Council takes steps to stump out smoking in play parks

Darlington and Stockton Times: Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of premature death in the UK, with around half of all long-term smokers dying prematurely. Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of premature death in the UK, with around half of all long-term smokers dying prematurely.

SMOKING in children’s play parks could be stumped out if a council has its way.

Durham County Council’s cabinet has agreed to hold a consultation on plans to make parks smoke free, as part of its work with the Smokefree County Durham Tobacco Control Alliance.

Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of premature death in the UK, with around half of all long-term smokers dying prematurely.

In the North-East, 15 people a day die of a smoking related illness.

At a cabinet meeting at the Witham in Barnard Castle today (Wednesday, June 11), Anna Lynch, the council’s director of public health, said it was important to protect children from smoke to prevent them taking up the habit.

She said: “It is about reducing the opportunities for smoking around children to create a society where not smoking is seen as the norm.”

The consultation will apply to all 178 parks owned by Durham County Council.

Parish and town councils that own parks will also be consulted to widen the initiative to all play areas across the county

If approved, it will be self regulatory, with no smoking signs introduced in phases.

Councillor Lucy Hovvels, cabinet member for safer and healthier communities, said: “The burden of smoking on our county is enormous. We must make sure we support out supporters to quit and help prevent our children and young people from starting to smoke.”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:21pm Wed 11 Jun 14

behonest says...

A failing of democracy here? Who voted for this? Regardless of whether you agree or not with this idea, smoking outside is legal. Banning it in certain public places is surely a matter for national government, not a local Labour council.
A failing of democracy here? Who voted for this? Regardless of whether you agree or not with this idea, smoking outside is legal. Banning it in certain public places is surely a matter for national government, not a local Labour council. behonest
  • Score: 4

10:41pm Wed 11 Jun 14

John Durham says...

Not so Behonest - I believe the Public Health Act basically allows councils some lee-way on introducing bye-laws relating to health. They may have to consult with the DoH but its more than likely this sort of initiative would be supported.
Not so Behonest - I believe the Public Health Act basically allows councils some lee-way on introducing bye-laws relating to health. They may have to consult with the DoH but its more than likely this sort of initiative would be supported. John Durham
  • Score: 4

10:43pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Utter nonsense of an idea. This is as daft as Derbyshire's former policy (also when a socialist republic) that proclaimed that 'Derbsyhire was a nuclear free zone' - one imagines the nuclear cloud trembling and reversing its direction upon floating towards the county boundary. What next, the banning of Coronation Street in all households in Durham lest the child see someone drink a pint and resultantly think 'I might try a pint in 9 years time'. Time for this self perpetuating nannying (and the associated 'non jobs' that go with such decisions) to be stopped.
Utter nonsense of an idea. This is as daft as Derbyshire's former policy (also when a socialist republic) that proclaimed that 'Derbsyhire was a nuclear free zone' - one imagines the nuclear cloud trembling and reversing its direction upon floating towards the county boundary. What next, the banning of Coronation Street in all households in Durham lest the child see someone drink a pint and resultantly think 'I might try a pint in 9 years time'. Time for this self perpetuating nannying (and the associated 'non jobs' that go with such decisions) to be stopped. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 12 Jun 14

thehogman says...

Of course it makes sense to ban smoking in or anywhere near a park more-so when near any childrens play area. Witnessing foolish adults smoking can weaken a child's perception of the true dangers of smoking. Nicotine is one of the two gateway drugs that children are tempted to use; the more places designated as smoke free the better for all of us and in particular better for children
Of course it makes sense to ban smoking in or anywhere near a park more-so when near any childrens play area. Witnessing foolish adults smoking can weaken a child's perception of the true dangers of smoking. Nicotine is one of the two gateway drugs that children are tempted to use; the more places designated as smoke free the better for all of us and in particular better for children thehogman
  • Score: 6

12:08pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Angry Man says...

Great idea. I think most smokers won't smoke in playgrounds but that doesn't stop the odd person who has no sense of place. They really are not places where people should be chuffing away and should be discouraged.
Its also the cigarette litter - my little one came running over with a fag butt when he was three. Whether it makes children more likely to smoke is irrelevent. They are places where kids should not be subjected to clouds of unpleasant smelling smoke.
Great idea. I think most smokers won't smoke in playgrounds but that doesn't stop the odd person who has no sense of place. They really are not places where people should be chuffing away and should be discouraged. Its also the cigarette litter - my little one came running over with a fag butt when he was three. Whether it makes children more likely to smoke is irrelevent. They are places where kids should not be subjected to clouds of unpleasant smelling smoke. Angry Man
  • Score: 5

1:55pm Thu 12 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

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.

HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE
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. HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

1:55pm Thu 12 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://boltonsmokers
club.wordpress.com/t
he-mctear-case-the-a
nalysis/

(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://boltonsmokers club.wordpress.com/t he-mctear-case-the-a nalysis/ (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: 1

2:00pm Thu 12 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: 0

2:57pm Thu 12 Jun 14

harleyrider1777 says...

behonest wrote:
A failing of democracy here? Who voted for this? Regardless of whether you agree or not with this idea, smoking outside is legal. Banning it in certain public places is surely a matter for national government, not a local Labour council.
Its not even a purpose of government in the first place.

The junk science behind the bans was created by zealots in public health and big pharma ghost writers. Its just another prohibition movement like every time before. Its on its death bed as Political will to keep on pushing INSANITY is coming to an end literally worldwide. People are openly disobeying these Nannystate laws and rightfully so.

Did you know that even their insane claims about direct smoking have never ever been proven much less the hysterical insanity about second hand smoke indoors or outside!

The whole campaign is nothing but another feeble attempt at DE-NORMALIZATION and the more they push the more people partake of the banned substance especially the children! Government is doing more to push kids to smoke than any JOE CAMEL CARTOON could ever do!
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: A failing of democracy here? Who voted for this? Regardless of whether you agree or not with this idea, smoking outside is legal. Banning it in certain public places is surely a matter for national government, not a local Labour council.[/p][/quote]Its not even a purpose of government in the first place. The junk science behind the bans was created by zealots in public health and big pharma ghost writers. Its just another prohibition movement like every time before. Its on its death bed as Political will to keep on pushing INSANITY is coming to an end literally worldwide. People are openly disobeying these Nannystate laws and rightfully so. Did you know that even their insane claims about direct smoking have never ever been proven much less the hysterical insanity about second hand smoke indoors or outside! The whole campaign is nothing but another feeble attempt at DE-NORMALIZATION and the more they push the more people partake of the banned substance especially the children! Government is doing more to push kids to smoke than any JOE CAMEL CARTOON could ever do! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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