The East London borough of Redbridge will no longer allow smokers to be foster parents.
From The Scotsman:
The ban, which was passed unanimously at a cabinet meeting of Redbridge Council last night, means that children in the east London borough will not be placed with foster carers who smoke after January 2010.
Councillors say the move is crucial in protecting children.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, children shouldn't be inhaling second-hand smoke because it is a health risk. On the other hand, this is discrimination, isn't it? I'm actually a big smoker's rights guy in certain areas. For example, I think it should be legal for me to start an airline that lets people smoke – Up In Smoke Air. Make smoking illegal on commercial flights, fine. But why can't I start a business where the whole point is to give smokers a place to go? (I'm not a smoker, but I was for many years.)
Another publication, Business Report, has a little more info on the ban:
"Some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms," said councillor Michael Stark. "But we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood.
"On balance, we have decided children in our care shouldn't grow up breathing second-hand smoke."
...
A spokesperson for Forest, a pro-smoking group, said: "It's going to exclude people who could be outstanding foster parents.
"It sends out an insidious message that smokers in general are unfit parents and I don't think any politician has the right to do that."
Look, it's a nasty, unhealthy habit that has proven to be unhealthy for children (and everyone else) to be around. But is it better for kids to stay in a potentially worse situation? And if this ban is OK, doesn’t that open the door for banning other behaviors? I'm slightly surprised at my reaction to this story, actually. What do you think – is it OK for a government to ban smokers from being foster parents? Or is that going too far?
Source: The Scotsman, Business Report,
Image: Church Times
Read more:
