Should smoking be banned from all homes? or when kids live there
October 1, 2007 | Filed under News
Although the UK has now got a blanket ban on smoking so you cannot smoke in any public place, I have heard many non-smokers say that they should even go as far as to ban smoking from all homes.
What do you think, should smoking be banned from all homes?
I personally am a non-smoker and although I feel it’s up to everyone if they want to smoke and if its their home they can smoke.
Although when kids live in the home I think you should not be able to smoke as then you’re giving them your secondary smoke and they do not have a choice.
I also see smoking just as bad as a lot of drugs, but that’s my personally view.
What are your thoughts on smoking, the ban and also smoking around children?
Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
I am going to say this clearly to all you biggots, smoking is a choice that everyone has if they like it let them do it. What really pisses me of is the fact that us smokers get banished from pubs, clubs and so on, yes banning smoking from places that has food is a good idea but most pubs used to have a smoking area and now they do not.
It is basically bullying, yes bullying us smoker to give up what we want to do, there has been more trouble with alcohol than cigarettes. Drinking has been proven that it can kill, people who drink can end being careless enough to kill their own child (this is provn also).
So please get this clearly - There is no friggin way i would give up smoking in my own home whether there are kids in it or not, the kids should not be in the same room granted.
So should they ban alcohol which cause, fights, deaths and more.
I agree with most of what you say Mark, apart from the kids bit.
Kids should not have to put up with smoking in any manner.
If you want kids, then smoke outside the house.
If you do not want kids then smoke yourself to death.
They absolutely should be band from smoking in a house where children live!!
When you smoke in the same house as a child, you’re forcing them to breathe in secondary smoke - how is that fair? If you were taking cocaine you wouldn’t force a child to do it too would you?
I used to smoke and have now become the worst non-smoker in the world. Many smokers say things like “I only smoke in the kitchen when the kids are here” in my eyes that’s ridiculous! The smoke can still travel through the house and effect the children.
I’m totally for this ban but I can’t see it ever happening.
Ok then, do you drink in front of your kids, and please do not tell me the kids do not go out of the house near traffic that can kill.
I would never smoke in front of kids, it would be in a rom where i would not allow them to enter. You are right that kids should not breathe in smoke but to say it is dangerous is bull, most things in life are dangerous.
Thanks Mark, I will not even answer that BUT I will quote you “to say it is dangerous is bull” now that’s funny.
What pisses me off so much is the fact that people say smoking is more dangerous than most things, alcohol is the devil more than cigareetes. Kids should not enhale my smoke no way, but to ban smaoking from my home that i pay for, where i live is totally crap.
more ppl die of heart attacks, more pple die of astmha, more people die by getting hit by a car….. this is all proven…..
Oh my god, I’ve just read your comment Mark and it’s wrong on so, so many levels!!
How is banning smoking from pubs and clubs bullying!? Surely smoking in a club where non-smokers are out enjoying a night out is bullying? By smoking you’re forcing them to secondary smoke.
I believe that just because you want to ruin your body by smoking you shouldn’t ruin someone elses - even unintentionally.
Mark, you said, “Drinking has been proven that it can kill, people who drink can end being careless enough to kill their own child” and “to say it is dangerous is bull” what about secondary smoke?! Read the facts before jumping on your high horse!!
As I said in my previous post smoking in a different room of the house when children live there is pointless, the effects and danger of secondary smoke still ramains.
MARK here are some facts for you:
It is well known that smoking is dangerous to
health. It causes death from cancer, heart disease,
and lung disease. Secondhand smoke is harmful
to everyone.
It has two phases, It is a
combination of exhaled smoke from a smoker
and smoke from the burning end of a cigarette.
The first phase of secondhand smoke is a
blue-gray cloud made up of many harmful
chemicals such as arsenic, cyanide, and tar.
You can’t see the second phase of secondhand
smoke. It does, however, hang in the air long
after the first phase goes away. That phase
also contains chemicals that are harmful to
everyone — especially children.
Tobacco smoke contributes to 150,000 to
300,000 respiratory infections in babies every
year. These infections are the cause of 7,500 to
15,000 hospital stays annually.
1 - It causes a higher rate of throat infections.
2 - It causes up to 26,000 new cases of
childhood asthma every year.
3 - It may cause a permanent decrease in
lung function.
