Woman jailed for smoking near children

[RedEarth]

Woman jailed for smoking near children


BOWLING GREEN, Va., Feb. 23 (UPI) -- A 44-year-old Virginia woman has been jailed for violating a court order that she not smoke when she is near her children.

Tamara Silvius was found to have violated the smoking ban twice, which led to the imposing of a 10-day jail sentence by Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Judge John Thomas. Silvius, who has appealed the overall ban, could appeal the jail sentence, too, the Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star reported Wednesday.

Silvius has said the smoking ban -- part of a custody agreement -- is a violation of her rights.

An attorney for Steven Silvius, Tamara Silvius' ex-husband, said his client doesn't want the woman in jail. Attorney Mark Murphy told the Free Lance-Star: "He wants the children to spend time with their mother. He just wants them to be safe from cigarette and alcohol abuse."

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/02230002aaa045c0.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

[ixion]

1. okay... I guess I see this as ridiculous

that it was ever allowed in a court room in the first place.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

9. Yes and no.

Second hand smoke has a serious effect on children, one we're only beginning to understand now. If those kids are asthmatic, I say yes, throw the bitch in jail. Smoking is enough of a voluntary behavior that she could go outdoors and grab a butt. Or she can use the gum when they're in the house, if the weather is foul.

However, smoking is still a legal behavior. Restricting that legal behavior in an adult where there is no present threat to children who are already asthmatics is just plain nuts.

Then again, she did agree to it.

[LisaM]

12. Why do you call her a bitch?

Smoking is an addiction. I'm not defending smoking around children, but I hardly think that you need to call her a name.

[RetroLounge]

17. "throw the bitch in jail"

Wow! That is an enlightened point of view. So you know enough to call her a bitch, do you?

:eyes:

RL

[SomewhereOutThere424]

26. The results of having a mother in jail

Far exceeds the risk of second hand smoke. It's the type of traumatic event which sports criminal behavior, and two children deserve a happy life outside of jail and guilt more than the healthiest set of lungs they can have.

In a humorous off topic sense, I wonder when the city of los angelos will be shipped to a massive jail cell for smoking near ITS children?

[greeklady]

34. I don't. I endured years of second hand smoke from my own parents

and ended up with lung disease.

[SteppingRazor]

2. The initial agreement is ridiculous...

The whole legal agreement about not smoking in front of your kids just so you can see them. Freaking tobacco nazis (of course, our side's much to blame for that, so that may not be a popular view around here).
In any case, you can't blame the judge that tossed her in jail. He's following the letter of the law. The initial agreement, however, is asinine.

[sui generis]

4. I just hope she got him back with a clause on his half that says

"no masturbating in front of the children"

sometimes the obvious attack is the most effective.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. well I hope if he violated a clause like that

he'd get more than 10 days.

[Minstrel Boy]

3. a custody agreement, she's violated it twice, it's only 10 days:

it's a good thing.

Children have the right to a smoke-free environment, and I believe parents have at least the moral obligation to provide it.

[SteppingRazor]

6. You're certainly entitled to your opinion

Mine, however, is just about 180 degrees from it. If I want to stick something in my body, be it tobacco or whatever the hell else substance, I shouldn't get tossed in jail over it. The mistake here isn't the lack of criminalization regarding second-hand smoke. The mistake is the criminalization of every other damn drug.

Of course, I could just be on a big pro-drug libertarian kick because of Hunter Thompson's death. I won't know until I sober up.

[Warpy]

10. Yeah, but it's not just YOUR body

Smooke is forced on anybody in your vicinity, whether they want it or not.

[makhno]

14. So is a million other things

Can't regulate them all, no matter what neo-puritans might proclaim.

Ditch your car, then come back and moralize others about the dangers of second-hand smoke.

[sonicx]

21. so apparently...

you want to regulate nothing?

[makhno]

24. Sure, I'm always happy to regulate!

But let's tackle problems in order of their importance to the health of the nation.

[greeklady]

36. It's ok for YOUR body.

It's not for someone else's.

[sui generis]

7. children also have a right to a mercury and lead free environment

so they should put her in jail for attempted homicide for fixing them tuna sandwiches or living in an old house.

I agree she shouldn't be smoking in an enclosed room with her children as a matter of common sense, but neither should the father be masturbating in an enclosed room with his children.

Where do you draw the line at STUPID rules? Spell them out? So let's define "near" more accurately then.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Indeed.

They also shouldn't be subjected to sex or violence, so we'll need to toss the makers of every movie or TV show within the past decade into the System, yeah?

[SouthernDem2004]

11. Er

Masturbating in front of your children will get you arrest and the children removed from the home in a heart beat. There is no need to prohibit illegal conduct...

[sui generis]

25. you're right

but if you're going to go crazy "protecting" your children from every conceivable situation then focusing on cigarettes is half assed and just as absurd as focusing on masturbation.

Oh well - it really is someone else's problem; they shouldn't be smoking around their kids, or jailing, suing, and otherwise overtly hating each other around their kids over every single miniscule thing.

Both parents are equally stupid.

[Art_from_Ark]

53. Wow! What a non sequitor!

The article says absolutely NOTHING about Daddy "masturbating in front of the children", but you drag it out and put it in play like it was part of the story.

[shance]

18. MB, I would agree with you however I think the precedent is overzealous

humiliating, even cruel towards the mother, who is going through a divorce and is dealing with huge changes and loss, not to mention heightened levels of stress. If you've ever been through any type of divorce you can assume that is not the time to give up smoking, moreover its not the time for a pretty sadistic judge to slap such a manipulative judgement on her. First off, he has to know chances are she cannot keep it.

Its not about her smoking from what I can see as much as it is about punishing the mother and disempowering her in front of her children.

Perhaps it takes a woman to better understand this position.

It also is indicative of what I am finding rather epidemic these days is granting too much power to children when they are not mature enough to have it. He is giving the power for the children to tell on their mommy. Thats much more unhealthy than ten days of a calmer mom even though she's smoking. Being around someone whos trying to quit smoking during a divorce, you might see some unwarranted abuse as a result.

Yes, its smoking, and that is terrible, however, the moronic judge seems to be using it as a way to overstep his boundaries of power. The consequences will not be favorable for the mother. And, are you going to pull a Nancy Reagan on her during her divorce and tell her to JUST SAY NO.

Come on MB.

[ElectroPrincess]

27. We've gone too far ... the spouses are just using tripe like this

as a wedge to attack one another. My Mom smoked heavily in the car, if any of us complained we were told to crack a window.

Smoking eases anxiety and depression. That part in addition to being addictive, i.e., thanks to the great social scientist named George Carlin.

This is an inane law. If I died tomorrow of lung cancer and some scientist could prove that it was *directly from* the second hand smoke of Mom lighting up in the car during my early years, I wouldn't blame her. My two older brothers and myself were all hyper-active and feisty little tykes. I'm surprised that she didn't huff two at a time when my brothers got into slap fights.

The world has gone insane when it allows spouses to use court rulings as weapons of "get even."

[greeklady]

35. You bet they do.

I can't believe any parent smokes where their kids can breathe it in.

[HuckleB]

41. Indeed.

Most of the smokers I know, quit when they became pregnant or decided to try to become pregnant. But even the parents I know who still smoke will only smoke outside, away from their children. It's odd to see some folks continue to be so callous about it, with all that we now know.

[bpilgrim]

13. what happens if you drive near children?

or god forbid warm up your car in the driveway?

DEATH SENTENCE!

peace

[makhno]

15. It's like those laws that prohibit from smoking in your car ...

... if kids are present. Let's jail parents who open car windows when stuck in traffic with their kids!

Damn nanny state nonsense. It seems the less government influence we get in areas where it'd actually help - economic regulation, social security - the more we get it where no one asked for it.

[HuckleB]

47. Hmm. That all depends. ("Smoking Can Kill You")

Smoking Can Kill You
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148397,00.html

"A San Francisco man almost died Thursday when the lit cigarette he flicked out his car window blew back in, setting his vehicle ablaze.

Jonathan Fish, 20, was about to get off the Bay Bridge (search) Thursday morning, police told the San Francisco Chronicle, when he chucked the ciggie from the window of his 2004 Ford Expedition (search).

The wind caught the butt and blew it back through the SUV's window, where it lit the back seat on fire.

