Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2493567.stm


Roy Castle?

I have not seen his death certificate but he apparently never smoked in his life but was exposed to second hand smoke.

If passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of non-smokers, wouldn't we see a much higher incidence? Amongst spouses or bar staff, for instance?

[liz30]

If the authorities can implement it effectively, we could see some benefits. It can have a ripple effect... Parents would be more cautious of smoking whenever and wherever they are with kids. ^^

Originally Posted by liz30

If the authorities can implement it effectively, we could see some benefits. It can have a ripple effect... Parents would be more cautious of smoking whenever and wherever they are with kids. ^^

Even if some people had a Diseased lung placed on a slab in front of them they would blame something else, with the attitude " It is not my pleasure that is causing a lung to look like that "
Such is the strength of the addiction.
The dreaded weed really can have people by the proverbials.
Which brings me to my belief that they should ban them completely, if it means a tax rise so be it, with the state the country is in at the moment it would make little difference, we are all in debt through good ol' Allister anyway!

Originally Posted by Enuff

Smoking is a deadly drug just like heroin. It kills innocent people and it should be banned. If that means we pay more tax, then we pay more tax. Aren't we already being taxed to keep the NHS running to treat the huge number of patients with illnesses related to smoking?

Just like we are paying the NHS to treat alchol related illnesses, revenue from smokers £3billion a year, cost to treat smonking related illnesses £200million a year. Revenue from the sales of alcohol £6billion a year, cost to treat alcohol related illnesses £15billion a year. Which one uses up the most money, it's not smoking is it?

[Druchii]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Just like we are paying the NHS to treat alchol related illnesses, revenue from smokers £3billion a year, cost to treat smonking related illnesses £200million a year. Revenue from the sales of alcohol £6billion a year, cost to treat alcohol related illnesses £15billion a year. Which one uses up the most money, it's not smoking is it?

However, i can choose not to drink, and i cant passivley drink.
I can choose not to smoke, and some ignorant t#¤% can still light up next to me...

Revenue from smoking is a lot more then 3 billion a year .

Originally Posted by Nidge

Just like we are paying the NHS to treat alchol related illnesses, revenue from smokers £3billion a year, cost to treat smonking related illnesses £200million a year. Revenue from the sales of alcohol £6billion a year, cost to treat alcohol related illnesses £15billion a year. Which one uses up the most money, it's not smoking is it?

You know I'm sure we went through all these irrelevant side issues back when we did that "Smoking and the Pub" mega-thread.

The key point hasn't changed: you cannot be subjected to passive drinking. You can be subjected to passive smoking. That is why recent anti-smoking legislation of this kind is has been introduced on health & safety grounds, and that is why it is entirely reasonable to do so.

Originally Posted by Druchii

However, i can choose not to drink, and i cant passivley drink.
I can choose not to smoke, and some ignorant t#¤% can still light up next to me...

You can choose not to stay in the company of smokers though. I'm glad smoking has been banned on public transport as trains and buses are much cleaner now, and I support the ban in public places. However, I don't think the owners of private businesses like pubs should have had this ban forced on them. It is helping to destroy the pub trade.

Even if some people had a Diseased lung placed on a slab in front of them they would blame something else, with the attitude " It is not my pleasure that is causing a lung to look like that "
Such is the strength of the addiction.
The dreaded weed really can have people by the proverbials.

I agree, and I also think we'll be a much healthier nation because of the ban, but it still shouldn't be the state's business to regulate that addiction imo.

[xpod]

Revenue from smoking is a lot more then 3 billion a year .

And that`s just the tobacco
As a smoker myself still(gave up the drink a long time ago but not yet the smoking) i hate people smoking when i`m in a car with them and i wont have the kids in any car with somebody smoking.I dont usually smoke in our own cars,even if the kids are not onboard and i have murders with the missus about it,her being a smoker too.
I just hate other peoples smoke and if that`s how i feel as a smoker then i can certainly empathise with all the non-smokers & kids who have to suffer it.
I was one of the happy smokers when smoking was banned in the work place.I used to especially hate going into Restaurants & Cafes and having to suffer people smoking as i was eating,often not being able to contain my myself and just having to say something

I do plan on being a non-smoker by time i`m forty though,so the good news is it`s not too long to go......

Originally Posted by freezin

I agree, and I also think we'll be a much healthier nation because of the ban, but it still shouldn't be the state's business to regulate that addiction imo.

But that is the job of the government, to ensure we are safeguarded.
Pre the smoking ban when I went to a pub I would come home with my clothes stinking of stale smoke.
If I was to urinate on somebodys coat they would not like it would they?
I still think it a shame they dont go the full distance and ban it all together.

Yeah ban it altogether and then we can see what other lifestyle choice they will be going after because it is blind stupidity to think if they ban smoking they will stop there. I gave up the ciggies but went back on them and while i understand that everyone has the right to a smoke free place it wouldn't have been hard to reach a voluntary agreement that meant each group could have something.

Banning anything is not the answer oh yes it sounds good and even might look good short term but in the end it always backfires and causes more trouble then it's worth. If we want a smoke free nation anytime soon then education is the way to do it and not the preachy sort we have now. I do find it funny that some people on here talk about people getting along and making concesions when it comes to other nations in conflict and then when it comes to issues like this want draconian measures to ensure their own viewpoint wins out in this country quite interesting.

As to the point of it being the job of the government to interfere in lifestyle choices no it isn't and whenever they do it never works out well. I would prefer my government to look after the state side of things and get that right rather then have them tell me what i can or cannot eat, drink or smoke as that is a personal choice and while they are making vcast sums of money from those activities i find it highly hypocritical of them to criticise people for doing it.

If they really want to totally ban smoking then stop taking money from it before you do and then maybe i will believe them not going to happen anytime soon though.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

But that is the job of the government, to ensure we are safeguarded.

Not if it gets to the point of nannying it's not. Where do you think it should stop? Should alcohol be banned for example? Extreme sports?

Pre the smoking ban when I went to a pub I would come home with my clothes stinking of stale smoke.

I appreciate clothes that don't smell of cigarette smoke after a night at the pub too, but no one makes anyone go to a pub. If there had been a demand, there'd have been more smoke free pubs, and the ones that did exist prior to the ban would have been profitable enough for the idea to expand.

If I was to urinate on somebodys coat they would not like it would they? I still think it a shame they dont go the full distance and ban it all together.

Urinating on somebody's coat isn't the same thing, is it? And would you be happy to pay the extra taxes that would inevitably result in a total ban?

Originally Posted by freezin

I appreciate clothes that don't smell of cigarette smoke after a night at the pub too, but no one makes anyone go to a pub. If there had been a demand, there'd have been more smoke free pubs, and the ones that did exist prior to the ban would have been profitable enough for the idea to expand.

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.

[rogerdraig]

partly not completely on topic but

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070309

look at 148

this has the effect of putting the smoker in the position they may have to prove that smoking didn't cause an accident or impaired or affected their driving

say you couldnt last till after you had finished driving to have one may well negatively affect a defence

as to banning it completely in front of children i would say they should as a life long asthmatic i say to the smokers your coulpe of minutes can effect us for the rest of the day if not longer some times

just because it was just 2 minute to you doesnt preclude the next persons 2 minutes adding to my discomfort many times during a day

and i am not someone trying to stop smoking completely hey i am for legalising all drugs just as long as they dont use them in public or where there are kids

imho if people want to risk thier lve they should be free to do so just like mountain climbers etc

but none should force others to risk thier lives for them to do as they wish

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

...The key point hasn't changed: you cannot be subjected to passive drinking. ...

That point is a bit off-key (please excuse the pun).

The "side effect" does not have to be direct - you can be exposed to the effects of someone else drinking. Being put at risk by a drunk driver is equivalent to being put at risk from passive smoking (in my opinion).