OOOOOOOOO.... healthy ciggies! http://www.smartsmoker.co.uk/ 
Smokers banned from fostering - POLL ADDED
- Thread starter Urchin
- Start date
Red_Fairy said:OOOOOOOOO.... healthy ciggies! http://www.smartsmoker.co.uk/
I heard about them hmmm!! i thought you were talking about those minging herbal ones at first that taste like earth and smell like a bonfire!!
trixipaws
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 13,599
- Reaction score
- 1
i voted no but i DO think that ALL parents- foster, adoptive and biological- if they smoke should legally have to smoke outside. it should be a criminal offence to force a child to inhale poison. not against smokers just against selfish smokers with no regard for their children's health!
LisaJ1986 said:
youmean the NHS funds they have contributed to and deserve to use like every other tax payer in this country.
Nothing is wrong with it. The arse about tit way they go about it is wrong though. I am anti smoking but I am pro choice.
The sad fact is children in care are more at risk of not reaching their educational potential and those that get moved frequently are more likely to end up in a young offender's institution but hey lets focus on stopping them smoking
Xena
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,201
- Reaction score
- 0
Potbelijo said:
I know it's an addiction, but it's still possible to stop, all it needs is a bit of willpower, and children are worth that aren't they?
My dad smoked from the age of 12 until 56 (he's 60 now), and he forced himself to quit when his father died of lung cancer. He said it was something I said, something about not wanting to watch my own father die the same way, that spurred him to stop.
It took him a year after his dad died to fully quit - he spent that year cutting down and using patches. He quit on the 1st anniversary of his dad's death.
Even now that he has quit, his lungs are only functioning at 1 third of a normal capacity. He has a lot of breathing problems and has to use an inhaler a lot....BUT apparently at his last check up the doctor said his lung capacity had increased a teeny bit.
They will never be back to normal, but if he had carried on smoking, it would have killed him for sure.
If somebody can quit after being addicted for over 40 years, then anybody can.
Xena said:beanie said:
Isn't that a bit of a contraction?
not criticising, it just genuinely doesn't seem to make sense.
not really.I don't like smoking, and wouldn't do it but I respect others have the right to do it.
I agree, smoking makes you stink and gives you cancer, but you can't introduce laws which penalise people who do it. It's a slippery slope when you start doing that. Everybody should have a the right to choose what they do to their own body.
Alcohol kills too, but I don't see any laws about people who enjoy a glass of wine when their kids are in bed (thank god!)
Smoking around children is disgusting, and I cannot understand why on earth anybody would deliberately inflict their poison onto an innocent child. However, I very much doubt that people who love and want to care for children would ever do this. As long as they keep their smoke inside their own lungs, let them do it, if they choose.
It's a nice idea in principle, but it can't work in practice.
The government would have to just bite the bullet and just ban cigarettes entirely, but of course they will never do that, too much money to be made from them
Alcohol kills too, but I don't see any laws about people who enjoy a glass of wine when their kids are in bed (thank god!)
Smoking around children is disgusting, and I cannot understand why on earth anybody would deliberately inflict their poison onto an innocent child. However, I very much doubt that people who love and want to care for children would ever do this. As long as they keep their smoke inside their own lungs, let them do it, if they choose.
It's a nice idea in principle, but it can't work in practice.
The government would have to just bite the bullet and just ban cigarettes entirely, but of course they will never do that, too much money to be made from them
Xena said:
I'm sorry, it's 7 am and I haven't slept well. I find that comment pretty upsetting and a little insensitive.
Please re-read my post and the points I made about my mam. I'm quite sure you didn't mean offence and it's just me being over emotional. However, not "anybody" can give up.
I was having a further think about this thread last night whilst not being able to sleep (sad i know). There have been some really interesting points.
As I said before i personally feel that smoking around children should be illegal. If someone wants to go outside and smoke then thats up to them. Im not going to go into detail about the commments of petrol fumes and junk food as thats not what this topic is about (im sure in time to come there will be a thread on that!) We could go all out with the things that are considered bad for us but one thing we do all know is that passive smoking IS and noone can disagree with that.. Even if the government concentrate on just the one thing to protect children from illness that in my opinion is a positive thing ( i have a feeling i may have stolen that from another post... sorry!)
One thing i find very hard to understand though is the whole "pro choice" comments when it comes to smoking. That really isnt the case with passive smoking though surely? If a child is in the room with their parents who are smoking then they do not have a choice about breathing in that smoke? Should the child have to leave the room to get away from it? I really dont think a young child should have to make that "choice"
I also notice that a few people have mentioned on here about their dad/grandma etc use to smoke etc.. so did my dad but thank god that today we are more educated than we were and now know the obvious dangers of passive smoking.. Just cos they used to do it. it doesnt make it right.
I think one thing that the majority of people on here agree on is the fact that you shouldnt smoke around children (which is great) Whilst i know it would be hard to implement, couldnt they simply say no smoking in the same vacinity as the children as the law? Obviously you will get people that dont listen to that and carry on regardless but by doing it you WILL get a number of people that do follow the law, which again is a good thing surely?
