Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]

Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

[cinFLA]

"If you know of court cases, I would be interested in reading them. Or, at least, in articles about them.
I'm not one to stand on incorrect statements. I will look at ALL the evedence."

Here is one. There are MANY more. It is amazing that you "think" without even bothering to use your search engine.


Court rejects challenge to local smoking bans
By David Kibbe, Ottaway News Service

BOSTON -- The state's highest court yesterday upheld the town of Barnstable's smoking ban in bars and restaurants, rejecting a challenge by the owners of the Windjammer Lounge in Hyannis.

The unanimous decision by the Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed the right of local health boards to impose smoking bans.

It was the first time the state's top court had ruled on local smoking bans, and the case was watched closely around the state. The ruling was applauded by anti-smoking groups, including the American Lung Association.

"Second-hand smoke has been determined to be a hazard to health," said Sumner Kaufman, a member of the Barnstable Board of Health. "It's about time that has been recognized, and it's one of the reasons why the Board of Health exists -- to save the public health."

The Barnstable Board of Health imposed the smoking ban last April, becoming the second-to-last town on the Cape and the 122nd town in the state to limit smoking in restaurants.

In SouthCoast, New Bedford, Dartmouth and Fairhaven adopted restaurant smoking bans in January 2000. Unless an establishment is declared "adults only," no smoking is allowed.

Initially, there was considerable outcry, but a year after the fact, the ban is a fact of life.

Meanwhile, other communities continue to grapple with the issue. Wareham enacted a ban, only to suspend it after two months when restaurant owners there said their businesses were being hit hard. The measure is now under a three-month review.

Acushnet is considering a ban and is scheduled to decide sometime this month, while Mattapoisett's ban takes effect Feb. 1

Yarmouth passed a smoking ban soon after Barnstable.
The decision was controversial among proprietors of bars, restaurants, veteran halls and social clubs, who feared it would hurt business.

"I really thought we were correct in our position that these guys have gone too far, but I think the sentiment at this time is against smoking," said Peter Feeney, one of the Windjammer's owners. "I don't feel there is a big danger in second-hand smoke. It's still legal as far as I know, and they're treating it as if it isn't."

The Windjammer spent about $22,000 fighting the case. "I really felt I had to give it a shot for every business down here," Feeney said. "I don't regret it."
The Windjammer's lawyer, Edward Kirk of Osterville, attacked the smoking ban on several fronts.

Kirk argued that it conflicted with state law. In 1987, the state Legislature banned smoking in some public places, including courthouses, schools, health-care facilities, museums and libraries. But lawmakers stopped short of a statewide ban. Instead, they required larger restaurants to have nonsmoking sections.

Furthermore, Kirk said elected boards -- not appointed health boards -- should have the power to impose smoking bans. He also claimed the Barnstable Board of Health failed to prove that limited contact with second-hand smoke was dangerous.

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected each one of the arguments.

"The Legislature has already made the determination that smoking should be prohibited or regulated in certain public locations, including restaurants, and has explicitly left municipalities and their boards of health the power to implement stricter regulations on smoking in public places," wrote Associate Justice Judith Cowin.
Cowin said the Legislature, "in plain language ... delegated boards of health the power to adopt reasonable health regulations."

Health officials across the state were relieved. They feared the court would strip them of a broad range of powers, from restricting smoking to protecting groundwater.
"Let's face it, the city councilors and mayors and selectmen tend to be more sympathetic and have more awareness of issues pending to local business than they do to public health," said Marcia Benes, the executive director of the state Association of Health Boards. "If you don't have a local agency that is specifically looking at protecting public health, that will always take a second fiddle to business interests."

The state attorney general, the Association of Health Boards and the Tobacco Control Resource Center at Northeastern University filed briefs supporting the Barnstable Board of Health.

The city of Salem filed a brief supporting the Windjammer's argument that elected municipal governments -- not health boards -- had the authority to impose smoking bans. The Salem Board of Health has approved a smoking ban in bars and restaurants over the objections of the city solicitor.

The Windjammer maintained there was no proof that diners who encountered second-hand smoke were at risk. But the court said the Windjammer failed prove that it wasn't a risk.

"We have previously recognized the ill effects of tobacco use, particularly when it involves minors, as a legitimate municipal health concern justifying municipal regulation of tobacco products," Cowin wrote.

Feeney believes the ban is hurting his business by forcing smokers to drive to towns with less restrictive smoking laws. But the court noted studies that have shown bars and restaurants aren't losing money under smoking bans.

