Sorry, that’s a Jim Carrey reference. I’ll go and lie down.
The Commons yesterday was debating extending the not-yet-enacted ban on smoking in public places. Lots of steam from both sides, mostly about the impact of smoking on workers in pubs and restaurants.
One question, however. I don’t deny that there is now strong evidence of the impact of passive/secondary smoking. However, all the research I’ve seen focuses on smoking within the home (ie the impact of partners’ or parents’ smoke). I’m also aware of a couple of cases in the US where bar employees have sued their ex-employers for ‘getting’ lung cancers, though causality was never proved.
Is their any evidence that proves that exposure to smoke, say, four-six hours a day for five-six days a week leads to lung cancer? And, if not, and if it’s an ‘intuitive’ jump, given the average knowledge of the public and politicians about scientific research (and I include myself in that), is there any rationale for this expansion in policy beyond yet more restrictions to freedom?