The Children and Families Bill in England has been drafted to try to address various concerns surrounding children and their care. It’s a bit of a hotch potch Bill, but in amongst the more focused clauses dealing with children in care, there are some interesting gems. Gems which have got all the so-called Liberals’ panties in a twist.
I am of course referring to the latest suggested amendment, 57BB, by the House of Lords to include a smoking ban in cars where children are present. If the new clause is ratified, the government would have the power to make it a criminal offence to smoke whilst a minor is in the car. The amendment is championed by several peers, including Lord Hunt, Lord Faulkner, Baroness Finlay, Baroness Tyler, Lord McColl, Earl Howe and Baroness Hughes.
I admit it. I hate smoking. I hate the smell of it, the taste of it – the way it makes people’s nails look like they’ve got some kind of poolside fungal infection. I even hate the pseudo pretentious gestures the pass time seems to require each smoker to affect when engaging in a puff. You may think you look like Steve McQueen, or Betty Grable, but they’re dead. They died. Of lung cancer.
At least 69 chemicals passed on through second hand smoke in cigarettes are known to cause cancer. Second hand smoke kills 600,000 people every year, throughout the world. One third of those killed are children, often exposed to smoke at home. The NHS website tells us that passive smoking increases your chances of acquiring not only cancer, but other diseases. And it is particularly harmful to children.
Children who take in cigarette smoke have a heightened risk of dying from cot death, developing serious breathing difficulties, meningitis and hearing loss.
Research from the British Lung Foundation also makes for sobering reading. The Foundation found that just one cigarette smoked in a moving car with a window half open exposed a child in the centre of a backseat to around two-thirds as much second-hand smoke as in an average smoke-filled pub before the public smoking ban came into force. The level increased to 11 times when the car was not moving with the windows closed.
Passive smoking carries with it an unreasonably high level of risk, which will see thousands of girls and boys go on as adults to get some form of cancer, which will end up taking the lives of many of those. And of these, a significant percentage will never have touched a cigarette in their lives.
The cries from the Liberal Corner focus mainly on the apparent restriction a ban like this might impose upon their ‘right to smoke’. It is viewed as part of a gradual narrowing process which many fear will lead to an outright ban on smoking altogether. But there are different standards to apply when we consider second hand smoke and how it affects those who either wish not to inhale it, or who are simply too young to vocalise their feelings on the matter. The fact is, children are impressionable of body and mind, and it is our duty, everyone’s duty, to make sure we protect both.
Children who grow up with a family member or parent who smokes are three times more likely to start smoking themselves.
This sentiment was at the heart of the discussion about the Children and Families Bill in the House of Lords this week. This is where the suggested ban stems from. What the national newspapers haven’t picked up on, is that this is not a standalone clause to make smokers’ lives a misery. This is about a much wider, more concerted effort to show the next generation just how harmful smoking can be.
As far back as July last year, the UK government were faced with plans to make all cigarette packaging plain – a move by anti smoking lobbyists to try to reduce the cache that went with smoking, and make it a less desirable pass time. Needless to say, the anti-smoking lobbyists did not win. But that didn’t deter the House of Lords.
At the same time as news broke that the government would not consider changing the packaging on cigarettes, the Lords came up with another plan. If the government wasn’t going to make packaging less seductive to adults, it was going to force its hand at making the packaging less appealing to children instead.
And that’s just what it did, in this set of suggested amendments to the Bill.
It is these amendments that are being discussed now, although the focus this time is on the section relating to a smoking ban in cars where children are present.
The latest debate in the House of Lords on this clause is also a stark reminder of just how responsible we are for the decisions our children make later on in life. Earl Howe explains that two thirds of smokers take up smoking regularly before they reach 18. Lord Hunt goes on to discuss the fall in smoking rates in England and attributes this to several factors, including a ban on advertising, an increase in the age of sale and picture warnings on packs. All these things, he suggests, are responsible for the 50% decrease in smoking rates amongst our children.
If I were a smoker, I would certainly be feeling nervous right about now. Because, as our Liberal commentators have noticed, the noose is getting tighter around the cigarette. This latest proposed smoking ban in cars is part of a much larger picture – our Lords want to make smoking less desirable to our children. And by implication, less accessible to our grown ups. The Lords even discussed the possibility of banning smoking in people’s homes, especially where the dwellings are small flats and there are several children living in cramped accommodation. If you’re a smoker, you may well be hyperventilating at this point (it doesn’t take much, does it).
And yet a ban on smoking in cars or homes, doesn’t seem draconian or overly invasive to me. The arguments against the ban have been made: why use legislation to try to change a nation’s habit, when a campaign may be better suited to the occasion? Who does the government think it is, legislating what we can and can’t do with our bodies? And yet it does, sometimes with good cause.
In 2007, we made it illegal for people to smoke in the work place. We did this partly because we know that second hand smoke causes serious illness. Moreover, people who didn’t smoke resented having to put up with the life choices of those who did. Many non smokers actively refrain from the habit precisely because they don’t wish to die a premature and painfully slow death. Or smell like a walking, wafting dustbin.
And that is the central point to all of this: smoking isn’t a personal pass time, confined to the user – it’s a public experience, which affects anyone breathing in the same air as the smoker. When that air is being polluted with carcinogenic material, our government has a duty to contain the damage. Especially when the poisons in the air can linger for hours.
It’s not just second hand smoke that poses health risks, either. The little mentioned third hand smoke is also dangerous. That smoke clinging to your hair, clothes, furniture and carpets. That smoke, is particularly dangerous to children. And it’s sitting in your smoker’s house, right now. For me, at least, this research is good enough reason to ban smoking in homes with children.
In fact, there’s more chance of a person developing cancer and other diseases through smoking tobacco than through marijuana, for example. And yet marijuana is for the most part an illegal substance in the UK.
So why, when smoking causes so much more disease and death, is it still legal? I don’t mean to upset smokers reading this article, but it’s a habit which children don’t choose to partake in whilst young and we have a duty to protect them from the effects of it. Smokers also have a duty to be considerate. I don’t mind if you want to play with cemtex in your garden, just make sure you play away from my front door.
So by all means, puff yourself to death if you wish. I’m a firm believer that people should do what they want to their own bodies. Just don’t puff in our children’s faces.
Jonathan James said:
I wholeheartedly agree with your description of the entire smoking issue. My only reservation is as a former criminal law solicitor – is this really something suitable to be made a criminal offence? It seems to me that the criminal law is being increasingly used to adjust society where persuasion would be more appropriate. What would be the appropriate penalty for breaching the law? For cars I guess you could consider points on the licence – that wouldn’t be disproportionate. But in the home? How should we punish the offender? How would we detect the offence? Would we be reliant on children notifying the authorities of their offending parents and if so, what might the wider ramifications be?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I agree with you that prison for a parent who smokes is a step too far. I don’t advocate that. I am, as you know, quite anti those sorts of measures where parents are concerned any way, unless they have tried to kill their children or do something truly horrendous to them. But I do think points on licenses and fines for the car could be appropriate. As for smoking in the home, I don’t know about you, but I can smell smoke in a flat from 100 paces, outside, in the corridor. I dislike the idea of busybodies reporting smoking parents though, and perhaps there is a better way to sort all of this. Just get rid of cigarettes, period. But then, that sits at odds with my belief that everyone should be allowed to do as they wish – unless it impacts others without their consent.
LikeLike
Angry Grandparent said:
I am sorry but I am a little sceptical, how on earth can one cigarette produce the same atmospheric particulate count as a busy pub pre ban? This strikes me as a little odd, how can 30 cigarettes on the go be equal to one and so forth?
The problem still remains is that these organisations “think” cigarettes are the root causes for many things but sadly with the worlds best medical scientists at it for 40 years and going at it hammer and tong too, they still cannot bring the proof to the people.
Tobacco has become the bad boy and I suspect is taking several for the team so to speak as we will not question things that really do need to be addressed, that namely of aviation pollution, nautical pollution, road pollution which have gather apace in nearly the same curve as the increase in “smoking” related diseases but the numbers simply do not add up, the smoking base in this country is a quarter of what it was 20 years ago, the diseases have increased but the smokers have decreased.
The Independent revealed how 16, just 16 container ships caused more dirty, nasty pollution than the whole of Britain’s cars, we are beginning to see here in the Atlantic the first signs of Fukushima radiation, yet smoking is the only referred to cause of such diseases.
Try and bring about an inquiry into aviation pollution and see how far you get, Blair quashed several attempts, Cameron has quashed one, any attempt to measure the damaging effect of burnt and unburnt aviation kerosene is automatically blocked by the government.
Aviation fuel is extremely toxic AND carcinogenic as well, in areas near a busy airport you can taste it in the air and if we read the HazChem labels on the fuel transports and tanks and see the dangers so then why is it not dangerous to us when in the air unburnt? This backs up another school of thought where rural area smokers live far, far longer than city or town bound smokers, coincidence? I think not.
I no longer smoke as I am a champion for electronic cigarettes now, no passive risk, no longer inhaling 4000 unnamed chemicals, yet the anti-smoking lobby find this alternative unacceptable and I really must question the motives behind this, to condemn a safer alternative is crazy and I suspect sleight of hand funding from Big Pharma is behind that particular call as e-cigarettes will likely flatten a multi-billion pound market here in the UK alone. An e-cig is about as dangerous as a carrot, as we consume nicotine in our vegetables but again this is disputed with nothing more than a contrarian claim.
What I am concerned though is that this bill will hand almost a carte blanche to social services in depressed areas, seeing children taken away simply because their parents smoked, that is not smoked over them or around them but for simply smoking and that is a serious worry.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi AG, thanks for your thoughts. I agree that there is potential for a policy of no tolerance on smoking to confuse social workers and make things a nightmare for all concerned. In relation to the stat you mention from my post, I believe the effect is due to the confined space and the constant rotation of the same air going through the child’s lungs, which replicate and multiply the effects of the pub space.
LikeLike
officialaccountability said:
The simple thing – as a group of islands – would be to ban the sale of tobacco, ban all tobacco imports.
Trying to ban smoking in the home, would finally bring about the 1984 scenario of cameras in every room of your house. Who – apart from overinflated Government, Lords and Civil Servants would want that.
Let the Government stop taking the cut, ban the harmful product, ban all tobacco dealings by companies based in the UK. Its not as if the stuff is grown here, is it?
Whilst they’re about it they could also ban all arms dealings from this country.. and set about the prevention of ‘waste’ from our financial system – especially where that ‘waste’ goes into their own or their mates’ pockets.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi OA, thank you for your comment, and yes, it’s a difficult balance to strike.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
You might not want to upset smokers reading this article but you surely have. If you stop and ‘think’ there are lots of other pastimes which are as or more dangerous.
I engage in those too becauise i chose to, I am free to do so and not because of some dictat scribed by some weak-wristed clerk.
The difficulties faced by ‘liberals’ and ‘progressivea’ is that their very intention bring about the very opposite.
In a supposedly ‘tolerant society’ there is no one more intolerant (or boring) than someone who insists on their particular hobby horse; their brand of tolerance to the exclusion of all others.
Excuse the pun but the difference between the above and a Fascist state is about as slim as a cigarette paper (you see, cigarettes are useful ! ).
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi R, that may be true (that we engage in more dangerous pastimes), but we do so in an encapsulated, private capacity.
Smoking is not a private pastime – it pervades the air we all breathe and as a result I take the view that the wishes of those who do not wish to smoke must take precedence in shared spaces.
I have no problem with people who wish to smoke in designated buildings or spots for it – just as long as they don’t interfere with our children’s clean air.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
If its shared space then its shared space, otherwise aren’t we back at Animal Farm again where all animals are equal but some like the pigs are more equal than others ? And when you have driven out the farmer, what will be the next target for eradication ?
We have a Gang of Four syndrome writ large (I don’t want to be ‘re-educated’ with a little Red Book, or have a reincarnated Jiang Qing, thank you).
If we travel by train we pollute shared space and the air we breathe; if we travel by car we pollute; if we go on holiday by plane we pollute (can we move Heathrow ?)
I have no problem with people who don’t wish to smoke but I do when the self-righteous tin tyrants who insist on it then fail to designate rooms or buildings or spots for the purpose. Smokers deserve a better deal and a good service – after all, they lower your tax bills for you.
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
It is hypocrisy to take revenue in the form of taxes from tobacco companies while at the same time putting forward legislation to ban smoking in a car with kids in the back seat or smoking in their homes, making it a criminal offence.
