Banned wagon
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 Now the British Lung Foundation has jumped on the bandwagon to ban smoking in cars where children are present. Full story, included an edited comment from me, HERE. For what it's worth, my full response was along these lines:
"Forest does not condone smoking in cars where very small children are present but there is no need for legislation because, in our experience, most smokers already regulate their behaviour and choose not light up in a car if children are present. A car is a private space. What next - a ban on smoking in the home?"
Unfortunately I fear that this bandwagon is beginning to develop momentum, not least because a large number of smokers seem ambivalent on the subject - probably because they don't smoke in the car when children are present and can't see a problem if it is banned.
The trouble is, like the indoor smoking ban (an idea that began with exemptions), it will eventually prove "easier" to ban smoking in all cars, irrespective of whether children are present or not.
No doubt we will hear about the hundreds of lives this will save each year - but I'd to see someone in government pour cold water on the idea now. For the moment, all I hear is silence.
PS. I did an interview on the subject for local radio in Liverpool this morning. They took some soundbites from people in the street and you would think that Scousers are all in favour of a ban on smoking in cars.
I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere but I won't be making it (I'll leave that to Boris Johnson) because I have to go to Liverpool in a couple of weeks to check out venues for the Lib Dem party conference!
Simon Clark
I'm on BBC Radio Cornwall around 12.40. They have interviewed Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, and want me to respond. Apparently, the BLF are "confident" that smoking will be banned in cars.
Now, where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, I'm sure we all recall that ASH boasted of having conducted a "confidence trick" on politicians prior to MPs voting to ban smoking in enclosed public places. Now, it seems, the anti-smoking lobby intends to repeat the exercise. We'll see.
Reader Comments (22)
You shouldn't give them ideas Simon ... banning smoking in homes? Some fake charity will pick this up and run with it. They've been running so long that they left truth, democracy and freedom behind!
I read the article quote..
Tanya Buchanan, chief executive of Ash Wales, said: “Breathing in second-hand smoke is known to cause a range of health problems .
No it is not this is a blatant lie.
Stop lying .
Why do you keep lying .
Do your realise liers are eventually found out.
ps.
Get you hands off my taxes parasite
It's also quite wrong for a smoker's rights group or lobby group to declare in the opening sentence that Forest does not condone smoking in cars where children are present. It is such condemnation for those that do, or for those of us who didn't mind sitting in our parents cars while they smoked, that add such momentum to the anti's cause.
If we cannot even expect our own supporters to stand up for us on this one, then what is the point. My guess is like so many other battles we have already lost this one - and indeed the home will be next.
The truth is that smoking in cars hurts no one. If it did, many of us from my generation wouldn't have lived past the age of 12.
Forest really has to take on board that it represents smokers interests and it is doing us no favours by apologising before even questioning the science behind all of this paranoid rubbish.
Simon you really should come out of your middle class bubble sometimes and see the real world, I see people smoking in cars with children on a daily basis. I'll admit that the majority of smokers don't do it, but just because the majority don't do it doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned. The majority of people don't murder or assault people but we still outlaw it because it shouldn't be legal to harm other people. Ditto with smoking in cars.The measure has widespread public support and if you had any decency you would too.
Bluemoon.
The measure has widespread public support.
Does it ?
How do you know?
Don't tell me i will guess .
It will be another rigged poll will it not comissioned paid for and rigged.
Just like all the other lies.
Perhaps Blue Moon isn't aware of how anti-smoking operates. The ban would not be restricted to cars carrying children. When it was last discussed, one of them, possibly Professor Robert West, suggested that the ban should apply to all cars. He even came up with a very impressive argument as to why a passenger should not be allowed to smoke even if the driver is a smoker. Remember, the road safety card can't be played.
Think about it. What if papa has just come back from work and has to take junior to swimming lessons. How would a passing enforcement officer know how long the car had been smoke free? Blue Moon, I can see you mean well, but it wouldn't end with this proposal. In 2000, ASH said they had no wish to ban smoking in pubs. They want to eliminate tobacco. We are in a war. Go to Velvetgloveironfist to learn more about it.
I've mentioned this before but how could they frame the legislation regarding convertables?
Or trikes?
No doubt they'll get some clever taxpayer funded lawyers to word it so it's a blanket ban as with buildings, bus shelters, railway platforms, balconies, gazebos, chicken coops etc...
Oh and by the way its seemingly OK to turn a blind eye to a bunch of council workers smoking in their "workplace" (ie - van), but then they aren't smoking cigarettes are they...
I've cracked it:
http://www.svvs.org/links5/Daimler_Charabanc.jpg
Welcome abaord, plenty of room!
Sounds like they're accusing you of wooly-thinking on this one Simon. WHY does Forest not condone smoking in a confined space in the presence of 'very small children'? At what size/age is it OK? What about if the windows are down, or the roof off as Joseph says?
Could your thinking on this be a little clouded because you are a father yourself? And a non-smoker?
Is there any CREDIBLE evidence that smoking in cars 'harms' children (Small, Intermediate, or Large) ?
If so, then would someone be so kind as to produce it ?
If not, then why all the preposterous fuss ?
Or have we suddenly moved from Nanny State to Mummy State ?
If the relatively short time that - on any one occasion - children spend in cars with an Irresponsible Smoker is sufficient to mar their prospects of reaching a healthy adulthood (even with a window open - as is the norm) then SHS must be REALLY dangerous, after all.
And if so, then thank God they never allowed smoking in cinemas.
And, Bluemoon -
The point about manslaughter and murder etc is that 'other people' ARE harmed.
The point about SHS is that (in all probability) NOBODY is harmed.
As for the philosophically dubious 'It's what the Majority wants' argument (always a matter of conjecture, in any case), I wouldn't be surprised if a Gallup poll in 1290 showed the masses in agreement with expelling the Jews from England.
Not entirely convinced that that would have been sufficient justification, though.
Even if everyone KNEW that they poisoned wells - AND ate babies.
Luckily, we're MUCH more sophisticated these days.
Aren't we ?
Scapegoats threough the ages:
13th century - Jews
14th century - Jews
15th century - Jews
16th centruy - Protestants/Cathelics (dependant on power struggles)
17th century - Catholics and old women
18th century - the poor
19th century - the natives
20th century - the Hun
21st century - smokers (so far)
Frank Davis addresses the demonisation of smokers very powerfully on his blog.
(BTW I think that simon nsc has a perfectly valid point).
And of course, Joyce, not forgetting:
a) Witches (not all of them old women), whose persecution in the 17th century was most intense in Germany (where they used ovens, even then) and Scotland - and its mildest in England.
b) Heretics (etymologically, those who exercise CHOICE) - throughout.
Still, at least it's easier for Witches these days, especially in the Health Sector - where they now get PAID for casting spells (especially ones that disperse smoke).
Not so easy for the poor old Heretic, though.
Progress ?
'in all probability'? 'CREDIBLE' - why the qualifications Martin? Is there a tinge of doubt in your mind? In answer to your question about whether there is credible evidence - well, yes, there is.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children’s Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 2004, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking 1992, Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke California EPA 1997, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (Chapter 8, WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health (World Health Organization, 1999), Australian National Health And Medical Research Council Report 1997 ...
OK,OK, I haven't checked they specifically deal with children in the confined space of a car, but they do deal with the effects of SHS on children. Now I accept your right to find fault with these studies, nit-pick away at how they were carried out, even construct a conspiracy theory around why they were commissioned - but please, you can't claim they are not credible solely on the grounds that you don't believe in them. Others do. Many others.
Ah !
Asthma, that disease that increases as the number of smokers declines ?
Simon (nsc) -
Re:
"OK, I haven't checked they specifically deal with children in the confined space of a car."
Which IS, of course, the theme we are discussing on this thread.
Hence the reason for my question.
BY 'credible', I do not merely mean 'something which SOME people are capable of believing', and which SOME facts would seem to support.
In THAT sense, most things are 'credible', especially to those with a pre-disposition to believe in them: Fung Shui and Santa Claus spring immediately to mind.
It's the efficient secret of ALL propaganda, after all.
In THAT sense, you could say that there are 'credible' studies on the effects of CO2 as a Global Warming driver.
Millions, after all, still believe such tosh.
So what ?
I, however, mean it in a rather more restricted sense: does the evidence stand up to the most detailed scientific scrutiny, and is it capable of repelling ALL the fact-based evidence than can be marshalled against it ?
Perhaps I should have made that clear.
Thanks for supporting my right to question such 'studies', however.
I really appreciate that..................................
@Simon (NSC)
Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking 1992,
North Carolina judge William Osteen spent 4 years reviewing the paper, methodology and interviewing the key witnesses. He basically said it was highly unsound, here are some of his comments.
"EPA's study selection is disturbing . First there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked 'its data . Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional."
"EPA did not disclose in the record or in the Assessment its inability to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship under normal methodology; the reasoning behind adopting a one-tailed test, or that only after adjusting the Agency's methodology could a weak relative risk be demonstrated."
" The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. "lt is striking that MS and ETS were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding ETS a carcinogen."
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/13833/Federal_Court_Rejects_EPA_Secondhand_Smoke_Study.html
@Simon (NSC)
The only way they found a reduction in asthma was through less exposure to cockroaches and dust mite allegens, not cigarette smoke.
"National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children’s Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 2004."
"Conclusions Among inner-city children with atopic asthma, an individualized, home-based, comprehensive environmental intervention decreases exposure to indoor allergens, including cockroach and dust-mite allergens, resulting in reduced asthma-associated morbidity."
http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/351/11/1068?andorexacttitleabs=and&SEARCHID=1&COLLECTION_NUM=8&hits=10&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=260&resourcetype=HWCIT&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=260&resourcetype=HWCIT
Children exposed to SHS and asthma. I would like to speculate how many children have died from an asthma attack because they WERE NOT exposed to SHS.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
"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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 11422156
http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html
On SIDS could you explain why "between 1970 and 1988, when cot deaths shot up by 500 per cent, coincided with the very time when the number of adults who smoked in Britain was falling most sharply, from 45 to 30 per cent. To anyone but a fanatical anti-smoking campaigner, this might have suggested that "environmental tobacco smoke" was unlikely to be the chief cause of cot deaths."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530949/Fiddling-those-smoking-figures-again.html
This was the Royal College Of Physicians' "case" that passive smoking affects children. Go to page 5 and have a look at the graph. Also can we make the following assumptions. Cigarette smoking is often a sign of being lower income status, infact 15% of middle class people smoke and 30% working class. So working class children are exposed twice as much to SHS, a relative risk (RR) of 2.0.
The graph has 2 axis, from left to right income to poverty and up and down ratio of incidence.
Middle ear disease: The graph is a straight line, if anything tending downwards. So despite being exposed to twice the amount of SHS children have statistically significant reduction in middle ear disease. The RR is >0.5 so significant. In epidemiology the thresholds for "proof" tends to be >2.0, although many prefer >3 or 4 and <0.5 or less if it proves the inverse.
Asthma: Starts out at 1, rises to an RR of 1.25 and tails off to 1.1. All these figures do not reach statistical significance. Also ultimately as the exposure to SHS increases the incidence of asthma tails off.
Wheeze: See asthma.
Meningitis: The only illness which reaches statistical significance at 2.3. However, it falls sharply with the highest exposure to SHS.
Lower Respiratory tract infections: The only example which seems to rise with exposure, although at 1.6 is staistically insignificant. A broken clock is right up to 2 times a day.
It only goes to show the arrogance of the RCP that their published work is junk science and they must take us for fools.
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/professional-Issues/Public-Health/Documents/How-much-disease-in-children-is-caused-by-passive-smoking.ppt#263,5,Socioeconomic status
Cheers for all that, Dave !
You're a bloody marvel.........................................
Simon (nsc), don't bother quoting papers. They are usually rubbish. Even the people who write them admit they are. (Yes, I'm being serious).