Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

[supremus]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

That's just it. It isn't a unique threat.

Of course it is, despite some people's dishonest attempts at comparing it with chocolate and tea.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by supremus

Of course it is, despite some people's dishonest attempts at comparing it with chocolate and tea.

I'm with Stu I'm afraid - how exactly is it unique?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by southwell

I think smoking should be banned whilst driving altogether, imo it's just as dangerous if not more so than using a phone.

I don't think it is, having done both I know which one was more dangerous to my fellow road users

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuff
Aren't we already being taxed to keep the NHS running to treat the huge number of patients with illnesses related to smoking?

No we aren't, smokers generate 5 times more income than they cost

Originally Posted by Nugget
Because I've chosen not to - I'm a (fairly ) intelligent bloke, and I'm well aware of the theories surrounding passive smoking. Moreover, as somweone who used to smoke in the house, I really can't be doing with the smell of stale cigarettes.

When I smoked I only ever used to smoke in the bathroom and my son was always getting ear infections, when I stopped smoking he didn't get any, I have it on good authority that they were caused by all the crap from smoking getting on his towel, apparently they remain acctive until washed of

Originally Posted by Nugget

I'm with Stu I'm afraid - how exactly is it unique?

Me too....

[supremus]

Originally Posted by Nugget

I'm with Stu I'm afraid - how exactly is it unique?

It's quite clear that when you throw it in with coffee, tea, chocolate and other personal "vices" like that, its 2nd hand effect on other people is unique. This is why it was banned in public places where you can harm other members of the public. It's not exactly complicated, is it?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by supremus

Of course it is, despite some people's dishonest attempts at comparing it with chocolate and tea.

It's not. Pollution from cars has killed innocent people. As has drink driving (something which is both illegal and has caused many more deaths that passive smoking).

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ----------

Originally Posted by supremus

It's quite clear that when you throw it in with coffee, tea, chocolate and other personal "vices" like that, its 2nd hand effect on other people is unique. This is why it was banned in public places where you can harm other members of the public. It's not exactly complicated, is it?

Actually, IIRC, it was banned because a lawyer managed to convince a judge that there was a link between lung cancer and passive smoking when someone sued his employer. The government paniced and with no real evidence decided to err on the side of caution.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by supremus

It's quite clear that when you throw it in with coffee, tea, chocolate and other personal "vices" like that, its 2nd hand effect on other people is unique. This is why it was banned in public places where you can harm other members of the public. It's not exactly complicated, is it?

What, you mean like drinking can be, and has been, banned in any number of public places in order to, amongst a number of reason, cut down on the amount of antisocial behaviour that it causes, up to and including harm to other people.

As such, one 'second hand effect' of binge drinking alcohol can be seen to be potential harm to another person, thus showing that the effects of smoking aren't unique.

You were right - it wasn't that complicated

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's not. Pollution from cars has killed innocent people..

This is the irony of the whole thing. The call is for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children as it is detrimental to their health. If the logic were extended, people wouldn't be allowed to drive their car whilst carrying children.

Again also 2nd hand effects are not limited to just those mentioned other things have detrimental 2nd hand effects but are no where near as restricted. Supremus i get it your a rabid anti smoker and to a point i can even understand though not support your stance but such blinkered viewing of smoking being the only evil is a massive part of the problem in trying to have a rational debate.

[supremus]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's not. Pollution from cars has killed innocent people.

Cars are not chocolate, coffee or tea. That would be another fallacy. I answered the question in the context of what you yourself set out earlier. Cigarettes are not even remotely in the same category as cars. Surely I don't have to explain why?

As has drink driving (something which is both illegal and has caused many more deaths that passive smoking).

And drink driving is illegal. Are you arguing in favor of legalizing drink driving now, because we're allowed to kill people with 2nd hand smoke? Your defense of smoking is completely illogical.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Supremus i get it your a rabid anti smoker and to a point i can even understand though not support your stance but such blinkered viewing of smoking being the only evil is a massive part of the problem in trying to have a rational debate.

