Oh dear, I see that a bunch of doctors have decided to have a go at smokers again.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP), using Nanny's "child centric" policy as the excuse, wants smoking to be banned in all cars as well as in public places where young people congregate.
RCP claims that passive smoking results in 300,000 extra child visits to GPs in the UK every year, for problems such as asthma and bacterial meningitis.
Irrespective of whether a child is anywhere near a smoker or not, the RCP wants also to ban anyone smoking in a vehicle (even if only the smoker is present).
The RCP wants children to be protected from not just "passive smoke", but also the sight of adults smoking.
Parks, outdoor swimming pools and school gate areas would also be on the banned areas list.
Sad to see that doctors are so keen to interfere in the private lives of others, given that the medical profession is more than prone to abuse its bodies (obesity, booze, fags and other narcotics) more than other sectors of the community.
Once Nanny has banned smoking, on the pretext of "child protection", she will ban drink then fatty foods. After all, these days almost anything that Nanny claims may "harm" children (eg obesity, drinking etc) can be viewed as "child abuse".
Like it or not human beings enjoy abusing their bodies from time time (eg via drinking and smoking), it's how we get through our time on this spinning rock in space without going completely mad.
I would venture to suggest that if doctors are so keen to reduce the number of "wheezing" kids, they may care also to tell the kids' parents to give up their cars (thus reducing the pollution in the atmosphere) and make them walk a bit more.
Better still, why not solve this problem once and for all and ban kids from being around adults?
Problem solved!
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Ken,
ReplyDeleteAnother way to reduce the number of kids with breathing problems and allergies is to get their parents to stop using so many anti bacterial cleaning products....The body needs the occasional infection to build up it's immune system.
As I have said before, I don't smoke but I feel if Nanny gets her way over this issue, she will then go after thyings that may well affect me......Last week I decided to go into a local pub for lunch....It was full of chavs with kids and the kids were running around and generally being a pain in the arse whilst their chavy parent sat there smiling....I would like to see a ban again on kids entering pubs....These are adult spaces and many of us don't want chavy kids around us while trying to relax.....Sadly, in my experience, only dross take their two or three year o;ds to a pub mid week and these are the types that can see no wrong in their kid's behaviour and are likely to explode if anyone says anything to criticise them.
I watched a news report a couple of weeks ago where the British army rescued some Afghans from a lorry in a swollen river....The commander said they rescued the people in keeping with local customs.....Elders first, then men, then women and kids last...Sounds like my kind of place!!!;-)
"Better still, why not solve this problem once and for all and ban kids from being around adults?"
ReplyDeleteOr just ban kids, period . . .
Better still, why not solve this problem once and for all and ban kids from being around adults?
ReplyDeleteApart from nanny approved adults in official child raising and education camps perhaps?
In the 1940s/50s/60s everyone smoked, including teachers in class. There was not one asthmatic in my school. In Lord of the Flies, Piggy is victimised partly because of his asthma - which marked him out as different. If the schhol where my wife works is any indication the asthmatics would almost be the majority now. And no-one smokes.
ReplyDeleteI'm not getting into the smoking debate after the abuse some trolls on here gave me last time, but I will say that they're already working on the "stop adults being around children" aspect.
ReplyDeleteIt's called the "Disclosure" system.
"Sad to see that doctors are so keen to interfere in the private lives of others, given that the medical profession is more than prone to abuse its bodies (obesity, booze, fags and other narcotics) more than other sectors of the community."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a non-smoker, I trust, Ken, that none of these doctors smoke or otherwise abuse their bodies: if they do, then I feel that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of their message, they are being hypocritical.
Yes, let's concentrate on fag smoke and ignore the real menace to childrens' (and adults') health: exhaust fumes. A smoker produces around 5 litres/min of secondhand smoke, whereas at 60mph the average car generates something like 10,000 (yes, TEN THOUSAND) litres of toxic fumes per mile (and no, catalytic converters don't remove all the muck). Back when I was a tadpole, there where few cases of asthma despite the fact that virtually everybody smoked. There were however very few cars. Now asthmatics seem to be in the majority yet few smoke, but there are of course many more cars. Take off those blindfolds and see the elephant in the room, Royal College of Physicians.
ReplyDeleteBy the way I do not, and never have, smoked so have no personal axe to grind.
Anonymous 11:55 said
ReplyDelete"I can see they haven't thought this through properly..."
==============
Oh I rather think they have thought it through very thoroughly .....
________________________
D, TW wrote:
"Back when I was a tadpole, there where few cases of asthma despite the fact that virtually everybody smoked. There were however very few cars. Now asthmatics seem to be in the majority yet few smoke, but there are of course many more cars."
Ah, but the exhaust output from the cars is very much cleaner, in terms of obvious breathing irritants, than it was when I was the age you mentioned. There is, however no lead output as there was then. It's a correlation, but does it point to a causation?
When I started at primary school we lived in South London and I walked to school and back most days, often twice as I went home for lunch. The small of the coal and coke fires through the autumn, winter and early spring as I sauntered through the mists and fogs completely unaccompanied unless I bumped into a school chum provided quite a homely and comforting atmosphere. That I don't remember any of the kids I was mixing with being noted as asthmatic does not, of course, mean there were none.
Some years later in senior school I recall one of my contemporaries being susceptible to 'wheezing' in an asthmatic way. It did not seem to affect his life much. He was quite sporty (far more so than I ) and also an avid smoker as the school years progressed. I think he suffered more from hay fever on high pollen days than anything else. Since the school was in the middle of the countryside the effects of the one, relatively quiet, "A" road nearby were unlikely to be significant.
Another peculiarity of the same chap was the inability to wear a watch (mechanical in the pre-battery driven days) without the thing stopping within a few hours. As far as I know this devastating impediment was never diagnosed or categorised in medical terms.
All of that said I would have no problem being banned from interacting with kids for any purpose. Indeed I would welcome it.
In practical terms adults outnumber kids so the question of whom should be removed out of whose lives seems clear-cut. Come the 'age of maturity' the kids should be expected to pass certain tests and examinations in order to prove their suitability for induction into the adult world. If some never pass, so be it. Give them 3 chances before re-cycling.
Such options for control ought also to keep the "Overpopulated World" alarmists happy as well. Excess child stock could simply be checked for quality for purpose and the failures 'disappeared' without the need to bother adult society with the trivialities. Who could possibly object?
"Better still, why not solve this problem once and for all and ban kids from being around adults?"
ReplyDeleteI reckon the other Anonymous
"Apart from nanny approved adults in official child raising and education camps perhaps?"
and Mosher
"I will say that they're already working on the "stop adults being around children" aspect. It's called the "Disclosure" system."
have it just about right. Parents are Nanny's enemy because they are the only barrier between children and Nanny's brainwashing.
@Old Greeny - I read an article by a doctor (lost it when my last computer died from passive smoking). Apparently, the epidemiology which connected cigarettes with the lung cancer epidemic also connected diesel fumes in equal measure.
ReplyDelete