This morning on Radio Ulster
Monday, August 23, 2010 I'm on The Nolan Show (BBC Radio Ulster) sometime between 9.45 and 10.15 this morning. We'll be discussing smoking in cars. Joel Taggart is deputising while Stephen Nolan does the morning show on Five Live. Not sure if that's a good thing!
Simon Clark
Enjoyed a bit of a spat with a Dr Joe Kidney who repeated the claim, made by one of his colleagues in the medical profession, that smoking in cars while children are present is a form of "child abuse".
His main argument, however (apart from the usual stats about the health risk to young children, which I queried), was the fact that in a recent You Gov poll 74 per cent of people supported such a ban.
Hardly surprising when 74 per cent of the population equates, roughly, to the percentage of non-smokers in Britain!
Meanwhile, as many people have already made clear on this blog, relatively few people light up in a car when small children are present, so why the need for oppressive legislation?
Simon Clark
You can listen to the programme HERE. The item begins about one hour 12 minutes in.
Reader Comments (9)
Do not forget either who the pollster was. Hardly a friend of smokers and I for one take no You Gov poll seriously.
What question did they pose? 'Do you think that selfish smokers who inflict their poisons on young children should be allowed to do so with impunity? Should they be allowed to force children to remain in the car with the window up and inhale dangerous toxins?'
Maybe I am cynical but feel I have justification.
I found the stats that Dr Kidney reeled off very suspicious, not because of the numbers involved but because I don't believe that it could have been determined that the cause was smoking related.
Just posting this link in case it's of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthism
"His main argument.............. was the fact that in a recent You Gov poll 74 per cent of people supported such a ban".
Which is as scientifically valid an argument as that screaming headline ("Yes, Diana WAS Murdered") in the 'People' some years ago - based soley upon a phone-in poll of the grieving Diana-less, who somehow couldn't connect the concept of 'tragic accident' with 'mortality'.
'Evidence' - who needs it ?
Simon,I`m boiling with rage after listening to that crap.Imagine being a woman who lost A child to cot death or miscarried with all the feelings of guilt If you or your partner smoked.I fear for the future when these lies,exaggerations and half truths are passed of as scientific fact.
I`m not sure these pharma mouthpieces can ever be called to account and that makes me sad
I have the line of a song running around in my head
`the boys(smokers)were defeated
and shamefully treated`
I have become A bore about smoking and the smoking ban,relatives and friends,
roll their eyes when I speak of it.From anger to dispair in five minutes wow.
What amazes me is that these doctors to a man actually believe that banning smoking in cars where children are present will make any difference to anything, even if it were true that tobacco smoke is harmful.
The reason I say this is:
1. The length of time that people spend in cars with children tends normally to be very short - in the sense of going to school, shops, visiting, etc. Only on rare occasions do people drive for long distances with children - such as going on holiday.
2. People rarely 'chain smoke' in cars, even if they are not the driver. An occasional cigarette with the window open is the norm.
Thus any exposure is utterly minimal, even if the exaggerated claims for harm in the general sense were true. Dr Joe Kidney must be aware of this - unless he is totally stupid. Therefore his comments must be pure propaganda.
One wonders how the Hippocratic Oath fits into this situation. Are not doctors obliged by their oath to be truthful? I think that I will google it.
It may be worth Simon's while to ponder the matters that I have mentioned above since the matter of smoking in cars will certainly reappear. One might suggest asking doctors like Dr Kidney what PART of the overall putative harm suffered by children as a result of second hand smoke comes from being in cars, and what his projected figures for 'children's lives saved and children's health protected' would be if smoking in cars were banned (after all, he did quote figures for children's health harm resulting from ALL smoking exposure (blatant lies, of course)).
@ Michael Peoples.
The question posed by You Gov re smoking in cars/kids was one of about ten questions of a varied nature re 'good ideas' for the Gov to pursue re health. The question asked was: "Is it a good idea for the Gov to 'Ban anyone from smoking in a car in which any children are onboard?’ That was it. BUT....and I find this quite laughable..........of the 1500 people surveyed, 82% thought that booze bottles and cans should have the number of CALORIES written on the label (calories, for heavens sake! Do these people who vote know what calories are? Would such a statement stop people from drinking alcohol?); 78% thought that ‘traffic lights’ should be put on food packages re fats, salts, sugars, etc; 67% thought that TV adds re crisps, etc should be banned before 9pm.
One can see why Simon Clark has a serious problem in commenting on these matters on the radio. If 70% or so of the population are so unutterably stupid, how can one address the matter in any sort of intelligent way which will make sense to them?
On the other hand, we must understand that in all probability, the respondents to the questionnaire almost certainly complete it without thinking about the consequences of their replies. Ask a non-smoker the question, “Do you think that smoking should be banned in cars with children present?” and he will automatically reply, “Yes”. He will not have thought of the astronomical cost of enforcement (no publicans to blame!), the distraction to non-smokers who see someone smoking and wonder whether they ought to remonstrate or report the matter to the police and take the offender’s reg number, the hysteria and ‘driving danger’ involved in these cogitations, etc, and to cap it all, the person smoking might not even be the driver! It may be that the answer for Simon (if I may!), when in contention with doctors, is to remind them of their oath, demand projected figures, and demand their thoughts on the costs and consequences, especially with the idea of ‘child abuse’ – how many parents is Dr X prepared to see in jail?
@Junican
"....in all probability, the respondents to the questionnaire almost certainly complete it without thinking about the consequences of their replies."
Indeed. Respondents are, in fact, instructed to answer without thinking because the researchers want the gut reaction.
WRT smoking=child abuse, perhaps people like Dr Kidney might like to ask people who've been subjected to abuse whether they'd have preferred to be with unkind, unloving non-smokers or kind, loving smokers.
I'm not sure, though, that the 'experts' ought to be encouraged to produce any more computer-generated projected figures....
All this gunge comes from from one point, that ETS is harmful. That's the point that should be attacked consistently and at every opportunity. It is not as 'accepted' as these people assume and should be belted at every turn. No matter what the agenda of whoever is - talk show host or medic - this is the thing that should be pulled apart whenever the chance presents itself in public.
Sometimes some of us lose focus and become distracted.
"If 70% or so of the population are so unutterably stupid................."
Only 70 % now ?
Now THAT's what I call Good News !
It means things are improving, after all.
Must be all that Education.........................................