Judge Imposes Smoking Ban on Mother

[Sir Fredrick]

<< I'm still waiting for the explaination of how, in the time period that smoking was cut by 50% or more AND nearly all smoking in public places and private businesses has been banned, the rate of asthma increased more than 100%. >>



Where are you getting these nice round figures anyway?

Here are some results that seem to have been obtained by more scientific methods: Text

summary of results from various studies

Asthma Triggers Report Card

WHO Report on Tobacco Smoke and Child Health

 

[Amused]

From memory, however:

I typed in "rate of asthma" at the CDC website and the first result told me:



<< The prevalence of asthma is measured as a proportion; that is, existing cases of asthma divided by the total population at a point in time. This slide demonstrates the increase in asthma prevalence from 1982 to 1994. The white line indicates the U.S. population under the age of 18 affected by asthma. In 1982, roughly 4% of people younger than 18 years old had asthma. By 1994, this rate had increased to almost 7%, or approximately five million people under the age of 18. Furthermore, from 1982 through 1994, the overall annual age-adjusted prevalence rate of asthma for people younger than 18 years old increased by 72%. >>



Now, this does not include the increases before 1982. If you'd like to find it, be my guest. However, a 100% increase in the prevalence of Asthma is not a number I pulled out of my ass.

Then, in Google, I typed in "rate of tobacco use" and found this as the first result: (from the CDC)



<< An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997. >>



OK, so I rounded my numbers off a bit because I was working from memory. However, they are correct enough to support my position. You cannot claim tobacco smoke is the cause or even a signifigant cause of Asthma with these numbers going the exact opposite way through time.

 

[Jimbo]

Sir Fredrick: Wow, that is a bunch of reading. Give me a few hours and I can take a look at what you have there.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< I'm still waiting for the explaination of how, in the time period that smoking was cut by 50% or more AND nearly all smoking in public places and private businesses has been banned, the rate of asthma increased more than 100%. >>



Where are you getting these nice round figures anyway?

Here are some results that seem to have been obtained by more scientific methods: Text

summary of results from various studies

Asthma Triggers Report Card

WHO Report on Tobacco Smoke and Child Health >>



um, besides the fact that they are from anti-smoking sites, the WHO report does not say asthma is caused by tobacco, only TRIGGERED.

In fact, NONE of that states that tobacco causes asthma, except one says "suggestive evidence exists." (yeah right, and I know about Bigfoot, too) And to that, I point to my numbers again that I got from the CDC. Tobacco use has gone down by 50%, and exposure has dropped much farther than that since smoking is banned nearly everywhere... yet Asthma cases have doubled in the same time the rate of smoking dropped dramatically.

Now, if exposure to ETS were a cause of asthma, why has asthma cases increased while tobacco use and exposure has dropped by a huge margin?

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<<

<<

<< I'm still waiting for the explaination of how, in the time period that smoking was cut by 50% or more AND nearly all smoking in public places and private businesses has been banned, the rate of asthma increased more than 100%. >>



Where are you getting these nice round figures anyway?

Here are some results that seem to have been obtained by more scientific methods: Text

summary of results from various studies

Asthma Triggers Report Card

WHO Report on Tobacco Smoke and Child Health >>



um, besides the fact that they are from anti-smoking sites, the WHO report does not say asthma is caused by tobacco, only TRIGGERED.

In fact, NONE of that states that tobacco causes asthma, except one says "suggestive evidence exists." (yeah right, and I know about Bigfoot, too) And to that, I point to my numbers again that I got from the CDC. Tobacco use has gone down by 50%, and exposure has dropped much farther than that since smoking is banned nearly everywhere... yet Asthma cases have doubled in the same time the rate of smoking dropped dramatically.

Now, if exposure to ETS were a cause of asthma, why has asthma cases increased while tobacco use and exposure has dropped by a huge margin? >>




From the WHO site:

Asthma is the most common chronic disease of childhood, and environmental factors play an important role in determining both onset and severity. Both asthma and respiratory symptoms (wheeze, cough, breathlessness and phlegm) are increased among children whose parents smoke, on the basis of over 60 studies of school-aged children

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< The prevalence of asthma is measured as a proportion; that is, existing cases of asthma divided by the total population at a point in time. This slide demonstrates the increase in asthma prevalence from 1982 to 1994. The white line indicates the U.S. population under the age of 18 affected by asthma. In 1982, roughly 4% of people younger than 18 years old had asthma. By 1994, this rate had increased to almost 7%, or approximately five million people under the age of 18. Furthermore, from 1982 through 1994, the overall annual age-adjusted prevalence rate of asthma for people younger than 18 years old increased by 72%. >>



So we're talking about going from 4% of the population to 7% from '82-'94. While technically nearly a 100% increase, this is a good example of how numbers and statistics can be easily manipulated.



