Smoking with your kids in the car?
Discussion
MattOz said:
otherman said:
It's about passive smoking, which doesn't really exist.
Try explaining that little gem to Roy Castles widow. The evidence for harm from passive smoking is not as clear as people seem to think;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...
I think there is more spin than science in the passive smoking debate.
otolith said:
MattOz said:
otherman said:
It's about passive smoking, which doesn't really exist.
Try explaining that little gem to Roy Castles widow. The evidence for harm from passive smoking is not as clear as people seem to think;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...
I think there is more spin than science in the passive smoking debate.
Quoting from wiki
Risk to children of Passive Smoking
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In his 2006 report, the US Surgeon General concludes: "The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome."Secondhand smoking has been estimated to be associated with 430 SIDS deaths in the United States annually.
Asthma
Lung infections,[ also including more severe illness with bronchiolitis and bronchitis, and worse outcome, as well as increased risk of developing tuberculosis if exposed to a carrier. In the United States, it is estimated that second hand smoke has been associated with between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
Impaired respiratory function and slowed lung growth.
Allergies
Crohn's disease.
Learning difficulties, developmental delays, and neurobehavioral effects.
Increase in tooth decay (as well as related salivary biomarkers) has been associated with passive smoking in children.
Increased risk of middle ear infections.
So lets be honest here, with that many risks associated with passive smoking to children why would anyone possibly choose to smoke around them?
Or am I to believe that all of the above is spin also?
otolith said:
MattOz said:
otherman said:
It's about passive smoking, which doesn't really exist.
Try explaining that little gem to Roy Castles widow. The evidence for harm from passive smoking is not as clear as people seem to think;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...
I think there is more spin than science in the passive smoking debate.
I mean, it's smoke from a fag is it not? So how (when it's through passive smoking) does the smoke render itself harmless to third-parties...?
otolith said:
SWoll said:
Bringing this back more on topic though there are far more reasons than lung cancer alone why smoking around your kids is a bad idea.
It was a specific response to the assertion that Roy Castle's lung cancer was caused by passive exposure to smoke.But hey, it's spin eh...?
I thought the topic was not so much the inherent risks to the child as to the inconsiderate behaviour of the parent?
We can debate passive smoking till the cows come home but the fact your sprog will spend the rest of the day smelling like an ashtray because you couldn't wait to light up is reason enough not to do it surely
We can debate passive smoking till the cows come home but the fact your sprog will spend the rest of the day smelling like an ashtray because you couldn't wait to light up is reason enough not to do it surely
NobleGuy said:
How, with a scientific hat on, would you try to convince someone that it's just spin?
I mean, it's smoke from a fag is it not? So how (when it's through passive smoking) does the smoke render itself harmless to third-parties...?
With a scientific hat on, you don't have to. It's an interesting scientific question - why is the evidence for harm from passive smoke so much less clear cut than the evidence for harm from primary smoke - but that's a tangential issue from whether it is or it isn't.I mean, it's smoke from a fag is it not? So how (when it's through passive smoking) does the smoke render itself harmless to third-parties...?
Passive smoking is a useful political tool in discouraging active smoking because it undermines the argument of "what I do to my own body is my business". That is the main public health significance of the phenomenon, IMO.
otolith said:
NobleGuy said:
How, with a scientific hat on, would you try to convince someone that it's just spin?
I mean, it's smoke from a fag is it not? So how (when it's through passive smoking) does the smoke render itself harmless to third-parties...?
With a scientific hat on, you don't have to. It's an interesting scientific question - why is the evidence for harm from passive smoke so much less clear cut than the evidence for harm from primary smoke - but that's a tangential issue from whether it is or it isn't.I mean, it's smoke from a fag is it not? So how (when it's through passive smoking) does the smoke render itself harmless to third-parties...?
Passive smoking is a useful political tool in discouraging active smoking because it undermines the argument of "what I do to my own body is my business". That is the main public health significance of the phenomenon, IMO.
I would've thought even from a purely intuitive standpoint it makes sense that it's not good for people.
You just have to read the list of consituents - there's plenty of nasty stuff in there even when you cross off the ones you don't understand...
otolith said:
With a scientific hat on, you don't have to. It's an interesting scientific question - why is the evidence for harm from passive smoke so much less clear cut than the evidence for harm from primary smoke - but that's a tangential issue from whether it is or it isn't.
