‘The claim that we need to not act to stop a single bad issue, simply because there are other poor factors that we are not preventing at the same time is a fallacy usually perpetrated by reactionaries.’ Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
Zoe Williams appears to be arguing that we ought to not legislate to avert smoking in vehicles with children present due to the fact “it stamps into public lore an image that fixates conservative view – that of the negligent parent” and “who makes the greatest mother or father? The middle class, of course” (The hidden agenda behind the ban on in-auto smoking, twelve February).
Initial, it must be remembered that ending smoking in cars with children was only part of the bundle of tobacco control measures agreed by parliament as part of the young children and families bill. The other people included the introduction of standardised packaging for cigarettes and other tobacco products – a measure aimed squarely at the tobacco firms, their advertising and marketing method and the huge income they make from pushing addiction and ailment. Williams does not mention that – it would spoil her narrative.
Second, she looks to propose both that due to the fact “the smoking figures are virtually usually in constellation with other aspects … from bad housing to reduced birth weight”, we either are not able to know for certain that smoking is a issue in kid illness, such as sudden infant death syndrome, or that we should not act on it even if it is – due to the fact we are not concurrently tackling other variables, typically a consequence of poverty in the household.
I profoundly disagree with her 1st proposition: the connection between smoking in front of young children and sudden infant death syndrome is effectively established in scientific literature and has been confirmed by the US surgeon common, the UK’s scientific committee on tobacco and health, and numerous other people.
Yes, there are other elements – and, like smoking, a lot of are associated to poverty and inequality – but this does not make government action to decrease smoking in front of young children a bad idea. The 2nd proposition is a fallacy generally perpetrated by reactionaries: the claim that we need to not act to avoid 1 negative point due to the fact there are other bad issues that we are not avoiding at the very same time. As even Williams looks to accept, smoking in cars is notably risky to youngsters simply because “smoking is more extreme in a modest enclosed area”.
Third, she forgets that smoking is the most significant single trigger of wellness inequalities in our country. Simply because smoking costs are higher in poorer communities, it accounts for about half the distinction in lifestyle expectancy in between the richest and poorest social class.
Smoking is an addiction deliberately promoted to some of the poorest folks in our society by some of the biggest, greediest and most irresponsible multinational companies in the world. If that is not some thing that must animate men and women on the left to action, I do not know what is.
I was brought up in a local community the place funds was tight and smoking was commonplace. Many great guys and women died younger as a outcome. I will not require to be lectured by a Guardian journalist about the realities of poverty, or to have it advised that poverty is a explanation not to assistance legislation to reduce smoking rates. I think I have a very good grasp on what poverty means, why we need to have to fight it, and why we must reduce the toll of death and ailment triggered by smoking.
It truly is wrong to suggest poverty is a cause not to assistance action against smoking | Kevin Barron
