Going Too Far

Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control

Going Too Far

While exposing children to secondhand smoke does increase the risk for ear infections, respiratory infections, and asthma, do we as public health practitioners really want to be equating smoking around children with child abuse? This is one of a number of areas in which tobacco control groups are going too far.

There is a huge difference between behavior that intentionally causes direct and immediate harm to a child (i.e., child abuse) and behavior which increases the risk of adverse health outcomes but is not usually intended to cause harm (i.e., smoking in the presence of a child). Equating the two is insensitive to the very real suffering of those who have actually experienced the horrors of child abuse. What anti-smoking groups are essentially saying is that the suffering of these child abuse victims is no worse than that of children who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Moreover, do we really want people who smoke around their children or take them out to restaurants which allow smoking to be treated as child abusers? Does it make sense to start referring these smokers to child welfare agencies? Does it really advance the interests of the nation's children to threaten taking them away from their parents merely because their parents smoke around them? Eduational programs to dissuade parents from smoking around their children are important, but equating smoking with child abuse is simply going too far.

The major fallacy in the argument that smoking around children is a form of child abuse is that secondhand smoke does not necessarily cause harm to children - it increases the risk of ear infections, respiratory infections, and asthma. This failure by a number of anti-smoking groups to recognize the distinction between risk and harm is a dangerous one, and would lead to us categorizing as child abuse a wide range of parental behaviors - not just smoking.

A second fallacy in the argument is that the intention of the behavior is not viewed to be relevant. Child abuse is not being defined as knowingly inflicting harm upon a child, but as any behavior that increases health risk, whether the intention is to cause harm or not. This failure to distinguish between intentional infliction of harm and any exposure to increased risk is also dangerous.

Examples of Going Too Far By Labeling Smokers as Child Abusers

Anti-Smoking Group Says Repeatedly Exposing Children to Secondhand Smoke is Child Abuse

Car Smoking Ban Supporters Call Smoking in Cars Worse Than Child Abuse, State that Secondhand Smoke is as Bad as Active Smoking

Staten Island Advance Op-Ed Argues that Smoking Around Children is a Form of Child Abuse

Another Policy Maker Says Smoking Around Children is Child Abuse

Another Anti-Smoking Group Calls Smoking Around Children a Clear Form of Child Abuse

Another Anti-Smoking Group Suggests Smoking Around Children Should Be Considered Child Abuse

Anti-Smoking Group Supports Arrest and Imprisonment of Adults Who Smoke in Cars with Children

Anti-Smoking Advocate Pushing to Make Smoking Around Kids a Form of Child Abuse

Anti-Smoking Organization Trying to Scare Smokers into Thinking They May Lose Custody of Their Children; Calls Smoking Near Children "Child Abuse"

Do anti-smoking groups not appreciate the difference between risk and harm? Physically beating a child is child abuse because it invariably causes harm. In contrast, exposing a child to secondhand smoke does not necessarily cause harm.

How dare we compare the horrors of child abuse and the severe, immediate, and irreversible physical and emotional damage that it does to the increased risk of ear and lower respiratory tract infections and asthma in children.

We cannot afford to lose our ability to differentiate between parental behaviors that intentionally vs. unintentionally cause harm to children.

Other Examples of Anti-Smoking Groups and Advocates Going Too Far

Anti-Smoking Group Says Repeatedly Exposing Children to Secondhand Smoke is Child Abuse

Car Smoking Ban Supporters Call Smoking in Cars Worse Than Child Abuse, State that Secondhand Smoke is as Bad as Active Smoking

Staten Island Advance Op-Ed Argues that Smoking Around Children is a Form of Child Abuse

Another Policy Maker Says Smoking Around Children is Child Abuse

Another Anti-Smoking Group Calls Smoking Around Children a Clear Form of Child Abuse

Another Anti-Smoking Group Suggests Smoking Around Children Should Be Considered Child Abuse

Anti-Smoking Group Supports Arrest and Imprisonment of Adults Who Smoke in Cars with Children

Anti-Smoking Advocate Pushing to Make Smoking Around Kids a Form of Child Abuse

Anti-Smoking Organization Trying to Scare Smokers into Thinking They May Lose Custody of Their Children; Calls Smoking Near Children "Child Abuse"

Anti-Smoking Group Pushing to Bar Smokers from Being Adoptive Parents

"Leave Me Alone Mom, Or I'll Sue You": Anti-Smoking Physician Suggests that Kids Sue their Parents for Secondhand Smoke Exposure

Op-Ed Argues that Smokers Shouldn't Have Children, Advocates Using the Force of Law to Make Sure

Newspaper Editorial Supports Smoking Bans in Homes; As Car Smoking Bans Spread, Concern Over Intrusion into the Home Should Jolt Anti-Smoking Groups

Anti-Smoking Group Supports Arrest and Imprisonment of Adults Who Smoke in Cars with Children

Tobacco Control Research and Education Center Suggests Malpractice Lawsuits as a Way to Get Physicians to Prescribe Pharmaceuticals to Smokers

Action on Smoking and Health Admits that Malpractice Lawsuits Against Physicians are a Longshot, But Encourages Tying Up the Courts Anyway

Site hosting by Web.com