Think of the children

Kevin Mulvina

Commentaire mis en ligne le 1er février 2008
I wrote this in response to a recent promotion of the Canadian Lung Association at the CBC selling this nonsense.
Your readers could well find an alternate truth. If they have the courage to look.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/31/smoking-cars.html


It is really unfortunate to watch as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung associations are willing to sacrifice, once, fine reputations by promoting targeted hatred in this way. "No brainer" is declared in the latest CBC article, describing the idea to ban smoking in cars with children. To "lower their health risks." Where coincidentally if you took the time to really look, no evidence can can be found any harm actually exists beyond the emotional, which could be appeased entirely by opening a window, just a crack. No Brainer is entirely an appropriate conclusion in this situation. Certainly not a lot of thought is required when riding high atop a lobbied band wagon. We need to ban smoking because a sign just wouldn't send a strong enough message, choices are never a guarantee, and there is no safe level of anything. Intention is found in the "no safe level of tobacco smoke" chant, which affords no useful information, the truth is unearthed in it's true intent of creating fear which it does admirably..

I take exception to the consistent practice of these groups who put forward a heavily lobbied town council in one small municipality in Nova Scotia to represent the views of an entire Province. In other representations elsewhere they added a list of New Jersey, Maine and California in a similarly deceptive way. The original anti smoker advocate was Hitler who was the original promoter of the political ideal, that second hand smoke could harm others irregardless of, if it ever could. Hitler in fact invented the term "second hand smoke". Would the Lung Association add that name to its list and ask me to follow the same logic stream?

There is actually another third hand kind of smoke, being gratuitously employed here, its the kind people refer to as being gingerly blown up your backside.

It is no small secret the Lung association and the Canadian Cancer Society have long abandoned the search for cures, in spite of their misleading advertising. favoring the approach of "disease management" as a higher theological ideal. This affords no abuse to their largest donations from industrial interests, who might, in lieu of real scientific advances recently, actually be held to account for the damages their products do to communities. While affording all blame for disease to "individual choice" which they claim can be eliminated with fear and targeted hatred.

The realities of what was sold at the Rio Summit, in all the impassioned drama presented there, are finally coming home to roost. People are starting to understand the level of fraud involved by the promoters and the arrogance of domination consensus among unelected decision makers.

It is entirely unfortunate pseudo-government agencies promoting Global rule, have chosen to govern themselves in the national socialist mold. They started out with much more noble intentions [or so we are told].

The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the reality you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.

State Paternalism only produces abusive parents. Bans can only serve to separate us and disease management can not possibly accept or even seek a cure.

Think about smoking bans and fat pandemics, even SARS or AIDS. How much extremely expensive media pro-[motion/paganda] has been expended [Who is paying for this stuff?]in controlling peoples lives by promoting the high drama of fear and hatred to direct all decisions, as opposed to finding cures and compromises which could eliminate all of the fear mongers largest complaints.

I don't need to be protected by the illegitimate church of pubic health. In the real world, parents do an excellent job of protecting their own children on their own. I don't believe industry promotional lobby groups, would make very good parents. But hey, thats just me...[Me and billions of others around me I would hope]

The kind of protections offered by Hitler and his Neo-Nannies we could all do well without.

Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario is quoted as stating "smokers need to quit or be punished and as with McCarthyism, that punishment will continue, until the proud day someone stands and says; "Enough". His hatred is clearly defined in a protection of the children at a website targeting them, he appropriately called stupid.ca[Canada]reflecting his views in respect to a quarter of the electorate. What will he call the website to make fat people feel bad about themselves? Another, No Brainer?

No one stands against the wind with confidence, to earn political power or financial gain.
People will stand and say "enough" in Canada, because to put it quite simply; that is just what real Canadians do.

Edna Martin

Commentaire mis en ligne le 1er février 2008
A study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that levels of diesel exhaust on four Los Angeles school buses were eight and a half times higher than average levels found in California's smoggy air. This was four times higher than the fumes from inside a car driven directly in front of the buses. NRDC researchers measured diesel exhaust levels during five hours of tests conducted on actual bus routes in the city.
Diesel Buses: Each day, nearly 600,000 school buses transport 24 million students to schools in the U.S.
Summary of Findings Of The Dept Of Environment and Human Health
6. Diesel Exhaust Contains 40 Hazardous Air Pollutants: In addition, diesel exhaust contains both carbon particulates and 40 chemicals that are classified as “hazardous air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act
9.No Known Safe Exposure to Diesel Exhaust: There is no known safe exposure to diesel exhaust for children, especially those with asthma or other chronic re s p i r a t o ry disease. T h e re is no single standard for acceptable cancer risk from diesel exhaust in the U.S.
14. Exhaust From Other Traffic: The intensity and type of traffic along bus routes significantly affects air quality on buses. Buses following diesel-powered vehicles, including other buses, h a ve increased levels of carbon and particulate concentrations within passenger compartments.
21.There is no federal requirement that all state governments monitor school bus emissions, although some states require testing.

23.Absence of Passenger Cabin Air Quality Standards: Current law does not regulate air quality within buses.
Read the full report at
http://www.ehhi.org/reports/diesel/summary.shtml

Highlights from other interesting articles
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=267
When we think about pollution from cars, trucks, and buses, we usually imagine the effects on people outside the vehicles. But a recent study of school buses found that the passengers might get the worst of it.

If you look at the total amount of pollution inhaled by students on a bus, say 40 or so students, those students inhale about the same amount of pollution, or more, as all the other residents in an urban area.
=====================================================================
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ648730&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=ED450878&_nfls=false&objectId=0900019b800c2de8
ERIC #: ED450878 Title: No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust inside School Buses. Authors: Solomon, Gina M.; Campbell, Todd R.; Feuer, Gail Ruderman; Masters, Julie; Samkian, Artineh; Paul, Kavita Ann
Abstract: There is evidence that diesel exhaust causes cancer and premature death, and also exacerbates asthma and other respiratory illness. Noting that the vast majority of the nation's school buses run on diesel fuel, this report details a study examining the level of diesel exhaust to which children are typically exposed as they travel to and from school. Further, the report is intended to inform parents, administrators, and policy makers of the cleaner alternatives that are readily available.
Findings indicated that children riding inside a diesel school bus, even buses not emitting significant amounts of black smoke, may be exposed to as much as four times the level of toxic diesel exhaust as someone standing or riding beside the bus, translating to from 23 to 46 times the cancer risk level considered significant under federal law.
=====================================================================
http://life.familyeducation.com/health-and-safety/school-safety-month/36307.html
"Diesel exhaust has been identified as a likely or known carcinogen," says Julie Masters, project attorney for the NRDC. "We don't want parents to begin pulling children off school buses because of our report, but the bad news is children are being exposed to (much more) diesel exhaust inside the bus than outside."
"Diesel particles don't just cause someone who is allergic to have worse symptoms, they cause people who are not normally allergic to some agents to become allergic," David Diaz-Sanchez, UCLA immunologist, told The Los Angeles Times.

Vince Harden

Commentaire mis en ligne le 1er février 2008
The preponderance of the evidence shows that there isn't a statistical risk from second hand smoke (aka ETS).The World Health Org. study released in 1998 not only confirms this but also states "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

Smoking is just one of tens of thousands of triggers of asthma attacks.If you are seriously trying to remove causes of asthma,then stop doctors from prescribing antibiotics to children.

"Heart attacks among cigarette smokers may have less to do with tobacco than genetics. A common defect in a gene controlling cholesterol metabolism boosts smokers' risk of an early heart attack, according to a new study. The findings also show that smokers without the defect normally have heart attacks no sooner than their non-smoking peers."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ rele...71219143050.htm

"Personal monitoring of nonsmokers indicates that their average ETS exposure from a smoking spouse is equivalent in terms of nicotine exposure to smoking less than 0.1 cigarettes per day."
"Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association."
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi...e/pmid; 16399662

The study used when New Jersey banned hand held cell phones in cars showed that everything considered was a greater risk of causing an accident than smoking.That includes the children.It has been found that "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children."(National MCH Center for Child Death Review )
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesMV.htm

I suppose that solves the manufactured problem.Since kids are the cause of many accidents and to really lower their death toll,children should be banned from being in cars.

