Should pregnant women be banned from smoking in light of new research?

[hunkermunker]

See here

"Nine out of 10 mothers whose babies suffered cot death smoked during pregnancy, according to a scientific study to be published this week. The study, thought to be one of the most authoritative to date on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), says women who smoke during pregnancy are four times more likely than non-smokers to see their child fall victim to cot death."

Personally, I find it very, very hard to understand why anybody smokes while knowingly pregnant. And yes, I know it's addictive. I speak as an ex-smoker, not somebody who has no idea what it's like to have a love affair with the evil weed.

Message withdrawn

Just to end some of the confusion - I havent hidden who I am - tis VVVQV - a quick search would tell you promptly. Desi can vouch for that, cant you Desi?

I'm an ex-smoker too....you could say we are like born again non-smokers

I'm not saying that based on my quitting you can too. I know it's bloody hard and you have to be ready to stop, no one can make you do it. What I'm saying is that to say you can't just isn't true because that would imply there is something forcing you to smoke against your will.

Message withdrawn

Yes, 'tis VVVQV. It has been all along. She's changed her name for glorious and temporary prankster purposes, and for nothing malicious or cowardly. It is not remotely in the woman's nature.

Ginge, it's got nothing to do with willpower. I don't want to give up. I like it.

One day, I will wake up, and never smoke again. In the meantime, as I said, you're more than entitled to slate me. Smoking is entirely indefensible. But as I said, the only person who has a right to judge me, is my own son. And he may well do so.

We all have our issues. If a pint of milk was a mile and a half way, I'd walk it. Would you?

WHile no one can argue that smoking is actually good for people, smokers are becoming pariahs to an unreasonable extent -ie everything is blamed on smoking, including things that are nothing to do with smoking (illnesses contracted from exposure to industrial chemicals, exhaust fumes, hereditary conditions etc). And if smoking was as immediately lethal as some of the more screamingly self-righteous anti-smokers seem to think, the developed world would be a lot less populated due to the high incidence of smoking parents only a generation or two back.

Well said.

When I was a kid, everybody smoked. Very few kids had allergies, etc. Whatever is wrong with modern health, I think smoking is somewhere at the bottom of the table, tbh. It's on the table, to be sure, but it doesn't deserve the captain's table.

Cars, fumes, computer screens, microwaves (?), appliances switched on all the time, too much bathing, too little exposure to dirt??

Too much bloody angst, all round.

Desi thank you for that - I was just expecting confirmation that you knew who I was....!

As for kids with allergies....well, they are the offspring of parents who smoked who are children of parents who smoked......

etc etc

Look, I haven't 'slated' anyone, haven't judged you and agree you're well within your rights to smoke and to enjoy it. As previously mentioned

"you have to be ready to stop, no one can make you do it"

and

"At the end of the day if you want to you will and can do it."

which is pretty much saying exactly what you've just said. If, or when, you want to give up you can and will. I have passed no judgement.My only beef with smoking is when it's in my face and given that you're at the end of a different computer I'm not sure how I can pass judgement.

And for the record, the reason ex smokers are evangelical is because of how much better we feel as a result of stopping. It's about spreading the word.

Hmmm, VVVQV, if I didn't like you so much, I would take issue with your last post.

In my experience, the kids with allergies belong to the other camp entirely. But we shall not labour the point. We all see the world through our own, unique eyes.

Ginge .. I don't want to argue with you at all. You're quite right, and nothing you say is argumentative or provocative in the least. You're cool.

Peace, sisters

Desi - I speak as a parent of two children of which I was NOT smoking through either pgs (although have smoked in the past) - one who has severe allergies, asthma, eczma etc, and one who is completely clear of any of the above.

I think there is much to understand about atopic children and it's about genetic and environmental factors. In some cases, the environment affecting the genetics.....

It's all fascinating stuff.

Oh so that is who you are SaintJude, I was wondering why you seemed so familiar!

I know quitting is hard. I struggled. It took me nearly a year to feal normal after I stopped, and I went from a size 12 to 16 in that time.

What works for one person (I went cold turkey) will not work for someone else. My father stopped smoking age 67, after 50 years of chain smoking roller tobacco.

My old university lecturer quit at 50, vowing not to touch sigars until age 80. He is living out one of his philosophical principles, anticipation of the pleasure is pleasure. So he has the pleasure of anticipating smoking cigars again when he is 80. Most bizarre. Is he fooling himself? How sad to spend your life longing so for cigars....

Desi, I am not a sanctimonious ex smoker. I need a dictionary, as my intellect is not reaching far enough to grasp the term.

LOL! I had mentioned 'over there' that I was operating under a namechange too

Oh, I havent been back, couldnt possibly handle more than one at the time..... Monogamist, me...

It is fascinating.

On the subject of MN/smoking, I often appear as the devil's advocate. I don't do it to justify my habit, but it is certainly interesting to shake up the ingredients in the box.

It is desirable that no one smokes, for sure. It is also desirable that no one is overweight, or chews gum (pet hate), or puts toddlers on naughty steps, or drive their kids into depression by their desire to be 'successful', or parents who have a problem with 'baby' words, like choo choo for train (when it's proven that the baby approach works), and parents that over-complicate every, single, stage of an individual's progress .....

Or parents like me. Flawed. For sure. But me and my boy walk three/four miles a day. And I did so, as a smoking pregnant mother, up until a week before he was born.

Saintjude, re. the economics, I am self-employed so you don't have to worry about funding any sick pay for me.

oh hello vvv...

Is "devil's advocate" another phrase for cigarette advocate? Cigarettes are the work of the devil, after all

Bang on aitch....

I thought that was chocolate and lipstic...

well i grew up around smokers [much older sister gave me a puff on her fag when i was five and many smoking lodgers in house] and i developed serious asthma at 8. It is totally illogical to say oh everyone used to smoke and we didn't have allergies then. As has been pointed out, the sudden rise in allergies could well be related to the levels of pollutants, smoking included, in previous generations.

I think that Desiderata's last post really just proves the point that education (on it's own at least) really doesn't work that well. There is lots of very conclusive research evidence that links smoking to many many illnesses, and yet still people apparently believe otherwise - why? I think it's just because they want to. We all have this in built belief that we will live forever and that bad things only happen to other people. The converse happens when people buy lottery tickets because "someone has to win and it could be me". Funny that the two don't seem to connect much. I think the answer is that human beings are very poor at understanding risk - or maybe we just all only accept what we want to. I don't smoke but I worry more about the effects on my dh, who does, than he does. He still goes along with the beilef that he will give up one day before anythign bad happens. Unfortunately the bad things start to show themselves (statistically) in your thirties, so he is well beyond any hypothetically "safe" zone. Oh, and there are of course lower tar/nocotine cigarettes. But the evidence suggests that smokers drag much harder on them to get the hit, so the health impact is as bad. Also they don't help with giving up.

Aitch in order to fully answer your questions/statements i have copied them

"custy, what do you mean '(see CSI thread)'?

what csi thread? do you mean '(see Desi's comment about forensics')?"

when you asked me to detail how i thought you were being mean - and detail the people who had commented. When i had done so, someone commented "wtf, is this CSI?" of something similar. CSI ( a programme i do not watch but know it's genre) i used as Shorthand.

"what is going on here, because it sure as fuck isn't related to anything i said to you on this thread."
Yes it is. you called me arsey ( amongst other things detailed in CSI thread we have been over this. i took offense.

"..as detailed by saintjude (whoever she is), i had barely spoken to you before you accused me of being vitriolic and mean.

Yes i did and still think you were unnecessarily so.

"i've asked you to CAT me,..."

I told you i Didn't have that facility. You replied that you didn't either.

" I've asked you to draw a line under this, and you persisted by cherry-picking this and that from our exchanges."

i am not online at the same time you post - or indeed others post. If you have asked me to details Something a la CSI post - then i shall. If i still have something to say then i will.

"do you really want me to go through the thread picking out all the people who've said that you're being weird about this?"

Nope, never asked you to. but you did ask me to.

"...more than half of whom, for the record, i haven't a clue who they are because they're newbies or namechangers."

and half not.

"this is undignified and embarrassing,"

Yet you still continue even after your self drawn line.

I consider it neither.

"i only hope that people take the time to read the whole thread so they can see where i so grossly violated you. and then perhaps they'll tell me too, cos i don't have a clue."

yes i have told you numerous times...in detail. wheres the Grey area? an apology would suffice.

In that vein, as i always apologise when i am wrong, i would like to apologise for the use of the word "bitch"

however apologies are rarely if ever accepted on mumsnet. i still persist.

never the less i maintain that there was no need for your insults yesterday.

The important thing about education surely is that whilst addiction may well rpevent a huge effect on current smokers, its the next generations we need to focus on most? I would be surprised if the majority of smokers would want their children to smoke, especially if they were exopectinga child themselves (r had one). Mum was the strictest anti smoker I ever met, and both her and Dad smoked until I left home. It ws preceisely the difficulty they ahd in giving up that made them feel that way.

I have allergies, btw, and my little sister suffered very severe chest infection every wnter for most of her childhood.

oh JESUS CHRIST! i am not apologising for calling the way in which you made your point arsey. it was arsey.

you are clearly picking a fight with me and i don't know why. i specifically asked you to continue this off-board and when you wouldn't/couldn't i asked you to draw a line under it and yet you persist in these (extremely one-sided) forensic examinations of our exchange. we're not eight years old, fgs.

i will not be apologising for calling your post arsey so you're just going to have to get over that, i'm afraid.