Well said, Dr. Mike! The thought that the anti-smoking movement buys into the classism of which the tobacco companies have been guilty for years (specifically targeting low-income neighborhoods with their billboards,etc.) is frightening. Excellent post!
Your country has been plagued by serious racial issues until very recently, so defining them as racists may be perceived inappropriate. But i would like to note that the mechanism at work is always the same. A group of people that consider themselves 'superior' against some 'inferiors', to the point that it consider ok to mandate their behaviour and to punish them harshly if they not comply.
I'd be interested in links to studies about prevalence of smoking by socioeconomic classes. Anybody?
I think this is really at the heart of what's going on. I think that the reversal of attitudes about tobacco and alcohol in the last 80 years are precisely because of the demographics. In the 1920's alcohol was perceived to be a poor man's bad habit, and tobacco a rich man's. Now the drinking/smoking classes have been reversed (or at least that's the perception) and so has the target of the prohibition.
The WORST thing that could happen to the tobacco prohibitionists would be that people stop perceiving smoking as something that poor folks do, but rather as a "sinful pleasure" for the rich. And as they tighten the screws more and more on the ability of working class people to smoke, that is in fact how the public will start to see smoking; as an expensive luxury that only a lucky few have the means to do.
Benpal-
In 2002, the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. among those with a college degree was 10%. Among those with just a high school degree and no college attendance it was 28%. And among those with no high school degree, 31%.
These data are from the National Center for Health Statistics. They show a huge disparity in smoking by education level. As you go from a college degree to no college attendance, there is a three-fold difference in smoking rates.
This is why I view these efforts to intrude into the home and regulate smoking as being an example of classism.
FWIW, I think the numbers on smoking and education levels are somewhat exaggerated. I don't doubt that there is a corellation, but like so many other smoking related statistics, you really have to take the numbers with a grain of salt.
One more comment from the peanut gallery; I think that class is also the main reason why the justification for smoking bans has gone from effects of years of exposure to much more silly arguments about transient exposure. The fact is, for most people with a college education long term exposure at work is not a relevant issue, since they generally are not employed in restaurants/bars/casinos etc. But they DO enter those places as consumers for limited periods of time. That's why a transient exposure risk is much more sell-able, because in terms of legislation even the slightest possibility of risk to a rich person outweighs a potentially much greater threat to a working class person.
Dr. Siegel, thanks for the information.
Any insight or explanation as to why this is so? Is the prevalence higher because of the lower level of general education (or vice-versa), is it related to the socioeconomic status (I understand that to benefit of higher education, you need to be wealthy in a system where higher level education comes at a cost), conditions of living?
Is it maybe the social pressure lower socioeconomic levels are exposed to (discrimination, non-acceptance in large circles of our society, the feeling of being pushed aside when you are poor? Could it be that the cigarette is kind of the poor man's Prozac?
I think these questions are important, because i think "education" shouldn't be limited to education about the health hazards of tobacco if we really want to get things moving. There's a lot of money around which is in the wrong hands ...
You write: "we ...are going to tell a less privileged and less educated class of citizens (smokers) how to live their lifes.."
I'm sure you didn't mean that "smokers are less educated" as an absolute equation when it comes to judging individuals 
Yes, us smoker's are too stupid and too poor to know what's good for us.
Barf alert.
Benpal-
No - of course I didn't mean that. I'm just stating that on the whole, when you look at the entire population of smokers, they are more likely to have lower levels of education. Your suggested reasons for why this is are good ones, and I'm really not in a situation where I can offer better explanations than the ones you've already given. Your guess is as good as mine, and probably better.
Mike,
You seem reluctant to discuss the parallel discrimination to that of class. Coercive health promotion measures are used to punish people who were victimized and traumatized as children, for having developed medically dysfunctional coping mechanisms and clinging to those coping mechanisms in the face of repeated warnings from the medical community that they are putting their health at risk.
Warnings that are often ignored because those persons continue to be focused on their immediate survival and functionality.
Benpal - here's a good link for you:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/c.../328/7445/914-
e
"Poor more likely to smoke and less likely to quit"
My own observation, based on having lived well below the poverty line for 45 years, is that an important social dynamic continues to elude the awareness of researchers in public health & health promotion.
I have labelled this dynamic "social reciprocity circles". Essentially, persons living well below the poverty line survive in part by developing social circles that engage in the most basic economic activity, amongst themselves, that of reciprocity. I have more than I need of something, so I share it with others in my reciprocity circle. When I have to have something I cannot afford, others in my circle will share their excess (or whatever they can spare) with me.
