Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

If our nation is saying that smoking around children constitutes harm - to the point that we're banning people from smoking on their own property when children are present - then we're saying that smoking is injurious. Thus smoking around anyone should be classed as assault - and smoking could be classed as attempted suicide...

 

[Touring Mars]

Then why is it permitted in the home?

A good question, and a smoking ban in child-occupied cars will obviously raise the chances of a smoking ban in homes with children too. I don't think the two things are exactly equivalent, though, although they probably are in some cases. At home, at least there are separate areas for smokers to be/go when they want to smoke.

Why is it instead banned in the most easily ventilated place in the universe?

As Boris Johnson alludes to in his piece in the Telegraph today, the problem is that people are still (amazingly) either unaware or simply unwilling to take the necessary steps to reduce the impact of their behaviour (smoking) on children, so the fact that it is easy to mitigate against the build-up of high levels of second-hand smoke in your car is lost on these people. BJ states that this ban is "bizarre, intrusive - and right".

And when did the government become so good at parenting that it got to take over the job?

I don't see it as much as the government taking over parenting but making it easier to make people more accountable for bad parenting.

 

[axletramp]

Is smoking around other people, children or otherwise, not harmful? Perhaps not the odd evening in the company of a smoker, but long term, i.e. in the home or on the school run twice a day, everyday. I think it's more about helping those that don't have a choice - the kids.

Surely for it to be classed as suicide, does the intent not need to be to kill oneself? People smoking, regularly drinking alcohol, knowingly eating a bad diet or driving fast in a car aren't necessarily doing it to kill themselves. There's just a better chance they will.

 

[Famine]

I don't see it as much as the government taking over parenting but making it easier to make people more accountable for bad parenting.

Accountable to whom? Bad parenting according to whom?

As I said above, if this behaviour is accepted as injurious to others it shouldn't be just banned in some wishy-washy and highly morally suspect circumstances - it should be classed as an assault when performed around anyone.

Is smoking around other people, children or otherwise, not harmful?

I've no idea. There was a spell there in the early 00s where it was accepted that it is, but it all stemmed from a single WHO report citing a single paper containing fabricated data. I've not seen any newer data than that, but I'm not really in the loop.

It seems fairly self-evident that it should be, but that's not really enough.

Perhaps not the odd evening in the company of a smoker, but long term, i.e. in the home or on the school run twice a day, everyday. I think it's more about helping those that don't have a choice - the kids.

If I'm carpooling with my boss, do I have a choice when he lights up? Do I have a choice which air I breathe walking through town? We fine companies for injurious atmospheric pollutants - why not individuals?

We, as a country, are saying that second hand smoke does harm others. If you engage in an activity that does harm anyone around you while there's people around you, what else are you doing if not assaulting them?

Surely for it to be classed as suicide, does the intent not need to be to kill yourself? People smoking, regularly drinking alcohol, knowingly having a bad diet or driving fast in a car aren't necessarily doing it to kill themselves. There's just a better chance they will.

I agree - but we're now reaching the point raised in Demolition Man... anything not good for you is bad for you and thus illegal.

 

[acjy1985]

Why? Most of them time, you'll spend a few seconds smelling their smoke as you walk past them.

One of the biggest justifiers smokers use when people talk about banning it is their 'right to smoke'. Where is my right to not have to be subjected to it? If we let them smoke in their own house that is fine as I just won't visit them. The worst thing is that some are so desperate that as soon as you walk out of a shopping centre you find a crowd of them and it gives no choice but to walk through their stink. If it was banned in high streets then this would not happen

 

[Touring Mars]

As I said above, if this behaviour is accepted as injurious to others it shouldn't be just banned in some wishy-washy and highly morally suspect circumstances - it should be classed as an assault when performed around anyone.

As axletramp has just said, you would need to establish intent in order to classify it as assault. I assume that most people who smoke in the presence of their own children do not intend to cause them harm, or they believe that their second-hand smoke is not harmful at all.

Bad parenting according to whom?

You don't consider allowing your children to breathe second-hand smoke (when it could be avoided) as bad parenting?

 

[Famine]

As axletramp has just said, you would need to establish intent in order to classify it as assault.

Disregarding the fact I said "an assault", not "assault" and AT was talking of suicide, nope. UK law* classes Assault (the offence) as either intentional or reckless. In the case of simply smoking around your children, the assault offence would be Common Assault.

Deliberately blowing smoke into someone's face would be Assault - aggravating features define the higher offence.

You don't consider allowing your children to breathe second-hand smoke (when it could be avoided) as bad parenting?

Whether I do or not is my prerogative. Just as it would be if I taught them my religion to the exclusion of others. Or feeding them chips. (Edit: Or leaving them around my dogs)

When do we see laws regulating children's diet and religious education? Or are excess saturated fats and brainwashing not harmful to children and thus "bad parenting"?

*Don't know about viewers in Scotland

 

[axletramp]

^I do agree with this. I'm trying hard to justify this as some kind of child abuse, especially in light of other things like diet not being legally enforced. Perhaps the government need be looking at this as a long-term awareness campaign, as with poor diets, rather than banning smoking in people's own properties and vehicles. The problem is that people know that smoking is bad for you and a killer, but that hasn't stopped them. So trying to convince them that they're also hurting someone else, even their own children, is going to be even harder to get through. As I've said before, kids haven't got the choice, adults can move away or chose not to go where smoking occurs. That's the big difference here rather than whether other adults in restaurants and beer gardens are being affected.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that people know that smoking is bad for you and a killer, but that hasn't stopped them.

Indeed. But they don't need to be stopped...

So trying to convince them that they're also hurting someone else, even their own children, is going to be even harder to get through.

While I'm sure there's people who smoke in the belief they're not harming themselves, the reality is that most smokers know they are - it just doesn't put them off. They don't need that much convincing that they could be harming other people in the process.

As I've said before, kids haven't got the choice, adults can move away or chose not to go where smoking occurs. That's the big difference here rather than whether other adults in restaurants and beer gardens are being affected.

Not really, as I said above. I mean, the entire concept of the ban on smoking in pubs was based on adults who choose to be around smoking rather than going somewhere else complaining about it...

But as I said above, we often fine companies for shovelling harmful pollutants into the atmosphere (and indeed individuals - though we call it "Vehicle Excise Duty") because that's the stuff we breathe in order to live. I can't choose smoke-free air when wandering through a town centre and I may even be completely unaware that I'm standing in a spot a smoker occupied just half an hour since with a vastly elevated level of harmful smoking by-products. So if we're accepting that secondhand smoke is harmful - which is what this law is (will be) based on - why are we not banning it wholesale from public places on the basis of it forming an assault?

 

[Touring Mars]

Secondhand smoke can be harmful, but the likelihood of significant harm depends on the overall extent of exposure, so there is a problem with classifying single instances as harmful or as an assault. While a smoking ban in cars with children aboard runs the risk of failing to make this distinction, it should go at least some way toward reducing the amount of avoidable secondhand smoke related illness in children, which is the solitary aim here... although the effectiveness of such bans is still a matter of some debate, one such recent study in Canada has shown that a smoking ban in private vehicles did have a positive effect.

 

[Liquid]

So if we're accepting that secondhand smoke is harmful - which is what this law is (will be) based on - why are we not banning it wholesale from public places on the basis of it forming an assault?

Indeed.

It should either be totally legal, or totally banned and then shut up about it.

Of course the latter is an infringement of civil liberties in many ways but still, the point is how successive governments have applied double standards to smoking for years.

 

[Famine]

Secondhand smoke can be harmful, but the likelihood of significant harm depends on the overall extent of exposure, so there is a problem with classifying single instances as harmful or as an assault. While a smoking ban in cars with children aboard runs the risk of failing to make this distinction, it should go at least some way toward reducing the amount of avoidable secondhand smoke related illness in children, which is the solitary aim here... although the effectiveness of such bans is still a matter of some debate, one such recent study in Canada has shown that a smoking ban in private vehicles did have a positive effect.

But again we run into an issue...

Saturated fat can be harmful, but the likelihood of significant harm depends on the overall extent of exposure, so there is a problem with classifying single instances as harmful or as an assault. While a saturated fat ban in households with children runs the risk of failing to make this distinction, it should go at least some way toward reducing the amount of avoidable obesity related illness in children, which is the solitary aim here...

A splendid argument for legislation preventing bad parents from giving their children a poor diet.

