I have never heard the term third-hand smoke, but it makes sense. I know that if we go to a restaurant where the non-smoking and smoking sections are not well separated, my clothes (and long hair) smell like I was the one smoking. It makes sense -- fibers have rippled surfaces and make it easy to trap anything from dirt to fragrance to smoke.
I was raised in a smoking home (and, what I think is worse because it's such a confined space, a smoking car) -- my dad was a smoker until I was probably 16 -- and I know my health and that of my siblings was probably affected by it. All of us have had severe respiratory issues from time to time, and two of us have asthma. I don't know if secondhand smoke caused it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That said, I think we get into a very dangerous area when we legislate what people can and cannot do within their own homes. I would guess that those who are for the ban would say that smoke in a home is an assault on a child's health just like physical abuse is an assault on a child's health and well-being.
But how would they possibly hope to enforce such a ban?
Would we then ban high-fat foods from homes where the children seem overweight? Could it be considered abuse if the parents served high-fat food?
Could it be considered neglect if a family didn't feed their children lean meat or fresh vegetables? (What if they were too poor?)
We know we must buckle children into safety seats. But could it be considered endangering a child if we have a sports car instead of a larger car that's been proven to be more safe?
While I detest smoke, and feel for those who can't get away from it, it seems unrealistic to hope that it could ever be banned inside a person's home. (Look how difficult it still is in some areas just to get it banned in public areas).
Comment Reply
Susan, that's a fascinating post.
I have never heard the term third-hand smoke, but it makes sense. I know that if we go to a restaurant where the non-smoking and smoking sections are not well separated, my clothes (and long hair) smell like I was the one smoking. It makes sense -- fibers have rippled surfaces and make it easy to trap anything from dirt to fragrance to smoke.
I was raised in a smoking home (and, what I think is worse because it's such a confined space, a smoking car) -- my dad was a smoker until I was probably 16 -- and I know my health and that of my siblings was probably affected by it. All of us have had severe respiratory issues from time to time, and two of us have asthma. I don't know if secondhand smoke caused it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That said, I think we get into a very dangerous area when we legislate what people can and cannot do within their own homes. I would guess that those who are for the ban would say that smoke in a home is an assault on a child's health just like physical abuse is an assault on a child's health and well-being.
But how would they possibly hope to enforce such a ban?
Would we then ban high-fat foods from homes where the children seem overweight? Could it be considered abuse if the parents served high-fat food?
Could it be considered neglect if a family didn't feed their children lean meat or fresh vegetables? (What if they were too poor?)
We know we must buckle children into safety seats. But could it be considered endangering a child if we have a sports car instead of a larger car that's been proven to be more safe?
While I detest smoke, and feel for those who can't get away from it, it seems unrealistic to hope that it could ever be banned inside a person's home. (Look how difficult it still is in some areas just to get it banned in public areas).
January 6, 2009 - 9:59amThis Comment
Reply