Exposing children to secondhand smoke is abuse and should be made illegal in every U.S. state.

Thanks for the debate! Agreed--it was fun._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (1) Respective laws that concern different forms of child abuse will, in reality, interact with the definition—the range of severity within the definition was implied. It may be structurally irritating that I am putting this first, but I believe it would be best to clarify this prior to point 2: “The definition does not treat some of these categories as more serious or less serious but as extreme forms of abuse.” Con stated that my acknowledgement of the varying degrees of severity between different forms of abuse undermines the definition. The definition is of child abuse, is that of a category, and not of exclusively “extreme” forms of abuse. Yes, it used the words “serious harm”, but that was referring to the outcome and not the cause. Realistically speaking, the cause/intent (e.g. “failure to act”) influences the extremity of the crime. There was not a point in the definition at which it stated that all forms of abuse mentioned as being part of the category are considered equal. The range of severity was implied because of the application of differing legal consequences in reality. As an example, sexual assault is an umbrella category that, like child abuse, has its own legal definition. A rapist will typically face for more jail time than a person who engages in non-consensual groping. However, both acts are legally defined as sexual assault. Both acts are also legally defined as rape and “unlawful touching” (with the latter, the term seemingly differs by state), respectively. Their respective other definitions do not cancel out the broader category in which they are also placed and fit the definition of (sexual assault). If something fits the definition of child abuse, then it should be defined as child abuse. This does not mean that the definition lacks an implied range. The implied range of extremity exists because the legal system recognizes that not every act defined as child abuse is equal in terms of severity and establishes separate laws to deal with different forms of abuse. The subcategories of the broader category must be acknowledged. (3) Repercussions of criminal behavior—“treating like criminals” is vague.Not all repercussions of criminal behavior are the same. Courts will often offer drug addicts a chance at rehabilitation and/or community service instead of prison. Another alternative consequence happens to be court-ordered classes. I suppose that it would be reasonable if mandatory, court-ordered parenting classes that focus on child safety and avoiding negligent behavior were offered to parents that have exposed their children to the secondhand smoke risks. This would, of course, still be a repercussion of breaking a law. I do not have an issue with people smoking as long as it does not take place in a no-smoking zone or pose a threat to others, and therefore I do not think that they should be required to enter rehabilitation programs if convicted of inflicting risk on another by smoking. It is not that they should not smoke altogether (regardless of how terrible smoking is for their own health, it is their choice), but that they should not smoke near children. (4) Unintended consequences for families Con stated that illegalizing smoking near children would disrupt families (by splitting them up) and end up punishing the child as well. Child abuse in general does lead to unintended consequences—the degree of which would be determined by the form of abuse prosecuted and the intent. Because consequences differ, it is inaccurate to assume that the children involved will, by default, be placed in foster homes in every instance of child abuse. A person who regularly brutally beats their child will likely never be allowed to be that child’s legal guardian again. However, the legal system is less strict with negligent guardians and drug offender guardians. Consequences for them are often impermanent (e.g. impermanent stay in kinship care or foster care for the children) if the guardian can manage to clean up their act, so to speak. I am not attempting to state that impermanent consequences are inconsequential for families, but simply that such consequences are relatively favorable. Adults who smoke near children are willing to risk the safety of their child for the sake of sating their addiction in a convenient location, and as such, are placing the child’s safety in a position of secondary importance. No solution is perfect, but I believe the most favorable solution is one that places the child in the safest position. If a child is unsafe, then he or she must be placed into a safer environment, and if the previously unsafe environment has become safer and legally recognized as such, then chances are that the child will be placed back into that environment. If the guardian has done something extreme enough to lead to permanent consequences, then the child is likely better off in an alternative environment. Furthermore, alternative repercussions of criminal behavior would relatively minimize the negative effects on families. As established, I believe it would be reasonable if such repercussions became more commonplace in situations wherein the adult lacks malicious intent. (5) Major vs. minor secondhand smoke exposureCon stated that inconspicuous and/or (?) incidental secondhand smoke exposure is not comparable to secondhand smoke exposure wherein the adult directly decides to expose a child to secondhand smoke. I find this point entirely valid. The risks related to secondhand smoke exposure must be imminent—overhanging—in order to fit the definition of abuse. My stance/arguments and the medical articles I used as sources have been based on scenarios of consistent secondhand smoke exposure, but I acknowledge that I did not explicitly state this as such. (6) The occurrence of a similar outcome does not make air pollution an appropriate comparison. Con stated that air pollution could be treated similarly. Exposing a child to secondhand smoke is a directly avoidable act, whereas air pollution is not—it is an issue that requires global cooperation to solve. Smoking near a child is one person’s choice. Air pollution cannot be treated similarly to secondhand smoke exposure because it cannot be solved in a similar manner.