Cars - and then the home
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 BBC Radio seems to be ignoring the cost argument (see below) preferring to focus on the demand for a ban on smoking in cars where children are present. I am currently listening to a phone-in on Five Live and one caller (an ex-smoker, needless to say) called it child abuse - a phrase that will no doubt become common currency in future.
Inevitably, the argument doesn't stop there and some callers want to ban smoking in cars regardless of the presence of children. Once again, we are being told (without a shred of evidence to support the claim) that smoking is a serious distraction and should be banned for the same reason that using a mobile phone is banned. (For more information on smoking and driving see HERE.)
Next stop: smoking in the home where children are present, and then smoking in the home, period.
Simon Clark
A Press Association report has just appeared HERE on the Independent website. It includes this quote from me:
"We're strongly against any further legislation on smoking in cars. We think parents should err on the side of caution when it comes to smoking around children, but to ban it would be a gross overreaction. There's simply no evidence that smoking in cars is a serious distraction and causes accidents ...
"A car is a private space and if people choose to smoke in their car, that is a matter for them. If there are passengers in the car then we expect smokers to be courteous. But we don't need Government to dictate how people behave in their own private spaces.
"I think a lot of people are getting fed up with groups like ASH telling us how to behave. The way we're going it will be illegal to smoke anywhere other than at home. Enough is enough."
Reader Comments (26)
They probably want to follow the RCP recommendation to end smoking by 2025 and have everyone on NRT instead. But with world finances going into freefall how is it going to be paid for ... and more to the point, how is it going to be stopped?
The more controls that are introduced, the more it will be a case of one law for the rich and one for the poor. Enforcers would pick on those that they can easily intimidate and bully.
Who ARE these 'people'? Why should we tolerate such stuff? I have no kids or car, but I do have a home, and I will allow smoking in it.
I cannot remember the last time I listened to such a one sided debate on smoking restrictions. Ostensibly the so called debate was about smoking in cars in which children were travelling. It readily widened into smoking anywhere near children, including the home. And here the BBC proganda machine went into overdrive. Every single phoner was either an apologist for smoking or a rabid anti. Even the one decent contribution, a lady from Scotland, was clearly consumed with guilt for her habit. And to make her feel even guiltier the BBC wheeled out her ten year old daughter to bolster the demonisation.
Not one voice was heard in defence of smoking as a pure pleasure. Not one voice was heard to say that a blanket ban on smoking in cars (without children) is nonsense unless you ban all other driving activity that does not keep both hands on the steering wheel and gear stick at all times. And not one voice, elderly, was heard to say that today's long lived pensioners grew up in homes where smoking was the norm.
Every phoner had a tale to tell of death and illness and guilt and, in one pathetic case, dreadful walks to the bank through a smog of outcast smokers. I do not believe that the BBC did not have other people phoning in to offer a different perspective. But I do believe they did not want any of them heard.
There was so much bias on this piece of anti smoking propoganda my radio nearly fell over. Grumpybutterfly
Smoking in cars is obviously a big distraction, but should we leave it at just at banning smoking?
I think not, I think that anything which could possibly cause a distraction to the driver should be banned.
Eating whilst driving, for instance. How can anyone possibly keep their eyes on the road, and their mind on driving, whist trying to unwrap a sweet, or figure out what to do with that apple core after you have finished with it?
And what about Sat-Navs? With screens showing a map of where you are supposed to be going, accompanied by a distracting voice, telling you that you have made a wrong turn and do you want to recalculate.
Even radios and CD players, how can anyone keep their mind on the road at the same time as having to worry about why that last track did not play, or who on earth had resorted your selection of stations you had programmed in?
As for passengers in cars, they are an absolute menace to the driver, talking non stop about trivia which has nothing to do with traffic light sequences, or where the next speed camera might be hidden.
Mother's in law and young children are the worse of course, demanding the driver's attention all the time, and they should definitely be banned.
There are of course, other things which distract the driver, which are not actually in the vehicle, but outside it, such as advertising hoardings and shopwindow displays, and how many times have we all (the gentlemen I mean) been very distracted by young women walking along in very short skirts?
