Lords Vote to Ban Smoking in Cars

H/T Junican. BBC:

The Lords has backed a Labour plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children, despite opposition from the government.

Labour peers tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill detailing their proposal for England, which they said was about “protecting children”.

Ministers argued that campaigns were a better way to discourage people from smoking around children than the “blunt instrument” of a new law.

But peers backed the move by 222 votes to 197.

The amendment empowers, but does not compel, the government at a later date to make it a criminal offence for drivers to fail to prevent smoking in their vehicle when children are present.

It seems that the House of Lords have got ahead of the British government on this, though:

David Cameron is prepared to consider Labour plans to ban smoking in cars carrying children, the Prime Minister’s spokesman has said.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, wants to force the government to make it a criminal offence for drivers of private vehicles allow smoking when a child is present. Under his plans, drivers caught smoking in front of their children would be fined £60.

Labour has tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill, which is debated in the House of Lords today.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “This is an issue that is going to be discussed and debated in Parliament today. The Prime Minister’s view is that he wants to listen to the arguments.”

Labour says that if it is not passed in this vote, it will be included in their manifesto for the next election.

H/T Smokingscot for this additional insight:

Clearly banning smoking in cars will do little to protect the health of our children!  So what’s the point?   Don’t get me wrong, I am in favour of banning smoking in cars. However, for me the real benefit of the proposed legislation is about helping to change the social acceptability of smoking. Hopefully measures like this will help to discourage smoking in general and in particular discourage smoking at home.  What we are really trying to do is change the attitudes of smokers and ideally give them another nudge towards giving up.

So, never mind the chiiiiiiildren, here’s someone who really just wants to legislate smoking out of existence, and seems to think that making laws to stop people smoking is just giving them a ‘nudge’.

Next they’ll be ‘nudged’ to stop them drinking alcohol in front of their own children, or eating hamburgers in front of them, or doing anything else of which the state disapproves.

In this manner, freedom is gradually lost. What’s startling is how enthusiastically all concerned – even peers in the House of Lords – are rushing to dispense with it.

I wonder whether they will like living in the prison they are busy building for themselves? Because they will be incarcerated in it too.

Other comment here and here. And here. And barmy Christina Odone here.

About the archivist

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Lords Vote to Ban Smoking in Cars

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    They were already banning comments left and right on politicas site………..

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    What ASH and all the rest have done thru the government will be undone by whats coming.

    Whats the most solid revenue in history……………tobacco!

    End of the Financial World: 2014
    Pivotfarm on 01/29/2014 16:30 -0500

    Don’t you just hate the smuggish guys that sit behind desks and that say ‘I told you so’? There’s probably only one thing you hate more and that’s the racers that are running to predict the end of the world. Doom and gloom. The financial world that is! But, it’s going to happen sooner or later this year, probably towards the end of the year and the start of 2015. The Federal Reserve and other world central banks have seen to that. Isn’t it surprising how the financial markets got themselves into a mess, and then the stuff hit the fan when the loose monetary policies started being bandied about as if it were the next thing since sliced bread? Pump up the volume and spray the money all over the place and then wonder why things go wrong. They sit at the Federal Reserve and wonder WCPGW. Unbridled optimism when Murphy’s Law predominates as it all goes pear-shaped.

    Anything that can go wrong usually does. This is where it starts to go wrong today.

    The Federal Reserve tried to put the fire out by spraying the cinders that had just been kindled with more banknotes. That Quantitative Easing didn’t ease a lot else than taking the weight off the governments that thought it would be a good idea around the world, momentarily making their lives easier. But, the game of falling dominos was bound to have endless repercussions around the planet.

    The first in the long line to go were the commodities that erupted in a big bang in 2011, posting the biggest drops in gold and crude oil as the European leaders failed to stop the crisis when they should have done, with the ensuing erosion of energy, metal and crops. We all paid the price of that one. In December 2011 the Standard & Poor’s GSCI index (24 raw materials) fell by over 4% in one day and gold fell to its lowest price for 5 months. Oil also fell by 5%.
    The escalator went up and the lift just plummeted to the bottom of the shaft as investors wanted to get out of risk.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-01-29/end-financial-world-2014

    Even the Nazi will bow to hunger………….

    RBS £8 Billion Loss Shows Risk In UK Banking System
    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-01-29/rbs-%C2%A38-billion-loss-shows-risk-uk-banking-system

  3. ftumch says:

    I heard this on 7pm news, just before the Archers. (Everyone now… dumb-te-dumb-te-dumb…). I was busy at the time, and didn’t look till 7 minutes past. That’s 19:07. The post on the BBC website was at: ” 29 January 2014 Last updated at 19:03 “….. In four minutes they had 697 comments and closed them; all the editor picks were, as you might expect, largely in approval of the ruling. Sigh.

    “Whilst I am against legislation that infringes on people’s personal choices where any negative outcome affects only themselves, I don’t think this is such an occasion. If the Law says children need to be seatbelted to protect them in a car, then it makes sense to not deliberately expose them to lethal chemicals that can significantly harm them. I reckon a spot fine of £100 should help.”

    I’d gladly pay £400 for my TV licence.

    • ftumch says:

      oh, and check out Inside Health on R4 today. The transcript is easier on the ear.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s742d

      E-cigs. Oh dear, presenter and three twats health expert types. Totally balanced.

      I’d gladly pay £400 for my TV Licence, and donate both my kidneys to charidee. God bless the BBC.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Lethal Chemicals……….Dudette the car puts out xxxx numbers of chemicals all the time and you in traffic with all these motorcar exhausts coming in continuously and you worried about lethal chemicals………..Your brain dead to say the least!

      About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

      4 % is carbon monoxide.

      6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
      (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

  4. ftumch says:

    Harley. You are quoting a quote I quoted from the comments from BBC which got editorial Approval.

    I aint no nazi. Man, I met Frank. At Stoney Stratford.

  5. Rose says:

    “The Lords has backed a Labour plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children”

    I had a bet on that with my husband,he thought such a thing was impossible, I won.

    • ftumch says:

      There are two principles I grew up with that I fervently believed in: that we lived in a free country and free speech is a matter of course, and that an Englishman’s home is his castle. I believe our former colonies took these to heart, and wrote them down… but still… our betters decided maybe not…. sigh

  6. ftumch says:

    Question: if your 15 yo son smokes, and you smoke in your car… is this a crime?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

        One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

        http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

        • ftumch says:

          thanks, bookmarked. bit late/early for me to read at length

        • ftumch says:

          to add: I am familiar with hitler’s anti-smoking… but stalin too, um…. he smoked like a chimley, and yet, he strove his people to physical excellence…. unto death, even

  7. ftumch says:

    harley, in the vid here, i’m the guy with the hair, beard and glasses, fourth from right, sparking up for freedom. Bucko is second.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-14186769

  8. ftumch says:

    “In this manner, freedom is gradually lost. What’s startling is how enthusiastically all concerned – even peers in the House of Lords – are rushing to dispense with it.”

    Depends what you mean by “gradually”… it looks more like a headlong rush.

    “even peers in the House of Lords”

    Take a look at them. they aren’t the landed gentry anymore, they have no love of this land, this country, it’s people and traditions, it’s history. There are so many who are simply Labour placemen.

  9. Marie says:

    “I wonder whether they will like living in the prison they are busy building for themselves? Because they will be incarcerated in it too.”
    I think, they will, because their concept of healthy is their drug. They will gladly give up everything in order to feed their cravings. I have met many such people, they are quite common!

    • ftumch says:

      Kraft durch Freude

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        If I was building my prison Id be building in ways in which to escape after the thing was done and remember all the other weaknesses I built into it. If caught and sent back again.

        • ftumch says:

          man, if i built a prison, I’d make sure it had a hot tub. which I could smoke in… open on three sides!….. and a one way door that had the words “Hot Chicks Only” over the top. And a fridge for beer. :P

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I don’t think that’s what they had in mind. Im talking from a purely logical persepective of weakening the structure for the intent purpose of future escapes. If I built it like home I wouldn’t want to leave lol

        • ftumch says:

          Aye man, I know. I just trying to levitate it some, else I’ll sink into the mire.

      • Reinhold says:

        Kraft durch Freude

        :-D
        Did you know that the Volkswagen originally should be named “Kraft-durch-Freude-Wagen”?

        • ftumch says:

          No, but I would buy a happy joy car. so long as it was sanctioned by government dictat. because then it would be correct. und so weiter. :P

    • Emily says:

      Your comment is quite profound, i agree with this wholeheartedly. I think people are becoming addicted to healthism.

  10. ftumch says:

    Incidental aside: the bbc have bought the rights to a good german tv show, which they have called, ahem, Generation war. (original German, Unsere Mutter, unsere Vater). it is rather good. they all smoke

  11. Junican says:

    And so the House of Lords vote is consigned to history. But it is not! ASH ET AL will quote it again and again. They will not, of course, quote the verdict in the McTear Case.
    ASH ET AL must be destroyed, and the only way to do it is to de-fund them. Arnott seems to be paid over £60,000 per an, but the enterprise employs only eight staff. Who provides the funding, and what does she do to earn her wealth? What are the eight staff paid? Probably minimum wage.

    But who cares? We are entering into the ‘end-game’ of this war. And there can be only one victor. That victor is a combination of vapers and smokers – if only vapers realised it!

    “Civil Disobedience” is the key. Zealots have got used to the idea that LEGISLATION IS EVERYTHING. Erm … No it is not. Ordinary old people saw off the Council Tax, and, incidentally, saw off Margaret Thatcher. Civil Disobedience is the key, but, somehow, the disobedience should be directly aimed at the Quack Doctors and Quack Professors. That is the key. The battle has to be taken to the Quacks. They must be exposed. It is no accident that the Earth has cooled since the fraudsters in Climate Control were revealed. Giggle. The Earth has not cooled since it never actually warmed.

    It is important now to discover which Lords and Ladies voted for this abomination. Each one needs to be identified and brought to book.

  12. Pingback: Lords Vote to Ban Smoking in Cars | VapeHalla! ...

  13. Walt says:

    Not quite understanding your Pariliament, doesn’t the bill also have to be approved by the lower house too or can the Lords or the Lords plus Cameron do it on their own?

    That said, in places in the US where they’ve got this kind of law, in most cases it’s built into it that smoking-with-children can’t be the primary cause for being pulled over, only if you’re also speeding, or buzzing through a light, e.g. If it does go through, it’s always interesting to see if the cops enforce it. I’m told that no one enforces the park/ beacb ban in NYC. Then too, if they get serious, it might be interesting to tell The Children to just walk. After all, as we know, walking’s good for their health. Even through the woods to grandmother’s house at Christmas. In the foot-deep snow. That, or leave them at home. That, or make them lie on the car floor for the length of the trip. This should make The Children learn to hate Tobacco Control and teach them total contempt for government.

  14. DICK R says:

    THINK OF THE CHIIILDREEEEN!!!!!!!!

  15. What a way to run a so-called democracy (don’t you hate that word by now? It’s a concept that doesn’t exist and if it did in its real meaning, you wouldn’t want it). The party rejected at the last election can do this off their own bats and the Lords accept it then Dave will no doubt cave in and say, “It is the right thing to do” after receiving “advice” from the usual suspects.

    They do this – have a general list of new ideas to be made into laws then sneak in something evil. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 springs to mind, which contained a plethora of new laws (including the ASBO) and it also made treason to be no longer a hanging offence – just before Blair and chums set off on the biggest trail of treason this country has ever known (to my knowledge).

    Someone asked about ASH funding. You can read their accounts here: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/SearchResultHandler.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=262067

    Of the staff, one (Arnott) is on £80 to £90 K and the eight others (full and part-time) are on an average of £26,000 pa. So, nine bods dictating government policy and paid for by us.

    That’s our ‘democracy’.

  16. The fakecharity website says of ASH:

    Its 2009/10 accounts show a total income of £935,093, of which:

    Department of Health: £210,000

    Total £210,000 (22.5% of all income)

    The remainder of its income comes from ASH International (part-funded by Pfizer), Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation.

    http://fakecharities.org/2009/05/charity-262067/

    From their 2013 accounts, you can see they were in receipt of £378,704 from “supporting charities”. That’ll be from the charities people give to believing their money is being used to find a cure and they also receive masses of our money.

    • “Charity” work can be very REWARDING, but not in the way it’s meant to be: good for the soul. From the British Heart Foundation’s latest accounts:

      The following numbers of staff have emoluments above £60,000: –

      The following numbers of staff have emoluments above £60,000: (2013)
      Between £60,001‑£70,000 – 10
      Between £70,001‑£80,000 – 10
      Between £80,001‑£90,000 – 5
      Between £90,001‑£100,000 – 3
      Between £100,001‑£110,000 – 1
      Between £110,001‑£120,000 – 1
      Between £120,001‑£130,000 – 3
      Between £130,001‑£140,000 – 0
      Between £140,001‑£150,000 – 1
      Between £150,001‑£160,000 – 0
      Between £160,001‑£170,000 – 1
      Between £170,001‑£180,000 – 1

      • nisakiman says:

        It would seem I made a severe miscalculation in my career decisions. And as a past master (one could say ‘expert’) at bullshitting, I would have been well qualified to work in the field, too.

        Do people who donate to this bunch of charlatans have any idea where their money is going? I seriously doubt it.

  17. beobrigitte says:

    The Lords has backed a Labour plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children, despite opposition from the government.
    Can we safely conclude that not much opposition from the current government is to be expected?

