents who bible bash and IQ bash - they are bullies. They use their superior intelligence to make others feel stupid.
People like Thomas should not be allowed to have children or be teachers!!
I Agree - Thomas Sucks!!
posted by Peter Jarvis on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:12 am
Well said. Thomas sucks!! Whoever fights for the rights of adults to smoke in cars with kids is a bully and hates children. THOMAS - YOU SUCK!!
Peter 15.
Discrimination Against Children
posted by Alan Pritchard on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:16 am
It is disgusting to see an adult pontificate in such horrific ways. Thomas, stay away from children with your cancer sticks!!!!!!!!!
I am sending his letter to all children I know!! Defending the right to smoke in cars with children because there is no law to prosecute people from sterilizing baby bottles - talk about fascism against children.
Thomas - you are sick!!!! Sick!!! Sick!!!! Children cannot defend themselves. I bet you would not smoke if it were a 300 pound non-smoker in the car. But children - of course!!!
Alan 17
A Concerned Smoker
posted by Veronica Rodriguez on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:23 am
I smoke, and I am a parent. I know for a fact that children hate parents smoking in their cars. I have asked some friends, who are smokers and have kids whether they smoke when their children are in the car. None of us do.
I am very concerned about the children of Thomas. I hope their well-being, mental as well as physical is being protected. It is not only a question of throwing statistics, etc, at children. Most children hate cigarette smoke, especially in cars. To continue smoking, regardless of whether there is or not proof about physical harm, is bullying. It is a total disregard for children rights and an insidious form of mental abuse against children.
Shame on you Thomas. How selfish and convoluted you have become - I suggest you give up smoking, it has made you very slimy and devious.
Smoking In Cars???
posted by Thomas Laprade on 22 Jan 2008 at 9:36 am
Crack open the window and put the air intake at 'full'
The smoke is sucked out of the window
Simple solution eh!
Horrific
posted by Yayoi Zakamura on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:44 am
I am from Japan. I am 18 years old. I smoke, my mother smoke and father smoke. During all my childhood my mother and father never smoked in car. It is clear, logical, and polite. Children do not like smoking in cars. Adults are responsible for children's health, and happiness.
Thomas!! If the health problem is not convincing you. OK. But you are making children very sad with your aggressive and unfair standpoint. It is your duty, as an adult, to protect children's happiness. I repeat - children do not like smoking in cars. Smoke in car, unhappy children, smoke in car, unhappy children. Earth to Thomas - Earth to Thomas - Penny dropped?????
Farting In Car With Children In Car
posted by Harriet Cummings on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:50 am
Farting in a car with children in a car does not damage their health. Therefore I will continue farting non-stop in my car. As it is not killing my children, I have the right to fart in my car. I will eat lots of beans, hold the air in, wait till the children get in - and then fart, fart fart.
There are no studies that prove children do not like the smell of farting in cars - therefore I have the right to fart in a car when there are children in it. I will only stop stinking the car when there is a new law that prosecutes parents who do not make sure children have enough exercise.
As I said - farting in a car does not harm children's health. Also vomiting in the car.....
I Will Buy A Skunk
posted by Erica Van Drunsen on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:55 am
I am going to buy a skunk. I will train it to stink when Thomas is in the car. Skunk smell does not kill. If Thomas wants fresh air, he can open a window.
I think there are no studies proving that two skunks in a car damage health. I can train two skunks.
Thomas should be given a medal for pioneering the rights of children.
Erica - 14
Keep Him Away From My School
posted by Pamela on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am
Keep that horrible man away from my school!!!
When I Grow Up
posted by James on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:00 am
When I grow up I am going to have a big sign in my car that says NO SMOKING. Last year my mother dropped a cigarette while driving. We nearly crashed. My mother is just like Thomas. If I tell her to not smoke in car she freaks out and screams at me. Once she hit me very hard. I am now 15, next time I will not let her hit me.
Smoking Is OK if..
posted by Maurice on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:07 am
Smoking is OK if the person in front of you does not mind. The problem is that children are afraid of telling an adult not to smoke. Children have no choice. Adults have a choice. If an adult does not like cigarettes in front of him he tells the smoker, and the smoker respects that, especially if the non-smoker is big and strong.
Should not children have some rights as well. I printed Thomas' letter out to the class, 32 children aged 13, and asked how many of them do not mind if a person smokes in a car while they are in it - only 2 kids do not mind.