I suggest that all of the above should be banned in order to save lives, with the possible exception of short skirts of course, but most definitely everything else, which I am sorry to say, would include the BBC, as listening to rubbish in cars most definitely causes frustration and anger amongst drivers, which, according to the latest set of figures issued by the department of Figures-R-us, cause the deaths of 76 million drivers a year.
Victoria has always been biased. I would prefer to have Stephan Nolan chairing the debate.
About 10 years ago I said if the smoking paranoia didn't end the next target would be parents who would have their kids taken into care by Social Services because they smoke at home and in front of their children.
People said don't be ridiculous. I said, and I say it again - watch this space!
Victoria is about to debate obesity. No mention of drinking or anything else YET.
Like you Pat, I too have warned people over the years, and like you, have nearly always received the same replies, usually something along the lines of, "Oh don't be so ridiculous" or, "Oh, you do exaggerate Peter".
I warned people in 1997 that voting for Labour would cause catastrophes beyond imagination, that the banking system and the free trade system in this country would collapse. I told them how the last time Labour was in power, how they ruined my business and sent me skint, along with thousands of other people of course.
I warned how Labour want to control every aspect of our lives. I warned how the enlargement of the EU would cause suffering and misery to this country. I warned how Labour want that enlargement in order to form a Socialist State with its own army, its own laws, and its own control over all our lives, in order to stay in power, like Hitler had hoped to, with his dream of a thousand year Reich.
I warned that a Socialist Government could not, and would not, work within a free trade area, that they could only survive within an area where they had total control
And now Pat, as our predictions come true on an almost daily basis, what do our ridiculers have to say now? Most of them stay very quiet on the subject, others blame the world recession, there are still the few die-hards, who still cough and splutter with indignation, at the very thought of their precious left wing doctrines being questioned. These are usually the same ones that spout Margaret Thatcher's name as the instigator of everything bad we have today.
I was going to say that it is such a shame, that we have allowed these people to ruin our country like they have, but it is much more than a shame, it is a national disgrace. How could we have stood by and let it happen, after we warned them so many times?
Wasn't anyone listening? It certainly doesn't seem like they were.
I wonder how many children have phoned 'childline' to report their parents for smoking. Even Ms Ransen now admits that PC has gone too far.
I have said before, on many occasions that this Labour Government are a bunch of cretins, with not a working brain between them. This war on tobacco use only goes to prove my point more than ever.
We are living in a very unstable time, with banks collapsing all around us, and our so called Government not having a hope in hell of getting us out of this mess, so what bright idea do they dream up? Ban smoking everywhere, wage a total all out war on a perfectly legal product. Gordon Brown was supposed to be the clever man who kept us afloat during Blair's reign, prudence was his byword. So where is his prudence now, when his team of morons say that smoking is costing the NHS £2.7 billion a year, but openly admit that the taxes on tobacco products bring in £9 billion. Where do these drips think they are going to get the £6.3 billion deficit from? Prudence's handbag maybe?
These people live on a different planet to the rest of us, the planet Liealot, where the local inhabitants, a race of small minded war like creatures, known as The Ashmen, have been waging a war to take over our planet since 1939.
In their latest desperate bid to take over our planet and thus control our lives, the Ashmen say that treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago.
Quite why they are saying things like this, we are not sure, as everyone knows that a decade ago, smoking on our planet was at the very least double what it is now, if not quadruple, meaning the figures (comparable) then to now, would have in reality been more like £10 billion a decade ago, not the measly 1.7 which the Ashmen are quoting.
So why, you might ask, is anybody taking notice of the Ashmen, when they cannot even do a simple mathematical equation? There is an old adage that says if you repeat anything enough times, people will end up believing in it, and I believe this is what is happening here.
Our Labour Government is feeding the Ashmen and promising them a share of power, in return for bunches of figures which do not add up.
The big question is, which one will suss out the one first as the big fraud, the Ashmen or the Labour men?
I have said time and again that for smokers it would be far more dangerous to stop them smoking whilst driving than to let them continue! I smoke 2 or 3 cigs on my 12 mile drive to work each day, because I cannot smoke at work! I am able to pop outside for a smoke, but when it is chucking it down with rain and there is no shelter it is difficult to smoke! If I could not smoke on my drive to work, I would guess that I would soon be out of a job as my normal placid self would soon be replaced (like it can be at airports!) into someone who is angry, uptight, more stressed than normal and less able to cope with it - in essence, I would revert to the person I was prior to starting HRT!
