Hey How Do You Feel About Nicotine Bans - now they are

[leftyladyfrommo]

trying to make it illegal for women to smoke while pregnant. It is illegal to smoke outdoors in lots of places. Illegal to smoke indoors in lots of places. Next it will be illegal to smoke in your own home if another person is present. Will it be illegal to even buy smokes? The CVS store by me is now charging 4.19 a pack. That is up from 3.50 or something.

So why aren't they doing this to drinkers. Drinkers kill lots of innocent people every year. But its still OK to drink.

Do you think we could just outlaw nicotine and drinks and everyone just smoke pot (can't even prove that it causes any kind of illness).

Am I being too touchy? I'm getting sick of people telling me what chances I can take - what vices I can have.

I may live longer if I give up all my vices - but do I want to? Shouldn't that be up to me?

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. The smaller the government the more control exerted over peoples' lives.

And as for the price of smikes...it's just another way to demonize smokers by placing higher sin taxes on ceratin "sin" items. However, I agree with you; The rising price of smokes (more taxation) is much higher than the price of liquor. You don't see major increases in liquor over time as is seen with cigarettes.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. What would you have them do??? Don't tell me you want............

....:sarcasm:take away the WH Idiot's favorite pastime?:sarcasm: Are you sure you want to separate drunks from their killing machines?? :sarcasm:

In all seriousness though I think our lawmakers should tax beer/liquor just as much as they do tobacco products.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. It should be common sense for pregnant women not to smoke

It should be common sense not to smoke around kids or in an automobile with kids. It should be common sense to keep one's smoking confined to an area where it will not harm a kid. When people don't use common sense, sometimes laws get passed to force the issue. Yes, drinking kills but it doesn't excuse fatal asthma and there's a much greater risk of fatal asthma in a child than in an adult.

[depakid]

95. Selfishness often trumps common sense

so does addiction- and so does ignorance (which is not meant to be derogatory- lots of people just don't know- I sure didn't appreciate or understand the nature and extent of the risks until I took a several graduate public health courses).

It's the selfish ones who annoy me, though. You'll see them pop up on threads like this all the time, when some group tries to do something positive.

For instance, there was a thread not too long ago about a campaign to try to get women of childbearing age to take folic acid to prevent spina biffida (this is not new stuff- the March of Dimes has been doing this years).

The evidence and the logic (and the economics) are clear as day-

NTD's (neural tube defects) occur just 3-4 weeks after conception usually before pregnancy is confirmed;

Half of all pregnancies are unplanned;

(some occur through unintentional misuse of birth control)

100-200 additional birth defects would be prevented each year if all Oregon women who got pregnant were taking folic acid supplements.

That's one small state-

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/cdsummary/2000/ohd4926.pdf

Yet people on that thread freaked out (the usual Margaret Atwood stuff) and wouldn't support this win/win program- apparently, they're willing to condemn these kids to a preventable deformity- and a life of pain as a reaction to the far right's anti-contraception and abortion insanity.

That just makes no sense to me.

[sui generis]

97. I have an issue with your post

"It's the selfish ones who annoy me, though. You'll see them pop up on threads like this all the time, when some group tries to do something positive."

It's the pompous ignorant ones who make statements like that who annoy me, personally. I'm assuming you are some form of medical or social careerist, so perhaps it might be annoying to you to have people infer that laws designed by the greater good to ENFORCE what you do or should not do, might be subject to abuse. Is legislating a better solution than education? Is telling women they need to take folic acid supplements or risk breaking the law a fair solution if we're not telling men to wear boxers and avoid hot baths? Why not just pretest eggs and sperm for the whole host of other natural recessives that could harm a fetus? What is your remedy to a violation of these "laws"? Throw them in jail? Take away their babies? Keep them from having more babies? A $50 ticket? What is it?

Nobody is being "selfish" in refusing to give up yet another freedom, and nobody here is supporting smoking while pregnant. People are defending keeping the government at arms length and from forcing us to take a daily multi-vitamin, from forcing us to eat our green veggies and from forcing us to avoid all risk and harm at every step of our lives on pain of PUNISHMENT and RETRIBUTION rather than education and voluntary compliance. That's enlightened, liberal, progressive thought. Not tossing yet another poorly thought out law out there to control somebody else's body whether they like it or not.

In our enlightened society, we need to create incentives for being as healthy as possible, rather than disincentives to smoke where someone might catch you breaking the law.

I am always dismayed that anyone who thinks they know what is best is so willing to go to the law to enforce their vapid opinions on everyone else. You've seen the light. Now go share it. Please stop short of legislating it.

[depakid]

103. Yep- par for the course

You don't see win/wins.

Personally, I prefer creating major public information campaigns (a way to help do that would be to regulate the amount of "infomertials" -or commercials any station could air- and require a certain amount of public service announcements <PSA's>- does anyone remember those?) With all their money, the consolidated media corporations could do that easy- but of course they won't- unless we the people require them to. I'm also in favor of subsidies- and readily available- and promoted tobacco cessation programs (the stuff's heavily addictive- I have no illusions about that). Do the math yourselves- they make economic sense.

Negative incentives- sticks as opposed to carrots, It's America :sigh: -so we probably need those too.

In some cases, maybe there should be laws set up- Meth I think is a good example. With respect to pregnancy and cigarette smoking, not sure how best one might do it-

That's really something you'd have to look closely and rationally at, and weigh all the costs and the benefits. Trouble is, we almost NEVER have the funding to do what's rational on the proper scale- that's one reason we fare so much poorer on child and maternal health outcomes than say, Canada and Europe. It's a national disgrace.

But the US has led successfully and changed its cultural mores with respect to acceptibility and accessibility of tobacco. Not so long ago for example- you could smoke on airplanes! People were really pissed when the FAA took that away.

So I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea outright that pregnant women who smoke- shouldn't get some sort of ticket. With domestic violence, for example- even just a slap, defendants usually do diversion on first offenses- which entails "anger management programs" fines and such. Could be something to look at- though I wouldn't say most health profesionals would favor sanctions. I doubt I would- but then again, I'd listen to the ideas and see if there wasn't something in there to draw from.

With folic acid and spina biffida- it's not the same type of thing. There, you're encouraging a behavior- one there's no downside to. Given that we have limited public health funds- it makes good sense to target the populations most at risk- and do consistently with cultural competency.

Now, it also makes good sense to get folic acid into all our processed foods- but there are scientific reasons why that alone won't work.

Bottom line here is that we're trying to solve problems- and lessen peoples' suffering. Towards those kinds of goals- I'm willing to listen with most anyone, and mix and match what might best apply.

With respect to most things- I'm reminded of the Wiccan Rede "If it harm none, Do what ye will." Smoke if you want- drink if you want... Yet, like most honest students of history and human nature, I recognize that at times, societies draw bright lines- just 'cause they have to.

Tobacco is a set of grey areas- with tons of politics, money and weird emotions on either (and sometimes both) sides.

Instead of rambling more- I'll recommend an outstanding book- it's a little dated (1995)- but it's still one of the best.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0134358015/102-0539763-6550567?v=glance&n=283155">Smoking and Politics: Policy Making and the Federal Bureaucracy (5th Edition)

$4.50 at Amazon.

[sui generis]

123. well - your enigmatic subject line aside

the issue I had with your post was the generalization it made of anyone who disagreed with you. I kid about enigmatic - I got it, and might have used it in response myself with exactly the same meaning.

I appreciate the balanced answer, I agree that folic acid supplementation should be strongly recommended to pregnant women provided we don't overdose with it, and I personally think that we would all benefit from a daily multi-vitamin regardless. The line is in requiring someone to take it. How would you feel if science suddenly discovered that men lived longer if they were forced to take estrogen supplements and grow manboobs? If someone said it was a "win/win" if we ticketed men who refused to take their estrogen?

I draw the line at telling other people that I know what's best for them by using the law to intrude that far, and a benevolent authoritarian is no more worthy in my book than a dastardly villainous authoritarian.

Let me address your rather judgemental statement about "win/win". If what drives us is the best possible outcome for gestation, why stop with cigarettes? Why not just have a win/win/win/win/win and put pregnant women into a birthing home hareem where they can be closely monitored, pipe them low stress music, give them nice clothes, vitamins, daily massages, etc., whether they want it or not.

The problem is as you stated that I don't see the other "wins", because they come at the expense of a loss. Once we take that step of using pregnancy as a criteria, there is very little effort required to evaluate pre-pregnancy as a criteria for benevolent gynecological management, and where do you really stop? The pregnancy police? All your fetus' are belong to us? It's not a win, except to people who are willing to overlook the concommitant loss of a human right - the right to make your own decisions about your own body. If society gives such a hard damn about the outcome of a pregnancy, then it had better do everything in its power short of stripping human rights to ensure that outcome is a win, and that those social values are voluntarily passed along rather than by retributive actions such as punishments and tickets and fines. Encourage and incentivize health.

What is the ultimate outcome of such a system anyway? Three strikes, we take your baby? We take your other kids into CPS? We sterilize you to keep you from getting pregnant again.

Or it's like parking tickets - too many violations and we put a boot on the cootch?

