Tobacco is relatively cheap. The only reason that buying cigarettes is so expensive is because a massive percentage of it is in tax. Our tax go to services such as the NHS. Regular smokers pay a heck of alot more tax than the average joe who doesn't smoke.
We more than pay our way for any treatment we were to recieve through smoking.
A friend of mine recently had to have his voice box removed. He was diagnosed with cancer through the effects of passive smoking. He is 28. Utterly heartbreaking stuff.
He has never smoked. Did he therefore not deserve the treatment he received, as he hasn't been paying for the NHS through cigarette tax?
Just because you are taxed more... doesn't mean you deserve the treatment anymore than the 'average joe' who doesn't smoke.
That logic implies that wealthy people (who are taxed way more than a working-class smoker) are entitled to treatments before less wealthy people are who (even if they smoke like chimneys) would never ever pay anything like the rich do in tax. Such thinking would be construed as very wrong by many people.
Besides. What if somebody was a smoker, but claiming welfare? And even if they had worked in their life, it had only been for a few short years? There's no way that a decades worth of fag tax would fund cancer treatment. Therefore does that smoker have less rights to treatment than somebody who has smoked all their life?
I don't want to sound like I'm starting an arguement, but your attitude concerned me a little.
No, the NHS does not pay for it. WE pay for it. WE as a nation in England pay for the NHS. The NHS probably wouldn't exist in this day and age if it wasn't for the tax's we pay.
As i said, it doesn't matter what "illness" you have through smoking, or through not smoking, we still pay for any treatment we recieve via tax, which goes into the NHS.
Er. I didn't realise i stated anywhere that people who DON'T smoke aren't entitled to treatment.
One of my bestfriends has just been told she's in remission from having throat cancer and she's 18, she smoked for 2 years but was told that her smoking did not lead to her cancer - it was just unfortunate.
And may i ask, how was it proved his cancer was caused by passive smoking?
People complain that smokers take up the NHS by treatments FROM smoking, so i was merely pointing out we pay our way through the high tax we pay on cigarettes - which is the truth.
I didn't state anywhere that people who don't smoke don't deserve treatment for "smoking related" illnesses/or any illness. I'm merely saying that if people are going to bring up the whole "But we have to pay for there care" arguement that it's already proved we pay a heck of alot of tax towards the NHS so any treatment we do warrant in the future is effectively already paid for, so we aren't taking treatment from anyone else who needs it.
But cancer treatment costs hundreds of thousands of pounds. I'm not sure any smoker ever spent that much through tax.
My friend, Joe, was a professional singer before he fell ill. He sang at a lot of smoky bars and clubs.
And I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was getting at you for saying that people who don't smoke aren't entitled to treatment. That wasn't my aim. I was simply pointing out that the NHS doesn't work on the basis that "right, you've paid your tax... nobody can complain about us treating you!" because under such an economy nobody who claimed welfare would be entitled to NHS treatment. You can't quote one side of it, and imply you aren't associated with the other.
I mean, I'm not saying I agree with freeloaders (not that all people who claim welfare are freeloaders, but there's no denying a minority of them are!) but I couldn't stand back and watch them suffer because they haven't paid their taxes and therefore have no entitlements.
Anyway. Why this thread caught my attention?
I am a smoker. Not a particularly heavy smoker but a smoker none the less. If I were to have children, I would quit. No questions asked.
If I had children and for whatever reason I could no longer care for them? I would prefer that they went to a non-smoking home. Maybe that's just personal preference. But it is a known statistic that children whose parents are smokers are more likely to become smokers themselves. And usually before 16 too.
I'm merely saying that if people are going to bring up the whole "But we have to pay for there care" arguement that it's already proved we pay a heck of alot of tax towards the NHS so any treatment we do warrant in the future is effectively already paid for, so we aren't taking treatment from anyone else who needs it.
I don't think anyone did make that argument though. I think all Aidey said is that having the government pay for smoking cessation treatments for prospective foster parents wouldn't be a change from how it already works in the UK, but for things that they would not otherwise be entitled too, the government shouldn't have to prepare foster parents to be parents. If you'd rather think of it as that you've payed in advance for the treatment, and it would be using that pre-payed treatment, it still comes out the same.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Thanks Em, that is what I was trying to figure out.
This doesn't even go in affect until 2010, that should given current smokers more than enough time to quit, and people who are interested in fostering enough time to know about the restrictions.
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
You can know the effects of something, without having visible proof - I can't see gravity, therefore how do people know it exists?
I think it's brilliant. As I argued with the tv advert about children smoking, if children from a young age see their parents smoking, despite what their parents say, children will subconciously pick up that it's a healthy, normal thing to do. When it comes to their friends saying 'd'you want a smoke', I'd imagine they're a lot less likely to say no if they've seen their parents smoking.
And as for obesity, some potential parents are disqualified for being obese, or at least, it's a disqualifying factor, anyway.
And what else? Oh yeah. The world doesn't owe you a favour, it owes you nothing. You're not the one in the right, necessarily, and so rules like this, about adoption, are only right, I think. As Fi said, it is your choice to adopt, and it is your choice to smoke. Neither are rights.
Humans have the ability to choose, not the right. Just because you choose something, doesn't mean the world has to act accordingly.
Some people choose to believe the world is flat, doesn't mean schools are going to start teaching it.
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
"The council said the new policy was the result of scientific evidence which showed second-hand smoke to be a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease. It said young children were particularly susceptible to the effects of second-hand smoke because their lungs and airways are small and their immune systems immature."
It is bad for children. Isn't that enough? I have a friend who was a pack a day smoker... she got pregnant and quit. Cold turkey. Because smoking is BAD for children! Moreso than adults. If you want to be a foster carer then you want to help children who need that stability and care. They're basically saying that if you smoke they feel you're not meeting the duty of care requirements to care for these children. Foster carers can't have their 'parental rights' taken away because they are not a parent. For instance, my nan's best friend has been a foster carer for 20 years and she recently said goodbye to her last ward who she had on an 18 year order. But she had no parental rights. Her duty was to care for the child, provide her with a stable home and enviorment which she did. The child called her nan because it was almost a fmaily relationship but these kids don't WANT new parents. And foster carers have no rights to claim parental rights. I personally don't think parents should smoke around there children at all. If you're sitting there smoking and going to kids "smoking is really bad don't do it..." they're going to look at you and go.... are you serious? If it's so bad why are you doing it? Hypocrisy much? O.o
Humans do have the ability to choose. And the state has the right to choose whether or not you can be a foster carer.
Somebody on here said that they have a friend who has been directed to continue smoking by his doctor, I'm pretty sure that would count underneath the "except in extreme circumstances".
And I know a lady who was turned down as a foster carer becasue she was obese. It was because she was physically unable to meet the demand the kids would place upon her. But she was determined to become one so she actually lost the weight. There was a story in the paper about it around a year ago. She lost 45 kgs and became a foster carer for drug dependant babies and she has two permanent wards that have foetal alcohol syndrome.
People have the ability to choose. But young wards of the state have the RIGHT to the best care they can get. And if that means someone has to make a choice between smoking or caring for a child... I know which choice I would make.
I get quite passionate about this... when you've seen 8 year olds smoking becasue "well mummy smokes" you get passionate... and that is not as uncommon as you might think.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
I think the biggest problem there is going to be is that there are already a lack of foster carers. Being a foster carer isn't a right no but it is a need for children and they already lack foster carers now. Imposing this ban could just make the situation a lot worse.
I think the biggest problem there is going to be is that there are already a lack of foster carers. Being a foster carer isn't a right no but it is a need for children and they already lack foster carers now. Imposing this ban could just make the situation a lot worse.
Also - what if other members of the family smoked, but not the parents? Such as siblings or whatever, and they don't want to quit. What if they smoke in every room of the house, maybe even deliberately disobeying the parents. What would happen if a parent took up smoking a few years after they start fostering - would the kids be snatched away from them again? What if the kid goes to someone elses house to visit a friend, and the friends family smoke? What if the parents don't smoke, but they regularly visit other people who do smoke? What if the kid sees people in the street smoking?
Kids will always be exposed to smoking and, until smoking is banned altogether, that's the way it will be.
I agree that kids should be kept away from smoke - but surely the foster parents could just be monitored, making sure they don't smoke in front of the kids and keep it outside or in a special room.... Like social services, just checking up on the behaviours etc. There should be some sort of monitoring anyway, surely, to make sure the foster parents are doing a good job?
I agree that children should not be exposed to second hand smoking- but this rule is ridicoulous. What if, in a completly normal, happy family, the real parents smoke? Will the child be taken away from them because they smoke, then?
My mom smokes. She never smoked infront of us or even in the house. She always went outside (even in winter) and still does the same today.
Also - what if other members of the family smoked, but not the parents? Such as siblings or whatever, and they don't want to quit.
My guess is that if anyone in the house smokes the family will be disqualified as foster parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetsunday
What if they smoke in every room of the house, maybe even deliberately disobeying the parents. What would happen if a parent took up smoking a few years after they start fostering - would the kids be snatched away from them again? What if the kid goes to someone elses house to visit a friend, and the friends family smoke? What if the parents don't smoke, but they regularly visit other people who do smoke? What if the kid sees people in the street smoking?
The potential foster parents are made aware of the rules and regulations before they start fostering. If they break the rules they probably receive a warning, and if they don't listen to the warning the kids will be removed.
While kids seeing other people smoke does result in a larger chance for them to start smoking, I think one of the big goals of this regulation is to prevent kids from being exposed to cigarette smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetsunday
I agree that kids should be kept away from smoke - but surely the foster parents could just be monitored, making sure they don't smoke in front of the kids and keep it outside or in a special room.... Like social services, just checking up on the behaviours etc. There should be some sort of monitoring anyway, surely, to make sure the foster parents are doing a good job?
Social services is already incredibly overworked, do they really need to be doing additional checks to make sure no one is smoking in the house?
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
Social services is already incredibly overworked, do they really need to be doing additional checks to make sure no one is smoking in the house?
It shouldn't be an additional check, it should be part of the checks that social services [should] already make, to check that everything is going as it should.
In some places if the family is stable they are only checked once a month, if not longer. How is a check that infrequently going to stop them from smoking?
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
Ideally, a foster parent could be offered smoking cessation groups and help to maintain a non smoking stance, as it were. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned on here or not, but young children (under two i think) are routinely not placed in smoking families at all because of the risk smoking presents to them.
18.11 28.4 6.5 22.31
My heart just needs his smile, that i can't forget, like so melancholy a kiss.
In some places if the family is stable they are only checked once a month, if not longer. How is a check that infrequently going to stop them from smoking?
If the family is stable, then surely there is no problem? Smoking is not the problem, it's smoking around children that is. A family that is considered 'stable' would surely not be smoking around the kids?