As for children : again I say I grew up in a home where both my parents smoked (as they grew up with both their parents smoking), and neither my brother nor myself hardley ever had colds and we have never had flu! My brother has never smoked and is an avid anti smoking, anti drinking, anti swearing - you name it, he is likely to be anti it! He often has colds these days though and other minor ailments!
My daughter, now 25, grew up with both her father and me smoking and she was never ill as a child. Now, she eats healthily but always has colds, coughs, stomache bugs, etc - she has never smoked either.
My first husband died of lung cancer at the age of 51 - whether it was down to smoking or not is another matter. Of course, most people say he smoked so he was bound to get lung cancer. No-one wants to believe that physical and mental trauma can also cause cancer - perhaps because it affects just about everyone and they cannot decide for themselves? He did have a several physical traumas in the few years prior to his diagnosis, mainly coming off his motorbike, at times on purpose to avoid hitting pedestrians who stepped out into the road without looking! He was also an alcoholic!
So, these namby pamby idiots who go on radio and TV blubbering that they have lost loved ones to cancer, and if only they hadn't smoked or been forced to work with others who smoked, they would still be alive today, can go and whinge to each other! Cancer, like many other diseases, is not bothered whether or not its' victim smokes or not!
There are many other reasons for cancer and lung diseases, which are often blamed on smoking, but it has also been proven that smoking - first and second hand - gives a certain amount of immunity to some illnesses and diseases. As for pictures of blackened lungs, these are not necessarily smokers lungs at all. Ask any doctor who regularly carries out postmortems if he/she can tell if the person they are dealing with was a smoker or not from the lung tissue and they will say they can't!
Ok, I've ranted on again - sorry!
I also agree with the other posts above, particularly the one from Peter about banning every other kind of distraction, both inside and outside the car - the one he did forget, of course, was the other drivers!
Peter, you mentioned an old adage, would it be this one?
"Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you."
This is a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler, who, funnily enough, can also claim the invention of "Das Passive Rauchen", yes, passive smoking, reinvented by ASH in 1975 I believe. "Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you."
Peter asks how the cost of smokers to the NHS can have risen when smoking prevalence has decreased. Easy when you're ASH & Co. You do some extremely dodgy sleight of hand, masquerading as 'scientific research', in which you 'discover' hitherto unknown links between medical conditions and smoking then you can classify each condition as 'smoking-related', quantify the cost of treatment and, hey presto, the cost of treating smokers has magically risen.
The real magic, of course, is that they can get away with completely ignoring the inconvenient truth that smokers contribute a net gain to the Treasury.
ASH's recent statements suggest it is wary of attempting to ban smoking in cars (the children issue is a red herring), probably because, like the mobile phone ban, it would be ignored. The ban in pubs succeeds only because of the threat of a £2500 fine for the landlord. The most ASH could hope for would be the same penalty as for the use of a mobile.
If politicians can be persuaded that smoking a cigarette alone in a car is a greater road safety hazard than tuning a radio, controlling a child or looking at a sat nav, then I think it is time to accept that rational discussion and negotiation will not succeed in bringing back private indoor smoking areas. Does anybody seriously think any different? What would work, apart from mass floutings of the ban? (I'm not proposing this.)
ash.org.uk/ash_3xe9h0zo.htm
This report shows a photo of a CHILD smoking. Would ASH like childen to read the report and see how cool it is for children to smoke?
Your words, Jon, are the words of a defeatist. You say you are not proposing that we should flout the ban.
Why the hell not, other countries have done, and they are at least getting some sort of freedom. Even Geneva overturned the ban last week, and in other countries, such as France and Italy, their bans are flouted by many, and so smoking is still seen as a normal way of life, with only the big cities still upholding the bans completely.
Why do you think Spain has never imposed a ban like we have? Because they know that the Spanish people would never stand for it.