4 - It causes up to 80 percent more wheezing,
coughing, and production of sputum
than normal.
5 - It leads to more repeated ear infections.
JP:
You are regurgitating antitobacco propaganda and think you’re smart. Every word you say is a baldfaced lie.
Tobacco cannot be demonstrated to cause ANY disease in animals or humans.Where was all the sickness and death when everybody smoked and nobody cared?
For all you idiots who think banning smoking from PRIVATE residences because kids are present is just a dandy of an idea;
You actually need to stop and think about it for a minute. I agree, it’s not a great idea and personally I wouldn’t do, but that’s my choice.
Excluding making existing conditions worse and a slight increase in ear infection incidence the best evidence suggests the long term risk to kids health due to their parents smoking is infintensimal. Honestly, you put them at greater risk by taking them to school in a car.
Now, here’s the problem with the moronic idea. Every law needs resources to enforce and resources are finite. Given that we have kids out there being REALLY abused by being neglected, raped, punched, thrown down stairs or whatever and that the existing resources aren’t sufficient to protect kids from that kind of abuse is it wise to take resources AWAY from that to defend them against smoking? I mean come on, if you try to defend them against everything you only succeed in protecting them from nothing.
Work out how to protect them from serious dangers before trying to protect them from trivial crap.
“2 - It causes up to 26,000 new cases of
childhood asthma every year.”
Yeah, and that’s a bunch of horsesh*t. Asthma is at record levels. It has never been higher, yet smoking and exposure to ETS are at record lows (for the last 70 years). What kind of unthinking moron seriously thinks there’s a correlation between the two?
well i never i am a smoker and it looks like i dont have to look after my grandchildren anymore.
Why do people pick on smokers as thre is far more underage drinking going on in this world and i have never drunk in front of my children like the young generation do today.
I smoke in my kitchen its not my fault that my grandchildren follow me to the kitchen the parents should train them better.
For all those out there who have been brain washed by governments and the health fascists let me try and enlighten you. RTS is quite right when he says that asthama has increased dramatically with exposure to tobacco decreasing. To give you an idea in 1945 80% of males in the UK smoked and in 2007 it is 24%. The peak year for asthman was 2005. The WHO in 1998 found a PROTECTIVE effect for childres of smokers, 22%. That is children of smokers had 22% less lung cancer than children whose parents did not smoke. This report has been surpressed as the WHO refuse to publish it. Let me also quote from the Enstrom/Kabat report. It started in 1959 and finished in 1998 and is considered the most in depth and authortative study ever done. It covered 118,000 people of whom 35,000 we partners of smokers, let me quote: “Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” And “Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse.” This was published in the British Medical Journal and before being published had to undergo peer review. 6 eminent professors of medicine and statistics for example reviewed the whole paper from start to finish and confirmed these conclusions were accurate. Basically you have more chance of contracting lung cancer from drinking 1-2 glasses of whole milk per day or from eating 3 portions of mushrooms per week. The passive smoking debate is taking you for a ride. Furthermore Benzene is a carcinogen found in petrol (gas). It constitues in the USA 2% of a gallon of petrol. It is one of the carcinogens sighted in cigarette smoke. If you were in a room 20 feet by 20 feet by 9 feet to reach Environmental Agency danger levels you would have to be exposed to 1,470 smokers.
I hope I have put our minds at risk. The URL for Enstrom/Kabat report.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Joe camel,
Before you add a comment you should do something called research, as you are saying that “Tobacco cannot be demonstrated to cause ANY disease in animals or humans” you are wrong.
If you check, what i said is correct.
JP why is it correct, because you looked at another website believing that they are right…. no one can 100 percent say it is right or wrong………
JP: I take it just just chose to ignore the solid scientific facts presented in the post before yours then?
If you check, what you said is completely INcorrect. And has been proven to be so by Dave Atherton. Try again.
Plus, it’s not your choice what someone does in their own property, that is ENTIRELY up to the owner of the property. Government should advise and warn but NOT tell others what to do in their own house … unless you advocate a Nazi state of course?
I have to agree whole heartedly with Dave and Joe. We are faced with a propaganda machine worthy of Goebbels at his best but having no scientific support. Pure emotional rubbish.
This was started by Stanton Glantz in California, famous for it’s loony fringe. These looneys have been supported by such groups as ASH and I think it is about time that basic commonsense became normal again.