HAVE YOUR SAY: Should smoking be banned in cars carrying children? (From Bournemouth Echo)

I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time.

We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this?

Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!!

I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

This government busybody can take the moral high ground when her government stop taking billions per year from tax on cigarettes and tobacco related products, but then who could ever accuse someone in her position of double standards?

If people are fined for drinking water, or eating an apple etc when driving, why is smoking any different? Dropping a food or drink is far less dangerous than dropping a lit cigarette. Drivers smoking should be banned no matter who is or isn't in the car with them. Panic over a lit fag end landing in your lap is far more dangerous and I have seen first hand how the car can swerve when the driver has a red hot cigarrette end land on their crotch!

Time_Traveller wrote:
I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time.

We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this?

Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!!

I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE?
What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Yes I think they should ban smoking in cars when you do have children in the car. I was very sick when my Mum smoked in the car when I was a child. I told her she was a selfish person as a child to smoke when I was in the car with her. She hasn't changed much since then.

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote:
I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time.

We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this?

Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!!

I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE?
What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

The child will have none whatsoever, hence my comments about pregnant women smoking or smoking around children in the home.

If they are going to ban smoking in cars where children are present, they should just go the whole hog and ban it altogether - which would be my choice personally.

Do they not realise that children are trapped in their homes breathing in toxic fumes ever minute of their life if they have parents who smoke? Or a mother who smokes while pregnant.

It's a filthy, disgusting habit, but there is no way to enforce a ban. It is unrealistic, since they do not enforce the smoking ban on work related vehicles which is already in place.

Sadly children have very little choice about how they live, but given the news a few days ago about how many are living in poverty in the UK, should the government not be dealing with things like that first? Poverty will have far more reaching effects on the life of a child than mummy or daddy having a cig while driving the child to school .....

I detest the nanny state aspect of this, but frankly everything that applies to the use of mobile phones, eating etc, etc whilst driving has to be relevant here.

Plus of course there is the harm being done to the children, who will be involuntarily passive smoking within the confines of a vehicle.

But really, why do people smoke at all, it is a disgusting and harmful habit!

Any parent with any sense would not smoke in a car with children present but the nanny state has gone too far, we don't need any more interference from big brother, children's health should be paramount but yet again the government are attempting to get people to cut down on buying a product which earns this country millions in duty just as petrol and diesel.

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

Ban smoking altogether, it's a filthy, disgusting habit. Anyone smoking in a car with children in it should be tasered......

Letcommonsenseprevai
l wrote:
Ban smoking altogether, it's a filthy, disgusting habit. Anyone smoking in a car with children in it should be tasered......

I'm all for banning smoking, I gave up years ago but where will the million on lost duty to the chancellor come from.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

What a strange argument, modern cars do not 'spew out' toxic fumes in a manner that can any way be compared to deliberately forcing damaging tobacco smoke right down into your lungs.

As for connecting a hose pipe to the car exhaust, please do it on a diesel, it will be very, very expensive and not a lot will happen to you!

muscliffman wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

What a strange argument, modern cars do not 'spew out' toxic fumes in a manner that can any way be compared to deliberately forcing damaging tobacco smoke right down into your lungs.

As for connecting a hose pipe to the car exhaust, please do it on a diesel, it will be very, very expensive and not a lot will happen to you!

Asphyxiation from diesel exhaust is more likely to be caused by acute lung injury from soot particles, so saying "not a lot will happen to you" is not strictly correct.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

Thanks for assuming that either of us actually HAS a motor to spew out "filth" ...... :o//

Hessenford wrote:

Letcommonsenseprevai

l wrote:
Ban smoking altogether, it's a filthy, disgusting habit. Anyone smoking in a car with children in it should be tasered......

I'm all for banning smoking, I gave up years ago but where will the million on lost duty to the chancellor come from.

£1 million?


Try £12 Billion.

Hessenford wrote:
Any parent with any sense would not smoke in a car with children present but the nanny state has gone too far, we don't need any more interference from big brother, children's health should be paramount but yet again the government are attempting to get people to cut down on buying a product which earns this country millions in duty just as petrol and diesel.

'trying to get to cut down on buying a product which earns....'

So you are suggesting the 'Gov' and other campaigners should shut up and turn a blind eye to the dangers of smoking because it's a nice little earner?

You're saying that stuff the kids of smokers it's their tough luck to be born to smokers because you are alright Jack?

You say children's health should be paramount but big brother has gone too far? You even contradict yourself.

Time_Traveller wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote:
I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time.

We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this?

Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!!

I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE?
What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

The child will have none whatsoever, hence my comments about pregnant women smoking or smoking around children in the home.

If they are going to ban smoking in cars where children are present, they should just go the whole hog and ban it altogether - which would be my choice personally.

Do they not realise that children are trapped in their homes breathing in toxic fumes ever minute of their life if they have parents who smoke? Or a mother who smokes while pregnant.

It's a filthy, disgusting habit, but there is no way to enforce a ban. It is unrealistic, since they do not enforce the smoking ban on work related vehicles which is already in place.

Sadly children have very little choice about how they live, but given the news a few days ago about how many are living in poverty in the UK, should the government not be dealing with things like that first? Poverty will have far more reaching effects on the life of a child than mummy or daddy having a cig while driving the child to school .....

You're missing the crucial point, smoking in a car is a confined space and therefore the amount of smoke the child passively inhales is massive when compared to smoking in the home.

It can be over 11 times more concentated in a car than in a smoky pub.

It matters not whether all people will abide by the rules, even if only a percentage do stop because of the ban then it is a step forward for those children.

You other 'interesting' point about smoking being banned in ' work vehicles', it isn't a carpet ban. It is only banned in company vehicles which other people are likely to use.

It should also be illegal for women to smoke when pregnant - that is disgusting and when I see a pregnant woman smoking I just want to give her a slap!

maybe the general population could be credited with a bit of common sense. most people wouldnt smoke in their car when there are children . leave us alone please and stop banning things that arent even happening.

NO it shouldnt be banned, people should have commen sense not to smoke in the car with kids! i oftan see the late 20s mum with 4 kids in the people carrier chugging away on a fag

muscliffman wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

What a strange argument, modern cars do not 'spew out' toxic fumes in a manner that can any way be compared to deliberately forcing damaging tobacco smoke right down into your lungs. As for connecting a hose pipe to the car exhaust, please do it on a diesel, it will be very, very expensive and not a lot will happen to you!

Try it then. See which harms you the most.

suzigirl wrote:
It should also be illegal for women to smoke when pregnant - that is disgusting and when I see a pregnant woman smoking I just want to give her a slap!

I agree. I used to smoke but always said I would never smoke when pregnant as it is my choice not my babies. I gave up and never smoked again, since then my house has been a non smoking house and has been for 25 years. I do get very angry when I see pregnant women smoking and also those mums and dads that are pushing pushchairs with a fag hanging out of their mouths over the pushchair. I have also experienced the effects of a cigarette end fall in someones lap the driver lost control because it was burning his lap and we ended up in a hedge luckily neither of us were hurt. I was told a long time ago that smoking was not banned in cars as it calms drivers because it is an addiction well so is drink but you can't drink and drive.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

muscliffman wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

l'anglais wrote:

Time_Traveller wrote: I don't see how this can be enforced - after all there is a ban on people smoking in work related vehicles, yet I see truck, van and taxi drivers smoking all the time. We don't have enough Police to deal with high crime rates, so how are they also supposed to deal with such pettiness as this? Even if they ban smoking in cars carrying children, that won't stop the selfish parents smoking around their children when at home - not to mention when mothers are pregnant!! I'm a non smoker and always have been and I hate the filthy habit, but taking away people's CHOICE in their own cars is a step too far in my opinion .....

CHOICE? What choice does a child have other than breathing in toxic air?

Not as toxic as the filth your motor spews out to everyone you pass. Try sitting in your lazy chariot with a smoker then try it with a hose pipe connected to the exhaust.

What a strange argument, modern cars do not 'spew out' toxic fumes in a manner that can any way be compared to deliberately forcing damaging tobacco smoke right down into your lungs. As for connecting a hose pipe to the car exhaust, please do it on a diesel, it will be very, very expensive and not a lot will happen to you!

Try it then. See which harms you the most.

Diesel exhaust would have to be unusually and deliberately concentrated over a long term to be fatal to a healthy individual. Apparently acute coughing and a severe headache usually ends such exposure!

By contrast similarly concentrated petrol engine exhaust would prove fatal to anyone in minutes (carbon monoxide poisoning).

But it is only tobacco smoking where 'normal use' and inhalation, without the need for a car and a hose, can cause unintended sometimes fatal damage - to both the smoker and those in their presence.

Just stop smoking - please!!

scrumpyjack wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Any parent with any sense would not smoke in a car with children present but the nanny state has gone too far, we don't need any more interference from big brother, children's health should be paramount but yet again the government are attempting to get people to cut down on buying a product which earns this country millions in duty just as petrol and diesel.

'trying to get to cut down on buying a product which earns....'

So you are suggesting the 'Gov' and other campaigners should shut up and turn a blind eye to the dangers of smoking because it's a nice little earner?

You're saying that stuff the kids of smokers it's their tough luck to be born to smokers because you are alright Jack?

You say children's health should be paramount but big brother has gone too far? You even contradict yourself.

Oh please get off your soapbox, why do you think all governments slam taxes on the three things that people will always purchase, fags, booze and fuel, they know that people will always buy these items, they up the taxes under the guise of persuading people to stop drinking, smoking and driving to save the planet and their health.
If this were true why do the government moan about tobacco smuggling costing the country millions in lost duty, if this were true why did the government moan that duty from petrol sales were billions down on two years ago, the same with booze, sales down duty down.
Shouldn't they be applauding that the sales are down because their plan of taxing everything to death is working by people not being able to afford to smoke, drive and have the occasional drink, wake up and smell the coffee.
When all these items are either taxed so high that people cant afford them or they have been banned altogether where do you think the estimated 100 billion per year in lost tax is coming from, your pocket, that's where, so moan all you like on your soap box and be ready to be taxed on items that there is no tax on at the moment to fill in the shortfall.

'soapbox' is where someone is talking to a group not directing their comments at an individual. Get something right today.

You wrote:

'children's health should be paramount'

= Supports rules protecting children

Then you wrote:

'but yet again the government are attempting to get people to cut down on buying a product which earns this country millions in duty just as petrol'

= Accuses Gov of doing something that will reduce monies earned by the Treasury.

Then:

'but where will the million on lost duty to the chancellor come from'

= suggesting reduced smoking is a bad thing because we will have to pay more because the ex-smokers are no longer paying tax on their fags.

Change of tack then:

'Shouldn't they be applauding that the sales are down because their plan of taxing everything to death is working by people not being able to afford to smoke'

= having a go at the Gov claiming they must be, unlike you, disappointed in the falling revenue.

Then in an attempt to 'have a go back':

'so moan all you like on your soap box and be ready to be taxed on items that there is no tax on at the moment to fill in the shortfall.'

I am not 'moaning' I am accusing you (singular) of being selfish and incoherent.

Would I prefer kids get a chance to have a good start in life and families not see loved ones slowly dying horrible deaths to paying inevitably a small amount more in tax? The answer is an unselfish yes.

(or who knows we may be lucky enough one day see a Gov cut the amount it spends on Quangos and Local Authorities to make up this shortfall. Imagine).

scrumpyjack wrote:
'soapbox' is where someone is talking to a group not directing their comments at an individual. Get something right today.

You wrote:

'children's health should be paramount'

= Supports rules protecting children

Then you wrote:

'but yet again the government are attempting to get people to cut down on buying a product which earns this country millions in duty just as petrol'

= Accuses Gov of doing something that will reduce monies earned by the Treasury.

Then:

'but where will the million on lost duty to the chancellor come from'

= suggesting reduced smoking is a bad thing because we will have to pay more because the ex-smokers are no longer paying tax on their fags.

Change of tack then:

'Shouldn't they be applauding that the sales are down because their plan of taxing everything to death is working by people not being able to afford to smoke'

= having a go at the Gov claiming they must be, unlike you, disappointed in the falling revenue.

Then in an attempt to 'have a go back':

'so moan all you like on your soap box and be ready to be taxed on items that there is no tax on at the moment to fill in the shortfall.'

I am not 'moaning' I am accusing you (singular) of being selfish and incoherent.

Would I prefer kids get a chance to have a good start in life and families not see loved ones slowly dying horrible deaths to paying inevitably a small amount more in tax? The answer is an unselfish yes.

(or who knows we may be lucky enough one day see a Gov cut the amount it spends on Quangos and Local Authorities to make up this shortfall. Imagine).

I gave up smoking years ago filthy habit but I can still see from both sides, no I do not agree with smoking in cars where children are present but I also credit parents with a little sense as well.
You say we would pay a small amount in tax, almost 40 billion in fuel duty per year, around 15 billion a year in tobacco duty per year, god knows how much per year on booze, a little more than a small amount extra in tax I would think we would be paying.
This country is becoming more and more like the old Russian states of 30 years ago, soon the police will be renamed the KGB and we will have cameras in everyone's homes, not a vision I like.

'You say we would pay a small amount in tax, almost 40 billion in fuel duty per year.' 'god knows how much per year on booze'

What the hell has this got to do with some selfish arses smoking in the car when their (or others) children are in the car?

Talk about twisting things to suit your (ever changing) arguement.

I wonder if there is any constitutional right to be a moron?
It's a rhetorical question, but let's get to the facts...

The idea that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke turns the laws of science on its head. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. All substances are toxic at high enough levels just as they are harmless, even beneficial, at lower levels.

Most of us understand that coffee contains benzene, water contains arsenic and that televisions pump out radiation but we don't let it worry us since the levels of these highly carcinogenic toxins are too low to pose a threat to our health. Apparently only one substance disobeys this law of toxicology: secondhand smoke.

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Just to disprove Godwin's Law...

http://www.davehitt.
com/2004/name_three.
html

Reading this site and further 'googles' really made me think.

Parmenion you may well have a point.

Thanks for the link Jack... 'Name Three' is a great read!

My advice for anyone worried about the 'harm' from second hand smoke is this. DON'T take for granted anything quoted by the anti-smoking industry, the media, health 'experts' or even your doctor...and certainly DON'T believe some Joe Bloggs on the internet!
DO check out what the scientists say!

http://tctactics.org
/index.php/Critical_
Scientists

It appears before some people can make responsible parental decisions they need to consult scientific data and then process it.Dont ever blame the youth of today.

Epidemiology relies on establishing relative risk factors. Relative risk is what they come up with when
studying the association between two things. It is the statistical chance of what may happen when “X” impacts
on “Y”. Luckily for us they have at least kept to a standard in defining relative risk outcomes. It is well
established in the field of epidemiology that a study producing a relative risk greater than 3.0 shows a strong
association. A relative risk between 2.0 and 3.0 shows a weak association. A relative risk between 1.0 and 2.0
shows a very weak association and an even 1.0 means no association. Anything under 1.0 is considered to show
a positive, rather than a negative, effect. Imagine that! To further underscore this standard, Marcia Angell of
the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a
relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting a paper for publication. Robert Temple of the Food and Drug
Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The
National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult
to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

Below is the list of studies concerning the risk to children from Second Hand Smoke.