We, the British people, seem to stand for almost anything. Our bins are left with stinking rotten rubbish in for two weeks until they are collected, we catch diseases from our hospitals, we are fined for dropping tiny pieces of litter on the floor, we pay more tax on fuel than almost any other country in the world, we are fined for speeding at 85 mph on motorways, where other countries allow speeds up to 100 and 120 mph. We are now being told what to eat, what to drink, and most definitely, not to smoke. But this hypocritical Government is still very keen to accept smokers contributions in taxes aren't they?
You say that rational discussion and negotiation will not succeed in bringing back private indoor smoking areas. Firstly Jon, we never had private indoor smoking areas in the first place. We had public smoking areas, and public non smoking areas, and this, is what I propose we go back to.
I don't want to be stuffed into some tiny little room away from the general hubbub of things, I want to be a part of things. The anti smoking fraternity started this whole thing. If they are so keen on being away from smokers, then it is they who should be segregated not me, not us.
You might be right in saying that "rational" discussion might not succeed, but it is not us, the smokers, who have lost our rationality Jon, but the anti-smokers. In that respect, I would suggest that if they cannot hold a sensible discussion on the matter, then we should most definitely flout the ban, as I already do every time I get the chance. But I alone am not going to make any difference to this ban, I need support, we all need support, so please Jon, let's hear no more about giving up this fight.
The next stage could be children divorcing their parents because they smoke or even one parent divorcing their partner citing their smoking being a cause of the breakdown.
In The Independent article, Ms Arnott says "we need education". That is about the truest thing I have ever heard her or her employers say, as they certainly do.
She says that they would like to see us "chew some gum." If we are in a car and feeling desperate.
Where would Ms Arnott propose we keep this gum she speaks of, and how would we manage to unwrap it whist driving, without becoming somewhat distracted? And when we finish the gum, which would no doubt be marketed through ASH, where would she then like us to put it? Answers on a postcard please? Maybe all new cars could be manufactured with gum trays instead of the old fashioned ashtrays we now have? Or failing that, I suppose we could just flick the sticky little ball out of the car's window, and hope we wouldn't be arrested and fined for doing that?
But what about people like me, Ms Arnott? I absolutely loath chewing gum. If I smell it at 100 yards it causes me to be physically sick, and if I am anywhere near people chewing gum, I find my clothes and hair stink of it the next day. So what should I do Ms Arnott, chew my fingernails perhaps?
Away from the chewing gum factor, Ms Arnott goes onto state that "It's a serious health issue. Research from cannabis shows if you smoke once in a car you get the same pollution as you used to get at the end of an evening in a pub."
I don't know what sort of pub Ms Arnott used to go to, or maybe still does, but I never got any sort of cannabis smells in my local before the ban, and what on earth does research from cannabis have to do with tobacco smoking? As she said earlier, she desperately needs educating.
How is it that in what is supposed to be a democracy:
1: Smokers are hounded as if they were crack addicts BUT the government still happily accepts the tax that is paid on tobacco etc
2: MPs can smoke in their club at Westminster
3: Smokers are threatened with less than good health care despite contributing tax with every cigarette they smoke
I am not a smoker but I am angry because this facist regime is gradually taking over all aspects of society in a way that is reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. Its enough to make me take up smoking!!
"I was going to say that it is such a shame, that we have allowed these people to ruin our country like they have, but it is much more than a shame, it is a national disgrace. How could we have stood by and let it happen, after we warned them so many times?... "
Some of us, probably including you Peter, didn't stand by and let it happen because we didn't vote for NuLab in 1997 or since. I knew my party (Lab) was finished when when B.Liar took the helm and I've never voted for this lot.
Sadly we do have an elective dictatorship system in the UK as a result of only about half the country going to the polls in any election and less than half of that number voting a party into power.
Our electoral system is designed to ensure that minority groups with devastating radical ideas will always be in power while the majority of us have to do as they tell us .... or else... and that's democracy...?
Peter,
I always add that I don't propose breaking the law. Make of that what you will. I say "private smoking areas" because in my view that includes pubs and cafes. However, unless they were classified as private clubs (all it needs is a membership card), I can't see smoking being permitted. I wouldn't expect the Town Hall to provide a smoking room. That's what I mean by public.
