Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[BritPat]

Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

 

Since 2007 restrictions have been put in place to prevent smokers fostering young children. Several local authorities have also introduced bans on adoption by smokers.

 

Is this right or is it fair on a child to force it to live in a house where people smoke? Should this become a universal ban nationwide?

 

Social services, Hospital doctors, GP's, Police and other State functionaries manage to be involved in Child at risk cases for months and even years without noticing 'Broken backs' bruising,burns,malnutrition.

 

Some of the children concerned are living with junkies,drunks, violent and sexual offenders and the authorities still manage to miss the subtle signs (as subtle as a sledgehammer blow in the mouth !!!)

 

A child dies, a Public Inquiry is held by an eminent Jurist, we are assured that lessons have been learned, that codes of practice have been updated, that guidelines have been published, that legislation will be enacted and the whole cycle repeats.

 

Perhaps the State should get the priorities right ?

[Fareast]

Exactly, BritPat----well said.

They could test people for obesity, alcohol consumption and driving ability as well as smoking----but, I wonder if they have a clue about 'testing ' potential parents for love, affection or common-sense ? I suppose that would be too difficult as they would have to use judgement instead of ticking boxes.

Instead of the Control Freaks in Social Services worrying about people smoking, they should spend more time and energy checking up on the type of cases and situations you mention. It beggars belief that time and time again children have been abused and murdered under the noses of Social Services. Where were they ? In pointless meetings ? Co-ordinating ? Sending in ' Smoking Reports ' ? It 's for sure, they were NOT getting their priorities right !

[Phoenix One]

Are you a bot? You've already said all of that. I don't know why your're starting all of this 'The one point I hold is that I have a right to smoke' and 'people can't dictate what I can or cannot do' because those are just strawmen. No-one here is saying you shouldn't be allowed to smoke. In fact I revealed earlier that I, myself am a smoker. Don't move the goalposts, your contention was that cigarettes do not cause cancer, that is ridiculous.

 

As for the transcript you've just posted, it does not say that cigarettes do not cause cancer, not at all. All that it says is that the pursuers failed to prove that it caused this guy's particular cancer. The judge is absolutely right in that "use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious." However the statistics are, in the words of the judge himself: "applicable to the general population".

 

Anyway, I notice you missed this part of my post:

 

I have linked to a scientific paper which includes the results that you are 15 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. There are hundreds of other scientific studies that show similar results, all repeatable and peer reviewed.

 

Your source is a judge, with no qualifications in a relevant field to enable him to comment. And in any case the judge does not say that cigarettes do not cause cancer, all that he says is that cigarettes did not cause 1 particular cancer. Also, technically he's not even saying that, all that he's saying is that the pursuers failed to prove that cigarettes caused the mans cancer, they may well have done, but it is something that is extremely hard to prove.

 

The only bot here is you. There is no evidence smoking causes cancer, and if you go through submitted evidence you will note the evidence supports the opposite. Stating smoking causes cancer does not make it so, and the research does not support what you would like it to support. Tough!

[flamingjimmy]

The only bot here is you. There is no evidence smoking causes cancer, and if you go through submitted evidence you will note the evidence supports the opposite. Stating smoking causes cancer does not make it so, and the research does not support what you would like it to support. Tough!

 

You are 15 times more likely to get cancer if you smoke.

 

90% of people with lung cancer are cigarette smokers.

 

The evidence I posted does not say the opposite, it says that.

 

Your source on the other hand, really doesn't say what you have claimed it does.

 

All that it says is that the pursuers failed to prove that it caused this guy's particular cancer. The judge is absolutely right in that "use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious." However the statistics are, in the words of the judge himself: "applicable to the general population".

 

Smoking causes cancer. Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the vast wealth of research isn't a good way to argue.

[Phoenix One]

You are 15 times more likely to get cancer if you smoke.

 

90% of people with lung cancer are cigarette smokers.

 

The evidence I posted does not say the opposite, it says that.

 

Your source on the other hand, really doesn't say what you have claimed it does.

 

All that it says is that the pursuers failed to prove that it caused this guy's particular cancer. The judge is absolutely right in that "use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious." However the statistics are, in the words of the judge himself: "applicable to the general population".

 

Smoking causes cancer. Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the vast wealth of research isn't a good way to argue.

 

Rubbish! I take it you also believe man contributes to global warming too?

[uptheowls88]

better question should the govement ban fags in uk no because we keep the nh's going

 

wat next should people who drink more than 3 cups of coffee a day be allowed to foster/adopt kids lol....

 

doesnt make you a bad parent cause you smoke i shouldnt stop u from adopting ect....

 

there is properly more people that smoke in uk with kids than people who dont smoke with kids

[uptheowls88]

huh, get over it?

 

I don't even know you. I couldn't care less if you smoke or quit.

 

What you do in your private life and behind closed doors is up to you.

 

You just need to understand that it's becoming less and less socially acceptable.

 

had to laugh at this :loopy: there will always be more smokers than non smokers in uk so kinda disagree with it being less socially acceptable dont talk rubbish people was smoking long before you was even thought of.. and will be long after your gone

[flamingjimmy]

Rubbish! I take it you also believe man contributes to global warming too?

 

I'll happily answer this and any future questions/points you might have if you actually respond to the substance of my post instead of just telling me I'm wrong and using the old loopy smily.

[LouRotherham]

I don't like it when people smoke but I think not allowing them to adopt is a bit harsh!

[uptheowls88]

they dont mind cashing in on the tax we pay on fags to be honest bit of a stupid thread this people will always smoke and thats about that