Here is an interesting
opinion piece where it is blatantly obvious that the author does
not like smoking in any way, shape or form - and this is her method of attacking smokers. Maybe she thinks that if she does a but-what-about-the-children-?? piece that she will somehow shame some smokers into quitting and therefore not foul the air she wants to breathe.
In a way, she has a simplistic, idealistic view of how it should be when it comes to smoking - but she does make some valid points.
Some people just shouldn't have kids
By Rita Panahi
November 06, 2007 12:00pm
Article from: Herald Sun
LET'S be honest, some people just shouldn't have kids.
Criminals, junkies, the violent, the insane and smokers.
Yes, smokers.
They are a hazard not only to themselves but to the poor kids who are unfortunate enough to have them as parents.
Who cares if a smoker is a hazard to themself? If it is someone of legal age and they want to smoke then that is their prerogative.
The author appears to have a larger problem with smokers in society than criminals, junkies, violent people, idiots, and pretty-much any sort of undesirable.
If an adult with the full knowledge of the dangers of smoking chooses to inhale cancer causing toxins then that's their business but they have no right to expose unwilling children to their filthy habit.
This is very valid point that applies to many facets of life.
Yes - we, as adults,
do have the right to smoke - but we do NOT have the right to inflict the by-products on anyone else. Just like I'm not allowed to shit on the footpath and then scoop it up and fling it at people (if I did, I would probably be issued with a Queensland Drivers Licence and sent on my way in some turbo 4-cylinder piece of junk. That appears to be where diminutive monkies with big egos hang out....).
What about the retards who think it's OK to turn their CRAP "music" up to concert hall volumes with the windows open (on house or car) so that everyone else has to notice their presence?
Certainly, a woman who smokes while pregnant is not worthy of having children let alone receiving a generous government grant for every nicotine-addicted baby she brings in to this world.
DAMN STRAIGHT!!
This point is extremely pertinent in many ways!
Why should I pay taxes so that some cheap slag can get a handout for spitting out a kid that will, in all likelihood, predisposed to illness?
If you willingly want to harm yourself then you have NO right to demand government handouts nor health care over and above someone who does not cause self harm.
Preferential care should be particularly prevalent for drug-users when they get picked up by the ambulance and taken to hospital. If an ambulance does not need to attend a genuine emergency and the hospital is not overflowing (thanks to yet another inept Labor Government cutting back on spending because they want overseas trips instead) then
maybe the druggo can receive
some treatment. My preference is that they die instead and remove the blight that they have become from the community landscape.
It's sad that in these enlightened times of children's rights the biggest single danger to a child isn't some unknown predator but the very people who should be loving and protecting them above all else.
There's one of those statements that the author thinks will make people quite because she is *such* a wordsmith.
Sheesh....
The overwhelming majority of abuse suffered by children is at the hands of a parent; this damning statistic is also true for children who don't survive the abuse, with 81 per cent of child murders committed by a primary caregiver.
Don't these statistics relate to physical abuse rather than second-hand smoke? The author wouldn't be trying to suggest that a portion of the statistics relating to the harm of children comes from cigarette smoke, would she? Do stats on that even get kept? I doubt it...
Interestingly the data shows an equal proportion of mothers and fathers killing their children.
Yep - and all caused by second-hand smoke. There doesn't appear to be any reference to torture in the form of burns from the cigarettes; incest; beatings; carnal knowledge from the mothers boyfriend; or anything else that may harm a child included in this data.
It's easy to make a case against violent, unstable types having kids, yet latest research shows that smokers also pose an imminent danger to their offspring, particularly in infancy.
Generally, I've found that smokers don't really become violent unless some self-righteous prat preaches to them about giving up the smokes. Some get irate at the mere mention of it - others are more serene until the preacher starts shoving the filters up their bum-hole so that they might infuse the cigarettes with a genuine shitty taste.
What does make smokers violent, more often than not, is
alcohol. It just seems that having a smoke and having a drink go hand-in-hand.
The leading cause of death among infants aged between one month and one year continues to be Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and a new comprehensive study from Bristol University has found that nine out of 10 babies who die from SIDS had mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
So
now she trots out a study about how smoking can harm an infant rather than the dodgy stats listed above.
If that fact alone isn't enough to persuade selfish mums-to-be to butt out their final cigarette, then nothing will, short of legislation banning them from using nicotine-based products.
