Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

Originally Posted by Chris

This is a somewhat fallacious argument. There could be any number of reasons why smoke-free pubs didn't take off in the absence of legal compulsion. You can't conclude that the lack of them *must* be due to lack of demand, just because that's the conclusion that best suits the point you want to make.

Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business. Publicans may have acknowledged a demand for smoke-free environs, but concluded that the risks associated with going down that route were too high, especially when the status quo was demonstrably profitable already.

On the other hand, banning it in law has ensured a level playing field has continued.

It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.

Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business, but the status quo in recent years has not been very profitable. You must have seen the news reports about the number of pubs closing down? Not solely due to the smoking ban, obviously, but it has played its part in the decline of the pub trade. And the law hasn't ensured a level playing field for publicans (v cheap booze from supermarkets) and smokers.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Do you call making places we are all entitled to visit, this includes pubs you know, pubs are not just for smokers as you seem to be implying with your assertion that nobody makes you go to a pub.

No one is "entitled" to visit a pub. It's a private establishment which you enter at the landlord's discretion. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think pubs are just for smokers; most non-smokers I know never complained much at all about cigarette smoke, and don't think it's a factor important enough to help bring about my local's demise.

With regard Urine, I was making the link between ammonia in cigarettes and ammonia that is naturally secreted form the body, both do not smell nice do they?

No, they don't. It would be extremely anti-social to urinate on a person when there are perfectly adequate toilet facilities in pubs. One person urinating on someone is on a different anti-social scale to one person smoking. It's not a valid comparison.

Would I be happy to pay more taxes if smoking was totally banned?
The way our country is at the moment we are all including our children going to be paying back a huge debt anyway, what difference would say 5p in the pound make?

I'm not as willing as you are to make an already diabolical situation even worse. I think you're pretty blasé about tax increases - 5p would make a big, big difference.

The original question was should smoking in cars carrying children be banned and I still say yes.

I say the government should leave most parents to look after the welfare of their children and stop interfering, and help the children crying out for state intervention. Then perhaps it can look elsewhere for problems.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by freezin

It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.

If the demand were there, either there would have been more smoke free pubs already, or the government would have offered the pubs an option of opting out of the ban,

[Turkey Machine]

Yes, because as a kid I hated it when the parents had to open the window on a cold journey home thus waking me up!!!! They now don't smoke, but still do it!

Originally Posted by freezin

It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.



I think you will find that there was a demand for smoke free pubs and eating establishments, indeed I know of one landlord who told customers the pub was to become none smoking after refurbishment, this was before the government stepped in with legislation, he claims that initially he had the hard core smokers giving it loads about not drinking in there, but he is now making more money now that it is none smoking, so I think there was a demand there waiting to be tapped.

Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business, but the status quo in recent years has not been very profitable. You must have seen the news reports about the number of pubs closing down? Not solely due to the smoking ban, obviously, but it has played its part in the decline of the pub trade. And the law hasn't ensured a level playing field for publicans (v cheap booze from supermarkets) and smokers.


Well the "demise" of the pub is not solely down to the smoking ban, it is half a dozen of one and half the other.
I think we can all be blamed every time we get our weekly shop and the beer delivered.



No one is "entitled" to visit a pub. It's a private establishment which you enter at the landlord's discretion. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think pubs are just for smokers; most non-smokers I know never complained much at all about cigarette smoke, and don't think it's a factor important enough to help bring about my local's demise.

Forget the crap, its not nice stinking of smoke, and aslong as I behave myself I am entitled to be in a pub.



No, they don't. It would be extremely anti-social to urinate on a person when there are perfectly adequate toilet facilities in pubs. One person urinating on someone is on a different anti-social scale to one person smoking. It's not a valid comparison.


See above.


I'm not as willing as you are to make an already diabolical situation even worse. I think you're pretty blasé about tax increases - 5p would make a big, big difference.


You asked if I would be willing to pay more taxes, I gave you the answer, whether you think I am blase does not come into it.


I say the government should leave most parents to look after the welfare of their children and stop interfering, and help the children crying out for state intervention. Then perhaps it can look elsewhere for problems.

" Most parents " ?
All children are at risk of damage to their health from second hand smoke, lung cancer does not discriminate class wise.

A quick question,with respect, do you smoke?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

A quick question,with respect, do you smoke?

I don't. Never have. Tried it once and didn't like it. I do, however, believe in freedom of choice, a concept which seems alien to some people.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

" Most parents " ?
All children are at risk of damage to their health from second hand smoke, lung cancer does not discriminate class wise.

"I say the government should leave most parents to look after the welfare of their children and stop interfering, and help the children crying out for state intervention. Then perhaps it can look elsewhere for problems."

I meant "some parents" in general terms because some parents, it is patently obvious, do not look after their children's welfare. They frequently figure in newspaper headlines. As far passive smoking goes, I'm asking for proof that it is a cause of lung cancer. Wouldn't we see many more cases of lung cancer amongst bar staff and spouses of smokers if so?

A quick question,with respect, do you smoke?

No. Never saw the attraction. Health risks, cost, ashtray breath, etc, all put me off.

Reality is this whole anti-smoking thing at the minute is an attack on a freedom that some citizens choose to have and while i agree smelling of cigarettes is not a nice thing and some people really do hate it (i am a smoker by the way) until the ban i never heard or saw it putting people off going out for a night in the pub or anywhere else.

