Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

Originally Posted by rogermevans

they didnt have us in their pubs to ask as we couldn't go in there

So one lot of patrons (the majority in my local pub) gets turfed out so that you and other objecting non-smokers can go in? I doubt you're keeping the pub alive with your Coke and OJ. Any more than the people who now go in for the occasional meal now that the smoking ban's come into effect keep my pub alive.

no kids should ever have to put up with second hand smoke that should be the over riding freedom here

No government should be able to limit freedom of choice without a very good reason. Until it is proven that smoking affects normally healthy people, including children, that is. Having said that, no parent with any will power should smoke in front of children, if only because children learn by example. But it's still a parent's choice.

no one is stopping any one smoking just where they can

So smoking should be limited to the outside? That's the natural extention of the no smoking in cars policy, is it not? After all if passive smoking is bad for children in cars, it must be just as bad in the home, mustn't it?

I'd never heard of this guy, writing in the Independent before, but I think he's talking a lot of sense. I don't want a coffee shop to replace the pub.

Sorry if this is going off topic, but sometimes it's a natural extension of a discussion when people say provocative stuff.

Topic?I think it's about smoking in cars where children maybe present not public houses.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by freezin

Until it is proven that smoking affects normally healthy people, including children, that is.

Wasn't that proven a long time ago?

Originally Posted by freezin

So smoking should be limited to the outside? That's the natural extention of the no smoking in cars policy, is it not? After all if passive smoking is bad for children in cars, it must be just as bad in the home, mustn't it?

Yes, but how would you feel if the government started regulating what you do in your own home. On the road if fair game though, as you are in public.

A far better idea would be to start charging a fee for treatment of smoke-related health problems.

[CycoSymz]

[quote=Frank;34717085 A far better idea would be to start charging a fee for treatment of smoke-related health problems.[/quote]

The tax that smokers pay should be enough to cover any smoking related illness and some more.

Originally Posted by Frank

Wasn't that proven a long time ago?

Where were all the people who died, for instance from lung cancer? No, I don't think it has been proven.

Yes, but how would you feel if the government started regulating what you do in your own home. On the road if fair game though, as you are in public.

I wasn't arguing for that.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Topic?I think it's about smoking in cars where children maybe present not public houses.

I think smoking in pubs came into this because it has been claimed that passive smoking causes cancer. I think it's reasonable to ask, if that is true, why we didn't see non-smoking bar staff (and spouses) affected by lung cancer. I don't think the two issues can be separated.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I don't. Never have. Tried it once and didn't like it. I do, however, believe in freedom of choice, a concept which seems alien to some people.

Thats a swipe if its aimed at me stuart, and the question was not aimed at you in the first place.
But seeing as you replied, lets see, freedom of choice?
Where is the freedom of choice for the children in the car?
Maybe they can walk that mile to school with all the risks associated with sex offenders etc?
Freedom of choice has to benefit all parties.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I dont smoke but this is getting incredibly stupid.

1 - over legislation of what people do in their own space and time.
2 - the country getting extremely over protective of children. This country must be the most protective of children in the world.

Bear in mind smoking is already banned in taxis so this wouldnt be for that situation.

What people do in their own space and time?
Nobody should interfere?
I will remember that next time I crank the volume up on my rig.
I do not see anything wrong with protecting children from second hand smoke.
And lastly about taxi's, there lies the solution, put your kids in a taxi.
People shout about freedom of choice, but freedom of choice is not a one way street I am affraid.

---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i couldnt go into most pubs before the ban with out being very ill maybe you just have blinkers on caused by your drug habit of choice

there were loads of us asking for smoke free areas but we were never realy catered for because most just set aside a room with no provision to stop the smoke from the rest of the pub getting in there

Very well said.
Whenever I came home on leave I would go back to base with all the side effects of second hand smoke, as both my folks smoked.
So in my opinion second hand smoke cannot be very good for your health can it?

