Add Comment

Why not take smoking back into the pubs and clubs again as it is now Internationally recognised that SHS does not kill. The rise in smoking at home has been caused by the Anti-Smoking organisations pressure which has resulted in governments introducing smoking bans.

I know an Orangeman who insists there is no such thing as second hand smoke and that Orangemen are not bigots. I'm sure his intellect could be shared by many wee Green men.

I know an Orangeman who insists there is no such thing as second hand smoke and that Orangemen are not bigots. I'm sure his intellect could be shared by many wee Green men.

Pubs and clubs are fighting to survive, visit http://www.Innthecol d.com

How much money was spent trying to educate children and young adults on the dangers of hard illegal drugs? Has it worked? no there are more illegal drug users then there has ever been so it is a waste of time and money . One can tell our youngsters not to smoke but at the end of the day they will do as they please.

We live in such a clean world today and there has been a huge increase in children developing allegies. When I was a child we used to pick sweets etc up from the floor and ate them, which I believe helped us to develope our immune systems. Today we have MRSA and other super bugs in our hospitals and I wonder if that could be because our immune systems are not working properly.

If smoking whilst pregnant and around children in the home is so bad for them, how come, back in the 50's and 60's (and not doubt before then) many babies were being born weighing in at 10 pounds plus, children had far fewer allergies and illnesses and people were a lot happier? Most people smoked in the years prior to the 70's, however there was far less pollution from vehicle fumes and fresh food, properly cooked, was more the norm. Things were better when both parents did not NEED to work to keep the heart and soul together, never mind a roof over their family's head. It has actually been proven that far from being harmful, exposure to SHS actually gives some immunity to children. I agree with Chas from Suffolk. For too long now we have been bombarded with these 'Kills 99% of Bacteria' products when in my childhood, just as Chas says, we would grub in the garden, put stones and dirt into out mouths, possibly try eating slugs and snails, pet our dogs and rabbits, etc and promptly put our fingers in our mouths, washed our hands before meals because they were actually covered in dirt you could see and yet we were, all in all, a very healthy bunch with nothing much to worry about except the usual ailments of Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps and the occasional cold. Life back then was far simpler and far healthier and smoking played it's part in that. Today, it is ban this and ban that and kill all bacteria before it kills you and we are left with far more health related problems than we ever had in our childhood or this side of WWII! There are times when too much Nannying develops sickly whimps. Today we have gone beyond Nannying and now live in a Bullying State which will ultimately end in civil unrest and very possibly a revolution.

I agree with Chas, asthma over the last 35 years has increased 2 to 3 times which is concurrent with a smokers reduction of 50%, the WHO report in 1998 and also Enstrom and Kabbat's 37 year SHS study found that children who lived with smokers had a 20% less chance of acquiring lung cancer in latter life, remember the old adage, a bit of muck does you good.

Well said Chas and Lynn, the more we steralise our enviroment the more we suppress our immune systems. this is not good remember the aliens in The war of the Worlds they had no immune system and they all died of a common cold virus science fiction maybe, Its also of intrest to note that Cancer deaths are up 800% since the 50s yet tobacco sales have remained at the same level they were in the same period, yet motor vehicle usage has risen by1,600% in the same period, you can draw your own conclusions as to the real killer, and cause of broncial conditions. Yes we weren,t so hygenic in the 40s and 50s but hey its our generation that is living the longest.

"She said there is conclusive evidence second-hand smoke can ... [bold]increase the risk of developing lung cancer[/bold]." Ms. Lee is lying. Neither the Surgeon General's report, nor the WHO have concluded anything of the sort. Children have NO increased risk of developing cancer or heart disease from exposure to second-hand smoke. The science surrounding second-hand smoke in relation to adults is shaky enough, but the 'powers that be' admit that adults who smoke in front of children cannot be accused of increasing their risk of developing cancer.

If you want to stop me and thousands of others smoking around our kids then scrap the smoking ban. This ban has FORCED us law abiding tax paying citizens to stay at home as we have no where else to smoke! Its not rocket science.

How about we have a no LYING day for a change, when children were around lots of smoke in the early days as Lynn and maybe others have pointed out, children did not have all these allergies? it does not add up at all. But I do not remember being subjected to so much of this lot either. http://www.ourlittle place.com/chemicals. html 3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants) Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer." http://www.mamasheal th.com/doc/cleanprod .asp FURNITURE POLISH: contain petroleum distillates, which are highly flammable and can cause skin and lung cancer. They contain nitrobenzene, which is easily absorbed through the skin and extremely toxic. We also never had the amount of traffic on the roads. http://www.guardian. co.uk/uklatest/story /0,,-6371944,00.html Traffic fumes from motorways can seriously impair the lung development of children, new research suggests. A large-scale study in California found that 10-year-olds who lived within 500 metres of a motorway suffered a "substantial" loss of lung function by the age of 18. The effect became less the further away a child lived from the road. A similar impact was seen on both boys and girls, and there was little influence from social background, other pollution sources, or exposure to tobacco smoke. http://www.epi-persp ectives.com/content/ 4/1/11/abstract James Enstrom This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship.

UICC, who writes this rubbish,increase risk of cot death?,low birth weights,RUBBISH,they should be sued for giving out false information,surely there should be some sort of law that stops anyone putting in print totaly wrong or misleading items without the need to show proof to back up what they say,secondhand smoke does not kill or harm anyone else,that has been proven,cheers, Tug.

Alas my friends if you hitched your wagon in support of smoking bans or global warming, you are more than obviously another willing victim of statistical fraud. Hysteria and fears which are more closely related to your discomfort with the smell of the smoke, than any realistic harm originating from it. It is your fear which allows increased production of bureaucracy inspired fools gold, a growing epidemic which creates huge holes in the public purse and generously rewards those who play the game. In the 50s and 60s more than half the population smoked in North America 54% in fact, now that those same people are getting older in an evolving population bubble, they are naturally dying from what has always been known as diseases of the elderly, such as cancers and heart disease which occur in the vast majority beyond 70 years of age. A population bubble actually predicted at birth and for many years after, to die at 65. With an aging population it was expected we would see disease increases in these categories. Because more than half the population smoked and the fact slightly more than half of the so called smoking related diseases are found among smokers is only in reality a reflection of population norms in an aging population, and exactly what was known and expected for decades. Half of smokers in this age group it is prophesied “will die of smoking related diseases”. Half of those who did not smoke will take up slightly less than half of smoking related diseases [4% less than half or 46%] close to 25% of each population group reflecting less than 25% of total mortality figures in both cases, so what is so scary? What we did not expect as the bubble moved was; despite the drastic reductions of smoking prevalence, little reductions of the disease numbers ever occurred, which we had always believed, were primarily caused by smoking. We have a duty to pay taxes, how many lives a government duty or obligation actually saves, by huge investments, is none of our concern. It just sounds so good, while promoting a political brand, when a politician reminds us how many lives they saved today, our level of gratitude in poll numbers actually measures how well we are being conned. No one has caught on to the idea, surprisingly, that we will all die eventually and no death is really preventable. Nor has anyone considered, what is actually being said when claiming “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke” which is actually saying nothing at all, however the fear produced by that statement places it atop the many historic ad agency creations, as a legend in its own time. We could say there is no safe level of air, water or just about anything you could imagine the placement in relation to cigarette smoke has served its purpose admirably. The real crime found in all this? The fear in our communities is driven by tax expenditures in support of professional radicals, resulting in the financing of highly deceptive media promotions, no more real than the fanatical sky is falling routine. Fears are then forcing legislators to make much larger expenditures in protecting us from what we believe to be much more dangerous than physical science could ever sustain. [bold]Fools gold!!![/bold] You really do; have nothing to fear but fear itself. Get it?

I have never read such a stream of selfish talk! Which I can only assume is born out of deep-rooted guilt at giving your children such a poor start in life. What are you teaching your child by smoking in front of them? That sucking on an addictive drug is good? That being dependant on something which is a huge financial drain is a clever thing to do? Quite apart from the negative message you are sending your children, and potentially damaging their health (and your own, of course) you are sending your children out into the world STINKING of smoke. Stale smoke is such an unpleasant smell, and when I stand next to my daughter's classmate and smell the horrible odour coming from her clothes, coat, even lunch box, it breaks my heart. My sister-in-law smokes around her child, and ever time she passes on clothes which no longer fit her daughter for my child to wear, I have to put them through the washing machine three times to get rid of the stale smoke smell. Is that really what you want for your child?

So, Kelly, you admit that smokers who smoke around their children are not giving them cancer? I take it you agree with a smoking ban in the home as the 'next logical step'?

Tim - what a bizarre comment. I'm not 'admitting' anything. As for agreeing with a smoking ban in the home, I would far rather that people start putting their children first rather than their own selfish habits - and that Government need have nothing to do with it.

Kelly I support your stance 100%. It is a rather large tragedy that children do not have the choice of whether to be exposed to second hand smoke and the consequences associated with immersion in such an environment. I feel that the stances presented within this conversational thread are direct indications at attempting to justify actions that are in themselves dispicable (smoking around children). As for Mr. Enstrom's research, I really feel that in order for the audience within this forum to truly comprehend the gross misrepresentation of your findings you should reveal your ties to the tobacco industry...please also explain sampling problems as you only used a very small subset of data from Cancer Prevention Study I, and in fact as a result your study lacked the ability to distinguish those individuals exposed to second hand smoke and those that were not. Your study lacked both reliability and validity, and as a result is scientifically defunct. As for the remaining individuals that chose to discredit research...that is an individual choice...You should never take what a study says as being gospel because there is just no way to guarantee that you will suffer or not suffer the adverse consequences, just as you cannot guarantee that crossing at a red light will render you death by being struck by a car...just because you know the statistical probability of crossing at a red light (compare this to smoking- statistically there is greater chance of adverse consequences); You have to realize that if you chose to cross at the red light you are selecting to accept the risks (informed consent); AND if you chose to cross at the green light (not smoke, quit) you are not guaranteed to avoid death by being hit by a car...just know that statistically you have a lesser chance of being struck down. BUT our children do not have this choice...take the smoking outside where it belongs...it is not fair to add any risk to their health. And finally, just for the record I am a smoker with 2 young children (abstained while pregnant)...but I have always taken it outside...some things are just not worth the risk.

Dear MS lee to dispel the research that Enstrom and kabat did is following the lies that the government appointed, (not accountable committees)such as the SCOTH review (most of the the committee members having links to pharmaceutical companies). If you research a little more you will find that the majority of studies can find no link of SHS being significantly harmful, what I object to is a system which constantly lies and everyone who has no common sense who believes these lies. prof Enstrom defence of his paper can be found here. http://www.scientifi cintegrityinstitute. org/