Smokers banned from fostering

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

LONDON (Reuters) – A council has become the first in London to rule that smokers will no longer be able to foster children.

Redbridge Council's cabinet agreed Tuesday night to a ban on placing children with foster carers who smoke unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The local authority in northeast London said the decision, which will come into force in 2010, was made to protect children from the "damaging effects of passive and second-hand smoke."

Other councils around the country have introduced similar measures, particularly relating to very young children, but Redbridge's ban is thought to be the most far-reaching.

"We know this is a difficult issue because some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms," said Councilor Michael Stark.

"But we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood. On balance, we have decided children in our care shouldn't grow up breathing second-hand smoke."

The council cited scientific evidence that showed passive smoking caused lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease.

Existing smokers will be told of the new policy and given help to quit.

The Fostering Network, a charity which represents groups involved in fostering, said it believed no child under five should be placed with carers who smoked.

However the charity, which estimates there is a shortfall of some 10,000 carers, said it did not want potentially good foster parents to be put off because they had an occasional cigarette.

Tobacco lobby groups said the move was part of an "ongoing campaign to stigmatize smokers."

"It's going to exclude people who could be outstanding foster parents," said a spokesman for pro-smoking group Forest.

"It sends out an insidious message that smokers in general are unfit parents and I don't think any politician has the right to do that."

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LONDON (Reuters) – A council has become the first in London to rule that smokers will no longer be able to foster children.

Sounds about right. The dangers of second hand smoke to children are well known.

[Sister Fracas 5]

hmmmmm

[Nagishkaw 510]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you shouldn't smoke around kids... Noone can stop you smoking around your own biological children, but when you're going for an adoption you have to follow different rules.

Presumably - placing a child with a family of smokers, the local authority would be complicit in the event the child gets sick.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either.

It's surprising we debate whether gheys can adopt but there's no debate about this.

That second hand smoke kills is beyond dispute.

But homosexuality can't be spread and yet we argue over it as if it can.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either.

It's surprising we debate whether gheys can adopt but there's no debate about this.

That second hand smoke kills is beyond dispute.

But homosexuality can't be spread and yet we argue over it as if it can.

Oh but AJ, gheys are immoral or sumfin... and will make their kids immoral too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either.

It's surprising we debate whether gheys can adopt but there's no debate about this.

That second hand smoke kills is beyond dispute.

But homosexuality can't be spread and yet we argue over it as if it can.

Its quite obvious that the laws regarding adoption are confused and often contradictory - for the simple reason that the government is required to legislate on what makes a good parent.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either.

It's surprising we debate whether gheys can adopt but there's no debate about this.

That second hand smoke kills is beyond dispute.

But homosexuality can't be spread and yet we argue over it as if it can.

Oh but AJ, gheys are immoral or sumfin... and will make their kids immoral too.

and especially gays that smoke!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Smokers shouldn't be allowed to adopt, either.

It's surprising we debate whether gheys can adopt but there's no debate about this.

That second hand smoke kills is beyond dispute.

But homosexuality can't be spread and yet we argue over it as if it can.

Oh but AJ, gheys are immoral or sumfin... and will make their kids immoral too.

and especially gays that smoke!

The smoking is what should be the deal killer, not being gay.

[Jenn! 918]

What's next? Obese people can't adopt?

Ok, second hand smoke killing is beyond dispute. Is it beyond dispute that every smoking parent subjects their children to second hand smoke?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

What's next? Obese people can't adopt?

Ok, second hand smoke killing is beyond dispute. Is it beyond dispute that every smoking parent subjects their children to second hand smoke?

what's interesting is it does not matter if they smoke outside - just that they smoke and that makes them ineligible to adopt.

and next up after obese can't adopt - anyone who consumes trans fats and too much coffee.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's next? Obese people can't adopt?

Ok, second hand smoke killing is beyond dispute. Is it beyond dispute that every smoking parent subjects their children to second hand smoke?

I suspect its because smoking is an addictive behaviour - even if you don't expose the kids to the smoke, they may still see you smoking.

I would imagine its a similar story with alcohol abuse - though there are obvious unique issues with that (greater tendency towards abuse and violence), I think there is some evidence that compulsive behaviours run in families.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[NickD 203]

Should also ban people that live near large airports, in congested cities, or near paper mills. Also next to people that burn wood, Consumers Report when they were honest did tests, when living next to a wood burning home, you and your kids are smoking the equivalent of 20 packages of cigarettes per day. HC's are highly cancerous, about a thousand more times than cigarette smoke, but nothing said about that either, they want us to burn oil.

Logically, any kind of burning is bad for one's health and that is comparing carefully prepared tobacco against some very toxic materials. But the least significant is the one that is targeted. Not justifying smoking by no means. People with poor heating equipment burning wood, coal, or even natural gas are creating other forms of hazardous indoor pollution. What I object to his the hypocrisy of those claiming the only problem is smoking. When I hear these people speak, the word a$$holes comes to mind.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Study Shows Smoking Outside Still Causes Second-Hand Smoke Exposure To Children

Smoking outside the home still exposes infants to nicotine