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Well Roger i don't really know about pubs because i don't drink and very very rarely go in one. So i have my drug of choice and you have yours . But lets be honest here if the demand for non smoking pubs was that high business would have come into and opened them making a lot of cash that didn't happen because......

You as good as said there was no demand for smoke free pubs.
A bit like an atheist saying there is no demand for religion?

---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Flange

The tax that smokers pay should be enough to cover any smoking related illness and some more.

I see, so never mind if you bury your kids the funeral will be paid for by the state so long as you pass the means test

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

Originally Posted by freezin

I think smoking in pubs came into this because it has been claimed that passive smoking causes cancer. I think it's reasonable to ask, if that is true, why we didn't see non-smoking bar staff (and spouses) affected by lung cancer. I don't think the two issues can be separated.

And as I posted a good time ago google " Roy castle " and you will find an example.
A guy who never smoked in his life worked in clubs died with lung cancer.
Yes one isolated death that was reported may be a drop in the ocean, if people prefer more proof unless there is a way of finding out the figures for respiratory deaths in people who have never smoked the debate will roll on.
I prefer to use my own judgement having seen my dad gasping for breath when he was struck down with emphysema, he smoked from the age of about 12, until about 12 months before he died but it was too late by then.

Originally Posted by freezin

Where were all the people who died, for instance from lung cancer? No, I don't think it has been proven.

I wasn't arguing for that.

I think smoking in pubs came into this because it has been claimed that passive smoking causes cancer. I think it's reasonable to ask, if that is true, why we didn't see non-smoking bar staff (and spouses) affected by lung cancer. I don't think the two issues can be separated.

Link1 Page 9 (World Health Organisation)
"meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers"

I have tried to avoid the usual suspect sites, like ASH, Forest, or any government websites.

Link2 (BMJ, re Coronary Heart Disease (CHD))

"Conclusion

High overall exposure to passive smoking seems to be associated with a greater excess risk of CHD than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers, suggesting that the effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated in earlier studies.
Further prospective studies of the association between cotinine (or similar biomarkers) and risk of CHD will help to assess the effects of passive smoking on cardiovascular disease with greater precision. In the meantime, our results add to the weight of evidence suggesting that exposure to passive smoking is a public health hazard and should be minimised."

Link3 (BMJ re Mortality amongst "never smokers" living with smokers)
"Adults who had never smoked and who lived with smokers had about 15% higher mortality than never smokers living in a smoke-free household
This study strengthens the case for a causal association between secondhand smoke and mortality"

Link4 - Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis (University of Queensland, Department of Health)
"CONCLUSION: Exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population aged 20-64 years, and up to half of such deaths among employees of the hospitality industry"

[rogerdraig]

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/community/ab...2007_5_30.html

Ok as for Roy Castle a lot of people have come out and said they remember him smoking at least in the sixties and my own grandfather told me when he was watching Roy Castle in a club in the sixties he did smoke so i am not so sure about that one. I am not doubting second hand smoke is damaging i am not yet convinced it is as bad as some make out otherwise we would have had so many non smoker's dying of smoking related cancers that it would be beyond doubt and we havn't.

It is a freedom of choice and one we have allowed a government to take away from a lot of people in this country lets not pretend were talking about a small number of selfish people here i smoke but do so considerately as do many of the people i know. Smoking around children is a no no and most responsible smoker's don't do it so what were talking about here is legislation for the idiot selfish minority the sort that need warnings that hot coffe may scold if spilled on you and won't abide by any legislation anyway.

It's another attack in the name of health to stop adults doing something they enjoy or wish to do and as i said if this was happening on alcohol half the people on here saying it's ok wouldn't be so happy but don't worry alcohol's time is coming.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Link1 Page 9 (World Health Organisation)
"meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers"

I have tried to avoid the usual suspect sites, like ASH, Forest, or any government websites.

Link2 (BMJ, re Coronary Heart Disease (CHD))

"Conclusion

High overall exposure to passive smoking seems to be associated with a greater excess risk of CHD than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers, suggesting that the effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated in earlier studies.
Further prospective studies of the association between cotinine (or similar biomarkers) and risk of CHD will help to assess the effects of passive smoking on cardiovascular disease with greater precision. In the meantime, our results add to the weight of evidence suggesting that exposure to passive smoking is a public health hazard and should be minimised."

Link3 (BMJ re Mortality amongst "never smokers" living with smokers)
"Adults who had never smoked and who lived with smokers had about 15% higher mortality than never smokers living in a smoke-free household
This study strengthens the case for a causal association between secondhand smoke and mortality"

Link4 - Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis (University of Queensland, Department of Health)
"CONCLUSION: Exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population aged 20-64 years, and up to half of such deaths among employees of the hospitality industry"

Campaigners make claims which appear as persuasive about global warming too. I'm far from convinced about that either.

Passive smoking: is there convincing evidence that it's harmful?

Last year, the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt declared that a ban on smoking in public places "will save thousands of lives". Official estimates assert that 12,000 people a year die in Britain from the effects of passive smoking. In Scotland, a ban on smoking in all public places began in March, following a lead set by the Irish government. The Welsh Assembly is preparing to follow suit. In England, smoking will be banned in pubs, clubs and restaurants from the summer of 2007.

But none of these restrictions is based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

The rest of the report from the Independent is here.

Non-smokers die from cancer, including lung cancer. Whether this is due to passive smoking is far from proven. There are other factors.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I prefer to use my own judgement having seen my dad gasping for breath when he was struck down with emphysema, he smoked from the age of about 12, until about 12 months before he died but it was too late by then.

That's your choice. No one is saying that anyone should smoke.

Originally Posted by freezin

Campaigners make claims which appear as persuasive about global warming too. I'm far from convinced about that either.

... snippety snip snip.

Non-smokers die from cancer, including lung cancer. Whether this is due to passive smoking is far from proven. There are other factors

My apologies re your point on "Campaigners"- I thought I had made it clear I deliberately avoided any "campaigning" sites - those links are researchers, not campaigners. They are reporting their findings, not their feelings. Cui bono?

Re your point about "passive smoking", I thought link 1 and link3 were fairly unequivocal about that? Sir Richard Doll did say what you quoted, but what is almost always missed out when that is stated is the fact "he had just published a study from 12 European countries suggesting the opposite: it was estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer". Guardian

He also said in that interview "Find out what the tobacco industry supports and don't do it, and find out what they object to and do it." , but strangely enough, that doesn't seem to get quoted as much.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this topic.

(btw, your link doesn't work).

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My apologies re your point on "Campaigners"- I thought I had made it clear I deliberately avoided any "campaigning" sites - those links are researchers, not campaigners. They are reporting their findings, not their feelings. Cui bono?

No apologies necessary. I understood what you meant. Perhaps I didn't make clear what I meant. The WHO and the BMJ do "campaign" against smoking; they are therefore campaigners, and in the WHO's case, better financed than most. I think they may well only employ researchers who look to support their campaign to end passive smoking. Researchers have had their work discarded when they haven't supported the anti-passive smoking case.

Re your point about "passive smoking", I thought link 1 and link3 were fairly unequivocal about that?

Persuasive ... yes. Unequivocal ... no. As before, campaigners make equally persuasive arguments about other issues, and I'm not convinced.

Sir Richard Doll did say what you quoted, but what is almost always missed out when that is stated is the fact "he had just published a study from 12 European countries suggesting the opposite: it was estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer". Guardian

I've seen the Guardian's report. He didn't actually say he agreed with the findings of that study. And he still said, "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me," which is a damn sight more unequivocal than the quote you chose.

He also said in that interview "Find out what the tobacco industry supports and don't do it, and find out what they object to and do it." , but strangely enough, that doesn't seem to get quoted as much.

