Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[SnailyBoy]

We are going to go round in circles. I smoke, you don't like it, tough. I refuse to quit. Get over it. End of.

 

huh, get over it?

 

I don't even know you. I couldn't care less if you smoke or quit.

 

What you do in your private life and behind closed doors is up to you.

 

You just need to understand that it's becoming less and less socially acceptable.

[Phoenix One]

huh, get over it?

 

[1] I don't even know you. I couldn't care less if you smoke or quit.

 

[2] What you do in your private life and behind closed doors is up to you.

 

[3] You just need to understand that it's becoming less and less socially acceptable.

 

[1] Then why are you commenting here, on this thread? Granted, it is not about me, but it is about smokers.

 

[3] Tough. I smoke and have no intention of quitting. If that makes me anti-social, so be it!

 

[2] Exactly. That is my point.

[sally_sheff]

Roy castle died of lung cancer, supposedly because of passive smoking - why then are so many other still alive who suffered the same fate, 'passive smoking', eg a good example Jimmy Saville!

 

But back on track as to fostering - I am a smoker - I am not a bad person, I am not a criminal, I am not an alcoholic, not a heroin addict, have a good career (so can't be THAT supid!), have reared three children who are also not bad people, not criminals, not alcoholics, not heroin addicts, who have then gone on to have healthy grandchildren, needless to say, are none of the above - so the argument that being a smoker makes bad parenting goes by the wayside, it is down to the individual. I do not smoke in my grandchildrens presence, therefore they do not inhale my smoke, so where's the problem?

[flamingjimmy]

Only one case went to court in UK on the issue, and the anti-smoking lobby lost. Hence, a question arises. If the evidence of which you choose to rely is true, why didd the anti-smoking lobby lose? There can only be one reasonable conclusion. The evidence of which you choose to rely did not stand up to scrutiny. It is flawed. Don't you think the anti-smoking lobby also submitted what you choose to rely to support their case? Of course they did, but they still LOST. Hence, only one reasonable conclusion exists. The evidence of which you choose to rely is flawed.

 

Wordwide there have been many cases involving tobacco companies getting sued by various people, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. This doesn't prove anything about whether smoking causes cancer.

 

If you'd actually bothered to read the judges statement with regard to that court case, instead of just reading the blog entry about it, you would have found that when it comes to the matter of whether smoking can cause lung cancer the judge said this:

 

"Special knowledge of this subject-matter was not imparted to me, so as to enable me to form my own judgment about it. The pursuer has accordingly failed to prove this averment".

 

He does not say it's been disproved, just that in this particular case, they failed to prove it to a layman.

 

This just goes to solidify my next point: That a single judge is not qualified to comment on the health risks associated with tobacco.

 

We have a special tool when it comes to things like this, that tool is called the scientific method, and we have trained specialists who've been practising the use of this tool all their lives, they are scientists. They are the ones qualified to tell you whether smoking causes cancer or not, not 'Judge Nimmo Smith'.

 

I have linked to a scientific paper which includes the results that you are 15 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. There are hundreds of other scientific studies that show similar results, all repeatable and peer reviewed.

 

You have linked to a single person without any scientific qualifications who hasn't even said that 'smoking does not cause cancer' all that he said was 'I can't be sure that it does' and he also highlighted the fact that he was a layman with regards to these matters and didn't have enough specialist knowledge to able to comment.

 

Your source is not qualified to comment on these matters, he says so himself.

[sally_sheff]

is this thread not supposed to be about whether a smoker should be allowed to foster children? There are lots of things in life that are bad for you - the FACt is that smoking does not make you a bad parent

[Phoenix One]

Wordwide there have been many cases involving tobacco companies getting sued by various people, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. This doesn't prove anything about whether smoking causes cancer.

 

If you'd actually bothered to read the judges statement with regard to that court case, instead of just reading the blog entry about it, you would have found that when it comes to the matter of whether smoking can cause lung cancer the judge said this:

 

"Special knowledge of this subject-matter was not imparted to me, so as to enable me to form my own judgment about it. The pursuer has accordingly failed to prove this averment".

 

He does not say it's been disproved, just that in this particular case, they failed to prove it to a layman.

 

This just goes to solidify my next point: That a single judge is not qualified to comment on the health risks associated with tobacco.

 

We have a special tool when it comes to things like this, that tool is called the scientific method, and we have trained specialists who've been practising the use of this tool all their lives, they are scientists. They are the ones qualified to tell you whether smoking causes cancer or not, not 'Judge Nimmo Smith'.

 

I have linked to a scientific paper which includes the results that you are 15 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. There are hundreds of other scientific studies that show similar results, all repeatable and peer reviewed.

 

Your source is not qualified to comment on these matters.

 

A source was requiested in support of Scotish court ruling in 2005. I supplied the first one to hit my search list and did state as much. Many more exist.

 

As stated within previous post, I had been involved within debates on smoking on forums within other sites. Within that site I included part of the actual transcript with link to full text. Yes, I read the transcript.

 

Lst but not least, this is a debating forum not court of law. I have been involved within many actions within a court of law where the submitted evidence often exceeded 200 A4 pages. I currentl have a case in the High Court of Justice where my skeleton argument (summary) alone is 18 pages in length.

 

The point I hold and will not budge from is smoking cigerretes is legal with better than 90% of what I pay being TAX. I am within my rights to smoke and I will be damed if anyone for any reason will dictate what I can or cannot do.

 

I am not telling anyone to smoke, I am not even encouraging anyone to smoke. However, I do smoke and refuse to quit. Some people don't like this, tough.

 

Excuse me while I have a smoke!

[SnailyBoy]

 

[1] Then why are you commenting here, on this thread? Granted, it is not about me, but it is about smokers.

 

[3] Tough. I smoke and have no intention of quitting. If that makes me anti-social, so be it!

 

[2] Exactly. That is my point.

 

[1] That's a simple one, it's a public forum. You could also argue the thread is about Foster Parents, children.

 

[3] Exactly, hence my previous comment of conducting your hobby behind closed doors.

[SnailyBoy]

The point I hold and will not budge from is smoking cigerretes is legal with better than 90% of what I pay being TAX. I am within my rights to smoke and I will be damed if anyone for any reason will dictate what I can or cannot do.

 

Who has said that you can't smoke?

[Phoenix One]

Link to Scotish Court transcript (pdf) http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/cases/nim3105.pdf

 

Extract quote:

 

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.

Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the

use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of

causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung

cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an

individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer

(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).

[flamingjimmy]

A source was requiested in support of Scotish court ruling in 2005. I supplied the first one to hit my search list and did state as much. Many more exist.

 

As stated within previous post, I had been involved within debates on smoking on forums within other sites. Within that site I included part of the actual transcript with link to full text. Yes, I read the transcript.

 

Lst but not least, this is a debating forum not court of law. I have been involved within many actions within a court of law where the submitted evidence often exceeded 200 A4 pages. I currentl have a case in the High Court of Justice where my skeleton argument (summary) alone is 18 pages in length.

 

The point I hold and will not budge from is smoking cigerretes is legal with better than 90% of what I pay being TAX. I am within my rights to smoke and I will be damed if anyone for any reason will dictate what I can or cannot do.

 

I am not telling anyone to smoke, I am not even encouraging anyone to smoke. However, I do smoke and refuse to quit. Some people don't like this, tough.

 

Excuse me while I have a smoke!

 

Are you a bot? You've already said all of that. I don't know why your're starting all of this 'The one point I hold is that I have a right to smoke' and 'people can't dictate what I can or cannot do' because those are just strawmen. No-one here is saying you shouldn't be allowed to smoke. In fact I revealed earlier that I, myself am a smoker. Don't move the goalposts, your contention was that cigarettes do not cause cancer, that is ridiculous.

 

As for the transcript you've just posted, it does not say that cigarettes do not cause cancer, not at all. All that it says is that the pursuers failed to prove that it caused this guy's particular cancer. The judge is absolutely right in that "use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious." However the statistics are, in the words of the judge himself: "applicable to the general population".

 

Anyway, I notice you missed this part of my post:

 

I have linked to a scientific paper which includes the results that you are 15 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. There are hundreds of other scientific studies that show similar results, all repeatable and peer reviewed.

 

Your source is a judge, with no qualifications in a relevant field to enable him to comment. And in any case the judge does not say that cigarettes do not cause cancer, all that he says is that cigarettes did not cause 1 particular cancer. Also, technically he's not even saying that, all that he's saying is that the pursuers failed to prove that cigarettes caused the mans cancer, they may well have done, but it is something that is extremely hard to prove.