Black smoke filled the car, and Fish, sensing he was about to be cooked, jumped out about 100 feet from the Harrison Street off-ramp.

..."

----------

I know I shouldn't laugh. But I can't help it.

:)

[fushuugi]

52. ...

just wanted to point out that most cars dont burn down to the frame due to a cigarette.

[HuckleB]

55. Umm. Yeah.

The post was intended to offer a smile. Nothing more.

[devilgrrl]

16. Give me a f***ing break!

Now go job behind a bus!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. oy

[SOS]

20. We live in a city

Our apartment is covered in particulate auto exhaust. Very difficult to clean, since it smears back into oil when made wet. Air cleaner filters turn black every two weeks.
Who do we complain to?

[manly]

22. illegal smoking

Off with her lips!

[progressivebydesign]

23. Good. A court order is a court order. Selfish witch!

I see the DU smokers are weighing in today!

[ElectroPrincess]

28. Yeah, and when we snap you'll be the first to go

on edit: I'm teasing, please don't spin out on me. <eg>

[greeklady]

37. I knew a lady whose son had the worst breathing problems

I've ever seen. She CONSTANTLY smoked around him blowing smoke in his face practically. I wanted to smack her. And then she compained and griped about how he was always sick. Jerk.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

29. The most selfish thing I've ever seen

Sending a woman to jail while fully knowing she has two kids, while there are fathers out there who get away with molesting their kids. More and more child abuse cases with physical abuse are being thrown out with their escalated rise, more abusive parents exist now due to our complacent attitude about sexual or physical abuse...there are parents who allege their 8 year olds to hunting with a firearm and joining the KKK...and they go and throw the mother of two in jail for a cigerette addiction our government once sponsored so woman like this would smoke???

My god...I'm speechless. I'm really speechless someone would support throwing the mother of two children in jail, be it judge lawyer or normal witnesses to the news stories....

This is a crime against those children. Not smoking. Two children are deprived of a mother...and I hope the judge has a hard time sleeping at night.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. Well written SomewhereOutThere424 ...

And Welcome to DU. :hi:

[SomewhereOutThere424]

42. Thank you for the welcome

It just saddens me to think that moral ideals are more powerful than a child's right to have a mother. I'm glad you liked my post though :)

[HuckleB]

31. UPDATE: Plea Bargain Keeps Mother Out of Jail

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7017417/

"A Virginia woman has pleaded guilty to smoking — after being ordered by a judge not to light up around her children — but a plea agreement allowed her to avoid jail time.

A domestic court judge had earlier sentenced Tamara Silvius to 10 days in jail for contempt.

..."

[SomewhereOutThere424]

33. That is much better

Thank you for the update. Maybe second hand smoke isn't good for the kids, sure, but keeping her out of jail is a service to the honoring of protecting other far more abused kids.

[HuckleB]

38. The articles actually contradict each other on the reason for jail time.

This update says she was sentenced for contempt of court. Sounds like there's a whole lot more to this story than the press is offering.

[Bake]

45. She violated the court order by smoking around the kids.

For that violation, the court held her in contempt and imposed the jail time as punishment.

Which is total bullshit anyway. Good god, fucking nanny state. Bullshit like this is what gives liberals a bad name. WE don't like it when the Pukes/Religious Right impose their bullshit beliefs on us, but we're MORE THAN HAPPY to self-righteously impose our beliefs on them and everyone else. Because, of course, WE know what's best for you.

I call bullshit.

Bake, Esq.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

32. They should not have arrested her

They should have cut off her lips instead.

[ElectroPrincess]

39. No, put her in the public stockade ... disgrace her name ...

that will show her and the kids that Dad is a better parent.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

40. erm...

I'm confused?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

43. How can she smoke if she has no lips?

really simple when you just think about it for a moment>

[ElectroPrincess]

44. Please don't explain any further ... sometimes we don't want to know :P

[Bake]

46. Nah, she could still smoke through a nostril.

It just doesn't taste as good. Don't ask me how I know...

Bake

[xchrom]

48. lol -- i've seen that trick done...

he was really drunk.

