Judge Imposes Smoking Ban on Mother

[Aceman]

<< 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. >>



No, my logic is solidified, actually. Both children have the same parents and are raised in the same environment. Therefore, if asthma is CAUSED by environmental factors (ie smoking) then both are gauranteed to get asthma. But, since one has asthma and one doesn't, then through their individual unique genetic makeup (They are not twins), Child #1 got the unfortuate chromosome/gene that will result in asthma and the other didn't get the chromosome/gene that causes asthma. It's genetic! And, there are studies that show that some of these genetic make up when exposed to environmental aspects put them into "action", but it's genetics.
Cancer research is going down this path. Just because I smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, does not mean I WILL get cancer or lung disease. I will however concede, that I loaded the cancer revolver with another bullet to play roulette with. Just like you will see that someone can contract lung cancer and never have come in contact with cigarette smoke or second hand smoke.

BTW, if second hand smoke CAUSES asthma then it must also TRIGGER an asthma attack? I can disprove that with my son too. I could put him in a car with the windows rolled up and he will NOT have an attack. I can put him in a room with mold and mildew and watch him suffocate to death!

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Don't tell me that you're arguing over word choice. If it makes you happy I will not say that asthma is CAUSED by environmental factors but rather that environmental factors increase the likelihood (probability) of the development of asthma. Happy?

Further, asthma attacks due to cigarette smoke are most likely due to an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke, which may not be related to the original development of asthma.
I have an asthma attack when exposed to large amounts of cigarette smoke because I am allergic to it, whether or not it caused me to develop asthma in the first place (which your logic seems to dictate that it would be the cause since it causes my attacks).

You seem to be concerned with removing the blame for your son's asthma from yourself and your wife, and it sounds like it's very likely that it had nothing to do with his development of asthma, but this is anecdotal evidence, as pointed out previously by Jimbo - no conclusions can be drawn from a single case.

 

[Aceman]

<< You seem to be concerned with removing the blame for your son's asthma from yourself and your wife, and it sounds like it's very likely that it had nothing to do with his development of asthma, but this is anecdotal evidence, as pointed out previously by Jimbo - no conclusions can be drawn from a single case >>



I don't concern myself, because I know what caused his asthma (And it wasn't smoking) and I know that I can't prevent a genetic disorder short of not having a child. I might be concerned about his "development" of asthma if it got worse over the months and years. Unfortunately, my child's asthma has practically gone into a remissive state because of the move from Nebraska to Minnesota, not because I removed second hand smoke from his environment.

As for a play on words, I didn't use a play on words. Just as in a case of someone dying from being shot. The bullet didn't kill the person, the bullet is harmless to a person. The gunshot wound caused the death.


Now tying this into the original post. The problem I have is with narrow-minded people, such as you, Sir Fredrick, and this judge that believe that secondhand smoke is the root of all evil. Even if it's not present in the form of smoke in the house anymore. Did they test the house and prove there was a dangerous amount of smoke in the house that would be medically proven to be detrimental to the child? NO! The child just didn't like the smell of HARMLESS solidified smoke residuals!

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Why am I closed minded? Because I insist on using scientifically and statistically valid methods? Because I am trying to bring logic and reason into this debate?
Because I believe that there is a very good chance that second hand smoke or smoking while pregnant increases the risks of children developing asthma?
Because I stick to my belief despite the fact that several people disagree with me because I have yet to see any links or references to scientific/epidemiological studies which show that smoking and asthma in children are not correlated in anyway?

I have already stated that I agree with Jimbo if in fact the cigarette smoke is not lingering in the air from before the child was there.

If your child's asthma has improved from moving from one state to another, that indicates that environmental factors were playing a role in his asthma attacks at the very least...it just so happens that in his/her case, the environmental factor was not cigarette smoke but something else.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I found some interesting statistics, some of them even agree with what you posted earlier AmusedOne.

But since, based on your own argument, genetics has caused an increase in the asthma rates, the fact that smoking has declined doesn't prove anything.

According to this:

The annual prevalence of smoking declined 40 percent from 1965 to 1990, but was virtually unchanged thereafter.

Between 1965 and 1995 decreased 46.8% among men and 34.8% among women.

The prevalence of daily smoking among high school seniors was 34.2 percent lower in 1988 than in
1978 but was 23.8 percent higher in 1998 than in 1988. In contrast, among adults, current smoking
in 1997 was 14.2 percent lower than that of 1987.

Among female high school seniors, the prevalence of daily smoking was 18.8 percent higher in 1998
than in 1988.

In 1996, smoking during pregnancy was reported by 400,000 or 13.6% of women giving birth,
representing a decline of 2% from 1995 and 43% from 1989. Between 1990 and 1996, declines in
smoking rates were observed for all age groups of mothers 20 years and over. The highest rate of
smoking during pregnancy was reported in teenagers aged 15 to 19 years (17.2% in 1996). The
lowest rates were found in mothers under 15 years old (7.7 %) and those 40-49 years old (10.1%).