    The amendment empowers, but does not compel, the government at a later date to make it a criminal offence for drivers to fail to prevent smoking in their vehicle when children are present.
    Right. As from that date on I will only carry smoking adults in my car. Kids, you know where the bus stop is, go there. The walk will do you good. No-one will bother you if you smoke a cigarette on the way.

    Labour says that if it is not passed in this vote, it will be included in their manifesto for the next election.

    Oh, Labour, please do!!!! How many adult smokers are voters?

    Labour peers tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill detailing their proposal for England, which they said was about “protecting children”.
    Ah, ok then. So we use e-cigarettes when driving when the “chiiiiiiiildreeeen” are in the car, can we?

    If I buy a car, it is MY property. I have the right to deny unwanted “guests” access to MY property. Debbie et al eat your heart out, you will be treated like a burglar should you continue to dream to set a foot on MY property.

    It’s time for BLATANTLY OBVIOUS DISOBEDIENCE. Anti-smokers, what are you going to do about that? Take me to a compound that has the “Arbeit macht frei” sign above the entrance?

    • Barry Homan says:

      Okay brigitte, then how we gonna do it? How we gonna win? I feel it’s time that Frank, Michael, Pat, Chris, Leggy, Dick, Audrey and all the other leaders start blog topics about taking ACTION – we’ve been avoiding it too long. No one has ever concentrated on a strategy.

      Or we just keep on doing what we’ve always been doing, but where is it leading to?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Barry these prohibitionist movements only have a lifespan of x number of years. They’re main weakness is they never stop being fanatics. They push and push until their claims are so Insane nobody believes a word they have to say any longer. They become a political liability and the politicians tune them out and then finally at the heat of the battle and the insanity hitting fever pitch we see in the past this is when out of the blue REPEALS happen!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Superstitions of Humans made into belief systems backed by supposed black magic scientists is what this is all about. It keeps on going fed by mountains of shit science backed by magical claims of powerful magical smoke that can drop you dead from just a whiff is fact to these charletons………….Believe me it was done before in America in 1900!

          It is why we must change the definition of proof back to end point connection via biological connections to disease outcomes. We must demand proof positive and see it demonstrated in the laboratory by others consistently via the biological process.

          Until we can force science and medicine to grow up and toss out epidemiology as its proof there will always be fanatical claims of harm to nothing more than a harmless cloud of smoke!

      • Frank Davis says:

        I feel it’s time that Frank, Michael, Pat, Chris, Leggy, Dick, Audrey and all the other leaders…

        I think you’re promoting me above my station there. When did I become a leader? I’m a blogger who tries to articulate feelings and beliefs that I share with many other smokers. It’s only a couple of days ago that I wrote that I was nobody.

        I think the same is true of all the others, although Audrey does actually seem to be much more like a leader than most of them.

        Also, I’m not really big on the Führerprinzip thing. I’m more interested in swarms of wasps, which have no ‘leaders’. I’m interested in what’s driven bottom-up rather than top-down. And I’m interested in what happens rather than what’s planned.

        And I’m open to suggestion. What suggestions do you have for strategy, and for action? You sound like you’ve thought about it.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I agree, fundamental and lasting change usually does happen from the bottom up rather than from top down.

          What we can do, for example, is being OBVIOUSLY still here and still questioning the smoking ban. Didn’t the zealots claim that “smokers-will-get-used-to-it”?

          Also, I, personally, never ‘sneak’ out for a ‘quick’ ciggie, ‘huddling’ in a corner; I announce that I am going for a cigarette, take my coffee with me and look for a nice place to SIT.

          There is much we can do and it does not have to be big things.

      • Emily says:

        I’ve thought about this too. I want to take more action myself but not sure what to do. The only thing concrete thing I’ve done so far- participated in one, and planned going forward once a month, smoking protest on the Boston Common to protest the recent ban on outdoor smoking in Boston parks. I think I was the only tobacco-only smoker there, everyone else was smoking a lot of weed as well as tobacco. But it’s some kind of start, I guess.

      • We could use more volunteers. Our efforts are based on Michigan, though..

    • Jay says:

      “The walk will do you good. No-one will bother you if you smoke a cigarette on the way.” LOL

      Imagine the fun to be had by the 17 year old smoker- driver – will he be prosecuted for exposing himself to SHS?

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Eugenics 101 here again

    http://drantoniohowell.com/quit-smoking/2-reasons-why-you-could-have-inherited-your-nicotine-addiction/#.Uuo4DOmPJD8

    2 Reasons Why You Could Have Inherited Your Nicotine Addiction

    by Dr. Antonio Howell, MD

    2.Genetic Factors Increase Your Likelihood of Developing Lung Cancer

    It is a sobering thought to imagine that the genetics you inherited from your parents affect your likelihood of developing lung cancer. The studies, which were funded by Europe and U.S governments and published in the Nature and Nature Genetics journals, showed that smokers with any of three genetic variants identified had higher chances of getting lung cancer. Smokers with the genetic variations inherited from both parents were found to have an 80% likelihood of developing lung cancer. This is because this group of smokers was found to smoke one or two extra cigarettes daily, more than smokers who did not have the genetic variations. However, smokers without the genetic variations showed up to 10 times likelihood of getting lung cancer compared to nonsmokers whose chances of developing lung cancer is at 1%

    Its like being locked into a Gulag and force fed the tripe day and nite until your reeducation is complete. We the Nazis command it!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Heres another one of those eugenics moments

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25944817

      Neanderthals gave us disease genes

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        So now Hitler could proclaim the virginal purity of the white Aryan woman has been infected by breeding outside her species by a thousand years of Neanderthal Man.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Gene types that influence disease in people today were picked up through interbreeding with Neanderthals, a major study in Nature journal suggests.

          They passed on variants involved in type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease and – curiously – smoking addiction.

          It just doesn’t get much lower on the civilization scale than claiming smokers are Neanderthals……………

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          WASHINGTON — In a broad review of scientific literature, the nation’s top doctor has concluded that cigarette smoking — long known to cause lung cancer and heart disease — also causes diabetes, colorectal and liver cancers, erectile dysfunction and ectopic pregnancy.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/health/list-of-smoking-related-illnesses-grows-significantly-in-us-report.html?_r=0

          You think the study authors were in cahootz with the SG 2014!

          Gene types that influence disease in people today were picked up through interbreeding with Neanderthals, a major study in Nature journal suggests.

          They passed on variants involved in type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease and – curiously – smoking addiction.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25944817

          Anti-smoking has become a MADNESS a true disease unto itself

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          By screening the genomes of 1,004 modern humans, Sriram Sankararaman and his colleagues identified regions bearing the Neanderthal versions of different genes.

          That a gene variant associated with a difficulty in stopping smoking should be found to have a Neanderthal origin is a surprise.

          It goes without saying that there is no suggestion our evolutionary cousins were puffing away in their caves.

          Instead, the researchers argue, this mutation may have more than one function, so the modern effect of this marker on smoking behaviour may be one impact it has among several

        • nisakiman says:

          So this then begets the question: how many packs a day did the average neanderthal smoke? And did a three-pack-a-day neanderthal pass on three-pack-a-day genes? And would his kids have been spared this terrible legacy if plain packaging had been introduced back then?

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Guardian

    Smoking ban in cars with children unenforceable, says Nick Clegg

    The Guardian – Nick Clegg has said he opposes as illiberal plans for a law banning smoking in cars when children are present. He said smoking in such …
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/30/smoking-ban-cars-children-nick-clegg?commentpage=1

    • Frank Davis says:

      ‘Liberal’ ‘Democrat’ Nick Clegg voted for the smoking ban. And that was illiberal too. So I guess that he’s really only in favour of illiberal measures that can be enforced.

    • prog says:

      Interesting, maybe a couple of neurons are firing normally.

      Pure speculation, but I wonder if a substantial number of (still) MPs who voted for the ban privately regret doing so. EVERYTHING they were told by ASH et al has spectacularly failed to materialise.

  20. Steven simon says:

    According to Wikipedia there are eighty members of the House of Lords who have connections to pharmaceutical companies.are you then not surprised that they voted for the ban.

  21. harleyrider1978 says:

    The History of Eugenics in

    the United States

    It is important to understand the cultural background of the era that created
    this field of science.” After the Civil War, there was turbulent economy and an
    influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The economy of the US had
    rapid fluctuations and remained in this tenuous manner until WWI. As the economy
    became more uncertain, the social inequalities between different segments of
    society became more visible.

    In the same era, the idea of Social Darwinism became popular and was used to
    explain these social inequalities. Social Darwinism utilizes the concept of
    natural selection from Charles Darwin and applies it to society. Social
    Darwinism explains survival of the fittest in terms of the capability of an
    individual to survive within a competitive environment. This explains social
    inequalities by explaining that the wealthy are better individuals and therefore
    better suited to survive in the uncertain economy. In terms of survival of the
    fittest the wealthy are more likely to survive and produce more offspring than
    the poor.

    However, this was not occurring. The birthrate of the elite was declining
    while the birthrate of the poor was increasing. Meanwhile governmental social
    programs and aid were doing little help the increasing poverty. The government
    utilized the idea of scientific management, known as progressivism. Progressive
    reformers relied on science to control both nature and human society. This view
    of science as a method of reform and the newly rediscovered science of genetics
    gave rise to social engineering—EUGENICS.

    Early Eugenicists

    Eugenicists believed genetics were the cause of problems for the human gene
    pool. Eugenics stated that society already had paid enough to support these
    degenerates and the use of sterilization would save money. The eugenicists used
    quantitative facts to produce scientific evidence. They believed that charity
    and welfare only treated the symptoms, eugenic sought to eliminate the disease.
    The following traits were seen as degenerative to the human gene pool to which
    the eugenicists were determined to eliminate: poverty,
    feeble-mindedness-including manic depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism,
    rebelliousness, criminality, nomadness, prostitution.

    The accuracy of eugenicist methods was severely overrated. Although based on
    genetics, the eugenic scientists did not document any genetic relationship to
    some qualities that they studied, such as politeness, bluntness, etc. It is
    especially amazing that the scientists made such brilliant relationships between
    genes and behavior at a time when they did not even know that DNA carried genes,
    causing the researchers to treat complex behavior as though it had a single
    cause. Other flaw in research included the researchers did not did not take into
    account the impact that the environment plays into a person’s phenotype. They
    also used culturally based IQ tests on immigrants to determine IQ. Finally, the
    early eugenicists made up results to give scientific results.

    Many of the eugenicist’s ideas came from studies of the supposed
    deterioration of a genetic stock over time. For example, the sociologist Richard
    Dugdale based his study on “The Jukes,” which is a clan of 700 criminals,
    prostitutes, and paupers. Dugdale believed that bad environment caused their
    degeneracy and could be reversed over time. A.H. Estabrook resurveyed the Jukes
    in 1915 but saw little improvement in the family. He concluded that several
    traits associated with inadequacy were inherited. However, since the eugenicists
    did not understand genetics and the methods of inheritance, they formed their
    method of inheritance. The meant that desired traits could only be spread to
    children through marriage between two “worthy” families. Undesired traits were
    always spread between “shiftless” families. A child between a worthy family and
    a shiftless family would be mostly shiftless…but a little desirable.

    Before eugenics became internationally recognized in WWII, it was a very
    popular movement in the United States. In fact the American Eugenics Society set
    up pavilions and “Fitter Families Contest” to popularize eugenics at state
    fairs. The average family advocated for the utilization of eugenics while
    educational systems embraced eugenics, which was presented as science fact by
    the majority biology texts. In fact, eugenics became so popular that eighteen
    solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported study in 1911, to report the
    best practical means for eliminating defective genes in the Human Population.
    Although the eighth of the 18 solutions was euthanasia, the researchers believed
    it was too early to implement this solution. The most commonly suggested method
    of eugenicide in America was a lethal chamber, or gas chamber. Instead, the main
    solution was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as
    well as increased marriage restrictions. However, not everybody was in favor of
    eugenics, Punnett at the first international congress for Eugenics in 1911
    stated, “Except in very few cases, our knowledge of heredity in man at present
    is far to slight and far too uncertain to base legislation upon.”

    Sterilization and Marriage Laws

    Carrie Buck, and her mother Emma, had been committed to the Virginia Colony
    for Epileptics and Feeble Minded in Lynchburg, Virginia. Carrie and Emma were
    both judged to be “feebleminded” and promiscuous, because they had both had
    children out of wedlock. Carrie’s child, Vivian, was judged to be “feebleminded”
    at seven months of age. Hence, three generations of “imbeciles” became the
    “perfect” family for Virginia officials to use as a test case in favor of the
    eugenic sterilization law enacted in 1924. Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme
    Court concurred “that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially
    inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized
    without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society
    will be promoted by her sterilization.” It is impossible to judge whether or not
    Carrie was “feebleminded”, but she was not promiscuous. Vivian’s was the result
    of Carrie’s rape by the nephew of her foster parents. She was probably
    institutionalized to prevent further shame to the family. Just as clearly,
    Vivian was no imbecile. Vivian’s first grade report card from the Venable School
    in Charlottesville showed that this daughter of a supposed social degenerate got
    straight “As” in deportment (conduct) and even made the honor role in April
    1931. She died a year later of an intestinal disorder.

    Although in 1942 the Supreme Court made a law allowing the involuntary
    sterilization of criminals, it never reversed the general concept of eugenic
    sterilization. In 2001, the Virginia General Assembly acknowledged that the
    sterilization law was based on faulty science and expressed its “profound regret
    over the Commonwealth’s role in the eugenics movement in this country and over
    the damage done in the name of eugenics.” On May 2, 2002 a marker was erected to
    honor Carrie Buck in her hometown of Charlottesville.

    Laws against interracial marriage had existed in some states since colonial
    times, but the number increased after the Civil War. In 1913, 29 states had laws
    forbidding mixed-race marriages. Twenty-two states had stiff penalties — fines
    of up to $2,000 and/or prison terms of up to 10 years. Eugenicists actively
    supported the old laws and the making of new ones. The eugenicist-inspired
    Virginia Integrity Act of 1924 prohibited marriage between a white person and
    anyone with a trace of blood other than Caucasian. The Act was struck down,
    along with all other anti-miscegenation laws, in 1967.

    This information was taken from http://www.eugenicsarchive.org

    Hitler and Eugenics

    The world thought Hitler was mad, but the concept of a white, blond-haired,
    blue-eyed master Nordic race was not Adolf Hitler’s. The idea was created in the
    United States at least two decades before Hitler came to power. In fact, in
    1924, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he frequently quoted American eugenics and
    displayed a thorough knowledge. “There is today one state, Hitler wrote, in
    which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are
    noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United
    States.” Hitler told his fellow Nazis that he closely followed American eugenic
    legislation. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American
    states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in
    all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

    During the beginning of the third Reich, eugenicists across America welcomed
    Hitler’s plans as the logical implementation of their own research. Ten years
    after Virginia passed its 1924 sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette,
    superintendent of Virginias Western State Hospital, complained in the Richmond
    Times-Dispatch, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

    In 1934, the number of sterilizations in Germany was accelerating beyond
    5,000 per month. Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans were taken from homes
    for the elderly, mental institutions and other state ran institutions and was
    systematically gassed. In all, between 50,000 and 100,000 were killed.

    Number of sterilized from each condition

    • Hereditary feeble-mindedness: 200,000

    • Schizophrenia: 80,000

    • Epilepsy: 60,000

    • Manic-depressive psychosis: 20,000

    • Serious physical deformities: 20,000

    • Hereditary deafness: 16,000

    • Hereditary alcoholism: 10,000

    • Hereditary blindness: 4,000

    • Huntington’s chorea: 600

    • TOTAL: 410,600

    Hitler’s believed that Jewish were racially inferior. They played a decisive
    role in social degeneracy, such as prostitution, pornography, modern art,
    financial crimes, and the narcotics trade. Jewish people possessed no ethics or
    morality and that they had been engaged in a 4,000-year-old conspiracy to
    dominate the world pursuant to their view of themselves as the chosen people.
    Just like other eugenicists, Hitler believe that these characteristics and
    values were in the genes of the Jewish people, and therefore are able to be
    eradicated from the general population (cf. generally Mein Kampf). Hitler’s made
    his threat to exterminate European Jewry was made to the Reichstag on January
    30, 1939: “In the course of my life I have often been a prophet, and have
    usually been ridiculed for it . . . If the international Jewish financiers in
    and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world
    war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the
    victory of Jewry, but the annihilation [Vernichtung] of the Jewish race in
    Europe”

    Hitler attempted to succeed in this goal by annihilating hundreds of
    thousands of the Jewish population in concentration camps using the American
    favored method of extermination of the gas chambers. There were also rumors that
    Hitler made Lebensborn a “stud farms” where SS men and suitable young women were
    mated to breed a master race. However this is nothing more than a myth.
    Lebensborn was in fact a conservative institution with a conservative sexual
    code, attempting to maintain middle-class respectability.

    The connection between the American Eugenics movement and the Nazi eugenic
    movement was further solidified in the Nuremburg trials that judged the crimes
    committed by the Nazis during the war. In their defense the Nazis quoted Oliver
    Wendell Holmes from the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell trial. Supreme Court Justice
    Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of
    waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for
    their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from
    continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

    https://people.creighton.edu/~

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    This is from the Center for disease control website

    The evidence indicates that sidestream smoke,
    the principal component of secondhand smoke, contains
    carcinogens. Exposure to secondhand smoke
    results in the uptake by nonsmokers of many of these
    carcinogens. Although data are sparse on the specific
    elements in Figure 2.2 linking secondhand smoke
    exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure
    to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data
    from active smokers support this framework of biologic
    steps toward cancer. The most plausible mechanisms
    involved in lung cancer reflect the continuing
    exposure of the lungs to DNA-damaging material,
    which leads to multiple genetic changes that culminate
    in lung cancer. Available evidence points to these
    same mechanisms as the cause of lung cancer in persons
    exposed to carcinogens in secondhand smoke.
    Conclusions
    1. More than 50 carcinogens have been identified in
    sidestream and secondhand smoke.
    2. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal
    relationship between exposure to secondhand
    smoke and its condensates and tumors in
    laboratory animals.

    Lab rats designed to get cancer with in 3 months of their lives……………with or without exposure

  23. Frank Davis says:

    Good to know that Charlotte Gore is still writing. Strange that it should be in the Guardian:

    This prohibition would control the behaviour of free, non-criminal adults in their own private space, and represents the very first step in a process that’s likely to make our own homes the legitimate jurisdiction of politicians keen on improving us by any means necessary.

    Over the past few decades the powers of politicians have grown, their reach into our lives has been extended. ID cards were resisted, but the trend is clear. Red lines that mark the limit of acceptability are pushed back routinely in the name of public safety and order.

    This is one of those lines, one of those moments. And while this proposal may not change anything today, it will begin a discussion that will ultimately find itself on some political manifesto, ready to become the democratic will of the people. Which, if the civil libertarian track record is anything to go by, will be implemented in 2016, give or take. You could almost laugh.

    So here I am, lying in the ground in front of that political bulldozer, arguing as a responsible adult for the right to choose not to smoke in a car that has children in –without the law having to make you. Simply this is about the sort of country I’d rather live in.

  24. Tony says:

    This business of a ‘free vote’ in the House of Commons (which is the next step) is a very very dangerous trap for us. The likes of Nick Clegg etc can publicly speak against the ban but behind closed doors MPs will be persuaded to vote in favour of the ban. This is EXACTLY the method by which the original smoking ban was pushed through.

  25. harleyrider1978 says:

    EU has secret plan for police to ‘remote stop’ cars

    The EU is developing a secret plan to give the police the power to control cars by switching the engine off remotely

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

  26. Tony says:

    Of course they’ll initially leave a ‘loophole’ in the law which will permit smoking in cars when no children are present. But in order to aid enforcement that ‘loophole’ will have to be closed. Perhaps even before the law is passed.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Usually they apply a regulatory option board phrase within the legislation so that thye don’t have to go thru legislation again. They just get one of their Lords to say ok excemptions are gone.

  27. garyk30 says:

    Has been said that smokers get a different form of lung cancer than never-smokers.

    But, do never-smokers exposed to SHS get lung cancer that is the same as smokers’ lung cancer or is it the same as nonexposed never-smokers’ lung cancer?

  28. Tony says:

    Here’s the text and video of the Lords debate on smoking in cars with chiiiildren:
    Text: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2014-01-29a.1215.0
    Video: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14666
    Bunch of loonies for the most part. But at 17:39 Lord Stoddart is a voice of sanity.

  29. Tony says:

    From the final summing up by Earl Howe at 18:20:30::
    “Our approach is to change smoking behaviour in both the home and family car.”

  30. harleyrider1978 says:

    Henry Waxman is to tobacco what Hitler was to jews

  31. harleyrider1978 says:

    More BS 3rd hand smoke junk science again

    Cigarette Smoke Toxins Deposited on Surfaces: Implications for Human Health

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3adoi%2f10.1371%2fjournal.pone.0086391

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      C57BL/6 Mice has many unusual characteristics that make it useful for some work and inappropriate for other: It is unusually sensitive to pain and to cold, and analgesic medications are less effective in it.[1][4] Unlike most mouse strains, it drinks alcoholic beverages voluntarily. It is more susceptible than average to morphine addiction, atherosclerosis, and age-related hearing loss. Because nearly all of the mice are used at a young age and given inadequate exercise, the standard for the vast majority of lab research has been described as “a teenaged, alcoholic couch potato with a weakened immune system”.[1]

      So they caged these mice for 6 months and then found things in them! Things they would have found anyway!

    • Rose says:

      Many constituents of third hand smoke can be found in all homes and cars, regardless of smoking

      Simon Chapman

      ” But it is equally important that consumers and policy makers are not led to believe that the chemical compounds thus located are somehow unique to tobacco smoke.

      Unless in the extremely unlikely event that residents burn copious quantities of solanaceous vegetables (aubergine, tomato) which contain small amounts of nicotine, tobacco is going to be the only source of nicotine in homes.

      But it will not by any means be the only source of many of the ingredients of “third hand smoke” that the unwitting or the fumophobic may believe are attributable only to smoking.

      The omission of this information in such reports risks harming the credibility of tobacco control.”
      http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/1/e1/reply

  32. Pingback: A Conflict of Visions | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.