Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[Donkey lover]

I've known 2 people die of lung cancer, neither smoked, both were physically fit and both died before the age of 50. Now tell me that smoking kills!

[Phoenix One]

I never asked if cigarette smoke contained chemicals, I asked if if you believe whether the cigarette smoke contained carcinogenic chemicals, or if you believe whether carcinogenic chemicals caused cancer?

 

Lets take hydrogen peroxide for example, do you believe that it doesn't cause cancer, or do you believe that it's not present in cigarette smoke?

 

Given there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer then is is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidenee of smoke from cigerrette causing cancer. If cigerrettes contain carcinogenic chemicals, and given there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer, then it is also reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence of carcinogenic chemicals causing cancer. Further, if there was evidence of carcinogenic chemicals causing cancer then it stands to reason that no such chemicals exist in tobaacco given no evidence of smoking causing cancer exists.

[JFKvsNixon]

Given there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer then is is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidenee of smoke from cigerrette causing cancer. If cigerrettes contain carcinogenic chemicals, and given there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer, then it is also reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence of carcinogenic chemicals causing cancer. Further, if there was evidence of carcinogenic chemicals causing cancer then it stands to reason that no such chemicals exist in tobaacco given no evidence of smoking causing cancer exists.

 

There is evidence that hydrogen peroxide causes the healthy lung cells to change into cancerous ones, and hydrogen peroxide, along with other carcinogenic chemicals are present in cigarette smoke.

[Phoenix One]

There is evidence that hydrogen peroxide causes the healthy lung cells to change into cancerous ones, and hydrogen peroxide, along with other carcinogenic chemicals are present in cigarette smoke.

 

The evidence is clearly not conclusive, especially as hydrogen peroxide is a common in bleach and also used in Hospitals by medical profession.

 

Did I mention I studied chemestry?

[Phoenix One]

There is evidence that hydrogen peroxide causes the healthy lung cells to change into cancerous ones, and hydrogen peroxide, along with other carcinogenic chemicals are present in cigarette smoke.

 

The evidence is clearly not conclusive, especially as hydrogen peroxide is a common in bleach and also used in Hospitals by medical profession.

 

Did I mention I studied chemistry?

[Bonzo77]

:confused:What about it?

 

ETA: I would imagine that children who live in pubs would not require adopting.

 

If your question was meant to ask whether publicans should be allowed to adopt, then, unless you can show that the child would be put at risk in any way from living in a pub, then of course they should.

 

If you can be assured that a child is not going to be put at risk in any way by a smoking couple, then they should be able to adopt too.

[Longcol]

The evidence is clearly not conclusive, especially as hydrogen peroxide is a common in bleach and also used in Hospitals by medical profession.

 

Did I mention I studied chemestry?

 

Despite the inability to spell the word, or fluoride (several times) a few posts earlier.

[JFKvsNixon]

The evidence is clearly not conclusive, especially as hydrogen peroxide is a common in bleach and also used in Hospitals by medical profession.

 

Did I mention I studied chemestry?

 

You've lost me here.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that because a chemical is used in hospitals as a cleaning agent it somehow suggests that it isn't carcinogenic. If I do humour you for a slight moment, how are you suggesting that a cleaning agent in a hospital would be ingested in the same amounts as a cigarette smoker would?

 

I think that you have a strong opinion with an extremely entrenched point of view, and would look for and embrace anything that backs up your opinions whilst ignoring all the evidence that challenges it.

[Bonzo77]

Isn't this thread digressing from the point?

[Phoenix One]

You've lost me here.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that because a chemical is used in hospitals as a cleaning agent it somehow suggests that it isn't carcinogenic. If I do humour you for a slight moment, how are you suggesting that a cleaning agent in a hospital would be ingested in the same amounts as a cigarette smoker would?

 

I think that you have a strong opinion with an extremely entrenched point of view, and would look for and embrace anything that backs up your opinions whilst ignoring all the evidence that challenges it.

 

You forget, there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer. None, zip, nada. Hence, no matter how many checials you add, the only thing you will support is that there is no evidence of such chemical causing cancer. Further, hydrogen peroxide is also used by hospitals and medical profession to combat a string of health problems (not just cleaning agent), including to combat colds and flue.