As for the whole "there was a demand for smoke free pubs before the ban" er no there wasn't maybe in the big cities but not much elsewhere as we had one that tried it in our town he went out of business after six months despite running 5 other successful pubs so you can't use the old excuse of him not knowing what he was doing.

As for smoking in cars of course people shouldn't smoke in cars when kids are in them but i really don't think it is an area the government should be interfering in and if we allow them to interfere on that level we are just asking for trouble in a whole host of other areas.

Apart from anything else this government doesn't have the best track record so even if i were to agree to the principle of them interfering at this level i would want a government with a little more credibility doing it.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Reality is this whole anti-smoking thing at the minute is an attack on a freedom that some citizens choose to have and while i agree smelling of cigarettes is not a nice thing and some people really do hate it (i am a smoker by the way) until the ban i never heard or saw it putting people off going out for a night in the pub or anywhere else.

As for the whole "there was a demand for smoke free pubs before the ban" er no there wasn't maybe in the big cities but not much elsewhere as we had one that tried it in our town he went out of business after six months despite running 5 other successful pubs so you can't use the old excuse of him not knowing what he was doing.

As for smoking in cars of course people shouldn't smoke in cars when kids are in them but i really don't think it is an area the government should be interfering in and if we allow them to interfere on that level we are just asking for trouble in a whole host of other areas.

Apart from anything else this government doesn't have the best track record so even if i were to agree to the principle of them interfering at this level i would want a government with a little more credibility doing it.

Agree with most of this, but I think we'd disagree on which government might have more credibility. I'd err on the side of caution and say no government would have credibilty enough for that kind of measure.

[Chrysalis]

I dont smoke but this is getting incredibly stupid.

1 - over legislation of what people do in their own space and time.
2 - the country getting extremely over protective of children. This country must be the most protective of children in the world.

Bear in mind smoking is already banned in taxis so this wouldnt be for that situation.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Reality is this whole anti-smoking thing at the minute is an attack on a freedom that some citizens choose to have and while i agree smelling of cigarettes is not a nice thing and some people really do hate it (i am a smoker by the way) until the ban i never heard or saw it putting people off going out for a night in the pub or anywhere else.

As for the whole "there was a demand for smoke free pubs before the ban" er no there wasn't maybe in the big cities but not much elsewhere as we had one that tried it in our town he went out of business after six months despite running 5 other successful pubs so you can't use the old excuse of him not knowing what he was doing.

As for smoking in cars of course people shouldn't smoke in cars when kids are in them but i really don't think it is an area the government should be interfering in and if we allow them to interfere on that level we are just asking for trouble in a whole host of other areas.

Apart from anything else this government doesn't have the best track record so even if i were to agree to the principle of them interfering at this level i would want a government with a little more credibility doing it.

i couldnt go into most pubs before the ban with out being very ill maybe you just have blinkers on caused by your drug habit of choice

there were loads of us asking for smoke free areas but we were never realy catered for because most just set aside a room with no provision to stop the smoke from the rest of the pub getting in there

Well Roger i don't really know about pubs because i don't drink and very very rarely go in one. So i have my drug of choice and you have yours . But lets be honest here if the demand for non smoking pubs was that high business would have come into and opened them making a lot of cash that didn't happen because......

[rogerdraig]

mines mostly cola or oj when i go out as i drive

neither of which affects others as far as i am aware

i keep the wine for my own home mostly when the kids are in bed me

my main point was though there was a demand for smoke free but no one was willing to provide it with out being compelled to do so because they were scared of anything new

as with most things in this country they wont change unless they are made to look at the debacle of metrication

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i couldnt go into most pubs before the ban with out being very ill maybe you just have blinkers on caused by your drug habit of choice

I'm really sorry you are affected by passive smoking (if that's what you mean) but most people were not physically affected. Should this be one more thing putting pubs out of business? Should it???

there were loads of us asking for smoke free areas but we were never realy catered for because most just set aside a room with no provision to stop the smoke from the rest of the pub getting in there

Not in my local pub there weren't. And I'd be really surprised if the were loads of people across the country asking for this. The pubs that did voluntarily go smoke free would have prospered had that been the case? A pub landlord, considering his patrons' preferences, should have been able to decide which way to go.

So what your saying is there was a big demand for it money to be made and no one did it there were smoke free pubs before the ban and with a few exceptions they didn't have the volume of trade that the normal pubs did and there was even a report on the bbc just prior to the ban coming in where there had been 3 non smoking pubs in an area of london and two had shut because they didn't do enough trade.

Fact is there was a better solution for both sides then a total ban taking away the freedom of choice from people and when it happens elsewhere in the world we british normally get on our high horse about restrictive governments and as i said pretty soon once they have finished with smoking they will move onto something else. All of this is OT though and we should maybe get back on topic.

[rogerdraig]

they didnt have us in their pubs to ask as we couldn't go in there

as to back on topic i agree

no kids should ever have to put up with second hand smoke that should be the over riding freedom here

it doesn't bother me i have to wait till i am home and not planning on going out again to have a drink ( and i do like a red wine )

and if it ever got to the point i couldn't wait for the next glass i would consider that i had a real problem that might need dealing with

no one is stopping any one smoking just where they can