Smoking around children: bully state to act
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 Yesterday the Daily Telegraph reported that "Stopping parents lighting up at home, or in cars, if they are with their children will form part of an aggressive new anti-smoking campaign to be launched by ministers this week." Full story HERE.
In response I wrote the following letter, not (yet) published:
Not content with banning smoking in every pub in the country, a policy that is partly responsible for the closure of 52 pubs each week in the United Kingdom, the government intends to ban the display of tobacco in shops, a move that could threaten the future of many local stores.
Now, it seems, the government wants to prohibit smoking around children, whether in cars or in the home (Report, December 13). We would not encourage adults to smoke near young children in a small enclosed space, but banning the practise would represent a disturbing intrusion into people's lives and private spaces.
Evidence suggests that this government is determined to create not just a nanny state but a bully state in which coercion is preferred to education, and prohibition is the first option rather than a last resort. Decisions that should be left to the individual are increasingly being taken by government and enforced with a small army of control officers who threaten us with fines and other penalties if we don't accede.
When is a leading opposition politician going to stand up and say "Enough is enough"? David Cameron talks about tackling Big Government but on issues such as this he and his spokesmen remain largely silent. Millions of votes could be at stake because without clear leadership many people will simply abstain from voting in the belief that, when it comes to the nanny/bully state, the Conservative party is no better than Labour.
This morning I will be discussing the issue on Liverpool's City Talk Radio.
Simon Clark
This morning, writing in the Daily Express, Vanessa Feltz had this to say:
Professor Terence Stephenson of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health told me there is no doubt that parents who smoke in their children's presence bestow all manner of potential health complications upon them. Everything from bronchitis to asthma to sudden infant death syndrome and even swine flu is exacerbated by parental smoking ...
A bout of plain speaking from the Professor has convinced me the personal liberty lobby is deluded. Children have no choice and no escape. Let's have a slogan: "Children light up our lives, don't light up in theirs" and stub out parental fags.
It's worth pointing out that Feltz is not an anti-smoker. If I recall, she was not in favour of the smoking ban and whenever I have been interviewed by her on the radio she has always been very fair.
I agree with her assertion that "Children have no choice and no escape" and I do believe that parents should err on the side of caution out of courtesy and consideration if nothing else.
But I don't accept that government should ban smoking in cars (or homes) where children are present. Unfortunately, if people like Vanessa Feltz are convinced it's a good idea we have got an uphill battle to win the argument.
Reader Comments (82)
Hopefully this sick government will not be around long enough to enforce this silly ban, it is just another nail in the coffin as far as freedom is concerned.
This is now becoming increasingly dangerous. It is just an excuse to intrude into peoples homes. Once that happens..well...we've had it.This must be nipped in the bud. and yes where are the Tories, the un liberals. Silence is golden eh ? No votes for any of them from me.
And since when has the state decided to take over parental responsibilty for the chillldrennn. What are they made of the kids ? egg shells ?
I'm afraid that I must be becoming increasingly radicalised with every new measure to demonise smokers, but I would not subscribe to the view that we ought to "err on the side of caution" or to show special courtesy and consideration to children, unless said children had a pre-existing health condition. If none of the studies have shown that SHS comes close to being harmful then there is no reason for caution. There is also no reason to show children any more courtesy than is shown to other people. I wouldn't smoke in an airless room where there were children, but then I wouldn't smoke in an airless room in which there was only myself.
I still don't understand why Forest fights the battle on the issues of choice and smokers' rights when those will never stand up against the health argument and when the evidence is available to show that the 'science' has been drummed up.
At long last, a debate on here that people can get their teeth into!
Simon says, "Unfortunately, if people like Vanessa Feltz are convinced it's a good idea we have got an uphill battle to win the argument"
Good God Simon, if it were only the Feltz's of this world that we had to battle against, I am sure we would all be smiling this morning, when we read such rubbish. If anyone seriously believes that Feltz is a worthy opponent, and that we should all shiver in our shoes because the Great Feltz has spoken, then maybe they should take a look at the real villains out there, and believe me, there are plenty of them, and they are not difficult to find. Just take a look at any of the political programmes on tv, and you will see their smarmy faces, lined up behind Gordon Brown. These are the people we should be sinking our teeth into, not pygmies like Feltzy.
As for the old "chuck in the Tories" ploy, all that succeeds in doing, is what I have been going on about for months, and that is dividing the country, and dividing the vote. "Don't vote for them" I hear you shout, over and over again, "they don't speak up for the smokers" Please tell me, beside UKIP, who we all know damn well haven't a chance in hell of getting in, who does seriously stand up for smokers?
Everyone now knows that UKIP are a spent force, but still we have those that are ready to bring down our country even more than it now is, by saying they will vote UKIP because UKIP are doshing out free fags, or something equally stupid.
Because of UKIP, neither of the two main parties (Labour or Tories) will be able to form a workable Government, whichever one manages to scrape in, will have to rely, not on UKIP and free fags, but on the Lib-Dems, who incidentally, in case anyone hasn't noticed, want us IN Europe, and also want more controls on the smoking ban.
So well done UKIP and its supporters, you have condemned us to another five excruciating years of hard Labour.
Peter, what has UKIP got to do with this thread? The point about Vanessa Feltz is that, to date, she has been a moderate non-smoker not an anti-smoker and in that respect she represents millions of people in this country.
Instead of some sterile Tory-UKIP argument, I'd like to hear from readers why smoking shouldn't be banned in cars (and homes) where children are present. Obviously I have my arguments but I'd like to hear yours.
The reason I brought up UKIP Simon, was in answer to your question: "When is a leading opposition politician going to stand up and say "Enough is enough"? David Cameron talks about tackling Big Government but on issues such as this he and his spokesmen remain largely silent"
I know UKIP are nothing to do with David Cameron, but how can we expect Cameron to speak up on such a controversial issue as the smoking ban, when he is being robbed of votes and possibly denied a working majority, because of UKIP supporters?
Regarding my views on smoking around children, I believe I take a very similar line on this, as you seem to. I do not smoke near to young children, as I believe they do not have a proper choice of their own, but I think maybe an age limit should be imposed, if ever such a law did come to be passed, which I doubt very much if it will. One only has to look at the ban on using mobile phones whilst driving; it is being largely ignored by the majority of the public, for the simple reason that it is hard to police, and that would also imply to such a ban in private places, such as cars and private homes.
50 or more years ago, my dad regularly smoked in his car. My mum did occasionally too. Sitting in the back seat, I never gave a damn about it. Nor did my brother, sat beside me. Nor did any of the kids I knew. And they all grew up to be fine strapping adults in the longest-lived generation in history. My dad lived to the age of 79, and my mum to the age of 93. And I've not had a single serious disease or disability in my lifetime. And neither has my brother.
Why shouldn't smoking be banned.......?
Quite simply because there is no credible evidence to support such measures on health grounds. The evidence which is presented will be the same as that used to justify the ban in enclosed 'public' places or, if new, will be just as disreputable. We lost the battle when ETS as 'the invisible killer' passed into the gullible public consciousness.
They might try to justify it on the grounds that children of smokers are more likely to take it up. Underpinning this approach is the presumption that the State has the right to usurp parental responsibility and authority. This Government believes that it has that right. I would hope that most parents don't.
The Telegraph article reports that the new measures are part of the strategy to halve the percentage of smokers by 2020. There we have the real reason: the continued demonisation of smokers to shame us into giving up.
(And, Peter, commenters on this blog are not going to be singlehandedly responsible for another five years of Labour - look around the blogosphere, many, many people are now saying that they intend to vote for a minority party because it's the first step in breaking the Lab/Con/LibDem stranglehold.)
Thank goodness no one mentioned the British National Party - and they are now becoming a lot stronger than UKIP! ooops!
Seriously, however, the extensions to the smoking ban are becoming increasingly rediculous. This is merely a smokescreen to divert people's attention away from the fact that the economy could collapse at any time and that the country is, indeed, bankrupt. One of my mother's carers was fined, recently, for smoking in her own vehicle. All this rediculous behaviour and bullying is merely fuelling people's anger and will result in a nasty backlash. If smoking or second hand smoke was so terrible, then there would not be the vast number of people aged 80 or above alive today. All common sense has now gone out of the window - along with democracy in this sad, oppressed country.
If this goes ahead it will eventually apply to all homes including single occupancies, just in case somebody visits.
I live on my own and get regularly visited by a support worker. When she is about I smoke next to an open window through my own choice and consideration for her, she does not mind me doing that whatsoever.
Another classic example. When I first visited a non smoking friends flat, I offered to smoke outside. But he insisted I would do so indoors.
The anti's and the government don't like the idea of people using thier common sense being able to sort these things amongst themselves.
BTW for a while I was puzzled as to why HMG would encourage smokers to give up and reduce the considerable duty it grabs from us. I've come to the conclusion that it's done a backroom deal with Big Pharma involving drug costs.
It isn't just our government Joyce, who are loosing out on all the revenue they used to collect from Tobacco, it is governments from all around the world.
The green lobby is much larger and militant than most people think, and if a "government" is not seen to be a part of that movement, then they are showing their "uncaring" side, and if they want to stay in power or even grab new power, they need to be seen as caring. Hence the smoking ban, got to protect its citizens hasn't it, got to protect the "kiddies" haven't they? I mean, what sort of people do not "care" about children?
So, in showing the world what absolutely lovely people they all are, they lose out big time on the revenue from tobacco, but hey...so what..."we'll come up with something else to replace that...even overtake it". And they have indeed done just that, with global warming, "Hey guys" says a Tony Blair lookalike, "I've got a great idea, how about taxing life itself....whatever they want to do, we'll tax them for the pleasure of doing it...what do you think guys?"
But first they have to get their "dodgy facts" across to the electorate around the world, and in order to do that, all they need do is arrange a summit, where they all fly in on private jets, and swan around in luxury limos, and shout at each other about which country is doing the most to save the planet.
Give us a rest guys, forget the frigging planet, we've all seen through that one. Go back to collecting revenue on tobacco, it's a hell of a lot easier.
I was doing some research for an important meeting that someone I know is having today and I came across this in the British Medical Journal from 2000. The worldwide tobacco industry has a turnover of US$400 billion. Cocaine is $70 billion and assume heroin is about the same, then tobacco dwarfs it as an industry. Imagine what would happen to society when and I do mean when tobacco becomes illegal.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/9/2/206.abstract
http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugculture/wheredrugscomefrom/cocaineandcrack
While I am here you can write to Professor Stephenson care of Mr Stephen Cox coxs@gosh.nhs.uk
Yesterday morning I wrote to him and you can view my full letter here.
http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4819
You can write to Vanessa Feltz on vanessa@bbc.co.uk I will be.
Remember when the smoking ban came in and we were told "nobody is saying you can't smoke, just step outside to do it" was used as a common rebuttal?
With this legislation if you're a single parent, or are home with the kids alone and live in a tenement building then the government really are saying "you can't smoke". You can't leave the house without being a negligent parent, you can't just "step outside" as outside is a non smoking area, you have to leave the building altogether, in which case you're breaking the law anyway.
So you have a choice of which law you want to break if you want to have a cigarette.
Personally I welcome it. The more intrusive the puritans become the quicker they lose credibility with the general population and their healthist wishes become irrelevent.
I tend to agree with RTS. We should let this government do its worst. Perhaps then people will realise how many freedoms they have lost. Not that we shouldn't fight it, of course. I worry, though, that the conservatives will not be any different. So it's UKIP for me.
Blimy Jenny of Yorkshire, what is it on here that you are frightened to mention the Bnp or Ukip? If they are the party of the smoker then why shouldn't we mention them? I'm definitely not going to vote for the Tories or Labooor and I dont care if none of them get in next time. They talk about a hung goverment, I think they should be!
Jenny of Yorks - trad Labour supporters are going to the socialist BNP = trad Tories to free market UKIP. I'm old Labour but not NuBNP so UKIP is my only choice. Ataloss - hung they deserve to be indeed.
The only reason we are now at the poimt where neighbours spying and reporting on neighbours - which is how they will enforce the home ban, in addition to evicting council tenants that dare to smoke - is because we lost the issue before the ban came out. I am sorry, but I fear it will NEVER be amended.
THat is not because it doesn't deserve to be but because no-one will listen to smokers and the voice of reason and it doesn't help when Simon and others in the movement allow an own goal on children.
At home, in the car, on the street, in a pub, a resturant or cafe, any concerns about SHS and the effect on chiiiildren can be addressed in a variety of ways without persecution and exclusion of a minority group. This is the message that must be put out not that we are dangerous to our children.
This war on somkers has lost me family. I guess I'll see the most stubborn of you in jail in a couple of years time.
@ RTS
In 1998 Clive Bates of ASH said "No one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants." Within 8 years we know what happened.
The last time I had an ashtray at my desk was in 1992 and seems an aon ago. Slice by slice the anti smoking lobby will push for more and more restrictions. Its starts out voluntarily then becomes law and I estimate that tobacco will be upgraded to a class C or B drug in about 2025 if things continue as they are. With the current prevailing climate all we can do is delay and stall.
However history teaches us tides do turn. There are current signs that the anti tobacco are becoming hysterical, like 3rd hand smoke, New Jersey banning electronic cigarettes. Banzhaf of ASH in the US was laughed at by an TV presenter and a Congressman when he suggested a 30 stone teenager's parents should sue McDonalds as he ate there 3 times a week.
ClimateGate has come at a fortuitous time, in that there is emperical evidence scientists are prepared to manipulate data and the facts to confirm their arguments.
What we have to do is keep plugging away, keep writing letters, debate these people as much as we can, we will win in the end.
Peter - No - the Tories and their fear of freedom and lack of respect for the people they expect to vote for them will bring this country down not UKIP.
I am sorry, but people like yourself who stick to their traditional voting patterns - even though it really is like voting to be a turkey at Xmas for smokers - will be responsible for more of NuLab.
to Pat Nurse.
I am not a traditional tory voter Pat, but I don't see you reckong about voting tory will get labour back in. Can you explain?
Dave, you may be interested to know that Terence Stephenson is now the Professor of Child Health at the UCL Institute of Child Health, whose partner hospital is Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, whose website includes this page
http://www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/kids/news/news/2009/smoke_risk.html
Pat wrote
The only reason we are now at the poimt where neighbours spying and reporting on neighbours - which is how they will enforce the home ban, in addition to evicting council tenants that dare to smoke -
Point one about spying neighbours will not work..........will need photographic evidence, in the evening time this will be impossible.
Point two....eviction of tenants will need proof and will result in the tenant HAVING to be re-housed. This will also cause a problem if one parent has smoked..even worse the teenager has had a crafty smoke, will this mean the whole family are evicted? Banning smoking in the home will be totally unenforceable.
Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves! Like RTS and others on here, I believe that these health fanatics and supporters should start to behave ludicrously in order to wake people up who have been complacent. I only mentioned the BNP to add a little spice into the debate (because the very mention of the BNP always seems to do that!), but the BNP, like UKIP, is pro-choice in the smoking debate. I have read today that in Leeds during the past week, more than £2,000 in fines has been collected by council officers from people in the city centre for dropping cigarette ends. Also, they will take down car registrations of folks seen disposing of a cigarette end out of the window. How on earth can they prove that? As for banning smoking in the home - well if they try to do that, the government really will be hung - in more ways than one! :) and deservedly so.
Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves! Like RTS and others on here, I believe that these health fanatics and supporters should start to behave ludicrously in order to wake people up who have been complacent. I only mentioned the BNP to add a little spice into the debate (because the very mention of the BNP always seems to do that!), but the BNP, like UKIP, is pro-choice in the smoking debate. I have read today that in Leeds during the past week, more than £2,000 in fines has been collected by council officers from people in the city centre for dropping cigarette ends. Also, they will take down car registrations of folks seen disposing of a cigarette end out of the window. How on earth can they prove that? As for banning smoking in the home - well if they try to do that, the government really will be a hung one - in more ways than one! :) and deservedly so.
One thing is for sure - the reign of terror from New Labour must be ended at the next General Election. I do not care who you vote for, but, if you have a sitting Labour MP in a marginal seat, make sure you vote for the next worst thing.
I just want to be left alone. live my life without some interfering MP passing more intrusive legislation. Since most of the real power has gone to Brussels now, the head-count in Westminister should be reduced by 50% or more.
As an aside, I see many company vehicles with smoking occupants and I think eventually the smoking ban will be ignored.
