Study says critics of smoking ban were wrong
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 BBC News published a curious little story on Monday evening. In fact, you could be forgiven for thinking that the principal reason for running it was simply to rubbish critics of the smoking ban, notably Forest.
The report was prompted by a Cardiff University study that concluded that "The smoking ban in the UK did not lead to children being exposed to more smoking at home". Surprise, surprise, "Anti-smoking groups and the government said the results vindicated the introduction of the ban".
In contrast, said the BBC, "groups such as Forest, the smokers' lobby organisation, suggested it would lead to drinkers shunning pubs for their homes where they could smoke and, as a result, increasing the risk of second-hand smoke exposure for children".
Prior to the report appearing online I spoke to a BBC journalist for three or four minutes. I responded to what he told me about the Cardiff study and explained our position on smoking in the home. This is how he summed up that conversation:
Simon Clark of Forest said: "I want to see more evidence before I am convinced."
And, er, that was it.
He completely ignored the positive spin I put on the study which was to argue that if there has been no negative impact on children as a result of the ban, there is no justification for extending the ban into people's homes as some campaigners (Duncan Bannatyne, for example) have advocated.
No doubt we will see a lot more studies that purport to show how "successful" the smoking ban has been. Or, like the reports of the Cardiff study, they will seek to belittle those of us who warned of adverse consequences.
The idea, of course, that there have been ANY adverse consequences as a result of the ban is too much for the mainstream media to contemplate. So we get this sort of stuff instead.
Full story HERE.
Reader Comments (15)
That is simply because a significant minority in the Uk is ignored, shunned, excluded, and its cry for fair treatment is buried in bigotry and the power of a self-interest Govt.
"The idea, of course, that there have been ANY adverse consequences as a result of the ban is too much for the mainstream media to contemplate."
Or the rather more obvious answer is that there simply haven't been any adverse consequences of the ban to report in the first place.
Oh how I wish they would ask a smoker! Of course, that would be too much, they might just hear a lot of what they don't want to hear and their study and media stories would be shot to ribbons.
I now see a psychologist who is trying to get me to go out more and socialise, as I did prior to the ban, however the ban is the big stumbling block! Being not particularly comfortable in social gatherings my trusty ciggie was always my friend and my crutch. and would allow me to join in with groups of others who were smoking and gave me some common ground. I could also be on the fringe of a group and not feel an outsider because I was smoking too. Now there is nothing to use as a prop so I prefer to stay home where I don't need the prop, however by shunning life outside the home I am creating a perpetual cycle which means that my depression gets not better, and in fact, at times get worse!
I think this study is irrelevant as many smokers do not smoke and drink in front of their young children anyway. It is normally after we have got them to bed that we can sit down, open a bottle of wine or a can of beer and light up a well needed cigarette. Previously, one or both parents may have got a babysitter and went down their local for a couple but instead now sit in and watch TV.
Asking school children about their parents smoking and drinking habits is ridiculous and you may as well ask them about their parents' sex lifes for all the time parents do it in front of their kids.
Why does no one ask these basic questions of these so called researchers and scientists?
Just more rubbish from the BBC .
These so called journalists who work there really are a bunch of stazi little tossers are'nt they.
Wonder if they realise how much they are becoming universally despised.
None probably, as it would require a tiny amount of intuition ,which they do not appear to posess.
And a major advantage in being a good journalist .
Jobsworth little creep.
I don't see how the reporting there really 'belittles' you, or anyone who disagrees with smoking bans.
The study finding just contradicted what you predicted. If you were able to refute the study or show evidence to the contrary, then the journo might have picked up on that. But if it's just a case of 'I'm not convinced', I can see what it wasn't used.
"...if there has been no negative impact on children as a result of the ban, there is no justification for extending the ban into people's home."
Doesn't seem to work as an argument, because all the study showed was that exposure didn't *increase*, not how high or how low it was to begin with, and if higher/lower exposure is linked to worse/better health.
"Or the rather more obvious answer is that there simply haven't been any adverse consequences of the ban to report in the first place."
That's right. Cos pubs are positively thriving at the moment, huh?
Yes, Masser Beeb -
Us folks don' wanna leave the Plantation.
No, sir !
Don't go payin' no heed to dem troublemakers.
Hell, we ALL happy here...................
Say no more - if the beeb says it, then it must be right to the PC correct and brainwashed amongst our society.
Is this a BBC acknowledgement to get them more discredited than they already are?
They're playing with fire if they're following the PC agenda and lies. It's becoming a laughing game as the un-PC correct know what'll win and what'll be vindicated. The truth.
Trouble is, Mary -
The Truth just isn't Fashionable these days......
"Or the rather more obvious answer is that there simply haven't been any adverse consequences of the ban to report in the first place."
Or - as one Very Famous Anti-Smoker once put it, Tyson:
"Vor uns liegt Deutschland,
In uns marschiert Deutschland,
Und hinter uns kommt Deutschland"
Now, what WAS his name.......................?
Question: If increased smoking at home does not expose children to more 'risk' then how can claims that smokers on the street represent a risk to children? Just such a claim has recently been made in the USA and the UK antis won't be far behind.
Bread buttered on both sides leaves you with greasy fingers.
Its the weasel words again, Forest or any pro smoker makes a solid statement to one of these media propagandists guys, the BBC in this instance, and they pick out words from your statement, shuffle them around, and present them as they were trained when they attained their psycholigy degrees, to make your statement sound as if it agrees with their lies.
And thats how misinformation is being propagated all across the spectrum, from smoking to drink driving and climate change.
In fact it applies to any good little money earner that will bring in the dosh for extra taxes and charges and of course cushy quango jobs for the boys.
And be prepared for worse to come now that our newly elected europhile Pres Rompuy in the EU who is demanding that the EU must be given the power to levy taxes on all of us.
Oh yes, Ireland will certainly get their Lisbon Treaty good and hard!
Martin V - couldn't have been a certain Mr A Hitler could it?!! This week - we've been told that there is global warming, but now certain studies suggest that it is actually cooling. We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - now it appears that there were no WMDs - what the heck are we supposed to believe, or who? The truth is not fashionable, but I was always led to believe that 'everything would come out in the wash'!
Jenny of Yorkshire -
Who else ?
Your prize is in the post.
If there's one thing that that Evil Genius understood, it was the Mass Mind - and how EASY it is to manipulate.
If we were to capture his Propaganda Minister in a time machine, and whisk him forward to NOW, he'd think he'd died and gone to Heaven !
But what should we substitute for 'Deutschland' today ?
Answers on a postcard, please..............
PS:
At least Herr Goebbels smoked - off camera.
PPS:
Apologies for not including YOUR name on Another Post ! Mea maxima culpa...........