Truly Ridiculous

[Danneskjold]

I couldn't believe this when I heard it announced on the news about five minutes ago. There is an attempt at passing a law in Texas that would make it illegal for foster parents to smoke when they are around their foster children. This includes homes, cars, and any of their own private property. Now, aside from this being a HUGE move towards a nanny state, does anybody down there think that this might decrease incentives to take care of children? This is just stupid.

[Aggrad02]

I couldn't believe this when I heard it announced on the news about five minutes ago. There is an attempt at passing a law in Texas that would make it illegal for foster parents to smoke when they are around their foster children. This includes homes, cars, and any of their own private property. Now, aside from this being a HUGE move towards a nanny state, does anybody down there think that this might decrease incentives to take care of children? This is just stupid.

I am at work rigtht now so this is going to be quick and not overly intellectual, but:

I am pro rights and freedoms for almost everything. But I think that those rights do not extend to the right to pollute (water and air). Since these things are transcient, unlike land, I do not think that you have the right to pollute them anytime and anywhere that you feel like it since you do not own them and they are used and affect other people. Second hand smoke is poison, the purpose of our government is to protect our rights, I think this law will protect the rights of foster children not to have to breath poisoned air. I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting. Where is my right to clean air? Would you be for people also polluting our water sysytem, or what about spraying tear gas around, or what about mustard gas? Just because tabacco smoke does not kill quickly doesn't mean that it isn't similar.

Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

I am not a big fan of second-hand smoke either and I agree with the idea of keeping commonly used space free of pollutants.

I do have a problem with discrimination, though. Why do the foster kids get all the protection?

Shouldn't the government protect biological kids from second-hand smoke in the home, too? And how about the blacks? And the Hispanics and Muslims and... well, you get the idea.

But why stop there? Don't domestic animals need protection against second-hand smoke? Goodness knows how many cats and dogs have died of lung cancer. I wonder what the long term effects are on fish in aquariums.

And all those poor insects! My God!

Sorry for the ribbing...

I don't believe in government control of what goes on inside of homes. As second-hand smoke is a long-term danger, I vastly prefer education to granting the government power over how we live. As I believe in the essential goodness of man, I also believe that most people will come around from using their reason, and those who don't will be pressured into doing so over time for being unreasonable.

Michael

[BAMF]

I don't think it's totally ridiculous, but I think that might be because I've had to breathe smoke since I was in the womb. It's disgusting and you'd think people would know by now how awful it is for you, but of course there are still kids smokin' in the bathrooms at school. Screw smoking. I'm sick of hearing how hard it is to quit...well, maybe they just want something to bitch about. I almost want to take up smoking, get addicted, then quit just to prove something.

[Aggrad02]

Dustan,

I am not a big fan of second-hand smoke either and I agree with the idea of keeping commonly used space free of pollutants.

I do have a problem with discrimination, though. Why do the foster kids get all the protection?

Shouldn't the government protect biological kids from second-hand smoke in the home, too? And how about the blacks? And the Hispanics and Muslims and... well, you get the idea.

But why stop there? Don't domestic animals need protection against second-hand smoke? Goodness knows how many cats and dogs have died of lung cancer. I wonder what the long term effects are on fish in aquariums.

And all those poor insects! My God!

Sorry for the ribbing...

I don't believe in government control of what goes on inside of homes. As second-hand smoke is a long-term danger, I vastly prefer education to granting the government power over how we live. As I believe in the essential goodness of man, I also believe that most people will come around from using their reason, and those who don't will be pressured into doing so over time for being unreasonable.

Michael

Hey Michael,

I guess the way I see it is that it is not discrimmination against the smokers, but due diligence by the government, since they are the ones who have taken on the responsibility of these children. I also believe that the government shouldn't be involved in the regulating of private homes, but they shouldn't put these foster kids into homes where they will be poisoned. Passing a law against smoking around minors wouldn't be a bad idea either, but it won't happen. We already have laws against pregnant women who do drugs, what is the difference? We have laws against minors smoking, what is the difference in them smoking first hand or smoking second hand all day? We have laws against parents abusing their children in various ways (physical abuse, giving them alcohol), why isn't slow poisoning considered abuse?

Just stuff to think about.

--Dustan

[Kat]

Just curious... is it currently illegal for pregnant women to smoke or buy cigarettes? I know people don't smoke like they used to, and a couple weeks ago I rode past a very pregnant woman smoking a cigarette and it absolutely turned my stomach. This is something I haven't seen in years.

Quitting really isn't that hard when you focus on the things you value highly and are are incompatible with smoking. Passing laws like this are more likely to stop people from becoming foster parents rather than making them quit smoking. Again, changes in behaviors need to come from the individuals, not expansion of the nanny state.

Kat

[BAMF]

I'm curious about that as well, Kat. My sister is pregnant and she smokes (ewwie), and she hides it from her husband, who would flip out if he knew. I don't get it...ya can't even quit for your little one? *sigh*

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I almost want to take up smoking, get addicted, then quit just to prove something.

Kori,

Horrible idea.

I did it--fourteen years of horrible idea (in two chunks of 7 years each). All I proved to myself is that I was a big dork for doing it... twice. I didn't prove anything to anybody else. Talk about an exercise in futility... twice...

(Double dorkness for the same mistake, but then again, I have always pursued added value... )

Michael

[BAMF]

Michael,

Did you take up smoking to prove a point, or...?

Of course I was only kidding with my comment. I think smoking is disgusting and I don't think I could ever bring myself to suck down cigarette smoke. I think I'd die on the spot.

[Judith]

I don't think it's totally ridiculous, but I think that might be because I've had to breathe smoke since I was in the womb.

I'm with Kori. I wish someone had been there to protect me from the second-hand smoke of my biological parents. I wish there had been a way to report them for violations. All my complaints got me nowhere; they just said I was a bad kid for complaining.

Judith

[BAMF]

Exactly. And they think I'm a smartass or I have a bad attitude when I'm sitting there coughing with my eyes red...puttin' my nose in my sleeve because and old, dirty sweatshirt is a better smell than smoke. Why should I have to be a trooper and deal with that stuff?

On the other hand...my parents are much more irritable when they don't have cigarettes... :cry:

[Robert Campbell]

Kat,

I haven't heard of any state (or other jurisdiction in the US) where it's illegal for pregnant women to smoke.

Robert Campbell

[Danneskjold]

I couldn't believe this when I heard it announced on the news about five minutes ago. There is an attempt at passing a law in Texas that would make it illegal for foster parents to smoke when they are around their foster children. This includes homes, cars, and any of their own private property. Now, aside from this being a HUGE move towards a nanny state, does anybody down there think that this might decrease incentives to take care of children? This is just stupid.

I am at work rigtht now so this is going to be quick and not overly intellectual, but:

I am pro rights and freedoms for almost everything. But I think that those rights do not extend to the right to pollute (water and air). Since these things are transcient, unlike land, I do not think that you have the right to pollute them anytime and anywhere that you feel like it since you do not own them and they are used and affect other people. Second hand smoke is poison, the purpose of our government is to protect our rights, I think this law will protect the rights of foster children not to have to breath poisoned air. I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting. Where is my right to clean air? Would you be for people also polluting our water sysytem, or what about spraying tear gas around, or what about mustard gas? Just because tabacco smoke does not kill quickly doesn't mean that it isn't similar.

Dustan

Right to clean air? You know how much cigarette smoke it would take to have a large scale affect on people outdoors? As far as the indoors is concerned, buy an air filter. Anyone who can afford foster kids can surely take the little extra money to buy that. Or, if the government's handing out kids, have 'em hand out filters too. The things really aren't that expensive. Either way, this is blatantly government entering into people's homes and I think that the right to privacy and all the other rights that this is stepping on far outweigh the supposed right to clean air.

[Aggrad02]

Jeff,

If you read my statement right before I ask the question "Where is my right to clean air", you will see that it was not about someone smoking outside down the block from me. The statement before my question was this: "I am also for similar restrictions of smoking in public places and restrictions of business and factories to pollute water. I am not sure how an objectivist could support polluting." It is not my responsibliity to have to clean up for everyone. I have a right to my life, my life depends on oxygen and clean air, which are things that are not owned (such as food), but transcient. To say that someone can pollute and poison me because it gives them pleasure and that I have to buy a gasmask to protect myself is absurd. Air and water are not property (except in the cases of containable water and water rights), and therefore cannot be treated as if they were (i.e. doing with them as you please.) Overpollution is the same type of aggressiveness as physical aggressiveness, just more subtle. For example, if anyone was to attack me with their fist I would defend myself, in the same way if someone was to attack me with pollution (blowing smoke in my face, polluting my local water source) I would also defend myself.

As for the foster kids. The government has taken responsibility for those children. That responsibility is not given to the foster parents but intrusted to them. When those families decide to be foster families they have invited the government into their home, their home is no longer private because they have a ward of the state (someone else child) living in their home. They have to go through several different forms of qualifications as well as continued visits from social workers to make sure the home is safe, this is just item added to the checklist. Whether or not the government should be involved in taking responsibility of children is for a different discussion, but since they have they are responsible for making them safe, and keeping them away from poison smoke is keeping them safe.

Also be very careful about saying "that certian rights outweigh other rights", that is not objectivism, that is utilitarianism. Objectivist ethics are all built upon preceding premises, if two ideas are in contradiciton then look at the premises of those ideas and see where they lead to. In your example of right to privacy versus the right to clean air. What are the objectivist premises behind both? The right to privacy is built upon property rights. The right to clean air is built upon the right to life. But air is not property, and just because you do something in you home does not mean that it is ok. Do I have the right to shoot someone in my home and not have to worry about getting arrested because that would be an invasion of my right to privacy? Of course not.

--Dustan

[Chris Grieb]

I agree that the state can regulate behavior for foster parents. I also think the current treatment of smokers is awful. Smokers have become almost a rightless class. Final note I don't smoke and I don't

care for it. Robert you are right no state has made it illegal for a pregnant women to smoke YET.

[Danneskjold]

Ok, so does anybody think that there might be unintended repurcussions caused by this law? Less foster parents perhaps? We already need to give people incentives to take care of kids, now we're just taking them away. What's healthier, getting exposed to second hand smoke or not having anything that remotely resembles a normal childhood. Even if you allow the government to regulate the foster parents in-home, that doesn't mean this is a good idea.