Woman sentenced to 10 days in jail for smoking around her children

[Sunday8pm]

yadda yadda, Violating custody order which means she's not allowed to smoke around her children for the second time so in jail now.

She's claiming it's breaching her Human Rights, as Always I'm used to a lot of ignorant smokers out there who claim passive smoking is conspiracist bullshit with no founding.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion that this woman has been jailed for 10 days for irresponsibly smoking around her 8 and 10 year old child? Should this sort of disciplining of parents apply more evenly to a range of indiscipline like binge drinking etc?

[I am Idler]

oh for ****s sake.

WE MIGHT ALL DIE IF WE BREATHE THE SMOKE.

[Deffeh]

Brilliant move by the courts, thoroughly behind it. This was a court order, and she disobeyed it. Thats even before we go into how moronic smoking around children is.

[Dace]

She's told she can only see her kids if she doesn't smoke around them.

There is the possibility of jail time to "back this up".

She agrees.

She smokes around her kids.

She gets a warning.

She smokes around her kids again.

She goes to jail.

STUPID PEOPLE SHOULD STAY IN JAIL!

[Sunday8pm]

The Court order would have to have some grounding in neccessity of course, otherwise you could put ridiculous demands in your custodial orders. Dear god could you imagine if pab had kids with some woman and it went to custody.... "Must always wear clown shoes and white face paint when arriving to pick up children" I'd like to think this is more a victory for people against ignorant smokers than the enforcement of conditions in a court order imo.

[Tomkat]

Cancer and she doesn't get to see her kids.

She's a real winner.

[Superpig #1]

Oh shes intelligent isnt she

[LHC]

I can't believe this is a jailable offence.

[JonnyBGood]

Where was she smoking? I can't see any location in the article.

[Superpig #1]

Prolly in a pub

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Superpig #1

Prolly in a pub

Where in the name of all that is holy did you get that from?

[Sunday8pm]

He's trolling.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

He's trolling.

Me or him? I'm not trolling this thread. Honest injun guv'.


Edit: I have goggled and discovered this which says that neither the mother, nor anyone with the mother, can consume alcohol while the children are with their mother.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

The Court order would have to have some grounding in neccessity of course, otherwise you could put ridiculous demands in your custodial orders.

Well, no. It's a judge who decides the court order, not the plaintiff. The judge can pretty much make the order as whatever (s)he wants, which is why being a judge rocks (OK, you have to listen to the idiots in parliament, but nothing's perfect).

This is fundamentally about breaking the court order - not the smoking. If it was the smoking then obviously you'd need to start imprisoning people en masse.

[Sunday8pm]

Well it gives a lot of bitter parents involved in custodial battles now something plausible to add to their court orders?

I don't doubt that many judges wouldn't hesitate to add said condition on smoking but will hesitate to add anything to do with clown shoe wearing.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, no. It's a judge who decides the court order, not the plaintiff. The judge can pretty much make the order as whatever (s)he wants, which is why being a judge rocks (OK, you have to listen to the idiots in parliament, but nothing's perfect).

But the decisions of judges can be appealed and, if found arbitrary, overturned. Unfortunately, smoking bans now have some legal precedence.

This is fundamentally about breaking the court order - not the smoking. If it was the smoking then obviously you'd need to start imprisoning people en masse.

All in due time, Comrade.

If smoking can be banned in restaurants and bars to "protect" non-smoking patrons then why not in homes to protect children? And if judges can do it in divorce cases, then why can't the legislature do it for everyone?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

If smoking can be banned in restaurants and bars to "protect" non-smoking patrons then why not in homes to protect children? And if judges can do it in divorce cases, then why can't the legislature do it for everyone?

In case you don't know (how you wouldn't escapes me as we(GD)'ve done this debate more often than any other over the past year or so) dante doesn't actually support smoking bans on private property.

Although I'm unsure over whether or not dante believes in private property so quite how this works out is beyond me

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

But the decisions of judges can be appealed and, if found arbitrary, overturned.

I was going to say this but I thought it'd be obvious. Generally though you need to go to another bunch of judges, which was my overall point.

If smoking can be banned in restaurants and bars to "protect" non-smoking patrons then why not in homes to protect children? And if judges can do it in divorce cases, then why can't the legislature do it for everyone?

Well, in the UK the legislature could pass a law saying all white people have to be gassed to death. They can pass whatever law they want. Technically the EU Human Righs legislation would make it unconstitutional and so on - but Parliament is sovereign so it wouldn't be clear. Ultimatley it comes down to messy practical politics like which side the army is on.

If you mean philosophically then yes, it would be completley rationally consistent to ban smoking in people's home. After all, it is illegal to smoke a whole range of substance in the home (albeit for slightly different reasons) so such a ban would not quite be the final step towards totalitarianism you're implying it would be. In fact, you could rationally support a ban on smoking in a home with children even if you opposed it in "public" places (like cafés - etc). After all, children generally do not have the choice where they live, whereas you can simply leave the café or diner you have your breakfast in.

More practically though I doubt such legislation would be passed as it'd be unpopular - there are enough smokers for people to find this sort of thing uneasy. Obviously I don't support such bans as Jonny notes.

Originally Posted by JBG

Although I'm unsure over whether or not dante believes in private property so quite how this works out is beyond me

I support the idea of personal/private spaces where people were almost entirely autonomous. You can term this 'property' if you wish - that just has some unwelcome accumulationary (woah!) associations. The term private however is generally a dichotomy with public/state - and I don't really support the existence of a state anyway. There would be some space controlled by individuals, some by families, others by geographically united but otherwise unaffiliated citizens, interest groups, etc.

It's best to think of property as an ethical attitude, not a legal framework.

[Zword]

Originally Posted by Dace

She's told she can only see her kids if she doesn't smoke around them.



STUPID PEOPLE SHOULD STAY IN JAIL!

Let's put you into jail then

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In case you don't know (how you wouldn't escapes me as we(GD)'ve done this debate more often than any other over the past year or so) dante doesn't actually support smoking bans on private property.

I am well aware of that; but as this is a public forum we all also address the gallery (else why not use PMs, heh).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I was going to say this but I thought it'd be obvious. Generally though you need to go to another bunch of judges, which was my overall point.

Judges don't operate in a vacuum, however. [In the US] they are elected (or appointed by elected officials) and can be removed from office. So while it's entirely possible for a single judge to issue an unprecedented off-the-wall ruling, it's very unlikely that such a ruling would be upheld on appeal.

Well, in the UK the legislature could pass a law saying all white people have to be gassed to death. They can pass whatever law they want. Technically the EU Human Righs legislation would make it unconstitutional and so on - but Parliament is sovereign so it wouldn't be clear. Ultimatley it comes down to messy practical politics like which side the army is on.

Well, it sucks not to have a Constitution; although unfortunately not even a Constitution is foolproof. :/

If you mean philosophically then yes, it would be completley rationally consistent to ban smoking in people's home. After all, it is illegal to smoke a whole range of substance in the home (albeit for slightly different reasons) so such a ban would not quite be the final step towards totalitarianism you're implying it would be.

There's rarely a final step towards totalitarianism--just a long series of little steps which seemed more or less consistent at the time.

[Nadval]

I would be for an all out ban on tobacco smoking, with a rehabilitation service to go with of course. Although i acknowledge the fact there would be many smokers who simply wouldn't quit and wouldn't be able to if they tried, it is my thorough belief that after 50 years (once all the smokers have died of cancer) there would be no smokers left. Unlike other drugs, which have intoxication effects, tobacco would have no appeal. Who would go to a dealer and spend rediculous amounts of money for something with no intoxication effect and that tastes like crap. Noone would get hooked - it only happens now because it's so easily and relatively cheaply obtainable and is so widely practised.

The reason why it is unlikely that tobacco will be made illegal is that large corporations earn so much money from it and, as we know, in a capitalist society money is power.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion that this woman has been jailed for 10 days for irresponsibly smoking around her 8 and 10 year old child? Should this sort of disciplining of parents apply more evenly to a range of indiscipline like binge drinking etc?

As a smoker I find this (a) funny and (b) just.

It's our own decision if we want to poison our bodies, but exposing minors (who don't understand the risks and don't get a say anyway) to it is just not acceptable.

It's not difficult to avoid having an impact on other people when smoking. Personally, I won't light up in somebody else's house unless they do first, and invite me to follow suite. When smoking outside I try to get down-wind of other people. And etc.

[Deepflow]

what was she smoking?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

what was she smoking?

are you being serious? what do you think she was smoking, this is in america she got 10 days for smoking it around her children..

[Deepflow]

no, really, i thought people were getting more chilled out and cool about drugs these days. cos drugs are cool yknow? Are you not going to tell me?

[Dante Hicks]

Cigarettes...

[Deepflow]

itt dante spoils my fun