Smoking ban proposed for play areas

First published in News

PLAY areas across County Durham could be declared smoke-free zones if the public backs a council proposal.

Durham County Council is expected to consult residents about plans to introduce a voluntary code banning people from smoking at outdoor play areas.

The idea has been put forward by the County Durham Tobacco Control Alliance, which includes Durham County Council.

The alliance believes by reducing children’s exposure to smoking and making it less socially acceptable they are less likely to take up the habit themselves.

Coun Lucy Hovvels, cabinet member for safer and healthier communities, said: “More than 80,000 people die from smoking related diseases every year in England.

“We want to prevent as many of those deaths as possible, not just by encouraging people to stop smoking, but by deterring them from taking up the habit in the first place.

“We know from research that young people are most at risk of becoming smokers if they grow up in communities where smoking is the norm.

“Making our play areas and play parks smoke-free is one of the ways in which we could change that social norm and hopefully prevent young people from taking up smoking.”

The council’s cabinet members will be asked to approve a six month consultation period when it meets at The Witham, in Barnard Castle, on Wednesday, June 11.

If that goes ahead and the public support the scheme 178 play areas owned by the county council would be declared smoke-free.

The owners of the remaining 129 play areas would be asked to sign up to the voluntary code, placing posters and stickers at play areas advising people not to smoke.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:57pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

john Birch


In 1917 if you were anti-smoking you were considered a traitor to the war effort against the Kaiser! Most all statewide smoking bans in america were repealed in 43 states at that time. It wasn't until Hitlers rise to power that the world suffered under smoking bans again. Yep we ended tobacco prohibition by yet another war WW2! So if your anti-smoking your also likely Pro-Facist!
john Birch In 1917 if you were anti-smoking you were considered a traitor to the war effort against the Kaiser! Most all statewide smoking bans in america were repealed in 43 states at that time. It wasn't until Hitlers rise to power that the world suffered under smoking bans again. Yep we ended tobacco prohibition by yet another war WW2! So if your anti-smoking your also likely Pro-Facist! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -6

1:58pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Coun Lucy Hovvels, cabinet member for safer and healthier communities, said: “More than 80,000 people die from smoking related diseases every year in England.

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.
Coun Lucy Hovvels, cabinet member for safer and healthier communities, said: “More than 80,000 people die from smoking related diseases every year in England. Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related. harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

1:59pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

1:59pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://junican.wordp
ress.com/




(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.



In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras. to ).
In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras. to
).
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation! It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’): http://junican.wordp ress.com/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in 2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages. (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right, therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused lung cancer. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]). [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]). harleyrider1777
  • Score: -6

3:19pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm)
The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm) harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

3:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

http://www.spiked-on
line.com/index.php/s
ite/article/13287
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality. http://www.spiked-on line.com/index.php/s ite/article/13287 harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

5:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

sleeping dragon says...

why not sort the problem of dog foul in the play areas first. smoke goes up in the atmosphere dog foul stays on the ground for toddlers to put there little fingers and feet in
why not sort the problem of dog foul in the play areas first. smoke goes up in the atmosphere dog foul stays on the ground for toddlers to put there little fingers and feet in sleeping dragon
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Sat 7 Jun 14

IanfromCrook says...

Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC)
Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC) IanfromCrook
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Sat 7 Jun 14

sleeping dragon says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC)
dogs are not allowed in play areas.it may be the ruling of DCC but unfortunately some dog owners do not obey the rules and let their dogs loose to do as they please
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC)[/p][/quote]dogs are not allowed in play areas.it may be the ruling of DCC but unfortunately some dog owners do not obey the rules and let their dogs loose to do as they please sleeping dragon
  • Score: -1

8:28pm Sat 7 Jun 14

IanfromCrook says...

sleeping dragon wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC)
dogs are not allowed in play areas.it may be the ruling of DCC but unfortunately some dog owners do not obey the rules and let their dogs loose to do as they please
I agree, some worse than others, but as with everything else even good rules are useless unless enforced. My view is, as money is tight and you can't saturate such areas with personnel, enforcement when caught should be harsh obviously more serious offences should be budged up so as not to create oddities.
[quote][p][bold]sleeping dragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: Dogs are not allowed in play areas. As I don't believe in fairies, the lockness monster or alien abductions I will ignore harleyrider1777 more spurious web links, apart from the one which shock horror says that smokers lungs are preferable to no lungs. The problem I have with this scheme is 'voluntery'! What is the point except to justify the existence of two groups of people the aforementioned group and DCC, oh and to waste public money on consultation. Ineffectual waste of time if someone does not care enough of their own loved ones why should they voluntarily care for others. Spend the money on more important matters (no not another councillor allowance DCC)[/p][/quote]dogs are not allowed in play areas.it may be the ruling of DCC but unfortunately some dog owners do not obey the rules and let their dogs loose to do as they please[/p][/quote]I agree, some worse than others, but as with everything else even good rules are useless unless enforced. My view is, as money is tight and you can't saturate such areas with personnel, enforcement when caught should be harsh obviously more serious offences should be budged up so as not to create oddities. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree