In the state of California, it is illegal to smoke in a vehicle in the presence of persons under the age of 18. Some people have argued that if the minors are one's own kids, than such action should be allowed. However, it is proven that smoking causes a number of health problems, athsma and lung cancer to name a few.
However, it has also been said that physical disciplinary action is considered child abuse. Now, why would a self-imposed punishment, which leaves no permanent damage be considered abuse, when an unprovoked ride in a smoke-filled car, which causes permanent, often serious damage be allowed?
if you'll read my statement again... i acknowledged that. whether they're the same or not it creates chlorine gas. Cl2.
the ammonia which is either NH3 or (ammonium is) NH4+ reacts with bleach which is NaOCl to make NaOH and Cl2 then breaks down into radicals in your lungs and tears them to pieces via reacting with them (free radicals...) ...or that's what I remember. My intended parallel between the situations stated that smoking in a vehicle with children is to a lesser extent like forcing them to inhale that gas. It destroys their lungs and they have no say so in it. I stated that it doesn't kill right off the bat... unless they're allergic to it or maybe if it gives them cancer right off the back. you're also starting them down a one way road to emphyzema early on. hence it should be considered child abuse.
its a difference in killing them quickly and killing them slowly / damaging them for life and both of which are abusive. I stand behind my symbolism.
what about people who smoke inside their house constantly... I mean chain smokers people? its hard for a child to avoid living in their own house. its also difficult to escape the smell, odor, and allergens that leech into their clothing and don't leave... just b/c the clothes were in the same house. is it abuse then?
Now, listen here mister! My parents both smoke. Here is how you imagine it "the room is filled with smoke, i can barely breath, i run outside with every chance i get to get fresh air." Now here is how it really is "The smoke barely goes from the ciggerette, i dont mind it at all, if i have ever inhaled smoke, i havent noticed. I can sit right next to my mom/dad and the smoke doesnt get to me." Ok, look. You act like the smoke goes all through the house. It doenst. My clothes smell perfectly fine, ask anyone. I can stand right infront of my mom, and the smok doesnt get to my, it just floats a bit from the cigerette and fades away. My dad eventully quit smokeing, and my mom smokes all the time in the house. She also smokes in the car with the windows up. Guess what? The smoke still leaves the car. Its not like cars have air locks. The smoke just goes through all of the tiny cracks in the metal and the tiny gaps. Its not like im inhaling smoke, or that i am chocking trying to not breath it in. It doesnt even reach me. You just assume all the facts people dramatize are true. They arnt. They just make it to where its super terrible sounding so no one wants to do it. It isnt child abuse at all. And infact, my parents being smokers, i REALLY have a larger chance of not smokeing, because i have seen the effects it has on my parents, and how they truely urge me to not do it.
as my grandfather once said (may he rest in peace) "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a pool"
A great and funny simile. May he rest in peace, indeed.
Now, listen here mister! My parents both smoke. Here is how you imagine it "the room is filled with smoke, i can barely breath, i run outside with every chance i get to get fresh air." Now here is how it really is "The smoke barely goes from the ciggerette, i dont mind it at all.[quote]I can sit right next to my mom/dad and the smoke doesnt get to me."
[/quote] No one has once said that... I think you're the one over-dramatizing it. It's highly unlikely that you sitting right next to your mom and dad, that it doesn't reach you. It mixes with the air, you don't know how much or how little you're breathing in.
if i have ever inhaled smoke, i havent noticed.
You don't notice now, you will notice it later on in life. It all builds up. Read some of Sonatavarius posts. He explains it perfectly.
Child Abuse: The physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of children.
Does it call physical mistreatment to children? Nah, it just can cause major lung problems, cancer, and many, many other things.
Imagine how bad a child's lungs would look after they've inhaled secondhand smoke from infancy all the way through the teens. I think smoking is a definite example of legal child abuse.
i have friends who grew up in a house with chain smoker parents who grew up with really bad asthma... maybe it wasn't the family and it was genetics. but being anywhere in their house smelled like they had been sitting there lighting one up and puffing it all over everything. he didn't smoke... and yet when I'd see him at school he'd smell like it. I wonder if there's been any studies on chronic second hand smoke on developing lungs... I do know that if it follows the trends of other developmental processes that if you damage it while its developing then it is in the long run more damage then if you were to have done the same thing while it was fully grown (stunting of growth and such).
that's like saying that since you've seen your parents abuse alcohol that you won't do it. One of my best friend's dad drank so much he got an ulcer that perforated and spilled blood into his stomache... they couldn't fix it. he bled out in his stomach and died. his son who was 15ish at the time is now 21 and is now a drunk. ...you might say that case is irrelevant and/or that its illogical to base so much off of one person... I think its been shown that addiction in the parents often times leads to addiction in the children.
I've studied what smoking does to your lungs. I can scan some text of my Guyton Medical Physiology text book for you (yes its a med school text book that doctors learn from...although that's probably a no no due to copyright laws...but then again don't they allow stuff like that for education?)
what if its a small child that doesn't know any better so he/she doesn't get out of the way of the smoke?... its just a commonplace thing their parents do so it doesn't run to the hills every time a puff of smoke comes around.
but in place of the scans I'll just leave these... here
I disagree with the child abuse statement but i understand where the law is coming from. Although it specifically targets minors, can't the same be argued for smoking around non-smokers above the age of 18?
