Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

freezin, we could bat it around all day about the effects of smoking, but as I put above, cui bono?

Cuts both ways, foreverwar.

Who do I trust less? The Tobacco companies, who stand to gain custom and revenue if the negative health aspects of smoking (active and passive) are nay-sayed or put into doubt, or Government, Public Health Authorities, or researchers? Why would Governments legislate to diminish revenue (taxes from the producer and consumers)? Why would researchers (whose work is peer-reviewed) risk their reputations?

You've made it pretty obvious that you trust the official line. I trust NONE of the parties involved. The case has not been proven, but it seems very dodgy to me that the official line is that it has been. It appears the anti-smoking faction has won the propaganda war. I can't see that it is anything else in the light of the way these studies are conducted. (The tobacco companies accepted smoking is bad for health many years ago. So forget the strawman.)

Governments know they can make up the revenue from other sources - they are doing it now. And researchers are not risking their reputations, they're going with the flow.

Anyhoo, this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic - my personal view is that smoking should not be allowed in cars where children are present; whilst I hope most people would be considerate of their children's health, and any potential risks to it, there are always some who don't give a damn, or are unthinking.

It's only way off topic if we accept that passive smoking is harmful to health. I think I've made it clear that I don't until it is proven. You do, and therefore this is a valid line of debate in the issue of whether smoking should be banned in cars carrying children.

There are those who wouldn't give a damn if the case were proven, there are also those who see the passive smoking debate as a hoax.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

What would you class as " People " Stuart?

Everyone.

Surely if it is to be believed that " The children are our future " ie the ones who we may need to wipe our backsides if we get older then they are entitled to a " Choice " ?

As much so as their parents.

Ofcourse the walk would do the Kids good, so the smoking parents of those Kids can get some air into those lungs instead of Toxins?

I was thinking more about introducing some exercise into their lives. Last time I checked, obesity killed far more people than passive smoking, and cost the NHS considerably more.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

... there are always some who don't give a damn, or are unthinking.

There is probably a large proportion of "my mum smoked liked a chimney while I was growing up and it didn't harm me (cough)".

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

What people do in their own space and time?
Nobody should interfere?
I will remember that next time I crank the volume up on my rig.
I do not see anything wrong with protecting children from second hand smoke.
And lastly about taxi's, there lies the solution, put your kids in a taxi.
People shout about freedom of choice, but freedom of choice is not a one way street I am affraid.

Its wrapping children in cotton wool and removing freedom from adults.

Playing music loud enough in that it disrupts neighbours is anti social behaviour, however playing it loud enough in that it only disrupts people living with you isnt and is classed as something would be expected to resolve yourself.

As far as smoking is concerned we either make it fully illegal, ie. cigarettes can not be brought in shops etc. or we allow people to use them how they want in their own space. If they have children then so what.

I dread to think what will happen if labour get another term, we will start seeing legislation that bans any type of adulthood type stuff like banning adverts for bras, banning swearing in the street in front of a kid, if swear at children goto prison that kind of thing. This is the situation we heading towards. Children will grow up in a over protective fantasy world having state money thrown at them left right and centre, then they will hit adulthood and get the shock of their lives.

there is already stories about making UK websites having a age rating system with anything above a PG needing some sort of physical id just so people can register and use the site, we getting very silly now.

Round here I already see the affects of all this, I have had kids throwing stones at my windows and my neighbours knowing if we did anything back we would be spending the night in a cell. They know they are invincible and its getting to the stage where any adult doing any harmful to a child will be illegal.

http://www.thesmokingban.org/roy-castle.php Thats one that i found in less then a minute of looking i am sure if you want to look you can find others. Look i am not and never have said passive smoking doesn't exist or that it isn't harmful i am questioning the degree of damage that it causes as are many others not all of them smokers. This country is big enough for all groups to be happy there was no need for one group to totally lose out so one group can have it's own way. My biggest gripe here is the government involvement in personal lifestyle choices which is an area where i believe they should stay out of and get on with the normal business of government.

Rizzy, there is nothing in that link to show that Roy Castle smoked (unless I missed it).

[rogerdraig]

http://www.ashaust.org.au/SF%2703/effective.htm

[piggy]

http://www.thesmokingban.org/roy-castle.php

piggy, Rizzy provided that link, but can't find where it says he smoked.

It states "First of all there is doubt about the claims of him being a life long non smoker. He is quoted to have said he hadn't touched a cigarette since leaving school and was also allegedly partial to smoking cigars socially."

So, alleged and doubt are now proof he smoked?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by piggy

http://www.thesmokingban.org/roy-castle.php

funny they pick on someone whos already dead to make claims they are not telling the truth

that of course wouldnt have anything to do with you not being able to liable dead people in the uk would it

most medical ( not all but then there are still some wo think smoking is ok lol ) people now accept the health problems that second hand smoke causes and a would put death way down the list over the other problems it causes for those of us with chest illnesses

Let's not wander too much off topic please...

[piggy]

im a smoker myself and i accept the dangers of passive smoking, im also a roy castle fan (its a age thing) but on the balance of probabilities i can also accept roy castle smoked in his younger days, dont forget roy castle was around in the era when smoking was fashinable and before it was proven to be dangerous to health, also to waver back on topic should smoking be banned in cars imo no. are parents irresponsible who do,imo yes but being a crap parent is not against the law.

[rogerdraig]

bit hard to just talk about in car smoke as there don't seem to be many studies based on just that criteria

what i fnd funny in that article they are quite willing to accept the study on theatrical fog /smoke

which i have no argument with any particulates in a confined environment which are capable of in air suspension and are small enough to enter the lungs and settle are almost always bad for you

but then they argue that the studies that show the same for second hand smoke are some conspiracy with drug companies ( cant realy see that they benifit from people being weller ( my word i like it so i am using it )

[AndyCambs]

I see that Ontario Canada is the second province to ban smoking in cars carrying children under 15. Problem is the same as with using mobile phones and enforcing it of course.

[The_bionic_man]

Originally Posted by Graham M

I think there's already enough noxious fumes on the road and taxes on them without worrying about another one.

Nuff said