Passive smoking is a useful political tool in discouraging active smoking because it undermines the argument of "what I do to my own body is my business". That is the main public health significance of the phenomenon, IMO.
Because scientifically proving a "passive" reaction is inherently more difficult than a "direct" one, and far more open to interpretation?Passive smoking is a useful political tool in discouraging active smoking because it undermines the argument of "what I do to my own body is my business". That is the main public health significance of the phenomenon, IMO.
If directly inhaling tobacco fumes is proven to be a health risk, then how can passively inhaling them not also be a risk? It makes absolutely no sense that this would not be the case.
NobleGuy said:
otolith said:
The pretty-bleeding-obvious difference between passive and active smoking is dose.
Would you take a small cyanide pill rather than a big one and assume the effects would be any less potent? 
The smoking ban was fantastic, pity it killed a lot of pubs off but the ones that are still open you can go in and not come out smelling like an Ashtray, downside is that the smoke used to mask the smell of piss and toilet disinfectant blocks.
Nothing used to make me heave like getting a whiff of my own clothes following a night out, the pungent whiff of smoke, that is not on, can see that now, used to accept it but now it seems weird to smell it, regardless of the health issues if they do or dont exist, the smell alone is enough to be bothered about, it honks, not even a nice smell, why anyone would have decided to burn it and inhale it I dont know, maybe it tastes awesome to smokers, like the inverse of Play Doh, which smells awesome but tastes rubbish
Nothing used to make me heave like getting a whiff of my own clothes following a night out, the pungent whiff of smoke, that is not on, can see that now, used to accept it but now it seems weird to smell it, regardless of the health issues if they do or dont exist, the smell alone is enough to be bothered about, it honks, not even a nice smell, why anyone would have decided to burn it and inhale it I dont know, maybe it tastes awesome to smokers, like the inverse of Play Doh, which smells awesome but tastes rubbish
otolith said:
NobleGuy said:
otolith said:
The pretty-bleeding-obvious difference between passive and active smoking is dose.
Would you take a small cyanide pill rather than a big one and assume the effects would be any less potent? I'm not really of the belief that I'll catch cancer by walking behind a smoker in the park one day, but I would be inclined to believe an infant in the back of a car exposed consistently isn't going to benefit very much.
NobleGuy said:
Fair answer
I'm not really of the belief that I'll catch cancer by walking behind a smoker in the park one day, but I would be inclined to believe an infant in the back of a car exposed consistently isn't going to benefit very much.
At the very least it's pretty unpleasant, which ought to be reason enough not to impose it upon someone who doesn't have the option of choosing otherwise. I'm not really of the belief that I'll catch cancer by walking behind a smoker in the park one day, but I would be inclined to believe an infant in the back of a car exposed consistently isn't going to benefit very much.
The only thing to really annoy me on this thread is the few twonks that have trotted out the 'smokers are selfish' line. No. Some people are selfish, some people smoke ergo some smokers are selfish!
I occasionally smoke (prob average 2 or 3 a day at the moment, more than usual, due to stress), I find it relaxing, especially when I've had a drink. However, I've never smoked in my car ever, it would disgust me (and my passengers) for my car to stink of smoke, likewise I don't smoke in the house. The only time I'll smoke amongst a group of people would be in the smoking area of a pub garden or similar. The thought of smoking with my dog in the car is incomprehensible to me so how people can do it with their kids in the car is just bizarre. Nor do I litter the streets with cig butts.
I would agree with a law banning smoking in cars with children on board, I genuinely think that some smokers just don't think about what they're doing, or (coming back to the selfishness issue) don't care.
I occasionally smoke (prob average 2 or 3 a day at the moment, more than usual, due to stress), I find it relaxing, especially when I've had a drink. However, I've never smoked in my car ever, it would disgust me (and my passengers) for my car to stink of smoke, likewise I don't smoke in the house. The only time I'll smoke amongst a group of people would be in the smoking area of a pub garden or similar. The thought of smoking with my dog in the car is incomprehensible to me so how people can do it with their kids in the car is just bizarre. Nor do I litter the streets with cig butts.
I would agree with a law banning smoking in cars with children on board, I genuinely think that some smokers just don't think about what they're doing, or (coming back to the selfishness issue) don't care.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff