Second-Hand Smoke

Thanks, Luke.

I was stunned by the kind of work that needs to be done by Children's Protective Services, and by the amount, but I also discovered that some of the worst people I've met were part of the system - some of the bureaucrats, social workers, supervisors, county attorneys... really awful. And there were some really good people too - it is very hard to keep from being burned out by that work and that system.

And putting kids into foster care, despite the fact that sometimes there is no alternative, is a lot like sentencing an innocent kid to a just a slightly better hell than the one they are saved from. It is an awful system.

Post 21

Friday, February 6, 2009 - 8:19pm

Steve,

Just catching up today. Your insights on the Children's Protective Services system are both valuable and saddening. Going back to your post #4 about parents smoking around their children, I have to say that I do not see that as a 'public' issue. Nor do I see it as a contractual breach (or as there being a contract between parent and child). Raising one's children is a clear responsibility of the parent.

The smoking issue is one of poor parental judgement. As the saying goes, you can't choose your parents. Smoking is but one of a myriad of judgmental failures a parent may have that will affect the overall well-being of a child. There are many serious parental failings far more detrimental and destructive than mere smoking. You cannot legislate against all stupidity*, and smoking is just another form of stupidity.

jt

*As my past posts reveal, I do believe there are forms of stupidity we can regulate (that word!) against.

Post 22

Friday, February 6, 2009 - 8:27pm

Jordan,

Regarding your post #6, if the sign "smokers welcome" is posted, the proprietor has made the risks (however they are perceived by potential patrons) clear. No one initiates force to make a patron enter that restaurant. Should they enter that establishment, they do so on their own responsibility, and cannot be considered victims.

jt

Post 23

Friday, February 6, 2009 - 9:35pm

So Jay, can the proprietor do whatever he wants to guests so long as he posts the warning first? And must he post the warning? This is what we're exploring in that other thread, so perhaps you would be better off to chime in over there.

Jordan

Post 24

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 1:48pm

Suppose that I decide to have a party at my house, and the invited guests are told that some people will be smoking, so that if someone doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she should not attend. How is that any different from posting a sign outside my restaurant, saying "Smoking is allowed"?

In the latter case, if a person doesn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, he doesn't have to eat there. If I can't allow smoking in my restaurant, then presumably I can't allow smoking at my own house in the presence of consenting adults. Does that seem reasonable?

(I cross-posted this to the other thread --"Owners' obligations to others on their land.")

- Bill

Post 25

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 6:06pm

Jay,

My position is that any smoking prohibitions regarding second hand smoke would have to be only for children and only where the children have no choice about being - their home and the car they are driven about in by their parents. Everywhere else, they (or their parents on their behalf), can choose not to enter. Adults can choose to go where they want to do to their bodies what they want. But a child doesn't have a choice about being in those two areas. Further, it could not be an issue for the government UNLESS there was rock-solid evidence that harm was sure to arise from the second-hand smoke.

If parents put just a little bit of poison gas into the air of their house, such that some kids were certain to die, we would treat them as child abusers. But the evidence isn't that strong yet for second hand smoke, and there are worse issues effecting children's ease of reaching an adulthood in which they are likely to flourish.

Post 26

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 6:57pm

Steve,

I think the key here is, as you've said, we don't have rock solid evidence that harm would arise. In that perspective, I'd only say that it can only be ascribed to bad luck when a child is born to parents so obtuse as to not take at least some simple measures to protect their child from their bad habits. The same bad luck, I'd suggest, as for a child being born to lazy, illiterate parents who don't "see no need" for a good education.

jt

Post 27

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 7:02pm