I don’t smoke, never have. But then again, that’s my choice. Others exercise the same choice and do decide to smoke and I support their right to do so. I am sure it must be an unhealthy option for them but I do not wish to impose my choice on anyone else! But the rabid intolerance of the health fascists on the left has meant that smokers are portrayed as worse than rapists, lower than paedophiles. Take this BBC report – read it all the way through and you will surely conclude that it is entirely one dimensional and carries one message; if you smoke in your home, or in your car, and there are children present, then you are endangering their lives as well as your own. Parents who smoke are described as “liars” and a persons’ home is described as akin “to a workplace” which means they should go out of their own homes to smoke. The claim that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illness is repeated as if it were an indisputable fact. It’s nothing of the sort. But this is a puff of anti-smoking propaganda dressed up as if it were high science. There are issues here concerning freedom and liberty but they are neatly stubbed out by the BBC in this story. We should have a right to behave as we see fit (so long as it is legal!) in our homes regardless of how this offends Nanny State and it’s broadcasting arm. There is a serious danger that the State will extend control over what we do in OUR own private property through the calculated use of this type of story. That’s the real danger for me in this story – it’s that our liberties could be reduced to ash all in the name of making us healthier. What further behavioural modification might Labour and the BBC have in mind for us? The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes but we all know that it is intent to further regulate our activities, further limit our choices, and this is assisted by the propagandising of State Broadcaster masquerading as news.
HEALTH FASCISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
‘The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes ‘
Hmmm….. so homosexuality is ok in your view? How about wife beating? ie the pregnant woman in NI a few days ago who took a husband to court for raping her when she was ill in bed? Hell it was in their own home so throw the case out?
How about child abuse in the home? Is that ok?
Does the government have a right to protect children from damaging smoke, you betcha! I don’t want to breathe it in in public places either, nor pay for them through smoke related or indeed drink related illness if they cause themselves harm?
the difference typhoo is your examples of queerality and wife beating are all illegal, whereas smoking is legal
so the government has no right to tell me what lawful activities i should be doing in my own home
sorry botty banditry was the legal example
point being smokings legal
Typhoo, David missed out the key word, consent, when referring to what we do in our own homes.
Obviously, in the cases you refer to, there was no consent.
As for sexual practices, whatever is your choice, is your choice, as long as you accept the self-responsibility to know and understand all known consequences of all your actions (in sex, in speaking, in eating, in smoking, drinking whatever).
There is no link between poor health and second hand smoke – the research has proven this, though obviously self-interested charities such as the British Lung Assoc, will want you to believe otherwise.
So is plurality of wives in this country illegal but tolerated if you are muslim and from another country. Smoking pot is also legal if it is for personal use…… It’s not so cut and dried as you claim.
Homosexuality is legal now but not always so. Difficulty is who would police it? If I report my husband or a guest in my home for s,moking will the courts try them, and ifa person is on legal aid will they get legal aid to fund their court case. Will it be a police matter or a civil matter?
Typhoo.
I did make the point that so long as do that which is legal, then we can do as we wish at home. That’s my point – the Nanny State and its echo chamber think otherwise!!
Fair enough.
“Smoking pot is also legal if it is for personal use……”
says Typhoo | Homepage | 08.03.08 – 12:28 pm |
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/cannabis-reclassification/
Sorry, but much as you may want it to be, smoking cannabis (anywhere) remains illegal,as does possession, sale of etc.
Aw well! We live in hope 😉
David said, “I did make the point that so long as do that which is legal, then we can do as we wish at home.”
The key word SHOULD be consent, not legal, remembering the consent can only occur between adults.
Govt’s make many things illegal, but the law is sometimes an ass, more so in recent times.
what gets me on this issue, is that for the liberal classes, smoking a joint is viewed as something akin to an after 8 mint, not very serious, cool etc.
Yet the last time I came across a joint (many moons ago) it was nothing more than an unfiltered hand rolled cigarette with added Cannabis.
Double standards methinks!
