Judge Imposes Smoking Ban on Mother

[HomeBrewerDude]

this isn't about smoking and the ill-effects of first hand or second hand smoke.

This ruling is about a parent NOT RESPECTING TO HER CHILDS NEEDS. She should of found a compromise to their situation a long time ago (e.g., smoking outside, reducing her habit, quitting altogether having her house steam cleaned).

 

[Jimbo]

TMPadmin:


<< You can always prove or disprove whatever you want to fine with your tests and studies. I bet I can fine several articles saying smoking and/or second hand smoke causes asthma. On the other hand I bet I can find just as many saying that is doesn't. Quit hiding behind your studies and admin(sic) that smoking is bad for the smoker and those around the smoker. I'm sure anyone with emphysema will agree. >>



Do you think that if there a SHRED of legitimate evidence that linked smoking to asthma that the American Lung Association would not be all over it? I challenge you to find a legitimate study that says otherwise. I'll go out on a limb and say you can't. Prove me wrong.
As for your claim that "smoking is bad for the smoker", I have yet to see anyone post that statement. Neither can you.
"I'm sure anyone with emphysema will agree." This assumes that you are not one of the 100,000 Americans that have alpha 1-antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency-related emphysema, which is wholly genetic and unrelated to smoking at all.
Now I'm not calling tobacco a health food and I'm not stating that there are not health consequences to smoking for the smoker. However the assertion that brief exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (like you described in your heart wrenching story) is an absolute killer is not founded by ANY research by anyone, even the most rabid anti-smoking groups.

In one sentence you say that your child's (an I will assume that you also include your wife and yourself) rights have been violated but then you condemn all of the associated research one way or the other.
I can only assume that because you don't smoke you won't allow it for anyone else due to your personal biases.

 

[Jimbo]

yamahaXS:


<< This ruling is about a parent NOT RESPECTING TO(sic) HER CHILDS NEEDS. >>


I think you are confusing need and want. As it stands she is NOT smoking around her son and only is smoking (when he is there) while locked in her bathroom. The son admitted this. So I guess that children now have the right to dictate what cologne a parent wears or how often they bathe and with what soap?

 

[Chipster]

<< this isn't about smoking and the ill-effects of first hand or second hand smoke.
This ruling is about a parent NOT RESPECTING TO HER CHILDS NEEDS. >>



The childs needs? What if the kid all of sudden starts hating the mothers home cooking and says it really smells up the house and he now wants McDonalds every time he goes over....Should the judge butt in and start enforcing that too?

It's her house and she should be able to do whatever she wants to do as long as its legal. The child should have no say.....Mom's the boss....Well at least it was that way when I was brought up.
When he is 18 and owns his own place and pays the bills,he can do what he wants.

 

[Russ]

This is not about smoking, or even about smoker's rights. It is about rights, all rights. It is yet another in a long list of incremental erosions of freedoms in this country. What is next? Judges ordering us to wear only specific colognes and perfumes? Only to use certain cleaning agents in our homes and businesses because some do-gooder didn't like the smell?

Those of you who believe this decision is correct, please make sure that you take it quietly up your respective asses, and don't complain when it's your turn in the barrel.

Russ, NCNE

 

[StageLeft]

hmm

 

[Russ]

<< It's irresponsible to smoke around your children anyway and doing so proves this fact. If you smoke in front of your kids you're a POS. >>



Skoorb,

I'm surprised. Shouldn't you read the thread before commenting?

Russ, NCNE

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<< It's irresponsible to smoke around your children anyway and doing so proves this fact. If you smoke in front of your kids you're a POS. >>



Skoorb,

I'm surprised. Shouldn't you read the thread before commenting?

Russ, NCNE >>

No - that wouldn't be living to the Skoorb effect would it? I don't have time to ready 50 maybe i'll just retract what i said if it's totally irrelevant to the progression of the thread.

 

[Russ]

I'll condense it for you:

A. She wasn't smoking around him, he was complaining about the smell - not smoke.
B. She is ordered to never smoke in her home or car, EVEN WHEN HE'S NOT THERE.

Russ, NCNE

 

[SpecialEd]

yet that story is from Rome, NY! One of my best friends lives there! Doesn't surprise me that something like this would happen...

 

[Jimbo]

Skoorb:


<< Good. It's irresponsible to smoke around your children anyway and doing so proves this fact. If you smoke in front of your kids you're a POS. >>


Thereby proving that if you don't have facts all you have to do is resort to name calling. Perhaps those that preach this hatred are the POS?
Russ gets it. This is a sweeping intrusion upon personal freedom. Now that might not be a concern to Skoorb because his country has pissed away a lot of his freedoms already, but it should be a concern to the rest of us.

 

[Phoenix15]

<<

Smokers should get the gas chamber. Or even better: the electric chair. Let them smoke one last time. >>



...and you should get a kick in the nads.

 

[Harvey]

I agree with the judge. The kid said he didn't want to visit his mom's house because of the smoke, and he happens to be right about the health effects.

 

[TMPadmin]

<< TMPadmin:


<< You can always prove or disprove whatever you want to fine with your tests and studies. I bet I can fine several articles saying smoking and/or second hand smoke causes asthma. On the other hand I bet I can find just as many saying that is doesn't. Quit hiding behind your studies and admin(sic) that smoking is bad for the smoker and those around the smoker. I'm sure anyone with emphysema will agree. >>



Do you think that if there a SHRED of legitimate evidence that linked smoking to asthma that the American Lung Association would not be all over it? I challenge you to find a legitimate study that says otherwise. I'll go out on a limb and say you can't. Prove me wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1562000/1562147.stm

http://www.lungsandiego.org/asthma/article_passive_smoke.asp

http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0215014.htm

Want me to go on?


As for your claim that "smoking is bad for the smoker", I have yet to see anyone post that statement. Neither can you.
"I'm sure anyone with emphysema will agree." This assumes that you are not one of the 100,000 Americans that have alpha 1-antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency-related emphysema, which is wholly genetic and unrelated to smoking at all.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/basic02.html

In one sentence you say that your child's (an I will assume that you also include your wife and yourself) rights have been violated but then you condemn all of the associated research one way or the other.
I can only assume that because you don't smoke you won't allow it for anyone else due to your personal biases. >>



You are damn right I won't allow it, but I know I don't have that choice. You do with your live as you wish but don't force it on me. When you can inhale your smoke and not exhale any particle back into the air I breath then I will let you anywhere you want to go but as you know and have seen smokers are being forced into small rooms, or outside in the cold and IMO that's where it should stay. I even have an issue with it outside in public areas. You inhaled the smoke keep it in yourself. You don't see me spitting my beer or heck ever my mouthwash back in your face. As a landlord I have the right to state in my lease that I prohibit smoking in the house and I enforce it.

I think we need to split this thread. Seems as though we have forgotten about the child who doesn't want to be around his mother who has no respect for her son.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<< I'll condense it for you: A. She wasn't smoking around him, he was complaining about the smell - not smoke. B. She is ordered to never smoke in her home or car, <U>EVEN WHEN HE'S NOT THERE</U>. Russ, NCNE >>



Sorry Russ, but I read the article, and I cannot draw a conclusion either way. You may be right, but based on the link, there is no way to tell. The judge cited second hand smoke, but no mention of her not smoking if he isn't coming over. Also, where do you get that she wasn't smoking around him? Perhaps this is true, but that is not addressed. You may be right, but the details were not given as to how the order actually read.

One other thing. You say you believe it is an erosion of rights. How does this ruling adversely affect the boys rights?

 

[ohtwell]

<< this isn't about smoking and the ill-effects of first hand or second hand smoke.

This ruling is about a parent NOT RESPECTING TO HER CHILDS NEEDS. She should of found a compromise to their situation a long time ago (e.g., smoking outside, reducing her habit, quitting altogether having her house steam cleaned). >>




I totally agree with you

 

[StageLeft]

<< Skoorb:


<< Good. It's irresponsible to smoke around your children anyway and doing so proves this fact. If you smoke in front of your kids you're a POS. >>


Thereby proving that if you don't have facts all you have to do is resort to name calling. Perhaps those that preach this hatred are the POS?
Russ gets it. This is a sweeping intrusion upon personal freedom. Now that might not be a concern to Skoorb because his country has pissed away a lot of his freedoms already, but it should be a concern to the rest of us. >>

Hehe actually I didn't call anyone a name that does not deserve it. I still maintain that smoking around your child makes you a POS because it does. If you do it you're a POS.

However as russ clarifyed for those of us too lazy to read the thread in this case of couse she should be not banned from smoking when the kid is not around. That is just silly.

 

[AmerDoux]

I am not so sure the judges decision is based so much on moms smoking or not, as it is based on what the child has expressed as his preference in visitation. When children reach a certain age (often 12-13) the courts will take into consideration the immediate feelings of the child when establishing custody and visitation.

While this is done with the absolute best of intentions, many times what it really does is open up the doors to one parent being able to manipulate the childs feelings. Worse, it teaches the child how he can manipulate his parents by pitting them against each other, aligning themselves with whichever parent is going to service their immediate wants. That is a very dangerous thing to teach any child, especially one who is soon entering their teens. If the parents (and courts!) cannot put this aside and call it the nonsense that it really is, what are they going to do when real issues come up?

Interesting to see several of you assume mom is a POS because dad has custody.
This really irks....I spent 8 years fighting to keep custody of my son. Not because of anything that I did wrong or any irresponsible acts. I worked full time and I had to put my son in childcare. Dad, on the other hand, did not work. He was busy collecting unemployment and living off of g/f's welfare checks. I damn near lost custody because I had a job.
Nobody knows what the reasons are for dad to have primary custody.
Don't assume.

 

[Dually]

good

 

[Frosty3799]

i ahve no idea what any of your poll answers meant.. so i juswt picked one

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< yamahaXS:


<< This ruling is about a parent NOT RESPECTING TO(sic) HER CHILDS NEEDS. >>


I think you are confusing need and want. As it stands she is NOT smoking around her son and only is smoking (when he is there) while locked in her bathroom. The son admitted this. So I guess that children now have the right to dictate what cologne a parent wears or how often they bathe and with what soap?

and

The childs needs? What if the kid all of sudden starts hating the mothers home cooking and says it really smells up the house and he now wants McDonalds every time he goes over....Should the judge butt in and start enforcing that too?

It's her house and she should be able to do whatever she wants to do as long as its legal. The child should have no say.....Mom's the boss....Well at least it was that way when I was brought up.
When he is 18 and owns his own place and pays the bills,he can do what he wants.

>>



No, I am not confusing need and want. The boy NEEDS to have a good relationship with his mother. This is the whole purpose of visitation. The mother WANTS to smoke in her home and WANTS to have her son visit her. The boy WANTS to not be exposed to the smell of cigarettes. Resolving these conflicting desires is the responsibilty of the parent, the mother in this case. There is no real merit behind smoking, therefore the only thing to consider is how to balance both Mom's and Son's wants.

The fact that the mother/son haven't resolved this conflict means that their relationship has weaknesses. For whatever reason, her previous attempts to resolve the conflict (not smoking in his precense, smoking only in the bathroom) haven't worked. She should try something else like only smoking outside or having her furniture steam cleaned. The judge didn't tell her to stop smoking altogether, he just ordered her to change the way she smokes.

 

[TMPadmin]

Last post for me today?

