The British Medical Association have today launched a campaign to end smoking in cars. Smoking inside a car, allegedly, creates 23 times more toxins than in a smoky pub. (Which makes smoking inside a pub seem quite safe in comparison, doesn’t it?) The argument, however, is that children and the elderly are at a higher risk to second-hand smoke than adults.
The report comes following a Private Members Bill introduced by The All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, proposing a ban on smoking in cars with children. Yet as is typical of authoritarian health-fascists, they have instead called for outright ban of all smoking in cars.
It should be clear that those of us who smoke are completely aware of the risks. Yet as with everything that the authoritarians try to enforce upon us or ban, there is a significant argument for risks being overplayed. For every study the anti-smoking lobby produce showing the detrimental risks, another will pop up showing that the risks aren’t as severe as initially reported. The greatest example I can think of is the 39-year cohort study into passive smoking, published by the BMJ in 2003, which found only a “small effect” of environmental tobacco smoke on tobacco related mortality. Libertarians are inherently skeptical.
There are two main problems with this proposed ban of smoking in cars. The first is enforceability and the second is freedom.
Whilst driving when using a mobile phone has noticeably decreased, it has not disappeared. I see people on their phones everyday while behind the wheel, you barely look twice. This is in London, if you travel out to the country, the number of people on their phones behind the wheel increases even more. Whatever risks there may be about driving while using a mobile, it is simply unenforceable to stop everyone from doing it.
Smoking would be even harder to police because you don’t constantly have your hand to your face. The lingering smoke may be a bit of a giveaway but as someone who used to smoke in their car with the window down, that can air pretty quickly.
Yet the main problem is with freedom. Smoking around children is obviously bad, but the government should not get into the business of policing parents’ smoking habits anymore than it should with anything else. What about the parents who feed their children overly fatty foods? Or parents who simply don’t give their children a fully nutritious diet? Should we ban all parents from buying fatty foods? What about parents who enjoy a couple of glasses of wine after dinner? They surely won’t be as cognitive to look after their children if they wake up, should we ban parents from buying alcohol? This list is endless.
Of the thousands of choices parents make when raising their children, we cannot guarantee that they will all be good or moral. It is impossible and immoral of the government to start parenting our children. That job is for the family alone.
“They f*** you up, your mum and dad” starts Philip Larkin’s most renowned poem, “they may not mean to, but they do.” And the people I know who are most against taking up smoking or smoking itself, are those whose parents smoked around them when they were young. If this is about health and not control, then that’s the most surefire way to stopping our future generations from taking up the habit. But as with all proposals the health-authoritarians make, we know it’s about control.
After all that, I think I need a cigarette.
Joshua Lachkovic is a freelance copywriter, he also tweets and blogs about politics.
TFA Supports Better off out
Join the Mailing List
[...] have a blog up for The Freedom Association on the new BMA proposals to ban smoking in cars. As you can imagine, I’m disgusted by the proposals, but more on that over [...]
The problem with pieces like this is that it attempts to paint anyone with an interest in improving public health as a raving “health fascist”, who may pretend to be interested in health but whose real agenda is successfully controlling the lives of the entire population. I don’t believe in banning fatty food adverts on TV, or trebling tax on alcohol, or forcing schools to serve nothing but cous cous. But the smoking ban was right, and so is a ban on smoking in cars with children.
The weight of scientific research clearly shows the damaging effect of second hand smoke. For any issue, you will be able to find scientific research that supports the polar extremes on the spectrum. There may well have been a piece published in 2003 that played down the effect, but taking an overall view of all the research undertaken over the years, the weight of evidence is clear (it is very misleading to suggest that medical research is split down the middle on whether the impact of passive smoking is significant or small). In addition, the 2003 piece quoted says the effect is “small”, not non-existent. I don’t believe that it is an acceptable trade off to have “only” a few non-smokers contracting lung disease so smokers can enjoy smoking in offices, restaurants and pubs.
Cars are a significantly smaller space than houses or pubs, therefore the exposure to smoke is worse – opening the window helps to some extent, but doesn’t eliminate the problem. We can quibble about how much larger the risk is in cars, but to imply that the increased effect of smoking in cars is “alleged” is a similar position to the tobacco firms who played down the effects of smoking for years.