Kaufman said the economic argument "is without merit." He's talked to people who stayed away from smoky restaurants, but "now are happy to go." Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson rejected the Windjammer's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the smoking ban last March. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed to hear the case before it went any further.

Town Attorney Robert Smith argued the ban was legal during a court hearing in Brockton in November. Technically, yesterday's ruling was only on the preliminary injunction, so the case could be send back to Superior Court for a full hearing. But the Supreme Judicial Court addressed every major issue the Windjammer raised, so the restaurant is dropping the case.

"When it's over, it's over," Kirk said.

[cinFLA]

Any other way IS mob rule.

Your ignorance of common law is amazing.

[Just another Joe]

Thank you. It's a good thing to know that even judges in the "Supreme Judicial Court" don't know what they are talking about.
You're right, I did not do a search. My bad.
I'll see what I can do to rectify that situation.

[Just another Joe]

Your ignorance of common law is amazing.

Just because it's common doesn't make it right.
It has also been common to let business owners decide what is allowed, that is legal, in their establishments.

What do you call it when two wolves and a sheep sit down to decide what's for dinner?

[cinFLA]

Here is a long read BUT it is worth it if you want to see where you stand. If you want to keep on insisting that you are right, that is not my problem. It is yours. You may not agree with the law, but you cannot fight it. You can only work to change it. Of course, you have to know what the law is and that is your problem.

---

Clearing the Air

by P. Michael Nagle

WARNING: Secondhand smoke can be dangerous. But are you responsible for protecting your residents from it?
Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of disease and death in the United States. Tobacco-related deaths number more than 430,000 each year—more than from AIDS, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, and fires combined. Medical costs directly attributable to smoking total more than $50 billion per year. You might think that this is strictly a problem for smokers, but in fact, every year, 62,000 nonsmokers die from coronary heart disease and another 3,000 die from lung cancer—caused by secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

For smokers, the solution is obvious: quit. For nonsmokers, the issue is more complicated. You can choose to avoid circumstances in which you're likely to encounter secondhand smoke, but there are many times when that's not so easy. Without going out of your way, you'll come across ETS in the workplace, in restaurants, even where you live. And it's not easy to figure out whose problem that is.

DEAD TO RIGHTS

The National Institutes of Health's Report on Carcinogens, published in January 2001, lists ETS as a "known" human carcinogen, which means that there is a direct cause and effect between exposure to ETS and contracting lung cancer. A 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association clinical investigation found direct evidence that ETS causes coronary dysfunction in nonsmokers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that there are "measurable levels of continine in the blood of 88 percent of all nontobacco users." (Continine is a metabolite of nicotine whose presence indicates a person's exposure to tobacco smoke.)

If that's not enough, the 2000 Surgeon General's Report on reducing tobacco use states:


ETS exposure remains a common public health hazard that is entirely preventable. Most state and local laws for clean indoor air reduce but do not eliminate nonsmokers' exposure to ETS; smoking bans are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure.... Optimal protection of nonsmokers and smokers requires a smoke-free environment.
Many jurisdictions have taken the surgeon general's advice and now prohibit smoking in the workplace and in public buildings. Indeed, as long ago as 1978, a federal court found a ban on smoking in public stadiums in New Orleans to be within the city's police powers. Similar bans have been upheld across the country with regard to schools, restaurants, bars, theaters, hospitals, libraries, museums, art galleries, hotel lobbies, child-care centers, malls, public transportation (buses, trains, subway systems), playgrounds, and recreation centers. And, for nearly two decades now, smoking has been banned on all domestic flights in the United States.

The message is clear: There is no constitutional or legal right to smoke, especially when other people may be affected. The body of knowledge concerning the dangers of smoking both to smokers and to innocent bystanders is so great, and the data so overwhelming, that virtually any ban on smoking seems possible. In an article for Common Ground five years ago, I wrote: "The current anti-smoking sentiment in America—coupled with a rash of anti-smoking legislation and an increased knowledge of the dangers of secondhand smoke—may eliminate the last refuge of diehard smokers: their own homes." We are even closer to that prediction today, with the battle raging on a number of fronts.

On Dec. 11, 2000, the Village of Friendship Heights, in Maryland, passed a landmark anti-smoking regulation that made it unlawful to smoke or discard tobacco products in all buildings and parks, on sidewalks or sodded areas, and on all public rights of way. In other words, the regulation prohibited smoking in public. A court challenge was promptly mounted, and on March 2, 2001, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Durke G. Thompson granted a temporary injunction against the regulation. In a well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion, Thompson said that the Friendship Heights Council's attempt to shield its citizens from a "significant health risk" was "admirable." He wrote: "[N]o one is challenging that tobacco products are harmful and unhealthy to users, and annoying, dirty, and potentially harmful to nonusers. This proposition appears to be beyond debate in our modern society."

But good intentions weren't enough. Friendship Heights is a special taxing district, not an incorporated municipality, and thus the powers granted it by the Maryland legislature "do not include general police powers." After taking a close look at the nature of the regulation, Thompson concluded that it was an "unauthorized expansion" of Friendship Heights' powers. In a statement that should be taken to heart at all levels of our government, Thompson opined: "Ultimately, the public interest is best served by good government, not government that acts without appropriate authority." The inference was clear: Had a jurisdiction with normal police powers—that is, most cities and counties in the United States—passed the ban, Thompson would have upheld it and refused to issue the injunction.

More recently, a New York City cooperative association, 180 West End Avenue Cooperative, enacted a complete ban on smoking for new residents. Smoking was already prohibited in common areas, but, according to board president Scott Wechsler, a real-estate attorney, the co-op still received complaints. "We've had shareholders complain that they smell smoke coming through the vents," Wechsler told the New York Times. "We've made extensive attempts to remedy potential penetration of smoke between units. Part of the problem is that you're never certain which apartment smoke may be coming from."

Current residents of the co-op are grandfathered, but the building one day could be entirely smoke-free. As for the effect on unit marketability, the board surveyed local real-estate agents and determined that many New Yorkers would be delighted to live and raise their children in a smoke-free environment.

BANNED AID

Of course, the question on everyone's mind is whether such a ban is enforceable. In 1998, after some residents complained, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development facilitated a conciliation agreement in which the Park Towers Apartments, in Loves Park, Illinois, would go smoke-free beginning with tenants who moved in after March 15 of that year. Violators of the no-smoking policy would get a written warning and then be subject to eviction. As far as I know, the ban has never been challenged.

In Dworkin v. Paley, an Ohio appeals court held that the presence of ETS in an apartment building could be considered a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. In Fox Point Apartments v. Kippes, a Lackamas County, Oregon, jury unanimously found a breach of the warranty of habitability when a smoker moved into the unit below a nonsmoker who then suffered nausea and respiratory problems. Other lawsuits have alleged battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, negligence, trespass, breach of contract, and constructive eviction. The results (and verdicts) have been mixed, even when different lawsuits have made the same allegations.

Smoking is also playing a major role in some child-custody decisions. In a 1993 case in Duval County, Florida, Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge Bill Parsons noted: "I'm not saying adults can't smoke. I'm just saying don't do it in front of a helpless child. Secondhand smoke is killing children, and I think it's time for the courts of this country to help these children." On a less emotional but equally significant note, a New Jersey judge presiding over a custody case in 1994 said: "Clearly, the effect of ETS is a factor that may be considered by a court in its custody determination as it affects the safety and health of the children." In Lizzio v. Lizzio, another 1994 custody battle, a Fulton County, New York, Family Court judge went so far as to opine, "we are at a point in time when, in the opinion of this judge, a parent or guardian could be prosecuted successfully for neglecting his or her child as a result of subjecting the infant to an atmosphere contaminated with health-destructive tobacco smoke."

BLOWING SMOKE

What does all this mean to community associations? Let's start with the inescapable conclusion that ETS is a known carcinogen that causes the deaths of tens of thousands of nonsmokers every year. We do not yet know how minimal the exposure must be before a person suffers deleterious effects from ETS, so we must assume that any exposure is too much, especially to those who may be particularly sensitive, such as children. Although arguments certainly can be made to the contrary, I suggest that most courts would have no problem finding that the presence of ETS constitutes a nuisance to nonsmokers. The implications of this line of reasoning have particular relevance for high-rise condominiums and other high-density communities, where residents live in close quarters with one another.

Homes. Because most governing documents have a provision prohibiting noxious or offensive conduct, or conduct that constitutes a nuisance, boards of directors cannot afford to treat complaints about ETS lightly. My article in Common Ground five years ago discussed the possibility that such nuisance provisions could be used to prevent residents from smoking in their own homes if the smoke traveled into another home. It concluded: "The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to smoke in their homes. No such statutory right exists, either. The right of individuals to engage in activities that risk their health does not include the right to jeopardize the health of their neighbors."

The legislation, lawsuits, and research that have occurred in the intervening five years strongly suggest that residents will use nuisance provisions to force their associations to provide a smoke-free living environment. Even child-custody cases may become a means to force associations to act; woe to the board that refuses to act and "causes" a parent to lose custody of his or her child.

Common areas. Still, while the issue of smoking in individual homes remains unclear, smoking in or on common areas does not. You should use the very same nuisance provisions to prohibit the use of tobacco in your interior and exterior common areas. The number of bans on smoking in public places, the body of knowledge concerning the perils of ETS, and the high degree of anti-smoking sentiment virtually guarantee that a well-written rule or document provision banning smoking because it constitutes a "nuisance" or "annoyance," or is "noxious or offensive" to others, would be upheld if challenged.

Although most "public place" legislative bans either exclude or fail to include association common areas, it's best for your board to be proactive and prohibit smoking in all indoor common areas, especially meeting rooms, party rooms, lobbies, hallways, elevators—and even outdoor playgrounds. Because a no-smoking policy for outdoor areas such as parking lots, sidewalks, and grassy areas may be difficult to enforce—and you should never pass a rule you cannot or will not enforce—it might be better to ban smoking at all community events, which could include picnics as well as meetings and socials.

The growing number of lawsuits relating to smoking in the workplace, smoking in restaurants and other public places, and even smoking in one's own home sends a solemn and stark message to community leaders around the country: Nonsmokers are the majority, and they are becoming very determined not to let the smoking minority affect their health. An old adage says, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." The "right" to smoke, if there is one, ends at the same place—the nose of the nearest nonsmoker. Community associations that wish to protect themselves from lawsuits and other complaints about smoking—and from the effects of ETS on nonsmokers—must evaluate the needs of their residents and take prudent action.


P. Michael Nagle is a partner in the law firm of Nagle & Zaller, PC, in Columbia, Maryland.

[Just another Joe]

The first paragraph is so full of BS that it is almost unbelievable.
It's already been admitted by the CDC, where they get these figures from, that there is NO WAY to prove that these figures are even in the realm of a magnitude of closeness to actual fact. But the antismokers know that if you can get the media to repeat something often enough it will be accepted as truth.

The third paragraph is misleading. Sunshine is also a carcinigen and cotonine is also found in the bloodstream of people that eat certain vegetables.
Do we ban sunshine and these particular vegetables?

What does all this mean to community associations? Let's start with the inescapable conclusion that ETS is a known carcinogen that causes the deaths of tens of thousands of nonsmokers every year.

Again, a BS statement.

We do not yet know how minimal the exposure must be before a person suffers deleterious effects from ETS, so we must assume that any exposure is too much, especially to those who may be particularly sensitive, such as children.
"We don't know", "We must assume", "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN", typical leftist verbage.

And then at the very last we have your premise, "The growing number of lawsuits relating to smoking in the workplace, smoking in restaurants and other public places, and even smoking in one's own home sends a solemn and stark message to community leaders around the country: Nonsmokers are the majority"
There it is. Mob rule.

I've said it before cinFLA, you may be a quite rational person on other threads but anything having to do with tobacco you become a statist monster.

[cinFLA]

Why didn't you finish the quote:

"Nonsmokers are the majority, and they are becoming very determined not to let the smoking minority affect their health. An old adage says, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." The "right" to smoke, if there is one, ends at the same place—the nose of the nearest nonsmoker."

It is not mob rule, but the rule of law to protect the rights of non-smokers.

[cinFLA]

Let's see. You state that there have not been any challenges to no-smoking laws. I provide some background in that area. You do not like what they say and you call ME a monster. See you after my vacation in December.

[Just another Joe]

and they are becoming very determined not to let the smoking minority affect their health.

How about a little indisputable proof that ETS AFFECTS their health first.
That indisputable proof is not out there. Not even close.

[Just another Joe]

You do not like what they say

It's not that I don't like what they say. They LIE! boldfaced and with compuction, they LIE!

Don't hurry back on my account.

[cinFLA]

How about a little indisputable proof that ETS AFFECTS their health first. That indisputable proof is not out there. Not even close.

We were discussing law, not medicine. It was written by a lawyer.

[RightFighter]

They should have a special room they can go to with proper ventilatiion, and the anti-smokers can keep their cabooses out of it. It is NOT right or FAIR that they be treated worse than condemed killers.

