Editorial: A welcome unintended consequence
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The primary motivation behind the ban on smoking, which was introduced in July 2007, was the desire to protect bar staff and the like from the pernicious effects of their customers' carcinogenic habits. Only legislative naysayers considered the effect on the nation's children, and only then to warn that parents unable to smoke elsewhere would puff away more heartily than ever at home.
They could hardly have been more wrong, it turns out. Indeed, the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma plummeted in the year after the ban was introduced, according to researchers at London's Imperial College. Even hardened nicotine addicts, it seems, saw the benefits of a smoke-free environment – and brought in a prohibition of their own at home. Many changes in the law have unintended consequences; few prove so beneficial or are so welcome.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments