3 questions,--->Do you think mothers or fathers who.................?

Question

1: Do you think it's slow murder when parents smoke inside their home with 1 or more children living there?

Second hand smoke can sometimes be the worst so,

2: do you think there should be a law against smoking in your home with children?

Do you think homes that have cigarette smoke so thick you can barely see, with children living there, should the state take the kids away?

Answer 1

1.) in a way yes, it definatly shortens the childs life span and can give them breathing problems for the rest of their life

2.) yes

3.) unfortunately no. you cant take the kids away from their parens for something like that. the parents are addicted and most of them dont think their smoking is doing any damage.

my dad smoked. i remember being stuck in the truck with him in the winter and he wouldnt role down the windows. it was horrible. now im an adult and i have breathing problems. i get winded easier than a 300lb man. its very embaressing. and im a normal-slim sized man. ive gotta carry this with me (and probably more things in the future) because my dad was a ******** who cared more about his cigarettes than my health. who could watch his son choking and wouldnt even role down the window.

I would vote in a second to make tobacco illegal.

Answer 2

1. Yes, it's not right for parents to inflict health problems on their children.

2. No, there should not be a law against it. They can't manage the laws and justice system with the laws on the books now.

3. No, children should not be taken away solely because their parents smoke. I don't know if you've ever been inside a group home or bounced from foster home to foster home, but it is not an environment that is USUALLY *better* than living in a stable family with second-hand smoke.

Answer 3

I don't think there should be a law against, besides if there were what kind of home would it be. Homes are meant to be private and what you do there should be private as well. As for the kids, well I agree that second hand smoke is nasty and I am a smoker! I think parents who have children in their homes, well if they want to smoke, they should go outside. It is not fair to allow the children to breathe in second hand smoke at any time, they are not the ones smoking, so they should not have to breathe it.

Answer 4

I don't foresee an action coming forth regarding this, now... But, I'm sure, in cases of 'shared' parenting, custody 'battles', and the like, it probably is already happening. (*Rightfully, so) especially if the child or children are suffering from asthma, or chemically sensitive, etc. I personally, feel, and have felt even when I was a smoker. That a child, either before birth (pregnancy) and after, should not have to be subjected to 'smoke'.

As far as the 'law', situation, it will probably, at first, be placed under 'child endangering'. With 'repeat' offenders, being offered the opportunity to either quit, find an alternative area, in which to smoke, with failure to do so, resulting in the possibility of having the child or (children) removed from the household, until resolve is met.

Answer 5

Yes. If the parents don't stop. They take the kids away if they see excessive bruising...and only return the kid fully after supervised visits. Y not take a kid away who has asthma and it's proven to be a direct result of cigarette smoking in the home, and return the kid only when the parents agree to smoke outside, or away from the kids? And supervise that B4 the kids are returned? It's done when drugs are in the home and kids are adversely affected. Cigarrette smoke is a drug, because it not only harms the user, but it also harms people who have to live in or around it. I hate it when people think I smoke just because I smell like it. I don't smoke, but I have relatives who do. Dana Reeve died of lung cancer, she wasn't a smoker, not saying that's what caused her cancer, but I'm sure it contributed to it. Food for thought.

Answer 6

I answer to your question is yes because I used to smoke and quit. But if a current smoker answers this question they are probably going to answer no to all three because they have to defend themselves in there own home. I quit smoking 22 years ago when I was 22. I had already smoked for 10 years starting at 12 years of age. But after seeing to many relatives die of lung cancer I had to quit the day my now ex father in law died and I never touched a cigarette since that day.

Answer 7

I don't smoke BUT there is actually NO evidence that second hand smoke is WORSE. So no it should not be against the law. And the state does not take children away when there is physically, emotional, and sexual abuse...why? Because most agencies are understaffed and have no foster homes, and now you want to add SMOKING to the mix. That is STUPID.

Answer 8

nope i smoke in my home. my well ventilated home i might add. with two children the state cant do nada cause this is my house i work to pay the bills and everything and it hasn't caused any problems with my children and i grew up in a home with smokers and i have no health problems period let there be a law or the state try to do something until they pay my bills and pay for the food and clothes for my children they can kiss my *** Along with everybody else who thinks that way

Answer 9

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes!
But that's not the only time I think, the government should take the kids.

Answer 10

The parents should smoke outside.