I think if the mother truly wanted to further the relationship she has with her son she would go to any extreme to make that possible. Quit smoking in the house, get everything cleaned or at the least offer to meet her son at the mall or park where there is no lingering smoke smell. This should not be an issue. There are some sacrifices one makes when they have children while most are not enforceable by law more just make sense. It is unfortunate that the court system as to be the parent to this boy. He would be better off if the mother just quit. With everything we as a society know about the dangers smoking has on a fetus she should have quite as soon as she found out she was pregnant. I think this is not a case of the government encroaching on our private lives I think it?s a sad statement that a parent is not logical enough to do what is best for her son and has to be told by the court that to make her son happy when he comes to see her she should clean up her habit.

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

This is exactly what I was talking about. The main point here is that you don't LIKE cigarettes, and see them as useless. Therefore you have no problem limiting the rights of smokers to do as they please in private businesses... and outside where the smoke is not harming you.

Some people need to learn how to look at the world more objectively.

>>



If I take my dog outside to go to the bathroom, and it does a number 2 on the sidewalk I should have the right to leave it there by your standards. I mean, if the dog is doing this on the sidewalk, it isn't hurting you... you may step on it, and find it repulsive, but you'll live. Therefore, I should be able to do this. Heck, why don't I just go outside and start masterbating on the street. I mean, nobody is going to get hurt by me whipping it out in public, right?

So why can't I do these things? Because somebody else will wind them to be disgusting and repulsive, and therefore the rights of that person will be infringed. The reason there are laws against these things is that a vast amount of people find them disgusting. Personally, cigarette smoke makes me nauseas, and if I'm around it more then a minute or two my clothes will smell like that. Often times it takes a few washes to completely get rid of the smell. Isn't that damaging my property?

Finally, BEFORE you started smoking, how many times did you sit down and say "Wow, I'm really nervous/stressed/depressed/whatever, I NEED a cigarette"? You didn't... and therefore, you DON'T need a cigarette. It's addiction pure and simple. I really wish they would enforce littering laws as well, because I hate walking down the street and not being able to look a square foot without seeing cigarrette butts and filters all over. Seeing as how I pay taxes, I believe that entitles me to a right as to how the roads/parks/sidewalks I pay for look. >>



First off, I don't smoke.

Secondly, your argument is very weak and subjective, not to mention further proof of my point. Simply smelling cigartette smoke is not akin to stepping in animal manure or masturbating on the street. It would be more like smelling exhaust fumes from a truck or someone wearing a perfume you don't like. The fact that you take this to such illogical extremes only shows that you're incapable of looking at the objectivly.

Yes, littering is littering. That does not mean any limits on people smoking any more than limits on everyone chewing gum because some people toss it on the sidewalk.

I would much rather catch the occational waft of smoke outside and avoid a business or two that allows smokers, than live in the restrictive, fascist environment you must envision.

 

[Jimbo]

TMPadmin
Your sources have a few problems. Out of the three links that you provided, two point to the same study and one contradicts its own parent organizations information. Not exactly a conclusive argument on your part. But anyways?
Finally you slipped in a link from ASH, which is the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe of the anti-smoker crowd. This is the same organization that was the subject of an FBI investigation for posting a how-to manual on the product tampering of cigarettes with lethal quantities of cyanide in the hope that the resulting deaths would cause wide scale panic resulting in consumers being too afraid to buy cigarettes. When questioned about their unorthodox tactics, their response was that ??those people would have died anyway.? I would not trust their info anymore that I would anything from RJ Reynolds. When asked to repudiate cited examples of violence against smokers (by anti-smoking zealots) the Executive Director?s response was: ?With regard to your suggestion that ASH publish on its web site any statement to the effect that it, or those associated with it, do not condone violence against persons because of their smoking behavior, your request is also rejected?? This was after two instances (one was a pregnant woman who was beaten for smoking and the other was a 60 year old man that was put into a coma for smoking) against people smoking.

 

[TMPadmin]

Well JImbo my point was that I simply did a search and found some evidence and research supporting the fact that smoking is linked to asthma I could have given equal stating the opposite. And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point.