<< An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997. >>



So here we are going from ~42% to ~24.7%. A significant decrease, I'll admit, but look at the date range. '65-'97. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
You also have to look at other causes of asthma and see if those sources have gone up - for example, if more children are being exposed to high levels of air pollution, you might see a rise in the number of people with asthma even if smoking is eliminated altogether. Again, all you're "proving" is that parental smoking is not THE ONLY factor. That doesn't mean it's not a factor. It could still be a significant factor. That's why you need to use a study such as the one I outlined previously which would help to isolate all other possible variables.

 

[Amused]

<< From the WHO site:

Asthma is the most common chronic disease of childhood, and environmental factors play an important role in determining both onset and severity. Both asthma and respiratory symptoms (wheeze, cough, breathlessness and phlegm) are increased among children whose parents smoke, on the basis of over 60 studies of school-aged children >>



Onset of attacks, not the disease itself. And the onset of asthmatic attacks are increased in homes with smokers, that I do not deny. However, this does not prove that smoking causes people to have asthma itself.

And my numbers speak for themselves. Were smoking the cause, or a signifigant cause of asthma, the rate of asthma would have dropped with the rate of smoking. It did not. It nearly doubled.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< The prevalence of asthma is measured as a proportion; that is, existing cases of asthma divided by the total population at a point in time. This slide demonstrates the increase in asthma prevalence from 1982 to 1994. The white line indicates the U.S. population under the age of 18 affected by asthma. In 1982, roughly 4% of people younger than 18 years old had asthma. By 1994, this rate had increased to almost 7%, or approximately five million people under the age of 18. Furthermore, from 1982 through 1994, the overall annual age-adjusted prevalence rate of asthma for people younger than 18 years old increased by 72%. >>



So we're talking about going from 4% of the population to 7% from '82-'94. While technically nearly a 100% increase, this is a good example of how numbers and statistics can be easily manipulated.



<< An important accomplishment of the second half of the 20th century has been the reduction of smoking prevalence among persons aged greater than or equal to 18 years from 42.4% in 1965 to 24.7% in 1997. >>



So here we are going from ~42% to ~24.7%. A significant decrease, I'll admit, but look at the date range. '65-'97. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
You also have to look at other causes of asthma and see if those sources have gone up - for example, if more children are being exposed to high levels of air pollution, you might see a rise in the number of people with asthma even if smoking is eliminated altogether. Again, all you're "proving" is that parental smoking is not THE ONLY factor. That doesn't mean it's not a factor. It could still be a significant factor. That's why you need to use a study such as the one I outlined previously which would help to isolate all other possible variables. >>



Sorry, but now you're just denying reality to fit a preconception you have. And I submit that the ambiguous studies you have presented do the same thing.

Air pollution has decreased in the same period. I don't know about you, but I grew up before CCs and unleaded gas. I remember the LA air being so thick with smog that my lungs hurt and I couldn't catch my breath just riding my bike the mile home from grade school during the mid 70s, and that no longer happening by the time I entered highschool and rode three miles home on my ten speed. I didn't know it then, but I was having asthma-esque attacks brought on by smog, even though nothing else causes asthma attacks in me, and I've never been diagnosed with it. Everyone I knew suffered the same thing, even though most of them were not diagnosed with asthma either. I've never felt it since. Why? Because the smog of the 60s and 70s just isn't there in that concetration anymore.

Both smog and ETS have decreased, with ETS decreasing by a huge factor considering that smoking is no longer allowed in nearly all public buildings, and the rate of smoking was cut in half yet Asthma rates have nearly doubled.

With numbers going in exactly the opposite direction, I cannot believe you would even dare to suggest that it's a significant factor. I posit that smoking triggers already existing asthma that had yet to be diagnosed, and therefore it is mistakenly blamed for "causing" it.