Let's see...so I'm an employer who's designing my new office building, for which I pay a certain rather large amount per square foot. You're saying that I should have to build in a "special room" just for my employees who wish to engage in their addictions at work? I don't think so.

We do NOT patronize establishment that do not have smoking sections.

I'll just go ahead and tell you now...If you've ever planned to visit Florida, do it now. You won't like our state after January.

[cinFLA]

Abstract
This article reviews the epidemiologic studies of the association of ischemic heart disease risk and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure from a spouse who smokes. Seventeen studies (nine cohort, eight case-control) comprising more than 485,000 lifelong nonsmokers and 7,345 coronary heart disease (CHD) events were included in a meta-analysis. Together, these studies include 36% more CHD events and 58% more study subjects than were available for review by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1994. The relative risk (RR) for fatal or nonfatal coronary events among never smokers married to smokers, compared to those whose spouses did not smoke, was RR = 1.25 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.17-1.33) across the combined studies. This association was statistically similar in men (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.15-1.32) and women (RR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.32); in studies of cohort (RR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and case-control (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.81) design; in the United States (RR =1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.30) and other countries (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.65); and in studies of fatal (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.30) and nonfatal (RR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.67) heart disease. In three studies that presented data separately for nonsmokers married to current or former smokers, the association was stronger when the spouses continued to smoke (RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28) than with former smokers (RR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08). The aggregate data are unlikely to be attributable to chance, publication bias, confounding, or misclassification of exposure. The evidence linking heart disease and ETS exposure from a spouse has become substantially stronger since OSHA first proposed including heart disease in its risk assessment of ETS in 1994. Key words: environmental tobacco smoke, heart disease. -- Environ Health Perspect 107(suppl 6):841-846 (1999).

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/suppl6/841846thun/abract.html

[cinFLA]

Environmental Tobacco Smoke:
A Danger to Children

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It causes almost 20% of all the deaths in this country each year. People who are around smokers can’t help breathing in the smoke that comes from cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. Researchers have now found that breathing in someone else’s smoke is very dangerous, especially for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers parents the following information to help them create a “tobacco-free environment” for their children.


What is Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)?

Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS, is the smoke that is breathed out by a smoker. ETS also includes the smoke that comes from the tip of a burning cigarette. Exposure to ETS happens any time someone breathes in the smoke that comes from a cigarette, pipe, or cigar. ETS contains many dangerous chemicals that have been proven to cause cancer. It is estimated that ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year to people who don’t even smoke!


ETS and children

ETS has almost 4,000 chemicals in it that infants and children breathe in whenever someone smokes around them. Children who breathe in ETS are at risk for many serious health problems.

When a mother smokes during pregnancy, she has a higher risk of having a premature baby or a baby who is not fully developed. When a mother smokes during her pregnancy or around her newborn, the infant has a higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Children who breathe in someone else’s cigarette smoke (especially children under 2 years of age) have a higher risk of getting other serious medical problems or making them worse, including the following:

Ear infections and hearing problems
Upper respiratory infections
Respiratory problems such as bronchitis and pneumonia
Asthma
Children of smokers also cough and wheeze more and have a harder time getting over colds. In addition, ETS can cause a stuffy nose, headaches, sore throat, eye irritation, hoarseness, dizziness, nausea, loss of appetite, lack of energy, or fussiness.

Children with asthma are especially sensitive to ETS. ETS can actually increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, which may require trips to the hospital. Also, exposure to the smoke of as few as 10 cigarettes per day raises a child’s chances of getting asthma even if that child has never had any symptoms.



Smoking during pregnancy

When a woman smokes during her pregnancy, her unborn child is exposed to the chemicals in the smoke. This can be very harmful to the child and can lead to many serious health problems including:

Miscarriage
Prematurity (having a baby that is not fully developed)
Low birth weight—therefore a less healthy baby
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
Some childhood cancers
These risks go up the longer a mother smokes and the more cigarettes she smokes during her pregnancy. Quitting anytime during the pregnancy will help — of course the sooner the better.


In addition, ETS can cause problems for children later in life including:

Lung cancer
Heart disease
Cataracts (eye disease)
With all of these dangers, it’s easy to understand why children should not be exposed to ETS. Inhaling the smoke from the cigarettes of others is dangerous for pregnant women, too. Pregnant women should stay away from smoking areas and ask smokers not to smoke around them.


How parents can protect their children from ETS

If you are a smoker—quit! It’s one of the most important thing you can do for the health of your children and the best way to prevent your child from being exposed to ETS. If you are having trouble quitting smoking, ask your doctor for help. Also, contact your local chapter of the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, or other groups that sponsor stop-smoking classes. As a parent, you are a role model. Children watch what their parents do. If your child sees you smoking, he or she may want to try smoking and grow up to become a smoker as well. Cigarette smoking by children and adolescents causes the same health problems that affect adults.


Tobacco-free environments for children

Parents need to be aware of the many places where their children can be exposed to ETS. Even if there are no smokers in your home, your children can still be exposed to ETS in other places, including:

In the car or on a bus
In a restaurant
At a friend’s or relative’s house
At the mall
At the babysitter’s house
At sports events or pop music concerts
How do you avoid being around smokers? One way is to ask people not to smoke around your children or remove your child from places where there are smokers. The following tips may help you keep your children from being exposed to ETS:

Don’t let people smoke in your house. Don’t put out any ashtrays—this will discourage people from lighting up. Remember, air flows throughout a house, so smoking in even one room allows smoke to go everywhere.
Don’t let people smoke in your car. Opening windows is not enough to clear the air.
Choose a babysitter who doesn’t allow smoking in the house.
Avoid crowded, smoky restaurants when you are with your child..
When you are with your child in public places—shopping malls, restaurants, bowling alleys—sit in “nonsmoking” sections.
Help get your child’s school to be smoke-free. Get your children involved in this effort as well.
Almost 50% of the homes in the United States have at least one smoker living there. This means that millions of children in the United States are breathing in ETS in their own homes. If you smoke around your child or allow your child to be exposed to ETS in other places, you may be putting him or her into more danger than you realize. Parents need to make every effort to keep their children away from smokers and ETS. Parents who smoke should think about quitting, not just for their own sake, but for the health of their children.



Smoking and children -- A fire hazard

In addition to the dangers of ETS, smoking around children can also pose fire and burn dangers. Children can get burned if they play with lit cigarettes, cigars, or with lighters or matches. Keep the following guidelines in mind to keep your child safe from injury:

Never smoke while you are holding your baby.
Never leave a lit cigarette, cigar, or pipe unattended.
Keep matches and lighters out of your child’s reach.
Cigarette lighters are especially dangerous. Cigarette lighters can be found in almost 30 million homes in the United States. Each year children under 5 years old playing with lighters cause more than 5,000 home fires resulting in about 150 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) now requires that butane cigarette lighters be made child-resistant. This new rule will prevent hundreds of deaths and fire-related injuries to children each year. But remember, lighters can be made child-resistant, not childproof. It is still very important to keep lighters and matches away from children.


The information contained in this publication should not be used as a substitute for the medical care and advice of your pediatrician. There may be variations in treatment that your pediatrician may recommend based on individual facts and circumstances.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 53,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.





© 2002 - American Academy of Pediatrics

[Gabz]

Smoking kills and smokers stink.

BIGOTRY STINKS AND LIFE IS FATAL

[Gabz]

You have made a good point - and I stand corrected.

Thank you, FRiend

[Gabz]

I don't smoke, but I go out and stand with those that do, I want to know what is going on.

I was amazed the first time I heard that - now I am just amazed at how many people ACTUALLY do it for the reason you mention.

[borisbob69]

Sounds like you have some type of control problem...have you considered Depends? I manage to control my urge to smoke until I'm safely located in one of the designated areas, so what's your problem moron? I'd sooner be unemployed than work anywhere you might be hanging around wetting your pants!

[Gabz]

I am just using my right to voice my opinion that I have the right to a smoke free environment which trumps your right to blow smoke in my face.

You whiney little snivelling baby.

Your alleged right to a "smoke free environment" does not trump the right of a business owner who does not have to admit you to his premises.

You seem to forget the fact that you must abide by certain rules even to enter the establishment. A common sign in places is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Show up in my part of Delaware with your nasty attitude - you will be asked to leave imediately and you will have no recourse.

You may have the right in Florida because of the panty waists like you changing the constitution - but you have NO RIGHT to walk into any private establishment without the owners permission in Delaware.

You truly need to get over your tyrannical dictatorial self - and do it quickly, please.

[cinFLA]

You whiney little snivelling baby. Show up in my part of Delaware with your nasty attitude - you will be asked to leave imediately and you will have no recourse.

My, but your tobacco breath has made you bitter! No problem. The only stop I make in NJ is to buy gas as I pass through. But you should read your NJ laws!