On enforceability, of course the percentage of car smokers actually spotted and fined will be relatively low. But the point is that it the law is there as a deterrent – not all will be fined, in the same way that plenty of burglars evade prosecution, but the law is there as a statement that this act is wrong, and if you choose to do it you run the risk of being fined.
The comparison between poor diet and smoking is clearly flawed. Parents can consume fatty foods and wine without directly passing on cholesterol or liver damage to their children. The same is not the case for tobacco. Enforceability of smoking in cars is difficult but not impossible, whereas monitoring dietary habits in homes clearly is. And whilst I’m sure that the far end of the extreme health lobby would love to ban feeding children bad food at home, I think we can all be pretty relaxed that no Government is going to advocate CCTV in homes to check in on dinner time. Articles like this often enjoy following the argument “to its logical conclusion”, knowing full well that not even the nanniest of nanny states would consider such steps. The “endless list” spoken of here is a list of policies that no sensible person would advocate, and no Government would consider for a second. Taking the argument to “its logical conclusion” is simply an attempt to paint those interested in public health as raving health fascists. It is not inconsistent to believe that children’s’ diet is the decision of parents and also that smoking in cars should be banned.
I expect of series of pieces like this will appear to defend people’s right to smoke in cars in front of their children, and to be able to enjoy bright colours on cigarette packets. Thankfully, the calm, rational majority will not agree with them. We’re not all health fascists, you know.
[...] to justify this piece of health fascism. Basically, they’re made-up. And Joshua Lachkovic has written a good broadside against the proposals at the TFA website. But I can’t help but wonder if this is a tactical [...]
Very much doubt that Joshua Lachkovic would smoke in a car with his or anyone´s children. I have never smoked but I fully respect Lachkovic´s concerns. Outrageous to criminalise smoking in cars under all circumstances. Many other factors such as
fatty foods lead to degenerative diseases. Why should the Government pick on smokers? Few basic freedoms remain. Governments are addicted to exercising more and more control over us each day and must be contained. Good article.
Eating a burger affects your health and your health alone, smoking affects the health of those around you. That’s why left and right wing Governments all over the world are banning smoking in public places and cars. There will never be any laws on what food you can eat or how much exercise you have to do – relax, guys, you’ll have the freedom to be as unhealthy as you like.
In fact, studies have shown that people’s exercise and eating habits are influenced by those of their family, colleagues and friends. So eating a burger and not exercising enough doesn’t just impact you, it impacts everyone around you.
Didn’t Lord Acton have something to say about relaxing when it comes to liberty, Chris?
Yep, absolutely agree that exercise and diet habits are often passed down from parents to children. My point is that its more direct and instant with smoking. Parents breathe out smoke, kids breathe it in 3 seconds later – I’m responding directly to the question “why is it smokers that are picked on?” made earlier. Also, the nature of food and cigarettes is completely different – you can eat unhealthy food in moderation as part of a balanced diet and healthy life style, whereas there is no recommended daily guideline amount for nicotine or tar – its quite literally all bad. Again, this is why smokers are targeted over unhealthy eaters.
Here’s my issue with the libertarian freedom defenders. Unless you genuinly want to come out and say “smoking in front of kids is fine and acceptable”, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Stop with the Adam Smith philosophical lectures for a second, and look at the actual detail of the proposed policy. By going down the philosophical route of the individual’s rights and true freedom, you become completely detatched from the practicalities of politics and law making. If a Government was trying to stop people doing something that genuinely only affected the individual, I’d be with you in telling the Government to stop interferring. But letting small children breathe in smoke is clearly bad. Nearly everyone accepts this (certainly everyone who’s commented here), a minority either think its fine or don’t know the dangers, so why not make a law to ban it which is targeted at this minority to further cut down smoking in front of kids in cars.
I feel that the freedom argument can be used legitimately in some cases, but unless anyone wants to have a discussion about the risks of passive smoking for children (and I think we covered that in the 1970s), I say save your energy for times when you genuinly need to protect your freedom. I know you worry about this being the thin end of the wedge, but as someone who’s clearly the most Guardian reading of all those commenting here, trust me – we’re not out to bring in compulsory state exercise programmes and force feeding you tofu. Health is the responsibity of the individual – smoking has a clear and direct affect on others, and children are often unable to exercise the same choices as adults, that’s why smoking, and smoking in cars is being targeted. Aside from that, we should all be able to decide for ourselves.
“Eating a burger” has become a way of life not affecting just you alone! Who eats burgers alone? Why not a burger and all the toxic materials that come along with it for each of the kids? Never trust a Government with your health. After World War II with the introduction of highly processed foods many new diseases evolved. The effects of smoking became more evident. Somewhat more primitive societies use tobacco with far fewer adverse effects. Brought up in a family of heavy smokers. My father smoked until he was 94 and died as a result of a fall. Yes, we must be able to decide for ourselves.
There’s action on cigarettes not burgers because of the direct passive link of your act on someone else. Your example of a parent buying a burger for themself and one for their child is the equivalent of a parent buying a packet of cigarettes for themself and one for their child. Adults can make decisions on their own health – if you want to eat a burger yourself, you can do it with no direct impact on your child (maybe if you ate one every day and made your child watch you for the duration, you could make a good argument on social conditioning, but that would still be an indirect link).
I absolutely agree that health is down to adults to decide for themselves. Its individuals’ choice whether to smoke or not, whether to go the gym every night or sit on the settee watching ITV sitcoms, to eat healthily or not. The key word there though is adult. If you’re a 5 year old child being driven round by chain smoking parent, you deserve to have someone, or some mechanism to look after you.
I feel people are tying their genuinly important and valid freedom wagon to the wrong horse. “We demand the right to speak freely”. Yep, of course. “We demand the right to live our lives as we want”. Absolutely. “We demand the right to smoke in close proximity of our children – they’re our kids and we’ll do what we like”. Er, little more tricky…
Governments thrive on tobacco, it is their livelihood. Why encourage governments to
fine us for using the very substances they are stealthily promoting. The more we smoke, the more our children eventually smoke, the easier it will be for our Government to balance its budget. Many of our habits, well, at least the bad ones,are formed through the efforts of Madison Ave. We need more common sense, not more laws. Chris would have anyone smoking in any vehicle penalised. What would he suggest to remedy smoking in one´s home while the children watch ITV? Would he authorise an arrest warrant and have the delinquent smoker hauled off to a police station? Our Government will always be pleased to enact one more law! Will we allow this to happen?
I’ve answered some of these points earlier. The libertarian argument is often based on exaggerating the health lobby position to the point of absurdity in order to ridicule it. No, I would not advocate imprisoning people smoking on the street. No, I would not advocate a law banning people smoking in their own house. Smoking in a small confined space in front of a child is damaging to their health, and banning it could be policed to a limited degree. Banning people smoking in their own homes is taking Government intervention too far, and would be 100% impossible to police even if I did support it.
I don’t believe this or any previous Government is actively supporting smoking. They receive plenty of tax revenue from tobacco, but if you’re implying the Government is actively trying to encourgage people to start smoking to balance the budget, we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
I say again, if you are really willing to stand outside Downing Street with a placard saying “I demand the right to smoke in my car in front of my children as much as I like”, you are going to find very few people willing to join that specific protest. I’m not talking about the broad arguments around freedom, liberty, personal responsibility – I’m talking about the specific issue of children passive smoking to a dangerous level in cars. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m not interested in a broad debate about the philosophy of personal liberty – this is an article about passive smoking, which is what I’m responding to. If you want to defend passive smoking in cars in front of children, let me know your view.
I do not consider myself a typical authoritarian health-fascist. I am very much against smoking near children (of course, I don´t smoke) being a bad example for them, and in any enclosed area such as a car or the home smoking should definitely be discouraged. No arguments defending passive smoking in front of children inside cars occur to me and in all probability our radical blogger Joshua Lachkovic would agree with us on this point.
I agree with much of this. None of us here would defend or advocate smoking in front of children. I’m more prepared to allow the Government to ban it as I think it will help deter those few people who don’t agree with us. I understand the natural resistance to increased Government involvement that many of you have – I don’t agree with you on all of that, but I understand where you’re coming from.
Essentially, if we’re all of the view that its a bad practice to smoke in front of children in cars, I think there are much more important policy areas where libertarian arguments could be used than fighting this ban.
Well, this is a pretty cordial conclusion for all concerned!