I think the rights of children are just as valid as yours, don't you Thomas?
Opening Window Is Selfish
posted by Alan on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:17 am
Opening a window is selfish. My dad smokes in the car. We live in Canada. When he takes me to school, which is not often thank god, I sit in the back and get freezing cold wind straight in my face. As he sits in the front he does not get it. It is horrible, horrible horrible. He is so selfish, there is nothing I can do.
On some days a friends Dad drives us to school. It is great. He smokes, but not in the car. The car is nice and warm and does not smell disgusting!!!
I would prefer a farter driving my car than a smoker.
Smoking In Cars
posted by Tom on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:49 am
Hate and discrimination should not be tolerated in a democratic society
What And Who Will Be Next ?
posted by Steve Hartwell on 22 Jan 2008 at 2:17 pm
> I hate parents who bible bash and IQ bash - they are bullies. They use their superior intelligence to make others feel stupid.
"I Hate" - that's exactly what Anti-Smoking is teaching our children today.
In my humble opinion, this child should feel stupid, as should all adults who believe the anti-smoking Junk Science claims about Second Hand Tobacco Smoke. It is the fanatic anti-smoking parents who are the bullies.
There has never been a study proving that exposure to smoke kills or harms anyone.
Average smoker exhales less than 500 milligrams of Second Hand Smoke per day. Average car exhales more than 2.2 MILLION milligrams of Second Hand Smoke per day. It is Cars that need banning, not tobacco smokers.
The global news industry is refusing to report that many researchers, scientists, even doctors and politicians, do NOT believe the anti-smoking claims about Second Hand Tobacco Smoke.
Smoking bans dramatically increase the dehumanization of smokers, increase the hatred of smokers, falsely convicts smokers as murderers without due process of law, violating constitutional rights, and unjustifiably undermines and destroys the parent-child relationship, family, friends, and work relationships.
Cars, Apartments, Condos, Private Homes Smoking Bans will create Smokers' Ghettos. Anti-Smoking is now indisputabely become Discrimination and Persecution.
Anti-smoking is turning today's children in to Hitler Youth, ready to do whatever they feel like to those they have been brainwashed in to hating, and get away with it because they cannot be tried as adults. I very much fear what they will do when they get to be adults themselves.
What's next ? Internment Camps and drive-by Executions ? and -- Who's Next ?.
Steve Hartwell, Toronto, Canada.
Smoking Is OK If..
posted by Ray on 22 Jan 2008 at 2:44 pm
This is in reply to Maurice's comment.
The rights of children are valid just the same as anyone else's. Will the rights of the two children who don't mind the smoking be protected? Will the smoker's right be protected? In this day and age of anti-tobacco hype?
As you say, some people do not mind. So why the need for government intervention and how far are we going to let it go? Will we next have to start legislating the banning of smokers from their own homes just because enough people think it stinks? Or because they saw enough commercials on TV?
The Rights Of The Two Who Don't Mind
posted by Maurice on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:04 pm
The rights of the two who don't mind versus the rights of the majority who do mind.
What a leap to then talk about the freedom of the adult to smoke while having the children in a very confined space.
I put it to Ray that in this very unfair world of today, such niceities do not exist. If you are in a car, and the other adult is bigger than you, stronger than you, and does not like the smell of smoke, then you will respect his rights because you are afraid of what he might do to you if you upset him.
That same fear is present among us - children - but the other way round when an adult lights up and we are either not consulted (say nothing for fear) or consulted and accept it verbally (don't say no, the adult is bigger than me).
If you were talking about adult with adult, I would accept your argument. However, you are talking about children.
The two who don't mind have their rights protected either way. They don't mind - this does not mean they are not urging adults to smoke in a car when they are passengers.
However, for the other children the majority who do mind, they are urging, asking for something. They mind!!
There Has Never Been A Study Proving That Exposure To Smoke Kills Or Harms Anyone
posted by David on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:11 pm
The same is true about farting. If you fart in a car it does not harm the health of the other people. But not many people like it, except for the person who is farting.
The same can be said about vomiting. If I vomit in the car, the health of my children is not affected.
However, children have rights. Just as adults do.
