A "smoking bully" writes
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 Smokers in a north-east London borough will not be able to foster children from January 2010 - unless there are "exceptional circumstances" - after Redbridge Council last night voted unanimously to ban adults who smoke from fostering children.
In response to THIS BBC report, we have just received the following email:
"I'm a smoker and a parent of now grown up children and so is my wife. I have never before considered contact with your organisation, but I do hope you read all of this, since I am weighing each word carefully.
"Since I learned to smoke outside my own backdoor, I now cannot believe that I imposed my smoke on my children when they were young. As their parent, I had all the final word and so ignored their complaints. I now think of myself as the smoking bully they could do nothing about.
"If a spokesperson for Forest (unnamed by the BBC) cannot acknowledge that those fostering children have a legal responsibility to identify avoidable hazard to those in their care, then you have little perspective in the matter.
I intend to reply but if anyone has anything to add I will be happy to forward the most considered comments to the person in question.
Simon Clark
The fostering story appears in several papers today. In the Daily Mail the Fostering Network (which supports smoke-free homes) is quoted as saying: "We don't agree with a blanket ban on any smokers becoming foster carers. If a person has the right qualities and skills to be a foster carer they shouldn't be put off coming forward just because they have the odd cigarette at the end of the garden or on a night out. Fostering is about much more than just smoking." Forest's Neil Rafferty adds: "The really insidious implication is that smokers in general are not fit to be parents, and that is totally unacceptable."
Simon Clark
I shall be discussing this issue on TalkSport at some godforsaken hour tonight. Don't wait up.
Reader Comments (36)
Simon. I was brought up in East London with my brother and sister. My father smoked 60 cigarettes a day. We had open fires, on which we put wooden blocks (when the road were repaired), which were covered in tar and the room would often be covered in smoke when the wind blew. We also rode our cycles to work in the smogs of London. We are all over 65 and are all healthy.
To the "Smoking Bully".
You have got it completely wrong Bully. You have done a lot of good in your life, by fostering children, and I, and I am sure thousands of others, commend you for that. But to think of yourself as a bully of any kind, because you smoked near the children is just so wrong.
Are the children you fostered in ill health now, and if any of them are, are you certain that it is because you smoked near them?
I am sure that at some time or another, you must have taken them out for walks, near heavy traffic, do you not think that, that could be detrimental to their health also?
There are so many things on this earth, that can and do cause some people to fall ill. Should we ban motor cars, planes, paint, aerosols, in fact all chemicals? Did you know that ordinary tap water contains as many dangerous chemicals as a cigarette?
We cannot ban every single thing in case someone is allergic to it. Some people are allergic to grass, it brings them out in a rash and causes hay fever, so what are we supposed to do, ban grass?
But perhaps most importantly, is the fact that second hand tobacco smoke has never been proven to be a cause of cancer. If you believe otherwise, try looking it up on the internet. You will find absolutely no proof whatsoever.
I am afraid, Bully, that you have been the victim of a massive fraud, you have been duped by propaganda into believing that because you smoked, that you are helping to kill people around you. You have helped kill no one, just take a look at the children you have fostered, and give yourself a pat on the back for supplying the love, affection, and a happy and healthy upbringing, which all children need.
It is sad that 'Smoking Bully' has been made to feel this way by the intense propaganda machine that has been sweeping our nation.
You could also perhaps remind Smoking Bully that our very own H&S Executive see no harm in passive smoke:
"In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases"
and that even our very own government described it as an extremely minor health issue - quote from Caroline Flint, the then Health Minister:
"Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated."
You see, passive smoking does not exist. It was made up to get people to stop smoking as even our very government has admitted. This also from the World Health Organisation who in 1975 stated that to reduce smoking – quote:
“It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers could injure those around them.”
Also, if he is worried that he has badly damaged his children, then you could perhaps reassure him by providing him with the direct evidence from the World Health Authority that shows ETS actually has a protective effect to children:
"ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96)."
This is a statistically-significant result indicating a protective-effect to children from ETS. (No wonder they tried to hide the report away!)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci%3b90/19/1440.pdf
Simon. Don't forget that anti-smokers will often say that they are smokers (when they are not) and agree with the ban. This could be another way of trying it on.
Excellent post Peter. However, in addition any parent whether a foster parent or not does have an obligation to the children in their care. No one is going to give children cigarettes or chain smoke near a cot. Even though there is no evidence of SHS causing problems smokers will smoke away from children just in case. They will also not send them down chimneys or mines, will help with homework and teach them how to cross the road.
There are so many things that parents have to teach children and just because some like a smoke does not mean that they cannot be responsible parents. How many children will now remain in care because of this ruling and be refused the opportunity of a loving home?Also,what constitutes a smoker and what are 'exceptional circumstances'? Does the odd cigar mean you are a bad parent? If you had stopped and then restart will they take the children from you?
Totally ridiculous and given the amount of times that social workers have returned children to homes where they have been abused and even killed, it seems to me an attempt to try and deflect criticism from their own shortcomings. This absurd and discriminatory rule must be highlighted at the next council elections as the man in the street whether smoker or not did not vote for this insanity from these morons.
Here is my email to Michael Stark at Redbridge Council.
Dear Mr. Stark,
I trust you are well.
Let me firstly state my conflicts of interest. I have been a Conservative voter for 30 years and past member of Ilford North Conservative party when I lived in Buckhurst Hill and my local was The Monkhams. I am also an official of www.freedom2choose.info a pro-choice smoking group and patron of www.forestonline.org the tobacco funded pro choice smoking group. I also accept that active smoking may lead to a premature death for some.
I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the decision to ban smokers from adopting or fostering children. This is the kind of nannying and bullying we expect more of the Labour and Liberal Parties. May I ask if you are banning smokers will you also be banning the obese and drinkers too? Many parents who smoke usually do not smoke in front of their children anyway and surely a loving home for a disadvantaged child is far better than rotting away in a childrens home.
What really gets my back up is that it is done on the basis of the supposed harm of passive smoking. Did you believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do you believe unquestionally man made global warming? Of course not. Hence it is with passive smoking, a big lie perpertrated and encouraged by the government and ASH . It began in 1975 Sir George Godber, British delegate to the World Health Organization, and anti-smoker activist even then, presented to WHO his blueprint for changing individual behaviour by changing social attitudes. Of smoking, he said: "..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS." When asked by a reporter why he had exaggerated the risks of secondary smoke, instead of denying that exaggeration C. Everett Koop is quoted as saying he had to be "forceful in warning of the ETS threat in order to win the public's attention."
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/Dale.htm
There are many studies done into passive smoking the longest and most authoratative is the is Enstrom/Kabat which ran from 1960 to 1998, involved 118,000 people, peer reviewed by equally eminent scientists and published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. Its conclusions were:
"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke andtobacco related mortality, although they do not rule
out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed" and "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
I an extensive library of studies conducted into passive smoking and can find two that spefically mention children, The first one actually shows a Relative Risk (RR) of 0.78 which means that in theory exposre to SHS is actually protective by a factor of 22%. Although let me quickly say that 22% is too low a number to say for sure. You need a figure of 300% to show a casual relationship to be credible. As you can see it was conducted by the National Cancer Insitute.
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
[J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440–50"
http://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf
On asthma this study came out in February 2008 stating that children of smokers have less asthma/atopy and I quote again:
"Smoking linked to reduced allergic sensitization
By David Holmes
21 January 2008
J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121: 38-42
MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand. Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that "the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy." The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
"These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever." They conclude: "The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. "Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them."
http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html
So in conclusion this ban is, in my opinion, morally wrong and is based on junk science, a good excuse to demonise smokers and more likely pernicious media manipulation. May I ask you reconsider your ban so children may have an opportunity in life.
I look forward to your reply.
Regards
Dave Atherton
the actions of this council clearly contravene the Human Rights Act......have they been reading Mein Kampff ?
As a fifty seven year old man, I can recollect quite a few references from people about their experience of being fostered as a child. I have read it in newspapers and biographies, and heard it on the radio and television. I have also had friends and aquaintances, and a partner who had been fostered.
I am glad to say that many of these stories were happy ones, where the person has been expressing their gratitude to loving and caring foster parents who helped them in a difficult childhood.
Unfortunately, there have also been stories of a lack of warmth and emotional neglect. Stories of a lack of substantial food and hygiene. An unnaturally strict household, where the smallest demeaneour meant a threat for them to be put back into a childrens home. There have even been horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse.
Yet there is one thing I have never heard, a complaint about their foster parents' smoking.
Hello you “Smoking Bully”. It’s nice to see someone so remorseful and wanting redemption.
But when did you suddenly discover this road to Damascus? What was the prevailing catalyst that enabled this true awakening?
Your e-mail is vague and bereft of adequate detail – perhaps you can furnish a few more details for us.
1. What year did you adopt your children, and were you smoking at this time. (did you tell the adoption agency you smoked)
2. What is the name of your adoption agency, or local authority concerned with adoption.
3. What criteria did they stipulate when your request was considered.
4. Have you written to this authority to let them know of your recent remorse. (perhaps they have your letter on record), it would be nice to see a copy of it.
I’m sure if you e-mail Simon in private with all the relevant details, and any more that you can think of, then Simon will be able to frame an adequate response to your e-mail.
If there is one thing that you be sure of when coming to this site it is this…we like to see evidence.
I’m sure Simon is breathlessly waiting for this information as I write. I know you won’t disappoint him. Thank you.
I don't think anyone other than an anti-smoking obsessive would have bothered to write this. It needs to be ignored and not taken seriously.
All too often the antismoking brigade forget some important factors. They claim smoking makes you infertile, become astmatics and so many other 'Bovine Excetia.' If there was any truth is all these statements, how come we had a population explosion during the 50's and 60's and little cases of astma during the same period. All this when our Government was encouraging us to smoke thus, allowing for the rationing of food during WW2, when over 60% of this country were smoking.
What has increased during this time was fuel for transport eg buses, cars and air transport. This government gave the go ahead for a 5th terminal at Heathrow. All this has increased health risks.
Another point I make is that this partliament have turned down our right to know which MP's have business interests in conflicting interests which would give a clearer picture to their ignorant claims.
In his otherwise excellent and well researched email, Dave Atherton wrote:-
"I also accept that smoking may lead to a premature death for some."
Please advise what trustworthy evidence this statement has been based on.
Forget about the hype Smoking Bully its all overblown, like everything else to do with smoking since they got away with the ban,its probably more to do with there being more demand than suppy for foster children and why dont they go the whole hog and include drinkers, obese people or drug takers.
Its also more likely now that we're heading into recession that funds are obviously drying up in that quarter, so they bring up the smoking red herring again and use the old tried and tested smoking mantra as a convenient side step as it covers a multitude these days especially when this govt wants to cover up their mismanagement of the economy.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that stress is the main factor in cancer related illnesses.
Margot:
THe British Institue of Actuaries 1992 is my source as they have no reason to lie. I am trying to get some more up to date figures. Saying that I do have a study from Norway which says 1.4 years for ladies and 2.7 years for men.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/6/381
Just found some up to date figures although most mortality do not take note of confounders such as diet, exercise, exposure to pollution etc. This paper is dated 14/1/08:
"Smoking is a direct risk factor for IHD, stroke and mortality. Smoking reduces expected future lifetime from age 20 by approximately 7 years (males) and 6.3 years, (females). The expected future lifetime of a smoker aged 20 increases if they give up smoking at some time in the future."
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/101892/fac_sm20080114.pdf.
It seems to me that just about all that needs saying has been said and very eloquently.
The only thing I would point out is that this man does not mention being a foster parent or adoptive parent, he just mentions his children, now grown up.
Probably doesn't make much difference though.
I would just add that my brother and I both grew up in the 60's with 2 smoking parents and smoking grandparents. I am a smoker and have been since the age of 13; my brother is one of those who is anti smoking, drinking, swearing, etc - in fact I am surprised he even fathered one child, let alone 4!
My point is that apart from stress and depression, I am hardly ever ill, I certainly rarely, if ever, get colds and have never had flu. My brother, on the other hand, as well as his family, are always suffering with some minor ailment or allergy.
Now, I realise this, in itself is not proof of anything, but to me, as we were brought up the same and in the same environment and he now leads a much 'healthier' lifestyle than I do, it seems strange that he and his family are, by comparison to myself, so sickly!
Since my daughter grew up and moved away from home, she left behind the smoking atmosphere she was broght up in and was never ill! Now she always has colds!
To me, there has to be some connection, even without the evidence produced in earlier responses!
Dave,
Thank you for your reply. I have just written at great length and in great detail, to prove to you and others that statistics can be provided at will and to whoever is paying. The two you quoted were in dispute with each other, in any case.
I also proved that nicotine is beneficial and quoted that the pharmo's use it as the basis of most of their drugs. I also pointed out the long life and general good health of habitual smokers raised in smoking families. I pointed out that smokers are the enemies of the medical profession as they do not need their doctors & medication.
I also showed how the pharm's commercial war against the cigarette manufacturers began over 40 years ago through their contrived and false research.
As so often happens, my essay suddenly disappeared from the screen.