The most viable explanation I have seen for the most signifigant causes of asthma are genetics, and a "too clean" lifestyle that was sparked by irrational fear of AIDS in the mid to late eighties when we saw the introduction of "antibacterial" everything and the abuse of antibiotics. Nothing else makes sense. Especially when you consider the environmental triggers of asthma have DECREASED and are obviously not the CAUSE.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I am insisting on using scientific research methodologies before jumping to conclusions, insisting on using numbers from matching date ranges for comparison. This is not a denial of reality, just a call for accuracy.

The links I have provided were just to show that I can find studies/sources (including the american lung association and the EPA) which claim that there IS a correlation between parents who smoke and asthma in their children, just as well as you can provide studies to the contrary.
Neither side can be said to be right until a conclusive study meeting the criteria that I outlined previously is performed. It may have already been performed, but I haven't seen any links to such a study yet.

Further, in my particular situation, I lived in a rural area (no smog), no other family members had (has) asthma, and my house was certainly not kept too clean. I also had more than my fair share of infections as a child, sinus and ear mostly, so we can't blame it on a lack of exposure to germs/infections.

Also, if you're so sure that this is genetics, how does that explain away the "dramatic" increase in the number of asthma sufferers?

 

[Jimbo]

<< I also had more than my fair share of infections as a child, sinus and ear mostly... >>


Bingo dude!
There is a distinct linkage (not to be confused with a causative effect) between ear, nose and throat infection and the later development of asthma. There is also additional linkage if you were treated with antibiotics in the first year of life.
Now this is where it gets tricky. Although it is highly suspected that genetics are a large factor, it is not the only one. I am sure that the final answer will be that it is sever factors that come together, in just the right way to produce asthma. Now it sounds your situation could also be a statistical aberration (based on what little we know). It is entirely possible that you would had no known factors but were genetically susceptible to the disease anyways. That is the confounding part of Epidemiology and antidotal experience. With a statistical sampling of one, it is difficult to draw a conclusion.
In short, if there were one place that I could point you to at this time (and I wish I could), the asthma mystery would be already solved. Sorry.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

That's anecdotal.

And you're right, there's a linkage there, but guess what! There's also a causative linkage between exposure to cigarette smoke and middle ear infections. Several of the sites I linked to also touch on that.

 

[Amused]

<< I am insisting on using scientific research methodologies before jumping to conclusions, insisting on using numbers from matching date ranges for comparison. This is not a denial of reality, just a call for accuracy.

The links I have provided were just to show that I can find studies/sources (including the american lung association and the EPA) which claim that there IS a correlation between parents who smoke and asthma in their children, just as well as you can provide studies to the contrary.
Neither side can be said to be right until a conclusive study meeting the criteria that I outlined previously is performed. It may have already been performed, but I haven't seen any links to such a study yet.

Further, in my particular situation, I lived in a rural area (no smog), no other family members had (has) asthma, and my house was certainly not kept too clean. I also had more than my fair share of infections as a child, sinus and ear mostly, so we can't blame it on a lack of exposure to germs/infections.

Also, if you're so sure that this is genetics, how does that explain away the "dramatic" increase in the number of asthma sufferers? >>



Genetics and an increase can be justified by the explanation that asthmatics have had the ability to combat asthma attacks only in the last 50 years or so. This allowed more asthmatics to survive past childhood, and bear children.

And when the pure and simple numbers head in opposite directions, there IS no correlation. Any claimed correlation defies simple, basic logic.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< And when the pure and simple numbers head in opposite directions, there IS no correlation. Any claimed correlation defies simple, basic logic. >>



Remind me never to trust any study you conduct.

Let's take a hypothetical example to show how something with a correlation can lead to numbers heading in opposite directions. Also, please remember that your numbers are not very trustworthy considering that the date ranges are completely different.

We're looking at an alien race, called Igrops. Igrops can be blue or green, and there are several factors which come into play in deciding which color they will be. The consumption of piqorts gives them a 20% chance of becoming blue (they are green by default). Space travel gives them a 25% chance of becoming blue. Communicating with humans who live in trailer parks gives them a 10% chance of becoming blue.

Consumption of piquorts has fallen from 50% to 25%, and yet the number of blue Igrops has risen from 16% to 24%.

Can you conclude that consumption of piquorts is an insignificant factor in the color of Igrops? No, but you can conclude that piquorts are not the only thing that makes an Igrop blue. Chances are that space travel and/or communication with humans in trailer parks is on the rise. If neither has increased, then there is another factor coming into play that we don't know about.

Proper epidemiological studies isolating all potential variables will probably be able to determine what this other external factor is.

If you cannot understand this fairly simple example, I'm going to have to stop discussing this as it's an elementary concept that you seem to refuse to accept...you're obviously not a scientist or a statistician...I hope.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< And when the pure and simple numbers head in opposite directions, there IS no correlation. Any claimed correlation defies simple, basic logic. >>



Remind me never to trust any study you conduct.

Let's take a hypothetical example to show how something with a correlation can lead to numbers heading in opposite directions. Also, please remember that your numbers are not very trustworthy considering that the date ranges are completely different.

We're looking at an alien race, called Igrops. Igrops can be blue or green, and there are several factors which come into play in deciding which color they will be. The consumption of piqorts gives them a 20% chance of becoming blue (they are green by default). Space travel gives them a 25% chance of becoming blue. Communicating with humans who live in trailer parks gives them a 10% chance of becoming blue.

Consumption of piquorts has fallen from 50% to 25%, and yet the number of blue Igrops has risen from 16% to 24%.

Can you conclude that consumption of piquorts is an insignificant factor in the color of Igrops? No, but you can conclude that piquorts are not the only thing that makes an Igrop blue. Chances are that space travel and/or communication with humans in trailer parks is on the rise. If neither has increased, then there is another factor coming into play that we don't know about.

Proper epidemiological studies isolating all potential variables will probably be able to determine what this other external factor is.

If you cannot understand this fairly simple example, I'm going to have to stop discussing this as it's an elementary concept that you seem to refuse to accept...you're obviously not a scientist or a statistician...I hope. >>

But you haven't produced any other environmental factor on the rise that could explain the dramatic increase in asthmatics, Freddy.

And my dates correlate perfectly. The largest decreases in smoking occurred in the late 70s and 80s if my memory serves me right.

The "smoking causes asthma" mantra has no proof, and while they say there is "suggestive evidence" even the hard core antismoking medical community cannot bring themselves to claim outright that this fallacy is true. For if it were, there would have been HUGE FREAKIN' NUMBERS of blue Igrops because there was piquort literally swimming in the air in every public place during the first half of this century, and all the way into the 70s.

You see? Your little farce assumes that only the rate of smoking has dropped. Nope, the rate of public smoking in enclosed areas has been all but eliminated at the same freakin' time. If exposure to ETS was a factor in developing asthma, there is NO WAY IN HELL asthma rates would increase when exposure to ETC was all but eliminated in public places. But, surprise surprise, the rate of asthma INCREASED at the VERY SAME TIME smoking was being eliminated in public buildings.

Hell, how about I suggest: The LACK of exposure to tobacco smoke caused the increase in asthmatics.

Disprove it. No, I don't believe it, but disprove it anyhow.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I can tell when people are getting frustrated with my discussions when they resort to calling me Freddy. I'm bailing out before this turns into a flame war, so this'll probably be my last response.

'82-'94 does not correlate with '65-'97, those date ranges are completely different.

As I said in my example, we may not know all of the environmental factors coming into play here, even if air pollution is also decreasing significantly. Perhaps you are right that genetics is coming into play more than it would have previously because there are better treatments for asthma.
Perhaps now children with childhood asthma are living long enough to be diagnosed and treated where before they may not have survived long enough to be counted in statistics.

 

[Amused]

LOL, I didn't intend "Freddy" as an insult. Your name is too freakin' long to type out.

Others in threads call me "Amused" or AO. It just makes things a little easier. Trust me, if I was going to call you names with the intent to insult, Freddy wouldn't be my choice.

 

[Aceman]

Sir Fredrick,
How many times and how many people have to beat into you that SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE ASTHMA. Smoking and second hand smoke CAN TRIGGER an Asthma attack. So under your thought process, let's take my child(ren).We will only talk about my two youngest as the oldest is a StepChild.

Child #1: Mother and Father smokes through and after pregnancy. There is a low birth weight. (Although mother is only 4' 10"and this child at 5.5# is larger than her first when she didn't smoke) Besides that, child is perectly healthy newborn. You say smoking causes asthma. Why hasn't it shown up yet? Child is now 6-8 months old. Becomes very sick. Is taken to hospital. Is diagnosed with RVS. A terrible, basically permanent virus that attacks your respiratory symptoms. Can cause scarring of the lungs. Resides in lungs for life. Easily is passed in Daycares. 2 months later child wheezes and can barely breath. Is taken to Hospital. Diagnosed with Asthma. Official reason/cause of asthma: RVS invoked the "sleeping giant"....Asthma. Under your assumption my and my wife's smoking caused it.