Michael J. McFadden

Commentaire mis en ligne le 1er février 2008
Albert Kramberger's editorial, "Think of the Children", repeats the usual antismoking mantra full of bits of bias and misinformation all put together into a pretty package that promotes some sort or other of smoking ban. The problem with this approach can be seen just by taking one paragraph, his last, and seeing how inaccurate some of the "pieces" forming his whole actually are.

He wrote, "Second-hand smoke, even if exposure is for a short period, especially in a car where it is concentrated, can cause health problems for children, ... later in their adult years, like cancer and heart disease."

Mr. Kramberger, as editor I am certain that you read these comments on your writing. Would you take a moment to tell us what studies you have seen showing that short periods of exposure to secondary smoke, even if "concentrated", have been shown to cause "cancer and heart disease" in children's later years?

To be blunt, I don't think you can. Why? Because there aren't any. Indeed, even if we move beyond your statement to "long term and regular" exposures, I think you'll find difficulty backing up your point. The largest international case-control epidemiological study ever done, that performed by the World Health Organization and released in 1998, showed a TWENTY TWO PERCENT ***REDUCTION*** in lung cancers among adults who had regularly been exposed to secondary tobacco smoke as children.

That particular study examined MANY different kinds of exposures, seeking specifically to condemn public tobacco smoking, but the ONLY statistically significant result they found was this protection from lung cancer when children were exposed.

Insstead of publicly admitting this fact however, instead of raising the question whether childhood exposures to low levels of pollutants in the home environment might somehow help immunize young bodies against later diseases, the WHO followed the "politically correct" path and put out a press release headlined "Second Hand Smoke DOES Cause Lung Cancer!" despite the fact that its own published study indicated the opposite to be the case. They chose to emphasize the study's nonsignificant findings while passing off the one TRUE finding as showing "no association".

See links from my webpage below for more examples of this sort of twisting of science in the service of "politically correct" politics.


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
mailto: Cantiloper@aol.com

Ken Hill

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008

Anti-Smoking Facade Crumbling

The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the our government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.

'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."

Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member.

The actual result of the government's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.

Are there many politicians that actually think of our children first over these concerns, their government employment, their political party, gaining power, position, prestige, or saving face. We both know that our children's welfare is far down on this list. Then we should also know that anti-smoking has never been about "health and safety?"

As the eminent Philosopher, Novelist, Ayn Rand stated, "Under both systems (Fascism and Communism), sacrifice is invoked as a magic omnipotent solution in any crisis---and 'the public good' is the altar on which victims are immolated."

Ken Hill

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008

Anti-Smoking Facade Crumbling

The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the our government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.

'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."

Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member.

The actual result of the government's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.

Are there many politicians that actually think of our children first over these concerns, their government employment, their political party, gaining power, position, prestige, or saving face. We both know that our children's welfare is far down on this list. Then we should also know that anti-smoking has never been about "health and safety?"

As the eminent Philosopher, Novelist, Ayn Rand stated, "Under both systems (Fascism and Communism), sacrifice is invoked as a magic omnipotent solution in any crisis---and 'the public good' is the altar on which victims are immolated."

Ken Hill

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008

Anti-Smoking Facade Crumbling

The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the our government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.

'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."

Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member.

The actual result of the government's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.

Are there many politicians that actually think of our children first over these concerns, their government employment, their political party, gaining power, position, prestige, or saving face. We both know that our children's welfare is far down on this list. Then we should also know that anti-smoking has never been about "health and safety?"

As the eminent Philosopher, Novelist, Ayn Rand stated, "Under both systems (Fascism and Communism), sacrifice is invoked as a magic omnipotent solution in any crisis---and 'the public good' is the altar on which victims are immolated."

Kevin Mulvina

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
The comments By Roy demonstrated this author seems to be making judgments based in misconceptions, if we examine the opening statements made by the Lung association we find the following;

"It's time Quebec follow the lead of other jurisdictions, such as Nova Scotia, Maine, New Jersey and California, to ban smoking in private cars carrying children, as the Canadian Lung Association advised last week"

It seems on closer inspection these laws were not passed throughout Nova Scotia but by one small town within Nova Scotia. The same applies to Maine, New Jersey and California, which also has the distinction of a Town within which bans smoking in people's Homes and everywhere outdoors where no risk could possibly be assessed, undoubtedly the next targets of misinformation to sell a further intrusion and back door prohibition. Utilizing an expensive taxation funded media campaign at each step along the way. Only the cash generated by smoking stands in the way of an honest act of banning it entirely.

What the nation is lead to believe about the cost of smoking, is further deluded as illustrated in the SAMMEC assessments of costs. Which clearly show an expenditure of 2.5 billion dollars treating all so called smoking related diseases regardless of cause, is augmented by over 15 billion dollars in taxation at the federal level alone, which likely pays the bulk of all health care expenditures for the entire country, if we eliminate the bureaucracy and media expenditures which likely cost much more.

Should we be basing laws on the opinions of small and likely insignificant portions of the population or misrepresentations aimed at wide brushing parents who no doubt are not representative of all parents who might or might not smoke cigarettes in cars were children are present.

In evaluation of another comment I agree if the so called extreme risks are limited to such insignificant risks to a child, this law would seem to be utilizing a cannon to prosecute a J walker. Lobby groups have no place in the creation of the Laws of Canada. Or in the interference with autonomy rights which should be respected in all laws. Especially laws defined to afford coercion of what an individual may choose or decide.

The all too familiar almost boilerplate template being used here and far too often to create irresponsible fears among our communities should be the topic of media attention. When we are allowed to be guided by fear and disease management we will never trust in our own ingenuity to find cures and lessen the so called risks [not causes] that guide those fears.

When the Canadian Cancer Society advertises the "run for the cure" they are not forthcoming in the truth of their plan for the next thirty years, as outlined by their announcement of a quarter billion dollars in funding from the federal government recently the focus is not to support research in search of cures, but instead to manage diseases and care. Most still believe based on misleading advertising and by that of the Lung association, they are aggressively funding that vital research. The reality would be, they are not. Another topic the media has glossed over in this healthscare bandwagon fever, dispensing hatred and denormalization of any individual not found to be in the publics best interest. I find that offensive far beyond the level of a parent smoking around a child.

When physicians and charities take to politics few will find any benefit in anything they do. Hitler acted as a protector of public health, he rose to power and maintained that power utilizing his victims played against themselves. He was the original architect of the smoking ban and was the first to speak of second hand smoke harming non smokers. If we are to use the example of other places on their list to justify our laws, would the Lung association also support Nazi Germany as a member of their list to guide my judgments.

How soon, some of us did forget.

Kevin Mulvina

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
The comments By Roy demonstrated this author seems to be making judgments based in misconceptions, if we examine the opening statements made by the Lung association we find the following;

"It's time Quebec follow the lead of other jurisdictions, such as Nova Scotia, Maine, New Jersey and California, to ban smoking in private cars carrying children, as the Canadian Lung Association advised last week"

It seems on closer inspection these laws were not passed throughout Nova Scotia but by one small town within Nova Scotia. The same applies to Maine, New Jersey and California, which also has the distinction of a Town within which bans smoking in people's Homes and everywhere outdoors where no risk could possibly be assessed, undoubtedly the next targets of misinformation to sell a further intrusion and back door prohibition. Utilizing an expensive taxation funded media campaign at each step along the way. Only the cash generated by smoking stands in the way of an honest act of banning it entirely.

What the nation is lead to believe about the cost of smoking, is further deluded as illustrated in the SAMMEC assessments of costs. Which clearly show an expenditure of 2.5 billion dollars treating all so called smoking related diseases regardless of cause, is augmented by over 15 billion dollars in taxation at the federal level alone, which likely pays the bulk of all health care expenditures for the entire country, if we eliminate the bureaucracy and media expenditures which likely cost much more.

Should we be basing laws on the opinions of small and likely insignificant portions of the population or misrepresentations aimed at wide brushing parents who no doubt are not representative of all parents who might or might not smoke cigarettes in cars were children are present.

In evaluation of another comment I agree if the so called extreme risks are limited to such insignificant risks to a child, this law would seem to be utilizing a cannon to prosecute a J walker. Lobby groups have no place in the creation of the Laws of Canada. Or in the interference with autonomy rights which should be respected in all laws. Especially laws defined to afford coercion of what an individual may choose or decide.

The all too familiar almost boilerplate template being used here and far too often to create irresponsible fears among our communities should be the topic of media attention. When we are allowed to be guided by fear and disease management we will never trust in our own ingenuity to find cures and lessen the so called risks [not causes] that guide those fears.

When the Canadian Cancer Society advertises the "run for the cure" they are not forthcoming in the truth of their plan for the next thirty years, as outlined by their announcement of a quarter billion dollars in funding from the federal government recently the focus is not to support research in search of cures, but instead to manage diseases and care. Most still believe based on misleading advertising and by that of the Lung association, they are aggressively funding that vital research. The reality would be, they are not. Another topic the media has glossed over in this healthscare bandwagon fever, dispensing hatred and denormalization of any individual not found to be in the publics best interest. I find that offensive far beyond the level of a parent smoking around a child.

When physicians and charities take to politics few will find any benefit in anything they do. Hitler acted as a protector of public health, he rose to power and maintained that power utilizing his victims played against themselves. He was the original architect of the smoking ban and was the first to speak of second hand smoke harming non smokers. If we are to use the example of other places on their list to justify our laws, would the Lung association also support Nazi Germany as a member of their list to guide my judgments.

How soon, some of us did forget.

Roy Harrold

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
Don't you mean: "invent" the children?
You are the first commentator I've seen who has noticed that the Canadian Community Health Survey contains no data for exposure of under-12s to second-hand smoke in vehicles. No one knows how often - if ever - preteens are being exposed to cigarette smoke in vehicles. There is no data at all about that. That might be a phantom problem, a perception of danger based merely on anecdote and rumor. But you've overlooked that the survey also provides no data on who the driver of the vehicles that 12-17s exposed to SHS might be. People are assuming that exposure happens with parents at the wheel, but it could also be happening when teens are in vehicles piloted by older siblings or peers. Do you really want to be issuing fines to 16 and 17 year old drivers because their peer passengers are smoking in the back seat?

We should pass laws of this nature, just in case some toddler somewhere MIGHT be getting exposed to shs in a vehicle, but we shouldn't worry about the preteen pedestrians sucking in poisonous vehicle exhaust from the vehicles of the non-smoking majority?

Kevin Mulvina

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
For some reason my eye couldn't move away from the proposal here;

“We should have laws in place to protect our children from smokers, even if those happen to be their parents or grandparents. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at high risk for many health problems.”

What kind of world are we living in when strangers on behalf of smoking patch sales teams have a right to interfere with parental or personal autonomy? How a parent raises their children is none of this groups business. I don’t tell them how to run their affairs, as though they would listen to start with. I find the article contemptuous and reminiscent of another anti smoker campaign in 1930s Germany; “”lest we forget””. Hitler was the first to coin the term second hand smoke and it was just as harmless then as it is today.

Don’t believe me? Ask a baby boomer, one of the healthiest generations to ever walk this planet, at a time when few were born in smoke free delivery rooms and more than half the population doctors included, smoked virtually everywhere. If children need protection it is from the risks of politicians and their lobby group friends, assuming the role of protector. Any government which seeks to protect its citizens is not a government who respects their rights as an individual. Or their judgement for that matter, which was also utilized during the election and assuming a fully functional memory capacity, will be used again during the next one. The “protectors” of other peoples children are walking on sacred ground. The same lobbies that help our, apparently, ill informed elected officials write the laws in this nation, need to be politely asked to shut up. The line of promoted hatred has been crossed and I for one will stand and defend that line against anyone who dares to cross it.

It was a mistake last time and paternalism is still an ignorant mistake today. Isn't it time, the media as a sleeping dog in all this, do its duty, and take out this trash.

Thomas Laprade

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm
to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor
risk involved is unwarranted.

Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.
If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.

On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.

This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.

If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.

We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.


And more:


Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;
Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
Owning a wood-burning stove;
Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;
Not boiling their babies'’ bottles before serving them milk;
Not breastfeeding their infants;
Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;
Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;
Serving alcohol at a party;
Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and
Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.
One could easily argue that 'If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.

The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one's children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?

I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.

It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.




Thomas Laprade

Thomas Laprade

Commentaire mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2008
I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm
to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor
risk involved is unwarranted.

Thomas Laprade