Rule stops Texas foster parents from smoking in front of kids

[deadparrot]

AUSTIN — Texas will join a handful of states that prohibit foster parents from smoking in front of children in their homes and cars when a new state rule takes effect Jan. 1.

Under rules passed this year, foster parents can't smoke in their homes if they have foster children living there. They also can't smoke while driving if children are in the car.

"The state acts as the legal parents of children in foster custody; these kids are our children," said Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. "It doesn't make sense to unnecessarily subject them to health hazards like secondhand smoke."

Other states with similar smoking laws include Vermont, Washington and Maine.

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4377016.html

[humbled_opinion]

1. I agree

but then again I am a reformed smoker of 30 years. Cough, Cough... I am guilty for having exposed my children and others to second hand smoke and am deeply sorry and saddened by my actions. But I stopped and therefore believe that anyone can if they set their mind to it. Instead of looking at this as intrusion in private decisions it should be looked at as a positive motivator to get people to quit... If they quit and looked back at the harm they were causing they may see the light.

[LiberalFighter]

2. It would be better to only have non-smoking foster parents

but there probably aren't enough of them to fulfill that role.

They could consider helping these foster parents to kick the habit.

What will be the next thing they prohibit? Drinking alcohol in front of the kids?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Severe shortage of qualified foster parents here

Our vile and disgusting Gov Goodhair learned that after making an ass of himself backing a proposed law to ban gays from being foster parents. In their attempt to pander to the rabid religious right they almost ended up with some 3,000 children with no place to live. Surprisingly, those good religious folks were not real big about volunteering in mass to take the children in.

I used to smoke. I never smoked inside around my child nor in a vehicle with her. Her health was my responsibility and one I took seriously.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Which is why I added that part about probably not enough fosters

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. I originally only intended to agree with you

Then I got carried away with myself. Sorry about that, it's just these kids are near and dear to my heart.

[Richard Steele]

3. Okay, let me make room on this sofa....

:popcorn:

[Duer 157099]

4. Move over. And pass the popcorn, please

:)

[SoCalDem]

8. Here's a BIG ole sofa

[Richard Steele]

9. Ooooh, nice find in the 'smiley' department!

I actually failed to notice that this was LBN
when I first posted. If this thread was in GD,
there'd be 30 of us on the sofa watching 100 responses
devolve into a flamefest by now.

[SoCalDem]

10. Smilies, I got smilies.. help yourself

http://socaldem.smugmug.com/gallery/1214313

[Malva Zebrina]

6. This is amusing

these laws are passed and I do not know the facts behind it . All I know is that my parents exposed me to second hand smoke and they both lived a full and long life. They were also exposed to second hand smoke by their parents, who also lived a long long life--grandmother being 103 when she died and their children also are living well into old age without complications) I was exposed to second hand smoke (as I sit hear smelling the smoke of the wood stoves burning into the night looking at the romantic vision of smoke curling out of several chimneys from wood stoves--rising up into the atmosphere) and have not died yet and am healthy at the age of seventy.

[depakid]

7. Pretty faulty logic

Just because you and members of your family didn't seem to suffer from adverse health effects from second hand smoke- or from smoking, doesn't mean that many other kids won't suffer- studies clearly show that they WILL. Seems to me that it's only responsible to step outside or not smoke in the car with kids- especially with the windows rolled up and the AC on (like my parent used to). NOT pleasant- and certainly not something foster parents ought to be be doing.

[ret5hd]

12. Maybe we could ask the kids...

(if they are over a particular age, say 13 for the sake of our discussion)

"Would you rather go back to your sexually abusive family, a group 'state custody' type of setting, or a family that will care for and love you...but i must tell you, they smoke!"

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Just sayin'

I was not arguing a case, just offering this personal observation , it seems the logic can go both ways. ie, just because some might be affected, does not mean all will be affected.

But foster parents ought not do it. Those who are not foster parents ought not do it also and I suspect that will be next. Who will report them and to whom ... and what the penalty?

It has also been a statistic that overweight kids develop diabetes--and there are a lot of overweight kids these days, according to studies--I wonder if a law should be introduced stating that foster parents (followed by all parents perhaps) must not allow their children to become fat or must put them on diets or face a penalty of some sort.

[Czolgosz]

24. There is an irrefutable link between secondhand smoke and illness. I have had

a particular, rare cancer that is directly linked to secondhand smoke, and both my parents smoked but I was never a smoker. Still, the link between secondhand smoke and respiratory lung diseases other than cancer is even stronger than the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

On several occasions, I have ridden in cars driven by drunk drivers, and I have not suffered any ill effects from that experience. That fact does not disprove that drunk driving is an unacceptable risk or prove that there is no link between drunk driving and crash-related injuries.

[prayin4rain]

13. This is ridiculous

How about cannot feed them processed food or microwave their vegetables. How about not allowed to display the habits of a sedentary life style.

I think we should be more focused on cleaning up our foster care system from abuse and neglect than second hand smoke.

This anti-smoking crusade is ridiculous. There are bigger issues at hand and will be for decades.

I wish politicians would quit wasting time trying to figure out how to make themselves look wholesome ........and that the public would quit patting them on the back for their token efforts.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. It is a crusade

Or feel good legislation at the least. Before a kid is taken away from their neglectful/abusive/endangering parent(s) they have to be exposed to so much worse than tobacco smoke. As I said in my post above we have too few people willing to provide good homes for these kids as it is now. A smokers home really isn't the worst evil in this case. Not that I'm saying it's a good thing, but it's still better so long as the home is providing them with safety and care. Which should be our first and most predominant concern. If we had a waiting list of homes for these children I'd feel differently, but we simply don't.

[rainbow4321]

17. Keep in mind these are the same state lawmakers that..

tried to get kids' body fat index placed on **all their report cards**..so their parents "would know" if their kids were overweight or not. Hmmm...yeah, that wouldn't fuck with a kid's self esteeem at all (I had images of this happening in elementary schools: "what's your number say? Haha, YOUR number says that YOU'RE fat!").
Yet these same state politicians were resistant to outlawing vending machines in schools cuz the schools liked the $$ they would get from the soda/candy companies. Can't piss off the schools or the lobbyists, you know.
Not the brightest crayons in the box, these state lawmakers.

[depakid]

20. Ya think?

Is it really so hard to step outside when you want a smoke?

Seems to me that maybe foster parents might have a little higher responsibility when accepting a trust for someone else's kids.

Just a thought.

[LeftyMom]

16. That's probably for the best.

After all, parts of Texas have some of the nastiest air in the country and poor kids tend to have very high rates of asthma and allergies already. The state pays the medical care costs of foster children, so preventing just one asthma attack resulting in an ER visit can save many thousands of dollars. School-age kids in foster care already wind up behind because of days missed and school transfers before and after foster placement, the last thing the need is a reason to fall farther behind due to sick days.

For babies, a smoker in the home increases the risk of SIDS, which is already an increased risk for foster infants because they are bottle fed. Infants in foster care may also be at greater SIDS risk due to prematurity, low birth weight or maternal drug use (which is often what got them into the system.)

Safeguarding a kids health makes it easier to place them in a permanent home as well.

[greccogirl]

18. Having Been a smoker for years..........

and my parents both smoked like crazy, I think this is a GOOD thing. Why exposure children to this? Step outside. It's the right thing to do. And not only that, when I did smoke I would NEVER dream of smoking in my car with someone riding with me. It's just rude.

[torrentprime]

19. The problem

The issue with these laws, and the thing that all the "great idea!" folks tend to miss, is what happens when someone breaks it.
It's wondeful that people can read a law like this and say, "I agree!" and, "About time!" and "That's what I would do, too!" but laws that you personally want to follow are no burden to you, and thus carry no risk to you. When we make something a law, we put the power of the state behind, and penalties attach for breaking that law, and that is where things get hairy.

Lawmakers in one state recently wanted to make smoking around a child (in a car, for instance) punishable by a one-year prison sentence. One year in jail. Think about it: losing your job, the devastation to your family, their lives and security, the damage to your kid by losing one parent (and some of these cases would be single parent households, lsoing their only parent). One year of time for a cigarette. Spank your kid? No problem? Feed them McDonalds's every day? Not encourage them to go to school? Be generally crappy parents--no problem. Smoke around them--go to jail.

So what happens when a foster parent breaks this law, where the home can't be smoked in ever if kids live there? Article doesn't say, but it does offer this even scary comment, supposed to reassure us, I suppose: " said the agency is more concerned about educating foster parents than punishing them." So now we have a law that may penalize good parents, will prohibit smoking in their own home, regardless of where in the house the smoking is, where the kids are, etc.; the law's supporters also admit it will be enforced unevenly and capriciously, and people now have one less reason to become foster parents. Great idea.

Horrible, horrible idea. More nanny state nonsense that does NOTHING to address true child needs: the high drop-out rare, general education issues, teenage pregnancy, etc. Just pandering.

[depakid]

21. More "Nanny stete memes"

Yep- blame everyone else for your problems.

It's sort of a pattern that lots of us (both in North America and abroad) have noticed.

An inability to honor (or have any respect for) science and responsible laws.

You all don't even realize it, do you?

[torrentprime]

26. I definitely

don't realize what you're trying say.

Are you conflating being forced to make choices with "blam everyone else for" our problems? Are you conflating science with policy?

[hobbit709]

23. If the state is REALLY that concerned

about the effects of smoking on the children, then they should ban smoking by ALL parents-adoptive or natural.

[Czolgosz]

25. Foster parents shouldn't drive drunk, they should make the kids wear seatbelts, they should

try to serve the kids well-balanced healthy meals, they should try to promote the kids' education, they shouldn't smoke in front of the kids, etc.

If I went to a foster parent and asked them to try to accomplish these goals, and the foster parent said "I'm cool with no drunk driving, serving healthy meals, promoting education, and no smoking, but asking the kids to wear seatbelts in the back seat where they are not legally mandated is bullshit and I refuse to do that," then I'd have doubts about where the foster kids' well-being ranks among the foster parent's priorities.

I'd feel the same way if the foster parent said that he or she was unwilling to quit smoking in front of the foster kids.

[torrentprime]

27. and it's great

that you "feel" something about their opinion. But the law a) is more than your feeling, especially when penalizing those who break it and b) the law does more than stop smoking in front of them. It stops smoking anywhere in the house, anywhere, ever, if kids are placed there. In otherwords, they don't even need to be present for it to be against the law.

And again, what do you think should be the penalty for this? And is this type of draconian law better on balance for the kids if it results in fewer foster parents or kids being yanked out of their foster homes? And if you can't answer these questions, do you think the state can? And if they can't, should they have passed the law?

[Czolgosz]

28. If you prefer, instead of expressing feelings, I could say that objective science

confirms that smoking around children impairs their health. You should read up on the topic:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet2.html

It is a perfectly valid and sensible exercise of governmental authority for the state to set conditions on prospective foster parents who refuse to refrain from behavior known to impair the health of the kids they would propose to foster.

What makes you believe that this will diminish the number of potential foster parents? The foster parents I know are uniformly dedicated to that children and they would not object to giving up a habit that was detrimental to the kids' health.

Do you suppose the hypothetical foster parents who would drop out of the foster parent program if they are required to stop smoking around the kids are incapable of understanding the incontrovertible underlying science or do you suppose they love the cigarettes more than they love the foster kids?

Does this response work better for you?

[torrentprime]

29. Well

Since you're still not defending the actual law, no, your principled statement of science doesn't answer a damn thing. Because the science is not at issue here. The issue is the actual law, which is what I am discussing. You're not.
The law does not say "don't smoke in front of your kids." It says: you may never smoke in a house where foster kids live. Even if they're not there.

So please explain how science says that smoking in an upstairs bedroom while the kids are at school harms them. is that a footnote in one of your URLs?

[Czolgosz]

30. I was defending the law when I said "It is a perfectly valid and sensible exercise of governmental

authority for the state to set conditions on prospective foster parents who refuse to refrain from behavior known to impair the health of the kids they would propose to foster."

If the law tried to say "you can smoke in a room x number of feet from the children" it would be arbitrary. We know that smoking in a house where children reside is bad for the respiratory health (and general health) of those children. That's the risk that the regulation addresses. The regulation does not make exceptions for "just one cigarette a week" or "smoke 'em if you got 'em when the kids are in the next room," but such exceptions would only make the regulation more difficult to enforce.

Other health rules, like the laws requiring restaurant employees to wash their hands after using the restroom don't seek to make exceptions depending on what activity occurred in the restroom or whether the employee is a chef directly handling the food or just a bus boy who works in the kitchen. The secondhand smoke regulations should also be free from such unnecessary exceptions. If a foster parent is too devoted to his or her cigarettes to quit for the health benefit of the foster kids, the regulation allows the foster parent to smoke outside - that's exception enough.