Steve - go to my school, the school next to mine, and the school next to that one. Ask ALL of the children whether they would like cigarette smoking banned in cars. Nearly all of them will say yes. The reason is very simple. Children, the majority of them, hate the smell of cigarettes in cars - however, they are too small and physically weak to do anything about it.
Steve
Go to a school, and find out. For once in your life, get out of your armchair and make eye contact with a group of 200 or 400 kids. Then you will see. We are not stupid. We understand democracy, and we also understand bullying - we see bullying everyday in the school playground. We understand abuse and tricks and things like that. We can tell the difference much faster than an adult can - much faster.
The Health Consequences Of Involuntary Exposure To Tobacco Smoke: A Report Of The Surgeon General
posted by Dr. Gerard Fourniere on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:24 pm
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/
Click on the one titled
Chapter 1. Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions (PDF) (313KB)
For a quick synopsis.
Then read the other documents.
Children's Health
posted by Michelle on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:03 pm
There is a thing that all Canadian adults know in our hearts and haven't really expressed publicly. Oh once in awhile, someone will say something like "what is happening with children today, with all the available health care and good nutrition, they just aren't as healthy as we were" and "why do so many children have asthma and life-threatening allergies?
And its true. Since the 1960s, the incident rate for childhood asthma has increased by 640 %. Peanut butter has been banned from public schools for fear of life threatening allergic reactions. Peanut butter? The stuff we ate by the gallon!
This despite the fact that smoking rates and the rate at which children are exposed to SHS has decreased by over 50 %. It is reported that 72 % of all Canadian homes are now smoke-free!
Well the truth is that the evolution of man is such that we have always been exposed to the smoke generated by burning organic materials like wood, oil and coal. Tobacco is just another organic material.
Children today are not exposed to SHS as children have been for a millenia. Their developing immune systems are simply not being sufficiently challenged to develop properly.
Here’s the conclusion from a 32-year population-based cohort study, published on December 3, 2007 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at http://www.jacionline.org/article/PIIS0091674907019549/abstract
‘’Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.’’
So if you are a healthy kid with no risk of living with a debilitating and life-threatening disease like asthma and you have no allergies, make sure and say thank-you to your smoking parent!
What the child posters on this site fail to appreciate is that it is NOT the governments role to interfere in parental autonomy where there is no evidence of harm to the child.
Anti-smoking isn't the first time that the government has sought to intrude in the parent-child relationship. Hitler did it with his youth corp. He convinced children that their personal health was not a private matter. That they owed a duty to the state to be healthy. He convinced them to snitch on their own parents and tore the family unit apart.
The family unit is the core of any society. Our bodies and our children DO NOT belong to the state! Any society which has convinced youth to stand apart from their families have ultimately and very quickly descended into chaos.
In more recent times, perhaps you will remember that the government decided that native people didn't make good parents and that children should be removed to residential schools. The children so traumatized and unconnected from their families that they could never really re-connect. The harm inflicted will affect generations of natives. Perhaps you might want to google this incident to give you a real picture of what happens when the government interferes with parental autonomy.
There are many many things in life that are uncomfortable and unfair. Guess what - it works two ways! Your parents are sometimes discomforted by your behavior and the responsibility of your care. But they soldier on because they love you. And every adult understands that living with someone, no matter how much you love the, is sometimes inconvenient and uncomfortable.
So the next time your parents take the time to bring you camping, and you gather around the campfire breathing in clouds and clouds of smoke or the next time your parents fire up the barbeque and you stand around breathing in all the contaminants - remember that the smoke from burning 0.45 grams of dried leaves isn't the worst discomfort that you have to endure in life and it probably isn't the worst discomfort that you have inflicted on your parents.
There is only one reason for governments to regulate the private behavior of parents around their children. That is - if it is truly believed that the behavior causes actual harm to the child. It is inappropriate to pass out fines for harming your child. And claims that having to be exposed to SHS in the absence of any pre-existing disease simply do not meet that definition.
There is only one appropriate response that society has for parents who harm their children. That is - for the child to be separated from the family!
Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it!
I love you and I respect you all but you are being sorely manipulated by some very unscrupulous people. I know that you are all smart enough to do your own research. Please feel free to explore websites that they don't want you to see.
Michelle
Do Some Research Before You Spew
posted by Vince Harden on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:08 pm
The preponderance of the evidence shows that there isn't a statistical risk from second hand smoke (aka ETS).The World Health Org. study released in 1998 not only confirms this but also states "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
The U.S. Dept. of Labor,Occupational Safety & Health Administration finds that tobacco smoke falls well within permissible exposure limits.
