prsmith

Possibly not - it is, after all, still a theory. OTOH, we know that SHS
complicates asthma. SHS induces asthmatic episodes. SHS exposure causes
deeper asthmatic episodes and interferes with recovery. Do those qualify?

todd benson

Sill a theory? Remeber that when you try to equate it with child abuse.

So do many other things.
Of course you would have said that you know that smoking causes asthma yesterday.


So do many other things.
(I wonder if there is a point?)

So do many other things
(Doen't look like he has a point.)


Qualify for what?
(I guess he didn't have a point.)

prsmith

It absolutely IS child abuse. Whetheer or not ETS causes breast cancer has
nothing to do with that fact.

False. We've discussed this several times in the past. Smoking doesn't
cause asthma as far as we know. We do know, however, that it aggravates
attacks which can prove fatal.

todd benson

Um, the topic is SHS, depression and asthma.

So do many other things. Do we equate them all with abuse?

norm

Yes.

If they are done knowingly and could be eliminateded as easily as SHS, what
would you call it? Exercising your freedom? Abuse is a pretty light term for
that, I would call it reckless endangerment or criminal negligence. If a
person was to smoke close to a child he knew was asthmatic, or refused to
stop or move away after informed, and that child then had a fatal attack as
a result, that person should be found guilty of manslaughter.

In the United States we have a system whereby a jury decides whether a person is
guilty of manslaughter or any other major crime. Do you favor a system where
public opinion should make such decisions? How would you propose to implement
such a system assuming that a Constitutional amendment was passed.

Ora

todd benson

So if my child is asthmatic and I allowed the child to swim, play soccer,
sit at a camp fire, etc and the child had an asthma attack, I would be
guilty of manslaughter? If I took my child to your house and my child had
an attack because of the dust in your home or because of animal dander,
would you be liable for manslaughter?

norm

I'm not advocating any changes to law whatsoever. I said nothing about
public opinion. I said "should be found guilty". That implies withing the
existing framework.

norm

Read it again. Notice I went to some trouble to qualify my statement. "If
they are done KNOWINGLY' and "If they can be eliminated as EASILY as SHS"
cover a lot of territory. A child still has to live, to play, to a certain
extent. Those things are difficult to eliminate. You , OTOH, do not have to
smoke. If I deliberately and knowingly exposed your child to a known,
avoidable trigger, then yes, I would certainly be guilty. If you knew your
child was sensitive to animal dander or dust and still brought him to my
house, knowing full well that I kept 67 cats and never vacummed, then you
would be guilty.

I repeat, What would you call it?

todd benson

It depends on the context. I would also add to what extent does it increase
the risk of an asthma attack.

Not at all. It would be fairly easy for a parent to not allow the child to
sit next to a campfire, play soccor or go swimming.

True enough. There are many things that I wouldn't have to do. However,
does doing them equate child abuse? Would wearing perfume also constitute
child abuse? You can't single out *just* SHS. You would need to apply it
equally across the board if the real motive is to protect the child. If it
would be a punishable crime to smoke in the house if your child was
asthmatic, it should be equally punishable if you have pets, or don't keep
the house clean or use hairspray or perfume, etc.

If you look at your original example - "If a person was to smoke close to a
child he knew was asthmatic, or refused to stop or move away after informed,
and that child then had a fatal attack as a result, that person should be
found guilty of manslaughter." I don't think that the person would be found
guilty. It would be the parents responsibility to help the child avoid such
places. They could not reasonably expect to be able to go into a place that
allows smoking and ask that everyone stop. The person may be rude or an
ass, but not criminally negligent. If the person forceably and deliberately
blew smoke into the childs face and didn't allow the child to move, I would
agree that it would be manslaughter, if there was a fatal attack.

You mean like if I knew that my child was sensitive to SHS and took him/her
to a resturaunt that allowed smoking?

Depends on the situation. I don't think that a blanket law, such as what PR
suggest, is the proper course of action. I don't think that smoking around
an asthmatic child automatically qualifies as child abuse. If we start
applying laws in that manner, I think that we will start running into a lot
of trouble.