Correa + US Childhd F NS
Kabat & Wyn ^ US Childhd F 0.92
Kabat & Wyn ^ US Childhd M 1.26
Garfinkel 2 US Childhd F 0.91
Wu (+) US Childhd F 0.60
Akiba + Jap Childhd F&M NS
Gao ^ Chin Childhd F 1.10
Koo ^! HK Childhd F 1.73
Pershagen ^ Swed Childhd F NS
Svensson ^ Swed Childhd F 3.30
Janerich ^ US Childhd F&M 1.09
Sobue (^) Jap Childhd F 1.28
Wu-Will(^) Chin Childhd F NS
Brownson 2 ^ US Childhd F 0.80
Stockwell ^ US Childhd F 1.10
Fontham ^ US Childhd F 0.89
Zaridze Russia Childhd F 0.98
Kabat 2 ^ US Childhd M 0.90
Kabat 2 ^ US Childhd F 1.55
Sun Chin Childhd F 2.29
Wang T-J Chin Childhd F 0.91
Jockel-BIPS Ger Childhd F&M 1.05
Jockel-GSF Ger Childhd F&M 0.95
Ko ^ Tai Childhd F 0.80
Boffetta (WHO) Eur Childhd F&M 0.78

Parmenion wrote:
Epidemiology relies on establishing relative risk factors. Relative risk is what they come up with when
studying the association between two things. It is the statistical chance of what may happen when “X” impacts
on “Y”. Luckily for us they have at least kept to a standard in defining relative risk outcomes. It is well
established in the field of epidemiology that a study producing a relative risk greater than 3.0 shows a strong
association. A relative risk between 2.0 and 3.0 shows a weak association. A relative risk between 1.0 and 2.0
shows a very weak association and an even 1.0 means no association. Anything under 1.0 is considered to show
a positive, rather than a negative, effect. Imagine that! To further underscore this standard, Marcia Angell of
the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a
relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting a paper for publication. Robert Temple of the Food and Drug
Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The
National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult
to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

Below is the list of studies concerning the risk to children from Second Hand Smoke.

Correa + US Childhd F NS
Kabat & Wyn ^ US Childhd F 0.92
Kabat & Wyn ^ US Childhd M 1.26
Garfinkel 2 US Childhd F 0.91
Wu (+) US Childhd F 0.60
Akiba + Jap Childhd F&M NS
Gao ^ Chin Childhd F 1.10
Koo ^! HK Childhd F 1.73
Pershagen ^ Swed Childhd F NS
Svensson ^ Swed Childhd F 3.30
Janerich ^ US Childhd F&M 1.09
Sobue (^) Jap Childhd F 1.28
Wu-Will(^) Chin Childhd F NS
Brownson 2 ^ US Childhd F 0.80
Stockwell ^ US Childhd F 1.10
Fontham ^ US Childhd F 0.89
Zaridze Russia Childhd F 0.98
Kabat 2 ^ US Childhd M 0.90
Kabat 2 ^ US Childhd F 1.55
Sun Chin Childhd F 2.29
Wang T-J Chin Childhd F 0.91
Jockel-BIPS Ger Childhd F&M 1.05
Jockel-GSF Ger Childhd F&M 0.95
Ko ^ Tai Childhd F 0.80
Boffetta (WHO) Eur Childhd F&M 0.78

Fantastic! quite like that well know duo Boffetta and Garfinkel

Ah yes!...the famous Boffetta study for the World Health Organisation... which they tried to cover up! (it goes against their anti-smoking policy.) It shows that children of smokers are 22% less likely to contract smoking related disease in later life. It's obvious really...a growing immune system learns to fend of those toxins.

What the vast majority of studies show, is that NOT smoking around children is bad for their health...but hey...why let scientific facts get in the way of a political agenda :)

Parmenion wrote:
Ah yes!...the famous Boffetta study for the World Health Organisation... which they tried to cover up! (it goes against their anti-smoking policy.) It shows that children of smokers are 22% less likely to contract smoking related disease in later life. It's obvious really...a growing immune system learns to fend of those toxins.

What the vast majority of studies show, is that NOT smoking around children is bad for their health...but hey...why let scientific facts get in the way of a political agenda :)

No i agree about scientific facts it should get in the way,i think i rather go with the poll results of the above, and apologies for using someones username but LETCOMMONSENSEPREVAI
L