Now, SHS on your breath is hazardous to kids

The anti-smoker brigade has declared that there is no such thing as a smoke free home as long as there is a smoker living in it. That’s the latest from the land down under.

“If parents would like to provide a smoke-free home environment they have to stop smoking”, says Dr. Krassi Rumchev, author of a recently released study on the effects of secondhand smoke on children. “Smoking outside just isn't providing the protection that many Australian smokers believe it does".

The study, published in the June issue of Indoor Air, concludes that even smoking outside the home poses a major health risk to children inside the home. Rumchev explained that, “they (smokers) still breathed out smoke that contaminated the air enough to cause damage. They also brought particles inside on their body and clothes”

That’s right; toxic smoke constituents in your breath. When you smoke outside, your children may be protected from the firsthand risk of secondhand smoke, but they’re still susceptible to the hazardous effects of third hand smoke constituents which you carry back into the house on your breath . . . and your clothes. Follow me?

One possible way to mitigate the dangers to children inside the home is to take a shower and gargle with Listerine before going back inside after smoking your Putter’s Light outside. And don’t forget to change your clothes after every smoke. Yes, I understand what that will do to the laundry expense, not to mention the water bill, but it’s for the good of the kids.

Or, if you’re the smoker in the family, you could simply throw the pack of Putter’s Light into the street. But, that would mean capitulating to the coercive pressure tactics of the anti-smoker brigade and their suspect scientific studies. No, there has to be a better way.

Of course, if your spouse is the smoker in the family, you could always throw him/her into the street. This, however, is not the recommended course of action. Winters can be cold and harsh in the Great White North. No sense making them lonely too.

If you both smoke you’ll have to throw . . . no, we’d better not go there; it’s the kids we’re trying to protect in the first place. Besides, it’s against the law.

But, before we start tearing our hair out trying to find a solution to a problem that may or may not exist, maybe we should ask a few questions.

Dr. Michael Siegel is an anti-smoking MD and a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. He also writes a blog. And on his blog, he has written two critical articles regarding the Australlian study, pointing out obvious deficiencies in methodology and the conclusions of the study.

According to Dr. Siegel: “This article demonstrates what I predicted yesterday: that anti-smoking advocates will use this flawed study to send the message that parents need not bother to try to refrain from smoking inside the home. It is all or nothing. Either quit smoking completely or you might as well just puff in the faces of your children”.

You mean breathing on my grandkids (as opposed to blowing smoke in their face) is not a hazard, Doctor?

“No, I don't believe that it represents a serious health hazard to nonsmokers or to children. There may be a few very isolated circumstances where a person is exquisitely sensitive to smoke and this could present a problem, but as a general matter, no”.

Did these people honestly expect us to believe that breathing on our kids after smoking a cigarette could have a detrimental effect on their health?

The answer is: yes, they did. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have said it. Let's face it, they’ve got a lot of people believing that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, haven’t they?

It doesn't matter if the study is flawed; all that matters is that people believe it's the truth and direct their anger at smokers for jeopardising the health of the kids. It called propaganda.

These non-smokers are a gullible bunch, they’re ready to believe anything they’re told.