Spocky - my own belief is that of conscience and I don't see that voting in "Stalin" to keep "Hitler" out is worth the effort. If we want change then that has to come from the bottom up. Us. The voter. THe smoking issue matters now - not in five years from now. By then, I fear, we will be criminals, our children will be taken from us, and we will be homeless if we still refuse to give up smoking - especially the poor and helpless - Inch by inch, bit by bit, is how the fascists have always done it. The home ban is the next phase. I've no doubt that more persecution will follow. The antis, instead of being campaigners, will become enforcers.
When Labour was born as the party of the working class, it had to fight, with support, to become a parliamentary party. Liberals and Conservatives always won elections. Look at the Liberals now. Look at NuLab, NuTory. If you want New change you have to start now by saying enough is enough.
Ukip says it will put up enough candidates to win if voters get behind it. It does, however, lack the kind of election campaigning money of the big three parties. I'm doing what I can locally, I know of other smokers who have joined their local branches and offered help as candidates, leaflet droppers, fund-raisers. What both the pro-choice parties have in common is grass roots support willing to walk it's feet off. The three main parties can only dream of such support. They rely on the staus quo, the core vote, the traditional swing between one and another. I say they can't rely on me anymore and they don't deserve the support of any smoker or individual humanist whatever their traditional ideological roots, views, etc... Only by voting for the staus quo will you get the status quo.
Mark - the point is that to enforce a home ban, they would have to rely on neighbours and Orwellian type of approaches - but isn't all that becoming all too "normal" these days?
Jenny of Yorks - 10 years ago, a lot of what is law and in the main stream now would have been laughable. The direction this is going in is terrifying. Yes, they really can use cameras to see(and take a photograph of) you dropping a fag end out of your car window. I'm a court reporter. An unpaid penalty, results in a court appearance in front of brain washed magistrates who are more like tax collectors these days than justices.
Yes - I'm thoroughly depressed about all of this. It's very hard to fight when they use children as human shields. The truth is that SHS is NOT harmful. It is an annoynance to some people, it has become a way of making a living for others. There are LOTS of other ways to deal with that annoyance than the Govt getting into our homes, cars, private space and local pub.
Pat wrote
Mark - the point is that to enforce a home ban, they would have to rely on neighbours and Orwellian type of approaches - but isn't all that becoming all too "normal" these days?
How?
Mark said above that smoking in the home will be unenforceable. There are two ways in which it could be done. The first is voluntary: put out the message in ad campaigns that children's health is especially damaged. Parents will then begin to feel so guilty that they just won't smoke in front of their children and the guilt will be reinforced if children are encouraged to complain about smoking. The second is if the authorities gain entry to the home on a pretext (and several blogs recently reported on a huge list of bodies which are applying to do just that on the grounds of safeguarding children, ASH being one of them). If smoking in front of children becomes accepted as a form of child abuse then the authorities could take the child into care. Add the fear of that to the guilt and the job's as good as done..
I've said this before about banning smoking in vehicles, but will say it again.
The rise in lorry accidents, particularly on motorways occurred after the smoking ban came into force. Why? Because someone who is used to smoking and uses it as a distraction from monotony no longer has that distraction, ergo, total loss of concentration and an almost hypnotic state induced by the monotonous regulated speed, the mile after mile of tarmac and nothing to stimulate the mind.
So, now they want to stop parents/people smoking in cars when children are present; how many families might be lost due to accidents for the very same reason that lorry accidents have increased?
There is no way that anyone can possibly believe that a smoking ban in vehicles where children are present will actually protect children - it will do some of them far more harm than any amount of SHS could do over a lifetime; not to mention vehicle fumes!
There has to be some conspiracy going on for so many politicians to agree to and allow the mass destruction of pubs, clubs, jobs and road safety, amongst other things. It just does not make any sense otherwise, unless the lunatics are literally and seriously running the asylum!
Mark - In the USA, neighbours whose properties are connected have complained about smokers leaving their windows open... there are home bans in communal properties ... In Wales, a couple were told to stop smoking because their neighbour complained she smelled smoke... An Irishman faces jail for lighting up inside a council building ... children are encouraged to tell authoritarian officials about their home life ... they are encouraged to hate smokers ... this has caused family divisions...they are becoming the state's children...overwhelming CCTV everywhere ...smokers fined more than violent criminals ... need I go on...?
Pat
How will you get the people in detached houses?
Pat
There's as much chance of them entering your house for smoke as there is to prove you swing from the chandeliers....not likely is it? How many jobsworths will be needed to check millions of homes?
Well, I'm just sick and bloody tired of being either lied to or bossed around by those too stupid to understand that they are being lied to.
Study after study shows that the children of smokers have less incidence of asthma and other related atopic disorders; they have a lower risk of contracting serous lung disease in later life and they're probably a damn sight happier than those of the bleeding heart Righteous who feel the need for a risk-assessment every time they leave their sterile homes.
It used to be said that 'smoking stunts your growth' and that was all rubbish, too.
You can call it erring on the side of caution if you want but it seems more like erring on the side of political correctness. I smoked around all our children, just as my parents smoked around me. What makes the current crop of 'tiny pink lungs' so precious? We all grew up fit and healthy and, perhaps even more important, free of irrational fear.
Is anyone else beginning to loathe children?
Most of the time, I did not smoke in the car if my children were in it, neither did I smoke in the home, except special occasions, my ashtray was in the garage or utility room. I didn't exercise that because of any theory of right or wrong, I did it because I chose to. My children didn't smoke, neither did their mother, so I chose not to smoke in enclosed places if they were there. That is personal choice. When I was an army musician in the late sixties, the 'cookhouse' had ashtrays on the table. If I was sharing a table with a non smoker, I did not light a cigarette until they had finished eating. I even used to ask smokers if they minded me smoking while they were still eating! Again, personal choice.
On the subject of legislation to ban something. I caught a bit of a TV programme on Sunday which I found alarming.. It was about Global Warming/Climate Change, and it was being discussed with a group of young people, mainly students. One young lady said she thought the government should legislate to make people do or not do things, alter the way they live, by legislation, for the sake of 'the environment'.
Here is the alrming bit. The presenter aksed how many of them agreed with her, and about half put their hands up!
That's the future, Timbone. That's why the fight now matters so much.
Mark - privately owned detached houses will prove difficult to enforce a smoking ban but my guess is they will sniff out suspects through children at school. This is quite feasible. Gian Turci's fight began when his children were lined up in the playground, with others at a Canadian school, and sniffed. Threatening letters were then sent home to parents. We cannot allow that to happen here.
I don't hate children but I despise those who use them as human shields against smokers and other lifestyle issues of control. What next? The Food Police in your fridge to check that it's healthy enough for your children to eat?
Pat wrote
Mark - privately owned detached houses will prove difficult to enforce a smoking ban but my guess is they will sniff out suspects through children at school.
Innuendo......NO PROOF!
I think that this is one certain occasion when the intrusion of party politics is not a good idea. Simon asked for opinions as to why this proposed law is not good.
Reason 1.
My children are MY children. I have fed them, clothed them, housed them and kept them warm. I have kept them safe and educated them. I have taught them to be sensible about booze, tobacco, sex, drugs, food, electrical appliances, cars, etc, etc. The fact that they are healthy with decent jobs and homes of their own is because of me (and my wife) and not because of the state. I have grandchildren who are growing up healthy young people with their minds in good fettle. We do not need state interference in any way, shape of form. Stay out of our lives!
Reason 2.
The 'law of diminishing returns' is particularly important in this particular case. The cost of policing such a law would be astronomical, but it would HAVE TO BE policed, otherwise the gov could be held responsible for dire consequences if it was not. Care homes would have to be provided for children taken into care if their parents were caught smoking in their presence, etc.
Reason 3.
As regards cars, cars can be ventilated with the greatest of ease - open a window. I always open a window when I am smoking in my car. I do not like driving in a smoky car. The external pressure of the atmosphere, when a car is moving at any significant speed, is much LESS than the internal pressure and so the air inside is drawn out of the car and continuously replaced.
Reason 4.
Children do not have a choice about tobacco smoke because it is not in the nature of children to have choices of any significance. Their choices are limited to ice-cream flavours and such. If children had choices of any significance, they would be falling off cliffs and drowning in the sea. Their choices are dictated by their parents - as they should be. The statement that children 'have no choice' as regards tobacco smoke is irrelevant and, again, is just another scare tactic and just another 'lever' to force government to do as they are told (or give gov a 'scientific' excuse to what they want to do anyway.
Will that do for now?
@Mark: Just to remind you that not so long ago the same reasoning was used about smoking in bars, i.e. many people (even smokers) viewed it as unbelievable and unenforceable.
Simon,I don't know the brief you receive from your financial backers but I have to say, considering your comments in the past about 'extremists' that it is about being reasonable and not too confrontational. I think surely now you must see that the 'extremists' are the ones that are creating and enforcing these ludicrous laws, and the time for kid-gloves is over.
You have always shied away from mentioning any connection with the US pharmaceutical led anti-smoking Crusade and the Nazi propaganda that they were inspired by. MOST people, including many politicians have no idea this is true,and should be told at every opportunity
so they might realize that they are following a most dispicable and devious ideology, that can only lead to complete stripping of personal freedoms step by little step.
I feel this point is extremely important for people in general to understand, and is not at all 'extremist' as it is the truth and well documented.
Mark: Just to remind you that not so long ago the same reasoning was used about smoking in bars, i.e. many people (even smokers) viewed it as unbelievable and unenforceable.
DIFFERENT............one bar many witnesses, landlord fined, entry available at any time to jobsworths. You can refuse entry to your own home. Someone tell me where the PROOF will come from? Kids can make things up....immiscible in court without PROOF.
As other posters already told you, there are "soft" enforcing methods such as sniffing the children in school, complaints (or gossip) from neighbours and visitors, encouraging children to complain etc.
Furthermore, in part such ban would be also self-enforcing (nobody would actually want to harm the children or at least set the bad example to them by breaching the law).
I have read similar stories about home smoking bans in e.g. California. Some antis did admit that enforcing such bans would be problematic but they still found the justification by using the reasoning like "So what if it is unenforceable - it is the right thing to do so we have to do it".
Sorry to bring politics back into this, but afterall, it was the politicians who backed the orignial ban giving a green light (and the funding) to the anti-smoking and anti-public health regime that we are now faced with.
We have labour in power. We have the tories in oppostition. The labour party appear to be embracing this idea and I haven't heard a squeak yet from the so-called opposition.
All I can say is that if any government of our country places a £400+ billion global industry into the hands of illegal trade, then they can kiss goodbye to the support of the majority.
Current anti-smoking legislation has already forced many within our country to take that route already with a huge loss of revenue to the UK.
The politicians will get what they deserve on polling day. To me, a weak government (as we all know we have), is as weak as its opposition.
Neat point, Helen.
Who is monitoring the global warming industrial swindle? How many people are getting filthy rich on the back of the global warming swindle? If idiot governments like ours are giving carte blanche to windmill builders to charge the tax payer with astronomical sums to build windmills, who is going to stop it?
Our government have gone mad. Much more sensible would have been to have placed a little windmill on every building in the country, each feeding a bit of electricity into the grid. No..........not sufficiently IMMEDIATE for them. Must be BIG and GLORIOUS and cost billions.
Pat said, "What next? The Food Police in your fridge to check that it's healthy enough for your children to eat?"
I believe that this has already been done, Pat, in an area in Glasgow as part of a guvmint inishativ like Fit for Life or some such crap in which those who took part also were given a fiver to spend on apples....
I don't think it matters if this Government doesn't get these proposals through. ASH waited for thirty years to get smoking banned in pubs. They'll just bide their time.
Further to Junican's point about the AGW swindle, this morning on 'Farming Today' an interviewee asserted that environmental groups had consistently exaggerated the danger of low fish stocks in the North Sea. On the basis of such lies, policy has been made which has not only damaged the livelihoods of fisheermen but, of course, impacted on prices. So much for healthy eating....
Junican
I see you've been looking at squander2 over at
http://www.squandertwo.net/blog/2009/12/denialism-and-scepticism.htm
I agree with the article (and your comments) totally. Why does this sort of reasoning never appear in the msm?
How long will it be before the kiddies are asked in school to spy on daddy's tax returns or what party mummy and daddy vote for or what web sites are mummy and daddy interested in.
And how long will it be before some cute hoor politician conjures up a new quango called 'the protection of children from abuse by authority' or some such weasily crap, to question the children and get all information required in plain sight.
I feel the R word coming on again!
I'm still waiting for PROOF of someone smoking in their home. The PROOF must stand up in court. Clothes smelling of smoke proves nothing (they could have been left to dry in a room where adults smoke.........no PROOF the child was in the same room. Will someone please give me PROOF that will stand up in court and convict the smoker.