If you are a lower income substance user (including smokers), your reciprocity circle will likely be centered around the substance. You all act as sources of supply for the other members, and end up making informal yet powerful committments to guaranteeing each other's access to supply. To "quit" being a user of the substance would be a betrayal of the people you most depend on for your own survival - since you can no longer contribute to ensuring the other members access to supply.
I forgot to add, its very likely that you will informally "recruit" anyone who comes within your social network, to be a new user of the substance (you will informally seduce everyone around you into taking up smoking).
This isn't necessarily done consciously, but on some level you are aware that THE MORE USERS YOU KNOW, the more stable your own access to supply will be.
"In 2002, the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. among those with a college degree was 10%. Among those with just a high school degree and no college attendance it was 28%. And among those with no high school degree, 31%."
I think that there is a certain element of lying among the better off. They are the ones which are more likely to have a health insurance, which comes with a bonus if you claim not to smoke tobacco.
People that are financially independant will probably be more prone to admitting to smoking, since they have no immediate gain from lying about it. If I am not much mistaken, about 25 % of movie celebreties admit to smoking. They are clearly in a position to pay for their own health care costs, so have no motive to lie about smoking for insurance purposes.
I expect that the "intelligent" elite traded in their cigarettes for "happy pills"
Ask your doctor about Lexapro..........
My personal experience is exactly what Soren is saying. Better-off smokers are less likely to publically admit to smoking. It's become UNDERSTOOD in many circles that smoking is something you don't acknowledge to your parents or your boss or whomever. It's become more like pot-smoking, something you keep to yourself unless you are with people you know are cool about it.
Robin-
You present a very thoughtful and insightful sociological explanation for smoking behavior. It is exactly this kind of thinking and insight that we need badly in public health. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization has precluded anyone who smokes from a public health career. Clearly, public health itself is going to suffer because of this. The brilliance of your comments on the role of social networks in health behavior is evidence of this. It's people like you that we could really use in public health.
benpal,
In addition to Dr. Siegel's numbers from where he cited them from for 2002, here's numbers from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NSDUH) from the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Office of Applied Studies
Less than high school: 35.2
High school graduate: 32.3
Some college: 29.0
College graduate: 14.5
And from their 2004 National Survey:
34.8
30.4
29.0
13.6
Also from their 2004 survey:
"Cigarette use in the past month in 2004 was reported by 30.5 percent of full-time college students compared with 44.7 percent of those not enrolled full time."
In 2004, past month cigar smoking was less common among male full-time college students aged 18 to 22 (19.3 percent) than among their peers not enrolled full time in college (22.3 percent).
Past month smokeless tobacco use was more common in 2004 among male full-time college students aged 18 to 22 than among their peers not enrolled full time in college (11.1 vs. 8.7 percent).
I just did this great post that got lost. Sigh. One mo time but it won't be as good.
This whole thing follows the pattern that applied to the prohibition and criminalizing of marijuana as explained in a brilliant article "Reefer Madness" that appeared in, I think, the Atlantic about a decade ago. The first trick was to drive it out of the middle clsss (through propaganda) so it then became associated only with lower classes and (mostly Mexican) immigrants. After that it was easier to criminalize it because it had nothing to do with "people like us" but only a despised Them.
Same thing going on with tobacco. Propaganda has driven it out of the middle class (or underground in the middle class) and the impression is being fostered that smoking is only done by the lower orders-- by "addicts" and boors, which paves the way to criminalize it.
As for the demographics, it's the striving classes who, throughout history, have always felt the pressing need to be "genteel," "accdeptable" (or perhaps in today's lingo Politically Correct), who care vitally what People Think, and whose social acceptability and perhaps even financial future may depend on their ability to please and Conform. The rich don't give a damn because they don't have to, and same with those movie stars referred to above (not even Mr Bill could convince a studio to fire a hot property or not cast a comer, and no one'll refuse to invite them to a party). the poor don't give a damn since they haven't much to lose. (Tho their "betters" now deprive them of the comfort of a pint with their mates at the pub.) But they don't care "socially" in the striving class sense. In other words, it's not education per se that I think makes the difference, but rather what people think their education will buy them (advancement in Society.) So yes, these folx are more likely to either quit or, as pointed out , to lie.
Which leaves the Independent and the Inner Directed, who simply don't give a damn by nature. And refuse to be bullied as a matter of principle. Public Health has done them a tremendous disservice by taking the question ("Do I want to smoke/ quit?") entirely out of their hands and making it a question of bullying and force for which they're born to rebel. This is such an obvious psychological fact that it's hard to believe Public Health doesn't know it, and simply isn't willing to sacrifice them to jail, since the bullying and "denormalizing" works so well with the vast middle majority.
