Defending the indefensible? No, there's an important principle at stake
Sunday, February 2, 2014 at 18:20 I promised a post mortem following last week's vote by peers to support a ban on smoking in cars with children.
First, hats off to Labour. Politically it was a very sharp move. While peers were being briefed about plain packaging (the subject of a government amendment to the Children and Families Bill), Labour stole in and tabled an amendment about smoking in cars with children. We were caught flat-footed.
As an aside, one very well known peer rang me on the day of the debate and sounded a bit, well, confused. He is very elderly, to be fair, but I found it hard to reconcile the barely audible man on the phone with the senior government minister he once was. And, no, it wasn't Lord Tebbit who still has every ounce of his marbles.
Anyway, as a result of Labour's guerrilla tactics (yet another example of the party being better in opposition than in power), the Government is on the back foot and the PM, who last year told the House he was "nervous" of banning smoking in cars, is now said to be ready to "consider" it.
If the Coalition does introduce legislation Labour will see it as a victory. And rightly so. The Government's response in the House of Lords was pretty feeble, I thought. It was no surprise when they lost the vote.
That said, credit to Nick Clegg for not sitting on the fence, unlike Number Ten. Speaking on his weekly LBC phone-in programme, the deputy PM said it was "a stupid thing to do when a child is in the back of a car" but he did not want to "sub-contract" parenthood. (Nick Clegg opposes ban on smoking in cars with children, BBC News.)
For once most media reports were reasonably balanced with comments for and against. Almost without exception, however, the comments against a ban were from Forest. Had we not issued a statement on Tuesday there would have been few if any arguments against legislation in the following day's papers, which brings me to my next point.
There are a number of pressure groups and think tanks who profess to be against excessive regulation and in favour of individual liberty. However, with one or two honourable exceptions (the IEA being one), they were mighty quiet on this issue. I'm not going to name names because I don't want to fall out with anyone in public, but it was noticed, believe me.
Likewise individuals who claim to be libertarian when it suits them also went missing. Twitter reveals a lot about people and I have a much clearer idea today who the genuine liberals are. It's a remarkably short list.
If smoking is banned in cars (with or without children) there is every chance the use of e-cigarettes will be banned too, not because they pose a threat to other passengers but because, according to their detractors, some of them "look like" cigarettes and that, it will be argued, will pose a problem for law enforcement agencies.
I can't see why it should:
"Do you know why I've stopped you, sir?"
"No, officer."
"I have reason to believe you've been smoking in a car with your little ones. Is that a cigarette?"
"No, officer, it's an electronic cigarette. I'm vaping, not smoking."
"Can I have a look, sir? Ah, yes. It appears I was mistaken. Easily done, though, I'm sure you'll agree. Sorry to have bothered you. I won't detain you any longer."
With vaping under threat as well I was hoping to hear more from the e-cig community. Instead, barely a tweet. (If I'm wrong I apologise but I didn't see anything on our Twitter feeds.)
The good news is, we're not completely alone in "defending the indefensible", as one broadcaster put it. (I'll come back to that in a minute.) Several newspaper columnists have pointed out how nanny statist (or worse) the whole thing is.
Charles Catchpole (Sunday People) asked:
Do police have to pull over every driver with a fag in their mouth and children in tow on suspicion of breaking the law?
And do they then demand proof of each young passenger's age?
In a slightly bizarre rant Liz Jones told Mail on Sunday readers:
Children cannot be protected from everything ... Crack open a window and leave the rest to fate.
The best and most substantial column was by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail. He wrote, 'If we let the Nanny State hound parents who smoke in cars, I dread to think who it'll pick on next'.
I also recommend the following which were posted online:
A ban on smoking in cars with children is an authoritarian step too far (Charlotte Gore, Guardian)
No matter who you vote for, public health always gets in (Chris Snowdon, Velvet Glove Iron Fist)
The Lords vote is not about cars it is about freedom to smoke and freedom in parenting (Brian Monteith, The Free Society)
Finally, let's address that "defending the indefensible" schtick. I have never defended smoking in cars with children, but is it really "indefensible"?
It's inconsiderate, certainly, and possibly unwise, but "indefensible" suggests behaviour that's morally beyond the pale. If it is why did no UK government think fit to ban it before? Labour had 13 years to do so. Only now, after four years in opposition, has it become the party's official policy.
We are led to believe, by the British Lung Foundation (and politicians who are too lazy to check the facts) that 500,000 children aged 8-15 are exposed daily to tobacco smoke in cars. Where has this figure come from? To the best of my knowledge it is based on research carried out the BLF in 2011.
I wrote about it here (Ban smoking in cars, says BLF):
On BBC Radio Cambridgeshire this morning a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation reaffirmed the claim 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!
Advocates of a ban also cite the Office for National Statistics when they parrot the half a million figure.
It's only a guess, but it seems to me that the BLF has taken anecdotal evidence from 8-15 year-olds, allied it to the number of 8-15 year-olds in the country (a figure I imagine was supplied by the ONS), and come up with the claim that 500,000 children are exposed every day to tobacco smoke in a car.
Add to that the effect secondhand smoke allegedly has on children (it's eleven or 23 times more toxic in a car than in a smoky pub or home, depending on which anti-smoking campaigner you're talking to) and it's hard to believe that the generation that was most exposed to tobacco smoke in childhood (the baby boom generation of the Fifties and Sixties) has managed to live longer, on average, than any generation in human history.
I made this point several times in interviews last week. I wasn't suggesting it justifies smoking in a small confined space with children present, or that people are living longer because they were exposed to tobacco smoke as a child (I'm not that stupid!), but I wanted to add some perspective to the debate.
The strongest arguments against a ban are as follows:
First, according to research very few adults still smoke in a car with children. For example, a survey conducted in July 2011 using an online panel of 1001 adult smokers found that only 7.5 per cent would smoke in a car with a child present.
This figure is supported by a study by the UCD School of Public Health, published in the Irish Medical Journal in 2012, which found an even lower prevalence of smoking in cars carrying children. Researchers observed 2,230 drivers in Dublin (a city not unlike many in the UK). Eight adult passengers and just one child were seen to be exposed to a smoking adult driver. The overall prevalence of smoking was just 1.39 per cent.
So why introduce legislation when the overwhelming majority of smokers have clearly changed their behaviour, voluntarily, without the need for state intervention?
(Several times last week I was told that a law on smoking in cars with children was comparable to seat belt legislation and just as necessary. I also heard that, pre-legislation, voluntary compliance on seat belts was 25 per cent. Voluntary compliance on not smoking in cars with children is, if not universal, far higher than it was with the wearing of seat belts so the comparison is ridiculous.)
Second, there is an extremely important principle at stake which is this: the state should not interfere in people's private spaces unless it has a very good reason to do so. As Chris Snowdon told Five Live's Morning Reports on Wednesday, legislation to ban smoking in private vehicles crosses a line that governments shouldn't cross (or only in extremis).
I heard Chris's interview as I was driving to Salford for BBC Breakfast. I repeated the point several times that day because it supports Forest's view that we are entering dangerous territory with the next steps being a ban on smoking in all private vehicles followed by a ban on smoking in the home if children are present.
Tobacco control campaigners deny these are their goals but the British Medical Association has already called for a ban on smoking in all private vehicles and, well, we know how tobacco control operates. They are always looking for the "next logical step".
Funnily enough, far from "defending the indefensible", I actually felt on reasonably firm ground. With one or two exceptions, our arguments were taken seriously and given a fair hearing by journalists and broadcasters.
Even in the North East, where tobacco control enjoys a stranglehold on media coverage, journalists have actively sought our views (North East campaigners welcome Lords vote to ban smoking in cars with children).
I'm determined to fight the proposed law as long as we can. Legislation may not matter to the overwhelming majority of smokers who do not smoke in their cars with children, but it's a hugely important principle and I'm damned if we'll roll over while anti-smoking campaigners continue to spout a succession of spurious statistics in the name of science and research.
Update: The Sunday Times reports that Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will support a ban, even though he too was previously against it.
Damage limitation, I call it. Neither he nor Cameron want to be on the 'losing' side of a House of Commons vote.
So much for principle. What's the betting Cameron goes AWOL on the day of the vote - as he did when MPs voted for the smoking ban?
As for Hunt, what a [rhyming word].
Reader Comments (11)
An insight into the antismoker mentality and its exaggerated, hysterical, highly inflammatory language that produces claims such as “…..because people like you [smokers] are so blinkered as to the effect your behaviour has on others.”
I for one, as a smoker, was incredibly blinkered. I had no idea the effect my behavior was having on others. It seems I missed it all. In years past, there was – apparently – a constant stream of nonsmokers in distress about me; some with blood streaming from their smoke-affected eyes, others semi-conscious, and still others collapsed on the ground, clutching at their throats, gasping for air. In restaurants, there was – apparently - a steady stream of nonsmokers sending their meals back to the kitchen, either unable to see the plate in front of them due to the thick tobacco smoke that had engulfed them and/or unable to savor food due to smoke-numbed taste-buds. This was – apparently – going on about me all the time. I missed it all for decades and decades. One would have thought that in all those years I would have tripped over a fallen body here and there that might have aroused my suspicion. But, no, I must have been “lucky”, getting through it all upright. There were – apparently – scores of nonsmokers that would leave venues screaming hysterically, tobacco smoke wafting from their hair, clothes and skin, darting about in a frenzied search for the nearest dry-cleaner/shower to remove the “magical mist” lest their quality of life be utterly destroyed. I had no idea.
Apparently, children have been the great victims. I never noticed while smoking in a car with children passengers that the little folk had become paralyzed; I never noticed that they had turned blue from the toxic cloud of tobacco smoke that had somehow settled, defying the laws of physics, specifically around their heads….. well, that’s if their faces were visible at all through the static wall of smoke. Apparently, if I had only looked more carefully I would have noticed the long queue at hospital emergency wards of selfish smoking parents presenting their limp-bodied children – straight from the car to gurney - for intensive care….. a consequence of smoking in the car with the little tykes present: “Doctor, I smoked in the car. Please help my child”. I must admit, I missed it. I obviously also missed the recurring news headline “Children Lost In Car. Cannot Be Located In Rear Seat Due To Tobacco Smoke. Rescue Service Called In To Assist With Search”.
And apparently, as I smoked in people’s homes, shortly thereafter the paint would begin to peel from the walls, the carpet would disintegrate, goldfish would go belly-up, cats and dogs would lose their hair, and the electricity supply would become inconsistent with occasional sparks from electrical appliances. If I walked down the street smoking a cigarette, apparently plants would wither and the pavement crack, leaving a Moonscape in my wake. I really had no idea.
A thank-you to antismokers for pointing out my “selfishness” and the world according to antismokers.
Puhhhh-leeeez!!
Well it did,nt take the Mail long to broadcast it.
Hunt backs ban.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550560/Hunt-backs-calls-ban-parents-smoking-cars-Health-Secretary-talks-compelling-case-previously-rejecting-idea.html?login
Excuse me, but shouldn't this be a matter of evidence?
Smoking in a car with children in the back surely can be inconsiderate, but it is not more harmful to children than a) frying beefsteakes while they are in the kitchen or b) lighting up candles on the christmas tree with them ...
These two activities generate many more harmful particles than a cigarette in a car can do when a car window is open. In fact the pollution from other traffic penetrating the car can be up to 9 times more harmful than secondhand smoke from 10 cigarettes, according to Ott & Siegman, 2006:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223100500751X
Any comparison between car-smoking and smoking in bars or homes is flawed because the published evidence from bars and homes is about many years smoke exposure, often + 40 years. There is no way (and no evidence) that secondhand smoke from one cigarette in a car (or anywhere else) can harm anyone even with the windows closed. It would be inconsiderate, yes - but once the window is open it is not likely to bother passengers in the car.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who pride themselves on being “libertarians,” so often fail to acknowledge the erosion of liberties which have been ushered in using anti-smoking rhetoric as a vehicle. The inability of these people to understand the concept that a “principle” is a touchstone that must stand, even when adhering to it clashes with one’s own personal preferences (along the lines of “I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it,”) is breathtaking. In believing themselves to be “libertarian” they presumably think of themselves as thoughtful, considered people who have enough intelligence to be aware of the encroachment of our public authorities into our personal lives. And yet, when it comes to anti-smoking, they have a curious blind spot which would be the envy of any of the gullible, mindless, “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” chavs who post comments on the website of the tabloids.
Health campaigners of all varieties – because, let’s be honest, they aren’t going to stop at tobacco, are they? – have become as powerful as they have, not because they hold ill-informed politicians to ransom, threaten to bully and harass anyone in authority to dares to question them, or because they have brainwashed an increasingly intellectually-challenged public into believing the lies they tell, but because people who declare themselves to be libertarian can’t (won’t?) see the connection between anti-smoking and a whole host of other, seemingly unrelated, personal freedoms. And until they do, all their “libertarian” arguments against this or that new restriction, new law, new regulation, will come to absolutely nothing, because if it’s good enough for one harmful activity, then it’s good enough for all of them.
What was it somebody once said: “When it’s all over and done with, and the dust has settled, you, the persecuted, don’t remember what your enemies said – you remember instead what your ‘friends’ didn’t say.”
I stopped smoking in a car with a child 30 years ago, simply because my small daughter asked me not to as she didn't like it.
Never mind the smoke, what worries me most is all these children that the antis inform us are apparently unable to speak.
In my experience children never shut up, so perhaps there should be an investigation of all these disturbingly silent children apparently riding in anti-smoker's cars.
I may be an embarrassment to the anti-smokers and to the tobacco industry because I began smoking at 8 years old. However, I think that qualifies me more than most to say that the bullshit spouted from tobacco control about how a wisp of smoke being blown out of an open car window can damage young lungs that are still developing, is simply unfounded propaganda designed to evoke a knee jerk emotional response from those too thick to think for themselves - and that appears to include the faux libertarians.
What's worse is that the smokerphobics are taking steps to criminalise people like me simply because I haven't done the decent thing and dropped dead yet.
The question is - who next. Public health nut jobs are on a roll and their industry is one of the biggest in the UK. They're already looking for new targets like parents who dare to slip a packet of mini cheddars in their lunch box.
You say,
"With vaping under threat as well I was hoping to hear more from the e-cig community."
Many of us agree with your prediction that ecigs will be covered by a car ban - as eventually would smoking alone in a car; and have argued (me, not via Twitter) that this is one reason why vapers and smokers who don't carry child passengers should object to this proposal.
I think that if we rely on voluntary behaviour or on the principle of legitimate reach into private property then we’re on a hiding to nothing.
The zealots will demand that the 7.5% who don’t voluntarily conform must be forced to by legislation to protect their children who ‘don’t have a voice’ (not my impression of the children of today who seem all too vocal in demands which the parents seem unable to resist).
As for intrusion into private property – that principle’s already gone.
Before the smoking ban, FOREST argued on the grounds of choice, privacy and civil liberties and got nowhere and, now, again is arguing on the same grounds. Why would the impact be any different?
When the nub of the issue is the danger posed to children by SHS in cars why not set out to show that the danger is mythical?
I despair of ever putting an end to this persecution. at least in what remains of my lifetime, since I am 71 and smoked since 16 I have no idea why I am still alive with no serious health problems. I heard propaganda and outright lies go unchallenged on every BBC programme, it's disgusting that the zealots can say anything they like and it is never questioned.
Someone should point out that if a child is in a car, with the windows open, they are receiving more toxins (particulates etc) from diesel and petrol fumes, than any that would come from SHS. Particulates from diesel are far more damaging to a young child's lungs than any thing that would come from a cigarette.
I would suggest that all those against this unnecessary and irritating piece of legislation should place an unlit cigarette in their mouths before driving anywhere with children in the car to see how vigilant the anti-smoking branch of our traffic police are - and how long it takes for them to get totally fed up with pulling over perfectly innocent drivers.
I also foresee a great deal of hate descending on the police officers who have to enforce this legislation - God knows they have it hard enough as it is. If the health lobby has its way in 20 years we will need a complete anti-smoking force to check we are not smoking in public spaces, in cars and even in our homes. They will have to build large sealed boxes as the only place people can smoke. Think I need to start on a book entitled 2034!