Umm ... yeah. A mess of notes ....
Random (and Not-So-Random) Notes on Tobacco and Americans:
There is always a difficulty in this country when considering the benefit of children and laws pertaining to age. You're not supposed to discriminate before the law based on age, but we all know that children aren't people in this country.
Children imitate their parents; in addition to the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is quite sensible to point out the connection between smoking parents and smoking children.
DARE was rejected in 1999 or thereabout by a couple of states, as the
statistical result showed that DARE graduates were actually
more likely to become involved with drugs. The Truth Campaign is paid for, I'm told, by tobacco money as part of the settlement that got lost in the Clinton Years; it makes sense, as it casts non-smokers as militant, small-minded (expletive)s. I think of that one commercial, where the "camera" picks a kid out of a group of several walking past. The kid is so hostile that I, as a parent, would be ashamed of my parenting if my daughter grew up to speak to people like that regularly.
Peer pressure can overcome any influence in the home if peer pressure leans toward the permissive. Peer pressure can overcome anti-smoking messages of the home easier than it can stop a child from smoking.
We do all sorts of dangerous things to children. Take them hunting, cutting trees; I crawled around an engine compartment on a boat once simply because I was the one small enough to fit in there; who said anything about it being safe? Or working in my dad's shop when I was a kid, being exposed to various dusts and toxic fumes without a mask. I've known kids who scrabbled up to top a tree with their dad; I've known kids to help their parents roof a house.
And that's the problem. Businesses like bars and nightclubs, where cigarettes are quite commonplace, complain that they suffer business losses when smoking is banned citywide, though these bans usually have to do with children, since adults can choose to go someplace non-smoking. And that's the thing: it is illegal in some places for me to open a business designed to cater to smokers. You can't even smoke in a tobacconist's shop in some places, which is the end of an American tradition that even I got to enjoy in my day. (Every tobacconist I ever bought from also sold collectibles and cutlery, natural extensions of tobacco smoking, but also designed to supplement the cigarette business; like the "King of the Hill" bookstore episode, tobacconists seem to be a social institution designed specifically so the owner can sit around and chat about chess, World War 2, or the latest in German and Japanese cutting technology, fine wines, better days in Havana, &c, &c.)
But that's how ridiculous it is.
And considering those two aspects--the hazards children are subjected to and the scale of legislation taking place--it will be difficult, if not impossible, to pass a Home Health Secondhand Smoke law.
People are allowed to do what they want in their homes. My mother, in her early fifties, almost killed herself once because while she knew as a general concept to not mix bleach and ammonia, she didn't know to what degree that warning comes. It wasn't a heavy mix, merely ammonia in residual bleach on the container. She didn't pass out, but I did hear her hit the wall stumbling blindly out of the laundry room. Should that mistake against common sense become illegal because it has the potential to harm a child? (There is a point to that extreme example.)
The point is that if you take a look around at American laws and the society they allege to protect, you'll find there is a certain degree at which the law is expected to stop. It is only the war against marijuana and the War on Drugs that makes the kind of intrusion you're seeking a possibility; prior to the Reagan escalation of the Drug War (at a time when the number of households using drugs was declining) few laws dared enter the home so boldly as would a law banning smoking in the home.
Whether it is an abortion or the decision to put a child up for adoption; whether or not to inoculate your child; whether or not your kid climbs into the filthy bilge of a boat, or a warm (from running) hot (electricity) toxic (fuel, lubricant, &c) engine compartment (the engine
was shut off at the time); whether or not Johnny goes up on the roof with Dad to tar the roof (note that most roofs are tarred in the middle of summer); going hunting (although my morbid favorite is the videotape of the kid accidentally shooting his dad) ... some decisions which bear results vital to the society in general are left entirely to the parents. Consider issues of religion in public education; yes, it's true--I have the right to intentionally raise a
stupid human being. I can legally twist my daughter's little mind to such degrees as to make death seem a merciful option, even by lung cancer. (It's amazing, the things you can do to your kid if you don't beat or rape them.)
And I can put other harmful chemicals in my child. I mean, come on ... I defend American bacon because I love the stuff, but I won't kid anyone and say that I don't have to think a bit before introducing my daughter to bacon. The stuff's
horrible for you. On the other hand, I'm more likely to stop smoking this year than I am to stop eating bacon ever. You'll slide that last slice of maple-and-pepper bacon out of my cold, stiff, greasy fingers when I'm dead; but that's kind of unnatural for me, so I wonder about all the crap in some of the horrible meats I consume. But would it be wrong of me to let my daughter eat pepperoni, bacon, hot dogs (statistically a potential carcinogen) &c? Ask an old garage mechanic or someone else who would have cause to take Coca-Cola and a wire brush to a piece of metal. We don't feed our children solvent, but we do feed them an addictive,
exceptionally acidic tasty treat from time to time. Up here, the "we'll tell you what to worry about" people in our local news media have noted the number of children "surviving" on a steady diet of caffeine, sugar, and hydrogenated oils (e.g. - a bag of chips and a Pepsi in the morning) ...
Now then, these are only things to think about in terms of crafting a law. Because nothing changes two facts:
- Tobacco is present in the household in as many as 80% of SIDS incident diagnoses.
- There is a clear statistical correlation showing that children of smokers learn to smoke.
But nobody prosecuted my aunt, who smoked and drank during her first two pregnancies; one child is a recovering addict, the other has Down's Syndrome.
And that's the thing: Yes, nicotine is addictive, harmful, and easily transferred to the next person. But it's been ... eight years since I lived somewhere that I smoked inside; most smokers I know choose to go outside, even in the dead of winter, when smoking at home. But choices are part of what's at stake; yes, we know that the child cannot exactly pack up and leave, though it has happened that nicotine habit control has been part of child-custody and visitation settlements.
Understanding that complete anarchy is the state of things without laws, it can be expressed that laws are conventions established by people to simplify the maintenance of certain parts of their living necessity. That is, we want certain things but don't want to spend all day worrying about them, so we pass a law to make sure those things are taken care of.
Because of all these things, the idea of passing a Home Health Secondhand Smoke law is just a little over the top. Sure, it might mean a revolution in oven cleaners, but the Devil has the advantage of having what people want. Not so much in terms of the tobacco itself, but the tobacco companies find themselves in the not-entirely unique circumstance of having their villainy preserve a more general but vital part of the paradigm. In this case, imagine what happens when you say, "Because of the risk to children, it is illegal to smoke inside a home where children might be."
Just think of how big a precedent that would be, and how broadly it could be applied.
Because of the risk to children, it is illegal to _____ in any place where one can reasonably expect children might eventually be.
And it has to cover that eventuality because of an interesting incident at the hospital when my daughter was born. After getting the riot act from a nurse for admitting to being a smoker, I happened to be discussing the issue with both the doctor and another nurse on separate occasions, in which I actually had to ask, "So you mean the Angry Nurse
lied?" In one case, I got that grimace, tip of the head, and, "She means well." In the other, I got a thoughtful look and the response, "She probably
extrapolated."
In the end, as a new parent, I was given the following instructions:
- Smoke outside, away from open windows or air intake vents
- Change your clothes after you smoke
- "Stripper baths" are helpful (baby-wipes for your face, neck, and even chest)
- Isolate "smoking clothes" from the baby's environment
-
Because it is not "just" secondhand smoke that causes problems; a child will breathe nicotine vapor out of your clothing, the furniture, or other surfaces previously inundated with cigarette smoke; the baby can receive nicotine directly off your skin.
The tobacco companies get a quiet and dubious comfort in seeing that the celebrations after the passage of a strict anti-smoking law usually leads to a hangover.
Cigarettes are fairly unique compared to other harms, but that only makes them a banner issue. When it comes down to right, wrong, and the law, the first and foremost argument I can think of against a Home Health Secondhand Smoke law would be that this it the United States of America, and the People generally don't go in for that degree of government intrusion in their homes.
Should we prosecute the parents of obese children who do not actively address the situation in terms of diet? (One of my favorite morbid images of youth was the number of young, overweight women I saw who would eat "just a salad" because they were "on a diet", yet consumed "Diet" Pepsi like water through the gills. Diet Pepsi doesn't give you any real benefit if you drink six of them a day. There's Alpine Lace, why feed your child
good cheese? And what, then, of Velveeta and "processed American cheese"?
And that's just a single facet of the problem of children and harm. Seriously, should we mandate the "Subway" diet? Of course, I have a friend that swears by the Atkins Diet; watch someone make "Atkins" "blueberry" (?!) muffins. (Yes, such a product exists: Pour contents of box into mixing bowl. Add vegetable oil. Mix. Add more vegetable oil. Mix. Add more vegetable oil. Mix. Does it "look" right? Good, now put it in the muffin pan and throw it in the oven.)
My mother used to keep me away from "red" food because red, sugary foods were said to contribute to hyperactivity more than other colors of sugary food. She thought it a better alternative than Ritalin (side effects include learning impediment and facial dysmorphia, but I'd have to look up my mother's company's source on that, since they competed with Ritalin), and I'm one of the lucky ones of my generation who ducked the meds craze. But I can note that fully three-quarters of my associates who happen to use cocaine, methamphetamine, or other speedy drugs were dosed with medical-grade speed as kids to control hyperactivity.
How many children do we want suing their parents for this or that harmful effect?
Parents need to treat their vices similarly. It is smarter if a nicotine-addicted parent can minimize the child's exposure (do
not smoke in a car,
ever, if your child is going to ride in it), and so in that sense I suggest to smoking parents to treat it like sex. Yes, you do it, but you don't do it in front of your kids, you don't leave stains on the sofa, and you don't leave porno and condoms around for the kids to play with. But trying to
force the situation.
I'm curious about the urine samples: What ages in what study? I mean, one of my best friends started at 13, a girl I knew in school started at 11, and when my Dad was a high school teacher and football coach in Idaho in the 1970s, there was a flap that included several parents calling for his dismissal because he prohibited tobacco chewing among his football players. His reasoning was that while he couldn't stop them from chewing in class, he could on the field. Several parents apparently told the school board that they didn't want a man like that teaching their child. One football father apparently said, "I
taught my kid to chew, dammit!"
(Juxtaposition for humor - sex ed ... you'll notice that when parents protest sex ed because it's an issue best kept at home, nobody ever announces to the school board, "I
taught my daughter to f@ck, dammit!")
I mean, there's no question about the transferability of nicotine, in my mind. But anti-vice studies are notoriously devilish in the detail; consider for instance the marijuana use/carcinogenic studies that don't account for tobacco use among pot smokers. In other words, the damage may be done: beyond secondhand smoke, a child of 9 may have started smoking already. My first cigarette was at age 11, didn't touch 'em again until I was 13, and treated them scandalously and rarely until I got busted in high school. I finally took up smoking as a habit at 18, to go with coffee after work. The longest I've spent away from nicotine since then is 18 months. I'm actually gearing up for a summertime run at quitting, but one literally cannot give it any attention at all. Like this post. All it's done is kicked in my associative cravings. The more laws we have about cigarettes, the more the smokers will smoke, which says something about natural and artificial selection. But in terms of protecting the children, stupid parents who subject their children to secondhand smoke only contribute to the weakness of the gene pool. Perhaps there's some natural selection there. I don't actually know.
But I just don't see what it is that the anti-smokers don't get. In one tobacco settlement, Camel agreed to give up Joe Camel billboards. So they just put the Camel logo up, with no words, in shocking contrasts (e.g. yellow and black). My brother counted, watching me smoke once on a road trip. At the speed limit, the signs were placed ten minutes apart on the freeway for nearly a hundred miles. He's convinced they were just there to keep smokers smoking, constantly remind and prod them, kindle a craving. And it's true, I tell you.
But what people don't seem to understand is that anti-smoking propaganda is pretty much the same way. We had a campaign up here where schoolchildren's ideas for billboards were translated to full-size, complete with cutesy misspellings and crayon signatures, "Megan, 7", or "Joey, 10". They stopped putting them up because the billboards, aimed at smokers, merely made us reach for our packs.
In fact, I'm signing off now in order to go smoke a cigarette. That I've made it through this post without one is due to timing; you need thirty minutes, now, to smoke a cigarette. Emma Grace has been giving me about ten at a clip today.
And consider that one of the reasons this post has grown so long is that it's a great diversion from not being able to smoke because of circumstance and priority.
But that's the kind of mentality that is involved with addictive habits.
No prohibitionist law will get me to stop smoking. But one libertarian allowance will do it. Legalize pot: A notable percentage of smokers will quit smoking tobacco almost overnight. When pot costs less than gold, I'll have less reason to use an addictive, known carcinogen instead.
It would be more advantageous (or, at least, more in tune with common sense), in fact, to ban tobacco altogether and legalize marijuana. What fun is cocaine without three packs of cigarettes to go along with the night? (What fun is cocaine, period? I don't do it because I don't see the point of getting hyped up just to sit around, smoke, and play dominoes.)
But a tobacco ban wouldn't work any better than any other prohibition. Rather, the "War on Tobacco" has to be waged differently.
... must ... smoke ... now .... ("Tigger! Get the moon-suits!")
:m:,
Tiassa