Good advice, but I think it's prudent to also question what everyone else says. Bit silly to only question the side you disagree with, wouldn't you agree? Was the quote taken out of context, for instance? I'm trying to find a transcript of the programme.

I'm always happy to agree to disagree with you. And thanks for pointing out the error. After you've read the link I'd like you know what you think, if you're still interested. Link fixed

Here's another excerpt:

When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.

It would be sensible to ask whether her comments were taken out of context too. I'd imagine Ms Sandford and her bosses would have demanded the right to reply had she been misrepresented.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Thats a swipe if its aimed at me stuart, and the question was not aimed at you in the first place.
But seeing as you replied, lets see, freedom of choice?
Where is the freedom of choice for the children in the car?
Maybe they can walk that mile to school with all the risks associated with sex offenders etc?
Freedom of choice has to benefit all parties.

Actually it wasn't a swipe at anyone. It was a reminder that I believe that people should have the choice. Something which our current government apparently does not.

As for walking to school, apart from the percieved threat of sexual attack (which, let's face it, is not likely to happen to 99% of children, although it does happen), would the walk not do the kids good? Certainly more good than being stuck in a car whether smoke filled or not.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually it wasn't a swipe at anyone. It was a reminder that I believe that people should have the choice. Something which our current government apparently does not.

As for walking to school, apart from the percieved threat of sexual attack (which, let's face it, is not likely to happen to 99% of children, although it does happen), would the walk not do the kids good? Certainly more good than being stuck in a car whether smoke filled or not.

What would you class as " People " Stuart?

Surely if it is to be believed that " The children are our future " ie the ones who we may need to wipe our backsides if we get older then they are entitled to a " Choice " ?

Ofcourse the walk would do the Kids good, so the smoking parents of those Kids can get some air into those lungs instead of Toxins?

---------- Post added at 08:29 ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Ok as for Roy Castle a lot of people have come out and said they remember him smoking at least in the sixties and my own grandfather told me when he was watching Roy Castle in a club in the sixties he did smoke so i am not so sure about that one. I am not doubting second hand smoke is damaging i am not yet convinced it is as bad as some make out otherwise we would have had so many non smoker's dying of smoking related cancers that it would be beyond doubt and we havn't.

It is a freedom of choice and one we have allowed a government to take away from a lot of people in this country lets not pretend were talking about a small number of selfish people here i smoke but do so considerately as do many of the people i know. Smoking around children is a no no and most responsible smoker's don't do it so what were talking about here is legislation for the idiot selfish minority the sort that need warnings that hot coffe may scold if spilled on you and won't abide by any legislation anyway.

It's another attack in the name of health to stop adults doing something they enjoy or wish to do and as i said if this was happening on alcohol half the people on here saying it's ok wouldn't be so happy but don't worry alcohol's time is coming.

Rizzy, can you provide links that show these people saying that Roy castle smoked? apart from your grandfather?

Choice as I said before is not a one way street, it has to be a two way thing.

So if you want to puff your lungs away good luck to you, but my choice is not to be in the presence of someone doing that, and just the same a child is entitled to the same rights.

Comparing warnings over hot coffee with this topic does not work with all respect, a 15 minute run under the cold water tap will ease the burn, 15 minutes of passive smoking will do a bit more damage, and more so if its a regular exposure.

freezin, we could bat it around all day about the effects of smoking, but as I put above, cui bono?

Who do I trust less? The Tobacco companies, who stand to gain custom and revenue if the negative health aspects of smoking (active and passive) are nay-sayed or put into doubt, or Government, Public Health Authorities, or researchers? Why would Governments legislate to diminish revenue (taxes from the producer and consumers)? Why would researchers (whose work is peer-reviewed) risk their reputations?

Anyhoo, this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic - my personal view is that smoking should not be allowed in cars where children are present; whilst I hope most people would be considerate of their children's health, and any potential risks to it, there are always some who don't give a damn, or are unthinking.