Alcohol can be harmful to your driving, but the likelihood of significant harm depends on the overall extent of exposure, so there is a problem with classifying single instances as harmful. While an alcohol ban for people driving cars runs the risk of failing to make this distinction, it should go at least some way toward reducing the amount of crashes (many involving children), which is the solitary aim here...

Ah, the zero tolerance approach* our government adopted decades ag... wait, what?


Nobody should be supporting this ban. It infringes civil liberties - property rights, parenting practices - like crazy and doesn't even begin to address the perceived problem of smoking-related illnesses in non-smokers. It's just being carried through on one of those "it's for the children" tickets that no-one could possibly object to without being pilloried, like PCIPA.

Either ban it in public as a harmful practice or don't.


*Perhaps someone should come up with a level at which cigarette smoke can be considered harmful, in parts-per-million. Coppers could carry around a smokealiser to analyse the cabin air if there's kids on board. It works for drink-driving after all

 

[Touring Mars]

Nobody should be supporting this ban. It infringes civil liberties - property rights, parenting practices - like crazy and doesn't even begin to address the perceived problem of smoking-related illnesses in non-smokers. It's just being carried through on one of those "it's for the children" tickets that no-one could possibly object to without being pilloried, like PCIPA.

Perceived problem? I'd say it was more than a matter of perception - there is clear evidence that passive smoking causes avoidable health problems in non-smokers, including children. Also, I provided a link that shows that in at least one country anyway, it most certainly does "begin to address" the issue (of smoking-related illnesses in non-smokers). Nevertheless, like I already said, the effectiveness of bans such as this is a matter of debate, but suggesting that it won't make any difference when there is at least some evidence to show that it already has made a difference in some places, is pretty presumptuous.

I don't accept that this is simply a 'it's for the children' issue either. Children are a special case because they cannot decide to avoid the risk for themselves. Smoking is also a special case because it can and does directly affect other people. Alcohol can affect others, but only if the drinker does something else (like mow someone down in a car, or get into a fight etc.) - but that is indirect in my book. But there are laws regarding neglect that do indirectly impose limits on how much someone can rightly drink in their own home if they are also in charge of children. Drinking yourself unconscious when you have a child who needs your attention is neglect. Should drinking be banned in the home? Of course not - but should it be perfectly legal to behave like that? Again, no. Would Social Services be justified in taking a child away from a persistently drunk/neglectful parent? Yes, probably. Would Social Services be justified in taking punitive action against parents who persistently expose their children to secondhand smoke such that it has caused a measurable health problem in that child? Again, arguably yes.

 

[Famine]

Perceived problem? I'd say it was more than a matter of perception - there is clear evidence that passive smoking causes avoidable health problems in non-smokers, including children.

As I say, I've not become aware of this evidence since the falsified data at the heart of the WHO report became apparent - but I'll take your word for it.

It remains a perceived problem though. Accepting the cause-effect nature is one thing, but determining that the effect is something so undesireable it needs legislating away is another.

Also, I provided a link that shows that in at least one country anyway, it most certainly does "begin to address" the issue (of smoking-related illnesses in non-smokers).

I only read that it reduced the exposure of children to secondhand smoke - I didn't see anything to suggest a reduction in smoking-related illnesses amongst children. Perhaps I skipped over it.

Nevertheless, like I already said, the effectiveness of bans such as this is a matter of debate, but suggesting that it won't make any difference when there is at least some evidence to show that it already has made a difference in some places, is pretty presumptuous.

The effect it will have most directly is reducing the exposure of a specific demographic to secondhand smoke in a specific (and very small) instance. It absolutely does not reduce the exposure of everyone to secondhand smoke. If the problem is that secondhand smoke is harmful, everyone's exposure should be reduced.

I don't accept that this is simply a 'it's for the children' issue either. Children are a special case because they cannot decide to avoid the risk for themselves.

Then why the ban in pubs?

Smoking is also a special case because it can and does directly affect other people.

Then why not ban it in public so we can all benefit?

Of course the irony of the pub (and workplace) smoking ban is that there's now no longer smoking rooms indoors where smokers can smoke affecting only other smokers, and instead they're all standing outside affecting everyone!


In lighter news, this will annoy many of the kids at my daughter's school, because they can no longer have a calming ciggie on the way home.

 

[Dotini]

I sympathize with any population struggling to balance health, freedom and virtue issues.

In my town, Seattle, smoking is banned in pubs and any indoors public space, and I am grateful for it. The rare smoker can be seen some distance away, furtively puffing away at a controlled distance. The poor guy. My brother, a smoker, is younger than me, but looks many years older. He's lost all his teeth and has suffered a stroke.

Ironically, my town has legalized pot for recreational use. The Seattle Times publishes articles on the most potent and popular varieties available. Currently, "Beast Mode" is wildly popular.

But at least the situation is better than in the days the British East India Company trafficked opium-laced tobacco into China, resulting in the Opium Wars.

 

[Liquid]

Where can you smoke pot, as opposed to tobacco?

 

[Dotini]

Where can you smoke pot, as opposed to tobacco?

That's still a work in progress. But the cops won't necessarily bust you in open public spaces like streets, parks, beaches and public gatherings. If you do it in your car, you are opening yourself to intoxication charges. We are working on the question of smoking the evil weed in certain enclosed public spaces, "pot bars" (pubs), if you will.


This article claims 70 million Americans are taking mind altering drugs. I believe it.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/70-million-americans-taking-mind-altering-drugs/

The use of soporific drugs as a deliberate social control mechanism makes a lot of sense.
" A peaceful land, a quiet people" - creed of Lord Roose Bolton, A Game of Thrones

 

[BobK]

Then why is it permitted in the home? Why is it instead banned in the most easily ventilated place in the universe?

Oh, come now. This is the Government we're speaking of. You expect logic?

 

[Touring Mars]

I only read that it reduced the exposure of children to secondhand smoke - I didn't see anything to suggest a reduction in smoking-related illnesses amongst children.

That paper shows that a smoking ban in private vehicles in Canada resulted in a reduction of exposure of children to secondhand smoke. A recent review by the Royal College of Physicians concludes that 'passive exposure of children to tobacco smoke, both before and after birth, has a substantial impact on the risks of a range of fetal and childhood health problems'. I don't know if you intended to suggest that reducing a child's exposure to secondhand smoke would have no effect on their health, but that is the way it comes across.

 

[Famine]

That paper shows that a smoking ban in private vehicles in Canada resulted in a reduction of exposure of children to secondhand smoke. A recent review by the Royal College of Physicians concludes that 'passive exposure of children to tobacco smoke, both before and after birth, has a substantial impact on the risks of a range of fetal and childhood health problems'.

I hope that's not a direct quote, because exposing foetuses to tobacco smoke isn't particularly easy...

I don't know if you intended to suggest that reducing a child's exposure to secondhand smoke would have no effect on their health, but that is the way it comes across.

Nope. I'm stating that I don't know if it has an effect or not because I'm not familiar with any non-discredited research that says exposure to secondhand smoke is deliterious to anyone's health:

Is smoking around other people, children or otherwise, not harmful?

I've no idea. There was a spell there in the early 00s where it was accepted that it is, but it all stemmed from a single WHO report citing a single paper containing fabricated data. I've not seen any newer data than that, but I'm not really in the loop.

It seems fairly self-evident that it should be, but that's not really enough.

It should go without saying, though apparently hasn't, that I'm not really a fan of smoking and I'm a proponent of inviolate personal rights that smoking around other people breaches. It draws me back to the question of why "bad parenting" is enough of a cause to see government - which has no place telling anyone how to parent - breaching one set of personal rights in order to preserve a tiny subset of others.

The law should be set so that smoking is banned in all public places to preserve the personal rights of everyone. It should not involve private places (businesses, households, pubs - and I'd not argue for cars to be included as they are not suitable containers to prevent private becoming public) nor be "for the children" because of the precedent that sets in government setting laws about the environments that children are allowed to be brought up in.

 

[Touring Mars]

So you found one discredited paper over a decade ago and haven't checked the literature since? It only took a simple Google search to find the review that I posted a few posts ago, which is packed with references that might be worth checking out. Also, a quick search on Google scholar or PubMed reveals hundreds of articles on the subject. Suffice it to say, however, that from the small selection of reviews and articles that I've skimmed on the topic, it is frankly beyond credulity that any educated person could seriously doubt that exposure to secondhand smoke is not harmful and doesn't result in an increased risk of smoking-related health problems - as for how smoking during pregnancy might affect unborn children, I'm not able to comment on that since I haven't read anything about that specifically myself.