It is hypocrisy for cancer charities to invest in tobacco companies!!!!
It is hypocrisy for the government to fail, over many years, to reduce air pollution as set by the UN. The local authorities now no longer have to monitor air pollution levels despite the fact that they have never been higher and a cause in the rise of asthma and lung conditions!
Having said that, I too hate smoking and try to stand downwind of the smoke! Anyone entering our car or home is not allowed to smoke inside, with or without children! If anyone lights up in front of me and I have to say I don’t know many smokers, I can’t help myself as I tell them to give it up before it gives them up! They always have a ready answer that justifies them to continue to smoke!
I loved it when smoking was banned in public places. I no longer had to wash my hair immediately after a night out to get rid of the smell, as I couldn’t sleep with the acrid smell as it made me want to throw up! I could eat without tasting the smoke emanating from the next table in a restaurant.
But… The government should encourage people to stop smoking, especially in front of kids but not make them criminals!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi D, it is MPs (the House of Commons) who are in bed with tobacco companies – not so much The Lords. That’s why they’ve felt able to be so vocal about the issue.
LikeLike
Ragnvald said:
I would more readily support a ban on alcohol which I would suggest causes far more deaths of children and physical harm to them than tobacco smoking. Two women a week in the UK die as a consequence of violent attacks in the home, mostly alcohol-fuelled and hundreds of children witness such attacks and suffer the consequent emotional and psychological traumas, or are themselves subject to such assaults. Many, many more women receive serious injuries, some requiring immediate hospital treatment after such alcohol-fuelled attacks.
Then there are the adults who are assaulted on the streets by individuals who are alcohol-affected and which incur huge costs in the attendance of police and ambulances, and medical treatment at hospitals, where medical staff then suffer similar attacks.
Then of course there is the several illnesses and diseases to body organs which can be suffered by those who over-indulge in alcohol and again there is huge costs of medical treatment and hospital services.
These latter two illustrations can of course be reduced, if not eliminated if alcoholic drinks were taxed to a point of prohibitive purchase, and the sums raised could then go towards the medical, hospital, and police services referred to above, rather than other taxpayers having to subsidise alcohol drinkers in the destruction they cause.
But where children are involved and are likely to become the victims of alcohol-affected parents or other adults, the law must stop parents from having alcohol in their homes where there are children, and must stop parents and other adults from entering their homes if they are alcohol-affected and there are likely to be children present.
Keep alcohol out of the home and keep those who imbibe alcoholic drinks off the streets. The costs to children and to taxpayers is totally unacceptable.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
That’s interesting, R. We’re all treading on thin ground when we want to ban anything. I think that as with cigarettes, it’s not what we do, but how we do it. Plenty of people drink and do so moderately or without harming anyone. Many cigarette smokers make sure to smoke away from non smokers. I think it’s got to be a balance of allowing people the freedom to do these things but to do them in a way which doesn’t affect those who wish not to partake.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
Ragnvald is right, the data I collect shows without doubt that it is drugs and alcohol abuse that leads to child deaths and child neglect abuse and torture. The number of times it is a strong factor is striking (see http://mensaid.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/6/).
If it is acceptable to see other people drinking moderately why can’t we accept moderate smoking without getting in a moral panic about it ? If you don’t like smoke, then move away from it ! !
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
Anyone watch “Are you addicted to sugar?” Decades ago back to the 70s, John Yudkin warned the government about the dangers of sugar. Cited as pure, white and deadly! His research was ignored. The focus was put on restricting fats to lower the obesity rate. The government was in bed with the corn syrup manufacturers so didn’t want to admit sugar was a problem!
The Americans had a huge, excuse the pun, problem too. Corn syrup was cheap, food tasted good and they began to supersize everything. We in the UK followed! The topic is back on the table now as obesity levels did rise and are still rising. The knock on effect of sugar wasn’t just weight, it was the cause of heart disease and diabetes. Its hard to find any manufactured foods that have no sugar added. Sugar is the new cigarette! So which is worse? Children passively smoking other peoples secondhand smoke or feeding them sugary foods, in everything from ketchup to drinks! Both are government sanctioned. Both are toxic! Both result in disease and death!
