Smoking and Children

[Dingus 10]

Thanks Kyla. W haven't stopped them seeing her! They chose not to come round. And you say that you'd rather them have a relationship, so why can't they come to our house to see her? Ours is smoke free. No one stopped them seeing her, just asked them to think about the smoke smell. Don't care what anyone says, a new born baby should not smell of smoke!!

 

To some folk tobacco is the most important thing in their lives. They can give up seeing grandkids, but not the weed. They lack the will to overcome the craving. You should feel sorry for them, but should stick to your guns. Perhaps explaining what weak willed grandparents they have will put them off smoking.

[Watson B 10]

I usually have to change my clothes after holding a baby.

 

Dont be surprised if you get a visit from operation yewtree after an admission like that.

[francypants 441]

What about perfume? Would you object to anybody holding your baby who reeked of perfume as many women do ?

 

Men wearing aftershave ?

 

What if somebody smelled a bit sweaty ?

 

What if somebody has had a glass of wine ?

 

Bad breath ?

 

All of these things a baby shouldn't smell of !!

[neeeeeeeeeek 10]

Well well well, this forum gets more unfriendly by the second. There's nothing wrong with our family but I don't think I'm been unreasonable saying I don't want my child to smell of smoke! Picture the scene, less than 12 hours old, held for 5 minutes by a smoker and stinking of their fags?! Not normal! And neeeek don't tell me to get a grip. This place was full of friendly people at the beginning and now is been overtaken by keyboard warriors! I asked for opinions not insults!!

 

Errr, you asked for opinions. I think you need to get a grip. That's my opinion!

[buck 11]

I've heard of "passive smoking" but never passive smelling of smoke syndrome, what harm will it do the child if someones clothes whiff, what about people that don't smoke but have never heard of deodorant do you stop them holding the rug rat, but its okay for you to pick up a baby in a brand new top and it barfs all down the front. I'm sorry but people are taking smoking now to new extremes of stupidity.

That is the best post of the day. Truth will out!! By the way, I don't smoke.

[purdy 10]

What about perfume? Would you object to anybody holding your baby who reeked of perfume as many women do ?

 

Men wearing aftershave ?

 

What if somebody smelled a bit sweaty ?

 

What if somebody has had a glass of wine ?

 

Bad breath ?

 

All of these things a baby shouldn't smell of !!

 

Toxins from cigarette smoke linger on clothing. When you can smell it it is still there. The other smells that you describe are non toxic.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke

 

Ever take a whiff of a smoker's hair and feel faint from the pungent scent of cigarette smoke? Or perhaps you have stepped into an elevator and wondered why it smells like someone has lit up when there is not a smoker in sight. Welcome to the world of third-hand smoke.

 

"Third-hand smoke is tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished," says Jonathan Winickoff, a pediatrician at the Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center in Boston and author of a study on the new phenomenon published in the journal Pediatrics. According to the study, a large number of people, particularly smokers, have no idea that third-hand smoke—the cocktail of toxins that linger in carpets, sofas, clothes and other materials hours or even days after a cigarette is put out—is a health hazard for infants and children.

Edited May 22, 2013 by purdy

[RJRB 688]

And if you believe that then you probably believe that anyone over 20 or so is doomed anyway having lived in a more smoking tolerant world.

What a load of tosh.

First a campaign to encourage smokers to stop.Fair enough.

As this flags ,let's go for the secondary smoke effects,the facts of which have yet to be established

And now we have the third hand smoke proponents.

If you like attention grabbing,targeted headlines and accept them without question ,the newspapers are full of them.

Read Joe Jacksons Essay on the "smoking issue" which debunks many of the "scientific facts and statistics" far more eloquently than I could.

[Jill Pearce 10]

I would never smoke in front of a baby it is unfair and exposing them to smoke is damaging to their little lungs. That's all really....

[SqueakyPete 10]

I remember in secondary school,there was one teacher that smoked,that stood out from all the others.I mean she really stunk!

She would walk down the corridor,and the corridor stank 5 minutes after she had been there.

Her classes were almost unbearable,but one plus side to them was she never kept anyone back during breaktime,because she would literally be throwing you out the classroom,so she had time for her 1000m sprint to the school gates!

And for a woman of about 4'9",thats a funny sprint to watch lol.

If there is any truth in 3rd hand toxins(and im yet to be fully convinced)

Then this teacher ought to be on manslaughter charges lol.

That said,I come from an era when my Mum and dad thought nothing about smoking around us,in the house or in the car or in a cafe after a meal.

So if I was to point the finger for me picking up dangerous toxins,it would be at them.

"my dad lived to 85,and he smoked all his life" and "you could be hit by a bus tomorrow " were said by my parents on more than a few occasions.

Funny thing is,they both stopped smoking when all the kids grew up lol.

[Anna Glypta 10]

And if you believe that then you probably believe that anyone over 20 or so is doomed anyway having lived in a more smoking tolerant world.

What a load of tosh.

First a campaign to encourage smokers to stop.Fair enough.

As this flags ,let's go for the secondary smoke effects,the facts of which have yet to be established

And now we have the third hand smoke proponents.

If you like attention grabbing,targeted headlines and accept them without question ,the newspapers are full of them.

Read Joe Jacksons Essay on the "smoking issue" which debunks many of the "scientific facts and statistics" far more eloquently than I could.

 

You have clearly convinced yourself, or should I say deluded yourself. Fortunately governments work from medical recommendation not the fact that you are hacked off about not being able to smoke in the pub any more.

 

As for Joe Jackson... His medical qualification is what exactly?

[RJRB 688]

You have clearly convinced yourself, or should I say deluded yourself. Fortunately governments work from medical recommendation not the fact that you are hacked off about not being able to smoke in the pub any more.

 

As for Joe Jackson... His medical qualification is what exactly?

 

He doesn't represent the medical profession.

Just thinks things through and challenges eye catching statistics unlike many.

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue?htm

[Anna Glypta 10]

He doesn't represent the medical profession.

Just thinks things through and challenges eye catching statistics unlike many.

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue?htm

 

 

What you mean is NO MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER

 

So he simply talks crap and you accept it because it is what you wanted to hear.