smoking in cars ban?

[ivykaty44]

Will it actually work? I can't see that many people smoke around children anyway and those that do will not stop due to legislation anyway, then if people haven't been policed about mobile phones it will be even harder with smoking.

I am not a smoker and don't think people should allow smoking around children but can't see this having any effect

That's interesting Claig. I had a quick google and looked at an ASH report proposing banning smoking in cars - followed the references claiming there was 'evidence' for the claims about how exceptionally dangerous it is and it was all 'a pilot study' or 'a case report'. Not actually strong evidence of the type claimed at all.

Basically summed up as 'we know smoking is bad for you, so smoking in cars must be bad for passengers, so let's make it sound like the most frightening thing ever'.

Made-uppy shite based on supposition. It is probably bad for air quality, but so is being anywhere near a busy road.

Could always WALK the kids to school, could work!

Yes, this is the problem with made-uppy shite, it means that the adocacy groups who are in favour of these type of policies begin to lose credibility if they use unsound arguments. It is analogous to what has happened in the area known as 'global warming'.

This is what the Canadian journal article says

"Changes to public health policy do not usually occur simply as a result of epidemiologic research detailing the health hazards facing a population. Policy change requires both strategic and opportunistic advocacy to transform research findings into health reforms. Successful advocacy campaigns often require the translation of complex research findings into short and memorable media quotes. Managing the risks involved in either oversimplifying research results or misreporting findings is essential to maintaining the credibility of public health professionals. Unfortunately, inaccurate reporting of health information is not an uncommon phenomenon."

We clearly need real scientific evidence to say how bad it really is, before the great and the good make laws which infringe on liberties, and I say that as a non-smoker.

Thank you, that's really interesting.

I wonder where the 11 times higher comes from?

Does anybody have any stats for absolute risks of second hand smoke?

The Mail recently reported on a study that claims that there are no clear links between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2526495/No-clear-link-passive-smoking-lung-cancer-scientists-claim.html

Ha! I'll read that tomorrow as will have to turn my kitten block off first. Before I bother, do they link to any actual research at all?

There are also things like asthma and glue ear to consider of course.

This is the link to the research

jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

Of course, the Mail regularly carry articles saying that passive smoking is harmful as well.

Claig, thank you.
Plenty, there will never be such a thing as an absolute risk as genetics is also likely to be involved. That's why some people can effectively get away with smoking when others don't.
If it was up to me I would be arguing that we don't know if particular kids are prone to developing problems, so to be on the safe side, keep them away from as much smoke as possible.

If this thinking that smoking damages children whilst they are in cars, surely the next logical thing would be to ban it in the home... Then where next, in order to protect the child would it be a big jump to ban/prosecuting pregnant woman from smoking or drinking alcohol? Or a ban for everyone smoking in the presence of a pregnant woman? Where will the state intrusion end I wonder... Where would either of these measures leave woman's liberties?

Yeah, lets ban smoking, as banning stuff has worked so well with illegal drugs
and prohibition worked a treat in the USA

if you keep the window open, hold the smoky end slightly out of the window, and exhale to the window, you can still hold the wheel and keep most of the smoke outside.

obviously, to be completely safe, you have to ask a passenger (your oldest DC) to light up for you.

or so my friend says .... [bring it on!]

Peace - Actually prohibition in the USA has had an impact until the present day. Order a bottle of wine between 2 people in much of the USA and the waiters will look at you as if you are an alcoholic.

So how does a waiter look at an alcholic ? Cats bum, shock surprise, or frowning scornfully face?

Boffin, I mean absolute risk as opposed to relative risk. e.g. -

my chances of dying of some rare disease are 0.00001%
my chances of dying of that disease increase if I smoke to 0.001%

Expressed as relative risk, I am 100 times more likely to die of that disease if I smoke, which sounds really scary.

My absolute risk - 0.001% - is not nearly so alarming.

Other factors such as genetics, how many fags I smoke, for how long, other environmental pollutants etc. of course have an effect which is why it's a risk not a certainty.

Fair point, plenty.

I imagine crossing a main road, or driving along a motorway in wet weather, is statistically more risky for children than breathing in fag smoke.

BoffinMum it all depends on how you measure risk. You are weighing a tiny risk of a dramatically immediate consequence (being run over) with a much higher risk of cutting 10 or 20 years off health from your life. The way that NICE do this assessment is to look at QUALYs - Quality years of life. So a 50% risk of losing 20 years of good quality life, would be the same as a 25% risk of losing 40 years of good quality life and that in turn would be the same as a certain 50% reduction in quality of life for 40 years.

If you assume a 10yo has 70 years of life ahead of them then being killed in a car accident in childhood would have to have a reasonable percentage chance to be on a par with the expected loss of QUALYs through passive smoking (although I realise that there are no accurate stats yet). In fact, only about 24,000 (still far too many) children are killed or seriously injured each year in road accidents which gives each child only a tiny risk of 0.035% (given 11.7 million children and childhood lasting 18 years) at some point in their childhood. So on this measure, breathing in fag smoke seems a lot more risky.

More relevantly, breathing in fag smoke is completely avoidable with no downside. Crossing the road is not. Just because you face other risks in life does not mean that you should not reduce the ones that are amenable to reduction.

Plenty sadly you are not quoting true stats. You have a 50% chance of dying from smoking if you smoke. It is not 0.001% It is not as clearcut what the risk from passive smoking might be, but it is likely to be measurable and significant when talking about small children.

Yes Prof, that's why I said e.g - it was an example to show the difference between absolute and relative risk. Thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious again though. You'll be telling us that smokers smell next.

From your post -
'although I realise that there are no accurate stats yet'
'breathing in fag smoke seems a lot more risky' (my bold)
'It is not as clearcut what the risk from passive smoking might be'

Is it really so unreasonable to want some actual real data in order to discuss the risks of passive smoking sensibly and proportionately?

I'm following with interest. I find MinitheMinx's posts correspond closely to my opinions on this subject.

It's a fact that most smokers don't die from smoking related issues (from memory, and I haven't the paper) it's about 1/3rd. Still fecking high of course. So, we either deem smoking a public health scourge and ban it, or it is legal and we tolerate that people make up their minds where they want to smoke.

We shall soon be in the silly position of being able to by fags but not allowed to smoke them. Anywhere. Nuts.

Fair point Plenty. I have since looked at research papers and found there is in fact plenty of evidence about the harm done by passive smoking (I was being lazy before). Yes, asking for data is fair enough. It's there.

BTW have you noticed how gross smokers smell?

There is a little girl in my sons class who is very unpopular. (I feel very sorry for her. The kids don't understand that her family has problems, which I won't go into here, and I only know about as I was on the pre-school committee when she was there, and the SW approached us)

I have tried to encourage my son to be kind to her even if the others aren't, but one of the reasons my son has given for not wanting to play with her is that 'she smells of cigarettes'.

Yeah, lets ban smoking, as banning stuff has worked so well with illegal drugs and prohibition worked a treat in the USA

Completely agree with Talkinpeace. Banning smoking would just open up a black market with more opportunities for crime and all the attendant shit that comes with it.

Holding anything in your hand while driving should be illegal - phone, cigarette, sandwich, cuppa, whatever.

We can keep telling parents to be sensible about smoking around their children (in the house, car, or wherever), but not all will take any notice.

worth a ban, although given how many think that the ban on a phone doesn't apply to them I don't expect much to change.

smoking is a help to evolution and adults should be allowed to smoke if they want - smokers reek so their breeding chances are reduced, and of course their chances of dying earlier are higher. Not fair to impose on kids though.