LikeLike
officialaccountability said:
There you have it: “Both are Government sanctioned”. Did anyone really think that an Government gave a toss about ‘the population’ and its health? Well, it didn’t.
Enforced service (by one way or another) in two world wars, the total ignoring of the public and its needs, no adequate – lawful – control over police officers, court officials, civil servants. The picture is bleak.
If the government needs money, it taxes cigarettes up to the hilt – rather than banning tobacco from these islands, to save health.
If it needs a whipping boy, it makes sure that there are many: disabled, indigenous ill-educated, jobless poor, working mothers, stay-at-home mothers, lawfully arriving foreigners, fat people, old people, farmers, unionists – the list is endless.
All of these groups and more have been denigrated by Government over the last few years – most still are – and the Government has been aided and abetted by what is laughingly known as our ‘free press’.
The only way to ensure that changes are made to the ‘rubbish processed foods’, is to refuse to buy, to return the muck in very large amounts, to protest outside, processing plants.. and to insist that every MP – are you listening George Osborne? – holds open, monthly surgeries, within their own constituencies, at times and places when their constituents can reach them, so that their constituents can tell them what to do and hold them to it. In a democracy, we should far more easily be able to throw out poorly performing MPs, replacing them with the candidate who achieved the next highest vote. That Candidate would then remain in place until the next general election.
If we want a fit and healthy population, we need to get on with it ourselves, instead of relying (as we have been taught throughout my lifetime) on ‘the state’ to provide any solution. The state will never do that; it does not have the intention.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
Sugar is the new cigarette ! No one is disagreeing with that but having nailed sugar “we” then find oursleves being moved on to cigarettes and after cigarettes what we will we be urged to move on to next ?
Do we ban sugar and make its consumption a criminal offence ?
So let’s show the same liberal tolerance to cigarettes as we do to sugar.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi R, your sugar consumption does not affect anyone else but you. That is the difference between ingesting sugar and billowing out smoke from a cigarette, which affects the air around you, and others. You wouldn’t be comfortable living near a polluted river which was contaminating your water, would you? It’s the same principle.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
You nicely sidestep the overarching principle by inventing/inserting another. If we tax or ban sugar consumption who will it hardest hit ? What will be the new rates of renal failure or cancer risks from its substitutes etc, etc ? And if you want me to follow up on your river analogy, having done that will it be canals and ‘unlicenced’ puddles next ?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Robert, I wasn’t sidestepping the issue. I was drawing your attention to a particular point. Once again, sugar consumption does not affect anyone but the consumer in immediate terms. Smoking affects anyone who comes into contact with the smoker, and the air he breathes out.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
Then I shall away to Sark, where the internal combustion engine is banned and I shall be the only polluter in sight ! !
Do we really want to live forever or have extended lives ? With no car fumes and without the stress of living in London, I might even live longer than you.
It is going to cost the next generation of tax-payers a fortune in taxes to have a “heathy” older population and to find work for them aged 70 years old -and yet still find work for the million or so 17 year olds leaving school with low grade qualifications.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Ha 🙂 I think this is a question of relativity. Everyone’s thresholds are bound to be different, of course. As a non smoker, I would like the immediate effects of smoking to be ring fenced and removed from my environment. I don’t wish to stop people smoking altogether. I see in the news this morning that there’s talk of making drinking whilst pregnant illegal/ a crime. I happen to think that’s ridiculous. Again, this is about personal thresholds. I grew up in France where pregnant women drink. But they don’t drink to excess there – noone does. As a result, their drink related diseases are much smaller than say, ours. And their babies don’t suffer as a result in the womb. But it’s interesting, because an excess of drink could well harm a baby, so we have another example of something which seems personal affecting third parties, making it much less of a private affair than we might think. It’s all about thresholds.
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
Hi OA, It’s difficult for the general population to get on with it themselves because our food industry are the ones providing the manufactured foods that most people rely on. The fresh vegetables are probably eradiated, you dont hear about this any more! Edwina Curry made headlines stating most eggs had salmonela. What has really changed? The meat industry is poorly regulated and fish is farmed, both have high levels of hormones, toxic to humans. Parliament refused to have GM foods on its menu whilst having the gall to tell the rest of the population to eat it! GM foods, or Monsanto by any other name, have more in common with testtubes than nature. So the government needs to be accountable and make long term changes that will benefit the population rather than short term profits that dictates who gets the contracts, namely those they are in bed with!
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
Well, maybe the media is reading RR!
http://www.daily mail.co.uk/news/article-2550655/How-food-giants-woo-ministers-Sugar-campaigners-fear-seccret-stitch-meeting
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550655/How-food-giants-woo-ministers-Sugar-campaigners-fear-secret-stitch-meeting
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
Hi, After debating how much the fine was going to be for smoking in the car with children (£60) they are now saying it would be high on impossible to enforce. Ditto for the home. Secret smoker Clegg is at the forefront for not making smokers into criminals!
£60 per parent per child is also the fine if your child is late to school 10 times.
It is only £6 per hour if you are late picking your child up. It has been noted its cheaper than a babysitter! It won’t be this price for long as other schools in Milton Keynes are charging, you guessed it, £60!
£60 per parent per child is also the fine if you take your child out of school to go on holiday during term time! This can rise to £25000 if you don’t pay it immediately. In Plymouth £11,340 was collected in fines from 190 parents in one term.
Now they want to sanction pregnant mothers who drink? What’s the bet it will be £60!
Apparently the Government know that fining parents does not change the behaviour of the kids so is this just a money spinner as its been suggested!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Sadly D, I think it’s always about the money.
LikeLike
rwhiston said:
How like Pinocchio the size of the States inquisitive nose has grown.
Will there be no region or private place or personal space, it will not be poked into on the whim of some ‘good cause’ or another ?
Not being born with a brain – like all bureaucracies – we now see that the State, having snatched guardianship from parents, is giving itself a free hand to do what lobbyists (who do have a brain) bid it to do
LikeLike
Pingback: Question It! | Researching Reform
Maggie Tuttle said:
Such a shame that people write willy nilly with out research, is any one aware that Parliament has its own smoking room and whilst I also agree no smoking in a car with children or in the same room, it was just a few years ago that the world health organisation stated on BBC news PASSIVE SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. shame people do not have the research of the many years I have to bring out the truth of Cancer and Estrogen, and quite honestly I do not want to waste my time to explain but will say for people who know it all look at the third highest rates of cancer in the world it is the children born to women on the Pill, look at the millions of women with cancer from being prescibed H.R.T check out the Estrogen in the tap water and NO it has nothing to do with the hormones women pee down the loo, it is the chemicals used 6/7 times to try to purify the water that is causing Estrogen in the tap water check out the chemicals mimicking Estrogen that Monsanto sprays the crops with then how many people have very little immune systems which all are born with to fight deseases, and at the end of the day again people are not aware of the cover ups so that the nations will eat drink take the pills and most end up with Cancer, before the 60s Cancer was not that rife and I beleive most adults smoked in those days, look at the BILLIONS OF POUNDS made from cancer charities one day people will see the cancer charities are like the childrens care system a multibillion pound industry and of course banning smoking and making it a crimanal offence has put the law above child abuse so what are Governments saying to the world
LOOK PEOPLE WE ARE SAFEGUARDING THE CHILDREN AND PROTECTING THEM BUT HAHAHA BUT WE WILL KEEP STEALING SELLING AND ABUSING THEM, THEN AS ADULTS MOST WILL GO TO PRISON AND NOT ONLY SMOKE BUT EAT DRINK AND TAKE THE DRUGS THAT ARE CHANGING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM AND CAUSING CANCER AND WE THE GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE MILLIONS FROM THE TAXES ON CIGARETTES BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE TO MAKE MORE MONEY ON THE PRETENCE OF PROTECTING THE KIDS.
Shame the world does not know of Governments cover ups.
Maggie
LikeLike
Dana Raymond said:
Non smoking activists are now suggesting children be removed from parents who smoke! Its very worrying that children are constantly being used as leverage to change societies bad habits!
Recently lungs from smokers were given the all clear to be used in transplants, which rather gives lie to saying smoking causes lung cancer! It also throws doubt on the dangers of second hand smoke !
LikeLike
Pingback: Ban On Smoking In Cars To Take Effect In October | Researching Reform