Smoking and campouts

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, actually, if someone is writing a rule, his approach should be just the opposite of what you describe. It should not be to choose words that can be interpreted to prohibit what the writer is trying to prohibit. It should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted ANY OTHER WAY than to prohibit that conduct. Or stated another way, it should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted at all. Stated in terms of attitude, the writer should not assume a positive attitude by those who are expected to follow the rule, because those who take the positive approach are probably not the people the rule is aimed at in the first place. The attitude SHOULD be a negative one -- assume that someone is going to try to sneak around the rule, and write language that closes off all means of escape.

 

The BSA rule writers seem to follow the same approach described above, because in the majority of BSA rules there is no "wiggle room." Which makes one wonder when there is.

 

And can you explain why the Cub Scout leader book, at least the one that was current until last year, does not seem to follow the same policy? I cannot locate my copy of the newer one at the moment to see what it says.

[dan 10]

Twocubdad

I lost an disagrement on this one with a DE!!!

You did not use all of the words that is in the BSA quote.

 

Boy: "May I have a cookie?"

 

Dad: "I SHOULD not let you, I MAY NOT ALLOW you a cookie."

 

Say What!?!?

 

[Bob White 20]

You guys want to spend time dancing with the words go ahead. If you believe that Tobacco, alchol and controlled substances should be used in view of scouts at a scouting activity then you are dangerous to the welfare of the scouts, and should have your memberships removed if you allow such behaviour to be practiced in the units you serve. That is the intention of the rule, play semantics with the phrasing to your hearts delight, just know the penalty for breaking the rule.

 

Bob White

[evmori 11]

 

Alcohol & drugs are not the same as tobacco. The policy doesn't say smoking is prohibited. Once again you seem to think because it is written in a BSA manual it is gospel. Well guess what, you are wrong. If the BSA wanted to ban smoking all they had to do was say smoking is banned or smoking is prohibited. But they didn't. The BSA does prohibit alcohol, drugs and controlled substances. Not tobacco products! Read it again!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, I don't understand why you can't acknowledge the simple fact that the BSA policy should be rewritten to accomplish what you and I both agree should be the policy: No smoking at Scouting events. Until you do, it seems to me that you also risk endangering Scouts, by advocating a policy that does not adequately protect them from having "role models" who smoke. (My hands are clean: There is no smoking at any event in my pack.)

 

I also don't understand why you can't answer my question about the Cub Scout leader book. Could it be that the BSA sometimes makes mistakes? Or is that not a permissible area of discussion?

[Bob White 20]

NJscouter well aren't you the selfrighteous one,

I can't tell you what the current Cub Scout Leader Handbook says because at this moment I don't have one, it's on loan to one of my trainers. So get off your high horse. Unlike you I am unwilling to refer to the contents of a manual which you have already admitted is out of date.

 

So perhaps another poster who has a current book would be willing to post the section that refers to this topic and we can all see what it says.

 

As far as the contents of the Guide to Safe Scouting, Why are you so hung up on what you feel is ambiguous if you understand the intent and purpose of the policy? Why do you not just accept in in the terms you agree are in the best interests of the scouts?

 

Bob White

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Bob,

 

Wording does make a difference. Walk into any court in the land and you'll see. Since you've spent countless hours working with kids, you have had to seen this thousands of times. I have learned with my son to give VERY explicit instructions. I've learned how he thinks (pretty much) and I head him off at the pass by telling him that my answer means this and this and this. I'll tell him that it doesn't mean this and this and this. That way, he can't plead ignorance when he does something I told him not to do. No means no. A simple two letter word that can't be interpreted as maybe, might, possibly, etc. The BSA needs to write a policy that says, "Use of any tobacco products is expressly forbidden at any Scout function." No wiggle room left. No word games. No question of interpretation.

 

Notice I included the term "any tobacco products". As far as I can tell, the current policy speaks to smoking. That leaves wiggle room for smokless tobacco.