John Stuart Mill said something on the subject (tho, in his era, the topic was alcohol). The point was that when society imposed prohibitions the people it would punish and alienate would be the most independent and creative-- ironically, the people it most needed.
Finally, if you've ever seen "Reefer Madness," the "bad" kids smoke weed; the "good" clean cut virtuous kids sit around the malt shop and... smoke cigarettes.
James and Robin, thanks for the info.
Robin, your observations and thoughts about the influence of social circles are quite interesting.
Cocaine is the societal drug of the middle to upper classes along with alcohol,certainly in the UK.Binge drinking is becoming the norm,the old fashioned pint and a fag has been denormalised.Cigarettes do not lead to aggresive behaviour or provide sufficient stimulus to enable the user to lose control.YET THIS IS PROGRESS ?.I suppose that it would be more preferential to be run over by a BMW or ROLLS ROYCE than any old family saloon due to drugged out or tanked up drivers?Public Health does have a lot to answer for.
"Education is the strongest predictor of smoking status." is right up there with the "no safe level", "lethal" dangers of ETS, IMO.
Explanation? Simple: there are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics.
Hatred of the rich or the poor and any other type of identifiable "target group" of non-malicious citizens is always politically-inspired and supported by the "majority" populace ideology of the day. Period. Self-serving haters don't ever go away, they just transfer their hatred to wherever the popular opinion-based support and money is to be gotten currently...today firearms and smoking, tomorrow alcohol (again).
Universal respect for inalienable rights (ie: originating from and beyond government or court interpretation/regulation) such as those to Life, Liberty and Property is the only cure for tyrannical, hatred-based government supported, funded or enforced persecution. The lack of such is the only true society-endangering epidemic in North America.
Mike -
You are very kind. Thank you.
I developed many of my concepts in this area, originally, while observing the spread of Crystal Meth use through my social circles. As I analysed the processes I was observing it occurred to me that I had watched these processes played out before - both with the "at risk" kids I worked with in my younger years, and within my own social network when I was a teen - specifically, with the spread of cigarette smoking.
At one point some friends persuaded me to write out these ideas and share them with important people in public health/ addictions. Very few of those people even bothered to reply at all.
I will send you some more stuff by email when I have a moment to do that. Today I'm taking some streetkid meth-heads to a local diner for a hearty lunch, as I do every Saturday.
Funny, I never see our local anti-smoking fanatics working directly with such street-people, in any capacity. Go figure.
"If anti-smoking groups really want to do something to help children who are exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, then how about offering free smoking cessation services to parents who want to quit smoking? How about using cigarette taxes to help these smokers,..."
How about anti-smoking crusaders just stop forcibly imposing any "help" (which we all know is their holier-than-thou will) on people who have neither asked for help nor want help?
As long as those who ask for or want help are not forcibly prevented from getting it, no further "protection" is required. All true "rights" are "negative" (ie: rights to non-interference for non-malicious behaviour, activity or personal pursuits). Affirmative action "protections" are nothing but special privilege and restrictions on some.
Oh yeah, I forgot...that type of logical response is beyond the Anti-anything mentality! They WILL "win by any means" and always demand absolute conformity by all, to their demands. Bully fanatics, all of 'em.
Robin I have seen this same thing in my area.
Smokes are about $7 - 8.50 a pack around here. If you see someone who has a pack of smokes, they hardly ever pull out only one cigarette. There's always someone, who needs one.
The same people who get paid $7.50 an hour are the most likely people who will give you a smoke! I asked at a social gathering, and got denied. I asked while standing outside a coffee shop, and I was given one. It really is about sharing when your that bad off. One day your out of sugar, you go ask them, the next week their out of instant coffee, they ask you. Been there as well, when college funding got mixed up. I had to wait 9 months for any of the college funds to come in. Thank George for a good landlord, part time job, and room mate.
Linda, you're in Canada, right?
At 7.50 a pack, I'm quite sure that there's a very good market in your location for $5.00 a pack cigarettes.
Didn't this happen the last time that they had driven prices so high?
Yes - native brand cigarettes can be purchased for as little at $15.00 a carton (Canadian money) so its about $16.50 / carton in US money. The premium brands are $32.50 (about $36.00 US) and can be delivered right to your door.
The province of Quebec is admitting to losing about $225 million a year to grey market cigarettes in taxes. Ontario hasn't fessed up yet.
The natives have installed 20 new cigarette machines and have made inroads down to the east coast.
Smuggled cigarettes are also coming in to the western provinces through BC.
