SB 500, introduced by Senator Simpson, would prohibit a person who is licensed to operate a foster family home from smoking in the foster home or a motor vehicle when the foster child is present.
The critical part of the statute is:
A person who is licensed to operate a foster family home under this chapter may not smoke in the foster home or a motor vehicle when the foster child is present.
That part of the statute should be clarified to indicate whether the “when the foster child is present” qualifier applies only to the motor vehicle part of the sentence or whether it applies to both the motor vehicle and the foster home. It could reasonably be read both ways in my opinion.
Thank God for Senator Simpson! Think of the lives this will save.
/sarc
Those of us who were fighting on the side of small businesses in opposition to local anti-smoking ordinances were offering the rhetorical, “When will these laws begin to extend to private homes?” We were laughed at by the proponents.
I guess in the future, I’ll take dismissal as proof of future direction.
The next thing they are going to say is that by not extending it to every home where a child is present is a violation of both equal access and equal protection under the law, otherwise they will have to declare it unconstitutional on the same grounds. It is a catch 22 either way you look at it.
At this point the State should declare that foster parent domiciles are no longer private residences and declare them to be public buildings with restricted access, but still yet because of the budget shortfall the foster parent will be left to pay the mortgage still.
Sorry for the sarcasm and snappiness, this is just annoying in so many ways.
If we equate serving liquor with smoking( as I do) then banning smoking in a house for minors seems reasonable.
We had a difficult situation with a German exchange program in the HS whre I used to teach. These were all 16-17 yr old students from northern Germany and they basically all smoked,and expected to smoke in their American homes. Their German advisors had advised them to mark ‘non-smoker’ on their forms so they wouldn’t be rejected,because they knew in Germany that smoking was an issue in USA.They thought the issue could be worked out individually. So the American familes received these kids who had marked ‘non-smoker’ who lit up as soon as they got in the door.
The attitude for Germans was as it had been in the USA in former times. The host may not approve of smoking,but would never say ‘no’ because that would make them a bad host. After a couple days of very hard feelings on both sides by some,the situation was gradually ironed out because everyone had good will and they saw it as one of those cross-cultural shocks. This is a good example of how serious NO SMOKING has become in the USA and that includes anywhere a nonsmoker chooses to go.
Many French still smoke at table even when a gourmet meal is being served..(For them, it’s part of the meal)
So, being a foster parent already is a pretty difficult, thankless job, and surely its not easy finding adequate numbers of families to undertake that job, and this bill puts another limitation on who might want to take it. Like it or not around 20% of the population smokes, so this automatically makes it less likely that that percentage of the population will want to be foster parents.
I also have this notion — perhaps unjustified — that the pool of likely foster parents has a higher than average percentage of smokers.
I’m not sure about the statistics, but I am sure it’s another intrusion by legislators and nannies that will lead to many many more…
It always does, without fail.
So many of the wheezing kids’ parents smoke around them, but it’s never due to the cigarettes. At least that’s what they tell me.
I then charge $79 to treat the symptoms of the condition. The condition often being simply breathing too much secondhand smoke.
That charge gets passed to the state (us) or to us in higher premiums, unless the person pays out of pocket, which is rare. Appropriately, in some cases my fee is paid for by taxes on cigarettes.
I don’t mind the extra taxes and premiums I pay, because I know that money will find its way back to my pocket. If the rest of you are cool with that, then all the better.
Except for the poor kid, of course.
Then again, secondhand smoke probably beats the meth lab fumes the kid might have been breathing prior to being placed in foster care.
I don’t find the “nanny state” digs on point. These kids are in the legal custody of the state. Is it inappropriate for the state to act as a “nanny” for children in its custody? It doesn’t strike me as at all offensive to place conditions on such folks. This isn’t about the state deciding what is best for adults in their private homes. It’s about the state deciding what’s best for the children in its legal but not physical custody. Hardly an overreach.
While I realize there is much debate about whether secondhand smoke causes cancer, there’s no doubt that it can cause or exacerbate breathing problems. This law wouldn’t exclude smokers from being foster parents. It wouldn’t even prohibit them from smoking in their houses. It would prohibit them from smoking in their cars or their houses when children are present. The most depressing part of the law to me is that there are people who don’t have the common sense to do this in the first place, for their own kids or foster kids.
John, the state is placing the kid’s in someones private residence. The state is mandating the foster parents not use a perfectly legal product while the kids are in their presence. Aside from being an enforcement nightmare (creating another level of ridiculous cops and charges) it’s patently unfair to the homeowner.
Nobody thinks about unintended consequences of nanny legislation, but the end result of this one will be:
*More kids in orphanage type facilities.
*Another layer of laws to pass, print, train, distribute, re-train, clarify, re-train, reprint, redistribute, re-clarify etc.
*The inevitable criminal prosecution of some poor schlub, sure to make someone in Social Services feel they are “doing their job”.
*The inevitable segue into everyones’ homes “for the good of the children” which then causes all the above to be rehashed, repeated, and expanded many times over.
Nobody seems to give a flying fu&% how much all this intrusion costs all of us in terms of tax dollars, hours,days,weeks,months and years of wasted manhours, bloated government agencies, meddling government agencies, and of course the incremental loss of lot’s of little pieces of freedoms we certainly took for granted only a few years ago, before we let the government become the parents.
Tim, do you think it’s permissible for the state to mandate whether the kid has his own bed, or how many can stay in a house per bathroom, or how many kids can be in the care of one foster parent? This seems to be just another aspect of the state’s custody of those children.
Yes, cigarettes are a legal product. They also are a harmful product, and in this case harmful to a non-user.
John, I just think another over-reach by the state. I want my government worrying about armies and economics, not who’s smoking cigarettes or eating trans-fats etc.
I think we’ve lost all ability to approach situations with common sense.
I’m only 50 years old, but I remember sharing a bed with my siblings, and one bathroom for my mom & dad, and 4 kids, and having relatives stay for long periods of time causing us to use 9go figure)common courtesy & common sense in taking turns. It wasn’t a hardship at all. Holy crap, back then everybody smoked too, and we had no seatbelts, and we used butter, and we had no helmets for tricycles either.
The Government & the nannies want to ultimately place every kid in a cocoon from birth until death and I find that intrusive and contrary to what used to be a “free” society. We’re going down a slippery slope.
The state also requires that the house meet certain fire and safety requirements, and well water must meet certain standards.
Regulating air quality, or at least trying to eliminate the most obvious source of air pollution within the house or car, seems to be trying to achieve a similar goal.
Setting aside the foster parent issue, there is really not any debate about the health effects of second-hand smoke. As for trying to protect small businesses from smoking bans, I don’t get it. The economics (and the science) are against you.
This will make you guys happy too:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-ponass2712399099jan27,0,7047892.story
After all, it’s all about the children.