# Smoking to be banned in own car....



## bradleymarky (Nov 29, 2013)

If you are carrying passengers under 18...

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...fYDSNzRhazyefzzyPt_R7w&bvm=bv.103073922,d.d24


----------



## nichol4s (Jun 16, 2012)

Good!!!


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Surprising that a law is needed TBH !


----------



## davies20 (Feb 22, 2009)

Shaun said:


> Surprising that a law is needed TBH !


very surprising - its a basic thing called 'parenting' I thought?!


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

It should be basic common sense not to smoke in a space your sharing with babies and kids.
Why effectively force passive smoking on a child, with all the potential health risks that go with it.......you wouldn't swap a babies bottle with a Benson & Hedges king size cigarette....but that's what some people are doing by smoking in a car with their kids in it.


----------



## Kriminal (Jan 11, 2007)

Andyg_TSi;4984903[B said:


> ]It should be basic common sense not to smoke in a space your sharing with babies and kids.
> Why effectively force passive smoking on a child, with all the potential health risks that go with it[/B].......you wouldn't swap a babies bottle with a Benson & Hedges king size cigarette....but that's what some people are doing by smoking in a car with their kids in it.


Pork....ever tried educating it? Some people still think that eating fruit flavoured sweets can be used as part of their five-a-day.


----------



## Kimo (Jun 7, 2013)

Should have happened a long time ago


----------



## Dannbodge (Sep 26, 2010)

Good.
Should be banned full stop


----------



## steveo3002 (Jan 30, 2006)

hope its more successful than the mobile phone in car laws


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Should of happened a long time ago but I feel it will be like mobile phones, unless theres a police car everywhere it will still happen, all the time


----------



## Clancy (Jul 21, 2013)

This was in the news at the start of the year, thought it was already in affect Tbh 

Good riddens too, shouldn't be banned full stop. Following car drivers who are smoking and your on a bike can be very dangerous, I've been hit with *** buts but no harm done. However someone I used to work with had a *** butt fly into her open visor and caused her to crash


----------



## Bristle Hound (May 31, 2009)

It shows what the people are like in our country as we have to pass laws like this IMO

Just don't know who's going to enforce it ...


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

I agree with others that it should be common sense but at the same time I can't help but think that the government has no business in what people want to do in their own cars.


----------



## ffrs1444 (Jun 7, 2008)

People won't listen , people still text and use phones , people can't even put there lights on when there is fog or bad rain it's all commen sense try telling people doesn't work


----------



## ncd (Dec 12, 2005)

ffrs1444 said:


> People won't listen , people still text and use phones , people can't even put there lights on when there is fog or bad rain it's all commen sense try telling people doesn't work


Should be law that if you need your wipers on, you must have you headlights on. Saying that, there is always these idiots driving along in the rain with their rear fog lights on! Grrrr.....


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

well that makes sense. stop people smoking in cars. the car industry causes more pollution and dangerous gasses then any other and far, far more then a smoker,but At leased it sounds good i suppose:wall:.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

I wonder how they will see kids in the car given most new cars have blacked out windows in the rear... 

I also wonder why the govt. only think smoking for kids is bad in cars - surely during the course of the day kids don't spend that long in a car. It's ok for you not to smoke in your short journey to school in the morning and picking them up in the afternoon but it's fine to smoke in the house for hours once they come home... Sorry feeling a little cynical today!

I understand the reasoning for the law but it's ill thought out when the are 1000000s of diesel cars, lorries, busses, trains etc. All belching out black smoke which cause more harm than passive smoking. I guess it's an easy law to pass for popularity reasons though.


----------



## andystevens (Dec 12, 2011)

I can't see the Police even bothering with this to be fair. It will be too difficult to see I would have thought & given how many drivers have phones glued to their heads whilst blatantly on show while driving & not getting caught I think it will just be a sleeping law.


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

How easy to enforce this is I don't know, as easy as catching every person driving using their phone I guess.

At least it's been put into effect though so IF you are caught something can be done.

It's at least now not just cruel to make a kid suffer your cigarette smoke it's against the law so can't be a bad thing.

That said I personally think having a little stick on fire in your hand whilst controlling a tonne+ of metal and plastic is not a good idea in general!


----------



## svended (Oct 7, 2011)

People shouldn't smoke with children in the car but on one hand it's their car and their child and the state shouldn't be dictation what people do with their children but as I say on the other hand parents shouldn't even need to be told this, nevermind making it into law. 
Who's going to police this, police or local authorities. The police have a crap ton of stuff to do these days and write it into several crap tons of paperwork. Now they'll have to estimate whether a person in passenger seat is 18 or under and then pull the person over and get a load of abuse from the driver saying "he's my child, who the hell do you think you are dictating where and when I smoke, I already can't smoke at the pub, etc..." 
If you want the police to do more work, give them more colleagues to do their job the way they want to do it and the way it should be done.


----------



## phillipnoke (Apr 1, 2011)

Should ban it FUUL STOP !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

phillipnoke said:


> Should ban it FUUL STOP !!!!!!!!!!


I wonder where the govt. would find the £12BILLION lost revenues it makes from smoking? the cost of smoking to the NHS is approx. £2BILLION - that's a tidy profit for the govt. there.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

How will they police it? fit cameras to all new cars by law, then big brother can watch your every move. simples


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Sensible law, should have been done some time ago. Even though we will not have snipers on every rooftop looking for smokers with kids, the mere fact that's now illegal and the inevitable media coverage that will follow should stop a good percentage of people doing it.

I didn't like the hate the police got when they said there were not specifically for or against the law. Absolutely right, from a policing perspective there is little change in risk. And it's definitely not their domain to start advising on health and medical issues!



Bristle Hound said:


> It shows what the people are like in our country as we have to pass laws like this IMO
> 
> Just don't know who's going to enforce it ...


Well they could recruit 10,000 new, dedicated smoking enforcement officers.........or maybe the existing police force could enforce it like every other law :tumbleweed:


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Smoking whilst driving should be banned full stop. How you can drive safely with something that is red hot and cause a fire if dropped is beyond me.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

I think its sad that a law like this is needed and it is a good idea but with the huge reduction in front line Policing its all but unenforceable!


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

I thought **** were banned in commercial vehicles too...still see people puffing in them.

Impossible to enforce.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

DJ X-Ray said:


> I thought **** were banned in commercial vehicles too...still see people puffing in them.
> 
> Impossible to enforce.


True it was years ago. We're having mains gas in the village at the moment and every day you watch all the guys smoking in the vans on their breaks. Ok if all are smoking but would hate it if I was a non smoker and having to put up with it.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Darlofan said:


> True it was years ago. We're having mains gas in the village at the moment and every day you watch all the guys smoking in the vans on their breaks. Ok if all are smoking but would hate it if I was a non smoker and having to put up with it.


Exactly. I see it quite regularly. Supermarket vans, taxis, coaches. 
I know it isn't the crime of the century, but I'd guess 9/10 old bill wouldn't do anything anyway.

Gas and **** ooh! Dodgy. Sounds like our plumbers


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

they don't enforce the smoking ban in commercial vehicles now, let alone this one, if they banned smoking in vehicles full stop, then its easy to enforce if needed, but round our way people ride around in cars with no front number plate attached to the front (they stick it in the windscreen), and tampered with personal numberplates......


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2015)

Yeah yeah! All you wonderful non smokers preaching to the rest.
Ever wondered why the only place that isn't being made non smoking is your own home?...and yet according to govt experts, after they did their own tests, the place where passive smoking is most dangerous?....yes, *your own home*. 
Shows what a load of old  these campaigns are! 
Non smokers are just stopping others simply because *they* don't like it. Good job we don't start on football next, isn't it. Your opinion on blanket bans would soon change!


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

CleanMe said:


> Yeah yeah! All you wonderful non smokers preaching to the rest.
> Ever wondered why the only place that isn't being made non smoking is your own home?...and yet according to govt experts, after they did their own tests, the place where passive smoking is most dangerous?....yes, *your own home*.
> Shows what a load of old  these campaigns are!
> Non smokers are just stopping others simply because *they* don't like it. Good job we don't start on football next, isn't it. Your opinion on blanket bans would soon change!


What a load of rubbish, it's not being stopped because non smokers don't like it, it's being stopped in an attempt to reduce the amount of smoke children are exposed to in enclosed spaces.

Perhaps you could re read that and realise it's a bit silly.


----------



## B8sy86 (Jan 10, 2015)

Esure did some research on this topic. When 1000 people were asked it turned out that 45 percent of smokers admitted to either having an accident or near miss because of the habit. 

So as someone who did smoke and now doesn't, you are right i don't like it, but it's because I don't like the thought of someone risking my life or my families and friends life because they weren't in full control of the car they are driving. 

I don't mean to offend or anger anyone but you can't seriously say you have 100% the same control over your car or van when you have a *** in your hand. Rant over, apologies for upsetting anyone.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

B8sy86 said:


> I don't mean to offend or anger anyone but you can't seriously say you have 100% the same control over your car or van when you have a *** in your hand. Rant over, apologies for upsetting anyone.


Surely that argument would carry through to doing anything with your hands whilst driving e.g. changing the radio, putting the volume up or down, eating, scratching your nose etc. Just because it's a *** doesn't make it more dangerous than other activities.

P.s. Although I've said several pieces about the ban being a farce I'm a non smoker and haven't had a single *** in my life. For me though this is the thin end of the wedge.


----------



## B8sy86 (Jan 10, 2015)

m4rkymark said:


> Surely that argument would carry through to doing anything with your hands whilst driving e.g. changing the radio, putting the volume up or down, eating, scratching your nose etc. Just because it's a *** doesn't make it more dangerous than other activities.
> 
> P.s. Although I've said several pieces about the ban being a farce I'm a non smoker and haven't had a single *** in my life. For me thigh this is the thin end of the wedge.


Fair comment but the longer you do each thing the higher the risk would be. Changing the volume for 5 ish seconds would be dangerous if it took 4 to 5 mins. Same for scratching nose, etc. So if smoking only involved lighting the *** then I doubt the ban would have been created. Also I thought eating was now illegal?

Interesting debate this one...


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Just to add, i smoke, but not indoors or with the kids in the motor(never have and never would). Nor do i with one of my non-smoking workmates who i pick up in the mornings.

The same goes for anybody that dosen't, that comes in my car.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

B8sy86 said:


> Fair comment but the longer you do each thing the higher the risk would be. Changing the volume for 5 ish seconds would be dangerous if it took 4 to 5 mins. Same for scratching nose, etc. So if smoking only involved lighting the *** then I doubt the ban would have been created. Also I thought eating was now illegal?
> 
> Interesting debate this one...


You could argue though that most of the other things like changing the radio may take your eye away from the road, to see what channel your on Or what channel your looking for, if you swap a cd over again eyes off the road, look at your sat nav - eyes off the road and so on... What's more dangerous - hand off the wheel or eyes off the road? Cars are full of distractions.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

svended said:


> People shouldn't smoke with children in the car but on one hand it's their car and their child and the state shouldn't be *dictation* what people do with their children but as I say on the other hand parents shouldn't even need to be told this, nevermind making it into law.
> Who's going to police this, police or local authorities. The police have a crap ton of stuff to do these days and write it into several crap tons of paperwork. Now they'll have to estimate whether a person in passenger seat is 18 or under and then pull the person over and get a load of abuse from the driver saying "he's my child, who the hell do you think you are dictating where and when I smoke, I already can't smoke at the pub, etc..."
> If you want the police to do more work, give them more colleagues to do their job the way they want to do it and the way it should be done.


thats spot on mate, and the problem.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

phillipnoke said:


> Should ban it FUUL STOP !!!!!!!!!!


you may change your mind when you tax goes up to cover the huge loss that will cause


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Darlofan said:


> Smoking whilst driving should be banned full stop. How you can drive safely with something that is red hot and cause a fire if dropped is beyond me.


how can you drive when kids are playing up in the back, best ban kids as well


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

phillipnoke said:


> Should ban it FUUL STOP !!!!!!!!!!


Why? What would that achieve?


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

I dont think this ban is anything to do with the potential distraction of smoking in the car.....In the same terms as talking on a mobile phone, or changing a CD/radio station etc

The ban is about not subjecting minors to the hazards of cigarette smoke. You can still legally smoke in your own vehicle providing there isn't anyone under 18 with you.

We know smoking is bad for you, as a grown adult you have the choice as to whether you smoke or not, knowing full well the potential health hazards.

Women are advised not to smoke while pregnant due to the potential harm nicotine intake can have on the development of their child.
Why stop smoking while pregnant, only to have someone effectively blow smoke in their kids face while in the car.....or any other indoor space for that matter. Babies, little kids etc growing up are reliant on adults being responsible enough to realise it's probably harmful to the child growing up by smoking in front of them.......The kids don't know the potential harm of smoking, so we shouldn't be subjecting kids to nicotine smoke.

It's a shame we've had to introduce this law & it's going to be a nightmare to police, but it's a sign of the times that we have to legislate for what should be common sense IMHO


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

B8sy86 said:


> Esure did some research on this topic. When 1000 people were asked it turned out that 45 percent of smokers admitted to either having an accident or near miss because of the habit.
> 
> So as someone who did smoke and now doesn't, you are right i don't like it, *but it's because I don't like the thought of someone risking my life or my families and friends life because they weren't in full control of the car they are driving*.
> 
> I don't mean to offend or anger anyone but you can't seriously say you have 100% the same control over your car or van when you have a *** in your hand. Rant over, apologies for upsetting anyone.


so you never smoked behind the wheel i take it, or is it different now because you,ve stopped


----------



## B8sy86 (Jan 10, 2015)

Never once smoked behind the wheel for 2 reasons, 1 I thought it was dangerous and 2 rightly or wrongly I thought it De valued a car if people could tell it was a smokers car.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

B8sy86 said:


> Never once smoked behind the wheel for 2 reasons, 1 I thought it was dangerous and 2 rightly or wrongly I thought it De valued a car if people could tell it was a smokers car.


and 3 you dont smoke :lol::lol:


----------



## chr15rey (Jun 17, 2008)

Andyg_TSi said:


> I dont think this ban is anything to do with the potential distraction of smoking in the car.....In the same terms as talking on a mobile phone, or changing a CD/radio station etc
> 
> The ban is about not subjecting minors to the hazards of cigarette smoke. You can still legally smoke in your own vehicle providing there isn't anyone under 18 with you.
> 
> ...


Yet you can still smoke legally if your pregnant, just don't drive back from the hospital smoking !!!:wall::wall:

My kids are never around smoke, most people I know are not stupid enough to smoke around kids in confined spaces.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2015)

uruk hai said:


> What a load of rubbish, it's not being stopped because non smokers don't like it, it's being stopped in an attempt to reduce the amount of smoke children are exposed to in enclosed spaces.
> 
> Perhaps you could re read that and realise it's a bit silly.


The only thing that is a bit silly is you.

I was referring to the whole fascist anti smoking nonsense. The anti smoking lobby has cottoned on to using children as a focal point simply because it is emotive..and you prove the point.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2015)

..and I must say to all those who state that "it is common sense" to not smoke around children or indoors:
1) It is common sense to not stuff your face with McDonalds and get obese..but millions are doing it.
2) It is common sense to not get pi**ed out of your head and do stupid things..but millions are doing it.
3) It is common sense to not have unprotected sex..but millions are doing it.
4) It is common sense to not use drugs..but millions are doing it.
5) It is common sense to not drive recklessly or break the speed limit..but millions are doing it (and I wonder how many of us on this forum do it).

So what's the difference between one "common sense" and another?
Is it just that *you* don't like it?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

CleanMe said:


> ..and I must say to all those who state that "it is common sense" to not smoke around children or indoors:
> 1) It is common sense to not stuff your face with McDonalds and get obese..but millions are doing it.
> 2) It is common sense to not get pi**ed out of your head and do stupid things..but millions are doing it.
> 3) It is common sense to not have unprotected sex..but millions are doing it.
> ...


Hang on a minute, common sense not to break the speed limit or unprotected sex? Sooo basically, nobody can reproduce anymore aaand nobody can ever overtake safely?


----------



## Horatio (Oct 30, 2011)

its not just about smoking, it can be ammended at anytime and changed to include but not limited too [type here]....ITS THE LAW :thumb:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Horatio said:


> its not just about smoking, it can be ammended at anytime and changed to include but not limited to [Fun with iain on the hot red leather seats]....ITS THE LAW :thumb:


Ok then


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2015)

RisingPower said:


> Hang on a minute, common sense not to break the speed limit or unprotected sex? Sooo basically, nobody can reproduce anymore aaand nobody can ever overtake safely?


That's exactly my point. To use the "common sense" approach is ridiculous.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

CleanMe said:


> Yeah yeah! All you wonderful non smokers preaching to the rest.
> Ever wondered why the only place that isn't being made non smoking is your own home?...and yet according to govt experts, after they did their own tests, the place where passive smoking is most dangerous?....yes, *your own home*.
> Shows what a load of old  these campaigns are!
> Non smokers are just stopping others simply because *they* don't like it. Good job we don't start on football next, isn't it. Your opinion on blanket bans would soon change!





uruk hai said:


> What a load of rubbish, it's not being stopped because non smokers don't like it, it's being stopped in an attempt to reduce the amount of smoke children are exposed to in enclosed spaces.
> 
> Perhaps you could re read that and realise it's a bit silly.





CleanMe said:


> The only thing that is a bit silly is you.
> 
> I was referring to the whole fascist anti smoking nonsense. The anti smoking lobby has cottoned on to using children as a focal point simply because it is emotive..and you prove the point.


Or perhaps the anti smoking lobby, like the majority of people accept that childrens health is important and I believe therefore emotive, is that wrong ?

As I said in my first post I think it's very sad that this law ever needed to be conceived of but here we are, it's sad that some people must be dictated to but it has happened before and will almost certainly happen again. But just because someone agrees with this messure it doesn't mean they back everything that could be considered intrusive or "Nanny state", it just so happens that some people agree with this being brought into law, myself included.

Probably me but I don't understand your reaction to something that is ultimately about the health of children, I don't always agree that the ends justifies the means but I think in this case it probably does !


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

Quite logical the ban to be honest.
I have to try and explain to my daughter how people used to smoke at work or there were rows on planes where you could smoke and other rows you couldn't (as if smoke cares).
She can't believe it was ever allowed.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

stuartr said:


> Quite logical the ban to be honest.
> I have to try and explain to my daughter how people used to smoke at work or there were rows on planes where you could smoke and other rows you couldn't (as if smoke cares).
> She can't believe it was ever allowed.


Why can't she believe it was ever allowed?


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

RisingPower said:


> Why can't she believe it was ever allowed?


Because secondary smoking is bad for anyone exposed and at work or on a plane you didn't have much choice to avoid it.
Also makes anyone near stink of smoke too.

I always remember when they first introduced smoking rooms at work and the smokers complaining about the state of the room, and then when it was banned inside the building I was walking past someone smoking at the entrance complaining about how the cold would kill them :lol:


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> Hang on a minute, common sense not to break the speed limit or unprotected sex? Sooo basically, nobody can reproduce anymore aaand nobody can ever overtake safely?


There is no, and never has been dispensation for speeding during an overtake. If it's impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea :devil:



CleanMe said:


> ..and I must say to all those who state that "it is common sense" to not smoke around children or indoors:
> 1) It is common sense to not stuff your face with McDonalds and get obese..but millions are doing it.
> 2) It is common sense to not get pi**ed out of your head and do stupid things..but millions are doing it.
> 3) It is common sense to not have unprotected sex..but millions are doing it.
> ...


You need to look at cause and effect. Smoking in a car with a minor directly causes them to inhale pretty nasty smoke 100% of the times you light up with them in the car. Smoke that's proven to directly cause cancer and shorten lives.

If adults choose to smoke, that great. They're doing it to their self, that's not the basis of this law.

People who speed, do drugs, get drunk, have unprotected sex etc are doing this to their selves and not negatively affecting minors every time they so such activities.

In any case laws cover these activities, WHEN THEY NEGATIVELY EFFECT OTHERS, drunk and disorderly? Supply of drugs? Speeding/DWDCA/DD? Wilfully infecting someone with an STD?

Subjecting a minor to smoke is the same, and that's what this law covers :thumb:

p.s. i'm not anti-smoking, people should be free to make their own choices WRT things that only effect their selves.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Bero said:


> There is no, and never has been dispensation for speeding during an overtake. If it's impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea :devil:


Ok, fair enough


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

stuartr said:


> Because secondary smoking is bad for anyone exposed and at work or on a plane you didn't have much choice to avoid it.
> Also makes anyone near stink of smoke too.
> 
> I always remember when they first introduced smoking rooms at work and the smokers complaining about the state of the room, and then when it was banned inside the building I was walking past someone smoking at the entrance complaining about how the cold would kill them :lol:


They knew this since cigarettes existed?


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

RisingPower said:


> They knew this since cigarettes existed?


Take a look at wikipedia on second hand smoking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

Bero said:


> You need to look at cause and effect. Smoking in a car with a minor directly causes them to inhale pretty nasty smoke 100% of the times you light up with them in the car. Smoke that's proven to directly cause cancer and shorten lives.
> 
> If adults choose to smoke, that great. They're doing it to their self, that's not the basis of this law.


going slightly off topic and to follow on your argument adults feed children sugar and fat and they are both known to cause many diseases including cancer, diabetes etc. - children don't have a choice in what they eat. when will the govt regulate what adults feed their kids?

my bigger issue is about govt. interfering in daily life - people know there are things that are bad for you - there always will be however you should have a free choice to live how you want to - if you want to do something bad then that should be up to you - you could argue that kids don't get a choice but I think most people wouldn't do anything to harm their kids.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

m4rkymark said:


> going slightly off topic and to follow on your argument adults feed children sugar and fat and they are both known to cause many diseases including cancer, diabetes etc. - children don't have a choice in what they eat. when will the govt regulate what adults feed their kids?
> 
> my bigger issue is about govt. interfering in daily life - people know there are things that are bad for you - there always will be however you should have a free choice to live how you want to - if you want to do something bad then that should be up to you - you could argue that kids don't get a choice but I think *most people* wouldn't do anything to harm their kids.


The link between smoking (inc passive) and cancer / death is very clear. The link between sugar and diabetes and cancer is _perhaps_ less clear. Complicated by the fact we've always had sugar in our diets...it's the quantity or availability that's the problem.

You could probably harm your child by feeding them solely on lettuce constantly.....by feeding them honey once (botulism risk), or with too much salt....but it's a much greyer area, we NEED many of these things in our diets (kids definitely don't need passive smoke)....and even if you wanted to, how would you start to legislate against it?

On the bold part you are of course right, most people don't supply drugs ether, but we still have laws against it. This law tried to capture the few % that carelessly do harm their kids.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

stuartr said:


> Take a look at wikipedia on second hand smoking.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking


Soo, they didn't know this was an issue since cigarettes existed and there were only really lawsuits in the 90's/00's?

Correct me if i'm wrong but there have been many flights before then.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2015)

uruk hai said:


> Or perhaps the anti smoking lobby, like the majority of people accept that childrens health is important and I believe therefore emotive, is that wrong ?
> 
> As I said in my first post I think it's very sad that this law ever needed to be conceived of but here we are, it's sad that some people must be dictated to but it has happened before and will almost certainly happen again. But just because someone agrees with this messure it doesn't mean they back everything that could be considered intrusive or "Nanny state", it just so happens that some people agree with this being brought into law, myself included.
> 
> Probably me but I don't understand your reaction to something that is ultimately about the health of children, I don't always agree that the ends justifies the means but I think in this case it probably does !


Which once again, from your own words, shows that you're backing this anti smoking move because you don't like it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2015)

Bero said:


> The link between smoking (inc passive) and cancer / death is very clear.


Actually, it is not!

A few years back, on a Radio 2 show, the guests were the then Minister of Health and the eminent scientist who was asked by the govt to conduct tests into smoking related problems.
On that show, the scientist related how he discovered a few of his test subjects (not all) developed a very slight rash on their skin.
Just as a cold sore is part of the Herpes family of viruses, so the rash was part of the cancer family.

A cold sore doesn't mean you have Herpes. The rash from smoking didn't mean you had cancer either. But the anti smoking lobby shouted with glee that there was a very, very tenuous link and used the press to tell the world that smoking causes cancer. The rest is history. People believe because they *want* to believe!

More recently, tests were done to determine the effects of passive smoking on children. The results were that in the work place, restaurants, planes, etc.
the levels of passive smoking were so low *that they were considered negligible*. The tests showed only one area of *mild* concern and that was in the home.

Odd then that smoking is being banned everywhere but the home.

My point to all this is to say that smoking kills, that's for sure, but it kills *the smoker. *

The passive smoking, the children, the babies, the dirty smoker stories and everything else is put out there by the anti smoking lobby, and now the medical world who want to save money.

Believe what you want but know that once these people have finished with smokers, they will start on something else. Fatties? drinkers? who knows!


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

CleanMe said:


> Actually, it is not!
> 
> A few years back, on a Radio 2 show, the guests were the then Minister of Health and the eminent scientist who was asked by the govt to conduct tests into smoking related problems.
> On that show, the scientist related how he discovered a few of his test subjects (not all) developed a very slight rash on their skin.
> ...


Uh actually it is, especially in line with all the tests mentioned in the wiki article stuartr posted.

It just wasn't the case for sometime that there had been any studies to prove it.

I very much doubt they'd wish to get rid of smoking altogether, far too big a revenue source, just around others who have the right not to inhale smoke from other people


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bero said:


> There is no, and never has been dispensation for speeding during an overtake. If it's impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea :devil:
> 
> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: really, you've never gone over the speed limit. you will be the only one. chill out a bit yes speeding in some places is a no no, in others perfectly fine. try it you might like it :lol:


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

CleanMe said:


> Which once again, from your own words, shows that you're backing this anti smoking move because you don't like it.


Obviously that's the only way you see things but I prefer to look it as more of "caring about the health of children move". If someone wants to smoke themselves to death that's up to them but don't jepordise the health of those around you and if someone needs to be told not to smoke in an enclosed space around minors then that really speaks volumes for them.

I think we're about as far apart as it's possible to be on a subject because I simply don't understand your way of thinking and obviously the reverse is true.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> Because secondary smoking is bad for anyone exposed and at work or on a plane you didn't have much choice to avoid it.
> Also makes anyone near stink of smoke too.
> 
> I always remember when they first introduced smoking rooms at work and the smokers complaining about the state of the room, and then when it was banned inside the building I was walking past someone smoking at the entrance complaining about how the cold would kill them :lol:


you forgot some of the earlier history, where people were encouraged to smoke by government, All the big movie stars smoked and was seen smoking in the films, even those who didnt smoke. As we know now its wrong, but boy did it make the gov a fortune in taxes.
You may find it funny with smokers standing outside, but we have had rules like that before. When blacks wasn't allowed in cafes/shops and even toilets. It was wrong then and is now..


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> Because secondary smoking is bad for anyone exposed and at work or on a plane you didn't have much choice to avoid it.
> Also makes anyone near stink of smoke too.
> 
> Car fumes are bad for peoples health as well, so i take it you dont drive where children or others are. Makes your cloths smell awful as well


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

cheekymonkey said:


> You may find it funny with smokers standing outside, but we have had rules like that before. When blacks wasn't allowed in cafes/shops and even toilets. It was wrong then and is now..


Seriously ? You're comparing smoking bans to shocking racism ?

I find it fascinating to see the examples and comparisons that are made in discussions like this, it really is eye opening !


