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?
Smoking doesn't necessarily result in that, snowguy13. There's no imminent risk from smoking just because there's a stronger chance of developing cancer or lung problems by being exposed to second hand smoke. Do you know how many chemicals you're exposed to every day from normal household items which increase the risk of cancer and various other diseases? Would you argue, thenceforth, that giving a child a toy made in China is abusive? Is giving him a scrambled egg which probably has all sorts of chemicals from a large farm which can potentially harm someone health abusive? How about giving a child anything fried or anything with high amounts of cholesterol?
Do you know how many chemicals you're exposed to every day from normal household items which increase the risk of cancer and various other diseases? Would you argue, thenceforth, that giving a child a toy made in China is abusive? Is giving him a scrambled egg which probably has all sorts of chemicals from a large farm which can potentially harm someone health abusive? How about giving a child anything fried or anything with high amounts of cholesterol?
I was expecting someone to notice that discrepancy, though I hope people wouldn't. xD
My counter: all of the things that you mentioned have nowhere near as drastic an effect as smoking.
...smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease; that it can shorten your life by 10 years or more; and that the habit can cost a smoker thousands of dollars a year...
Mistaken? On the chemicals, maybe; however, the chemicals have a positive effect and can prevent more extensive damage. Their formulas can be amended or scrapped and redone (as they likely will, when the information you provided becomes well known). On the other hand, smoking doesn't help anyone. The smoker, nearby people; no one ever benefits from it.
I stand by my opinion about toys and eggs.
Under your argument, anything could be considered child abuse. The power goes out, and your epilictic child has a seizure from the resulting electrical flashes. Abuse? A child runs into a hot stove. Abuse?
Their formulas can be amended or scrapped and redone (as they likely will, when the information you provided becomes well known).
So too can the chemicals in cigarette smoke. Small innovations have been made which make them less hazardous, like filters and the invention of certain kinds of e-cigarettes.
Under your argument, anything could be considered child abuse. The power goes out, and your epilictic child has a seizure from the resulting electrical flashes. Abuse? A child runs into a hot stove. Abuse?
That wasn't my argument, that was yours. If using cigarettes is considered child abuse because the chemicals children can be exposed to are harmful, then the chemicals children are exposed to by anything else which are detrimental to health should be considered abusive as well. The utility of toys and cigarettes to society really aren't different. They exist to mentally please us.
Cigarettes can, but the very things that make them pleasureable are the same things that cause the harm.
And, in a capitalistic society, doesn't mostly everything exist to please?
And, smoking can hurt a child more than the smoker him- or her-self. Children have developing brains. Putting in nicotine can seriously mess up the child's brain; whereas the parents' brains are unharmed, as they are done developing.
You are knowingly subjecting your child to chemicals that are known to cause permanent damage to them and their growth. Not all children understand the concept of death and permanent injury.
Smokers do not have the freedom to just smoke around anyone and everyone they choose. ...if they did, then they would be winning lawsuits against everyone who has ever banned smoking from a location. I wonder why they would do that? Is it because 2nd hand smoke is a known irritant and health risk? Children do not know and/or comprehend these health risks. It can stunt and physically damage their growing bodies. They don't understand that. ...just like how they don't know any better when they try and stick forks into power sockets.
If you, the parent, are giving a child toys that you know are covered in lead based paint and you know that lead based paint will leech through the child's skin and effect the debilitating condition of lead poisoning, then you are abusing your child. The child doesn't understand or comprehend the repercussions of their position.
The child doesn't know enough to give proper consent for being subjected to parental induced debilitating environmental conditions. If you know that this action can in fact effect these health conditions on this child and you do it anyway, then you are damaging/abusing them.
an electronic cigarette that just releases a dose of nicotine and no smoke isn't the kind of cigarette being discussed. We are discussing the kind that you light on fire and then inhale/exhale. If it isn't producing smoke or a gaseous byproduct, then it isn't really "smoking."
now before you wanna go and say something like letting your kid exercise is abuse too... I've got an entire med school text book chapter that says otherwise. It leads to an overall "healthier" body and life. (unless you're overdoing it). If 2nd hand smoke does anything, it is going to cause health problems... long term to permanent health problems. ...and if you know this... and you do it in the presence of some naive little kid, then you are abusing them.
If I were to feed a child extremely small miniscule trace amounts of heavy metals (lead/mercury) over it's years of growth and development so that as it grows it develops health conditions and has "stunting" problems then I have abused my child. It isn't the unknowing child's place to avoid you when you are smoking. Avoiding the child while you are smoking is YOUR responsibility. If you are a parent, then your charge to keep is ensuring the health and safety of the child. The influence on their health may not even be noticeable, but it isn't going to do anything but hurt them.
If you are going to do something like smoke, then you have to take responsibility for your actions. You don't just assume that everyone else around you's quality of life comes second in priority to your desire to suck ash.
well its surtinly hurting them... hurts them more than it hurts the smoker
Second hand smoke didn't hurt people when no one ever noticed it.
Now researches do what they do best and scare the crap out of white America.
My parents generation was an obedient one and why? Physical punishment.
Your child says F.U and you go smack them across the face they are gonna think twice about it.
Your child says F.U and you tell them to go up to their electronic room and think about it they are just going up their to go on FB and tell their friends how stupid you are.
People think crime is bad now, wait 20 years........We are screwed.
of course their are limitations. if you beat the crap out of your child they are just gonna be scared of you.
My point is smoking infront of your child is not damaging enough to call abuse. That is of course until you start blowing smoke in their faces then you have a problem.
exactly and look at what those people accomplished in their lives.
For example, WWII The USA turned into the largest working machine and everybody smoked. second hand smoke can't kill you as fast as being depressed because everything fun in this world has risks.
researchers and the media do nothing but show life's risks but never the good things that come from them.
Excuse me if I want to start coughing at the expense of someone else's "fun." Even when I was very young, I would hold my breath whenever I was around someone smoking. Did I know it was bad for you? No. I just really hated the feeling/smell of it. I would avoid areas where people smoked, in amusement parks i'd not go on rides I wanted to go on because someone was smoking near it.
researchers and the media do nothing but show life's risks but never the good things that come from them.
Nothing good comes from it at all.
WWII The USA turned into the largest working machine and everybody smoked
1) War is always good for the economy while it's going on, if you're not on the losing side. Things are in demand.
2) Smoking had nothing to do with the success of the war/the people in it. All it does is possibly make you sick, at least damage your lungs over time, and at worst kill you. It may not harm you, but it more likely than not will sooner than later.
Again i'll ask, who's stupid idea was it to inhale smoke anyways? There's a reason you cough when you inhale it, and your eyes water, etc.