I didn't say it was the only evil, but in its category, it's a unique problem, and it will be dealt with as such.

I'm sorry i simply can't agree it is a unique problem that merits the sort of treatment it is getting. Despite smoking supposedly being in decline for the last 25 years we are having ever higher rates of cancer. There are many things that could be causing this other then smoking but they would require time and money to properly research and analyse and while smoking is such an easy target no one is prepared to do it.

I think you are misunderstanding many of us we are not defending smoking so much as the right of an individual to choose to smoke which is totally different. We know P10 particles from exhaust fumes contribute heavily to asthma and other conditions and we need to find out exactly what other toxins our modern life is producing before we knee jerk react to one single perception.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by supremus

Cars are not chocolate, coffee or tea. That would be another fallacy. I answered the question in the context of what you yourself set out earlier. Cigarettes are not even remotely in the same category as cars. Surely I don't have to explain why?

Why? You are claiming that passive smoking kills people. I am not denying that (I haven't seen evidence it kills people, but it is dangerous). I am claiming that pollution from cars and other vehicles has killed people. Where's the difference? Both are apparently killing innocents.

And drink driving is illegal. Are you arguing in favor of legalizing drink driving now, because we're allowed to kill people with 2nd hand smoke? Your defense of smoking is completely illogical.

I am not defending drink driving (as I stated, it *has* killed a lot of people). I merely used it as an example of a reason why smoking is not a unique threat. I also didn't introduce the examples of Tea and Chocolate you appear to take objection to. My earlier post was intended to show that if they ban this, they may decide to ban other stuff they say is dangerous.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I'm sorry i simply can't agree it is a unique problem that merits the sort of treatment it is getting. Despite smoking supposedly being in decline for the last 25 years we are having ever higher rates of cancer. There are many things that could be causing this other then smoking but they would require time and money to properly research and analyse and while smoking is such an easy target no one is prepared to do it.

I think you are misunderstanding many of us we are not defending smoking so much as the right of an individual to choose to smoke which is totally different. We know P10 particles from exhaust fumes contribute heavily to asthma and other conditions and we need to find out exactly what other toxins our modern life is producing before we knee jerk react to one single perception.

The fact is that it is easier for the government to blame smoking (or anything) for our current problems than actually find and implement a solution. It does seem that the government is keen to appear to do something, but not necessarily so keen to solve any problem.

Stuart your not suggesting style over substance are you not with our government .

[supremus]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Why? You are claiming that passive smoking kills people. I am not denying that (I haven't seen evidence it kills people, but it is dangerous).

I actually didn't say it kills people, I said its effects are harmful.

I am claiming that pollution from cars and other vehicles has killed people. Where's the difference? Both are apparently killing innocents.

One of the few things Maggy J got right was that cigarettes fall in the same category as chocolate, tea and coffee. A cigarette ban would not make civilization as we know it collapse the same way a ban on cars would, and there are many, many other reasons why the comparison between cigarettes and cars is completely false, if not outright dishonest.

I am not defending drink driving (as I stated, it *has* killed a lot of people). I merely used it as an example of a reason why smoking is not a unique threat.

It's all about context, of course, and I think I made mine clear. If not, I have now.

I also didn't introduce the examples of Tea and Chocolate you appear to take objection to.

No, it was Maggy J, but it was a correct comparison, so it's not one you should distance yourself from either.

[Osem]

Blimey..... I go away for a few hours and come back to find all these posts on what I didn't think would be such a contentious subject.

On the one hand I tend to agree with those who despair at the nanny state but, on the other hand, it's clear that a large proportion of people simply aren't responsible adults and need certain of their actions to be moderated. In general, if people want to do stuff knowing/accepting the risks to themselves then so be it, but when their actions put others at risk I say let the state intervene.