Michelle
Yes we do have native brands now, although when this situation occured it was both fully taxed cigarettes. A
The tobacco companies estimate 25% of sales is lost due to smuggling. I think they also forget how many smokers have been "non smokers" according to the survey on the amount of smokers. Some of these smokers have been off the survey radar since 1992. I also know many youth are starting to use nicotine in many different forms. I see many under 30 year olds who now use other sources of nicotine, then cigarettes.
Yet you still hear how the numbers of smokers is only 20%- 2.5 Million smokers- in Ontario (which matches the tax amount nicely), ignoring that theres at least 25% not accounted for. Which I think is a low ball figure, for the amount of grey/ black market cigarettes commonly available, even in the rural area(where I live).
Yet again Mike Siegel has greatly exaggerated and misrepresented the facts by claiming that smoking in homes has been increasingly criminilized.
Criminalization only occurs when US Congress or state legislatures enact laws that classify various activities as crimes and impose criminal penalties on violators.
In contrast, organizational policy changes, administrative changes in regulations, child custody orders and civil penalties are not examples of criminalization.
In other words, a nursing home isn't the elderly's residence?
Yet we keep seeing that increasingly these people have to go up to 25 feet to enjoy a legal habit. While putting their safety, and hearing the theoretical deaths rhetoric on 25 feet danger. How many will really have to die before there's less rhetoric? HOw many people home rights will be lost when extremists put the baby step of any home, not just nursing home in the equation?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/91627...761/
detail.html
"In contrast, organizational policy changes, administrative changes in regulations, child custody orders and civil penalties are not examples of criminalization."
Small comfort for people who are now no longer able to smoke in their own homes.
Bill: "Criminalization only occurs when US Congress or state legislatures enact laws that classify various activities as crimes and impose criminal penalties on violators.
And when it's ONLY a misdemeanor Bill will deny that a felony charge is just around the corner.
Just as he refuses to admit that smoking ban LAWS by the STATE LEGISLATURE that extend to senior citizen HOMES mean anything.
You can put lipstick on your pig and dress it up, Bill, but it's still a pig.
Here's the plan as I see it:
1) lets get no smoking on planes
2) lets get businesses to ban smoking
3) lets get cities, then couties to not allow smoking
4) lets get states
It's all about what I call baby steps, and those steps have been ever increasing and going towards criminalizing of owning tobacco.
In Ontario the next great frontier is the outdoors, and homes. Afterall you have the
Health researcher asking for outdoor bans for Canadian Cancer Association. Then you have 33 of the 36 health units in Ontario dedicated to
smoke free homes agenda.
Is the next baby step they will asking for total criminalization? I would think so. Especialy since extremists don't respect the value of home owners rights, now.
There is no need to criminalize tobacco users.
Here is what needs to happen. Put cigarettes in white packages below the counter with a complete color/picture warning pamphlet inside. Eliminate all advertising and have production managed by a non-profit, eliminating corporations that are highly incentivized to broaden the appeal of their deadly product. Make it illegal to smoke in all public places, around children at parks and in closed up cars, and then let people who are addicted, or those who decide on their own WITHOUT being subjected to advertizing to smoke after they turn 21 if they so choose. Fund aggresive, national anti smoking education programs.
The smoking rate would fall into the single digits, it would save the lives of thousands of people, and billions of dollars in medical expenses. California is moving that direction with their smoking rate around 14%.
The rest of the US is moving that way, but it could take another 50 years or so to do it. Ultimately though, I think smoking is going to be marginalized and the smoking rate reduced to single digits.
The tobacco companies remain effective in slowing this process to a crawl. It is unfortunate for the 85% of smokers who get addicted as teenagers and then die from their mistake years down the line. But the folks at Philip Morris have to pay their bills somehow.
It is unfortunate for the 85% of smokers who get addicted as teenagers and then die from their mistake years down the line.
Only 85%? Why not 100%?
We all die of something.
Newsflash! Non-smokers die "years down the line" too.
Some of them from "mistakes" - too many tater-tots perhaps?
They don't have years of enjoyment of a tobacco product, maybe they did enjoy alcohol or some other "no,no".
Still they are dead.
So I ask.
Why is what goes on my death certificate so important to so many of you?
Well - it could have been "prevented" you say.
So you want to disrupt my life so that you can prevent my 'death from tobacco' so that I can die of WHAT???
CHF seems to be a biggie in our little nursing home. Horrible way to die, especially if you're "healthy" enough from "clean living" to last a long time.
Thanks but no thanks. Come back when you can tell me that if I quit smoking I just won't die at all - then I might consider it.
In response to Bill's comment, I never suggested that smoking in homes HAS become increasingly criminalized. What I'm saying is that a number of anti-smoking advocates and groups are CALLING ON smoking in homes to be criminalized.
If anti-smoking advocates want smoking in homes to be treated as child abuse, then they are in fact calling on it to be criminalized, as child abuse is a criminal offense. You can go to jail for it.
And the most relevant post in question is about a prominent anti-smoking advocate who publicly called for criminalizing smoking around children.
I'm not making this crap up. It's really happening, and it's happening within our own (anti-smoking) movement.
This is about as disturbing as anything I've seen ever in this movement, and you can bet that I'm going to fight to the end to stop this from going any further. Breaking up families is not what the anti-smoking movement is supposed to be about!
Dr. Siegel,
Since we both agree that smoking in one's home around one's children does not represent a clear and immediate danger to the health of a child and should not be an appropriate area for government intervention or coercion...
Isn't it about time that smoking in a bar around bar employees - many of whom are smokers themselves, and each
of whom is presumably aware of and implicitly accepting of any risks from tobacco smoke - does not represent a clear and immediate danger to the health of those employees and should not be an appropriate area for government intervention or coercion?
Come on ed - get with the program.
Somewhere down the line my kids are going to die and when they do it will be because I smoke.
Somewhere down the line my non-smoking co-workers from my bartending days in a smoke filled restaurant are goinf to die and it will be because I blew smoke in their face.
Somewhere down the line some anti is going to be at their funerals and remark about how they would still be alive if only they'd banned smoking in restaurants earlier or taken my children away at birth like we do now.
margaret, bravo to your first answer to the Anonymous busybody control freak.
It is beyond comprehension as to why what anyone else chooses to recreationally do with their lives is the business of anyone else. Even for pure argument's sake... let's say the busybody believes the nicotine "makes" us keep doing it. Nicotine, like caffeine, does not alter the mind and is itself not harmful. That being the case there is still absolutely no rational sense for anyone else to demand that this behavior by others be stopped! Boxing, race car driving, extreme mountain climbing, extreme sports... all unnecessary inexplicable risk-taking behaviors. Yet there are people who enjoy them. Why?! And after asking "why?" the answer is "it doesn't matter and it's none of my business."
And dammit, as long as tobacco is legal tobacco companies should have the absolute right to conduct business like every other legal business out there. That's another ugly slippery slope that doesn't get enough attention. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment to anyone who appreciates the free market system we enjoy to hear a company advertising for people NOT to buy their product. Even if, as the antis accuse, they're weak or ineffective... holy cow! They're still doing what no other legal company in our country does -- telling people to stop using their product!
What a person says they stand for can only be credible when they are consistent. If you stand for the 1st amendment and capitalism and an industry is legal then fine, exercise your own 1st amendment right to condemn and speak out against them but either stop interfering in how they conduct their business or craft legislation to prohibit the product.
Walt: Your re-written post may not be as good as your original in your estimation, but I certainly agree with your assessment of the socio-economic & psychological aspect of the smoking issue.
In my own case, I may have stopped smoking long ago based on the known health risks, had it not been for the increasingly obnoxious message coming from the "Aunties".
While I have never been a "rebel" by nature in the sense of defying convention just for the sake of being obstinate; neither have I been a follower in need of acceptance.
I have long known who I am and at the very moment the trend toward characterizing "the typical smoker" as "uneducated, lower income and lower class", I recognized the stereotyping tactic for what it was and rejected it.
I remember telling a friend who said she had quit "because it's become so socially unacceptable" that that was probably the main reason I had no intention of quitting.
Even twenty years ago, the ATI was engaged in gross exaggeration and twisted statistics in their attempt to further their agenda.
Common sense is all that is necessary to recognize the overblown claims about the "hazards" of ETS. The problem at that time was the difficulty of finding any actual research documents that proved anything one way or another.
At a time when large corporations and government offices first began claiming smoking resulted in "increased absenteeism" and "higher insurance expenditures", simple observation revealed the lie. But there was no way to gain access to conclusive documentation that would refute it.
Two decades ago, the tactics of the antismokers made me angry enough to reject their message, but I felt powerless to fight it, and I was convinced it was self-limiting and could only go so far.
How wrong I was.
"California is moving that direction with their smoking rate around 14%."
Fourteen percent! Ha, in your wet dreams buddy. As long as cigarettes are legal (oh boo hoo, what's a nanny to do) the smoking rate will hover around 20-30% forever.
In California, smokers have become like mosquitoes. They mainly hide during the day and then come out in swarms during the evening and bother tit sucking busybodies like you, who swat at them with every new and fancy repellent they can get their hands on...all to no avail.
Damn mosquitoes! Let's try higher taxes and make it illegal to swarm outside anymore. That'll make them go away. Not.
Fourteen percent? too funny. Better check your palm for hair Anonymouse.
Anonymous,
85% will die? That's funny because the CDC says that one third will die from it and Health Canada says that half will die from it. There are those who say that in regards to heart disease which is the main killer of smokers, which has many confounders and it is possible that those statistics are inflated.
14%? I heard it was a little higher than that. But why not make up numbers as we go along.
Here are my fictional statistics:
-Smokers are 47% more likely to be attractive as non-smokers.
-Smokers are 42% less likely to suffer from an inflamed sense of self-worth because of their choices.
-Smokers are 19% more likely to have a better sense if humor than non-smokers.
-Smokers are 86% less likely to suffer from Nagging Busybody Disease. NBD is a horrible disease that causes those inflicted to expell a gas called 'smug' out of their mouth.
-Smokers are 28% less likely to have a bug, their head, or stick up their rectum.
Well, I am done making stuff up. Maybe Anon might want to swing by again and the both of us can have a "Battle of Bulls--t".
"Smokers are 19% more likely to have a better sense if humor than non-smokers."
Actually, in my anecdotal experience, the smokers I meet, by and large, are much more interesting than non smokers. I think it has to do with a point that Walt and Robin touched on earlier.
If we consider Maslow's heirarchy of needs, the anti smoking movement appeals to and targets people at the "approval" and "authority" levels - which constitute most of the population.
Conversely, people at the "survival" level have better things to care about, and people at the "self actualized" level don't give a hoot because they have their own agenda.
It's the latter category that appeals to me most. I see a lot of these folks here.
Good point, ed psycho
Hold on now! The assumption that holders of higher degrees are educated is unwarranted.
Brett, do you mean there is no evidence or do you mean there is evidence to the contrary? 
Dr. Siegel, you described your high threshold for what should be called child abuse when you said "a middle ear infection hardly represents severe physical damage for which we need to move into the home of the patient and invade the privacy of the home and the family."
Why didn't you mention SIDS and the potential for fatal asthma attacks?
Both are immediate and both are severe. We're not talking about repeated ear infections that simply cause kids to miss school. This is life and death - literally. Why don't you believe that infants and children should have protection from parents who put the life of their child at risk by smoking in the home?
"Why didn't you mention SIDS and the potential for fatal asthma attacks?"
How about some numbers, please, instead of your hateful innuendo?
Why didn't you mention SIDS and the potential for fatal asthma attacks?
Hey Jill - I've seen the same kind of evidence for SIDS and asthma that you blame on ETS used for blaming the same diseases on vaccines. Do you think we should round up pediatricians and charge them with child endangerment?
Ah Jill; we've missed ye.
Let's parcel this out. At the very least you'd have to admit that kids who don't have asthma to begin with aren't going to have asthma attacks from secondhand smoke. Just like kids who aren't allergic to peanuts to begin with aren't going to die from a secondhand peanut. However, by your premise, all parents should be forbidden to have peanuts in the house?
Next, of course, far from all asthmatics are affected by secondhand smoke. And it's been pretty much disproven that asthma can be initiated by secondhand smoke, though the memory lingers on. No one really knows what "causes" asthma or even what triggers attacks, though there may be different triggers for different individuals. (Cats in the house are said to be triggers by some, or protective by others, just for example. Which leads us to cat-owning as child abuse, right?)
As for SIDS, once again, nobody knows the cause as the SIDS Alliance own website will tell you. And they personally blasted...was it Banzaf or Glantz?-- for insinuating that smoking parents "killed" their kids.
Aside from the list of associated factors (of which there are many) the results from autopsies present hard data that indicate a range of potential "causes" from infectious vectors (H pylori and several others) to congenital biology (abnormalities in the heart as well as in the brain, and also in the blood. These blood irregularities "correlated specifically with some of the risk factors associated with SIDS: Maternal urinary tract infections, placental complications, a pregnancy weight gain of 20 pounds or less, and
restricted growth in infants." Among others. None of which have to do with parental smoking.
Sources:
"Clues on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" NY Times, Nov 24, 1998. Also, Brain: “Defect Linked to Crib Deaths," NY Times, Dec 2, 1997. Heart: SIDS A;lliance website. Said to account for "up to 50%." H-pylori: Kerr et al, "Archives of Diseases in Childhood," ; Pneumocystis carinii;http://207.102.150.158/2/16/pneumoc.htm
"Why don't you believe that infants and children should have protection from parents who put the life of their child at risk by smoking in the home?"
Your question begs for other questions that you should answer first:
What is "smoking in the home"? Lighting up a cigarette after dinner, when the kids are in bed? Is that posing a risk? What risk?
Aren't there are any other risks that you missed and that should also be taken into account? Maybe we should protect children from their parents altogether, as a means of prevention?
How about using Teflon in the kitchen, isn't that a risk, shouldn't children be taken away from homes using it?
The following article, unrelated at first glance, is a good example for your kind of unfunded claims:
...the recent announcement by the EPA that PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon, was a "human carcinogen" has now led to class action lawsuits against Dupont for failing to warn us about the toxic effects of the product.
What toxic effects are these, by the way? As usual in such toxic tort cases, nothing that medical science can detect--at least not in human beings. This should come as no surprise, since none of the chemical in question is actually present in the finished product. There are data showing toxic effects of PFOA on rodents when they are exposed, over a lifetime, to super-high doses. Apparently, when Teflon cookware is heated to levels rarely seen in American kitchens, ulta-fine particles are released which might, hypothetically, cause someone somewhere to become ill. None of these unfortunate cases has yet been detected, but based upon the prospect that someday, someone might become ill, the lawsuits will undoubtedly progress through the courts until Dupont cries "uncle," money changes hands, and Teflon is history.
When they're finished with Teflon, there will always be many other safe and useful products to attack and be used as a basis to extort damages from industrial companies--see for instance the lifesaving flame retardants PBDE, which will soon be banned based upon similar hypothetical "risk" to public health.
And, scientists must speak up to stop this assault, or we will be left with no "safe" products at all in the near future--which is what the activists really want, after all is said and done.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
As a parent why would you light up a cigarette with your children present even if they are in another room?
The smoke doesn't stop at the doorway.
It is precisly because of people who refuse to accept that they are harming their health and the health of their children that intervention is necessary.
The Philip Morris website states that "particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them."
Children are defenseless against parents who ignore overwhelming evidence about SHS and disease/death.
These parents are abusing the health of their children, and if they won't stop on their own, a law may be their only means of protection.
To Anonymous:
ZER VILL BE ORDER IN ZE REICH!!
(slamming fist noises)
"The smoke doesn't stop at the doorway."
... unless the door is closed. The same is true for kitchen fumes. Are you suggesting cooking should be banned in homes? The same is true for car exhausts. Would you suggest children should be raised in the woods (and no camp fires please!)
Or do you want to ban playgrounds? Can laws protect the human race from all risks? If you want to go that route, you better make abortion mandatory!
Is there real danger on the modern playground? Safety advocates say yes and want to eliminate it. Their first target: swing sets.
They've convinced Portland Public Schools to remove all swings from elementary schools playgrounds.
Portland Public Schools have also rejected merry go rounds, tube slides, track rides, arch climbers, and teeter totters.
At Grant Park in Northeast Portland, some parents embrace a new plastic enclosed play area, noting that the construction of the play equipment does not have sharp corners, and soft surfaces are used in many areas.
In Broward County, Florida, there's a new rule on the playground: no running.
So what can kids still play? Not dodge ball or tether ball, that's still too dangerous. And in Beaverton, at Barnes Elementary School, rules there forbid the game of tag.
[...] safety advocates [...], saying playground accidents cause 200,000 injuries nationwide each year, and 17 deaths.
http://www.katu.com/team2/story....ry.asp?
ID=85715
Is this the world you want to live in, really? The topic is not just ETS, the topic is whether some "good-doers" in government (and some tort advocates) should run the lives of individuals.
It's like saying parents are careless and should be disallowed to have children altogether.
"It is precisly because of people who refuse to accept that they are harming their health and the health of their children that intervention is necessary."
How do you know they are harming children? How do you know in which conditions they live and how much they smoke where and when?
Any law enforcement would be arbitrary, based on the personal judgement of enforcement officers. To see how law works, you only need to read up on the anti-drug gangs and what they do to innocent people.
I have evidence to the contrary, ben. Many holders of degrees believe their superior knowledge and intelligence allows them to overthrow the basis of this country (individual freedom promoted by lack of much government, particularly a lack of "offices to harrass our people, and eat out their substance,)" in order to impose myriad laws by which to tyrannize us and force us to hand over a significant percentage of our production so they can live well without producing. Such a point of view belies a serious lack of education.
Jill-
In response to your question: "Why don't you believe that infants and children should have protection from parents who put the life of their child at risk by smoking in the home?"
