Smokers banned from adopting under fives
Thursday, June 7, 2007 
The Telegraph reports that Portsmouth Council is to ban smokers from adopting children under the age of five "in an attempt to protect young people from health risks such as asthma and lung cancer". (Full story HERE.) Dundee Council introduced a similar policy last year, which is why I was invited to speak at the Fostering Network's annual conference in Glasgow in October.
In the course of my research I discovered that the Fostering Network estimates that 10,000 extra foster carers are needed across the UK, over and above the 70,000 who already look after children and young people on any given day. By excluding foster carers who smoke, or those who smoke at home, we risk reducing the pool of carers by up to a quarter. If that happens, many children will be forced to live in institutions rather than with a loving, caring family. Is that what councils want?
I concluded my speech by saying:
Yesterday, as I travelled up to Glasgow, I heard a news report about a new campaign being launched by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The message of their campaign is that feeding meat to children is child abuse. Does that sound familiar? Today smoking, tomorrow eating.
Finally, I was struck by a comment by journalist Mary Kenny in yesterday's Daily Telegraph (13 October 2006): "Why can't arguments about smoking be settled with sensible compromise, instead of bullying extremism?"
By all means, discourage carers from smoking in enclosed spaces around children, but it must surely be possible to find a compromise that does not automatically disqualify people who smoke from fostering children.
Full speech HERE.
Reader Comments (60)
Is it interesting when people start to post about causation between smoking and the long and healthy life span there is no antismoker that argue about smoking and life span and smoking and good health.
It shows when is health and life span on the stake the antismokers don’t have any argument to defend their position.
The facts from real life contradict to their belief.
Anti smoking campaign is not about health but about something also that is very dangerous for civilization as we know.
Wendy - perhaps if you did display the poster designed by Bernie you could put up in print the following: -
"Gegen das Antirauchergesetzt und den Faschismus unserer Regierung in Großbritannien ab 1 Juli 2007."
(Against the anti-smoking law and faschism of our government in GB from 1 July 2007).
A lot of Germans love smoking and I don't think this law would work in Germany because they remember national socialism and its effects, and in East Germany they remember the Stasi (secret police).
Re: Meeting up - Luke's comment
We already know about the Euston venue (London) on 30th June, and the ones at The Swan, Bolton (Lancashire), The Happy Scots (Blackpool, Lancashire), The Dog Inn (Hereford) and one in Chester. Perhaps there are more events planned.
At the rate things are changing and becoming increasingly oppressive and miserable I, too, would not wish to live to be 97!! I meet and chat to a few elderly gentlemen in my local aged between 70+ and 87, most of whom smoke pipes, cigars or cigarettes and feel very very sorry for them because their way of life is being altered so cruelly and abruptly on 1st July. A lot of them served in the forces during the last war and one served in North Africa. This is, indeed, 'criminal'.
Hi Jenny
You can just imagine the headline; "Huge police operation after pensioner caught smoking in public " would probably involve 3 armed response units,2 dog units and 2 vanloads of riot police."you have ten seconds to put that cigarette down and come out with you hands up!!.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it will happen!!
Wendy,
Have a look at www.sadireland.com some excellent ideas for posters on there.
I`ve got a couple of the Father Jack posters displayed in my yard ,it always raises a laugh.
Carl - thanks for the intro to sadireland - Loved the father jack posters too although I am not so sure that some of my customers would but will certainly consider some of the others. Was horrified to read on the site about proposals for banning smoking in apartment blocks etc, is this what we are all to expect?
Jenny- have written down the german phrase thank you for your trouble am considering all options at the moment.
Poppy - your Granny sounded great, what a disgrace I would give up the will to live in those circumstances.
I see on the sadireland website that Brussels have already revoked their own smoking ban, is this really true? and does it mean that if I refuse to display my sign and end up in court I could go to Brussels to appeal, what would you imagine it would cost me financially if I took it all the way.No one has ever smoked in my shop in ten years and I dont actually want them to I just dont want to put the poster up,will the smoke police be able to force their way into my office where I do smoke surely not.
Wendy,
Have a look at the f2c website home page,on there you will see a piece entitled "smoking ban agaisnt human rights", they fought and won.
Carl - I imagine there would be a helicopter circling above the pub/bar/club as well! They will be erecting watch towers next (like they had at the East German border with dog-runs and extensive fortifications!!
Interesting reading all that talk about death and statistics. Sorry to get back onto this but I've only just discovered this forum. My Dad died two years ago in August. First he was diagnosed with lymphoma and a month or two after that lung cancer. It was the lymphoma that got him in the end (I know this because several times he was told that the shadow on his lung was shrinking). He smoked and enjoyed it (God knows what he'd have to say about the current situation). Guess what they put on his death certificate? Lung cancer. I was really annoyed about this, seems daft maybe but it wasn't that that killed him (I know it was a race between the two I suppose but the lymphoma was worse). He was 72. My great gran was a real smoker, Park Drive - lit one off another. She was 88 when she died - of pneumonia. My gran was 76, smoked like she thought there was a ban coming in. She died of stomach cancer and/or brain tumour. We've all got to die of something and I cant imagine anything worse than being healthy when I die (cos that means I'll have had some kind of unpleasant accident more than likely!).
Back to the fostering kids thing: When I was a baby, and as I grew up, I was forever being passed around people who had me in one arm and a cig in their other hand. It wasn't even considered that there might be a problem with it for some reason. Now, of course, common sense tells people that it cant be pleasant for a child to be held while someone blows smoke at them so nobody does that. But it didn't do us any harm. I don't smoke near my kids, both of my eldest don't smoke (20 & 23) and the younger ones wont either (cos they wont have the choice probably). Another irritating thing; my Mother has age related macular degeneration and guess what? Its because she smokes - say the "Experts". Neither of her parents had it and they smoked, my great grand parents didn't have it and they smoked.
Really irritating thing! I could go on all night ... there was a report in a paper a couple of weeks ago that tobacco companies had increased the nicotine in cigarettes, presumably to make us more "addicted" - if it's such a dangerous thing to do why are they allowed to do this (if its true of course). And the addiction itself - how big an addiction is it really? How come I can sit through a three hour exam, or sit on a flight for eleven hours and not want one because I know I cant? Where's the physical addiction? I believe it could be a psychological addiction (cos I like it and it helps me concentrate - whether that's just something I've convinced myself of or not it works and I'm happy with it). There seems to be so much bull***t about smoking. I laughed the other day, having the usual rant with one of my customers, and he said "Put it this way. I could stand for hours in a room with 50 smokers and leave and be fine but if one car had its exhaust blown into that room for the same amount of time there'd be 51 corpses on the floor". I'll leave you with that one, the unthinkable's happened -I've smoked my last cig so it must be bedtime :-).
This is just getting ridiculous! The anti-smoking lobby have got their way, not they should just back off. Why have smokers become the biggest pariahs of society? For the sake of making their point against smokers, the anti-smoking lobby are now threatening the chance for thousands of young kids to have a chance in love of a loving family. Prats. http://www.pickinglosers.co.uk/
"Portsmouth Council is to ban smokers from adopting children under the age of five "in an attempt to protect young people from health risks such as asthma and lung cancer"
Really? And when was the last epidemic (or even single case) of lung cancer diagnosed among Portsmouth's "young people"? If one examines the statistics they'll find that the overwhelming majority of lung cancers occur in people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, with most of *those* occurring in people over 70 or 80.
In actual fact, one of the largest international case-control studies ever done on this subject was carried out by the World Health Organization in 1998 under a researcher named Boffetta. His finding? Children of smokers eventually developed 22% **FEWER** lung cancers than a matched set of children of nonsmokers. If there is *any* relation between childhood exposure to secondary smoke and lung cancer it is likely to be a protective one. Other studies largely pointing the in same direction can be seen in the summary listing of over 130 such studies listed at http://bit.ly/ETSTable
As for asthma, a number of studies in the past decade have pointed to children of smoking parents developing LESS atopic asthma than children of nonsmoking parents.
In both cases a protective hypothesis is at least as real, and perhaps even better supported, than a causative relationship. The research is out there if you look for it, but it rarely gets headlined in the newspapers because editors know it'll result in a targeted backlash of screams about how their paper "Supports Big Tobacco!"
- MJM