Strollerderby : second-hand smoke

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Do you smoke, or do you know someone who smokes? Do you think your kids will be OK as long as they don't smoke around them?

Well, you're wrong.

Everyone knows about second-hand smoke. It's easy to avoid – just don't spend time with smokers when they are, in fact, smoking. However, there's a new danger – third-hand smoke. This new term, coined by doctors from Boston's MassGeneral Hospital for Children, describes, "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room."

And it gets even more fun: "The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor." Cuz kids never play on the floor.

Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York added, "simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke." See, that much I think people knew. But that gross lingering scent that clings to your clothes and hair after you spend time at a bar that still allows people to puff away freely? Who knew that was dangerous too?

So what to do? Avoid smokers? Avoid rooms where smokers have been? Don't go anywhere that smokers congregate? Live in a literal bubble?

I've found that avoiding smoke is fairly easy, but I do know people who smoke. And they smell like it. The fact that's more than just gross might make me think twice before I let them in my house to sit on my furniture. That should be a fun conversation.

Source: NYTimes

Image: MSNBC

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Brett Singer — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:45:00 GMT

The East London borough of Redbridge will no longer allow smokers to be foster parents.

From The Scotsman:

The ban, which was passed unanimously at a cabinet meeting of Redbridge Council last night, means that children in the east London borough will not be placed with foster carers who smoke after January 2010.
Councillors say the move is crucial in protecting children.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, children shouldn't be inhaling second-hand smoke because it is a health risk. On the other hand, this is discrimination, isn't it? I'm actually a big smoker's rights guy in certain areas. For example, I think it should be legal for me to start an airline that lets people smoke – Up In Smoke Air. Make smoking illegal on commercial flights, fine. But why can't I start a business where the whole point is to give smokers a place to go? (I'm not a smoker, but I was for many years.)

Another publication, Business Report, has a little more info on the ban:

"Some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms," said councillor Michael Stark. "But we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood.
"On balance, we have decided children in our care shouldn't grow up breathing second-hand smoke."
...
A spokesperson for Forest, a pro-smoking group, said: "It's going to exclude people who could be outstanding foster parents.
"It sends out an insidious message that smokers in general are unfit parents and I don't think any politician has the right to do that."

Look, it's a nasty, unhealthy habit that has proven to be unhealthy for children (and everyone else) to be around. But is it better for kids to stay in a potentially worse situation? And if this ban is OK, doesn’t that open the door for banning other behaviors? I'm slightly surprised at my reaction to this story, actually. What do you think – is it OK for a government to ban smokers from being foster parents? Or is that going too far?

Source: The Scotsman, Business Report,

Image: Church Times

Strollerderby : second-hand smoke

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Incredibly Good Homemade Halloween Costumes

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

The Candy That Time Forgot

About Ann Nixon Cooper

109 Year Old Daughter Of Slave Votes For Obama

Babble Podcast for November 3, 2008

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Jay Thomas Reunites With Out of Wedlock Son