Smoking bans kill people.There are also the ban caused rapes,robberies and assaults to consider.
According to the American Cancer Society,using a Center for Disease Control study,exposure to shs/ets had dropped by 70% before there were many smoking bans.
To state that there will be health care savings as a result of smoking bans or increased tobacco taxation is misleading.According to The New England Journal of Medicine,there may be a short term reduction,but in the long term there will be a cost increase.This is because non-smokers are the greater health care cost when compared to smokers. Smoking bans are preventing any short term health care savings.The American Cancer Society has noted that the decline in the smoking rate has stalled since the advent of smoking bans.Seeing as the normal decline in the smoking rate is 1% to 3% per year,it would appear that the smoking bans have caused less people to quit smoking. Similarly,the smoking rate in Canada has only declined a total of 1% in the 3 year period that smoking bans have been in effect.(2004-2006)
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/15/1052
Smoking is just one of tens of thousands of triggers of asthma attacks.If you are seriously trying to remove causes of asthma,then stop doctors from prescribing antibiotics to children.
"Heart attacks among cigarette smokers may have less to do with tobacco than genetics. A common defect in a gene controlling cholesterol metabolism boosts smokers' risk of an early heart attack, according to a new study. The findings also show that smokers without the defect normally have heart attacks no sooner than their non-smoking peers."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ rele...71219143050.htm
"Personal monitoring of nonsmokers indicates that their average ETS exposure from a smoking spouse is equivalent in terms of nicotine exposure to smoking less than 0.1 cigarettes per day."
"Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association."
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi...e/pmid; 16399662
Why would you believe the anti-smokers, a side that has been found in a U.S. federal court of "faking" evidence in the past? (they're still trying to use this "evidence" today.) Would Sir Richard Doll,whom many people consider the "father" of the anti-tobacco movement,have stated "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."-if he considered shs/ets a threat? Or how about the American Council on Science & Health.They also are definately anti-tobacco."There is no evidence that any New Yorker -- patron or employee -- has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant."
The study used when New Jersey banned hand held cell phones in cars showed that everything considered was a greater risk of causing an accident than smoking.That includes the children.It has been found that "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children." (National MCH Center for Child Death Review ) I suppose that solves the manufactured problem.Since kids are the cause of many accidents and to really lower their death toll,children should be banned from being in cars.(Also wives,radios, cell phones,cd players,etc.,etc.)
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesMV.htm
The Winnipeg Free Press put this ban nonsense in proper perspective when an editorial stated "The NDP government is in a bind because the law was imposed to appease a noisy anti-smoking lobby, not to protect health."
That should cover most,if not all,of the usual claims made by the antismokers.
Second Hand Smoke And Infants
posted by Oscar on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:18 pm
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and sensitisation in children
Eva Lannerö and team
Institute of Environmental Medicine, KI, Sweden
Clinical and Allergy Unit, Department of medicine, KI, Sweden
Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Sweden
British Medical Journal (link below)
http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/thx.2007.079053v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Lannero&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Conclusions: Our data indicate that exposure in early infancy to ETS increases the risk of IgE-sensitisation to indoor inhalant and food allergens.
MRI Shows Lung Damage In Passive Smokers
posted by Erica Goldsmith on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:23 pm
A special type of MRI scan that uses colours to show damaged and undamaged areas of the lung has been used to show that non smokers suffer injury to their lungs from being exposed to second hand cigarette smoke for a long period of time. (continues at link below)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/89957.php
Secondhand Smoke Increases Teen Test Failure
posted by Maria Gonzalez on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:32 pm
Secondhand Smoke Increases Teen Test Failure
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83173.php
World Health Organization
posted by Dr. Niel on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:40 pm
Second hand tobacco smoke
Parties recognise that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.
Quoted from World Health Organization document that can be found below
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/
Shut Up Those Who Hate Thomas
posted by Teamica on 24 Nov 2009 at 9:03 pm
You are all so stupid. You are writing to post your position on the topic; not on him. The whole government and legislation has already posted this bill. Everywhere you search it goes on about how it is a good idea for today's future (the children.) Thomas was the 1 person there who did NOT say yes to it. Well SORRRRYY! Get over it.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
