Welsh government targets smoking in cars
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 7:50 Woke up to hear Forest being quoted on the Today programme.
The Welsh Assembly Government is today launching a campaign to 'persuade' parents not to smoke in their cars when children are present.
On Friday I did a pre-record for BBC Wales and also gave a quote to the Western Mail.
The gist of my comment was that Forest would support a campaign to educate parents because we do believe that smoking in a car is inconsiderate to a small child. Research suggests that the overwhelming majority of smokers believe this too, which is why they don't do it.
On the other hand we dispute the extent of the alleged risks and we will resist a ban because that would be disproportionate to the problem.
The BBC has the story on its website - Welsh government targets smoking in cars when children present.
PS. I am currently en route to Kings Cross to collect my mobile phone from lost property. On Saturday night a nice man from Network Rail rang to say it had been found on a train on Friday night. It must have fallen out of a pocket, on to the seat or the luggage rack. Good start to the week!
Update: A soundbite from my interview with BBC Wales was included in a report on BBC Breakfast this morning. Click here.
Simon Clark
Email from a Mr Robert Evans:
Once again you bleating smokers whinge about how persecuted you are. OK, carry on smoking in cars and make children really ill with your selfish, foul habit? As non smokers, we have been persecuted for decades by you lot, not being able to have a night out without going home stinking of stale tobacco, having to shower as soon as you get in, put your clothes right in the wash.
The smoking ban was the BEST THING EVER, and if you selfish, whining pathetic lot don’t like it then tough luck.
The smoking ban does NOT cost lives, it saves them. If you want to carry on this filthy, pathetic, life shortening habit, do it in private and shut the hell up.
How this clown Clark can say ‘it’s a step too far to protect children by banning smoking in cars’ beggars belief. You selfish, ill informed fool. You want to step back, listen to the crap you spout, and concede that smoking is: expensive, socially obnoxious, going out of fashion faster than good manners, taking years off your life, and diminishing the quality of your last years in life.
Get a grip man and be HONEST, your argument, like your clothes and your breath, stinks.
Yours sincerely
From a smoke and stink free house.
Charming.
Reader Comments (20)
From the BBC story
"The BMA has called for a total ban on smoking in cars, regardless of the occupant's age."
Of course they have, the car is the last place where you can sit down in comfort in a warm enclosed place when you are out and about.
They would much prefer you to stand outside your own car in the cold feeling miserable and making a public spectacle of yourself.
Playing the children card should hammer the thin end of the wedge nicely into what is currently still private space.
This lot are so transparent.
I can't remember the last time I saw an adult smoking in a car with children present. Is this something that just happens in Wales? I find it hard to believe. Usually the only people you see smoking in cars are people on their own or guys working in white vans.
Do the government really think that we are all so selfish? It can only be a very small minority of parents that would do this.
I was on BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire this morning at 9.00, I start at 9.03 to talk about the proposed Welsh ban in cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00n4hvr
After Dave A's interview Ms Sandford of ASH said we must explore the health issues which must mean that it has not been proven.
Mr Evans' email contains the usual fatal flaw. It has never been illegal to open a no smoking pub. If he and like minded others had made their preference known, such pubs would have existed. In fact, just prior to the smoking ban, a significant number had opened. I admit, mainly in middle class areas, so Mr Evans may have had a problem.
I thought you didn't smoke Simon. This sounds like a troll who can't put any really coherent thoughts together about this issue; it’s just full of abuse and nothing else.
Personally I would have discarded it outright.
We always knew that Wales had a bee in their bonnet about smoking in cars, wasn't this muted last year? Should this gain acceptance - then of course homes will be next.
I believe Cameron is far too spineless to ever resist the continual erosion of smokers’ civil liberties.
The Evans’ email has many of the markers of denormalization; it is sanctimonious – fear and hate-mongering. It has either been crafted by an antismoker, i.e., inflammatory propaganda, or someone thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda. The former is highly likely.
As non smokers, we have been persecuted for decades by you lot…
Typical antismoking propaganda pretends to speak for all nonsmokers. When there is no antismoking bandwagon, genuine antismokers, who are recognized as delusional, are few and far between.
Consider:
From Bayer & Stuber,
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
Do not add www. to ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Tobacco smoke, particularly exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS), has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon such as sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”. This says nothing about the physical properties of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda.
Evans: ”OK, carry on smoking in cars and make children really ill with your selfish, foul habit?”
The email is reinforcing the idea that children are being made “really ill” by the “selfish, foul habit”. There is no evidence of hazard, let alone being made “really ill”. Again, propaganda plants the [erroneous] idea (health hazard) required to accomplish the goal, i.e., to institute bans. The fanatics will speak of peak smoke constituents (e.g., particulates) in cars that rival a “smoky pub”. Why use the comparison of a smoky “pub” rather than just any smoky room. Again, the contrived association is for inflammatory effect. What is not mentioned is that these peak exposures are momentary – for a few seconds, and such momentary exposures have no demonstrable hazards.
Car smoking bans did not figure highly in the antismoking agenda. It has been a more recent add-on. It serves only to remove another place where smoking is permitted to occur, i.e., denormalization. The fanatics keep trying to frame – a la Chapman – as a health issue – for which there is no evidence. Simon, you need to keep properly reframing the issue in bigger-picture context, that it is simply an attempt to remove another place where smoking can occur, and to instill the idea in children that their folks smoking are engaged in an unapproved “immoral” act.
So, Simon, when you say that you don’t believe there is any hazard, but that parents shouldn’t be smoking in vehicles where children are present, I don’t know where you think you’re going with that. You are playing right into the fanatics’ hands. Even the Tobacco Control advocate, Siegel, believes that car smoking bans are a step too far; that parents should decide if smoking occurs in their vehicles or not. By agreeing that parents shouldn’t be smoking in cars, you are helping to “immoralize” the act of smoking, an act that children should not be exposed to and that children should certainly not see as “normal”. You can see that this is what Evans has in mind (in agreement with the Godber Blueprint) – that smoking should only occur in the privacy of the home, away from the “normal”, “moral” public.
You can always recognise a liar like Evans.
If the result of a 'night out' was as vile as he says, why did he go to those places? There have always been places which were not 'smoky'. In any case, is his diatribe not a bit passé? Even the quacks have stopped talking about stinks, showering and clothes washing since indoor smoking has now been banned for over five years. Also, we can still reasonably ask what the actions of other parents in the company of their own children in their own cars have to do with him. We could also ask him to name three people whose lives have been saved by the smoking ban. In fact, name one.
Simon, you need to understand the serious ramifications of such a smoking ban. Although Siegel does not agree with such bans, he also believed that they would be difficult to enforce. He is quite wrong on this matter.
Consider:
Council wardens and Essex Police will carry out random inspections across the county to look for evidence of illicit cigarette use.
They will even hunt for cigarette butts in the ashtrays and smell the air inside the vehicles in order to clamp down on the outlawed practice.
Workers were banned from smoking in their company cars as part of the Health Act introduced in 2006.
The law made it illegal in all vehicles used primarily for business purposes by more than one person.
Anyone caught breaking the law faces a £50 fixed penalty fine or a possible court conviction, which carries a £200 fine.
Add www. to telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8355435/Roadblocks-set-up-to-catch-drivers-smoking.html
Getting tough: Police will put a stop to smoking inc cars.
A DRIVER a day is being caught by police for smoking with a child in the car, and officers are vowing to crack down further on irresponsible parents.
Add www. to dailytelegraph.com.au/news/police-vow-to-put-out-car-smoking/story-e6freuy9-1226199883466
Mr Evans' email should also be held up as an example of the vitriol and abuse that the smoking citizens of this 'tollerant' society are subjected to. There can be NO dispute that this is due almost entirely to the likes of ASH, BHF, and the Government actively encouraging it.
Consider, we are well aware of the ramifications of a smoking ban in private vehicles which is why Forest is fiercely opposed to a ban on smoking in cars, with or without children.
It is not inconsistent however to state that (1) we do not believe smoking in a car is a significant health risk to children and (2) it is inconsiderate for adults to smoke in a car with children. This is because smoking in a very small confined space like a car has the potential to create an unpleasant environment for children (who have little or no say in the matter) and it is only considerate (ie good manners) to take that into account.
Research suggests that the vast majority of smokers share this view (84 per cent say they would not smoke in a car with children). Forest, therefore, is merely reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of ordinary smokers.
John, the purpose of occasionally publishing comments or emails from the likes of Robert Evans is to highlight the extreme intolerance of some anti-smokers. Earlier today I was on a BBC local radio station and the presenter read out a similar anti-smoking diatribe. I was delighted he did. It made everyone else sound sane by comparison!
From a smoke and stink free house.
…. and a completely neurosis and bigotry-filled house.
Also note that the typically used “addiction” has been substituted with “selfish, foul habit”, terminology much used early last century in fanaticism-ridden America. And the word “selfish” is used a number of times.
A prominent American Tobacco Control advocate (Siegel) recently noted that the idea of “addiction” is highly “flexible” in antismoking circles: “The anti-smoking advocates seem to change the science on whether smoking is a choice (eg, a selfish, foul habit) or an addiction based on the issue of the day. If the issue is a lawsuit, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is refusing to hire smokers, then smoking is a choice. If the issue is the FDA regulating nicotine, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is denying medical care to smokers, then smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.”
The same can be said for taxation - when it comes to imposing extortionate taxes on tobacco, smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.
Point taken Simon.
As Consider, above, points out, not only does Mr E presume that all non-smokers share his own hate-filled, supercilious attitude towards smokers, but he also makes the assumption made by all anti-smoking hysterics that anyone, such as yourself Simon, who dares to speak up on behalf of smokers must by default themselves be a smoker.
What a pity he hasn't noticed that - particularly since the ban and its major and minor negative repercussions have become apparent to everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike - both presumptions are becoming increasingly incorrect.
Thanks for the response, Simon. Much appreciated. The following is not taking a shot, but just throwing some thoughts on to the table. They are posed for consideration. You can eventually toss them in the metaphorical bin if you see fit. :)
Simon: (2) it is inconsiderate for adults to smoke in a car with children.
Without wanting to belabour the point, you are claiming that smoking in a vehicle with children IS, by definition, inconsiderate, that you want to educate parents not to smoke in the car with children. You are advocating “prohibition” on car smoking through education, i.e., education to prohibition.
If you take this position, you will leave yourself with no place to go, i.e., a dead-end. I think most of us are familiar with how propaganda works. In a short time, the fanatics will claim that the “education” isn’t working and that a prohibitive law is required. You will have no fallback because you also agree – although for possibly different reasons - that parents should not be smoking in the car.
Let’s look at the idea that smoking is “inconsiderate”. You say it’s so “because smoking in a very small confined space like a car has the potential to create an unpleasant environment for children (who have little or no say in the matter) and it is only considerate (ie good manners) to take that into account.” It may have such a potential. But why not leave it to parents to decide whether this might be occurring and how they deal with it? “Unpleasantness” is a pretty wide and potentially subjective concept. You are claiming that tobacco smoke is always and only unpleasant and smoking should not occur in a car. Bear in mind, too, that slightly older children will have typically gone through antismoking brainwashing at school, potentially creating an antagonistic dynamic that has nothing to do with health or actual unpleasantness, i.e., the “unpleasantness” doesn’t come from the smoke but the brainwashing about the smoke. There are also children that have no problem with smoke.
Unpleasantness is a feature of the day. Consider just the car circumstance. Some children may find air-conditioning unpleasant; or an open window, or sitting in traffic, or the parent’s driving style, or the music playing, or sunlight, or conversation, or ending up at school from the drive, or their siblings on the same seat, etc. Children might just be generally grumpy. Learning to deal with unpleasantness (which is not catastrophic) is a vital lesson of living. How did we get to the point that exposure to tobacco-smoke remnants in a car for short periods is so extraordinarily different to anything else that even potential unpleasantness, if not actual unpleasantness, warrants education to prohibition or, worse still, legislated prohibition?
Research suggests that the vast majority of smokers share this view (84 per cent say they would not smoke in a car with children).
Not sure what you’re trying to get at here. Firstly, there are many smokers, too, whose thinking has been addled by the propaganda barrage of the last few decades. Secondly, if 84% of smokers say they would not smoke in a car with children – fine…. they don’t smoke; that’s their decision. But how do we get from this position to the belief that no-one should smoke in a car with children? Again, why not leave it to parents to make their own decisions?
Simon, the only interest of fanatics is legislated bans, one at a time. Pandering to them on “politeness” or “consideration” or "good manners" grounds in this case will most probably get you steam-rolled, and smokers too. It is a far, far wiser position to view bans on smoking in cars as just another step in removing the places where people typically smoke using “protection” of The Children™ as the basis. As others have noted, the next “logical step” will be homes. While the fanatics will attempt to depict smoking bans in cars as an isolated circumstance, your job is to properly re-frame the issue in its bigger-picture context.
There. I’ve said my bit :)
”Smoking in cars carrying children should be banned whether or not science can prove exactly how risky it is, according to an article penned by Ray Pawson of the University of Leeds and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.”
Then there’s the standard “confidence trickery” by the usual antismoking groups:
"This issue has unstoppable momentum," said Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society. "These laws have enormous public support and they have been easily adopted with all party support in provincial legislatures."
Add www. to montrealgazette.com/health/Science%20shouldn%20stand%20sound%20smoking%20policy%20study/4086184/story.html
I have the greatest sympathy for Simon, and indeed any other person (like Dave Atherton) who is caught between a rock and a hard place. Their situation is similar to being on the 'horns of a dilemma'. One the one hand, they want freedom for parents to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke in their own cars with their own kids present; on the other hand, they do not want to deny that SHS is harmful to children. And yet, can anyone name ONE CHILD which has actually been shown to have suffered from SHS? It seems that it is a given that SHS harms children, but it could also be true that SHS is good for children's immune systems! Further, it also seems to have become 'a given' that children's lungs are damaged by SHS. WHO SAYS SO? WHERE IS THE PROOF?
From birth to death, we are all exposed to roughly the same atmosphere. The atmosphere is 'dirty' - spores of fungi, pollen, dust, car fumes, trace element such as sodium, carbon, sulphur, etc. Children breath the same atmosphere as everyone else. How have all these brainy professors and doctors come to the conclusion that SHS is wonderfully deadly?
I suspect that 'The People' (excepting, of course, the Evans of this world, who will never understand) are not ready to accept that SHS is harmless, especially to children. They have been brainwashed. It seems to me that the only way back to some sort of reality is to grasp the nettle. That is, DENY, DENY, DENY any harm to children. Pat Nurse, in the radio interview which she was involved in, said exactly the right thing, which was, "You exaggerate!" (Being posh, she used the word 'hyperbole'). As I recall, the interview was precisely about the harm of SHS to children. Pat said to the ASH ET AL rep [words to the effect], "You are exaggerating. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. It is just as likely to be true that children GAIN from being exposed to SHS as SUFFER from SHS" Pat hit the right chord. DENY that children suffer. You can legitimately say so since studies do not reveal any significant harm, and thereby do not exclude benefits.
@Consider... And very well said too.
You are absolutely right. Nothing has been achieved by trying to come across as 'reasonable', agreeing in principle but quibbling about the detail.
The bottom line in that cars are private spaces and what you do in them, other than obey the rules of the road, is sod-all to do with anyone else.
Knowing how polls are skewed ["It depends how the questions are framed" Arnott} it's a disappointment to see Simon quoting them as gospel. I'm just pleasantly surprised that 16% of respondants were happy to answer that they thought it was okay to poison The Children with their toxic fumes.
Next step - the home. Will you be so keen to 'educate' the public then, Simon?
It is apparent to me given the tone and the closing statement of the email shown that Mr Evans clearly has no anus! Don't worry though Mr E, one day this society will wake up from its X-Factor induced stupor and tear you and all the obsessive control freaks like you a new one.