Smoking grandparents and babies

[smrtmama]

I wouldn't stay in the house, even if she weren't smoking in the house while we were there. She has years of smoke build up in that house and I don't bring my kids into that.

[Cheryl in NM]

Adults make *choices*, all sorts of choices. Each and every of those choices has consequences. We don't stay at *my* parents house when we go home because my parents are not good housekeepers and the house is too dusty for my son. He ended up in the hospital the last time we stayed there. So, now we stay at a hotel that is right up the street from my mom's (like a mile away) or at another family member's home. It's not that I don't value my parents, I definitely do. It's not that I don't think they have the "right" to keep their house the way they want, they do. But I have to make the correct choices for my child. It isn't up to a child how someone keeps their house or whether they smoke. It *is* up to me to make sure my kids (especially my medically fragile child) are protected. Smoking isn't a need, it's a choice.

 

I understand and agree with your situation. The OP has healthy children. At that point, why ostracize his mother. For a healthy person, a few days in a smoker's home should not be detrimental. That's what I meant.

[IsabelC]

I would invite her to meet you somewhere else where there is no smoking. Of course, she will still stink of smoke (unless you can persuade her to shower, wash hair, put on clothes that have been hanging outside, clean teeth and then not smoke for an hour or so beforehand), but I'd tolerate that in view of the benefits for kids of spending time with loving grandparents.

[Cheryl in NM]

I'm curious...

 

For those of you who think the grandmother should:

shower

wash her hair

brush her teeth

wear clothes that have been line-dried

not smoke for an hour before seeing OP's family in an alternate location.

 

This is a healthy baby with no asthma. The father has no asthma and the mother has mild asthma and this situation hasn't bothered her physically before.

 

Don't you think that's a bit much to ask of someone? How would you feel if a loved one placed such demands on you?

 

Yes, I know smoking is a nasty habit. Yes, I know that it stinks. But really? This is why I asked about the rights of the smoker earlier. I wouldn't dream of putting these types of demands on another person. I also wouldn't teach my children to expect others to bend over backwards to spend time with them.

 

It seems to me that those who suggested the above actions (or similar variations) are expecting so much out of the smoker. Then, as other posters have said, if the smoker isn't willing to go through the above or quit smoking then the smoker is accused of not loving the family enough. I just don't agree.

 

Of course, take all this for what it's worth--not much unless you are my family and we are visiting together.:001_smile:

[MelanieM]

I understand and agree with your situation. The OP has healthy children. At that point, why ostracize his mother. For a healthy person, a few days in a smoker's home should not be detrimental. That's what I meant.

 

I think it's important to recognize that this is unhealthy regardless of whether or not you are a generally healthy person. For example, just because a person with asthma reacts more strongly doesn't mean it isn't having an impact on someone that doesn't have asthma.

 

I voted that I would not take my children to a smoker's home. However, if the family member was willing to air the house out and not smoke while we were visiting, I would go there for a day visit, or possibly even an over-night visit depending on the state of the home. (I have a good sniffer and am sensitive to chemicals... I would check it out and gauge based on how the environment felt to me.)

 

To the OP, I think it's really great that you are looking for the balance between the health of your child and the importance of a relationship with family. I'm sure that with your positive, open attitude you will determine exactly the right situation for all of you.

[Mom2J112903]

I'm curious...

 

For those of you who think the grandmother should:

shower

wash her hair

brush her teeth

wear clothes that have been line-dried

not smoke for an hour before seeing OP's family in an alternate location.

 

This is a healthy baby with no asthma. The father has no asthma and the mother has mild asthma and this situation hasn't bothered her physically before.

 

Don't you think that's a bit much to ask of someone? How would you feel if a loved one placed such demands on you?

 

Yes, I know smoking is a nasty habit. Yes, I know that it stinks. But really? This is why I asked about the rights of the smoker earlier. I wouldn't dream of putting these types of demands on another person. I also wouldn't teach my children to expect others to bend over backwards to spend time with them.

 

It seems to me that those who suggested the above actions (or similar variations) are expecting so much out of the smoker. Then, as other posters have said, if the smoker isn't willing to go through the above or quit smoking then the smoker is accused of not loving the family enough. I just don't agree.

 

Of course, take all this for what it's worth--not much unless you are my family and we are visiting together.:001_smile:

 

J was a healthy child, no hx of Asthma in any of the family. He was born in November, reason enough for the DOCTOR to give the rules. J was early, but he was VERY healthy at birth and required ZERO interventions.

 

If you can do what it takes to help keep my child healthy, then you are not allowed to see my child-period. Just like you would want someone to wash their hands, make certain there is not even a trace of a food allergen on them if you have an anaphylatic child. Why wouldn't you do these steps if you are a smoker coming into contact with a very young child whose immune system is still very immature?

 

Now J is *not* a healthy child and these restrictions are very important to his health.

[ChristusG]

For everyone who says the grandmother should just smoke outside for the duration of the visit.....that doesn't matter at all. There is still smoke on EVERYTHING. Her home will reek of smoke. And everything that you bring with you will reek of smoke when you leave.

 

When MIL visits, her suitcase absolutely stinks. When she leaves from her visit, I have to air out her room by leaving the window open because it stinks in there. When DH went to Vegas and stayed in the hotel there and walked around the casino, I had to leave his suitcase outside when he returned home because it reeked of smoke.

 

The house of a smoker will contain smoke whether they smoke outdoors or not.

 

I've come to the conclusion that most smokers just. don't. care. My dad used to smoke with us in the car. He'd crack the window and hold the cigarette up to it. I'd complain because I could smell it and it bothered me.....he told me it was going out the window and there was no way I could smell it. Ummm...hello....YES, I could most definitely smell it. Smokers cannot smell cigarette smoke.

[Cheryl in NM]

J was a healthy child, no hx of Asthma in any of the family. He was born in November, reason enough for the DOCTOR to give the rules. J was early, but he was VERY healthy at birth and required ZERO interventions.

 

If you can do what it takes to help keep my child healthy, then you are not allowed to see my child-period. Just like you would want someone to wash their hands, make certain there is not even a trace of a food allergen on them if you have an anaphylatic child. Why wouldn't you do these steps if you are a smoker coming into contact with a very young child whose immune system is still very immature?

 

Now J is *not* a healthy child and these restrictions are very important to his health.

 

I'm sorry, I must have missed something.

 

Are you saying that J was a healthy child until he spent time with a smoker and now has health issues?

[FO4UR]

I would make an effort to spend time with them, but not in the house.

 

Then again, *I* cannot function in a smokers "space." I can't breathe, think, see (and I don't have asthma)....I hate to imagine what 2nd had smoke feels like to a little baby!

[Mommyof4ks]

If I were in your place, and money was not an issue, I'd stay in a motel/hotel during the visit, and then encourage as many of the visits as possible to take place "out". If that were not possible, I'd go with the flow and stay there (without complaint). Imo, the relationship with loving grandparents is vastly more important than extremely short-term exposure to second-hand smoke.

 

ETA: I place a higher priority on a life filled with loving relationships than I do on extending life a bit longer. I'm not positive that 9 days would have a hugely negative effect to health, while I'm positive that 9 days would have an extremely *positive* effect on family relationships and memories built together. Obviously, ymmv!

 

I agree with this. We try to stay in a hotel when we visit smoking relatives, but in the grand scheme of things we do way worse to our bodies daily. Nitrates in food, benzene in plastics and other items, pesticides in our homes and at parks, cleaning products, and on and on. Yes, it is bad, but the relationship is far more important given the other dangers out there that we are exposed to on a daily basis.

[JeneralMom]

I think an important issue is being missed here. It is not just the smoke that poses a danger to babies/children, rather it is the contaminants and nicotine from the cigarettes that are problematic. This from Babycenter sums it up and shows why I will not let my babies and children into the homes of smokers, even those who smoke outside. Note: we do have asthma in the family.

 

Secondhand smoke can be extremely dangerous for babies. Among other things, it weakens their lungs, makes them more prone to ear infections, and doubles the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). At the very minimum, you should make sure nobody smokes anywhere in your house, no exceptions.

 

Cigarettes are incredibly effective devices for spreading harmful chemicals, including nicotine and carbon monoxide, all over your house. If you light up in one room, the smoke will be detectable in the entire house within minutes, and that includes the baby's room. The chemicals and particles that make secondhand smoke so dangerous will immediately stick to just about everything in the house, including carpets, walls, furniture, and even stainless steel. Over the next few weeks and months, these contaminants will be slowly released back into the air — the same air that your baby breathes.

 

My colleagues and I recently searched for traces of secondhand smoke in homes where smokers tried to "protect" infants by never lighting up in the same room as the baby. The levels of nicotine and other chemicals throughout the house were about five to seven times higher than what we saw in houses of nonsmokers. More important, urine tests showed that the babies in these families had been exposed to eight times as much secondhand smoke.

 

In fact, we found elevated levels of toxins in homes where smokers only lit up outside. Smokers spread contaminants wherever they go — they seep out of their clothes, skin, hair, and breath. For this reason, smokers should wear clean clothes (that they haven't worn while smoking) around the baby, wash their hands and face often (especially after smoking), and not let the baby suck on their fingers.

[Pretty in Pink]

I would meet at a place other than her home, for all of the reasons already given throughout this thread. I haven't been to my mother's home in years because she smokes indoors. If she smoked outdoors then I would visit. As it is, she understands my position and meets us in public locations when we travel to visit.

 

Sometimes she visits our home but she only stays for one or two nights because she doesn't like not being able to chain smoke all day long, she tires of washing her hands constantly, etc.

[IsabelC]

I'm curious...

 

For those of you who think the grandmother should:

shower

wash her hair

brush her teeth

wear clothes that have been line-dried

not smoke for an hour before seeing OP's family in an alternate location.

 

This is a healthy baby with no asthma. The father has no asthma and the mother has mild asthma and this situation hasn't bothered her physically before.

 

Don't you think that's a bit much to ask of someone? How would you feel if a loved one placed such demands on you?

 

I wasn't actually suggesting that the OP ask the smoker to do those things. I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek and trying to imply that since she wouldn't do them, then the child would still be exposed to some smoke/residue, that's all.

 

(The reason I pointed that out was that, as somebody else commented, many smokers seem to be somewhat desensitized to the smell of cigarette smoke and don't realize that they and everything they own smell of it all the time. There is only one smoker that we see on a regular basis, and this person seems to be surprised that the kids don't like to be kissed and hugged; it doesn't seem to occur to her that they find the smoke smell really off-putting.)

[MelanieM]

I agree with this. We try to stay in a hotel when we visit smoking relatives, but in the grand scheme of things we do way worse to our bodies daily. Nitrates in food, benzene in plastics and other items, pesticides in our homes and at parks, cleaning products, and on and on. Yes, it is bad, but the relationship is far more important given the other dangers out there that we are exposed to on a daily basis.

 

Why does the fact that we have many other things to avoid on a daily basis mean that we shouldn't bother trying to avoid second hand smoke in this instance? If anything, I would think the fact that we are exposed to so many other things means we should try our hardest to avoid toxins where we can so that we're not getting into overload.

 

I do not use chemical cleaners, I use glass for storage instead of plastic, I eat organics, etc. I don't say "eh... I can't get away from the toxins in our environment so I might as well not fight them in my food."

 

ETA: I'm quoting your post because it was the most recent one that touched on this idea. I'm not trying to call you out specifically. :)

Edited June 29, 2010 by MelanieM

[Cheryl in NM]

I wasn't actually suggesting that the OP ask the smoker to do those things. I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek and trying to imply that since she wouldn't do them, then the child would still be exposed to some smoke/residue, that's all.

 

(The reason I pointed that out was that, as somebody else commented, many smokers seem to be somewhat desensitized to the smell of cigarette smoke and don't realize that they and everything they own smell of it all the time. There is only one smoker that we see on a regular basis, and this person seems to be surprised that the kids don't like to be kissed and hugged; it doesn't seem to occur to her that they find the smoke smell really off-putting.)