First of all, I'm not sure I would agree that smoking in the home puts the life of these children at risk, but let's just accept that point for now. What form of protection are you advocating?
If it's making smoking a form of child abuse (which is what this post is about), then I don't view that as protection. I view that as destroying the kids' lives.
And if it's making smoking in the home around a child a crime, then these parents are going to end up in jail if they continue to smoke, and I also view that not as protection but as harming the kids' lives as well.
In my view, the anti-smoking advocates who are trying to equate smoking around children in a home with child abuse or to make it a criminal offense or to make it an infraction that is taken up by family court are NOT protecting the children - they are placing those children at great risk - at great risk of having their families torn apart.
So to me, the rest of the story is that while anti-smoking advocates are claiming that they are trying to protect the children (and I don't deny that is their intent), what they are actually advocating is something that will hurt the children, even more than the secondhand smoke will in most cases.
Mike wrote:
"In my view, the anti-smoking advocates who are trying to equate smoking around children in a home with child abuse or to make it a criminal offense or to make it an infraction that is taken up by family court are NOT protecting the children - they are placing those children at great risk - at great risk of having their families torn apart."
Once again, the overwhelming majority of family court cases in which a child was protected by a smokefree court order HAS NOT resulted in a family being torn apart, unless Mike is arguing that custody battles between two parents are tearing families apart. But if Mike is implying the latter, it must be noted that the parents had already tore the family apart when they went to the court to file for divorce or custody.
Bill nice try to play down what every sane and rational person knows will be around the corner.As a rabid you will cook up some hare brained scheme with diabolical implications,lie through your eye teeth to mollify the disent and then whammy everyone as each and every one of us knew you were going to do in the first place.Jill you are so far behind with the topic of SIDS and asthma i'm frankly amazed that you haven't included the obvious danger of your kids being eaten by sabre toothed tigers if you don't keep your eye on them.Do you actually ever bother to read this blog or do you just disregard it's contents and spout when the need arises ?
So let's discuss a case where an ex-wife decided she didn't want her children around their father because he "came out of the closet" and began living with another man. I know of at least one case in Idaho where this is the scenario. The court ruled that the father could have visitation, but only under supervision and not in his own home as long as his partner was living there. Of course, the ACLU is all OVER this one.
Now, let's look at this website, regarding "Secondhand smoke and custody" In particular...
In a custody fight, courts across the country can, and have, done the following:
*Transferred custody from the parent who smokes to the nonsmoker parent.
*Taken custody from both parents and awarded it to a relative or other third party.
*Discounted the claims or efforts of a parent who is trying to quit smoking. The reasoning is that the parent may be more motivated by a desire to win the custody fight than a genuine concern for the health and welfare of the child.
*The smoking habits of grandparents, significant others and any other person who has frequent contact with the child may be a factor in a child custody decision.
Yes, Bill - the parents did tear the family apart by making the decision to divorce. But then one of them decided to punish the other by making smoking an issue that more than likely had little or no bearing on the reason for ending the marriage. Who is actually being punished? The children, of course. As if divorce and the displacement trauma it causes kids isn't enough - let's make it even harder by creating additional stress.
In the above list, I particularly like this one:
"Discounted the claims or efforts of a parent who is trying to quit smoking. The reasoning is that the parent may be more motivated by a desire to win the custody fight than a genuine concern for the health and welfare of the child."
How does that grab you, Bill? Isn't that "compassionate"? If that doesn't represent antismokERism and classism, I don't know what does.
And I'm sure the ACLU won't get too excited over smokers' parental rights since nasty, evil smokers apparently commit "hate crimes" just by lighting a cigarette in the vicinity of an "Auntie".
I don't know Kathleen, I think my favorite part is down at the end, where they run the disclaimer that their "advice" should not be used until you check with your own attorney, therefore freeing them from liability for advocating using these vile tactics.
Quote
"Disclaimer
The author and publisher of this article have done their best to give you useful and accurate information. This article does not replace the advice you should get from a lawyer, accountant or other professional if the content of the article involves an issue you are facing. Divorce laws vary from state-to-state and change from time-to-time. In addition, it is a very fact-specific area of the law, meaning that the particular facts of your marriage and divorce, as well as other external factors may determine how the law is applied in your situation. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions about the issues described in this article. Thank you."
Jerry
You can almost hear the hyper-fast voice over like the one at the end of the advert for some prescription meds advising about side effects.
Talking about side effects the worst side effect imaginable would occur if Bill got us to desist from smoking and we all became trainee Bill's, spouting the rhetoric,the sheer thought has me reaching for a handful of fags.I'll take my chances with vioxx.
Commenting by HaloScan