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bero said:


> You need to look at cause and effect. Smoking in a car with a minor directly causes them to inhale pretty nasty smoke 100% of the times you light up with them in the car. Smoke that's proven to directly cause cancer and shorten lives.
> 
> If adults choose to smoke, that great. They're doing it to their self, that's not the basis of this law.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> Seriously ? You're comparing smoking bans to shocking racism ?
> 
> I find it fascinating to see the examples and comparisons that are made in discussions like this, it really is eye opening !


 human rights mate. these smokers are people and as such should be treated like one.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

m4rkymark said:


> *going slightly off topic and to follow on your argument adults feed children sugar and fat and they are both known to cause many diseases including cancer, diabetes etc*. - children don't have a choice in what they eat. when will the govt regulate what adults feed their kids?
> 
> my bigger issue is about govt. interfering in daily life - people know there are things that are bad for you - there always will be however you should have a free choice to live how you want to - if you want to do something bad then that should be up to you - you could argue that kids don't get a choice but I think most people wouldn't do anything to harm their kids.


spot on mate. some wont see it until its made a law


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> human rights mate. these smokers are people and as such should be treated like one.


What human rights are they being deprived of?


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

cheekymonkey said:


> human rights mate. these smokers are people and as such should be treated like one.


If we're talking rights, what about the "rights" of others not to breath in the produce of smoking ?


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bero said:


> The link between smoking (inc passive) and cancer / death is very clear. *The link between sugar and diabetes* and cancer is _perhaps_ less clear. Complicated by the fact we've always had sugar in our diets...it's the quantity or availability that's the problem.
> 
> You could probably harm your child by feeding them solely on lettuce constantly.....by feeding them honey once (botulism risk), or with too much salt....but it's a much greyer area, we NEED many of these things in our diets (kids definitely don't need passive smoke)....and even if you wanted to, how would you start to legislate against it?
> 
> On the bold part you are of course right, most people don't supply drugs ether, but we still have laws against it. This law tried to capture the few % that carelessly do harm their kids.


the link between sugar and diabetes was proven many many years ago:thumb: diabetes is growing in this country way faster than anywhere else in europe. Diabetes is a drain on the nhs like cancer, diabetes is a killer like cancer and kids die from it all the time. yet you dont seem to take it serious. I would say it is just as important as a parent to protect children from diabetes as it is cancer.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> If we're talking rights, what about the "rights" of others not to breath in the produce of smoking ?


what about the rights of those who dont want to breath in the toxic fumes caused from your car


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> What human rights are they being deprived of?


they have the right to be treated the same as anyone else, they have the right to be treated like a human. Maybe there could be a better arrangement so they dont have to go outside. Maybe the law makers could have a look at this while there in there smoking room


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

cheekymonkey said:


> what about the rights of those who dont want to breath in the toxic fumes caused from your car


They have every right and as soon as I can afford a zero emissions car I'll have one but for the moment the cost for me is prohibitive. But until then and while I "need" a car it will polute unlike those who "want" to smoke but can so easily do it without jepordising the health of others.

We could go round in circles until the end of time but the fact is there are smoking bans in place and I personally have no problem with them and I simply don't buy the "now smoking but what next" argument.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> Obviously that's the only way you see things but I prefer to look it as more of "caring about the health of children move". If someone wants to smoke themselves to death that's up to them but don't jepordise the health of those around you and if someone needs to be told not to smoke in an enclosed space around minors then that really speaks volumes for them.
> 
> I think we're about as far apart as it's possible to be on a subject because I simply don't understand your way of thinking and obviously the reverse is true.


this is exactly my point, you see it as caring about the health of children. There is far more to caring for the health of children than smoking, childrens health are jepodised every time you drive, everytime they go in a car, but this is overlooked as it interfere with there own life, so could be seen as bad as a smoking. 
People need to look at them self before judging others.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

cheekymonkey said:


> this is exactly my point, you see it as caring about the health of children. There is far more to caring for the health of children than smoking, childrens health are jepodised every time you drive, everytime they go in a car, but this is overlooked as it interfere with there own life, so could be seen as bad as a smoking.
> People need to look at them self before judging others.


I'm completely aware that there is far more to caring for children's health than smoking bans, the ban is one small part and it is the ban being discussed here.

As I said in my previous post we could go round in circles forever and we simply won't agree or convince others to see our perspective or reasons for feeling the way we do.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> They have every right and as soon as I can afford a zero emissions car I'll have one but for the moment the cost for me is prohibitive. But until then and while I "need" a car it will polute unlike those who "want" to smoke but can so easily do it without jepordising the health of others.
> 
> We could go round in circles until the end of time but the fact is there are smoking bans in place and I personally have no problem with them and I simply don't buy the "now smoking but what next" argument.


As i said its ok judging others and you will do something when it suits you, yet you expect others to do it now whether or not it suits them.
Dont take what i have said personal as its not. What it is though is it is easy for people to point the finger, yet make excuses about what they do.
Would just like to point out i'm a none smoker


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> I'm completely aware that there is far more to caring for children's health than smoking bans, the ban is one small part and it is the ban being discussed here.
> 
> As I said in my previous post we could go round in circles forever and we simply won't agree or convince others to see our perspective or reasons for feeling the way we do.


But i do agree children need caring for but if it was all to do with childrens health then i think you will agree a total ban would be better. that would cause major problems which seem more important than childrens health


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> they have the right to be treated the same as anyone else, they have the right to be treated like a human. Maybe there could be a better arrangement so they dont have to go outside. Maybe the law makers could have a look at this while there in there smoking room


I don't understand how they're not being treated like a human? Are you still referring to those who smoke in front of kids who are quite possibly incapable of avoiding / don't understand the hazards of smoke?

Or are you referring to those who choose to smoke in front of others who just don't want to inhale the smoke of others?


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> I don't understand how they're not being treated like a human? Are you still referring to those who smoke in front of kids who are quite possibly incapable of avoiding / don't understand the hazards of smoke?
> 
> Or are you referring to those who choose to smoke in front of others who just don't want to inhale the smoke of others?


no....


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

Bero said:


> The link between smoking (inc passive) and cancer / death is very clear. The link between sugar and diabetes and cancer is _perhaps_ less clear. Complicated by the fact we've always had sugar in our diets...it's the quantity or availability that's the problem.


Actually its not clear at all - many doctors say getting cancer is a bit of a lottery - there are many things that trigger cancer. Of all the friends of mine who have had lung cancer not one of them smoked nor has anyone in their families - all 3 passed away after a short time - I have been told how the docs think their cancer started an none of them had cancer related to smoking. however of the people I know who smoke heavily not one of them have had a days illness never mind cancer.

WHO did a study that showed second hand smoked had no greater effect on their subjects. No study has shown children are at any greater risk of second hand smoke in relation to cancer. One study could not induce cancer in test subjects even the they were exposed to high levels of cigarette smoke for a prolonged period of time.

Sorry I'm a bit cynical about the things we are told to believe by govt. (and I don't mean the one we have right now or the one in our country). I also don't believe what the health industry tell us - pharma companies are some of the richest companies in the world and have a vested interest, The industry around cancer is worth trillions and has a vested interest - they need to justify their payday somehow...


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2015)

Uruk hai, can you not see from this very thread that there is a huge polarization of views here. Many people having many view points. That is the message that you are not understanding. It isn't really about smoking or kids or breathing car fumes or whatever...it is about the fundamental right of people to have a view and to live their lives according to that view. The govt have taken away that liberty from *one* group of people. 
Any other sector of the population - gays, ethnics, fatties, travellers, would be shouting "Discrimination!" if they were banned from doing something which applied solely to their group. But smokers? no, they are fair game because anti smoking propoganda has been successful.
Live your life the way you want to and let others do the same (within the law, of course)  .


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2015)

m4rkymark said:


> Actually its not clear at all - many doctors say getting cancer is a bit of a lottery - there are many things that trigger cancer. Of all the friends of mine who have had lung cancer not one of them smoked nor has anyone in their families - all 3 passed away after a short time - I have been told how the docs think their cancer started an none of them had cancer related to smoking. however of the people I know who smoke heavily not one of them have had a days illness never mind cancer.
> 
> WHO did a study that showed second hand smoked had no greater effect on their subjects. No study has shown children are at any greater risk of second hand smoke in relation to cancer. One study could not induce cancer in test subjects even the they were exposed to high levels of cigarette smoke for a prolonged period of time.
> 
> Sorry I'm a bit cynical about the things we are told to believe by govt. (and I don't mean the one we have right now or the one in our country). I also don't believe what the health industry tell us - pharma companies are some of the richest companies in the world and have a vested interest, The industry around cancer is worth trillions and has a vested interest - they need to justify their payday somehow...


Bang on the money, mate. Bang on the money! Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

CleanMe said:


> Uruk hai, can you not see from this very thread that there is a huge polarization of views here. Many people having many view points. That is the message that you are not understanding. It isn't really about smoking or kids or breathing car fumes or whatever...it is about the fundamental right of people to have a view and to live their lives according to that view. The govt have taken away that liberty from *one* group of people.
> Any other sector of the population - gays, ethnics, fatties, travellers, would be shouting "Discrimination!" if they were banned from doing something which applied solely to their group. But smokers? no, they are fair game because anti smoking propoganda has been successful.
> Live your life the way you want to and let others do the same (within the law, of course)  .


Your absolutely right - we are meant to live in a country that we are free to do what we want - where's the reality is completely different. My kids will grow up not knowing what it means to be free and to live how you want to live.


----------



## zippo (Mar 26, 2008)

I don't understand the need for a law that should be common sense. I didn't smoke anywhere near my kids . Then I was told that isn't good enough because the smoke and the bad bits of it stick to your clothing so your child inhales secondary smoke either way.
Can normal plod give the tickets out or does it have to be traffic police .I've either missed it or it's not been mentioned 
I know the Aussies have been giving tickets out for ages for this but they made it law based on a study done in 1984 .I would imagine a lot's changed since then i.e . how things can be proven or discredited, but the Aussie Government won't order a new study incase it goes against them thus stopping a nice little earner for traffic cops or I should say whichever state they represent 
Daz
By the way their was never any proof put forward for what is in essence smoke inhalation via clothes . The lord of whatever who was commissioned to do the government paper simply said it seemed common sense


----------



## zippo (Mar 26, 2008)

cheekymonkey said:


> But i do agree children need caring for but if it was all to do with childrens health then i think you will agree a total ban would be better. that would cause major problems which seem more important than childrens health


I hope none of the kids parents drive VW's. Failing the emissions test is worse than smoking 60 a day. Are VW going to be charged with trying to kill us and our kids or just telling lies for profit like the government does most days . Information supplied via a top notch clever bugger on a local radio show @3 am. Which speaks volumes radio show producer. He/She grabs the first academic they see put them on air at 3 in the morning who'll say what he's told for a few quid 
Daz


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

cheekymonkey said:


> stuartr said:
> 
> 
> > Car fumes are bad for peoples health as well, so i take it you dont drive where children or others are. Makes your cloths smell awful as well
> ...


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

CleanMe said:


> Uruk hai, can you not see from this very thread that there is a huge polarization of views here. Many people having many view points. That is the message that you are not understanding. It isn't really about smoking or kids or breathing car fumes or whatever...it is about the fundamental right of people to have a view and to live their lives according to that view. The govt have taken away that liberty from *one* group of people.
> Any other sector of the population - gays, ethnics, fatties, travellers, would be shouting "Discrimination!" if they were banned from doing something which applied solely to their group. But smokers? no, they are fair game because anti smoking propoganda has been successful.
> Live your life the way you want to and let others do the same (within the law, of course)  .


Obviously I'm aware that there is polarisation of views which is why I made the comment regarding not seeing each others side of the debate. While it may for some be about more than the ban on smoking in cars and I see that now its not for me, for me it is about the topic of the thread and as I said I have genuinely found some of the reactions and comments made fascinating and eye opening. I'm not out to stoke the fire and argue for the sake of it and I am trying to understand the views of others but after contributing and reading this thread I don't think I'm much closer and I'm unable to accept some of the arguments against the ban.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

cheekymonkey said:


> As i said its ok judging others and you will do something when it suits you, yet you expect others to do it now whether or not it suits them.


As I said I will do it when I can and not when it suites me, if a zero emission car was viable for me now I would have one but as I cant even afford to change what I have it'll have to wait. No convenient excuses, that really is the case.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2015)

uruk hai said:


> As I said I will do it when I can and not when it suites me, *if a zero emission car was viable for me now I would have one* but as I cant even afford to change what I have it'll have to wait. No convenient excuses, that really is the case.


If you hurry, you can pick up one of those low emission VW cars. :lol:

Seriously though, it's been great debating with you. I defend the right of every person to have a view. I also applaud you for standing by it.

Regards,
Mark
Clean Me


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

cheekymonkey said:


> Bero said:
> 
> 
> > There is no, and never has been dispensation for speeding during an overtake. If it's impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea :devil:
> ...


Read what I said: -


> If it's *impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding* I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea


This is not and anti-speed post.
This is not an anti-overtaking post.
Nowhere does this suggest I think speeding is bad.
Nowhere does it imply I don't speed.
Nowhere does it suggest I think overtaking is bad. 



CleanMe said:


> Actually, it is not!
> 
> A few years back, on a Radio 2 show, the guests were the then Minister of Health and the eminent scientist.......


Connections of smoking and lung cancer is very clear, pointing to one old study about cold sores does not change that.

Take insurers...you know the people who love to take your money and pay out as little as possible.....and try wriggling out of other claims? They pay you MORE as a retirement annuity if you're a smoker, take a guess why?



m4rkymark said:


> Your absolutely right - we are meant to live in a country that we are free to do what we want - where's the reality is completely different. My kids will grow up not knowing what it means to be free and to live how you want to live.





cheekymonkey said:


> You may find it funny with smokers standing outside, but we have had rules like that before. When blacks wasn't allowed in cafes/shops and even toilets. It was wrong then and is now..


...WOW....you're really comparing apartheid / colonial ere racism with being required to smoke in a specific area.