[LeighAnn]

49. I knew a guy that used to smoke through his trach-tube

eom

[bbgrunt]

50. Watch Out....there are more perils just waiting...

Fat police lock up Chris: By JACQUI THORNTON
Health Editor

SOBBING 31-stone Chris Leppard was dragged off to a mental hospital against his will by meddling social workers and police.

Chris, 23, has been forcibly detained for a month because he cannot stop eating.

The authorities used powers normally used to detain mentally ill people who might harm themselves or others.

They locked him up despite the fact neither he nor his family wanted him to go. Last night Chris's furious mother Anne said he has no mental problems and was winning his fight against the rare illness that compels him to eat........
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005082504,00.html
-------------
Well, I for one am glad to see that the UK authorities are finally dealing with threats to our safety from unconscionably selfish people with their unhealthy addictions. Just imagine what might happen if he were to trip when walking along and land on a fellow pedestrian!! My god, we are all imperiled by his very existence. I can't imagine the danger you would face if you lived in a flat or apartment below him......talk about pancaking floors! I think the dangers imposed on society by selfish fat people are of even greater magnitude than second hand smoking. After all, second hand smoking occurs in small increments, but getting flattened by this behemoth is an all or nothing certain death sentence.

I say: When are the US authorities going to match the good sense attitude of the UK authorities???

(sooner than you think)

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mugweed]

54. This just in -

Living results in death. I grew up with a heavy smoker dad who never rolled windows down (especially in the winter). I smoked approved and not so approved things for years. Last chest x-ray was negative for anything (at 35 yrs). I think there's got to be a genetic factor involving the sensitivity to the chemicals. Otherwise, I should probably be quite cancerous, lungwise. I think my liver will go first.

[fushuugi]

56. i agree.....

I agree with you whole heartedly. I'll never understand the preoccupation with health to the point where you infringe upon other's rights in oder to live a few more years. Do you really want to live to 80? your teeth fall out. your joints ache with each passing low pressure system. sight as well as memory become problematic at best.
We are mortal. we will meet our end, each one of us, whether it's a train accident, a brain tumor, a piece of space debris from the sky, or a bullet fired from a gun in someone else's hand or your own.
The argument for smoking restriction revolves around the smokers infringement on the second hand breather's right to live. The smokers argument is one of choice. 'It is my choice to purchase this legal product and ingest it.'
Choice is pretty much what this comes down to. it is true that there are certainly a lot of hazardous chemicals in the tobacco sold in modern day cigarettes. Many of these chemicals you hear about from 'truth.com' were left in the soil years ago . but the real question is: 'do we as americans have the right to choose what we intentionally and with full knowledge of the consequences put into our body?'
Our government has repeatedly told its denizens through the years, "sorry little person, you can't have that." From the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1907 to present day, the government has slowly taken away the ability to legally ingest many harmful some not so harmful substances. to what end? to fill our prisons with harmless citizens? to give their causes the needed momentum by scaring the public into the belief that any moment on of these 'addicts' may kill them and their children? eventually cigarette smokers, whether 3 a day or three packs a day will all be rolled into that one category, the same category as stoners, junkies, alcoholics, and anyone else that we should be afraid of 'addicts.'
The true issue has nothing to do with the children . if local, state, and federal courts were at all concerned with 'the children' then this nation might have signed the Kyoto protocols. you would not see our president denying evidence of global warming and shading from industry and motor vehicles. and finally, you would not see parents blaming their child's asthma on the old man sitting at the counter in the local greasy-spoon puffing on his cigarette. they would blame the aluminum foundry and dmv emissions station both sitting about a block from the child's house. accountability is word that governments and corporations fear, religions teach, parents misuse and mis-assign, and children become confused by.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

57. As someone who's had tons of family die from tobacco smoke...

I wish somebody had done this for my cousin and his mother. His asthma (caused by the massive amounts of 2nd hand smoke he'd been exposed to) prevented him from having a normal childhood. Having the mother get sent to jail will have negative aspects too, but she agreed to not smoke around them. Is it that hard to just walk away from the kids, have a smoke, and then come back?

That seems a small price to pay for getting to spend time with your kids. If you can't give up your cigarettes for loved ones, maybe you don't deserve custody.

[drummer55]

58. I'm waiting for the day when I can sue smokers for assault. n/t