[Scout1071]

124. I saw a very pregnant woman smoking just this weekend.

I was sick. And I wanted to confront her, but I thought better.

[Clark2008]

131. It also should be common sense not to blame every

fricking illness on smoking. Why don't they show how much pollution hurts childrens' lungs? Riding in a car is hazardous to a child's health, whether anyone is smoking or not!!

I'm not saying smoking is great for you, but it's not the end-all, be-all cause to every fucking illness ever known to man, either.

[LynneSin]

4. And your problem with banning pregnant women from smoking is?

Too much evidence out there about problems with smoking during pregnancy. If someone is that addicted to cigerettes then perhaps they shouldn't have kids then.

And btw, they are doing this to drinkers - taxes are crazy on booze and the policy for many states with drunk driving has changed. The legal limited has been lowered from .1 to .08 and they have also enacted a policy that even if I don't surpass the legal limit but have alchohol in my system I can still get ticketed (ie Buzz Driving Laws - we have them in Delaware and I know that NJ and PA have them too). So I'm not sure what your issue is if you can't bother to check these issues out first.

I don't care what your vices are but personally, I don't want to inhale them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. My problem is I'm getting sick of the health police.

I live in Missouri - big religious right here. People are telling us exactly how they think we should think all of the time.

I'm beginning to feel like I did when I was 20 and in college.

I don't think reasonable people should drink and drive. I don't think reasonable people should smoke around others who don't like it. I don't think reasonable people should ride bikes without a helmet.

But I'm tired of being told what to do by people who think they know everything.

I'm beginning to see why a lot of our greatest thinkers and artists had vices. It's one way to say that I am an individual and leave me alone.

[LynneSin]

10. And if smokers were actually considered enough...

then I wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately it's the few that make it bad enough for everyone.

I have no sympathy for smokers and what they are dealing with - ages ago we were warned over and over about the ill affects of smoking - probably as early as the late 70's early 80's this message started to get into the school system. But people smoked anyways. Not my problem. I for one applauded the public smoking ban in Delaware and because Philly is having problems passing it in their city I've pretty much stopped patronizing places there.

[LostinVA]

37. Agreed n/t

[LynneSin]

53. I quit going to Drinking Liberal because of this

If one were to start in Delaware I would go because our bars are smoke free. But the last one I went I got stuck next to a smoker. She was courteous enough to hold her cigarette away from the people she was talking with (I was talking with another groups but sitting right next to her) but she held the cigarette behind herself and right in my face.

For me, I just don't like being around smoke. As soon as I get home I need to shower and toss my clothes in the washing machine (I won't take a jacket into a bar even if it's freezing out).

I feel for smokers, it's the toughest habit out there to break, but my feelings of empathy does NOT mean I'll stand around and inhale your by-products (although I have stood outside with smokers - at least outside the smoke won't affect me).

[Bandit]

49. Why do you compare oranges and apples?

Smoking endangers other's health. Drinking only endangers your own as does riding without a helmet. I agree the government has no right to protect me from myself but who protects me from others? You want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, fine and dandy, but why must you insist upon forcing your pollution upon others?

[sproutster]

102. Tell that to the freinds and families of people killed by DUI...

[leftyladyfrommo]

51. Whoa. I left and came back and look at this.

My argument is not that smoking is bad for anyone - it is. But that we are having other people's ideas of health and welfare forced on us all over the place.

Thousands of people get killed or maimed each year in alcohol related accidents. Thousands of families are totally disrupted by alcoholism.
It is dangerous and deadly.

If we are going to start banning stuff we should probably ban this one - but we don't.

I am not at all sure that I want to live a viceless life. It looks pretty boring to me. And I really don't need other people telling me how I should live. It's really no one else's business. And we sure as hell shouldn't be making laws about how we should live our daily lives.

[Toots]

127. Are you suggesting that operating a motor vehicle while under alcohol

is not already banned or drinking in public or even public inebriation are not illegal. While actions that are consequences of drinking are indeed damaging to society alcohol itself does not cause many ailments. Sometimes binge drinking can cause death from alcohol poisoning but on the whole alcohol doesn't harm in and of itself. You are still trying to compare apples and oranges IMO. Kind of like saying cars should be banned because some people speed with them and cause fatalities. Smoke from cigarettes is filled with carcinigens that are poisonous to the human being. Poisonous to the human being. What about that do you not understand? Why should you be allowed to push your poisonous substance onto other human beings? If you wish to poison yourself then that is up to you and the government should have no say, but the second you want to spew your poison in public you become very wrong and the people should be protected from your behavior. IMO I was responding to post #102 not you, I don't know how it got posted as a response to your post sorry...:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Haven't read of any state banning alcohol for pregnant women...and there

have been plenty of babies born with alcohol syndrome! I'm just tired of people telling others what to do, what to think, and how to act.

[LynneSin]

21. I have no problem with that either

bring it on, I'd support that too

[High Plains]

65. Where do you draw the line?

You are ready to throw women in jail for smoking while pregnant.
You are ready to throw women in jail for drinking while pregnant.
Are you ready to throw women in jail for eating unhealthily while pregnant?
Are you ready to throw women in jail for not having proper prenatal care?

Do tell.

[etherealtruth]

81. Don't stop there ...

Child carrying vessels should be kept from jobs that have a possibility of endangering their fetus, these vessels with medical conditions (either the drugs to treat or the infirmity itself)that can have a deleterious impact on their fetus' should be sterilized ... of course this is all :sarcasm: ... I think that the poster's assertion that women of childbearing age are a different class of citizen is not carried through to it's (horrid) end.

There is a tremendous difference between the "best" choices made by a pregnant woman (NO ONE advocates smoking, drug and alcohol consumption)pregnant women ... but a woman does not surrender control of her own body to the state while carrying a child.

[Warpy]

22. Most of us born in the 40s and 50s had mothers who smoked

so although there is a correlation between low birth weight and/or prematurity and maternal smoking, it's not the enormous fetal health problem the misogynistic nanny staters want us to believe it is.

Yes, women would do a better job for their children if they'd stop smoking for the duration of pregnancy and childrearing. That is not going to happen, though, and women really don't need to be criminalized for something else.

I agree fully about not wanting to inhale somebody else's vice. Pot smoke sets my asthma off, too, although not as severely as cig smoke does.

[AndyTiedye]

28. Next Step, All Women Who Are Capable of Becoming Pregnant…

…since they might be pregnant and now know it.
Even more likely if the RW has it's way on Roe and Griswold.

FWIW, I detest the smell of tobacco smoke, but I am no fan of prohibition.

[seabeyond]

30. too much evidence living in a polluted area causes problems

with fetus. so maybe all city dwellers shouldn't have kids

[Matariki]

83. I have a problem with treating women as breeding animals

If an activity is legal, then it's legal for pregnant women. period.

I don't smoke.

[Spider Jerusalem]

128. Personally, MY problem with banning pregnant women from smoking...

or drinking, or anything else, is that it's profoundly contrary to the idea of individual rights that we enjoy in the US, developed through the custom and practice of English common law, the Magna Charta, and the English Bill of Rights, which were enshrined in the US Constitution.

If a woman is pregnant, it's HER job to stop smoking. Not the job of the government to REQUIRE that she do so under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Better question: why do YOU not have a problem with another infinitesimal move towards a totalitarian police state? How can such a thing be good, even if done for a reason you agree with?

[dysfunctional press]

139. because the state should NOT have control over a woman's body...

next thing you know, they'll even require every pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

[sui generis]

5. they should also make overeating and skiing illegal

No more potato chips for you little miss porky pants!

Seriously, what makes you think you have a right to stop being a consumer? The longer you work and pay taxes and buy corporate products and services the better. You exist to be harvested. We wouldn't let cattle smoke, why should we let women smoke?

yikes.

I think they may actually believe something like that.

[LynneSin]

12. The difference with overeating/skiing vs. smoking

is that the more I overeat and ski, the only person affected is myself; whereas when people smoke the affected others around then. That's one of the reasons why Delaware and many other states have passed "Buzz Driving" laws because they know that the .08 legal limit isn't enough to keep bad drinking/drivers off the road. I can simply registered for alcohol on my breath and I'll get a ticket with points on it. And although I won't lose my right to drive if I was under the limit - those points will fuck up my insurance rate for 3 years and cost me plenty!

[LostinVA]

38. And, inherently, food and skiing aren't bad for you

Nicotine is poison. Literally.

[sui generis]

42. oh spare me - I'm personally for a law against anti-smoking rants.

[LostinVA]

47. NIce answer -- you don't have one

Look, I smoked like a fiend for many, many years. I knew it was bad for me. Never in my life would I try to "boost" smoking. II have a slew of nurses in my family, I had people I know die of lung cancer. If you want to smoke, smoke. I honestly don't fucking give a damn... but the SECOND you infiltrate someone else's airspace with this poison, I'm allowed to go on a rant. THis included people who smoke ina car with their kids or start their child off at a disadvantage while purposely giving themselves bad prenatal care... just as much as I can as soon as you step into a car drunk.

Jesus. I love it when people read what they want to Read into a post.

So, you spare ME.

[sui generis]

57. oh puh leeeze

your reply is stinking up the air like a Virginia Slim smoked filter first. :P

anyway lighten up - I was being conversational, not combative so chill.

There are many problems in the world besides/in addition to smoking. I would venture to say that people who are overly sensitive to perfumes and scents and peanut allergies and latex have a cross to bear, just like anyone else born with a disability or an environmental sensibility. I personally hate diesel and car exhaust and aerosol deoderant and NATURAL UNWASHED HUMAN BODIES with not a stitch of anything unnatural on them. I'm not out to ban them - it's just something I have to deal with like avoiding rain and vexacious company.

You've quit smoking, boffo for you. But the rabid anger that YOU PEOPLE (in general, I know, I know) have against the rest of the real world (I don't smoke either, but I really don't care) comes across as a borrowed persecution - believe me there are plenty of things to be persecuted about that you CAN do something about. One doesn't have to adopt the cigarette crusade to fuel discontent with the world. Anyway, nobody can stop smokers from smoking or drinkers from drinking (Carrie Nation and the teetotalers worked real well didn't that?), and pitching a fit won't win anyone to your side either.

The argument is about making a law to "ban" smoking in pregnant women. It's a bad idea. It will never happen. Well, maybe in Virginia. Laws don't work nearly as well as good information in modifying behaviors if that's the goal. Make you wonder why some states emphasize laws over education.

[northzax]

90. er, actually

nicotine isn't all that bad for you. probably no worse than caffiene. the problem is in the delivery method. Long term studies have shown no serious health risk from nicotine use (when the delivery system is gum or the patch, for instance) the problem is in the damage the delivery system does to your lungs and heart.

[AlCzervik]

6. a woman smoking is one thing, a woman with a fetus inside smoking is

another thing.

[sui generis]

9. some days it's really hard to distinguish an authoritarian

liberal from an authoritarian conservative.

So let's ask some real questions. If a woman has a right to terminate her own pregnancy but can't smoke while she's waiting for her appointment, does she still get a ticket?

Does she go to jail? What about someone who doesn't know she's pregnant and smokes? What about someone who doesn't smoke but continues to work someplace with similar environmental dangers?

This is crazy. Educate our people. Put all of our effort into education. That or some real laws, like, pregnant women shouldn't tan either. Or drink shelf milk loaded with bovine growth hormone. Or drive in rush hour traffic exposed to tailpipe fumes. Et cetera et cetera.

[dogday]

11. Exactly---What about coffee or alcohol?

There are many things a pregnant woman shouldn't do, but damn it is her body and who the freak are we to impose our views on anyone?

[suffragette]

20. Yes, and what a slippery slope it is.

Will women who are (or who could become) pregnant be barred from particular jobs, or certain professions? I added the part about the potential for becoming preganant given the CDC's recent recommendations treating womwn as pre-pregnant http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1231255 .
Who gets to decide who has control over these women's bodies and lives. Me? You? Bush?
At what stage does the control begin?
How much control is allowed?

[bluethruandthru]

17. Society has made smokers the new demons!

For some reason people who smoke are easy targets these days. I quit a couple of years ago but before I did I was called every name in the book.

People I didn't know would come up and lecture me about my "filthy habit"! This was when I was smoking outside (not near a door or any other person) and not bothering anyone.

[LostinVA]

40. People know they shouldn't drink or smoke while pregnant

Few don't know this... unless you're talking about a 13-year-old mother or someone living in deepest Appalachia. Kids are taught this in school, it's all over TV, etc. It's also just plain common sense. People don't wish to believe it so that they can do whatever the hell they want. My BIL's skanky redneck sister works in a doctor's office, and she smoked and drank through every pregnancy. All of her kids have had developmental issues -- both physical and mental.

People don't give a damn if they are hurting people around them, or a fetus they plan to bring to term.

And, for the posters that say, "My moms smoked and drank" -- SO WHAT??? We know it's detrimental now. We used to all do a lot of harmful things... isn't that the point of research and education and development? To change things? Both physical and societal???

And yes, I believe it should be illegal to drink or smoke if you are pregnant with a fetus you plan to bring to term. It's totally selfish and irresponible... and mean.

[sui generis]

41. so who sets up the tests?

What about pre-pregnant? How is enforcement done? Don't you think that people who are going to smoke and drink are going to do it anyway?

It's ridiculous that the 99.99% of adults have to pay for the stupidity of a few with rules to govern us like children. No I do not think we should have a pointless, unenforceable law that essentially opens the door to making women the property of the state. Not in America.

It's awful that any woman would willingly bring any poison into her body while pregnant - and yes it is selfish, meanness born of ignorance and apathy. If the real problem is that they are selfish, then the law won't fix that. If the problem is that they're a bad parent starting from before birth, the law won't fix that. If the problem is ignorance, the law won't fix that.

We need to fix the problems, not punish the symptoms.

[LostinVA]

43. There is no problem to fix

They'll do it if they want to, thus it's not fixable.

I also think people shouldn't be allowed to smoke around their kids in a small enclosed space. My sister and I both have problems from this happening to us when we were little.

I'm not even talking about tests yada yada ydada... I'm talking about people on this thread that are saying there's nothing wrong with people doing this. I smoked two packs a day for over ten years, and I NEVER justified what I was doing to myself... and, I never had to justify what I did to other people, because I very, very rarely smoked around people or in a crowd. And I sure as hell never smoked around my sister when she was pregnant, or around my nice and nephew after they were born. Even outside.

[sui generis]

52. what we're talking about is making more adult-nanny laws

you can't just make a law to keep people from doing everything they want to that you think is unfixable.

So even if one person thought it was okay to smoke and drink during pregnancy and everyone else agreed that it was not okay and did not smoke or drink, there should still be a law?

It is fixable; many more people smoked and drank in our parents' generation. And again, anyone who is determined to smoke and drink while pregnant is not going to pay attention to a paper law, however well intentioned, if they already think they can flout biological rules with impunity.

The solution is that you have to educate them, and you have to get to them to voluntarily stop. A law won't do that.

[High Plains]

66. So you want to throw a pregnant woman in jail for having a drink?

And you want to throw a pregnant woman in jail for having a smoke?

Are you going to establish the Pregnancy Police?

If attitudes like yours are representative of the Democratic Party, that's a problem for me. We have enough authoritarians in the Republican Party.

Why do people think every social problem must be solved by criminalizing something or somebody?

[seabeyond]

100. the greatest threat to preg is stress. so lets heap tons of stress

on the mother with likely jail time walking the line for all these authortarians in our lives, and cause more damage than all the other issues so far on board

i worked in a dry cleaner when i was preg. not to mention the fumes (sorry all needed a paycheck to eat and pay a doctor) i was lifting heavy amounts of clothes to pc women's and men's cars. they werent too concerned with my stomach sticking out to yonder, but by gosh would have raised hell with a cig

do you all know the possibilities that is as great of a risk as smoking to a fetus. this isnt rational.

[depakid]

92. mispost

[deaniac21]

45. Wouldn't that burn the mother?

[sui generis]

60. ba-dum-TISH!

mmmm smoked fetus. Tastes like chikkin.

[sproutster]

105. What if she's getting an abortion?

What if... fill in the blank.

WTH ... Throw everyone in jail for drinking, smoking... No one should be allowed to do anything to their bodies that is not state approved.

This is including and not limited to strange penis's - MUST BE STATE APPROVED with PAPERS -- Just think of the genetic probems!!

[Bridget Burke]

8. Where has this legislation been proposed?

It's a good idea for pregnant women to refrain from smoking. Of course, it's a good idea for anyone to do so.

[mcscajun]

31. Arkansas.

FORT SMITH, Ark. -- Arkansas is about a month away from enforcing a statewide smoking ban, and now some lawmakers want to ban pregnant women from lighting up altogether.

Gov. Mike Huckabee said a smoking ban for pregnant mothers makes sense from a health standpoint. He said that he hasn't determined if such a law would be legal, but even discussing such a proposition has stirred up controversy.

(snip)

Lawmakers conceded that the reality of a smoking ban for pregnant women is probably a long time away.

Huckabee will leave office in January because of term limits, and he said it would likely take much longer than that to get legislation in place.

http://www.thehometownchannel.com/news/9372396/detail.html

This, BTW, is the same Huckabee (Republican) who lost 110 lbs. and is positioning himself for a Presidential run.

From an May Newsweek interview with the Governor:

Can we legislate healthier lifestyles?
Attitude changes behavior, not the other way around. I personally don’t think the government should put a tax on cheeseburgers or regulate the size of a steak. That would create absolute disaster. Then you shift the debate to one of personal rights from one of good health … We should make it the cultural norm to practice healthy habits. No one ever asked me how to gain weight. But thousands have asked me how I lost weight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/

[KittyWampus]

14. Standing on the train platform waiting f/ the transfer to NYC yesterday,

This was Jamaica Station which is essentially in open air/out doors. I was surrounded by smokers. It was disgusting and hard to breath.

There was NO WHERES for me to go... waiting for the train which would come any minute.

I am an ex smoker and the stench makes me very, very ill.

Is this fair?

And to compare drinking to smoking?

A lot of people don't drink while waiting for trains except maybe during the commute home on weekdays. And the ones that do drink don't effect my ability to breath or make me feel ill. They drink their beer etc out of a paper sack and that's that... as long as they aren't rip-roaring drunk.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Is this fair? In open air? Your perfume/after-shave/ body oil makes me

physically sick....I break out in hives and become dizzy. Please add those items to your bans as well.

[truebrit71]

44. Agreed.

n/t

[seabeyond]

101. i had a woman in a restaraunt with so much perfume i had to leave

before i got my food. and i was feeding a baby...... how dare she. and oooops to me that i didnt blame her, but felt she had the right to wear the shit, whether it made me want to throw up in a restaraunt or not.

[KittyWampus]

120. Hmm, are there DOZENS of people wearing stuff that makes you sick ?

If there had been ONE smoker, I could have moved away from them.

[ComerPerro]

55. To be fair, I always drink while waiting on a train

[yellerpup]

15. I'm with you, sis.

Fat sickens and kills more people than smoking does, but no one is levying a punitive tax on fries. I quit smoking in March because I wanted to, but moving back to NY where cigarettes are over $6.00/pack and where you are exiled in social situations (you can't even stand under an awning in front of a bar and smoke here) was a big inspiration to get me to quit. Yes, your life is up to you and smoking cigarettes is legal. It just doesn't feel thatway any more.

[jojo54]

16. The point to all this is, it's another right that we're being forced

to give up. Whether you smoke or not (I'm speaking rhetorically), whether you drink or not, whether you decide if you want to eat that day or not, is NOT up to the politicians to decide. Banning smokers from public places....yes, I see nothing wrong with that. Banning female smokers during pregnancy....NO. It's a person's CHOICE, regardless of the individuals concern for her fetus. It's still her CHOICE.

It's also pretty ironic that they (whoever they are) want to prohibit females from smoking during pregnancy, but the funding for NCLB continues to fall each year. THEY are all Asswipes!!

[seabeyond]

18. as much as you hate smoking, standing up for the right is what is needed

as much as we hate kkk standing up for their right is a must.

as much as i hate guns and booze, standing up for their right is what i MUST do

otherwise, you are part of the problem

[bluethruandthru]

25. You're right!

Amazing how those who claim to be tolerant and respect the rights of individuals totally forget that when it comes to smoking. It's the same as saying you're for free speech...unless it hurts your feelings.
No one should force their second hand smoke on others...but no one should make it illegal for people to smoke it they choose to do so.

[Warpy]

19. You should be able to put anything you want to in your own body

and tha applies to pregnant women, too. Once you are informed about the choice you are making, the world needs to leave you the hell alone about it. Yes, you can run into trouble with it, but you're the one who decided to assume the risk of getting emphysema or giving birth to a damaged infant who will require the maximum in care for the rest of your life. You're the one assuming the guilt and regret.

However, people around you have not decided to assume that same risk, which is why smoking ANYTHING needs to be restricted to areas where you're not forcing it on people who don't want it.

If somebody standing next to me is guzzling cheap vodka out of a paper bag, it's not my business because it doesn't affect me a bit. If he climbs into a car, I'm going to call the cops with a description and license plate number because he has just become a threat to public safety.

If somebody decides he just has to smoke when we're both indoors, he will send me into bronchospasm, something that DOES affect me quite severely.

You see, that is the difference. Smokers need to realize that what they're doing affects everyone around them and to develop the manners to avoid inflicting their smoke on non consenting people.

For what it's worth, I despise the nanny state that tries to forbid individual choices. I do appreciate antismoking ordinances that push smokers out of public buildings and into the fresh air, though, because they have improved my own life greatly. I would be against any law forbidding nicontine or any other substance. However, restricting place and age is appropriate.

[seabeyond]

23. not to mention the heavily majority babies birth out perfect

without an issue. but then sucking in the fumes of a city is likely to cause more possibility of autism. though again, the strong majority are healthy. so do we outlaw pregnancy for high polluted areas. these women are well aware where they live have possible repercussion for fetus. they are equally guilty as the smoker if they chose to carry a baby in htese areas

the person that refuses the oj, or eats a hot dog puts the fetus at equally minor risk..... do we go after them

those that dont receive prenatal are again taking very minor risks..... are they to be forced prenatal????/

as much as we hate the smoker, (not the smoking)..... the conjecture is so beyond the reality

[seabeyond]

24. difference please in those that live in polluted area vs smoker

carrying a fetus.

both hold a very slight percentage of risk... the possibility.

what is the difference.??????

[novalib]

26. Ban Tobacco Products COMPLETELY!

There is no GOOD reason for tobacco to be sold to anyone or to be consumed by anyone -- NONE!!

It only has the effect of doing harm to the person consuming it, and doing less harm (but still significant harm) to the people who happen to be around the person who is consuming it.

It should be COMPLETELY BANNED!

[High Plains]

68. Banning has worked so well with other substances.

Are you sure you're in the right party? You might try this one: http://www.prohibition.org

[mntleo2]

27. I Agree Leftylady!

As a smoker who has been as polite about my smoking as I can be, it is laughable how people want to moralize and legislate other people's habits as well as give away their own personal rights along with it. They do not seem to get that someday maybe THEY will be the focus of the lynch mob mentality because something they do doesn't pass the smell test for some moral nanny.

Greed is okay though. Hey you can work a low income immigrant to death, and nobody "notices," but DID YOU (or they) SMOKE TOO???? I have a rabid non-smoking friend who is eating himself into the grave, but boy isn't HE so riteous because he does not smoke. And he is not the only one, many of my friends are the same way, they may eat themseves into an early fgrave and leave their families destitute but hey, THEY DON'T SMOKE! I have lots of friends who drink themselves into oblivion (or smoke mj), get into a 2 ton death trap and think nothing of risking the life of everyone they pass (not to mention how stoopid they look and sound when they are drunk and/or high) but hey, they DON'T SMOKE! Religious nuts who mess with and often ruin everybody's lives they come in contact with, including their children, with illusions of reality and what is "moral" (get rich on the backs of the poor and Jeeeeeeezus will love you more than them!), but hey, THEY DON'T SMOKE! I am an IT person and you would not believe the raunchiest porn I find on people's laptops ("bare-ly 18" girls who look 12, yeah, right) but hey aren't they SO special because THEY DON'T SMOKE! Ted Bundy killed over 80 women but hey, HE DID NOT SMOKE! Participate in the most recent gossip viciouly and untruly about that man over there who lost his job because of the lies flying around the office, but hey, WE DIDN'T SMOKE ~ and HE DID!

I do not drink, I do not imbibe in any other vice, but you would think I was up there with child killers. At least my habit is not hidden in some dark corner, I am honest about what I do. If it is any comfort, I think this moral nannyism about smokling a big excuse to point the finger at someone else because right in front of the pointers' own faces are their own vices that may be worse. They can pretend to "care so much" about you when in reality it is their way of not looking at their own stuff, manipulating someone else and wrapping it all up in the package of "I care so much..." Yeah really, if you cared so much about hummanity why didn't you help that hard working single mother you work with who is losing her home because she cannot afford the high cost of rent? OH. That's right, she may be on the street, but hey ~ YOU DON'T SMOKE (and maybe she does)! It is a way to say, "Quick! Lookeee over there! A smoker! Get 'em!" Because they are terrified to death someone might actually see sll that ugliness they like to hide.

My 2 cents!

Cat In Seattle

[Zodiak]

32. If they really cared

they would build designated smoking areas that are enclosed and free from the weather.

Instead, they force all smokers outside in the open with no place to go. Of course, being out in the open, one is exposed to the weather and whatever ridicule those that hate smokers would heap upon them.

That's caring!!

[bluethruandthru]

34. Very Well Said! n/t

[mcscajun]

29. Step by step...licensing for motherhood.

If they can't control our bodies from cradle to grave, they're just not happy.

I'm all for smoking bans in public places and workplaces, but even for me this seems to cross a line.

[SmokingJacket]

35. I've never smoked and hate the smell, but I agree with you.

Perhaps smokers should have to pay a bit more in health insurance, but I think that should cover the "damage" they do to society.

[LostinVA]

36. Alcohol is not inherently bad for you

Unless you overindulge or are an alcoholic. There si nothing about cigarettes/nicotine that is good for you... actually, a better way to say it is that noting about cigarettes/nicotine ISN'T bad for you.

I smoked two packs for ten years. I understand the craving. And, I'm not discussing the pros/cons of any type of bans... just that Nicotine is literally poisonous. It's used as an insecticide. Read "THree Act Tragedy" by Agatha Christie...

[devilgrrl]

39. I hope they ban everything

beer, cigarettes, fastfood, drugs, sky-diving, auto racing, motorcycles, flying kites, playing chess, trading sports cards... get rid of it all.

I am amused that smoking is the only environmental issue taking seriously... if only it were responsible for the state of today's environment.

Women who smoke while pregnant are idiots.

[sinkingfeeling]

62. Kind of ironic isn't it? Smoking a hundred pack of cigarettes a day in

Times Square is a tiny speck compared to the TONS of toxins being dumped in our air everyday, yet I've seen just one thread about *'s overturning the clean air act! You'd think progressives/liberals would be a tad more supporting of personal liberty and a tad more condemning of corporate pollution.

[AngryAmish]

46. First they came for the smokers

Anti-smoking zealots are totalitarians at heart. They desire to regulate private behavior that has no effect on them but they like to boss other people around. The argument they use is that every private decision effects everyone -- It must be done for the good of the volk.

[jerry611]

48. If someone wants to smoke and kill themselves...

That is their business...not the governments.

I know that everyone wants to blame the tobacco companies. And maybe they do share some blame... but in my opinion we have known that smoking causes cancer and heart disease now for many years. Yet people still smoke. If they get cancer, it's their own damn fault.

Sooner or later, it comes down to personal responsibility and stupidity.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. I Have No Problem With Banning It During Pregnancy.

And I'm ALWAYS against smoking bans. I'm a severely addicted smoker and am fed up of all the different bans and prejudices waged on us.

But to me smoking while pregnant is a different matter altogether. Any woman who smokes while pregnant is just plain selfish in my opinion. (with a caveat of those that continue to smoke without regard and that aren't aggressively trying to quit. I think if it becomes illegal, there needs to at least be some sort of grace period to allow the mother to quit other than cold turkey. Maybe make it illegal after the first trimester?)

[sui generis]

58. how big a problem is it? Can someone state it in a percentage please?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. No Idea.. But Attempting To Make It 0% Is Fine With Me.

[sui generis]

63. well we really should have an idea

you can't legislate for the exceptions. Especially, you can't take away EVERYONE'S choice because of a few stupid people. Anyway, how on earth do you expect to enforce a law like that?

Just write the law and your duty is done? Three strikes and they take the rest of your eggs? Doesn't the father also have a duty to keep his sperm motile, baked at the right temperature (no hottubs or hot baths), and with largely whole and wholesome DNA (no old fuckers) due to living like a young old-country Amish man?

You are going to have to test women for tobacco products at every step of the pregnancy. A woman who wants to smoke against all common sense and better advice will continue to smoke. Does that mean that skipping pre-natal exams will be illegal? Does that mean that child protective services takes the baby as soon as it's born? Does she pay a fine? Go to jail? Based on gossip? Direct observation? Indirect testing? Circumstantial evidence? Do they do a blood test or just snip her hair like for modern corporate drug tests?

What a mess! Educate them. Reach them. Convince them. Like adults dealing with adults.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. I Think That's Overdramatizing It Just A Tad.

No one is going to stop every pregnant woman and make her submit to a nicotine test. It is just a simple common sense law. I'm not sure what penalties or action they are considering. But as far as the concept, yes, they should take away the choice. The point is that it shouldn't be a choice at all. That it simply would be not legal to do. As far as your point on educating them goes, give me a break. There is more than enough information out there already declaring the dangers of smoking while pregnant. I challenge you to find me a person that says "oh shit, I'm not supposed to smoke while I'm pregnant? Seriously? It isn't good for the baby?". There is no excuse to put a baby's health at risk by continuing to smoke when pregnant. It is completely irresponsible and selfish, and I have no problem with there not being a choice in the matter. And like I said, I'm normally vehemently opposed to other types of smoking bans.

[High Plains]

69. What about all other harmful acts a pregnant women might do?

Should they be banned also? If not, why not?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Such As?

[sui generis]

73. skiing

eating too much, too little, the wrong kind of food, not getting enough rest, getting too much rest, not enough prenatal, going to a stressful job, playing Mozart to the fetus, not playing Mozart to the fetus, eating hot dogs or cheetohs, using public restrooms, owning a cat, being anywhere near urban traffic, wiping north to south instead of south to north (serious), etc.

tempest in a teapot. Or rather one of many. Except that once you make a rule like this and build enforcement for it you have blown the door wide open for big brother to tell you whether you can wear tighty whiteys or boxers because you might be damaging your sperm, and whether you can drink and smoke and fuck, yourself, at the risk of creating a defective baby. That's not drama.

All women of childbearing age are technically pre-pregnant in biological terms. We just don't want to make that a legal term.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. This Is Just Too Extreme For Me To Even Offer A Rebuttle For.

[sui generis]

79. long division must have seemed like rocket science /nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Your Condescention Does Not Replace Extremist Logic.

I see you are passionately against making it illegal. You have that right.

But I think smoking while pregnant is 100% selfish, stupid, dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. That's just my opinion. I'm just saying I wouldn't mind whatsoever to find that all of a sudden a law existed that helped lessen the percentage of women (13% by the way) who would do something as selfish as smoking while pregnant. The legislation won't get a complaint from me. I'm disgusted when I see pregnant women smoke and there's no reasonable reason for that choice to exist after the first trimester in my opinion.

You are against the proposal. That's cool. I'm all for it.

[sui generis]

87. extremism?

legislating this insanity is extremism.

Anyway what did I say that was extreme? You have a problem with smoking - I do too on general principle, but I make my own choices for me. I have a bigger problem with people who think they have some god given right to step in and tell other people what they can and can't do with their body.

If it's bad for you, then educate. And I'm serious, your rotten spunk from your past vices has just as much chance of producing a baby with developmental defects as the woman you fertilize it with does. That's reality, not extreme. This idea is un American. It's not the only solution.

If you want to be "for it" that's cool too - it doesn't really fit in with the rest of how you describe your interests though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. You Need To Read Up A Bit On The Dangers Of Smoking While Pregnant.

Show me legitimate studies of other vices that are equal in risk to smoking while pregnant. Then we can address them one by one.

[sui generis]

91. "you need to read up a bit"

:rofl:

Lighting your hair on fire while pregnant is bad for you too. Why don't we make a law banning women from lighting their hair on fire while pregnant?

It's because it's not relevant - there may actually be some people who voluntarily or involuntarily light their hair on fire while pregnant, but we don't make laws banning auto-immolation either.

We're not arguing about whether it's bad for you or not. We're arguing about whether a "ban" written into law is the best (and by best I mean the most effective) solution for the relatively rare problem of women smoking while pregnant.

Either you're serious about finding a solution to the problem or you just have a fondness for laws. I have a fondness for solutions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Rare Is A Gross Misstatement. It Is >13%, Which Is By No Means Rare.

And using an example comparing it to lighting your hair on fire is why I called your views/responses extreme to begin with.

And I also think it is false to declare that a law has to be simply the BEST way to accomplish something. I don't think it has to meet that requirement whatsoever. It doesn't have to be the best, it should just have good reason for existance. The fact that 13% of women still smoke while pregnant and the fact of how dangerous that activity can be for the baby, there would definitely seem to be a good reason to have a law in an effort to reduce it. To act like the existance of that law would render all other means of reducing that number to be moot is absurd.

"Either you're serious about finding a solution to the problem or you just have a fondness for laws."

God I detest narrow minded black and white sentiments...

Bye now.

Peace.

OMC

[sui generis]

99. God I detest narrow minded black and white sentiments...

with liberals like you who needs conservatives. Really.

If anyone has described black and white and defended it here it was you - we clearly disagree fundamentally on what the law is for, and on what "liberal" principles are. Fortunately, there will always be people like me keeping laws like this from coming to pass and still able to do something REAL about improving prenatal health.

Peace.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

107. do you know that stress is tons higher in creating miscarriages and

other issues for a fetus and that a doctor is way more concerned with if the mother is stressed than anything else the woman does. and i mean anything else. stress is so far and above the leading issue with carrying a baby.

[seabeyond]

108. btw people women get a fresh egg, men have the same sperm

do you all know the contaminates stay in the male sperm and the sperm they give has all the shit. so, you going after a mom that smokes during preg, go after the male that smokes, does drug, or drinks...... that has the audacity to share his sperm. cut him up.... cause the sperm is no longer a responsible viable use in this world you all want to create

[sui generis]

71. likewise

find me one person who smokes who's going to say, oh shit, I'll get a ticket for lighting up in my living room.

I can't think of a more useless law.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. That Makes No Sense Whatsoever In This Context.

At least to me it didn't. Not even remotely.

[sui generis]

80. well it's as simple as I can go

either you're playacting for the audience or you're not - I am unable to tell.

A law made by busybodies to tell the absolute utter nanofraction of women who DO smoke that they can't smoke or they'll get a ticket will have ZERO effect. What's the point of that law?

It only applies to a diminishing minority, diminishing, I might add, not because of laws, but because of education, and it's damn nearly unenforceable.

So why bother? It's pointless. Don't tell me you don't understand what pointless means.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. If It's So Pointless Than Why Are You So Passionate?

It is illogical to become so passionate over something so pointless. Unless, of course, it isn't pointless.

Making it against the law would absolutely deter some women from doing it. And the more women that stop smoking during pregnancy the better.

Why fight so passionately against something designed to protect the mother AND the baby? (and don't tell me because it should be the mother's choice if she wants to harm her baby, cause I would find that to be utter bullshit.)

[sui generis]

89. don't confuse logic with derivation

they're not the same thing.

I'm passionate about wasting money and time on pointless legislation. I'm also concerned that the kind of people who would do that aren't any different from Saudi Arabia's "morality police".

I'm passionate about it because there are outcomes besides just getting more women to stop smoking during pregnancy.

1. It's not a huge problem. It is an insignificant problem compared to the bajillions of women who don't smoke and give birth.

