Commentary on S ims et al . (2012): A timely response to the impact of smoke‐free public places on the most exposed children

.[4] provide timely evidence that smoke-free legislationdoes not displace adult smoking to the home, but ratherreduces SHS exposure among most at risk children, i.e.those with smoking parents or living in homes allow-ing smoking. These ndings dispute the arguments andinform health advocates and policymakers about theunintended health benets of protecting non-smokers,especially children exposed to second-hand smoke in thehome [5]. Given that the main source of SHS exposureamong children is domestic [6,7], the reported declinesreect changing social norms around smoking [8],perhaps derived from voluntary family-based restrictionsby adults to promote health in children [6].Children are particularly vulnerable to SHS exposure,as even modest levels of exposure have been associatedwith respiratory abnormalities and other adverse healtheffects [9,10]. As adolescents observe smoking in thedomestic setting, they tend more towards seeing smokingas normal adult behaviour, and attribute favourableoutcome expectations over time with repeated exposure[8,11]. Research has shown that adolescent adoption ofsmoking is related to perceptions of signicant others,such as parental smoking behaviour, as well as societalnorms of smoking [12,13]. In an environment where anon-smoking directive, e.g. smoke-free homes or cars, isenacted children will possibly perceive smoking as asocially unacceptable behaviour, and may be less likely totake up smoking [14]. However, despite reported declinesin SHS exposure by the authors, the high levels of chil-dren’s exposure in England (approximately half livingin homes allowing smoking and a third with smokingparents) may send an unequivocal message to youthsthat smoking is still a normative behaviour, and mightsensitize them to start smoking.Sims