My message was to urge everyone not to give lip service to the junk science by saying, "While I admit that there are dangers in smoking, etc." Please, everyone, do not say this. It gives credence to the junk science and has never, ever, been proved. Nor can it be. Also see
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
and note the dictionary definition of Actuaries.
As we used to say during the war, "Careless talk costs lives." Please don't say these apologetic things - just beleive the evidence of your own eyes and your own experience. And note the healthy aged population all around you..
Margot, thanks for your reply. I had a quick look at NumberWatch and could not find the link for smoking, can you direct me.
The highest longevity rates are in the countries with the highest smoking rates.
For instance Japan has 3 times the smoking rates of the US, while the US has 3 times the lung cancer rates as Japan, and also lower life expectancy rates which apparently are now falling, despite their war on smoking.
The rate of so called smoking related diseases do NOT follow smoking rates in countries around the world, therefore smoking is not the problem. The human condition is the problem, which, although most people don't want to hear it, is natural.
Animals develop cancers just the same, but most are non-smokers, as far as I'm aware. The only animals never to develop cancer were the poor smoking animals for experimentation. Most believe they did, but they didn't, another lie seen as a truth.
Dave:
Try "March of the Zealots" on http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
Zitori:
Well said - as always.
Everyone:
Please stop saying, "While I accept that there are dangers in smoking, I reserve the right of freedom to choose, etc. etc. etc.
In our present unenlightened times, the main danger about smoking, especially in the elderly, is being forced to give it up. When the body has been robbed of its beneficial and healing properties, in rush all the illnesses it has kept at bay.
Margot
I read one report that says the shock of giving up can cause cancer. I think it was from India.
I believe that our DNA has a strong link to cancers.
Chas.
Thanks for that. I had read it too. You and Zitori are filling up the gaps left by my article disappearing from the screen. Not only did the pharmo's fail with their nasty smoke inundation experiments on the rats & mice, they actually found that it prolonged life expectency in some.
Dave:
Top of the list of confounders you mentioned should be hereditary, closely followed by stress. The stress now being caused by this ban does not bear thinking about. At the extreme end, think of the plight of the mentally disturbed incarcerated forever in the prison/hospital of Rampton. They are denied the right to smoke anywhere, both inside and outside. No doubt they are forced into taking the pharmo's nicotine replacement drugs instead. Therefore being used as human guinea pigs.
As you have already sent your email to Reading Council, would it be possible for you to follow it up by sending a second one, saying that you have now looked more closely into your former acceptance that smoking shortens life, and found that it is not based on any reliable evidence. They should also be directed to reading the informed comments on this site, if someone has not already done this.
In addition to bringing up my own children, I was a foster parent for many years and rejoice in the fact that I was able to take in these little lost souls, give them happiness and help put their fragile world to rights. It is horrific that good people like myself should now be banned from fostering. What Reading council are doing will quickly spread to all other councils and eagerly be quoted by ASH and the WHO as a "success" and the right thing to do.
Could you do this, Dave? Could you follow up your very excellent email in this way?
Most children that go into COUNCIL care homes will take up smoking. Many will also commit various crimes while they are there. Children that cannot be placed with foster parents will be put into COUNCIL care homes and will be far worse off.
Simon: I hope you don't mind this debate going on?
Margot: I take you point, is smoking the cause or is it a symptom of someones lifestyle or genes. I remembered,and have been able to track down a piece from the post Enstrom/Kabat BMJ publication debate, interesting reading.
"There are lots of other causes for lung cancer: genetical background (RR=2.4 to 5.3), cooking methods (RR=1.4 to 8.3), Radon exposure (RR=2.4 to 4.3), Asbestos exposure (RR=2.3 to 10) and even beer drinking has been reported with an increased risk of 100%[1]. Also psycho-social traits can raise the risk for lung cancer with 100 to 200%[2]. All show significantly higher relative risks than the max RR=1.3 of ETS. And this is just a subset of all the non-smoking related causes reported in studies."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32294
Mary,
In your desperate attempts to convince yourself and others that secondhand
smoke is nothing but a harmless irritant you have taken to lying. At no
stage has Caroline Flint or any other Health Minister ever said the
following, cut and pasted from your post above:
“and that even our very own government described it as an extremely minor
health issue - quote from Caroline Flint, the then Health Minister:
"Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned
that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a
disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be
that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active
smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective,
but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated."”
The moderator should edit Mary’s post.
I notice even the tobacco companies willingly print on their packs “Smoking
seriously harms you and others around you” without a murmur. If this is
untrue surely they would have challenged it in court. They have been
silent. I wonder why. It’s not as though they are short of cash: “[BAT]
The world's second largest cigarette maker saw its operating profit
increase 18 per cent to £2.714bn in the three months to the end of
September."
Mike Jackson
Mike, you are brave posting here. The reason tobacco companies put the warnings on is that they are obliged my law. If they had the choice they would not them on. I trust you saw my post above on the Enstrom/Kabat study, "evidence of incresed moratlity is sparse." Like a lot of anti smokers can I have an URL which suggests SHS is harmful and not just someones opinion.
Mike, Mary was not lying, she made an unfortunate error, which several of us have done. I am pasting the 'passive smoking' portion of a post ban document into health and safety at work prepared by a House of Lords group. It does contain a quote from Caroline Flint. Unfortunately, it is an easy mistake on first reading to miss the quotation marks in the layout, and it can appear that the Caroline Flint quote covers several paragraphs. The piece which Mary quoted, which was not said by Caroline Flint, has been mentioned before on it's own, but asttributed to her, which is most likely why Mary made this unfortunate mistake.
Having said all that, the full potion of the House of Lords document is well researched and authoritative. What it says is still true whoever said it.
Here it is.
Passive Smoking
76. The recently introduced bill to ban smoking in public places illustrates a number of worrying features connected with the formulation and promotion of legislation[49]. The stated objective of the bill was to ban smoking at work and in enclosed public places, because passive smoking imposes a significant health risk on workers and others exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
77. In order to evaluate the operation of risk policy in this area, we considered a range of evidence, much of which cast doubt on the stated rationale of the legislation. In her evidence to us, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, commented that:
"it is clearly the case that, in relation to deaths from smoking and second-hand smoke, the most serious aspect of that is smoking in the home. Ninety-five percent of deaths are related to smoking in the home"[50].
Other evidence we received suggested that the health risks associated with passive smoking are relatively minor and the main harm, if there is one, concerns children who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, which is something the bill is not designed to address[51]. Sir Richard Peto did suggest that ex-smokers might be more at risk from ETS than those who had never smoked at all, but the general tenor of his evidence indicated that the risks are uncertain and unlikely to be large[52].
78. Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.
79. If, however, it is accepted that policy on passive smoking has been genuinely concerned only with a reduction in smoking in public places, other issues about the formulation of policy in this area are raised, in addition to any concern that the ban on smoking may represent a disproportionate policy response. One of these issues is whether decision-making in this area has given sufficient attention to alternative policy responses, as required by the Treasury guidelines. For example, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in their written evidence to us argued strongly that voluntary smoking bans are already in place in many areas and that business saw the legislation as further evidence of unnecessary intervention by government[53].
80. In the context of the passive smoking debate, we also took evidence from the Health and Safety Executive. When questioned about the impact of the smoking ban on consumers and workers in relevant establishments, and the possibility that people have the option of choosing not to visit or work in smoking environments if they are concerned about the possible health risks, the HSE dismissed the idea of relying on labour market forces to deal with the problem:
"we find rather repugnant the idea that people should have a choice between having that level of safety or alternatively being paid more and not have it, not least because it is a very difficult choice for people to make. Inherently it will appeal to those who are most vulnerable because they are most in need of money, but they then become exposed to this risk from which the rest of us are shielded…we certainly do not like the idea of trading off basic safety against money"[54].
81. In the case of the actual health risks associated with passive smoking, the HSE offered the view:
"…the evidence is pretty clear. The Chief Medical Officer regards this as an important health issue"[55].
82. In the light of these comments, we believe that the HSE, responsible for implementing risk guidelines on the ground, should give due consideration to both the evidence related to the health risks of passive smoking and to the possibility that personal choices and market forces might be used to deal with the problem. Our concern in particular is that the HSE response does not properly reflect either the spirit or the letter of existing government guidelines.
83. Another aspect of this issue that concerned us was the Government's attitude to the possible trade-offs between personal liberty and risk reduction inherent in many areas of legislation. In the case of the legislation to ban smoking in public places, we were concerned that the preliminary stages of policy formulation appear to have given little or no weight to this important factor. We note that government risk guidelines do not emphasise any requirement to assess the impact of legislation on personal freedoms or civil liberties. This is something that needs to be considered further.
