We were prevented from smoking in bars because - to quote the authorities - there is NO SAFE LEVEL of secondary smoke. We were actually *prevented* from doing it, even in private clubs between consenting adults - not just discouraged or shown the dangers, but told YOU WILL NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY lethal and UNACCEPTABLE to expose even consenting adults to it.
Then after a few years we are told that exposure in cars was 23 times more lethal and we should stop doing it in cars. Five years later - *twenty-three times more lethal in a car* - and we know how children have no choice. This is not concern about children ... if they were so concerned about children a ban in cars would have come years ago. This is just using children as a propaganda tool in the next stage of restrictions on smokers. Twenty-three times more lethal than a level of danger so great that we were forbidden by law from taking the risk. (Note that they have quietly reduced this 23 to 11, but not before the public was fed a grossly inflated version.)
I think Robert Dow has it right on the button.
A car is smaller than a bar, but there would usually be no more than two people smoking in the car, and most people would not smoke continuously in a car if they smoke at all. In a bar the upper number of smokers depends entirely on the size of the room, and also ventilation factors also vary so enormously that nobody could take this as a scientific measure. This is typical of the so-called science on secondary smoke. It is based not on measured amounts of anything, but guesswork and generalisations.(I've just heard Amanda Sandford tell George Galloway on Talksport that she doesn't think the time is right for an outright ban in motor cars (bless the BMA, for letting Action on Smoking and Health be seen as moderate on a smoking issue). Even though passive smoke exposure is eleven times greater than in a smoky bar and children don't get a say, there should be no ban, just a debate.)