 

You may not have, but some pps did. Some even said that if the grandma loved her family she would quit. Others have said that it's a nasty habit and the grandma should just quit while the family was visiting. My post was aimed at those that seriously suggested these things.

[Mergath]

I'm curious...

 

For those of you who think the grandmother should:

shower

wash her hair

brush her teeth

wear clothes that have been line-dried

not smoke for an hour before seeing OP's family in an alternate location.

 

This is a healthy baby with no asthma. The father has no asthma and the mother has mild asthma and this situation hasn't bothered her physically before.

 

Don't you think that's a bit much to ask of someone? How would you feel if a loved one placed such demands on you?

 

Yes, I know smoking is a nasty habit. Yes, I know that it stinks. But really? This is why I asked about the rights of the smoker earlier. I wouldn't dream of putting these types of demands on another person. I also wouldn't teach my children to expect others to bend over backwards to spend time with them.

 

It seems to me that those who suggested the above actions (or similar variations) are expecting so much out of the smoker. Then, as other posters have said, if the smoker isn't willing to go through the above or quit smoking then the smoker is accused of not loving the family enough. I just don't agree.

 

Of course, take all this for what it's worth--not much unless you are my family and we are visiting together.:001_smile:

 

Perhaps you ought to take a peek at the list of toxins that are present in secondhand smoke. Anyone who thinks it isn't a big deal to expose a baby to all of that simply hasn't bothered to educate him or herself on the subject.

 

Also, doing anything that increases a baby's risk of dying of SIDS is insanity. I used to smoke a pack a day. The day I found out I was preganant, I quit. Cold turkey. Contrary to what some smokers would have you believe, it is not that difficult to not smoke for a day or two.

[Cheryl in NM]

Perhaps you ought to take a peek at the list of toxins that are present in secondhand smoke. Anyone who thinks it isn't a big deal to expose a baby to all of that simply hasn't bothered to educate him or herself on the subject.

 

Also, doing anything that increases a baby's risk of dying of SIDS is insanity. I used to smoke a pack a day. The day I found out I was preganant, I quit. Cold turkey. Contrary to what some smokers would have you believe, it is not that difficult to not smoke for a day or two.

 

A person would have to keep their baby in a bubble to protect them from all environmental toxins. You would probably be surprised at the amount of toxins you expose your children to daily.

 

No one knows what causes SIDS. Well, actually, one cause is irrefutably confirmed; having a baby. There are no definitive causes proven. For all we know, there are no environmental, positional or other causes. Some babies just don't live, even if they seem healthy by all respects. It's obviously a mystery to medical professionals.

 

Smoking and the ability to quit is different for every person. I would be hard pressed to judge someone harshly who said they had a hard time quitting or "couldn't" quit for a day or 2. Who am I to dictate what others are capable of?

 

Given a healthy baby, I would not greatly restrict exposure to a close relative due to smoking. Especially since the OP said this person is not a chain smoker, doesn't smoke in the area of house they will be staying and the smell of smoke isn't as prevalent in the area of the house where they will be staying. Of course, don't sit next to a smoking person with the baby. Grandma's not going to blow smoke in the baby's face. The OP has said that Grandma has always been reasonable in the past.

 

It has become so popular to just cut off family and friends if they don't behave exactly the way a person wants. When did we become so judgmental and vain to think that everyone must agree with us or they are nuts and don't deserve the pleasure of our company? We really are on our way to becoming a lemming society!:confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

It has become so popular to just cut off family and friends if they don't behave exactly the way a person wants. When did we become so judgmental and vain to think that everyone must agree with us or they are nuts and don't deserve the pleasure of our company? We really are on our way to becoming a lemming society!:confused:

 

Straw man.

 

Nobody has suggested cutting anyone off. Not sleeping at their house does not mean that you can't spend time with them.

[Mejane]

It has become so popular to just cut off family and friends if they don't behave exactly the way a person wants. When did we become so judgmental and vain to think that everyone must agree with us or they are nuts and don't deserve the pleasure of our company?

 

You could say the same thing about the smoker, though. They won't change to suit anyone, either. Unfortunately, their dangerous habit doesn't just hurt them; it hurts all those around them.

