Before I start I just want to say a few things. I am not a smoker. No one in my family is a smoker. Nor is any of us employed in the tobacco industry or otherwise affected by it.
This morning on BBC News, just before 7:30, a pro-smoking campaigner was speaking out against a new anti-smoking television advertisement and surprisingly I agreed with him whole heartedly.
The advertisement in question shows smoke creeping throughout a house and wreathing around a child - the point being to not smoke around children. Well, obviously I agree with the sentiment, as indeed did the pro-smoking campaigner, but he made several really important points:
Asthma in children has increased whilst smoking rates are decreasing. Blaming smokers for their children's health problems is not necessarily justified. Plenty of children of non-smokers suffer asthma and other illnesses "associated with smoking".
The same advert could have been made for any other pollutant - such as dustmites or the chemicals that impregnate our carpets, sofas etc. The interviewer's come back was that those pollutants are unavoidable. This is simply not true. Admittedly the alternatives can prove impractical and expensive - hard floors, washable rugs, alternative furniture and air-conditioning units are all potential solutions only really worth considering if someone in your home has a severe allergy.
The 50s and 60s babyboomers were a generation largely raised in smoky homes and yet people are living longer and healthier lives. No one is suggesting smoke is good for you but can it really be as dangerous as it's made out? I was raised in a smoke free home and yet I am asthmatic; I know people who were raised by chain smokers who are perfectly healthy. Hardly conclusive but certainly suggestive.
But the most important point is this; how far are the Government going to go in dictating people's actions in their own homes? We've already had cases of parents being prosecuted for allowing their children (subsequently taken into care) to become obese and yet strangely drug addicts seem to regularly retain custody of their offspring.
In my OU course I've recently been looking at the Communist dictatorships of Russia (via Stalin) and China (via His Holiness The Dalai Lama) and I can certainly see a parallel between those dictatorships and the increasing interference of the state in our supposed democracy. How much more control does the Government want over what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes? Whilst I don't think parents should smoke around their kids should having children mean you no longer have freedom of choice? Perhaps children should be offered freedom of choice - and be able to leave smoky homes...or neglectful homes, drunken homes, homes with parents who fight all the time? Why is it that a child can't get away from any number of bad - but not criminally so - situations until they are at least 16 years old?
