Smoking around children

[Bob 0119]

I won't disregard everything the studies say either, but I will acknowledge that they are prone to exaggeration, and hypothesis because they are designed to show what the person paying for them wants them to show.

Smoking is harmful to the smoker. That's been common knowledge since long before I was born, but as Dennis Leary pointed out, you could paint the pack black and call them tumors and smokers would still be lining up to get them.

Doctors have a vested interest in getting smokers to stop smoking.

So, how can you put more pressure on a smoker to stop smoking?

1) Raise the price of cigarettes to ridiculous levels through taxation.
---This is only marginally effective as some smokers are too thoroughly addicted to give them up, regardless of the price.

2) Make smokers socially outcast.
---Most non-smokers didn't really care about cigarette smoke, or smokers, so there was no peer pressure on smokers to quit. Now if you release a study that says "second hand smoke could be harmful to non-smoker" you can generate a peer group through fear that will put added pressure onto smokers to quit.

3) Use the same reports that make smokers socially outcast, to ban smoking in public areas.
---Now you've pushed smokers into their own homes if they wish to smoke, but how do you stop them from smoking at home, or when they aren't around other people?

4) Create a speculative report about something called "third hand smoke"
---Check and mate. You have now eliminated every socially acceptable place to smoke, and strengthend the pressure put on smokers by their peers.

Based on these reports, it's amazing civilization survived through the decades where smoking was the acceptable norm in all public places including office buildings and airplanes, but somehow they managed.

Do I think civilization is healthier now with limits on smoking? Sure. There are far fewer smokers, and fewer people have started smoking. Don't get me wrong, even I believe that smoking CAN BE, and is even LIKELY TO BE harmful to the smoker.

Do I think I would cut off my parents from their grandkids based on biased reports from people with an agenda? No. Not unless my child had severe, pre-existing respiratory condition where dust, or other inhalable irritants could harm them (such as the case that JF talked about with his kids).

[Irn-Bru]

I won't disregard everything the studies say either, but I will acknowledge that they are prone to exaggeration, and hypothesis because they are designed to show what the person paying for them wants them to show.

Yup. It's interesting how quickly a study is dismissed if it was funded by Exxon (for example) but it's gospel truth if the organization that wants to show how bad smoking is funds it. . .

[Countertrey]

Ultimately, it's your kid. None of us can tell you how to raise it.

It's obvious you've already taken your stance on things, and no one can convince you otherwise, so I'm a little confused as to why you started the topic in the first place.

I will say that I wouldn't rely on those studies as the gospel. Keep in mind that most studies are conducted to say what the people who are paying for them want them to say.

You are absolutely right that your kid will learn what is okay and not okay from you. You should keep in mind that teaching him that Grandma and Grandpa are bad people because they [insert objectional behavior here], he or she may just use that very same line of thought when they won't let you see your grandkids.

[Cappster]

Do I think I would cut off my parents from their grandkids based on biased reports from people with an agenda? No. Not unless my child had severe, pre-existing respiratory condition where dust, or other inhalable irritants could harm them (such as the case that JF talked about with his kids).

Your conspiracy theory is possible, but I think it is a bit of a stretch. I haven't cut off my parents from seeing my child. I stated that I was at their house on Easter. My point is they could spend more time with their grandchild "if" they quit smoking as I won't leave my child with them without me being there to monitor them. You probably think that is harsh, but that is what happens when someone doesn't see anything wrong with smoking around my child or having smoked and then holding my child. I do not want my child to develop any short or longer term health issues, because of someone's irresponsibility with smoking. I've seen it happen to my niece and nephew as they lived a while with smokers (sister-in-laws parents) and they always had an ear infection or breathing problem. My brother is also asthmatic and has been since he was a child and that never stopped my parents from smoking.

[Countertrey]

Just wondering... when you see a child with chronic ear infections, or with asthma, and who has never been around a smoker...

who do you blame that on?

[Bob 0119]

Do I think I would cut off my parents from their grandkids based on biased reports from people with an agenda? No. Not unless my child had severe, pre-existing respiratory condition where dust, or other inhalable irritants could harm them (such as the case that JF talked about with his kids).

Your conspiracy theory is possible, but I think it is a bit of a stretch. I haven't cut off my parents from seeing my child. I stated that I was at their house on Easter. My point is they could spend more time with their grandchild "if" they quit smoking as I won't leave my child with them without me being there to monitor them. You probably think that is harsh, but that is what happens when someone doesn't see anything wrong with smoking around my child or having smoked and then holding my child. I do not want my child to develop any short or longer term health issues, because of someone's irresponsibility with smoking. I've seen it happen to my niece and nephew as they lived a while with smokers (sister-in-laws parents) and they always had an ear infection or breathing problem. My brother is also asthmatic and has been since he was a child and that never stopped my parents from smoking.

Well, see, I thought it was a total embargo.

Yes, I would certainly be careful around your parents. Especially if they smoke as much as you stated (once every 15 minutes), and if they regularly smoke in their house, sure, I wouldn't leave an infant there either, and I smoke!

Even though I'm a smoker, I go outside, even in my own home.

It lessens the amount I smoke, because I can't just grab one and throw it in my mouth.

It also prevents my house from reeking of cigarette smoke, which I know many people don't enjoy.

It also keeps my walls from turning yellow, and limits the amount of dust in my house.

If your parents regularly smoke in their house, and you are taking your child to their house, then yes, I agree that them going outside to smoke while your child is there, might not be enough. Certainly not for any extended length of time at an infant stage.

On that, I will whole-heartedly agree with you.

[PulpExposure]

Interesting article on "third-hand smoke" but it's still greatly speculative.

For example, the article cites a boogeyman list of chemicals in third-hand smoke:

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

It doesn't tell you what concentrations these chemicals are found in. That makes all the difference in the world.

As an example, if you drink aspartame, or let your kids drink aspartame, please know that one of the breakdown products of aspartame is formaldehyde, which is highly toxic. However, you'd have to ingest something like 400 cans of diet soda a day to start showing effects from the formaldehyde byproduct of aspartame.

Likewise, if you enjoy eating fish, know that you're ingesting mercury (and no, it's not just salmon...salmon just has the highest concentration of mercury). But in moderation, it's healthy to eat fish.

As to the topic of your post, my mother smokes. Just not around my kids; if she wants to smoke, she goes outside and smokes, then washes her hands afterwards. I don't even ask her to do this...she just does it. Same with my friends who smoke; it's just common courtesy.

[Cappster]

Just wondering... when you see a child with chronic ear infections, or with asthma, and who has never been around a smoker...

who do you blame that on?

I can tell you guys are smoking sympathizers. Anyway, I am not placing the blame of a child being ill strictly on smoking. I view it as one of the major variables that can be eliminated, therefore, I have chosen to eliminate it. Tell me how smoking a cigarette can benefit any part of your child's life. It doesn't.

[Bob 0119]

Interesting article on "third-hand smoke" but it's still greatly speculative.

For example, the article cites a boogeyman list of chemicals in third-hand smoke:

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

It doesn't tell you what concentrations these chemicals are found in. That makes all the difference in the world.

As an example, if you drink aspartame, or let your kids drink aspartame, please know that one of the breakdown products of aspartame is formaldehyde, which is highly toxic. However, you'd have to ingest something like 400 cans of diet soda a day to start showing effects from the formaldehyde byproduct of aspartame.

Likewise, if you enjoy eating fish, know that you're ingesting mercury (and no, it's not just salmon...salmon just has the highest concentration of mercury). But in moderation, it's healthy to eat fish.

As to the topic of your post, my mother smokes. Just not around my kids; if she wants to smoke, she goes outside and smokes, then washes her hands afterwards. I don't even ask her to do this...she just does it. Same with my friends who smoke; it's just common courtesy.

See, that's what get's my spidey-sense tingling.

Whenever someone has to sensationalize what they are saying, I begin to get skeptical.

Dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal, and is used in pesticides, stryofoam, chemical and bioloical weapons. It is a chemical used in every nuclear power plant and it has been known to kill thousands of people at a time, and if ingested can lead to death.

