Log In
Sunday 23rd October 2016

Parents face smoking ban

14th December 2009

The government is launching a new anti-smoking campaign as part of a drive to reduce the number of adults who smoke by 50% by 2020.


MPs want to see parents refraining from smoking in front of their children at home or while driving.

The government is also due to announce its plans for a ban on advertising on tobacco packaging. This would mean cigarettes would only be available as an "under-the-counter" purchase.

At present, the government says it is on schedule to meet its target of reducing the number of smokers to one in five people by 2010.

In order to ensure only one in 10 people are smokers by 2020, the new campaign will be concentrated on discouraging young adults and children from smoking.

Other measures included in the campaign will include a ban on smoking at the 2012 London Olympic site, increases in cigarettes prices and more funds for health service "stop smoking" services.

Professor Terence Stephenson, President of the Royal College of Paediatric Health, has championed the banning of smoking by parents in cars.

He said: "Why on earth would you light up in your car whilst your children are sitting quite happily in the back? On the assumption that you wouldn't pass the packet round and invite the kids to light up, why make them breathe tobacco smoke at all?"

"You can't inflict this on your colleagues at work any more. Why should we treat our children's health as a lower priority than our employees?" 


Share this page


Monday 14th December 2009 @ 23:33

Well, clearly, the government is a bit concerned about 'diminishing returns'. In this case, it is a matter of spending more and more money on the problem while the number of smokers does not decrease very much as a result of the 'hardcore' becoming greater and greater in the numbers of smokers.
But that should not deter the government! It does not matter how much it costs! No amount of money is worth the death of a child! Even if tax revenues from smokers drop to zero, every effort and ever cost has to be borne to stop this filthy habit!
Especially guilty are these grandparents who may be in their seventies and may have been smoking all their lives. They cannot help themselves and will continue to smoke when their grandchildren make their weekly/monthly visit. These children may even stop over and have to sleep in bedrooms which have tobacco smoke seeping in!
These grandparents have to be stopped! Swinging penalties must be imposed. In fact, I cannot wait to see all these smoking grandparents behind bars!
What they did 'in the war' is irrelevant.

Tuesday 15th December 2009 @ 16:17

James the 70 year olds smokers you refer to are they the same ones that were brought up by smokers, have been passive and first hand smoking all their lives and that's not mentioning the smog and coal fires they endured. If they are can you explain why they have managed to defy all the science about smoking and managed to still be alive at this ripe old age?
As for your comment about their war effort being irrelevant I would bear in mind had it not been for these people you would not have the freedom to post such thoughtless rubbish.
And I thought fascism was a thing of the past.

Thursday 17th December 2009 @ 1:22

To Brendan Padmore.

I hope that you read this further comment.

I did not really expect any particular response to my post - largely because I have never visited this site before. I am not a health professional.
I did think that maybe health professionals might comment on this site as they see fit because it seems to be a site that health professionals might visit as a matter of course. It now seems to me that this site is in fact not significant, which is a pity since it seems to have a good variety of interesting topics.

I deliberately pitched the comment in language which could be construed as either genuine of tongue-in-cheek. I wondered how many, if any, health professions might agree, in general, with what I said. I was curious.

Please do not be upset that you fell for it. I think that I phrase my comment very well. And yet, the clues were there - the juxtaposition of 'diminishing returns' and 'costs do not matter' - the use of the phrase 'filthy habit' - 70 year old survivors - smoke 'seeping' into bedrooms - monthly visits - what people sacrificed in the wars (including such wars as Korea, Vietnam, and, latterly, Iraq).

My overall intention was to highlight the utter nonsense of this proposed interference in our family lives. It is just a pity that only you and I commented.

I assume that you are the same Brendan Padmore who is with UKIP? (I googled your name). I am not a UKIP person, but I do admire a lot of UKIP's objectives. In particular, I would wish to see the EU confining itself to what it was set up for, ie, trade.

I am a 70 year old grandparent with three healthy 40 odd year old daughters and four grandchildren in their teens, all of whom are perfectly healthy. I have smoked 40 cigs per day since I was 20. I have always smoked as and when I wished, children and grandchildren present or not.
I was in the airforce for 3 years in the 60s. I reasoned that it was my duty to risk my life for the general good. I was involved in the first Kuwait crisis (if you know what that is).

I absolutely, totally and utterly refuse to accept the Nanny State as envisioned by the likes of Patricia Hewitt et al.

Just in case this comment is moderated out, I have emailed you a copy.

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 2016