84. The evidence we took on passive smoking leads us to doubt whether government guidelines on risk management have been properly implemented. In particular, the purpose of legislation should have been defined more clearly and greater attention should have been given to available scientific evidence, the relative merits of alternative policy options and the impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice. Failure to consider these matters properly has resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. Lessons learned from the progress of this legislation should be used to ensure that future policy responses are transparent, evidence-based, and proportionate.
That report is by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. The quote is by them. I’ve had a look at it. Difficult to think of a group of people less qualified to decide on the evidence of harm from passive smoking. What a line up, Lord Wakeham (Chair) members include Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont. And they believed what the tobacco industry told them. Do you think they approached their chosen subject without prejudice?
Government response to it shows just how “well researched and authoritative” it is.
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/249/249.pdf
Oh, and by the way, Lord Wakeham declares the following interest:
“Convenor of the Lords and Commons Pipe Smokers Club”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg26.htm
As they say, you couldn’t make it up.
:-)
Mike Jackson
Perhaps Mike, you prefer to read statements made by SCoTH?
A 16 member panel, 14 of whom have pharma or ASH pay-cheques falling regularly through the letter box.
Oh yes. No bias there at all.
People in glass houses.....
Mike may I quote the House Of Lords from Sir Richard Peto on passive smoking. He helped Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s into smoking is a major contributor to lung cancer. Even he says the effects of SHS are minimal..
"That is definite, and the threshold arguments are often politically motivated inventions which do not have much scientific plausibility. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers by direct extrapolation, but what does one make of them? These hazards cannot be directly measured."
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/6021405.htm+house+of+lords+peto+passive+smoking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=u
Oh dear, we are all getting bogged down again by the minutia of selective chapter and verse. If only there was a nutshell way of getting the simple point home.
The only relevant question is this:-
Is smoking Nicotine based products harmful?
Read the labels listing ingredients of prescription drugs. So many contain the words "Niacin" or"Nicotinic Acid" or "Vitamin B3". They always have done. These are names invented by the pharmaceutical companies to describe Nicotine.
The human body is a marvellously compact self governing and self regulating creation. We can never even begin to understand its entire complexity. The act of smoking, which for centuries has been as natural a function as eating and drinking, allows the blood stream to absorb the amount of nicotine beneficial to the body and dispose of the surplus by exhaling it. When it has achieved its beneficial work, it is disposed of in the same way as food and drink. It is a natural laxative.
Smokers and those who live within their atmosphere, do not need the prescription drugs which try to mirror these nicotine benefits. Please read what Lyn says above regarding the easily observed difference between smokers and the "healthy" lifestyle of ardent non-smokers.
Is our nation healthier since the smoking ban? Are the doctors' surgeries and hospitals less full? I think not.
Quite rightly, the pharmo's tried to mirror the benefits that smoking brings. Not everyone wants to smoke just as not everyone wants to eat meat. They failed because each human body is different. Many of their drugs produced harmful side effects which, in turn, needed more drugs - often for the rest of the patient's life.
The only way forward for the pharmaceutical companies was to say, long enough and hard enough, that smoking is bad for you.
The rest is history. And it has been building up to its present damagine world wide success for the last forty years. ..
To quote para 83 of the H of L's document above that Timbone so kindly brought to our attention.
"We note that govt risk quidelines do not emphasise any requirement to assess the impact of legislation on personal freedoms or civil liberties. This is something that needs to be considered further"
Am I being nieve here in thinking that its beginning to dawn on them that it wasnt very british to ride roughshod over our civil liberties and our freedoms, and that they might be considering reverting the total smoking ban and making it more civil liberties friendly by giving us an indoor smoking room in pubs and restaurants.
The only bully here is the Governments bullying of smokers.
Not only do they try their best to bully us into guilt but they are prepared to use defencless children to do it.
How sick is that?
The fact that it was a Con. councillor is no surprise, they are standing on the same pulpit as Labour, preaching the same nu religion.
Thow shalt not smoke.
And they will not stop there, as we know.
Smoking has killed everyone I love.
Email to said council, for good measure.
Sir/Madam
Until and unless every child needing a home can be found a home, it is not for you people to play God with their future. The terrifying prospect of exposure to passive smoking – which has flatly failed to see off the children of the 30’s, 40’ s & 50’s who thrive and survive as ever growing numbers of pensioners- seems a less critical criteria today in the light of the appalling news from Harringay.
E Barber
Julia
"Smoking has killed everyone I love". Although a smoker, who is dedicated to continue, Your words touched me. I know it may be difficult for you, but is there anything further you feel you may like to add.