Performance enhancing? Mixed views on smoking and sport

The international body overseeing enforcement of drug bans on the sports field now wishes to declare nicotine a 'performance enhancing' drug. This is because:

The performance-enhancing effects of nicotine included increased "vigilance and cognitive function," and reduced stress and body weight. 

"Interestingly, nicotine also triggers a significant increase of pulse rate, blood pressure, blood sugar and epinephrine release owing to simultaneous stimulant and relaxant properties," the report said. 

"Smokeless tobacco is a very attractive drug from a doping perspective," researchers suggested, because it did not damage an athlete's breathing and respiratory system.

Isn't this curious? Smoking gives athletes an unfair advantage in competitive sport!

This was my understanding of tobacco control's view of smoking and sport:

• Tobacco smoke affects the lungs so that they work less efficiently. They can't pick up the amount of oxygen that a body needs when it is working hard.
• Tobacco smoke contains a chemical (carbon monoxide) that gets into the blood stream and prevents it from picking up oxygen.
• Tobacco smoke contains other chemicals that affect the circulation of blood. They make the blood vessels smaller so that they are less able to carry oxygen when your body is burning up large amounts of energy.

They really want to eat their cake and have it. Maybe the truth is that anti-smokers have failed to demonstrate that smokers don't perform well in sport – the next best conclusion is that their smoking gives them an unfair advantage over everyone else, and that smokers are cheats.

Scots urged to ban smoking in cars

Apparently Welsh parents are being given a period of grace to see whether a public education programme will change people's behaviour. The British Lung Foundation wants Scotland to follow the example of Wales.

Since there is (we are told) no safe level of secondary smoke, a delay in implementing the most severe restrictions is somewhat strange. The emphasis is on children after all. Not legislating immediately is endangering millions of children's respiratory systems forever, isn't it?

A delay suggests that the government recognises the sensitivity of legislating activities in private space. Many people who feel the government is pushing its luck defining pubs and restaurants as public spaces would be pushing their luck by extending rulings into a private car.

This could be a recognition that banning smoking in cars would be more a political gesture than an effective measure to protect respiratory health. There are unquestionably threats to children's respiratory health in this country, but it is very doubtful whether banning smoking in cars would be more than tinkering at the edges.