Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[redwhine]

some tell me this is a joke. just because some 1 smokes doesn't meen they should not be aloud to have children.

I think it's more to do with the rights of children to be brought up in a healthy environment than infringement of the smokers' right to 'have' children. There is no law against smokers having children the natural way (AFAIK), but the authorities have a duty of care to those they are putting up for adoption.

 

don't get me wrong a don't agree with smoking near or around children.

Good for you.

 

if you have a child all smokeing should be done out doors and out ov site ov children. even if that means waiting till they have gone to bed....

Making things unnecessarily complicated, and unpolicable to boot.

[donkey]

IT is an identifiable risk that anyone with genitals could sexually abuse. It is an identifiable risk that anyone who takes a child to a playground could result in the child having a bad accident. It is an identifiable risk ... and on and on.

.

 

By that logic, we might as well drop all attempts at improving health and safety because we are all going to die eventually anyway. You are missing two important points.

 

A: Of course we can't protect children against all risk, but we can protect them against the ones for which their are practical solutions. People choose to smoke. It is not a freak occurence like 'an accident at a playground.'

 

B: Is someone who would choose to continue a pointless, expensive and health destroying habit, over the child they are proposing to take responsibility for, really demonstrating that they are psychologically prepared to make the very real sacrifices involved in such a commitment, which involves frequently giving priority to the welfare of the child over personal wants?

 

 

Bold: What a pile of rubbish. The child goes to school and stands with his/her mates who smoke. The child walks through the street passing people who smoke. The child stands at a bus stop and breaths in smoke from others. It goes on and on and on. The child could still get lung cancer and could still die from it.

And if you ban smoking altogether do you think cancer will suddenly disappear?

 

I don't know where you live with all these thouisands of smokers everywhere, but my own child comes in to contact with almost zero secondary cigarette smoke. You also cite children smoking at school. The fact that it is proved that they are statistically likely to be the children of smokers, is an argument that actually goes against what you are saying, if you think about it.

[Cyclone]

IT is an identifiable risk that anyone with genitals could sexually abuse. It is an identifiable risk that anyone who takes a child to a playground could result in the child having a bad accident. It is an identifiable risk ... and on and on.

 

Bold: What a pile of rubbish. The child goes to school and stands with his/her mates who smoke. The child walks through the street passing people who smoke. The child stands at a bus stop and breaths in smoke from others. It goes on and on and on. The child could still get lung cancer and could still die from it.

And if you ban smoking altogether do you think cancer will suddenly disappear?

 

How narrow minded you are appearing to be.

 

Part of risk assessment is to determine how likely to occur the risk is, a second step is to determine how can it be avoided (along with step one goes an assessment of the impact).

There are risks in going to the park, but the risks are low, the consequences generally slight and avoiding that risk altogether is worse than taking the risk. Nor is this risk relevant to whether you place a child in a given family.

The risks of exposure to 2nd hand smoke on an ongoing basis (ie not the occasional wiff of it on the breeze at a bus stop) are well known.

The chance of a child being regularly exposed are higher if placed with an adult that smokes.

 

I notice that whilst keen to keep asking your own questions and challenging me, you seem incapable of answering any questions posed. Can you try this one again;

 

if there's an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

Do you believe that all risks should be ignored, or just the ones that you find inconvenient? Should the welfare of the child be ignored altogether, or only when you think it's impacting on smokers?

 

Finally - I've not even hinted that people can't get cancer unless they smoke, clearly they can. Smoking massively increases the risk though, along with increasing the risk of them developing many other diseases.

[Kthebean]

You can't really compare it to

IT is an identifiable risk that anyone with genitals could sexually abuse. It is an identifiable risk that anyone who takes a child to a playground could result in the child having a bad accident.

 

There is a clear benefit to children in being taken to the playground. There is a clear benefit for them in being assocaited with people with genitals There is no benefit to either them or the parent if the parent smokes. You can't even compare it to having the occasional pint. The occasional pint is not harmful to anyone.

[redwhine]

Being a smoker in NuLabour Britain must be similar to what it was like being a jew in Nazi Germany.

Godwin's Law. Fourth post in. Must be some kind of a record.

[Kthebean]

http://Godwin's Law. Fourth post in. Must be some kind of a record.

 

You'd be surprised

[redwhine]

Where are the children before adoption?. If they are in an adoption type homes/centres are the employees whom are employed to look after them non smokers?.

As workplaces, smoking must be banned there. In private homes, it is not. Yet!

[redwhine]

Anti smoking is the new Fad, its the new "Shock horror" thing to take the attention away from more depressing things.

It neither new nor a fad. Smoking has been a shock horror thing for at least 50 years.

 

As long as people are having a pop at the smokers then they arent worrying about real things like environmental problems caused by traffic and factories and the crime rate and how twisted the governments are.

 

People fall for it. Thats the tragedy.

Obfustication of the issue. That you consider other problems to be important in no way absolves smoking from being a real problem.

 

Some people do fall for smoking. And, yes, it is a tragedy. Well said!

 

We KNOW its bad for us, but the hysteria is being heightened to a ridiculous new level and the hysterical fall for it while at the same time inhale the lovely diesel fumes that clog our towns and citys.

It's neither hysteria nor ridiculous. Anyone taking up smoking in the last 50 years, since the health risks were identified; now that's ridiculous.

 

Its a fad, it`ll pass once they find something else to squeak about or until reality hits them so hard they`ll HAVE to concentrate on the saner stuff.

Don't hold your breath. Especially if your lungs are full of smoke.

[redwhine]

Cars arent unavoidable, Theyre far from it in fact. Especially the huge 4X4s that belch out crap as their owners drive their kids to school in them.

 

As well as banning fags, lets go the whole hog and ban private vehicals. I`m sure the money made by all those fare paying passengers could be ploughed into better and cleaner forms of public transport and save the environment!

 

Say no... and give me some great reasons why!

 

Topic title - "Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids? "

 

Off topic, much?

[rubydazzler]

Anti smoking is the new Fad, We KNOW its bad for us ... but the hysteria is being heightened to a ridiculous new level and the hysterical fall for it Its a fad, it`ll pass once they find something else to squeak about or until reality hits them so hard they`ll HAVE to concentrate on the saner stuff.

(cut for brevity) Do I gather from the above that the Champix you were advertising so enthusiastically didn't actually work on you?