If you believe it, the ban on smoking in places of employment has lead to an increase in parents smoking in the presence of their children. Not being able to smoke in the pub has apparently provoked parents into staying at home instead where they can smoke to their children's hearts' discontent.

The report that has reached these findings was carried out by economists at University College London. From economists you say?

It goes on to suggest that children from the poorer socio-economic group are more likely to suffer from increased secondary smoke resulting from a total smoking ban.

From my viewpoint, there is nothing more disgusting to watch than a parent lighting up in close proximity to their progeny. They may as well kick them in the stomach. What sort of other selfish action exists that could rival such an insidious habit? Some of the pushchair manufacturers ought to take advantage by making cigarette holders for the parent. It would be a market-leading feature to add to their products.

It seems irresponsible parent smokers (are there any responsible ones?) need to be guided in such a way that prevents their children from inhaling their secondary smoke. If need be, offer them vouchers to incentivise the prospect of going back to the local. That way they might die from liver failure, but a failed liver never damaged the health of their kids.

So John Reid's proposal for a partial ban on smoking was the correct one after all. It had nothing to do with maintaining the flow of excise paid on cigarettes that comes into the government's pocket. It's a calculated move to protect the kiddies from developing respiratory illnesses.

Published by Colm.