Gordonbrownstuff,
Yip – fair point, and one I accept. So long as it doesn’t frighten the horses seems a good maxim to me.
How dare the Pinko Commie Beeb threaten a FREE-BORN Englishman’s right to give his children cancer in the sanctity of his own PRIVATE CASTLE!??!?!?!? FROTH FOAM GURN etc etc.
A once readable blog has morphed into an unhinged rantfest.
There have been enough Beeboids picked up with cannabis to conclude other employees must be at risk from passive drug inhalation.There must be enough cocaine in the toilets to be a health risk to others, the cleaners probably have to wear masks.
commenter:
How dare the Pinko Commie Beeb threaten a FREE-BORN Englishman’s right to give his children cancer in the sanctity of his own PRIVATE CASTLE!??!?!?!? FROTH FOAM GURN etc etc.
A once readable blog has morphed into an unhinged rantfest.
commenter | 08.03.08 – 2:42 pm | #
i agree. how did homosexuality get into this thread? the thing that i now feel most about biased bbc i embarrasement for ever having read any of it.
There is no opposing view given in the article – the BBC reports only the views of those with a clear anti-smoking agenda, and does so extensively.
The ‘see also’ section has links that spider out into an extensive web of similar anti-smoking stories.
They all quote lots of scary numbers but no information is provided to put such numbers in perspective, without which they are pure propaganda.
The NuLabour kleptocracy favours bans and regulation, probably because doing so creates jobs for their political sympathisers and harms the interests of business owners/investors, who tend to be Conservatives.
It looks to me like the BBC’s reporting on this issue is sympathetic to the ‘ban everything’ brigade – ie Nu Labour. Quelle surprise.
WTF
“Having smoke on your clothes is a lower risk,” he said.
“But a good tip for parents is always put on another layer of clothes when smoking outside. Our staff are made to put a coat on when they go out to smoke during their breaks.”
Does the ministry of information even read what they are broadcasting anymore.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that second hand smoke leads to cancer. Its another of those ‘plastic bags kill 100,000 seabirds stories. Take a scientific study and twist the data to meet the ends that you have already agreed upon.
One thing that’s always puzzled me about the anti-smoking brigade is that they are almost always in favor of legalizing the smoking of cannabis. I guess that consistency is the hobgoblin of litte minds.
David Vance says The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes….
————————————
I don’t agree, if you have an unhealty
lifestyle then why should I pay tax for the regular visits to hosiptal that will follow.
You’re exaggerating a bit here, David:
I don’t smoke, never have. But then again, that’s my choice. Others exercise the same choice and do decide to smoke and I support their right to do so. I am sure it must be an unhealthy option for them but I do not wish to impose my choice on anyone else!”
I don’t think anyone is arguing the opposite. By posting this you’re wasting internets.
“But the rabid intolerance of the health fascists on the left has meant that smokers are portrayed as worse than rapists, lower than paedophiles.”
I’m not sure if that’s true. Please find me the Guardian article saying “Smokers Are Worse than Paedophiles: FACT”.
“Take this BBC report – read it all the way through and you will surely conclude that it is entirely one dimensional and carries one message; if you smoke in your home, or in your car, and there are children present, then you are endangering their lives as well as your own.”
That is true, although that is a fair point they’re making.
“Parents who smoke are described as “liars””
No they aren’t.
“He said parents often lied about whether they smoke near their children.”
Some parents who smoke are described as liars. You have distorted the quote, either deliberately in order to misrepresent the BBC or, more likely by being blinded by inexplicable rage.
“and a persons’ home is described as akin “to a workplace” which means they should go out of their own homes to smoke.”
“She added that now smoking was banned in enclosed public places, parents should treat their home like the workplace, and smoke outside.”
The home is not “akin to a workplace”. It should be treated like a workplace. Splitting hairs, I know, but that’s what B-BBC is about.
“The claim that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illness is repeated as if it were an indisputable fact. It’s nothing of the sort. But this is a puff of anti-smoking propaganda dressed up as if it were high science.”
“Research published in 2005 suggested children exposed to their parents’ smoking were three times more likely to develop lung cancer later in life.”
Yes, indisputable facts are always described as being ‘suggested’.
“There are issues here concerning freedom and liberty but they are neatly stubbed out by the BBC in this story.”
There are no issues here concerning freedom and liberty. The article doesn’t mention anything about a ban, quite the opposite in fact:
“He does not think legislation is the answer but believes parents should be aware of the various levels of risk.”
“We should have a right to behave as we see fit (so long as it is legal!) in our homes regardless of how this offends Nanny State and it’s broadcasting arm.”
Actually, the “so long as it is legal” bit doesn’t make sense. If the government bans smoking, it wouldn’t be legal. You’re basically giving Chairman Gordon carte blanche to ban everything. I suggest he starts with whatever you take before posting.
What’s your reason to believe that it offends the Nanny State, anyway?
“There is a serious danger that the State will extend control over what we do in OUR own private property through the calculated use of this type of story. That’s the real danger for me in this story – it’s that our liberties could be reduced to ash all in the name of making us healthier.”
This is pure speculation and doesn’t really have anything to do with the BBC.
“What further behavioural modification might Labour and the BBC have in mind for us? The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes but we all know that it is intent to further regulate our activities, further limit our choices, and this is assisted by the propagandising of State Broadcaster masquerading as news.”
None, as far as can be gleaned from this article. I agree that it’s wrong to ban smoking at home, but nobody mentioned such a ban except you. And you imagine all kinds of bans. Do you remember that dream you had that Tony Blair wanted to ban peas, cauliflower and equilateral triangles?
Only you could get so enraged over the BBC reporting friendly advice from medical professionals.
“i agree. how did homosexuality get into this thread?”
Simple,Typhoo,one of the beebish trolls put it there,first post,did you not see it.An old trick to discredit the discussion.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that second hand smoke leads to cancer.
Arthur Dent | 08.03.08 – 6:52 pm
I’m not a doctor but the following mainstream organizations all contradict you.
♥www.oehha.org/pdf/exec.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency
♥https://www.oma.org/Health/tobacco/2ndsmoke.asp
Ontario Medical Association
♥www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1055253922033&pagename=CHN-RCS%2FCHNResource%2FCHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource&lang=En
Public Health Agency of Canada
♥www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1055253922033&pagename=CHN-RCS%2FCHNResource%2FCHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource&lang=En
World Health Organization
♥www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
American Cancer Society
gosmokefree.nhs.uk/downloads/107659_shs_booklet.pdf National Health Service U.K.
♥www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023
The Mayo Clinic
Can you provide a reference organization, of the same standing, to back up that claim?
oops,
I meant, either a reference to a scientific study or to a reputable organization claiming 2nd hand smoke hasn’t been proved to be harmful.
deegee can u provide the name of a single perdson thats died from passive smoking ?
Before you say roy castle, a court of law refused to put that cause on his death certificate.
not one person in the uk
Connell- “.., if you have an unhealty
lifestyle then why should I pay tax for the regular visits to hosiptal that will follow..”
I agree, although, how about the government just give me back the tax then, and I’ll buy my own healthcare? This way I get to keep my freedom, and it doesn’t affect your tax bill in the slightest.
BMJ 2003;326:1057 (17 May),
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA and
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Note this is a peer reviewed study in one of the most reputable medical journals. The original EPA study that was quoted by all those organsiations that wished it to be true was statistically flawed, and not for the first time. For example treating a relative risks of 1.19 at a significance level of P
Roy Castle was one of the most annoying wankers on the planet. Maybe his cancer was related to his habit of sticking a trumpet mouthpiece into household objects and playing a tune on them.
Oh, right, you got a tune out of kettle Roy, fucking hilarious, my sides they are splitting with mirth.
” medical professionals ” who try to tell us how we should live our lives should be told to shut the fuck up, in no uncertain terms.
I don’t care what their Hippopotamus Oath says, they are just mechanics.
If there is something wrong with me, then get it fixed, it isn’t your place to question my lifestyle.
deegee can u provide the name of a single perdson thats died from passive smoking ?
Anonymous | 08.03.08 – 11:00 pm
I am simply unable to carry this discussion further. I don’t have access to the 93,300 academic articles on Second Hand Smoke listed in Google Scholar and to be truthful I don’t have enough medical jargon to understand the abstracts. Unless you are claiming that Google is deliberately skewing the results (and what is their interest to do so?) the articles are overwhelmingly accepting that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illnesses.
However to return to David Vance’s HEALTH FASCISM. If I was a reasonable, conscientious BBC (may be a contradiction in terms 🙂 ) how would I have written the Smokers ‘make their children ill’ article differently?
The great American comedian, Jackie Mason, pointed out that in the past a guy would go into a drugstore, look around furtively, try to find a male attendant, ask him in a loud voice for a pack of cigarettes and then whisper that he also wants a pack of condoms – but these days it’s the reverse.
deegee, im interested in facts not opinion, so if you can provide me with a single name of a person that medical science has said died from passive smoking i’ll be amazed
I don’t smoke but I think the whole thing about passive smoking is a myth.
In fact we are constantly being told EVERYTHING is bad for us. We can’t be fat, or thin, passive smoking will kill us, you can’t eat butter, nor sugar, or emit too much C02…
It’s usually all down to some four-letter fellow wishing to make a quick buck off our guilt.
Certain groups of people, such as yuppies, seem to buy into this nonsense more than others. Self-absorbed people that think they will ALWAYS be young, rich and healthy.
If you end up with a boring miserable life because you listened to somebody telling you how to do your shit then you deserve it. A schmuck is a schmuck.
By all means people should be aware of their health and self-interest, but not to the point of inflicting it on others.
Pleeeeeese don’t make me eat a salad!
“Do you smoke after sex?” said a guy to a girl he was trying to pick up in the bar.
“I don’t know,” she replied, “I’ve never looked.”
Deegee, you made some categorical statements about second hand smoking which I challenged and you then asked me to provide evidence for my position which I duly did. You have now retreated under a white flage with the statement ” to be truthful I don’t have enough medical jargon to understand the abstracts”
Well I do have that understanding so let me enligten you.
This is an example of the misuse of science for political/single issue pressure group ends. We have known that smoking is bad for the smoker for many years, not just due to increased cancer risk, but also other respiratory illnesses. Despite the actions of the anti-smoking lobby, trying to stop other people smoking “for their own good”, smokers persistently refused to kick the habit, in many cases because they got considerable pleasure out of the activity.
Then, an idea was born – if you could show that other, non-smokers, were also harmed by the smoke then there would be a very powerful lobby to turn smokers into social pariahs. The USEPA duly carried out a meta study on a lot of smaller scale studies that had tried to prove this link, unfortunately the data from this EPA study demonstrated that second hand smoking did not cause any ‘significant’ impact on non-smokers. This conclusion clearly was not welcome and so the study data was massaged until , lo and behold a ‘significant’ effect could be shown. How was this done, simple, by abusing the standard statistical techniques. Under all standard uses, a Relative Risk ration of 2 usually indicates a random effect and 3 is the threshold at which a difference is considerd to be significant, the EPA reported an RR of 1.19, even after having made the confidence intervals used much less stringent than normal i.e. from 95% to 90%
Subsequently a major study was carried out by WHO at the ‘gold-standard’ IARC in Geneva. This too failed to show any significant adverse effect on non-smokers and, as a consequence was buried from view. After a considerable amount of lobbying the study finally saw the light of day (J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Oct 7;90(19):1440-50.) but you will not find it referred to by any of the sources that you so helpfully quoted to me, because it gives the ‘wrong’ answer.
Here is the conclusion of the study:CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Ironically, the WHO study did show one significant finding – children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer than childresn raised by smokers. Ironic because this was almost certainly not a causal association.
So why does Google Scholar show mainly positive refernce links. Simple, as in many areas of environmental science, any scientist that does not toe the line ‘for the greater good of the children’ is subjected to public humiliation, sometimes coupled with potential job loss. Under these circumstances dissident scientists keep their mouths shut, bullied into submission by pressure groups and the media.
Consequently ‘well known facts’ ie blatent lies circulate freely. I suspect deegee that you also swallowed the story that plastic bags were responsible for the deaths of 100,000 aquatic animals and birds every year.
I would advise everyone not to rely on the BBC for any correct information on scientific issues.
With all the things that used to make life worth living too numerous to list, already socially marginalized, banned or going to be banned.
What exactly is the point of being alive anyway?
My grandmother is 100 years old in a few weeks time. Do you Health Fascists really want to live that long?
If so WHY?
You will not be able to travel around the world, smoke, eat, or drink, anything even slightly harmful, or indeed fun, drive a car, have your own children, even have sex with a member of any other sex. WITHOUT PERMISSION or being part of the establishments evil collectivist socialist ‘paradise’.
In my opinion the country is already repressive enough to make me wish I live no longer then 3 score years and ten. If it gets any worse I will not be giving a damn if I died tomorrow.
But there again maybe thats the point of it all.
When we do all start living to be 90 odd, and the state starts killing us in our hundreds of thousands by deliberating designed to kill only old people diseases. Because they can’t and don’t want to afford to look after us.
We will by then, not care.
It’s quite true I did raise the ‘white flag’ on the issue because I truly don’t have a horse in this race.
However, as you insist on calling me out, I have done some (limited) research. In pounce’s words it seems you are telling half a story.
•Engstrom and Kabat’s research was financed by the tobacco industry. This should raise conflict-of-interest ‘red flags’ on any research. He defends himself here and here.
•It seems that Engstrom has a reputation for accepting financing from industry groups and then ‘coincidentally’ producing research that strengthens their position. Integrity in Science wrote that The Electrical Power Research Institute hired James E. Enstrom of the University of California at Los Angeles to analyze 30 years of air pollution data. His recently published analysis, which showed PM [particulate matter] had no effect on mortality after the initial ten years of the study, is now being used by industry trade groups…in arguing against a tighter PM standard.
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200606122.html#2
•Secondly far from burying Enstrom’s research there has been a strong debate including in rapid responses to the original article in BMJ. However the overwhelming consensus has been that he not the EPA misrepresented the figures.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057
•Finally In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the tobacco companies that they have falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking for decades. The court’s Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court’s Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies’ conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/litigation/usvpm/section_5.pdf
Neither the science nor the law is fixed but for the time being I think you are strongly pushing the minority view of only two scientists and hiding behind conspiracy theory innuendos about the science community without adequate proof.
You asked me to name one person who died as a result of passive smoking. I declined because I simply don’t have the time to research it. Then I realised I can’t name one person who died from active smoking either. They died from cancer or emphysema or heart attack, etc. That includes my chain-smoking grandfather.
IT has long been undisputed that heavy smokers are statistically much likely to contract certain diseases than non-smokers. That doesn’t mean every heavy smoker has health problems nor that cause of death ‘SMOKING’ will be written on the death certificate. for the ones who do have health problems related to tobacco.
Arthur Dent | 10.03.08 – 12:27 am
Ironically, the WHO study did show one significant finding – children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer than childresn raised by smokers.
There’s a “non-” missing somewhere in that statement. I assume it should be affixed to the last word.
While this is a fascinating and complex debate, the point is that we see, yet again, the BBC adopting a position when it should be impartial.
That said I do think that smokers should try to limit the habit around children, especially when children can’t escape the smoke, if for no other reason than “enjoyment” for the smokor is extremely unpleasant for the smokee.
Deegee
John Brignell at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm has written a couple of very good books on epidemiology which clearly set out why Arthur Dent gets so annoyed about surveys that show that there is a supposed 20% increase in having frizzy hair if you are born during a thunderstorm.
I can now spot rubbish PR spun stories a mile off, made all the easier by teletext being filled first thing in the morning with press releasing from organisations demanding that “something (paid for by taxes) must (through authoritarian legislation) be done (to everybody not just the group who are affected)”.
With regards to the funding of research, I find it amazing that it is standard practice to attack the results if it has been for by industry (boo hiss evil capitalists) but they are deemed fine if paid for by a pressure group (filled with fine upstanding people who have no interest in raising increased donations).
Bryan, yes the last words should indeed be non-smokers. My own opinion is that smoking is an offensive habit and I dislike being in the presence of someone smoking and yes I also think that smokers should limit their smoking in the presence of children.
However, I do not think that the data substantiates the hysteria directed at smokers for compromising the health of non-smokers, which has lead to the banning of smoking in all public spaces in the UK even when the participants, smokers and non-smokers agree to the practice.
Deegee, I note that you focus only on the Engstrom & Kabat research which I deliberately used in answer to your question in order to provoke the response that I have now got. It is always depressing that the first recourse of any non-scientist and (regrettably an increasing tendency of scientists)is to criticise the scientist or their funding and not to engage in a critique of the science. It is true, albeit marginally so, that these two received some funding from the tobacco industry in the late stages of their project. It is also true that many of the studies that have purported to find a relationship have been funded by anti-smoking lobbies, on the basis of your logic this should undermine those as well, but what do you know this doesn’t appear to happen. All scientific research is funded by someone, and all those ‘someones’ will have some vested interest. All scientists are human and they too all have interests. That is why we look at the scientific studies themseleves, not at the individual who did it nor the source of their funding.
I didn’t give you ‘half a story’. I initially gave you a single, carefully chosen, reference that answered your question. If you read all the comments in the BMJ, rather than cherry picking the ones that support your viewpoint they are very instructive, with very few actually picking holes in a well performed peer-reviewed study. Pay particular attention to the comments of the BMJ editor who, recognising that the paper was controversial, ensured that the peer review was better than normal.
However, my objection to the ETS campaign is not based on this study but on the data produced in the two major studies undertaken by the EPA and the IARC. Neither of these studies was funded by the Tobacco industry and both found the same thing, the relative risk to non-smokers from exposure to second hand smoke was less than 1.5, when epidemiologists the world over agree that an RR>3 is required to be reasonably certain that you have a real risk.
The conclusion of the EPA study, the IARC study and (surprise, surprise)the Engstrom & Kabat study all agree
that the relative risk ratio is too small to prove the hypothesis that cancer in non-smokers can be attributed to being in the presence of smokers.
The hypothesis may be true, but the evidence to date has failed to prove it.
Arthur Dent,
However, I do not think that the data substantiates the hysteria directed at smokers for compromising the health of non-smokers, which has lead to the banning of smoking in all public spaces in the UK even when the participants, smokers and non-smokers agree to the practice.
Agreed. I don’t smoke, but I would rather sit in a smoke-filled bar for an hour than at a busy bus stop for an hour breathing in noxious fumes from the buses and other vehicles.
Without having any scientific background here, I would guess that passive smoking is one of the more minor health hazards we face in the modern world.
Arthur Dent:
A well-argued point, but the Alder Hey Medical Director quoted by the BBC is not talking about cancer, rather bronchitis, asthma and ear infections, as is the ENT man from Bristol.
ASH are quoted on cancer risk, but they are correctly identified as campaigners against smoking, rather than independent medical experts.
As Mr Orange’s principal whinge is that the BBC is indulging in Nanny State politics, two points should be considered:
1. Alder Hey’s Medical Director is quoted prominently by the BBC as arguing against state intervention: He does not think legislation is the answer but believes parents should be aware of the various levels of risk. In other words, he does see it as a matter of individual liberty. Is it wrong to pass on information which might help the free individual reach a sensible decision?