[Cheryl in NM]

Straw man.

 

Nobody has suggested cutting anyone off. Not sleeping at their house does not mean that you can't spend time with them.

 

 

Some on this thread have said that if the smoker doesn't quit smoking they don't love their family enough to spend time with them. Others have said that if the smoker doesn't basically get purified on a cellular level (excuse my exaggeration) they can't spend time with their family.

[Cheryl in NM]

You could say the same thing about the smoker, though. They won't change to suit anyone, either. Unfortunately, their dangerous habit doesn't just hurt them; it hurts all those around them.

 

See, that's just it. We are each responsible for our own behavior. We should be showing compassion to our loved ones (within reason of course) and not drawing lines all over the place and setting up hoops for them to jump through to "prove" their love. I agree it's a fine line. Smoking is an addiction, alienating a smoker because you don't like it is not.

[MelanieM]

A person would have to keep their baby in a bubble to protect them from all environmental toxins. You would probably be surprised at the amount of toxins you expose your children to daily.

 

 

Again, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because babies are exposed to toxins every day doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them to the best of our abilities from those that are easy to avoid. That includes second/third hand smoke.

 

The OP has an easy, accessible alternative to staying in her MIL's house. I think any reasonable person should be able to agree that it is better for a baby not to be sleeping in a home that is occupied by a smoker. In fact, if I explained this to an adult and they reacted poorly I would be more concerned with their inability to put a child's needs above their own than I would with the fact that they smoked.

 

I agree it's a fine line. Smoking is an addiction, alienating a smoker because you don't like it is not.

 

I don't think people are advocating for alienating a smoker as much as they are saying that they would feel free to alienate someone who had no concern for the welfare of their children. So basically, we're talking about extremes, which occasionally do exist. It doesn't sound like this particular situation is headed that way, thankfully.

 

Also, I think there's a danger on the other side of your argument. If I make accomodations for a smoker simply because it's an addiction, I can easily cross the line into enabling. Personally, I have an issue with making it really easy for someone I love to kill themselves slowly while I stand by and watch.

[Cheryl in NM]

Again, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because babies are exposed to toxins every day doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them to the best of our abilities from those that are easy to avoid. That includes second/third hand smoke.

 

The OP has an easy, accessible alternative to staying in her MIL's house. I think any reasonable person should be able to agree that it is better for a baby not to be sleeping in a home that is occupied by a smoker. In fact, if I explained this to an adult and they reacted poorly I would be more concerned with their inability to put a child's needs above their own than I would with the fact that they smoked.

 

 

 

I don't think people are advocating for alienating a smoker as much as they are saying that they would feel free to alienate someone who had no concern for the welfare of their children. So basically, we're talking about extremes, which occasionally do exist. It doesn't sound like this particular situation is headed that way, thankfully.

 

Also, I think there's a danger on the other side of your argument. If I make accomodations for a smoker simply because it's an addiction, I can easily cross the line into enabling. Personally, I have an issue with making it really easy for someone I love to kill themselves slowly while I stand by and watch.

 

 

I agree with you. I've never suggested making an accommodation for a smoker. I've suggested staying with a smoking relative when the second hand smoke has not been bothersome in the past. I've taken issue with posters in this thread that have advocated alienating "loved ones" because they smoke and setting up a series of steps for the smoker to perform to prove their love. I only brought this up because it has been prevalent in this thread. We should be enablers, but that means we don't buy the stuff or offer the stuff, but we don't alienate because it's the way an adult has chosen to live.

 

I make no accommodations for a smoker in my home. My home is a non-smoking home. That means smokers go outside or sit in their vehicles to smoke. I've never once had a smoking relative ask if they could smoke in my home. My father in law sat in his truck in below 0 temps to smoke. That time I told him to just smoke in the house, but he said no.

[MelanieM]

I agree with you. I've never suggested making an accommodation for a smoker. I've suggested staying with a smoking relative when the second hand smoke has not been bothersome in the past. I've taken issue with posters in this thread that have advocated alienating "loved ones" because they smoke and setting up a series of steps for the smoker to perform to prove their love. I only brought this up because it has been prevalent in this thread. We should be enablers, but that means we don't buy the stuff or offer the stuff, but we don't alienate because it's the way an adult has chosen to live.

 

I make no accommodations for a smoker in my home. My home is a non-smoking home. That means smokers go outside or sit in their vehicles to smoke. I've never once had a smoking relative ask if they could smoke in my home. My father in law sat in his truck in below 0 temps to smoke. That time I told him to just smoke in the house, but he said no.

 

I hear you, Cheryl. But I think it's important not to downplay the health concerns with second and third hand smoke, even if there's no prior history of reaction. This is a baby... how much of a history does a baby have to go by when considering if they're going to react or not? And we *know* that this stuff does harm, even if the harm isn't so bad as to put someone in a hospital. It's still bad stuff.

 

Fwiw, as I said earlier, I wouldn't automatically say no to staying in a smoker's home just because they're a smoker. So I do believe in some flexibility, based on the circumstances. But my flexibility would be entirely based on what I felt was safe (or not) for my child, not based on what I thought might cause an inconvenience for an adult smoker. And I would have no issue with someone setting whatever conditions they felt necessary, including showering after smoking and before handling a baby, if that's the way the parent felt most comfortable.

[Cheryl in NM]

I hear you, Cheryl. But I think it's important not to downplay the health concerns with second and third hand smoke, even if there's no prior history of reaction. This is a baby... how much of a history does a baby have to go by when considering if they're going to react or not? And we *know* that this stuff does harm, even if the harm isn't so bad as to put someone in a hospital. It's still bad stuff.

 

Fwiw, as I said earlier, I wouldn't automatically say no to staying in a smoker's home just because they're a smoker. So I do believe in some flexibility, based on the circumstances. But my flexibility would be entirely based on what I felt was safe (or not) for my child, not based on what I thought might cause an inconvenience for an adult smoker. And I would have no issue with someone setting whatever conditions they felt necessary, including showering after smoking and before handling a baby, if that's the way the parent felt most comfortable.

 

This is what I was trying to say. Of course, the health of the child comes first. I must be just having some communication error! Thanks for the dialogue!

[MelanieM]

This is what I was trying to say. Of course, the health of the child comes first. I must be just having some communication error! Thanks for the dialogue!

 

Oh, I just love it when people that appear to be coming from opposing viewpoints take the time to hash it all out and discover that there's really more common ground than opposition! :D I think we sometimes get triggered by others' words and hear a message that was never actually spoken. Silly humans. ;)

[silliness7]

I personally wouldn't worry about the smoke thing UNLESS I had a child with allergies/asthma or other health issues that would be exacerbated by the smoke OR I had a baby within the age range of SIDS. I've heard that a smoking environment increases the risk of SIDS and that would just freak me out.

 

I voted other because my answer would depend on the health/age of your children.

[Sahamamama]

I wouldn't do it. If they want a relationship, then put down the cigarettes.

 

:iagree:This is how we see it here. I grew up gagging on my grandparents' cloud of smoke. Sure, I had a relationship with them. They were selfish, abusive drunks. I have the scars from the telephone cord to prove it. Some relationship. What were my parents thinking? :confused:

 

As for "nine days" not doing a baby any harm -- two of my nephews literally WOULD die with exposure to cigarette smoke over nine days -- so, yes, it would kill them.

 

What "loving grandparent" doesn't know that second-hand smoke (or third-hand smoke) is dangerous, especially to a young child? Give me a break! People KNOW this, and still refuse to stop smoking around your BABY? Then they are selfish, and don't deserve what they claim to want.

 

I think there's what love FEELS and what love DOES, and you need both for a healthy relationship. My two cents.

[Parrothead]

I voted "other." Smoking MIL was secondary in my reasoning.

 

Consider staying home and let the grandparents come to you. After dd's first Christmas we decided that if anyone wants to see her on the holidays they could do it at her home. It was exhausting. Spending no more than 2 hours with each set of grands and one great grand that had a Christmas morning tradition of breakfast at 7 am. It was the worst Christmas ever.

 

Consider staying home for the holidays and developing your own family traditions.