One thing i will say though is that the smoking ban in pubs and clubs was a bloody brilliant idea in the end! Friends of mine have managed to give up because of it (for those of us who used to smoke we all know drink and fags are the worst combination to give up) and i love coming home and waking up without the smell of stale smoke. Oh and its been nice being able to go into a pub for a bite to eat whilst pregnant not having to worry about passive smoking effecting my unborn baby..
Right thats me done...god i need some sleep!
Claire x
As I said before i personally feel that smoking around children should be illegal. If someone wants to go outside and smoke then thats up to them. Im not going to go into detail about the commments of petrol fumes and junk food as thats not what this topic is about (im sure in time to come there will be a thread on that!) We could go all out with the things that are considered bad for us but one thing we do all know is that passive smoking IS and noone can disagree with that.. Even if the government concentrate on just the one thing to protect children from illness that in my opinion is a positive thing ( i have a feeling i may have stolen that from another post... sorry!)
One thing i find very hard to understand though is the whole "pro choice" comments when it comes to smoking. That really isnt the case with passive smoking though surely? If a child is in the room with their parents who are smoking then they do not have a choice about breathing in that smoke? Should the child have to leave the room to get away from it? I really dont think a young child should have to make that "choice"
I also notice that a few people have mentioned on here about their dad/grandma etc use to smoke etc.. so did my dad but thank god that today we are more educated than we were and now know the obvious dangers of passive smoking.. Just cos they used to do it. it doesnt make it right.
I think one thing that the majority of people on here agree on is the fact that you shouldnt smoke around children (which is great) Whilst i know it would be hard to implement, couldnt they simply say no smoking in the same vacinity as the children as the law? Obviously you will get people that dont listen to that and carry on regardless but by doing it you WILL get a number of people that do follow the law, which again is a good thing surely?
One thing i will say though is that the smoking ban in pubs and clubs was a bloody brilliant idea in the end! Friends of mine have managed to give up because of it (for those of us who used to smoke we all know drink and fags are the worst combination to give up) and i love coming home and waking up without the smell of stale smoke. Oh and its been nice being able to go into a pub for a bite to eat whilst pregnant not having to worry about passive smoking effecting my unborn baby..
Right thats me done...god i need some sleep!
Claire x
Xena
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,201
- Reaction score
- 0
Potbelijo said:
Sorry no I didn't mean to cause offence. I realise you your mother cannot quit, she's in a different situation where she has been told she ought not to try. When I said 'anyone' I meant anyone who is in a position to be potentially allowed to be a foster parent.
I was more or less highlighting the fact that although smoking is addictive, it's not like it's these people are being asked to do an impossible thing, because it is possible for even very long term smokers (and I mean my dad was smoking like a chimney for over 40 years) to quit if they put their mind to it, providing is hasn't reached a point where it's too late.
Your mother is in a different situation to this, I'm very sorry about that. Obviously there comes a point where it's too late to quit, but in that situation I don't think she would be thinking about fostering children in any case.
Again, sorry you thought I was being insensitive.
I think there are two main issues here. One is the ethical situation. Personally, I'm not a smoker and I can't stand smoking. However, I think that a lot of the kids in care will have been through much worse, and if the foster parent undertakes not to smoke around the child as part of the contract (and foster parents do get paid, although not very much for the job), then it would be much better for the child to have a stable home environment. The biggest problem is that you just can't enforce such a clause - how can you tell people what to do/not do in their own homes?
The second issue is, I think, the more important reason for this ruling. I guess the government is trying to protect itself from future litigation. What happens in 10 or 20 years' time if today's foster children sue the councils/government for negligence in placing them with a smoker, or the foster-parents themselves, and they develop bronchitis, asthma, some form of cancer, or even just start smoking themselves? There are a lot of situations in which an adult with an illness or an issue could potentially claim that their childhood exposure to smoking was a factor. It would be very difficult legally to prove that the government/foster-parents weren't at fault (e.g. miners and asbestos claims as precedent). I'm really not sure you can get round that one. You can't ask a small child to sign a diclaimer promising they won't sue if they get ill later in life... It's as much about protecting foster-parents from future risk as foster-children too.
So although ethically I'm not entirely in agreement with the ban, politically I think it's necessary, unfortunately.
The second issue is, I think, the more important reason for this ruling. I guess the government is trying to protect itself from future litigation. What happens in 10 or 20 years' time if today's foster children sue the councils/government for negligence in placing them with a smoker, or the foster-parents themselves, and they develop bronchitis, asthma, some form of cancer, or even just start smoking themselves? There are a lot of situations in which an adult with an illness or an issue could potentially claim that their childhood exposure to smoking was a factor. It would be very difficult legally to prove that the government/foster-parents weren't at fault (e.g. miners and asbestos claims as precedent). I'm really not sure you can get round that one. You can't ask a small child to sign a diclaimer promising they won't sue if they get ill later in life... It's as much about protecting foster-parents from future risk as foster-children too.
So although ethically I'm not entirely in agreement with the ban, politically I think it's necessary, unfortunately.