OK................

Child #2: Born 13 months after child # 1. Environmental conditions still the same. 6 months into pregnancy, wife goes through premature labor. Child/mother are in critical condition. Child is born at about 8 months. Placenta tears on birth and temporarily suffocates child and does some minor damages to the already premature lungs. Child is on oxygen for 2 days and then is discharged with mother. Child goes to same daycare and is subjected to same identical environment. 3 years after birth, Child #2 develops his FIRST cold. Child goes 2 more years getting sick only one other time. Parents have never noticed any signs of asthma. Under your assumptions, this child should have asthma, also.

Genetics+other medical factors that child #2 does not have or was exposed to caused my first child to develop asthma. If smoking was the cause of asthma, Child # 2 should have it also. Apparently, Child #2 does not have the genetic make-up that causes asthma and/or has not been exposed to a virus or environment that will cause the "sleeping giant" to awaken. Apparently, I do not have the genetic make up or been exposed to an environment that causes asthma (That's hard to believe with all the crap I've been exposed to in the military!).

In it's simplest terms, your theory of "Smoking/second hand smoke causes asthma" is now reduced down to a faulty hypothesis.

SMOKING OR SECOND HAND SMOKE DOES NOT CAUSE ASTHMA.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

AmusedOne - that's fine, though I prefer Fred. Hell you could just call me Jay if you want, since that's my name.

Aceman - I don't care if 100 people tell me that smoking and asthma are not related, I have yet to see any concrete evidence (AmusedOne's speculation which involves comparing numbers from different date ranges, and does not rely on any studies that have actually been conducted on the subject matter is not enough to convince me, sorry).

Also, please realize that smoking while pregnant does not always cause asthma, it just increases the likelihood of developing it. And no, I would not jump to the conclusion that smoking lead to child #1 developing asthma; I have already admitted that there are many other environmental factors which come into play. You must realize, however, that it all comes down to probabilities. There is nothing that will guarantee that a child will develop asthma, there are only things which increase (or decrease) the likelihood that s/he will develop asthma.

 

[Jimbo]

<< That's anecdotal. >>


Doh!
Damn spellchecker! I've got to pay more attention to the word suggestions.

 

[veryape]

<< what's the big deal?

the kid doesn't want to see his mom, what are you going to do, force the kid to see her against his will? yea, that's healthy.



<< Nicholas' law guardian, William Koslosky, of Utica, said the teen is in excellent health, but told him last August that he didn't want to visit his mother because she smokes.
"Nicholas was ashamed that his mother was a smoker," the lawyer said. "He said his mother's house reeked." >>

>>

Yea, that's usually how it goes, children don't have the right to choose their parents do they? You make yourself sound truly stupid with that statement.

Yes, I agree if the mother is a bad parent by all means take the child away, but smoking doesn't constitute being a bad parent and that judge has no right doing what he did any more than I have the right to tell him he can't drive with his child in his car if his child doesn't like the way he drives.

Point is, smoking is legal, whether you prissy ass non-smokers like it or not, and your complaining only makes you look childish and uneducated, especially when you try and convince people how bad second hand smoke is to your health. What a crock. I have yet to see a case of lung cancer that is confirmed to be caused by second hand smoke. Do you know why? Because it's frigging harmless, that's why.

You must be one spoiled assed brat who lived with liberals all your life to think you have the right to tell your parents what to do. This world is becoming more of a joke everyday.

Give the damned kid up for adoption, now that would be hilarious. Little pussy would be crying on the phone to come back and live with mommy then. I'm so sick of kids using this screwed up legal system to get what they want, and holding child services over their parents heads so often that they are afraid to spank them when they need it. It's because of judges and people like you that our children these days are killing, robbing and whatever crimes you can think of. It's total lack of parenting, because the parents are afraid if they punish their children they will lose them. Smoking is not against the law, therefore, this judge was way out of bounds and totally unethical.

 

[Jimbo]

Coming back to the posted title of this topic, the judge in this case is way out of bounds. Regardless of what you believe about second hand smoke (ETS) and its effects on others, this is not the issue. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the mother WAS NOT SMOKING IN THE PRESENCE OF HER SON. Everybody involved in this case agrees on this statement. The kid was complaining of the residual SMELL in her car and in her apartment. THIS IS NOT SECOND HAND SMOKE. This is the smell of residual cigarette smoking. Now let?s assume that her apartment stinks. Maybe or maybe not, but let?s just say that it does for the purpose of argument. Now let?s say that the reason that it stinks is because the mother just loves to eat mackerel (the fish). And lets say that she fries mackerel for dinner four times a week in a small apartment. Now I don?t know if you have ever smelled mackerel being fried, but it is horrendous. The stench is overwhelming and the residual smell does not readily go away. Now just about all dieticians will tell you that having frequent servings of fish a week is very good for you. The general consensus is that the more the better. Now if this kid hates the smell of cigarettes, he really won?t like the smell of frying a very pungent fish. Now is there a health hazard here. No. Now what right would the judge have to tell her what to cook, assuming that she is preparing an adequate quantity in a dietary balanced manner?
Now the other argument this kid made was that he was embarrassed to have a mother who smoked. Since when is freedom from embarrassment a protected issue. Any parent that has adolescent age children will tell you that they are embarrassed by the mere presence of their parents. That is the way kids at that age are. It does not mean that the parent is even doing anything wrong.
Now let?s say that the mother is a total white trash looser. She?s fat, she dresses badly, is missing teeth, and always has curlers in her hair, and only bathes rarely. This would be embarrassing to most people that had a mom that looked that way. Would the judge have the right to order her to loose weight? How about ordering her to stop shopping at K-Mart?
I saw the mom on TV and she looks absolutely normal. She does not actually look bad and appears to be your typical female professional. Does this mean that children now have the right to dictate to their parents all aspects of their life? I thought that it was supposed to be the other way around.

 

[Aceman]

<< I have already admitted that there are many other environmental factors which come into play. >>



But, if my kids are both raised in identical environments, then, they should both have asthma, unless.........................There is a genetic condition that CAUSES asthma to come out in one of my children.

 

[Aceman]

Jimbo, I agree completely with your last post. The smell of second hand smoke and it's residual particles in the carpet, walls, clothes is not a health risk. This was one of the questions asked to my son's doctor when he asked us to see if the asthma attacks decrease with us smoking outside. He stated that if I picked my child up 5 minutes after smoking a cigarette outside and buried his nose in my shirt or coat, it WOULD NOT trigger an asthma attack. (He may gag from the residual smell, but the residuals from cigarette smoke is harmless.)

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<<

<< I have already admitted that there are many other environmental factors which come into play. >>



But, if my kids are both raised in identical environments, then, they should both have asthma, unless.........................There is a genetic condition that CAUSES asthma to come out in one of my children. >>



Your logic fails. Do both of your children have the same mother? If so, then by your logic they should both have asthma because they should have roughly the same genetic makeup.

The reason why that statement is not true is because your logic is faulty - as I already stated, exposure to environmental factors increases the probability that your child will develop asthma.

To greatly oversimplify this in order to illustrate my point, and hopefully make it more clear to you:
Let's say that you have two six sided dice. You have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4. You manage to roll a 4 with the first die. Does that mean that you will roll a 4 with your next die, seeing as how the chances of rolling a 4 are still 1/6 (let's not get into random probability theory here)? No, it means that you could, but you might not.

Another example: smallpox is a very deadly disease. However, some people exposed to smallpox do not die. Let's say that we're both exposed to smallpox, and I die from it and you don't. Does that mean that smallpox isn't deadly?

Or how about this, to help illustrate my point to AmusedOne: there's a smallpox epidemic and 7% of the population is dying from smallpox. Then there is a nuclear war which causes 50% of the population to die. The % of deaths have risen dramatically, but the % of people dying from smallpox has fallen significantly. Does that mean there's no correlation between smallpox and death?

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Jimbo, I agree with what you are saying if you can be sure that there is no lingering cig smoke in the house/apartment from her smoking while he was NOT there.

I had two grandparents who were chain smokers, and they lived in a very small apartment. They would not smoke when we came over, but there was still a thick cloud of cigarette smoke in the air whenever we visited. If I had the choice, I would not go over there.

As far as the smell issue goes: cigarette smoke certainly does make you smell quite nasty, but if it is only the residual smell that he is exposed to, the court has no right to step in. I think that a responsible parent who wanted to have a relationship with her son would try to make it an environment that he would be comfortable in, but the court has no right to step in over bad smells.