2. On the issue of individual liberty, who looks after the child’s interests? If a parent ignores medical advice and smokes in confined spaces, they may well be exercising valid personal freedoms, but how exactly does an infant consent to sharing potentially damaging substances in this way? Is it Nanny-Stating to ask whether parents always act in the best interests of their kids?
3. How exactly is passing on considered advice from eminently-qualified people behavioural modification? Perhaps B-BBC’s permanently outraged libertarians would care to draw up a list of other well-founded advice they would like the BBC to ignore in the interests of personal liberty?
.
For two points, read three.
Or possibly five.
“A Medical Director of Liverpool’s Alder Hey Hospital, says bronchitis, asthma and ear infections could be cut if parents quit smoking.” – end of story as far as I’m concerned.
What an interesting little debate that has sprung out of this piece of BBC black propaganda from the Health Nazis!
Out of interest, Roy Castle is known to have smoked cigars due to the fact that they were not bad for you like cigarettes were (!) -this was a common believe in the 60’s and 70’s!
I also notice that many of the people offering an opinion on here would have been babies during a time when it was ok to smoke around babies – yet I’m sure none of you have any form of lung cancer or illness which was exclusively caused by your parents smoking! So why do today’s kids need special treatment when there is no practical evidence of any harm having been caused in the past?!
Finally, for the really numerical types out there, read this wonderful press release from the WHO.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
In it they tell us all how passive smoking really is bad for us – but – in the statistical part of the release, the figures are so low that anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of risk ratio would be embarrassed at the WHO’s stupidity!
This is such a blatant example of innumeracy that it makes you wonder if the dumbing down of maths and science hasn’t been deliberate!
To help the hard of thinking, here is a simple example.
If you buy 3 lottery ticket, you are three times as likely to win the lottery than someone who one bought one ticket – but the only way you are guaranteed to win the lottery is to buy 14 million different tickets.
The person who bought 3 tickets is still most likely not to win the lottery.
Anyway, we can’t expect the BBC to be interested in numbers and the statistical aspect of government policy, because numbers are about truth rather than gut instinct, which is the BBC way!
The basic distinction here is whether smoking in the presence of children is hurting them or not and thus whether certain prohibitions are imposed to protect children. If it is hurting them (and i guess it is since one is inhaling the same smoke only in much lower quantities) then there is no infringemt of liberty any more than all other laws prohibiting people from hurting others. Personally i would favour such a ban.
Having said that i agree that any such activities and proposals coming from the Left should be close monitored since they are idealogues (fascists) who couldn’t care less about children (or other living things for that matter) or our liberties and would be more than happy to force us behave according to their beloved maxims. Like Michele Obama have said they will “demand us to push ourselves to be better”.
ASH are quoted on cancer risk, but they are correctly identified as campaigners against smoking, rather than independent medical experts
Indeed, and since the BBC did not see fit to include any comment from FOREST, or any other pressure group with the opposing viewpoint the reader is entitled to assume that the BBC agrees with ASH.
arthur dent:
I’m sure FOREST is worth listening to on the Libertarian issues regarding freedom of choice to smoke in public and private, even though they exist primarily as a front for an industry whose role in suppressing information on primary smoking’s links with cancer is well known. Do you really think it incumbent on the BBC – or any other responsible broadcaster – to call them in to discuss the health and welfare of children just because that potential risk arises from fags?
.
Do you really think it incumbent on the BBC – or any other responsible broadcaster – to call them in to discuss the health and welfare of children just because that potential risk arises from fags
Since you ask no I don’t, but then I don’t expect the BBC to seek comments from organisations like ASH either.
One of the issues that I have with the BBC is its one sided approach to pressure groups. You can expect to find the BBC seeking opinion on all sorts of issues from those pressure groups that support its own position (Note: the BBC should not have an ‘own’ position since it is meant by statute to be an independent unbiased operation.)
So my position on this is clear either ASH and FOREST or neither.
.
Hillhunt
“…FOREST… exist primarily as a front for an industry”
Do you have evidence to back up that statement?