Log In
Sunday 16th June 2019

House of Lords approves ban on smoking in cars when children are present

25th July 2012

Moves to ban smoking in cars when children are present have received backing in the House of Lords.

It approved Lord Ribeiro’s private member’s bill to make offenders liable for a Β£60 fine or attendance at a smoke awareness course but despite the backing from peers, supporters of the legislation acknowledged that they do not have government backing for the move. For the measure to become law it would need the support of MPs and Prime Minister David Cameron has questioned whether it is justified.


Share this page


Greg Burrows

Thursday 26th July 2012 @ 0:46

Why is it that the Lords have nodded this through when there is no scientific research which shows second hand smoke is significantly harmful, here is the conclusion of the HSE in article 9 of HSE OC255/15, just before the England smoking ban. http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/255_15.pdf this is why the ban could not be enforced through the people who would normally have enforced it the HSE, Tobacco control conned the commons and the Lords, at the cost of isolation for millions and thousands of jobs lost and now have conned the lords again, of all the studies combined into second hand smoke (SHS) the Relative Risk (RR) shows 1.19 totally insignificant and just above water which is 1.15 even this RR into SHS was probably arrived at because most of the studies were financed by people who wanted a positive result, here is a link to understanding RR http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/rr.htm

The two largest epidemiological studies into SHS the WHO 1998 and Enstrom and Kabat 2003, show a beneficial effect on children in some aspects, this may not be significant but SHS harm is not significant. Here is a link to all the epidemiological studies done presented before the Scotland ban,


I am tired of been lied to by the health lobby, Tobacco control, and the government.

For more information on the underhand dealings of the tobacco control movement go to this link. http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page

Water reference RR 1.15 http://www.iacoc.org.uk/statements/chlorinateddrinkingwaterandcancerCOC99S2May1999.htm

Greg Burrows UKIP PPC 2010 general election

Thomas Laprade

Thursday 26th July 2012 @ 15:32

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.

Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.

If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.

On the other hand, exposure to second-hand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.

This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.

If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.

We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.

And more:

Allowing their infants to play with walkers;

Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;

Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;

Owning a wood-burning stove;

Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;

Not boiling their babies'� bottles before serving them milk;

Not breastfeeding their infants;

Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;

Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;

Serving alcohol at a party;

Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and

Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.

One could easily argue that 'If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.

The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one's children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?

I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.

It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

John Davidson

Friday 27th July 2012 @ 11:51

Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

Remember this story from last year:

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

John Davidson

Friday 27th July 2012 @ 11:52

They have created a fear that is based on nothing�¢ï¿½ï¿½�¢ï¿½ï¿½

World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he�¢ï¿½ï¿½s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic �¢ï¿½�¦ compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don�¢ï¿½ï¿½t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?


The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien


Post your comment

Only registered users can comment. Fill in your e-mail address for quick registration.

Your email address:

Your comment will be checked by a Healthcare Today moderator before it is published on the site.

Mayden - Innovative cloud-based web development for the healthcare sector
© Mayden Foundation 2019