[Bob White 20]

The policy says tobacco products.

 

NJScouter, It would be unfortunate if a leader would choose to ignore the obvious meaning and intention of the policy in order to engage in such activities in front of the scouts. Words count, so does integrity. A leader with integrity would have no trouble understand and following the words.

 

BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[acco40 95]

I believe we should ban all avowed smokers from scouting. They do not serve as proper role models for our youth. If a former Eagle scout takes up smoking later in life, strip him of his rank.

 

YOu may feel the above is in jest but acutally smoking (use of tobacco products) to me violates more concrete scouting values as stated in the Oath, Law, youth protection, policy, etc. than sexual orientation ever did. Problem is, the BSA is not funded by strong anti-smoking groups.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[packsaddle 753]

To me this is far more important than, say, camouflage clothing or sexual identity. Tobacco is a known immediate threat to health. It is hypocritical to tell the boys that tobacco products are prohibited while adults are allowed a smoking area. All tobacco products should be prohibited, period (thanks NJ). I further support lumping tobacco with alcohol and illegal drugs. Our troop is tobacco free as well, period.

My opinion is that if an adult is so addicted that they can't go cold turkey for a weekend, or a week at camp, then they are not a good role model. Period. Summer camp is a great place to begin to kick the addiction.

 

evmori, I am mystified as to how you can ignore the immediate threat secondhand smoke poses to a person with asthma. I know of one child who nearly died because of a smoking parent (and I suspect there are others). When informed by the hospital, the parent quit and never smoked again. Too bad it had to be under those circumstances.

 

Acco40, interesting idea! Does BSA get any funding from tobacco interests?

 

[scoutldr 732]

We have laws that prevent adult workers from being exposed to known human carcinogens in the workplace. Yet we allow adults to expose children to carcinogens. Another symptom of what's wrong with society today. Adults who expose children to carcinogenic smoke should be charged with child endangerment. Period. And yes, I'm from Virginia, a state still ruled by the Big Tobacco lobby.

[packsaddle 753]

scoutldr, just a note. In NC, a person speeding over 80mph with a child in the auto may be prosecuted for child endangerment. I should note that I do not know this from personal experience but from another authority.

[evmori 11]

packsaddle,

I understand the harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke to those with asthema & other like conditions.

 

The wording matters. If the BSA wanted to ban tobacco products all they would have to do is say tobacco product are banned. Simple. but they didn't do that. They left the door open for individual unit interpretation.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr 732]

At the risk of confusing those in Irving with more facts, the following is from www.heartcenteronline.com:

 

"My mother had coronary atherosclerosis. Was she at greater risk living with a smoker, although she herself did not smoke?

 

Your question revisits one of the most important public health issues in recent years. While it is not feasible in this space to attribute your mother's atherosclerosis to having lived with a smoker, ongoing research continues to show that cigarette smoke is not just a danger to individual smokers, but also to those around them. Indeed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 1993, classified "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS) as a cancer-causing (carcinogenic) toxin to humans. It is estimated that 53,000 of the 480,000 smoking-related deaths annually in the U.S. are due to ETS.

 

Studies have also confirmed ETS as a significant factor in increasing the risk for coronary artery disease, including the progression of atherosclerosis. Evidence has shown that ETS exposure increases damage to the cells lining blood vessels and arteries, an event that initiates the process of atherosclerotic plaque. ETS is an even greater threat to nonsmokers already having high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

 

The tobacco industry has put forth great effort (and expense) to downplay, and try to debunk, the science and findings of ETS. Data suggest, however, that adverse cardiovascular health effects due to chronic ETS exposure (in other words, involuntary smoking) are both cumulative and irreversible. "

 

So, let's rewrite the G2SS and make it unequivocal...us adults need protection, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

scoutldr,

 

Just curious, how do you handle your asthma with the smoke from a campfire? It puts off tons of smoke compared to a cigarette. At least with a cigarette, you can stand upwind.