For the record, I don't believe that smoking ought to be banned outright - if people want to smoke they should be able to, but clearly, smoking is one personal habit that needs to be considered apart from other activities because of how it can and clearly does affect others. 'You don't need to be where smokers are' is essentially what libertarians say on this matter - so what are children supposed to do, leave home?

Of course, laws such as this are always going to be met with fierce resistance from those who believe that government (or anyone else for that matter) has no right to tell people how to raise their kids - but I don't see it as being as clear cut as that. Clearly there are instances when intervention of some description is not only justified, but absolutely necessary. What people do to their children is not just a matter of judgement - there are pretty clear laws on what you can and cannot do to a child, even in the privacy of your own home. Why should exposing children to harmful levels of secondhand smoke not be included on the list of things that you cannot do, when other things (like plying them with alcohol, force-feeding them, locking them in their rooms or sexual abuse) are legislated against already?

 

[Famine]

So you found one discredited paper over a decade ago and haven't checked the literature since?

Uhh, not quite, no.

All secondhand smoke policy up to 2005 was based on the WHO report on secondhand smoke. And when I say "all of it" I mean all - literally every piece of policy cited the report. That report came from a single metareport with fabricated data that, once removed, gave no elevated levels of smoking related disease from "passive smoking" (as it still was at the time) compared to background. Knowing this, it still formed the basis of all secondhand smoke policy for several years.

I haven't looked since because it's not in my area of interest, though I did hear of an updated metareport that gave single-figure percentages for increased risk of smoking related diseases.

It only took a simple Google search to find the review that I posted a few posts ago, which is packed with references that might be worth checking out. Also, a quick search on Google scholar or PubMed reveals hundreds of articles on the subject. Suffice it to say, however, that from the small selection of reviews and articles that I've skimmed on the topic, it is frankly beyond credulity that any educated person could seriously doubt that exposure to secondhand smoke is not harmful and doesn't result in an increased risk of smoking-related health problems

And, as I said, I'll take your word for it, having not checked it myself. I don't have the data, so I don't know either way. As I said, it seems self evident that an aerosolised cocktail of embers, carbon monoxide and a variety of hilariously-named chemicals does not seem the ideal thing to be inhaling even after it's been through another trachea, but I've not looked into any research recently.

as for how smoking during pregnancy might affect unborn children, I'm not able to comment on that since I haven't read anything about that specifically myself.

It's certainly not from inhalation as the excerpt implied!

If foetuses are secondhand smoking, who's doing the primary smoking? Monica Lewinsky?

For the record, I don't believe that smoking ought to be banned outright - if people want to smoke they should be able to

Correct.

but clearly, smoking is one personal habit that needs to be considered apart from other activities because of how it can and clearly does affect others. 'You don't need to be where smokers are' is essentially what libertarians say on this matter - so what are children supposed to do, leave home?

Why is it always children? Why not vulnerable - or subjugated - adults? What's an abused wife supposed to do if her husband lights up, leave home?!

It's always children because it makes the issue more emotive - insert Helen Lovejoy here. We don't need to be emotive about it. We need to be rational - law must be rational. And either secondhand smoke is harmful and an assault on anyone you subject to it, or it isn't. You tell me that current research says it's harmful, so it should be banned from public places.

Of course, laws such as this are always going to be met with fierce resistance from those who believe that government (or anyone else for that matter) has no right to tell people how to raise their kids - but I don't see it as being as clear cut as that. Clearly there are instances when intervention of some description is not only justified, but absolutely necessary. What people do to their children is not just a matter of judgement - there are pretty clear laws on what you can and cannot do to a child, even in the privacy of your own home. Why should exposing children to harmful levels of secondhand smoke not be included on the list of things that you cannot do, when other things (like plying them with alcohol, force-feeding them, locking them in their rooms or sexual abuse) are legislated against already?

Notice that these things can all be neatly classified - like smoking - as assaults. Which begs the question why we need specific legislation that says how you can't assault your kids when we already have legislation that says you can't assault your kids (or anyone else).


And this is the point. If you accept secondhand smoke is harmful, it is an assault to subject someone else to it. It doesn't matter if it's a kid in a car or a bloke in the street. Or it shouldn't matter anyway.

 

[Callum B]

It's a difficult issue to just say yes or no on, I find. In my politics class in college the people who opposed it and those for it were split equally. In premise it's a good way to help improve the health of small children but then most things are, actually implementing it causes all sorts of problems as seen here.
A breach on our personal freedoms vs possible health advantages.

 

[Liquid]

At least you have a politics class at college.

I think it's something which should be taught more often and more thoroughly in school.

 

[MatskiMonk]

At least you have a politics class at college.

I think it's something which should be taught more often and more thoroughly in school.

Is it taught at all? It's been 17 years since I left school, I think PSRE had just about taken over from RE, and the closest thing we had to politics was learning about the repealing of the corn laws

 

[Liquid]

It probably isn't. It's only been 6 years since I left (ahem!) but I don't remember any lessons in critical thinking, politics or anything of such relevance. History would be a good start, but basically this is the summation of what they taught me in 11 years of history;

1066: William becomes King.

1485: Henry VII becomes King.
1509: Henry VIII becomes King. He has six wives.
1558: Elizabeth I becomes Queen. She is a woman.

1649: Charles I gets his head cut off.

1714: All of the Stuarts are dead.

1939-1945: World War II

And that is about as much detail as was given. No whos, whys or hows. No explanation of actually why we are the United Kingdom, how that happened and when. Nothing about the Irish question, and from a personal perspective, utterly nothing about Welsh history. We learn English history from times before they'd even conquered us!

Did anyone else learn anything else particularly significant in history?

 

[PeterJB]

That's pretty much what I learnt to. We did a little bit on the Wall Street Crash, but it wasn't explained in a way that anyone could understand, and I still don't quite understand to this day. I live with a history student, and at degree level they seem to still only be teaching him about the Tudors and WW2.

We were never taught anything about the history of other countries, communism or fascism, any history from before 1066, the history of science, or imperialism, or music, or art, or religion (save for the reformation which kinda fell under the Tudors). I remember doing about the Romans, Egyptians, and Anglo-Saxons in primary school, though at that level it doesn't exactly stretch the mind, or stay in your head.

My secondary school ran a critical thinking course, no-one took it. We also had a philosophy course, three people took that. In year 13 we had compulsory General Studies, though that was a useless subject in itself because we had one lesson a fortnight and the questions in the exam could be on quite literally anything (in my case earthquakes and IVF).

I would have loved to have done politics as an a-level. People need to understand how the country is run and what it is they're voting and paying taxes for.

 

[Callum B]

At least you have a politics class at college.

I think it's something which should be taught more often and more thoroughly in school.

It's something I'm glad is at least taught at A-Level. Although I personally think it should be implemented as a core subject in high school curriculum.

We have people from our school running to become youth parliament member for our area which is rather jolly, except for the fact they're all regurgitating the same things as someone who doesn't even do politics. "EMA's for all! No tuition costs!". I don't think they've really thought this through.
I'm disappointed I didn't hear about this sooner or I would have run. I feel as though I could prove to be a more 'unique' candidate. I'm quite cynical of the world and understand that we won't be able to get a lot of what we want. I feel that's important.

I would have loved to have done politics as an a-level. People need to understand how the country is run and what it is they're voting and paying taxes for.

I second this statement. It saddens me how a majority of the country that votes does so purely based on influences from family and peers and not from personal investigation into what each party represents.

 

[Joel]

Did anyone else learn anything else particularly significant in history?

I'm surprised the classes are so lackluster, especially in a country with such an illustrious history.

My high school history classes were excellent, they generally focused on Canada's role in the World Wars (as well as the buildup to both wars), the Great Depression, and the Cold War. Could have been a case where the teacher goes above and beyond though, my history teacher was excellent and very passionate about what he did which made the class interesting and it went beyond the memorizing of dates and names.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'm probably unusual in that I don't give a damn about history before about 1900, but 20th century history I really enjoy. Probably because it's a lot more relevant and a lot easier to identify with. I had some great teachers as well, that helps, but in the end I think it's that I prefer politics to war, and politics aren't always so clear from 300 years on. I wish I could have done a politics A level, I think I would have done pretty well, so long as I kept my big opinionated mouth shut at the right times.