There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, 15 December 2007

CMA ENCOURAGES A CANADA-WIDE BAN ON SMOKING IN CARS CARRYING CHILDREN

CMA Encourages a Canada-Wide Ban on Smoking in Cars Carrying Children is the title of the press release that you can read here.

As long time observers of the anti-smoking modus operandi, we suspected that the town of Wolfville, N.S. that banned smoking in cars with children, was implemented in order to set a precedent for the anti-smoking cartel that would open the door to a new phase of anti-smoking -- that of our cars, eventually and quickly to be followed by a ban in our homes.

Smoking in the presence of children is in no way, means or form to be considred parental neglect or abuse unless the child has a condition that second hand smoke can aggravate. Please read what Dr. Michael Siegel says on this subject
here. Risk does not automatically mean harm, especially when the risk factors are hardly at levels where cause can be inferred and all confounding factors can be dismissed. Epidemiology is too subjective, biased and inaccurate, for any legislation to be based on its weak and inconsistent conclusions. Case in point, the WHO’s biggest and most extensive study (Bofetta et al 1998) surprisingly found that second hand smoke protects children from lung cancer. Should we base legislation on this allegedly serious ‘’scientific’’ study and force all parents to smoke in the presence of children to save them from lung cancer?

Who then better than the parent, under the advice of the child’s pediatrician, knows best when a situation aggravates their child's condition and when it doesn’t? One could argue that some parents are negligent and could care less about their child’s medical condition and we agree that unfortunately such parents do exist -- thankfully in small numbers -- and by all means these children should be protected from this type of parental neglect. However, the fact is that there are laws already in place to protect children from parental neglect and abuse and it is those laws that should be enforced rigorously instead of wasting our already deficient human and financial resources to put ‘’feel good’’ laws in place that would not only be very difficult and expensive to enforce, but that would target all parents when in fact it is the few irresponsible ones that should be targeted.

Let’s not forget that if we’re going to legislate smoking behavior in order to save the children from their parents, we would have to review many risky habits that we allow our children to be subjected to, and legislate them in the same way, since they are all decisions parents make that pose a risk to their children. Such risky habits would include taking the child outside during smog alerts, driving in poor weather or in poor visibility conditions with a child, taking the child outdoors during mosquito season, caring for the child while we are afflicted with a viral or infectious disease, lighting candles, burning incense, lighting a fireplace in the presence of a child, the list is long and endless. The fact that we don't, is clear proof that these anti-smoking laws have absolutely nothing to do with children's health and everything to do with control, coercion and especially financial interests. Even the most caring parents take some type of risk while a child is in their custody and under their authority and that is perfectly acceptable. Why should it be any different when it comes to smokers to the point that special legislation is required?

If the citizens of this country keep bending to these manipulative campaigns that use children to appeal to our emotions, there really is no telling, depending on the activist agenda ‘’du jour’’, when government bureaucrats will be knocking on our door to inspect what we’re serving our children for breakfast and if the TV set is on a channel appropriate for their age.

Smoking bans in cars with children are peddled by the pharmaceutically financed anti-smoking cartel for the sole purpose of de-normalizing smokers and further turning them into social pariahs who should be ruthlessly shamed into quitting, hopefully with the help of their pharmaceutical products. It is time citizens of all provinces and countries begin to see clearly through these immoral and unethical tactics brought on by anti-smoking organizations eager to satisfy their corporate donors -- Big Pharma.

No comments: