Ban smoking in cars, says BLF
Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 6:25 According to the British Lung Foundation:
Children from across the UK will visit parliament today to present a petition to the Government calling for an end to smoking in cars.
I don't know about you, but I'm a bit uneasy about children "from across the UK" being used for a PR stunt like this, and I'm curious to know how they were recruited.
On BBC Radio Cambridgeshire this morning a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation explained that over half (51 per cent) of 8-15 year olds are exposed to tobacco smoke in cars.
How do they know that? Why, the children told them, of course, and the BLF believed them!
Perhaps the BLF is unaware that only 25 per cent of adults smoke and 84 per cent of smokers say they don't smoke in the car if children are present, but their word doesn't count, does it, because "the children" say otherwise.
Btw, it's my birthday today. Some birthday! Before breakfast I had argued with a pleasant young woman from the British Lung Foundation and followed that with a serious spat with the breakfast presenter on BBC Radio Leeds who I accused of never letting me finish a sentence without interruption.
I then did an interview with Radio Mersyside. Before I was introduced they broadcast a report that included interviews with two of the children who were going to London with the BLF. The reporter finished by saying, "Success to you". Back in the studio the presenter compounded this bias by calling it a "very important mission". Asked on air what I thought of what I had heard, I suggested that it was "rather one-sided". (I was being polite.)
An hour ago I was on BBC Radio Sheffield and was forced to listen to an absurd story about a driver who was "blinded" by cigarette ash blowing back into his face, terrifying his passenger.
So this is what it has come to - public policy being driven by the opinions of young children (heavily influenced by the propaganda they are subjected to at school), and bizarre, anecdotal evidence.
I'm on the BBC Wales phone-in from midday to one o'clock. After that I think I'll have a lie down. Did I mention it's my birthday?
Update: I shall be on BBC Radio London at 5.20 and BBC Radio Jersey at 5.45.
Click here or on the image above to see how Central Regional News (ITV) covered the story. Includes a reference to Forest's response.
Reader Comments (13)
Really Simon what fools do they think we are? If I read this correctly (1) "The highest breast cancer risk was found among women who had smoked for ≥50 years or more (hazard ratio 1.35 (1.03 to1.77) compared with all lifetime non-smokers, hazard ratio 1.45 (1.06 to 1.98)"
So if you smoke for 50 years you have less incidence of beast cancer than non smokers?
Also study (2) says "Among current cigarette smokers of 1-20 cigarettes per day and over 20 per day, the odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, race, alcohol consumption, estrogen use, and oral contraceptive use for breast cancer were 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.09] and 0.57 (95% CI 0.30-1.08)" and conclude:
"These data supports those reports showing an inverse association of cigarette smoking and a positive association of alcohol consumption with breast cancer risk."
1. http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1016
2. These data supports those reports showing an inverse association of cigarette smoking and a positive association of alcohol consumption with breast cancer risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3468286
Signed by 15,000 fake charity and DOH employees + whatever smoke free wacko coalition beneficiaries have chipped in i'll wager.
Wow ,about the population of a very small town.
That's an idea, they can all have their small smoke free town ,and leave everyone else in peace.
Only 15,000 signatures. That is only a small percentage of children.
If children have 'underlying' health problems then cigarette smoke 'could' affect them and a parent wouldn't smoke near them, but cigarette smoke will not harm a healthy child.
A non smoker - who knows nothing about the issue - was so outraged at this news, he rang me at 8.30am this morning to tell me about the Radio Lincs "debate."
"It's like the bloody Gestapo" he said.
Perhaps more people are becoming aware of the real purpose of the anti-smoker industry.
"What if a smoke free environment could substantially increase population mortality and morbidity health risks? Is it too late to rethink our position, or to mitigate that risk?"
And why is the anti-smoker industry saying That It appears there are some in Tobacco Control who don't believe their own bullshit (oops - am I allowed to use that offensive and inappropriate word?
I may be mistaken here, but my understanding is that children who are exposed to tobacco smoke are less likely to develop asthma and a number of other allergic reactions. Is that correct?
And surely even the stupidest, most gullible of people cannot believe the claim that "smoking just one cigarette in the car, even with the window open, creates a greater concentration of second-hand smoke than a whole evening's smoking in a pub or a bar." That is so utterly preposterous that it takes ones breath away.
As for "children from across the UK" calling for an end to smoking in cars, it's obvious that they are just pawns in the game their parents are playing. Indoctrinating kids is an easy, albeit underhand thing to do.
Simon, can you please make a distinction between banning smoking in cars carrying children and banning smoking in all cars (your headline. ASH never makes this distinction. Their aim is to ban smoking in all cars, using some bogus road safety argument. You are playing into their hands by repeating the phrase. Always use the phrase, "in cars carrying children" when discussing this.
Oh - and Happy Birthday Simon :)) I hope you manage to get some free time to enjoy it today
I have just had a look through the DT - not a word about it. Yawn, Yawn.
Do these scientists, if such they are, ever ask themselves how it is that so many of my generation, now in their seventies and eighties, survived the wartime blackouts, while we shared a fireside with grandparents and mothers, most of whom smoked cigarettes? There were of course very few cars around.
...from the mouth of (my 9yr old) babe... on me explaining the ban that is now being proposed by the BFL (big fat liars).....
'That's stupid' said she...'It's your car - you should be able to smoke if you want'.
I don't know where she gets it from.... :-))
..and Happy Birthday Simon, hopefully a chilled bottle of fizzy or similar awaits your return... x
@Dave,
"So if you smoke for 50 years you have less incidence of beast cancer than non smokers?"
I think the 1.35 figure is smokers versus all non-smokers. Whereas the 1.45 figure is smokers versus all non smokers that have never had passive smoke exposure either.
Still garbage though.
P.S. Happy Birthday Simon.