Ban alcohol first. I've never heard of a woman getting knocked up and left to raise a child on her own because she smoked too many fags and forgot which member of the team actually dropped his load in there.
Such a ban would be difficult to enforce but the clear message it sends - that smoking while pregnant is tantamount to child abuse - would hopefully shame a few more women into give up their nicotine habit.
Why pick on a legal drug when the author seems to ignore any mention of other substances that one may smoke and *genuinely* cause more problems in society?
Maybe then we will stop seeing heavily pregnant girls happily puffing away on their cancer sticks outside every shopping centre.
I don't really care if heavily pregnant girls puff away outside malls. It's the fat trollops that drop yet another kid to yet another bloke and continue to turn up to Centrelink with their chubby mits out wanting more money.
Perhaps shame will work where education campaigns, gentle persuasion and counselling have failed.
Not bloody likely. Have you seen some of these muffin-topped slags? If they can go out in public looking the way they do, they clearly have NO shame. I won't even go into how low their esteem must be if you see the trash they hang around with AND allow the unwashed bludger to put a cock in them.
Recent research suggests up to 30 per cent of Australian women smoke while pregnant, putting their child at higher risk of not only SIDS but a myriad other health and developmental complications.
You mean like the STD they got from being banged in the carpark of the Bottle-o while pissed by some Bogan and his brother?
Even women receiving IVF treatment aren't required to be nicotine-free before undertaking the procedure.
It may not be a requirement but I've noticed that when a woman goes for the silver-tube daddy, they
want a family and will make the sacrifices needed voluntarily in order to get a child.
It doesn't augur well for a woman's mothering skills if she cannot make the smallest sacrifice in quitting cigarettes for the sake of her unborn child. Could there be a more selfish, un-maternal act than to knowingly harm your child to satisfy your own immediate needs of a nicotine fix?
Isn't that what society has become? "Me! Me! Me!"? It's all about what I want and I want it all now. "I want people to stop smoking so I'm going to write an article about it! Me! Me! Me!"
We've long known about the devastating effects nicotine has on an unborn child; it's time we tackled this problem without the constraints of political correctness and the usual hogwash from civil libertarians about personal freedoms.
I get the impression that the author is one of these civil libertarians when it involves a topic that doesn't irritate her so much - like rights for criminals over the rights of victims.
Laws banning pregnant women from buying and using cigarettes would have an immediate impact.
No they wouldn't.
A further measure can be the linking of the baby bonus to mothers remaining smoke-free for the term of their pregnancy, a simple test for nicotine can be conducted at the same time other routine blood work is completed during pregnancy.
I quite like this idea but it doesn't go far enough. The tests MUST also include checks for illicit drugs as well - that is: anything that is illegal. This include the "social" drugs that some people think are good to have at parties.
In fact, ALL recipients of monies through Centrelink should be subjected to completely random tests for illicit drugs whereupon their payments are IMMEDIATELY cut off and sent to DeTox upon detection of such substances. If someone wants to be a stupid prick and take drugs - fine - but don't stick your grubby paws out expecting MY tax money to help support your habit!
This year South Australia introduced laws that banned smoking in cars where children under the age of 16 are passengers.
Oh great... not only do the Police not enforce the road rules we have now except for speeding - here is something else that they'll have to look out for thanks to some idiot politician wanting to look like they're acting for the common good.
This legislation was as much about changing attitudes as it was about fining offenders.
Bullshit. The author just wants more laws to support her personal views.
This is exactly what is needed here: make it socially unacceptable to smoke while pregnant and enforce punitive measures to motivate responsible behaviour.
How about instead of giving more bullshit work to the law-enforcement departments that the funds for this be directed towards correcting more of the social ills - that is: ILLEGAL DRUGS!
I still say we should "Swing a Dealer a Day" - hang them by the neck until they are dead.
Who cares if it is painful or degrading? It's not like they cared about the lives they ruined or who they used in the process of them getting wealthy. Remove trash like this from the face of the planet and the planet will become a better place for everyone.
RITA PANAHI is a social commentator.
RITA PANAHI is only interested in what RITA PANAHI wants - and it's clear that she cannot direct her ability to get words to the greater public to help cure the ailments of society. She just wants less cigarette smoke around her cafe while she sips a decaf soy latte (blecch!!)