2. the premise of a law LIKE THAT establishes precedent for all kinds of other Big Brother laws, including laws that view the health of the woman's 'future' fetus as worthy of protection.

I think you are blinded by the the end and don't see how easily the means WILL be misused. There's more than one solution to achieve the same end, and this is not the best solution.

I also know that the kind of people who smoke and drink into pregnancy don't give a darn about laws about smoking and drinking. The kinds of people who are around them generally don't care either. You can't reach those people with a law and you will never be able to. You have to reach them with education, plain and simple.

All a law like that does is make people work harder to keep from getting caught.

[seabeyond]

104. are you going to fight the same battle fro every woman preg in a polluted

environment. the risk are as great and it is a choice to live there. though the risk in both cases extremely small..... it is equally there for both. so am i going ot see you advocate that it is banned for all women to become preg in an environment that has a certain level of pollutants. and if not, ..... how do you justify.

"it would be completely irresponsible and selfish" for any woman to get preg in these areas.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Can You Back Up Your Assertion That The Damages To The Baby Are Equal

by living in those areas as it is to smoke while pregnant?

Saying it doesn't necessarily make it so. I'd like to see some studies that show that women living in that type of environment give their babies the same level or risks as associated by well documented studies of smoking while pregnant. I want to see if there is any real legitimacy to your claim.

[seabeyond]

114. post 109

Effects of pollution on pregnency
Effect of air pollution on preterm birth among children born in Southern California between 1989 and 1993.

Ritz B, Yu F, Chapa G, Fruin S.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1772, USA.

We evaluated the effect of air pollution exposure during pregnancy on the occurrence of preterm birth in a cohort of 97,518 neonates born in Southern California. We used measurements of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter less than 10 microm (PM10) collected at 17 air-quality-monitoring stations to create average exposure estimates for periods of pregnancy. We calculated crude and adjusted risk ratios (RRs) for premature birth by period-specific ambient pollution levels. We observed a 20% increase in preterm birth per 50-microg increase in ambient PM10 levels averaged over 6 weeks before birth and a 16% increase when averaging over the first month of pregnancy (RRcrude = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.06-1.26). PM10 effects showed no regional pattern. CO exposure 6 weeks before birth consistently exhibited an effect only for the inland regions (RRcrude = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.08-1.18 per 3 parts per million), and during the first month of pregnancy, the effect was weak for all stations (RRcrude = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01-1.09 per 3 parts per million). Exposure to increased levels of ambient PM10 and possibly CO during pregnancy may contribute to the occurrence of preterm births in Southern California.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. "may contribute". Doesn't Quite Sound Conclusive.

Furthermore, 20% is a lot less than 200-300%.

And there are also FAR more risks and damages caused by smoking while pregnant than just preterm birth.

If you want to compare polluted cities equally to smoking while pregnant you're going to have to come up with a hell of a lot better data than what you just provided. And I mean that respectfully.

[seabeyond]

119. be sure that MAY is in the same spot with smoking n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. Absolutely Not. This Is Just Getting Silly Now.

Smoking while pregnant is selfish, disgraceful, irresponsible and plain stupid. It should be shunned by us all. That is my opinion on the subject. I have nothing more to say.

Goodnight.

[seabeyond]

115. do you know stress form the mom is by far way worse

on the fetus..... than smoking? and the mom feeling gulit over the cig, or trying to quit, what kind of stress do you think that is causing on the fetus

[seabeyond]

116. post 112..... lets go after women taking epileptic siezure drug

Finally - just because - look at these selfish evil epileptics!!
Anti-Epileptic Drugs and the Developing Fetus

The birth of a normal baby without birth defects is a primary concern for all parents. Since all drugs present a possible danger to a developing fetus, women with epilepsy who are taking anticonvulsants are understandably concerned that anticonvulsant medication may pose possible risks to their baby's development.

To put birth defects into perspective, it is helpful to look at the statistics.

In the general population of all pregnant women, 2 in every 100 women will give birth to a baby with a birth defect.

In pregnant women who had epilepsy as children, but have now outgrown it and are not currently taking anticonvulsants, 4 in every 100 women will give birth to a baby with a birth defect.

Pregnant women who are controlling their seizures with anticonvulsants will have 6 to 10 chances in 100 of giving birth to a baby with a birth defect.

These figures indicate that women with epilepsy have at least a 90% chance of producing a perfectly normal baby.

The type of birth defects most commonly found in babies who have been exposed to anticonvulsant medications include short fingertips, short noses, broad-set eyes and prominently-arched eyebrows. More serious complications can include cleft palates or congenital heart disease. Both of these defects may be improved with surgery. Amniocentesis cannot usually detect any of these malformations.

Monotherapy (the use of only one drug) has been shown to reduce birth defects in offspring of women with epilepsy. Therefore, prior to planned conception, women should consult with their physicians to reduce the number of anticonvulsants they take.

Upon becoming pregnant, a woman may be tempted to stop taking medication in order to protect the baby from side effects. However, withdrawing medication can be the cause of prolonged seizures (5 minutes or longer) during which the fetus is deprived of oxygen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Do You Mind Telling Me What Medical Condition Nicotine Is Taken For?

Now I'm beginning to find your analogies as extreme as the ones I responded to earlier.

I'm sorry, but taking medication to keep oneself alive is not exactly on the same plane as someone selfishly smoking cigarettes. Give me a break.

I think I'm done with this thread. I've stated my opinion, I am firm in my belief that women who are selfish and disgraceful enough to smoke while pregnant should be punished in some form, and I don't mind at all if there was a law declaring such.

[sui generis]

125. ew. all you women should be punished!

nicotine is in study for use as an adjunctive anti-neoplastic and an anti-neovascular tumor treatment.

punish the bad women :rofl: now there's a true color, and it ain't blue.

[seabeyond]

118. there are also women that have to take other drugs too

that MAY possibly effect fetus, equally to smoking, like anxiety or depression drugs. or any other drug that a female is taking for her health, prior to being preg

[bluethruandthru]

94. When I was pregnant with my first child

I was a smoker. I asked my doctor if I should quit cold turkey. He asked if I could do that with little or no stress. I said no, since I had tried to quit many times before). He said I should cut down as much as possible..but the stress of trying to quit cold turkey would be more harmful to the baby than the occasional cigarette.
I gave birth to an 8 pound very healthy baby. I realize that's just me and it doesn't apply to everyone...but I think we would all be better off if we made sure that all our choices were perfect before we started condemning the choices of others.

[ComerPerro]

54. Smokers: Remeber this: You exhale smoke, it goes in the air

my air.

How about I come into a nice restraunt you're in, sit next to you and your food, and set fire to a car tire?

MMMM, savor the aroma.

[mntleo2]

67. I Agree NonSmoker's Dislike Should Be Respected But...

...the thousands of tons of other pollutants you are inhaling that ARE burning tires as well as industrial and car fumes, is all around you and yet people blame the smoker for all of it. You did not have the "second hand smoke" issue until corporations realized that if they did not find a scapegoat fast, why we might just look at THEM and what they are doing to foul up the air as well as the water and oceans. I might add that almost all the adults I knew in the '40's and '50s smoked but people (or their kids) did not have near the lung problems we have today and cigarette smoking is drastically down. Nobody is saying cigarette smoke is the major reason for inner city child asthma, global warming, or smog alerts, come on!

One of the funniest things I see is going to a restaraunt where they have smoking and non-smoking areas and the smoking areas are all blocked off, ventilated, the whole bit (to make sure the non-smoker only inhales the tons of carcinigens they helped launch into the air with the car they drove to get there, lol). Fine and good. I think this is a solutionamnd SHOULD make the non-smoker happy, but n-o-o-o! The non-smoking area is almost empty and the smoking areas are rocking... What is THAT all about?

Smokers have made themselves scarce going outside to smoke and the non-smokers follow them. While chatting once with a fellow DU-er and Bostonian, we had a good laugh. I asked him about how the non-smoking in bars was going. He laughed. He said that there, and it is happening the same way here too, the smokers go outside and "caucus" and the non-smokers are mad because they have been left inside with the boring people. LOL! Sooo, what you are going to see are people outside fraternizing and well, too bad for the non-smoker! You can get alot of business done while smoking on a cold day. LOL!

Cat In Seattle

[seabeyond]

111. i have had more friends rant about the smoker, so out of respect

when i want a cig i take it outside and they follow. i say wtf.... i am smoking. you hate it. a whiff and you are going ot diiiiii....... now my firends that went on and on about smoking and second hand smoke wave me off going outside.... but then i have five windows in the kitchen opened, and a door in the dining room. i guess reason and the lack of even a whiff sunk into their heads.

[meow2u3]

56. That's not only a violation of privacy rights, but also sexist

It amounts to sex discrimination because the same ban does not apply to expectant fathers.

We don't need any more laws banning risky behavior. I'm tired of this misogynistic authoritarianism!!!

[DistressedAmerican]

59. The Term "Nicotine Bans" IS Loaded.

Nobody is banning nicotine gum for example.

Just saying.

p.s. Yes, I smoke too.

[foreverdem]

72. Then should others around her be banned from smoking as well?

After all, inhaling second hand smoke is just as bad. What about if the father smokes, can he not be in her presence for 9 months? She should be in isolation or live in a bubble for the full pregnancy? Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. And it's just as ridiculous as taking anyone's choice away.

[sui generis]

74. also ban people who may have cats

wouldn't want an aerosolized litter box protozoan to jump ship and cause toxoplasmosis on a windy day

[SoCalDem]

78. You EEEEEEvil person, you !!

Kitties must NEVER be banned :) They are a reason to live :) Just looking at a precious kitty-face is a morale booster..

The solution to the smoking argument is simple.. Everyone should move to Tahiti.. People there are open, considerate, and non-judgemental.. Everyone gets along...smokers...non-smokers...and lots of people atually do smoke there.. People are laid-back and realize that there is more to life than everyone getting all pissy with each other..and telling each other what they can and cannot do..

Life's a beach :)

[sui generis]

85. yee haw!

sign me up.

Can I bring my kitties? I also have a psychotic two timing helicopter and dump truck chasing chihuahua too - that bitch will hump anything with toes, including the cats. But she's my two timing toe humping Tinkerbell. :shrug: what can ya do?

[Vidar]

77. Outlawing government might be a better solution.

[slybacon9]

86. Know what's funny? If you quit smoking, these posts mean nothing...

And i don't mean that to be glib. I smoked a pack a day plus for 10 years. Now i am 5 years without.

I was able to quit because of the smoking ban in bars in California. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The government actually helped me help myself, and it was people who voted for that measure, and so really it was the community helping me.

Once a smoker becomes accountable to the idea that they are killing themselves in front of their loved ones, then we are able to see that perhaps the bans aren't just out of spite and can actually help. I know Bill HIcks wouldn't agree... but then again, he's dead now... so maybe he would.

[sui generis]

96. so because it took a ban for you to stop smoking

that's the preferred method for everyone else?

P.S. you can still go to a bar and smoke in California. The "ban" did nothing for you to stop smoking. It did not take away your cigarettes. It did not put you in jail for smoking. It just made it inconvenient to smoke. If they suddenly lifted the ban, you would go back to smoking? If I were you I'd take some credit for yourself instead of giving all the credit to some arbitrary ban.

So if inconvenience is the best method to help so-inclined people to stop smoking, then inconvenience them. Don't throw them in jail. By far, the best incentive to quit smoking is incentive.

How do we do the positive thing and create incentives for smokers to NOT smoke or be around smokers while pregnant? Do we always have to be medieval in how we deal with social issues?

[slybacon9]

135. it didn't take a ban for me too quit... the ban just helped is all.

and there is a HUUUUGE difference from what bars are now in CA than what they were before the ban. You can actually breathe in one, and see the walls. There isn't a smoker in your face every direction you look making you wish you had a smoke with your beer.

I'm dying to hear your "positive incentives" though. You do realize we are talking about something that is more addictive than heroin right?

If the positive incentive of quitting so that your children don't suffer from your second hand smoke isn't enough than i'm not sure what will do it.

And finally... Smoking is medieval. Killing yourself slowly everyday and setting yourself up for a horrible painful end... pretty much the definition of medieval.

[sui generis]

136. don't knock medieval

Women were told what to do for their own good, serfs were born into their station in life, rulers and merchants owned land by divine right and strategic loans and favors to divine rulers, and the benevolent kind church knew what was best for society and ruthlessly enforced it.

The problem is that anybody thinks they have some innate right to tell anyone else what personal choices they can or can't make. How is that different from what abhors us about slavery - owning the "right" to tell another human what they can and can't do under pain of the law.

If you don't smoke and we all agree that smoking in public places should also be regulated, why do you care? What gives you the right to care? You will likely never be around smokers except in a voluntary capacity, so what does it matter to you?

I'm not a smoker either, but there are important battles to fight that impact you directly in your life and smoking is not one of them.

Education - hell yes. We are such smarmy baby ass wimps when it comes to education. We don't want our kids to see a corpse because it might upset their sensibilities. What outrageous stupidity - death is a part of life. Kids should learn what lung cancer looks like at an autopsy. Not "scare films" and "Reefer Madness" propaganda, but what does a corpse with stage four cancer look like and smell like and even feel like.

Please don't die waiting for my positive incentives. However if you choose to live for your own reasons, and I won't write any laws forcing you to remain alive for your own good by banning positive incentives, here are some:

Lower insurance premiums. Taxable income incentive. Documented prenatal and neonatal care gives you a dollar for dollar tax incentive on your expenses provided you test negative for tobacco through term and agree to go to some brief health counseling. Something to that effect. Day care credits reimbursed by the state from the tobacco settlement dollars.

Are you dead yet? I've got more. Anyway, gallows humor aside, if you can think of a way to do it you bring attention to the issue. It's REAL benevolence, not authoritarian benevolence, and it doesn't violate personal choice.

There is nothing preventing you from cracking yourself on the head with a cane if you catch yourself pregnant and smoking - but all cracking someone elseon the head will do is make them smoke where you can't see them. Then what good have you done?

[Beelzebud]

132. I'm a life long non-smoker that thinks the bans are lame.

And no, Bill Hicks wouldn't agree with you.

He'd light up, blow smoke in your face, and talk about how it tasted like steak and potatoes.

[slybacon9]

134. which makes him cool. and still dead too young.

don't forget that even he quit for the last years of his life.

[Beelzebud]

138. Quit talking about a guy you know nothing about.

I have a bootleg video of Hicks 3 months before his unfortunate death, SMOKING on stage, and STILL doing his "I'd quit smoking if I was afraid I'd become one of you" jokes.

[slybacon9]

140. Bite my ass.

I have all his shit too and he did quit.

Now, perhaps he was not successful... dude was a champion smoker.

That said, the show in London that everyone and their mom has on tape (yes, before your very special bootleg) Revelations, was done in 1993 just before he died as well.

In this show he says, as I know you must know since you know him so well, "Not a time to quit smoking kids, but i fucking did it."

Regardless... quit, failed to quit... who cares? A good man that we could have used more than anyone right now is dead most likely thanks to smoking. End of story.

[depakid]

93. Tobacco Use and Reproductive Outcomes — Fact Sheet

Smoking and Reproductive Outcomes

* Women smokers, like men smokers, are at increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary disease, but women smokers also experience unique risks related to menstrual and reproductive function.

* Women who smoke have increased risk conception delay and for primary and secondary infertility.

* Women who smoke may have a modest increase in risks for ectopic pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

* Smoking during pregnancy is associated with increased risk for premature rupture of membranes, abruptio placentae (placenta separation from the uterus), and placenta previal (abnormal location of the placenta, which can cause massive hemorrhaging during delivery; smoking is also associated with a modest increase in risk for preterm delivery.

* Infants born to women who smoke during pregnancy have a lower average birth weight and are more likely to be small for gestational age than infants born to women who do not smoke. Low birth weight is associated with increased risk for neonatal, perinatal, and infant morbidity and mortality. The longer the mother smokes during pregnancy, the greater the effect on the infant’s birth weight.

(Depa's note: there are also what are termed "life course effects." Research has shown a clear association between intra-uterine and infant circumstances and the prevalence of diseases in middle age and even later life. See, e.g.: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/collection/barker_hypothesis ).

What that means is that a certain percentage of women who smoke during pregnancy or around their kids have condemned them to debilitating conditions later on in their lives- no matter what their children do.

* The risk for perinatal mortality, both stillbirths and neonatal deaths, and the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) are higher for the offspring of women who smoke during pregnancy.

--------------

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Reproductive Outcomes

* Infants born to women who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) during pregnancy may have a small decrement in birth weight and a slightly increased risk for intrauterine growth retardation than infants born to women who are not exposed to ETS.

---------------

Smoking Prevalence and Smoking Cessation during Pregnancy

* Despite increased knowledge of the adverse health effects of smoking during pregnancy, estimates of women smoking during pregnancy range from 12% (based on birth certificate data) up to 22% (based on survey data). However, smoking during pregnancy appears to have decreased from 1989 through 1998.

* Eliminating maternal smoking may lead to a 10% reduction in all infant deaths and a 12% reduction in deaths from perinatal conditions.

* Women who quit smoking before or during pregnancy reduce the risk for adverse reproductive outcomes, including difficulties in becoming pregnant, infertility, premature rupture of membranes, preterm delivery, and low birth weight.

* Most relevant studies suggest that infants of women who stop smoking by the first trimester have weight and body measurements comparable with those of nonsmokers’ infants. Studies also suggest that smoking in the third trimester is particularly detrimental.

* Women are more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy, both spontaneously and with assistance, than at other times in their lives. Using pregnancy-specific programs can increase smoking cessation rates, which benefits infant health and is cost effective. However, only one-third of women who stop smoking during pregnancy are still abstinent 1 year after the delivery.

* Programs that encourage women to stop smoking before, during, and after pregnancy — and not to take up smoking ever again — deserve high priority for two reasons: during pregnancy women are highly motivated to stop smoking, and they still have many remaining years of potential life.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_forwomen/factsheet_outcomes.htm

[sproutster]

109. Effects of pollution on pregnency

Effect of air pollution on preterm birth among children born in Southern California between 1989 and 1993.

Ritz B, Yu F, Chapa G, Fruin S.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1772, USA.

We evaluated the effect of air pollution exposure during pregnancy on the occurrence of preterm birth in a cohort of 97,518 neonates born in Southern California. We used measurements of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter less than 10 microm (PM10) collected at 17 air-quality-monitoring stations to create average exposure estimates for periods of pregnancy. We calculated crude and adjusted risk ratios (RRs) for premature birth by period-specific ambient pollution levels. We observed a 20% increase in preterm birth per 50-microg increase in ambient PM10 levels averaged over 6 weeks before birth and a 16% increase when averaging over the first month of pregnancy (RRcrude = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.06-1.26). PM10 effects showed no regional pattern. CO exposure 6 weeks before birth consistently exhibited an effect only for the inland regions (RRcrude = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.08-1.18 per 3 parts per million), and during the first month of pregnancy, the effect was weak for all stations (RRcrude = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01-1.09 per 3 parts per million). Exposure to increased levels of ambient PM10 and possibly CO during pregnancy may contribute to the occurrence of preterm births in Southern California.

[depakid]

137. We could run Pub Med searches all day

on things like this-

Bottom line though is that there isn't much an individual could do about it.

That's not the case with smoking while pregnant.

It's a choice one makes- and it hurts someone else- more likely lots of someone elses.

There's no escaping from that fact.

[sproutster]

110. And just for fun - Let's talk FAS

FAS Statistics

*

In 1995, four times as many pregnant women frequently consumed alcohol as in 1991.5 Researchers speculate that the increase in alcohol consumption by pregnant women may be attributed to widespread reports on the health benefits of moderate drinking.6
*

51% of women of child-bearing age between 18-25 and 53% between 26-34, report the use of alcohol within the past month.7
*

17% of women of child-bearing age between 18-25 and 13% between 26-34, report binge drinking (five or more drinks on one occasion) within the past month.8
*

A national survey found that more than half of women age 15-44 drank while pregnant.9
*

Of the women who reported drinking during their pregnancy, 66% reported drinking in their first trimester; 54% reported drinking in their third trimester.10
*

FAS is estimated to occur in 1 to 2 live births per every 1,000 in the United States each year.11
*

Fetal Alcohol Effects (a less severe set of alcohol-related abnormalities) is estimated to occur in 3-5 live births per every 1,000 in the United States each year.2, 11
*

According to the birth defects monitoring program, FAS rates among American Indians are 3.0 per 1000 live births compared to a rate of 0.6 per 1000 live births among Blacks and 0.1 per 1000 live births among Whites.12
*

FAS is not just a childhood disorder;13 exposure to alcohol as a fetus can cause a wide range of lifelong physical and mental disabilities.14
*

Fetal alcohol exposure may increase the risk for later alcohol, tobacco, and drug dependence in adults.15

[sproutster]

112. Finally - just because - look at these selfish evil epileptics!!

Anti-Epileptic Drugs and the Developing Fetus

The birth of a normal baby without birth defects is a primary concern for all parents. Since all drugs present a possible danger to a developing fetus, women with epilepsy who are taking anticonvulsants are understandably concerned that anticonvulsant medication may pose possible risks to their baby's development.

To put birth defects into perspective, it is helpful to look at the statistics.

In the general population of all pregnant women, 2 in every 100 women will give birth to a baby with a birth defect.

In pregnant women who had epilepsy as children, but have now outgrown it and are not currently taking anticonvulsants, 4 in every 100 women will give birth to a baby with a birth defect.

Pregnant women who are controlling their seizures with anticonvulsants will have 6 to 10 chances in 100 of giving birth to a baby with a birth defect.

These figures indicate that women with epilepsy have at least a 90% chance of producing a perfectly normal baby.

The type of birth defects most commonly found in babies who have been exposed to anticonvulsant medications include short fingertips, short noses, broad-set eyes and prominently-arched eyebrows. More serious complications can include cleft palates or congenital heart disease. Both of these defects may be improved with surgery. Amniocentesis cannot usually detect any of these malformations.

Monotherapy (the use of only one drug) has been shown to reduce birth defects in offspring of women with epilepsy. Therefore, prior to planned conception, women should consult with their physicians to reduce the number of anticonvulsants they take.

Upon becoming pregnant, a woman may be tempted to stop taking medication in order to protect the baby from side effects. However, withdrawing medication can be the cause of prolonged seizures (5 minutes or longer) during which the fetus is deprived of oxygen.

[jpgray]

106. Lots of other choices a pregnant woman can make are very harmful

Diet, exposure to UV light, alcohol--the list goes on. This is about pushing around a minority (smokers), a behavior that appeals to the very worst in people, and not about the health of fetuses. If it were about the health of fetuses, we'd see support for making all excessive choice-based risks to the fetus illegal.

[LynneSin]

129. Smokers are not a minority

Last time I checked people don't decide at age 14 or 15 they want to be African-American or Hispanic or some other nationality/minority. I've seen this term and crap like "WE're being forced to sit on the back of the bus" coming from the smoking community as a way to humanize their disgusting habit.

Smokers are people who are too dumb to believe all the scientific research out there about the dangers of it.

I'll bend over backwards to fight for the rights of the minority, but smokers don't qualify as anything more than someone living with poor lifestyle choices. And just like I dont expect anyone to feel sorry for me as I struggle to keep a healthier lifestyle of better food & exercize choices, nor should there be any sorrow for some poor smoker feeling like they are being forced to stay home and do their habit in private

[nonconformist]

142. Smokers ARE a minority

mi·nor·i·ty (mə-nôr'ĭ-tē, -nŏr'-, mī-) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1.
1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
2.
1. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.
2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

Funny how you call smokers "dumb", yet don't know that "minority" doesn't just mean people of a racial minority.

Ever stop to think that smokers don't want your pity, they just want to stop being insulted and disrespected constantly by self-rightous people?

[Red Right and BLUE]

130. Against it.

I used to smoke (it's been two years), and I HATE it. I hate the smell. But we don't need any more laws to save people from themselves. I think some drugs should be legalized, too, even though those annoy the crap out of me, too. Obviously I can totally appreciate a law that keeps smoke away from me in public, but I am totally against laws that ban anyone from smoking. It's their choice. The government doesn't need to be in the business of making choices for ANYONE. Same with marriage, abortion, you name it.

Edited for freeptardian spelling

[JCMach1]

133. Once again the goverment proclaiming sovreignty over the womb

What next?

Outlaw abortion?
Arrest ladies who don't drink milk, or take folic acid?
Put ladies in jail for not getting pre-natal care?


I'm sorry, but this paternalistic government from the right and the left needs to end... it all leads to the destruction of our personal liberties...

[nonconformist]

141. I am strongly against this.

I'm a smoker, one who wants to quit. I have no issues with indoor smoking bans in public places, except those forced on privately owned bars where the owners would prefer to allow smoking. I am against outdoor smoking bans. I've had two children, and quit immediately after finding out I was pregnant with both of them. I think it's beyond stupid and irresponsible for a woman to smoke while she is pregnant.

But make it illegal? Not in a million years.

For starters, I'm against most paternal laws. These are often the things that people cheer for if it's not something they partake in personally. I just don't get that. For example, I don't drink, but I would never condone an alcohol ban. I mean, it wouldn't effect me much - it may even make my life and the lives of my children better in a small way. But I wouldn't support it, because I believe in choice and freedom. Plus, as many others have mentioned, where does it end? Granted, a ban on pregnant smokers probably isn't going to effect any of us personally. But the next ban MIGHT.

Secondly, it would by nearly impossible to enforce. How would it be enforced? What would the punishment be? A ticket? They just won't smoke in public. Jail? Even more ridiculous.

Like it or not, people own their bodies. They have the right to put whatever they want into it - even if it might be bad for them. A pregnant woman is still a woman, she's not a fucking incubator. I would certainly like it if all pregnant women took proper care of themselves while pregnant - ate right, didn't take any drugs (including most OTC meds), prenatal visits, everything. It's definitely the responsible thing to do. But not everyone is as responsible as they should be, and you can't pass arbitrary laws forcing them to be. I really don't think a 400 lb guy with a heart condition should be scarfing down cheeseburgers, but it's his body.

Look at this more broadly - something like banning a legal substance only for pregnant women is precedent fodder for the abortion debate, because she is no longer a woman - an adult human being - but simply an incubator carrying a child to term. Think about it.

[magellan]

143. Then they'd better make it illegal for men, too

CIGARETTE SMOKING:
Cigarette smoking has been proven to significantly effect semen quality.

Regular smoking:

* Causes a 23% decrease in sperm density (concentration) and 13% decrease in motility (when averages are taken from nine separate studies).

* To a lesser extent, smoking causes an increased number of morphologically abnormal sperm.

* Smoking also causes toxicity to the seminal plasma: sperm from non-smokers had significantly decreased viability when placed in the seminal plasma of smokers.

* Effects the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadtropin (HPG) axis, most commonly affecting levels of estradiol and estrone. The Leydig Cells, which are in the testes and produce testosterone, may have secretory dysfunction.

* Most worrisome is that there is evidence which suggests that paternal smoking may also be associated with congenital abnormalities and childhood cancer, though the relative risk in most studies is less than two.