I do feel defeated though. You are right to say that the British put up with too much. But the fact is we do. I don't know the legal position, but a decent protest would be something like several hundred people jointly purchasing a building and using it as a members only smokers' cafe. This wouldn't affect anybody else and could be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of modern particulate extraction equipment. I am not proposing this; just saying that this is the sort of tactic which might succeed.
People are getting stabbed to death, the streets are covered with litter, headlines have just reported another decent citizen beaten to death for challenging thugs. Society seems to be in meltdown and nothing is done about the criminals. What government does do is hammer the smoker. And, of course, the small business person running the pubs which are the heart of many communities. Why can I not relax after a week's work and have a smoke with my pint? Why cannot the landlady allow me to do so if she wishes? Bottom line is that I and my girfriend stay in. Meanwhile, the heroin gets dealt on the street. Let's see the council try the heavy-handed approach with those hoodie characters who deal smack at the end of my street every evening. Dream on....
ACHTUNG!! The Tommy is lighting up ein crafty fag!! Turn on zer hoses und send in zer dogs!!
Long live zer Reich!!
David
I may be wrong, but the council police will not do anything about drug dealers, because it's a criminal offence and not a civil offence. All they can do is call the police.
Peter says we should flout the ban. Well Peter, someone who already is, Dave West of the Hey Jo club in St. James’s is having success.
I rang his club the other night, and asked him if he is still continuing with his Judicial Review, (remember he famously hired Cherie Blair), but sadly this has fallen through. However he continues to allow smoking in his club.
It seems that when he was taken to court by his local council, he simply continued with his protest…and the council are appearing to turn a blind eye, why is that - are his pockets too deep?
I would have thought however, that the council could have revoked his licence…I wonder why they haven’t done so.
I agree with you that open dissent will be the way forward, especially by the hospitality industry that could group together and fight any necessary court cases. I would like to know why they are so reluctant to experiment with this strategy.
Unless and until the zealots are dragged through the courts with the same relentless determination that they attack us with…then this hysterical nightmare will only continue.
Can you please speak a little more quietly Chris, when you talk about wondering why the council haven't revoked Dave West's licence, these "people" for want of a better word, have spies everywhere, check behind your desk, you never know!
Regarding what you say about the hospitality industry grouping together, I have been calling for that to happen for months, but it seems that either they do not read, (or maybe cannot), or as I suspect, they are too bloody lazy, and are content to sit back and moan, and hope that people like you and me, will do all the heavy work for them.
How many times have we read on sites such as F2C about this pub and that pub closing, and how we should all feel sorry for them?
Well Chris, I don't know about you, but I am fed up feeling sorry for people who just will not stand up and fight for themselves. Together they would be a formidable force to be reckoned with, but they don't seem to able to get their act together to anything, apart from moan about loss of profits.
They have 2 or 3 Trade Papers, in which they could place adverts, telling the truth about what is happening to them and their businesses, and the costs, shared by all, would be almost negligible, but they are so reluctant to put their hands in their pockets, that it makes me sick.
Can you imagine what would happen if every pub in the UK closed for one day a week, as a protest? And it is no good the publicans saying they couldn't afford to do this, because they certainly cannot afford to go on the way it is now, with trade down, in some cases by as much as 50%, and other pubs closing down for good on a daily basis.
This sort of action would make everyone sit up and take notice, even the antis, who would also be deprived of their local on that one precious day. Maybe it might even make these selfish "people" (apologies again) realise what they are doing to our country?
But most importantly, the National papers and TV, would get hold of the story, which in turn just might make our totally deaf, dumb and blind Government realise that drastic action needs taking, and needs taking now.
wanted for treason blair prestcot brown straw flint reid hewitt collaborators and there enforcers the price is working stubbing out blairs legacy and labours war of mass destruction imposed on liberty respect tolerance equality identity compassion democracy integrity united kingdom who gave who the right to impose persecution bullying abuse and the deaths of innocent people under their controlled democracy are traitors have no elusions they are accountable for this so this is your better united kingdom as in war you pay the price for liberty its not what we want its what thay gave in memory of anthony mcdermott who was bullied and persecuted into suicide and hanged himself and all others so this is your new healthy united kingdom to all parties protect demands liberty and movments reinstated no liberty no peace lest they forgot no compromise this is an afront to our forfathers from protect