Lancashire Council backs call to ban smoking in cars carrying children

Blackburn Citizen: Lancashire Council backs call to ban smoking in cars carrying children Lancashire Council backs call to ban smoking in cars carrying children

A NEW campaign to ban smoking in cars carrying children is being backed by Lancashire County Council and and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.

The nationwide drive has been launched by Tobacco Free Futures and the British Lung Foundation (BLF).

The two authorities are calling on residents to back an online vote calling for legislation to protect children from secondhand smoke in cars.

It is backed by a film, starring Neil Fitzmaurice, best known for his roles in the comedies Peep Show and Phoenix Nights, and Jazmine Franks from the Channel 4 drama Hollyoaks, highlighting that many young people are too frightened to speak up about their parents or other adults smoking in a car.

The campaign for legislation to make all cars carrying children smoke-free will be debated in the House of Lords as part of the Children and Families Bill.

Blackburn with Darwen council health boss Mohammed Khan said: “Hundreds of children suffering the effects of second-hand smoke are admitted to hospital every year with complications such as bronchitis, asthma and reduced lung function.

“We want to highlight this issue with parents in our communities.”

His Lancashire county counterpart Azhar Ali who represents Nelson South said “Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, 60 of which we know cause cancer. We want to give local people a chance to have their say.”

BLF chief executive Dr Penny Woods said: “We know secondhand smoke is particularly dangerous to young people within the enclosed confines of a car, even when the window is open or the air conditioning is on.

“However, our research has shown that when an adult smokes in a car with them, less than a third of young people ask them to stop, with over a third feeling too frightened or embarrassed to do so.

“This is not acceptable. If young people aren’t able to protect themselves against this danger, the government has a duty to do so by banning smoking in cars with young passengers”.

The call for legislation follows recent research by BLF which shows that more than 430,000 children, aged 11-15, in England are exposed to secondhand smoke in family cars at least once a week.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:58pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Parmenion says...

I.m afraid this is just more scaremongering by Dr Penny Woods.

Could you please cite just a few pieces of actual research (as in studies... not websites, articles, quotes from important sounding people, advocacy "factsheets", generalized reports etc, but actual scientific studies) showing any harm to children's health from the levels and durations of exposure to smoke they would normally be getting in cars with their parents? Unless a child is one of the small portion of the population with a highly smoke-sensitive asthma trigger, I believe you'll find that there's absolutely no real evidence to back up your bigoted assertions.
I.m afraid this is just more scaremongering by Dr Penny Woods. Could you please cite just a few pieces of actual research (as in studies... not websites, articles, quotes from important sounding people, advocacy "factsheets", generalized reports etc, but actual scientific studies) showing any harm to children's health from the levels and durations of exposure to smoke they would normally be getting in cars with their parents? Unless a child is one of the small portion of the population with a highly smoke-sensitive asthma trigger, I believe you'll find that there's absolutely no real evidence to back up your bigoted assertions. Parmenion

7:08pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Parmenion says...

For anyone interested in the passive smoking fraud, I urge you to read the “Godber Blueprint” – it’s the long page at http://www.rampant-a
ntismoking.com .

Long ago, the antismoking zealots were conspiring to eradicate tobacco use as can be seen from their major meetings...i.e. the World Conferences on Smoking & Health. High-profile antismoking activists that are still with us today spreading their toxic propaganda – e.g., Glantz, Banzhaf, Connelly, Samet, Daube, Chapman – were regular attendees of these Conferences.

Important to note is that the rabid antismoking zealots were making numerous inflammatory claims, e.g., passive smoke harm and “social cost” in the 1970s, years before any “evidence”, contrived as it eventually was. For example, the first “study” on secondhand smoke was in 1981 by the antismoker, Hirayama – an entirely forced line of enquiry. Godber was referring to smokers as “addicts” years before it was redefined (1988) as such by the then antismoker-hijacked Office of the Surgeon-General. What we’ve witnessed over the last 30 years is the trash thinking of zealots later “legitimized” by their own trash “research”.

This is why the information in the Godber Blueprint is critical. It highlights that the current antismoking crusade – like most before – is a moralizing, social engineering, eradication/prohibit
ion crusade, and has been so from the outset. It is the attempt, through denormalizing propaganda, to turn smoking into an “immoral” and “shameful” act not fit for public view. But the antismoking fanatics/zealots/ext
remists recognized in the 1970s that there were few takers for social engineering or mass behaviour modification. Particularly in relatively free societies, including America and the peculiar state of California, coercive measures to conformity were viewed as repugnant by the majority.

The zealots had all sorts of coercive measures in mind – extortionate taxes, smoking bans – indoor and outdoor. But they recognized that the social engineering crusade had all but stalled. They were already talking in the late-70s that the only way forward was to convince nonsmokers that secondhand smoke exposure was a threat to their health despite their being no evidence for such a claim.

So, since the 80s we’ve had self-installed social engineers (and their financial partners – government & Big Pharma) telling the public that they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing, that they weren’t trying to force smokers to quit. They concocted storylines to masquerade their social engineering intent. Extortionate, punitive taxes – well, so their storyline goes, is because smokers are a “cost burden” to society and with concocted reports stating as much. Smoking bans – well, they’re necessary to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. “There’s no slippery slope; we’re not doing social engineering”, squealed the zealots. They’re lies that have been told many times over during the last three decades, and governments around the world got suckered in by the inflammatory rhetoric and the appeal of easy tax money, i.e., license to extort.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH.
For anyone interested in the passive smoking fraud, I urge you to read the “Godber Blueprint” – it’s the long page at http://www.rampant-a ntismoking.com . Long ago, the antismoking zealots were conspiring to eradicate tobacco use as can be seen from their major meetings...i.e. the World Conferences on Smoking & Health. High-profile antismoking activists that are still with us today spreading their toxic propaganda – e.g., Glantz, Banzhaf, Connelly, Samet, Daube, Chapman – were regular attendees of these Conferences. Important to note is that the rabid antismoking zealots were making numerous inflammatory claims, e.g., passive smoke harm and “social cost” in the 1970s, years before any “evidence”, contrived as it eventually was. For example, the first “study” on secondhand smoke was in 1981 by the antismoker, Hirayama – an entirely forced line of enquiry. Godber was referring to smokers as “addicts” years before it was redefined (1988) as such by the then antismoker-hijacked Office of the Surgeon-General. What we’ve witnessed over the last 30 years is the trash thinking of zealots later “legitimized” by their own trash “research”. This is why the information in the Godber Blueprint is critical. It highlights that the current antismoking crusade – like most before – is a moralizing, social engineering, eradication/prohibit ion crusade, and has been so from the outset. It is the attempt, through denormalizing propaganda, to turn smoking into an “immoral” and “shameful” act not fit for public view. But the antismoking fanatics/zealots/ext remists recognized in the 1970s that there were few takers for social engineering or mass behaviour modification. Particularly in relatively free societies, including America and the peculiar state of California, coercive measures to conformity were viewed as repugnant by the majority. The zealots had all sorts of coercive measures in mind – extortionate taxes, smoking bans – indoor and outdoor. But they recognized that the social engineering crusade had all but stalled. They were already talking in the late-70s that the only way forward was to convince nonsmokers that secondhand smoke exposure was a threat to their health despite their being no evidence for such a claim. So, since the 80s we’ve had self-installed social engineers (and their financial partners – government & Big Pharma) telling the public that they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing, that they weren’t trying to force smokers to quit. They concocted storylines to masquerade their social engineering intent. Extortionate, punitive taxes – well, so their storyline goes, is because smokers are a “cost burden” to society and with concocted reports stating as much. Smoking bans – well, they’re necessary to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. “There’s no slippery slope; we’re not doing social engineering”, squealed the zealots. They’re lies that have been told many times over during the last three decades, and governments around the world got suckered in by the inflammatory rhetoric and the appeal of easy tax money, i.e., license to extort. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH. Parmenion

7:34pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Michael@ClitheroeSince58 says...

It's a bit irritating that two heavily failing councils have the nerve to tell us anything at all, just get on with learning how to do your own jobs properly first thank you. PS I would never smoke in a car with a child on board but I don't need another law that can not be enforced.
It's a bit irritating that two heavily failing councils have the nerve to tell us anything at all, just get on with learning how to do your own jobs properly first thank you. PS I would never smoke in a car with a child on board but I don't need another law that can not be enforced. Michael@ClitheroeSince58

8:44pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Mothernature says...

Maybe the council should get its head out of its ar$e and look at the real reasons lung disease, asthma & bronchitis has increased, whilst smokers have reduced. Couldn't have anything to do with vehicle emissions & all the other chemicals in the environment, that have increased dramatically over the last few decades.
Maybe the council should get its head out of its ar$e and look at the real reasons lung disease, asthma & bronchitis has increased, whilst smokers have reduced. Couldn't have anything to do with vehicle emissions & all the other chemicals in the environment, that have increased dramatically over the last few decades. Mothernature

8:53pm Mon 23 Dec 13

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
.
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! . harleyrider1777

9:53pm Mon 23 Dec 13

comet says...

how can you stop smoking,when you cant even stop people useing mobile phones
how can you stop smoking,when you cant even stop people useing mobile phones comet

12:00am Tue 24 Dec 13

harleyrider1777 says...

They've lost the war on smoking,their junk science exposed and their prohibitionist attitudes proven.........Its time to REPEAL THE UK SMOKING BAN and ALL THE REST AROUND THE WORLD!
They've lost the war on smoking,their junk science exposed and their prohibitionist attitudes proven.........Its time to REPEAL THE UK SMOKING BAN and ALL THE REST AROUND THE WORLD! harleyrider1777

6:25am Tue 24 Dec 13

buckoff says...

Listen you smokers typical im all right jack brigade. Yet this is a pointless law because the ones your targeting are law breaking scum that would not pay the fine anyway. Its just like the dog by laws this council have changed where is the money coming from to police this utter useless councils brain dead ideas. OMG wouldnt they be dangerous if they had a brain cell between them!
Listen you smokers typical im all right jack brigade. Yet this is a pointless law because the ones your targeting are law breaking scum that would not pay the fine anyway. Its just like the dog by laws this council have changed where is the money coming from to police this utter useless councils brain dead ideas. OMG wouldnt they be dangerous if they had a brain cell between them! buckoff

10:11am Tue 24 Dec 13

the white witch says...

If the council pulled there heads out of there **** and started to concentrate on more important things like getting harsher penalties on mobile phone using whilst driving, taxis parking and sitting in cabs for ages in parking spaces shoppers could use, and above all housing benefits being paid to people eligable to work and roads repairs,
But it`s the same with every council, they only consider trying to look good and feed there own pockets....
If the council pulled there heads out of there **** and started to concentrate on more important things like getting harsher penalties on mobile phone using whilst driving, taxis parking and sitting in cabs for ages in parking spaces shoppers could use, and above all housing benefits being paid to people eligable to work and roads repairs, But it`s the same with every council, they only consider trying to look good and feed there own pockets.... the white witch

11:05am Tue 24 Dec 13

ste.g says...

councils are getting ahead of their stations.they are not there to make laws.end of
councils are getting ahead of their stations.they are not there to make laws.end of ste.g

5:55am Mon 30 Dec 13

snowbird says...

Parents know best

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children
represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The
autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be
interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of
severe harm
to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is
only minor
risk involved is unwarranted.
Parents know best I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted. snowbird

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree