News-Record.com

Thursday's No. 2 editorial.

Children should live in a safe, healthy home. That includes foster children.
How much does secondhand cigarette smoke cloud that ideal?

The question is worth a study, several North Carolina legislators think. Led by Reps. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson, and Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, they’ve filed a bill directing the Legislative Research Commission to find out “whether smoking prohibitions that apply to foster care homes are having an impact on the availability of foster care homes.”

Holliman, Cotham and the bill’s co-sponsors are wise not to try to impose a smoking ban in foster homes without considering possible unintended consequences. Most importantly, would that action cause some foster parents to give it up, tightening the already too-small supply of homes?

While everyone should agree a smoke-free environment is better for children, it’s more critical they have a decent place to live with caring adults to look after them, smokers or not.
There should be plenty of information on the subject, as several states already have set smoking restrictions for foster parents. Their experiences might strengthen arguments for similar action in North Carolina.

The National Foster Parent Association endorses smoking restrictions, noting “it has been demonstrated that there has been no (decrease) in the number of available placement homes in states that limit the use of tobacco products in their foster homes. ...”
Action on Smokers and Health, a nonsmokers’ rights advocacy organization, cites court rulings that prisoners can’t be forcibly exposed to secondhand smoke, arguing that children in foster care “are entitled to no less protection.”

That view could be extended to apply to all households, not just foster homes. The state shouldn’t go that far, but it could justify rules intended to give foster children a healthier living environment.

As long as it doesn’t cost those children a home in the first place.