Anti-Smoking Groups and Advocates Now Going Off the Deep End in Full Force; Movement is Rapidly Losing Its Credibility; ASH Calls Smokers "Killers"
Randall Richardson of the Florida Coastal School of Law wrote: "In recent years, courts have begun to take into account second hand smoke issues in child custody proceedings. The courts, using the broad standard “best interest of the child”, have started to use smoking as a factor in determining custody issues. While not deeming it a controlling factor, some courts have used it to determine issue when all other factors were equal. ... What seems to be missing in each of the state family law statutes, is whether the statute specifically states whether the parent smokes or not is a controlling factor in determining child custody. Therefore, what I purpose is to amend through grass-root state campaigns, state family law statutes that make whether or not a parents smokes a controlling factor in determining child custody cases. This can be accomplished by either putting the issue on the ballot in the form of a referendum or by supporting candidates that will vote to change the statutes."
Last week, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) issued a press release in which it boasted about how the public is growing increasingly "hostile" to smokers. It calls for "no more privileges and toleration" for smokers, which it terms "polluters and killers."
One of the policies for which ASH expresses support is banning smoking by people with children. Other policies which ASH cites as being appropriate ways to treat these "killers" include:
- not hiring them and firing them if they are already employed;
- not allowing them to adopt children;
- refusing to perform certain operations on them;
- banning smoking on sidewalks; and
- taking their children from them in custody battles.
ASH also equates smokers who smoke in a home or car with children with "child abusers."
And in supporting the denial of surgery to smokers, ASH writes: "Patients seeking a liver transplant may be denied one if they are going to continue drinking alcohol, so why should smokers expect to get all the operations they wish if they are going to continue to smoke and thereby endanger the success of the operation."
- Robert Ingram (vice chairman Glaxosmith kline, fomer CEO of American cancer society),
- Gary M reedy (vp Johnson & johnson, trustee @ American Cancer Society Foundation, director @ American Cancer Society)
- Karen L. Katen (trustee @American Cancer Society foundation, chair pfizer foundation, former pfizer Inc. vice chairman)
The generally accepted criterion for an ideal donor is a smoking history of ≤20 pack-years. A smoking history of >20 pack-years falls into the category of a “marginal” donor.
One of the major potential risks associated with the utilization of lungs from donors with a significant smoking history is the development of lung cancer in the transplanted lung.
No article has provided specific commentary on this and one assumes that this was not a significant finding within the period of follow-up in these studies.
There have been no studies in the lung transplant literature reporting functionally significant emphysema, attributable to donor pathology or smoking pre-mortem, developing in transplanted lungs.
As announced in October of 2003, this group of highly knowledgeable and skilled doctors use the lungs of smokers for transplants to patients who needed them to expand the list of available donors.
This more than doubled the number of transplants done.
State bill would ban smoking in cars with kids on board
The measure to be introduced at the Legislature today would make it a crime to smoke in a car if children are present.
Cars could be the next area subtracted from the ever-shrinking sphere where Minnesotans are allowed to light up.
A bill to be introduced today in the Legislature would ban smoking in cars where children are riding.
It would be the latest expansion of prohibitions on smoking that began in 1975, when Minnesota became the first state to ban smoking in most workplaces.
And the bill's House author, Rep. Nora Slawik, is bracing for a fight that could reprise the battle over the 2007 Freedom to Breathe Act, which banned smoking in bars and restaurants.
"I haven't heard any objections yet, but I'm sure it's coming," Slawik said. "That's just part of being a legislator."
But she said her goal -- what she called "a generation of healthier kids" -- should override any objections.
The bill would make it illegal to smoke in cars while driving with passengers younger than 18, treating it as a moving violation. That would carry a $100 fine.
But it would be considered a secondary offense, akin to not wearing seat belts. That means a driver would have to be stopped for some other offense before being ticketed for smoking.
"Obviously, we don't want the police to have to have one more thing to do, but this is an important health care issue. That's the point of this."
In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that "there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent."
Slawik said she came up with the idea for the ban while being interviewed last year by a constituent who was researching public policy issues related to secondhand smoke. The constituent mentioned the fact that at least four other states have banned smoking while driving with children.
"It made sense to me and seemed like a great idea for a bill," she said.
She also discovered that the activists who pushed the Freedom to Breathe Act also were considering pushing just such a ban, "so I'll have some support on this."
Slawik said a companion bill will be introduced in the Senate, probably next week, by Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul.
Bob von Sternberg • 612-673-7184
No comments:
Post a Comment