I mean i'm a smoker, and i smoke around people, but i usually alwas ask if they mind if i light up. So in m opinion it's the persons choice whether they mind one smoking in their presence. I'd never smoke around a kid simpl because the don't know the effects and it wouldn't be fair to take their "yes" as legit. But those who know the risks have the chance to ask people not to smoke around them. I'm pro smoking ban (As in not allowed to smoke inside public places) beacause it's respectful of non smokers.
that's the difference in someone who is 5 and someone who is 18. the 5 year old doesn't know much or anything about alveoli, emphysema, trypsin, or cancer while the older person is fully developed and is old enough to have learned about the issue. If a grown person consents then it is fine. The only thing that's gonna be going through a little kids head is "daddy smells bad when I hug him after he smokes"... and they'll just hug him anyway. If they don't know it damages them then if there's something they want to do... like watch tv or play on a certain piece of equipment in the playground that is down wind of the smoke then they'll most likely "suck it up" and continue what they were doing and either acclimate to the smoke or deal with it till the person quits smoking and puts out their cigarette. saying a kid should know to move dumb. if they don't comprehend the full extent of the possible damage... or anything about the possible damage then there's no reason for them to move... or any reason they have will be fighting against their carnal instincts that tell them to play or entertain themselves with tv... some kids may even like the smell of smoke (i used to like the smell of gas at gas stations)
Imagine how bad a child's lungs would look after they've inhaled secondhand smoke from infancy all the way through the teens. I think smoking is a definite example of legal child abuse.
Their lungs will look . . . perfectly fine.
It takes adults decades of full smoking to cause dramatic lung damage. Secondhand smoke is nothing like smoking straight from the source, nothing at all.
I don't have the time right now to go and link every single one of them or read all of them... so I'll leave this here instead.
its a link to a google search that appears to be full of studies and sources citing the damages that second hand smoke causes to children. and if the link doesn't work google "dangers of second hand smoke to children" and it'll take you to where the link is supposed to. I don't think my argument is null. You haven't cited a source saying that there are no ill effects to 2nd hand smoke. you only said that it is less dangerous. less dangerous does not equate to no danger at all. there is still danger
Perhaps people shouldn't smoke in front of their kids, but you folks saying that smoking should be banned outright are absurd! It's people's right to choose whether or not they want to damage their body.
Perhaps people shouldn't smoke in front of their kids, but you folks saying that smoking should be banned outright are absurd! It's people's right to choose whether or not they want to damage their body.
But smoking in public hurts others bodies. Besides smoking is bad foe your health and people should never have been allowed to do it in the first place. It's killing yourself slowly.
But smoking in public hurts others bodies. Besides smoking is bad foe your health and people should never have been allowed to do it in the first place. It's killing yourself slowly.
He seems to be saying that you shouldn't smoke around other people, like going outside to smoke, instead of smoking in the car or in the building with other people. And why should you have control over what is bad for you and unhealthy? Should hamburgers be banned? Chocolate? Where do you draw the line?
However, it has also been said that physical disciplinary action is considered child abuse. Now, why would a self-imposed punishment, which leaves no permanent damage be considered abuse.
While I agree that there are moral grey areas about smacking children, which I personally think should be extended to people and not this almost taboo issue with children, I have to disagree about the "no permanent damage" because it can of course have mental issues.
I think that any individual that has been generally hit a lot in their life is going to have internal battles over self-confidence and worth. Im not talking about a pro-boxer here btw (although he is just as likely). Im talkin about children who have been bullied in school or hit at home and felt fearful of their parent. I has a lasting effect.
I also dont smoke around my son. If he walks into the room and I have been smoking, I tell him that its smokey and to get out.
Im really not worried if he IS somewhere smokey, because I make efforts to keep him away, and he isnt too keen on smoke either. Just so we can clarify, I smoke weed, not tobacco. Im sure to some that makes a difference, and to that I say, sod off!
Just standing by a campfire or walkin down the street we get stinky with fumes and come home smelling like nice pine, or not so nice petrol by-product. While campfires up mountainsides may not pose a problem, cars do.
But where are the government campaigns saying (in old style english) "You see someone smoke in an enclosed space with a child, tell them, NO!"
Instead we get laws, criminals, offences, rules, regulations, paperwork, civil servants, police, rebels... ... ...and so on.
Second hand smoke should not be an enforceable offence, neither should smoking in a public place or many other things. Its going waay too far.
Now, why would a self-imposed punishment, which leaves no permanent damage be considered abuse
What kind of idiot are you?
It isn't child abuse, really, but it is still bad. Making a law against it is a rather stupid and pointless waste of time. Sure it is bad, but unless your kid already has asthma or some other lung issue I see no problem with it.
Sure it is bad, but unless your kid already has asthma or some other lung issue I see no problem with it.
Except for the fact that it could potentially cause lung problems. In fact, in the first weeks of track, I coughed hard after every time I ran. Since I don't have ANY lung problems, I could deduce that it was probably all of the second-hand smoke that I have ingested over the years. Even though their are all of these risks, this isn't child abuse, as it causes no proven physical or mental pain. Outlawing this would further prove how the government is treating us more like a commodity rather than actual human beings.
Do I think smoking altogether should be banned? No, I think people do have a right to choose, but smoking around a child is just wrong, I figured putting in a few quote and sources would help aid my argument a bit...
The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke," has concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that, on average, children are exposed to more secondhand smoke than adults. Children are significantly affected by secondhand smoke. Children's bodies are still developing, and exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts them at risk of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. Secondhand smoke is a known cause of low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear infection, and other diseases.[quote]Secondhand smoke exposure impairs a child's ability to learn. It is neurotoxic even at extremely low levels. More than 21.9 million children are estimated to be at risk of reading deficits because of secondhand smoke. Higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke are also associated with greater deficits in math and visuospatial reasoning.
[/quote]
Here's my source, very, very informative. No Smoke