Everything in that sentance is true, and sounds horrific when you describe water (dihydrogen monoxide or H2-O) in that way.

[vwoodzpusha]

Some links on the other side of third hand smoke. I am not saying the sites are reputable but gives a different point of view:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/200 ... rails.html
http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/third-hand-smoke/
http://www.scientificblogging.com/scien ... ng_zealots

The most interesting thing which is stated in almost all three articles is that there was no actual study done. Just a phone survey:

"For the dwindling minority that still smokes and don't feel oppressed enough, here's something new to worry about; even if you choose to smoke outside of your house, thinking that you're keeping your kids away from second-hand smoke, you're still exposing them to toxins and potentially cognitive deficits, say researchers in the January issue of Pediatrics. Did they do a clinical study? No, they did a survey and found people who agree. "

[Countertrey]

Just wondering... when you see a child with chronic ear infections, or with asthma, and who has never been around a smoker...

who do you blame that on?

I can tell you guys are smoking sympathizers. Anyway, I am not placing the blame of a child being ill strictly on smoking. I view it as one of the major variables that can be eliminated, therefore, I have chosen to eliminate it. Tell me how smoking a cigarette can benefit any part of your child's life. It doesn't.

From my first response on this thread...

Capster, while I agree that smoking around children is not acceptable, I have to wonder why you feel that punishing your parents for their addiction (and, have no doubt, it is an addiction) is at all helpful.

Your approach seems rather cruel and vindictive.

Lighten up.

No smoking in the house. No smoking in the presence of the kids. That's plenty...

I don't smoke, haven't for years, but I think this punitive and, frankly, tyranical treatment of smokers is a load of crap. Illegal aliens and felons are less stigmatized than they are.

Is there some part of that you don't understand? My issue is that many, including, apparently, you, feel that it's ok to persecute Americans who are engaged in a perfectly legal activity, even when they attempt to accommodate your demands, which I happen to believe are excessive, and based largely on emotion.

[SkinsFreak]

See, that's what get's my spidey-sense tingling.

Whenever someone has to sensationalize what they are saying, I begin to get skeptical.

Dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal, and is used in pesticides, stryofoam, chemical and bioloical weapons. It is a chemical used in every nuclear power plant and it has been known to kill thousands of people at a time, and if ingested can lead to death.

Everything in that sentance is true, and sounds horrific when you describe water (dihydrogen monoxide or H2-O) in that way.

That's pretty funny. I saw something on TV about this. It was some kind of study to show how sensationalism combined with common ignorance can be quite comical.

There was a guy out on the city streets telling folks about manufacturing plants that use dihydrogen monoxide in their manufacturing process. He proceeded with examples of horrible products that contain dihydrogen monoxide, similar to what you listed. After he got these people all worked up, they were extremely eager to sign his petition to completely ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide in any manufacturing process.

Little did they know, all these people signed a petition to ban... water.

[Irn-Bru]

But Skinsfreak, if they believe it's harmful you have to take that into account.

By the way, I think you are thinking of Penn and Teller's show. . .the name of which I may not write outside of Smack. Kind of like 'Bull Crap', except. . .different.

[Cappster]

Just wondering... when you see a child with chronic ear infections, or with asthma, and who has never been around a smoker...

who do you blame that on?

I can tell you guys are smoking sympathizers. Anyway, I am not placing the blame of a child being ill strictly on smoking. I view it as one of the major variables that can be eliminated, therefore, I have chosen to eliminate it. Tell me how smoking a cigarette can benefit any part of your child's life. It doesn't.

From my first response on this thread...

Capster, while I agree that smoking around children is not acceptable, I have to wonder why you feel that punishing your parents for their addiction (and, have no doubt, it is an addiction) is at all helpful.

Your approach seems rather cruel and vindictive.

Lighten up.

No smoking in the house. No smoking in the presence of the kids. That's plenty...

I don't smoke, haven't for years, but I think this punitive and, frankly, tyranical treatment of smokers is a load of crap. Illegal aliens and felons are less stigmatized than they are.

Is there some part of that you don't understand? My issue is that many, including, apparently, you, feel that it's ok to persecute Americans who are engaged in a perfectly legal activity, even when they attempt to accommodate your demands, which I happen to believe are excessive, and based largely on emotion.

I am not one of those people that think smoking should be banned. I think there is a time and a place to partake in the activity. The problem is most smokers are inconsiderate and yes, I have been around inconsiderate smokers all of my life. I don't believe my demands are excessive. All I ask is if you want to handle my baby then don't smoke the whole time we are at your house. As I said before, if a person cannot go three hours without smoking that is an issue. A person doesn't need a cigarette to function normally for a few hours. I don't think it is much to ask especially from the grandparents.

[Cappster]

Some links on the other side of third hand smoke. I am not saying the sites are reputable but gives a different point of view:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/200 ... rails.html
http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/third-hand-smoke/
http://www.scientificblogging.com/scien ... ng_zealots

The most interesting thing which is stated in almost all three articles is that there was no actual study done. Just a phone survey:

"For the dwindling minority that still smokes and don't feel oppressed enough, here's something new to worry about; even if you choose to smoke outside of your house, thinking that you're keeping your kids away from second-hand smoke, you're still exposing them to toxins and potentially cognitive deficits, say researchers in the January issue of Pediatrics. Did they do a clinical study? No, they did a survey and found people who agree. "

It is interesting, but I don't need medical proof to know that right after a person smokes, they reek and the smell takes my breath away. I choose not to expose my child to that. I hope a true certifiable report comes out at some point to either confirm or debunk the third hand smoking theory.

[Cappster]

Interesting article on "third-hand smoke" but it's still greatly speculative.

For example, the article cites a boogeyman list of chemicals in third-hand smoke:

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

It doesn't tell you what concentrations these chemicals are found in. That makes all the difference in the world.

As an example, if you drink aspartame, or let your kids drink aspartame, please know that one of the breakdown products of aspartame is formaldehyde, which is highly toxic. However, you'd have to ingest something like 400 cans of diet soda a day to start showing effects from the formaldehyde byproduct of aspartame.

Likewise, if you enjoy eating fish, know that you're ingesting mercury (and no, it's not just salmon...salmon just has the highest concentration of mercury). But in moderation, it's healthy to eat fish.

As to the topic of your post, my mother smokes. Just not around my kids; if she wants to smoke, she goes outside and smokes, then washes her hands afterwards. I don't even ask her to do this...she just does it. Same with my friends who smoke; it's just common courtesy.

Common courtesy runs short in my family. If you ask someone if they washed their hands they act like they are offended. The smokers are the worst offenders especially when they have been smoking. "I washed my hands before I came over" ....What? Seriously? You can see where I do not trust them to do the right thing.

[SkinsFreak]

But Skinsfreak, if they believe it's harmful you have to take that into account.

By the way, I think you are thinking of Penn and Teller's show. . .the name of which I may not write outside of Smack. Kind of like 'Bull Crap', except. . .different.

I remember that show now. That was pretty funny. I forgot the topic, but wasn't it something about how people are followers and can be easily manipulated?

Most folks enter an elevator and turn around and face to door. I think it was the same show in which the had a guy enter the elevator and had him face the back wall. Other folks would enter the elevator, see him facing the back wall, and then they'd do the same foolish thing by facing the back wall as well, just because they saw this other guy doing it first. Penn and Teller had some classics.

The dangers of 1st and 2nd hand smoke are well documented. We all know that. But I really find it hard to believe that if someone reeks of cigarettes, that smell is going to be harmful. Does it smell bad? Sure. But is it going to harm me or my child... I doubt it.

[JansenFan]

Just to chime in again, every time in the last two years one of my children (both are asthmatic and triggered by cigarette smoke) has had to go to the pediatrician or ER for asthma-related issues, they have talked about third-hand smoke and that we should avoid it when possible.

Also as an aside, when our children were infants, we insisted that anyone that handled the babies wash their hands, regardless of whether they smoked or not.