Posted on 08/13/2004 5:24:43 AM PDT by Hatteras
She only smoked twice in a year with the kids, I think hubby is out to get her. He is probably a self rightous son of a gun.
I tend to agree. Arguments that defy that simple logic have always bugged me.
What also bugs me are the statistics that state something to the effect: After smoking for 20 years and quitting, after six months, your chances of contracting a smoking-related illness are only slightly higher than if you had never smoked. (I'm sure I'm wrong on the exact numbers, but the gist is correct.)
I'm convinced that smoking will kill you. I'm also convinced that, generally, it will take decades. Seems to me that, at worst, second-hand smoke would be considerably less harmful than that.
Regarding the second-hand smoke issue...my grandparents each smoked 3 packs of menthol cigarettes a day. Neither my mother, nor my uncle, nor any of the grandchildren have suffered any long term health problems due to their smoking. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents and it never bothered me. I never said "I don't want to go to Nana and Grandpa's because they smoke."
Funny you mentioned that. Because I smoke I have never been able to see my granddaughters. My daughterinlaw said I couldn't smoke IN MY OWN HOUSE. I would never smoke in the same room my granddaughters are in, but I will smoke in my own house. My son pays the mortgage on his house and she makes him go outside and smoke. Btw, the witch that has kept my granddaughters from me smokes.
If I agree to pay you $50 to mow my lawn (no disrespect intended), you mow it, and I fail to pay: you take me to court. The cops don't come and arrest me.
If she agrees to not smoke with the kids, and she renegs, the ex-husband should take her to court and have the custody arrangment changed.
That's what she deserves.
"Btw, the witch that has kept my granddaughters from me smokes."
How on earth can she demand that you not smoke in your home when she smokes herself? If it's ok for her to smoke around her kids, why isn't ok for you?
You'd be surprised how many times a non-smoking order is put in place as part of a protective services case. If it is a case that is in court, these case plans are weighed heavily by the judges hearing the cases. It depends, to some extent, on the worker. Personally, the only time I would include such a condition in a case plan would be in the situation where the child already had a diagnosed health problem that was significantly aggravated by cigarette smoke, such as asthma, AND where the parent was not one who had much awareness or who didn't make much effort to protect the child himself. Then I might include that the parent was not to smoke in the same room as the child. There are workers, though, who because of their own personal anti-smoking biases, who will demand that parent NEVER smoke around their kids and if they discover that they do, might make a big issue of it as failure to comply with the case plan. Then it can make a big difference in court.
It's about time a woman was punished for violating a custody order. Most of the time they get away with murder. But if you're the Dad, you're automatically guilty. I say bravo to this judge. We need more like him.
I don't know, but I had an arguement with my son about it. He was just trying to keep the peace. He came to visit me, but I still didn't see my granddaughters. That's ok, I enjoyed spending time with my son. I just want the government and the anti smokers to leave me alone.
Nope. Anti-smoking laws ARE an all liberal issue. Only a liberal would turn to the government to prevent other people from engaging in an otherwise legal activity.
The market should decide whether smoking is permitted or not in restaurants, theatres, and other places.
The way people feel about smoking bans is an indication of whether you are a liberal, or someone that thinks they are conservative, but is actually a liberal.
I don't like the risk posed by the fumes from fiberglass construction of boats and other structures. If you work in that industry, you can wear a mask with cartridges that will take care of the fumes, but still it isn't an industry I want to be in.
I'd say the risk of harm at an FRP facility is way, way worse than the risk of harm working the bar at the local smoking permitted tavern. We aren't banning FRP construction. We aren't banning a lot of things that pose way more risk to the health of humans than smoking or second hand smoke does (does working the barbecue pose similar risks to smoking? If so, why hasn't charcoal been banned?)
Liberals want to make that choice for us. Conservatives want to leave that up to the individual.
My grandfather died when I was twelve. For years, I thought smoking had killed him. I found out when I was older that it was actually all of the asbestos that he had inhaled while he was working.
smoking is also dangerous
****
Shows how weak, spineless, whiny, spoiled and soft the people of this nation have become when the smoke comeing off of something as small as a cigarette scares them to death and they think it a DANGER. I come from a smoking family of generations, they have all died in their 90's.
This country is goin down because people will lose their minds when something REALLY DANGEROUS hits. Bad state of affairs when homosexual behavior is ok...killing unborn babies is...ok, and the small billow of smoke off of a cigarette is time for total alarm. WHAT is wrong with this picture? Can we say brain-washed, controled and completely manipulated? Common sense is GONE!!
She was right to defy the judge in this case. The judge ruled that she couldn't engage in an otherwise legal activity.
You don't have the same right of appeal in family court that you do in criminal court.
The judge was in error, and the only way to reverse that error is to defy the judge and have the merits of the order re-examined in court, criminial court.
As for the kids, most of my contemporaries grew up in homes where the parents smoked. We are all fine, so far, and I don't have any friends that smoke. The WHO (UN body) did an exhaustive study that could not link second hand smoke to any increased health risk. There are studies that do make that link. As long as that link is still a theory, and not a fact, and as long as smoking is legal, this is one more example of judges making laws all by themselves.
Mom's an idiot here, but she's got my support. The judge is the problem.
I smoke cigars a couple of times a week, but I don't think that equates to a two pack a day habit.
Funny you mentioned that. Because I smoke I have never been able to see my granddaughters. My daughterinlaw said I couldn't smoke IN MY OWN HOUSE. I would never smoke in the same room my granddaughters are in, but I will smoke in my own house. My son pays the mortgage on his house and she makes him go outside and smoke. Btw, the witch that has kept my granddaughters from me smokes.
*****
This person is nothing more that a complete control freak and a b*tch to put it lightly...if it wasn't smoking it would be something else...its her power trip.
Weird.
It is in this case:
as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband
Although it seems like the appropriate thing to do is not throw her in jail, but give the kids to her husband who will not smoke around them. I was a smoker too, for 18 years, but I took great pains to not get second hand smoke around my kids.
Absolutely correct.
Here's one you'll enjoy.
All worthy questions that the legislative branch of government should consider. But a court order is a court order. We can't selectively decide which ones to flout and which ones to honor ... unless we're ready to abide the consequences.
You are correct, in free society we must submit to the order of the courts no matter how absurd their rulings. The Gawds in their black robes know all and must be obeyed without question.
Hey, who freed all my African slaves?
Sorry pal, if people are truly free we can 't submit to any tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.