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

Thanks again for the debate. It was been a lot of fun. Con (1): Why we should believe secondhand smoke is a criminal act comparable to sexual molestation or physical abuse of a child: (1) The CDC and other government agencies believe smoking should be treated as an addiction, and should work to treat the addiction to tobacco rather than punishing the family and the child[1] (2) Criminalizing secondhand smoking would lead to unintended consequences, including breaking up families, siblings from other siblings, children from their parent’s (3) Criminalizing secondhand smoke would mean placing children into foster homes, which my opponent “does not take into account the traumatic nature of out-of-home placement in foster care as another harm that needs to be weighed when considering how to intervene to keep children safe.”[2] (4) A better solution than treating parents that smoking as criminals would be, as the CDC suggest, allowing them to enter smoking cessation programs.[3] (5) Instead of punishing the entire family, studies have found that providing services to parents that smoke much more effective, however there are few available resources for such programs.[4] Con (2): What child actual means based on the CAPTA: The CAPTA definition of child [Pro and Con agreed to CAPTA definition at the outset of the debate]: “This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.”[5] Let me take the opportunity to take two pictures from popular culture that exemplify child abuse based on the definition Pro and Con agreed to. This picture is from the FX series The Americans. Keri Russell smokes inconspicuously but potentially exposing her children to secondhand smoke. Elizabeth, played by Keri Russell is smoking a cigarette inside a closed garage. Paige, her daughter, comes home early and goes into the garage. [By the way, Paige is hard to see in this picture but she is there, see episode: “Born Again”] Elizabeth continues to smoke, thus exposing a child to secondhand smoke, which according to Pro the legal system should treat as child abuse. Since BOP is 100% Pro’s I would like some explaining as to why voters should think scenes like these, specifically The Americans example where the child (according to the agreed to CAPTA definition) should be treated as child abuse and explain the “imminent risk of serious harm.” Keri Russell’s character is like some parent’s today, that do not go out of their way to smoke in front of their children but in fact try to hide that part of their lives from their children. To be clear about Pro’s (3) point last round “Distinguishing between the different forms of abuse” Con was simply sticking with the agreed upon definition and language from the Round 1. Let me quickly provided the definition: “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm." Then here is what Pro stated in Round 1: “If you are not willing to treat the definition above as the standard to base your arguements [sic] on, please do not accept this debate.” Con will continue to use the definition provided as the standard for debate and would like Pro to honor that standard. Pro definition includes the following: (a) Death (b) Serious physical or emotion harm (c) Sexual abuse or exploitation (d) Act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm [secondhand smoke to Pro] The definition does not treat some of these categories as more serious or less serious but as extreme forms of abuse. Con now wants to say well secondhand smoke should be treated differently. This seems like an odd way to treat the standard agreed to if most of the information was superfluous or implicitly assumed to be less serious. Con (4) quick points: research and similarities with examples: (1) Slate has a very good article, noting that secondhand smoke studies do not include to wide-open spaces.[6] This is important, since it is unclear whether such exposure, in a wide-open space is a risk. We can all imagine a situation where a seventeen year old [child] might walk outside to ask the parent a question and based on conditions like wind, weather, and other variables be exposed to secondhand smoke. Con simply doesn’t understand how a single instance like this constitutes abuse on the parent of the parent. (2) If voters accept that secondhand smoke exposure is abuse then it follows that they would also conclude that air pollution should be treated similarly since Lancet[7] and the World Health Organization[8] have found air pollution to be worse than secondhand smoke.[9] [footnote 9 has a summary of the two studies]. [1] Taryn Lindhorst, “Is Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Child Abuse? No” Annals of Family Medicine March 2015. Accessed on 5/8/15 available: http://annfammed.org... [2] Taryn Lindhorst, “Is Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Child Abuse? No” Annals of Family Medicine March 2015. Accessed on 5/8/15 available: http://annfammed.org... [3] Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Cessation Materials for State Tobacco Control Programs, accessed on May 8, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov... [4] Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Smoking Cessation strategies for women before, during, and after pregnancy: recommendations for state and territorial health agencies. Accessed on May 8, 2015. http://www.astho.org.... [5] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Definition of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law. Accessed on 5/8/15. https://www.childwelfare.gov... [6] William Saletan, “Secondhand Smokescreen: Are outdoor smoking bans scientifically justified?” Slate Magazine, September 17, 2009. Accessed on 5/8/2015: http://www.slate.com... [7] http://www.thelancet.com...(13)70192-9/abstract [8] http://www.iarc.fr... [9] Christina Larson, “Air Pollution Is More Harmful Than Passive Smoking, Two Reports Find” Bloomberg Business October 21, 2013. Accessed on 5/7/2015: http://www.bloomberg.com...