If you drive you need to drive in set areas (roads)
If you need to toilet you need to do that in a set area (toilets)
If you have a target sport you have to do that in a set area (range or grounds)
If you smoke you need to go to a set area (outside) 

Black people could not decide to stop being black for a couple hours to go to the pub. FFS.

These laws give people MORE choice not less. Smokers can choose if they want to smoke and non-smokers can decide if they want exposed to carcinogenic toxins.



cheekymonkey said:


> you just seem to choose what doesnt inter fear with your life and believes. Smoking is not the only thing that kills innocent children and people. how about you and me do a test. In a room with no open windows or doors i will sit in that room with 200 smokers the room will only be small, 20x15 feet will be fine . I will stay in that room with them for a full day. At the same time you sit in a room of the same size with all doors and windows closed and just 1 petrol car running.Are you up for it ?.


No, I totally agree with you here! But, I'm pretty sure sticking kids in a room with a burning car is also illegal so we probably don't need specific legislation to cover that...... :thumb:



m4rkymark said:


> Actually its not clear at all - many doctors say getting cancer is a bit of a lottery...........


Like many things in life it IS a lottery, but look at risk and likelihood. Then put into the mix the likelihood of affecting someone else. The 'someone else's' should at least have a choice, and kids should be protected. That's what the smoking laws do.

Personally when I was working offshore I would regularly be in the smoking shack. The banter is a lot better, but that MY choice, as I say I'm not anti-smoking.


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

Cancer research had a nice graphic showing the various cancers and preventable causes
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/12/07/the-causes-of-cancer-you-can-control/
Hint.... smoking is the biggest


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

uruk hai said:


> As I said I will do it when I can and not when it suites me, if a zero emission car was viable for me now I would have one but as I cant even afford to change what I have it'll have to wait. No convenient excuses, that really is the case.


doing it when you can is doing it when it suits you. 
Just because a car is zero emotions does not mean its the answer. catalitic coverters help reduce car omissions but look more into there manufacture.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> cheekymonkey said:
> 
> 
> > Never noticed the smell of car fumes on my clothes before but smoking in a building there is no escape, no fresh air.
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bero said:


> .WOW....you're really comparing apartheid / colonial ere racism with being required to smoke in a specific area.
> 
> If you drive you need to drive in set areas (roads)
> If you need to toilet you need to do that in a set area (toilets)
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

zippo said:


> I hope none of the kids parents drive VW's. Failing the emissions test is worse than smoking 60 a day. Are VW going to be charged with trying to kill us and our kids or just telling lies for profit like the government does most days . Information supplied via a top notch clever bugger on a local radio show @3 am. Which speaks volumes radio show producer. *He/She grabs the first academic they see put them on air at 3 in the morning who'll say what he's told for a few quid *
> Daz


well it gets the poor blogger a hot drink and off the streets for a few hours,


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> Cancer research had a nice graphic showing the various cancers and preventable causes
> http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/12/07/the-causes-of-cancer-you-can-control/
> Hint.... smoking is the biggest


wheres the graph for the causes we dont control, now that would be intresting reading.

You would of thought an organisation all about cancer research would know smoking and all others on the graph dont actually cause cancer


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bero said:


> Read what I said: -
> Quote:
> If it's impossible for you to overtake safely without speeding I suggest you post your licence back to Swansea
> This is not and anti-speed post.
> ...


----------



## Horatio (Oct 30, 2011)

stuartr said:


> Cancer research had a nice graphic showing the various cancers and preventable causes
> http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/12/07/the-causes-of-cancer-you-can-control/
> Hint.... smoking is the biggest


No, more people die of drinking related ilnesses than smoking. :wall: funny thats not mentioned


----------



## zippo (Mar 26, 2008)

cheekymonkey said:


> *wheres the graph for the causes we dont control, now that would be intresting reading.
> *
> You would of thought an organisation all about cancer research would know smoking and all others on the graph dont actually cause cancer


Why would the government and scientists show you something That 
A. They can't charge you for 
B. Make you scared of it 
Just saying .
If the Government are so concerned about child welfare as any responsible person would be, how about diverting some cash to the Police and social services in Rochdale to sort out the child molestation rings in that area. That would cost though and not earn them anything though wouldn't it .So instead they make you scared of it Bunch of hypocrites


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Keep this civil please


----------



## zippo (Mar 26, 2008)

Horatio said:


> No, more people die of drinking related ilnesses than smoking. :wall: funny thats not mentioned


Didn't know that . I'm not taking the mickey. I genuinely had no idea. Granted driving a car while drunk and hitting a tree wouldn't do your health much good ,but I didn't realize alcohol took more lives than smoking 
Yet it's only a small written warning/remark on the bottom of an ad to drink responsibly and on some adds to mind your behaviour whilst drinking .I've never seen the lengths for example on a can of lager the warning extremes the NHS go to on a cig packet. For example a destroyed fetus ruined blood, tar filled lungs etc. Of course if I was being pessimistic I'd be asking myself which product the government makes the most revenue on per annum . Because whatever the cost they make they will have a replacement product to retain the funds to go into the government's VAT bank vault. 
Something that some people _need_ like cigs if not cigs then alcohol if not any of those then FUEL of any kind. Then vehicle tax .
I suppose its always been the way .If Joe public wants, enjoys, need's it tax it to death and it doesn't matter if the less well off have to do with out . They should have come from affluent families like Mr. Cameron. Who burned £50 notes in front of the less fortunate on freezing winter nights on street corner Just to let the surfs know whose master and whose the pauper.
Darren


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

smoking, is in no way good for you or anyone else around you bith health and the fact you end up stinking of the stuff.

drinking in stupid amounts isnt good for you but the odd one can be or certainly have no affect on your health but more importantly no one else stiing besides you (this is forgetting for a moment about the 'in car situation as drinking probably wouldnt be good )

fatty foods and sugar, only way you can make the comparison is to go over kill, sugar and fatty foods again can be good for you but whether you want to call it moderaton or common sense either or needs to be used. however like drinking neither of these affect the person next to (unless its too much fatty foods and your squashing them)

believe this has gone way of the pace, its about how it affects others who by your actions are impacting on their health. some of whats been mentioned has no direct link to others around them. do i think smoking should be band? nope but i do believe in the bans that are being put in place.


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

cheekymonkey said:


> stuartr said:
> 
> 
> > still dont answer the question. the question was
> ...


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

stuartr said:


> cheekymonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your argument. I'm not saying banning smoking, ban it in buildings or cars where others can't get access clean air.
> ...


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Horatio said:


> No, more people die of drinking related ilnesses than smoking. :wall: funny thats not mentioned


But that is self inflicted deaths, either by someone's own stupidity (drink driving & being in a crash) or someone's addiction to alcohol & being an alcoholic & drinking themselves to death over many years.

This whole debate is about smoking in cars in front of minors/kids.

In this instance comparing smoking to alcohol isn't really relevant, I've never heard of someone out there having the stupidity to be feeding their baby vodka instead of milk.

The analogy for this is if YOU want to kill yourself by driving at 100mph into a brick wall, fine........just don't do it with a kid/baby in the car. The kid hasn't chosen to end it life.

So if someone wants to shorten their lives by smoking, fine, their choice being fully aware of the health dangers, don't shorten the lives of minors who don't know that smoking (or inhaling secondary smoke) can shorten theirs.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

cheekymonkey said:


> Bero said:
> 
> 
> > Read what I said: -
> ...


I think you may argue the earth is flat if I said it's round. Picking 2 words out of a paragraph and basing a discussion on that is ridiculous.



cheekymonkey said:


> Bero said:
> 
> 
> > .WOW....you're really comparing apartheid / colonial ere racism with being required to smoke in a specific area.
> ...


Comparing racial segregation to smokers being asked to go outside IF they want a cigarette most definitely DOES compare it to racism.

On your second point, all toxins I currently produce comply with the law and released in places they're permitted to be released.

Smokers just need to do the same, it's not difficult or overly onerous to wait until the kids are out the car or to step outside for a minute.

If you don't WANT to step outside then you HAVE THE CHOICE not to have a cigarette.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

Bero said:


> Smokers just need to do the same, it's not difficult or overly onerous to wait until the kids are out the car or to step outside for a minute.
> 
> If you don't WANT to step outside then you HAVE THE CHOICE not to have a cigarette.


put the kids outside where all the proven harmful diesel fumes are? as I said before no one has proven second hand smoke has any harmful effects on anyone - that's an absolute fact that no one has proven the link - its all pie in the sky. I cant believe people want to be so compliant with the law...

speaking about kids in cars and choice - there is more people speed than there is smoke in cars so what about all the people who speed in their car with kids in them - do the kids have a choice? maybe we should ban them or there chould be stronger fines or jail sentences if people have their kids in cars 

this new law is completely bonkers and badly thought out - its a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Ban kids in cars. I spend most of my driving looking backwards shouting at them to stop fighting😂😂


----------



## stuartr (Mar 11, 2014)

m4rkymark said:


> put the kids outside where all the proven harmful diesel fumes are? as I said before no one has proven second hand smoke has any harmful effects on anyone - that's an absolute fact that no one has proven the link - its all pie in the sky. I cant believe people want to be so compliant with the law...
> 
> speaking about kids in cars and choice - there is more people speed than there is smoke in cars so what about all the people who speed in their car with kids in them - do the kids have a choice? maybe we should ban them or there chould be stronger fines or jail sentences if people have their kids in cars
> 
> this new law is completely bonkers and badly thought out - its a knee jerk reaction.


Psst... the earth is flat and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

m4rkymark said:


> as I said before no one has proven second hand smoke has any harmful effects on anyone - that's an absolute fact that no one has proven the link - its all pie in the sky. I cant believe people want to be so compliant with the law...
> 
> there is more people speed than there is smoke in cars so what about all the people who speed in their car with kids in them - do the kids have a choice?


I don't get your point..........I'm pretty sure speeding with kids in the car IS illegal!

What do you class as proof of passive smoking? I've tied to reference proper scientific journals / papers and no wishy washy studies or propaganda, although possibly one is from an anti-smoking site. So that references 19 papers. Now *show me one scientific study that says no one ever has proven that passive smoke is harmful in anyway*!

There are 10 epidemiological studies, conducted in a variety of locations, that reflect about a 30% increase in risk of death from ischemic heart disease or myocardial infarction among nonsmokers living with smokers.


Non-smoking wives of heavy smokes have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan 

Passive smoking reduces the blood's ability to deliver oxygen to the heart and compromises the myocardium's ability to use oxygen to create adenosine triphosphate.

approximately 35000 to 40000 deaths from ischemic heart disease among never-smokers and long-term former smokers are estimated to have occurred annually in the United States as a result of ETS exposure

Passive smoking was consistently associated with an increased relative risk of coronary heart disease in cohort studies

exposure to ETS among non-smokers and long-term ex-smokers was associated with a significantly increased risk of stroke

reports of smoking in a partner alone seem to underestimate the risks of exposure to passive smoking

 order from smallest to greatest increase: never smokers not exposed to ETS, never smokers exposed to ETS, past smokers, and current smokers.

exposure to ambient tobacco smoke is estimated to produce about 5000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

m4rkymark said:


> put the kids outside where all the proven harmful diesel fumes are? as I said before no one has proven second hand smoke has any harmful effects on anyone - that's an absolute fact that no one has proven the link - its all pie in the sky. I cant believe people want to be so compliant with the law...
> 
> speaking about kids in cars and choice - there is more people speed than there is smoke in cars so what about all the people who speed in their car with kids in them - do the kids have a choice? maybe we should ban them or there chould be stronger fines or jail sentences if people have their kids in cars
> 
> this new law is completely bonkers and badly thought out - its a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

If you need proof of how insular and selfish many smokers are about their addiction; just find one of the many "secret" smokers, who believe that their wife / family / friends / work mates don't know that they sneak out for a smoke.

They are completely oblivious to the overpowering and disgusting smell that surrounds someone who has just finished a ***.

They live in a fantasy world where smoking is not noticeable or harmfull to anyone but themselves.

Like the e-cig users who blow "smoke" everywhere and then get angry when people stare at them, shouting "its only water vapour".

This law IS necessary, because smokers will always smoke first and think of others second, because its an addiction.


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

stuartr said:


> Psst... the earth is flat and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


this is my last post on this because some people have their beliefs other people have theirs too and the two are never going to agree.

yep some people on here believe the earth is flat or at least that's what they have been told...


----------



## Peugeot (Apr 19, 2014)

it's about time the law on smoking in cars was banned with children, the fixed penalty fines of £50 is way too low on children health hope they can raise it to £1,000 and 3 points on your licence.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

GleemSpray said:


> If you need proof of how insular and selfish many smokers are about their addiction; just find one of the many "secret" smokers, who believe that their wife / family / friends / work mates don't know that they sneak out for a smoke.
> 
> They are completely oblivious to the overpowering and disgusting smell that surrounds someone who has just finished a ***.
> 
> ...


Yeah for cigarettes, cigars, pipes. Shisha, outside, in only an area where people smoke shisha, I really don't see the harm to anyone but yourself.

But yes, I totally agree with you and it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant, stupid and self absorbed people are.

The law is absolutely necessary, because people are morons.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2015)

Peugeot said:


> it's about time the law on smoking in cars was banned with children, the fixed penalty fines of £50 is way too low on children health hope they can raise it to £1,000 and 3 points on your licence.


I agree. I wish they *would* stop children smoking in cars. They don't half make a mess. 

If they raised the fine to a million pounds with 100 points on the licence...you would *still* not be happy!

Let's end this thread and just face the fact that you want to ban smoking 
*because you just don't like it!*


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

CleanMe said:


> I agree. I wish they *would* stop children smoking in cars. They don't half make a mess.
> 
> If they raised the fine to a million pounds with 100 points on the licence...you would *still* not be happy!
> 
> ...


Eh? Where does it say he wants to ban smoking? Just smoking in cars with kids?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2015)

RisingPower said:


> Eh? Where does it say he wants to ban smoking? Just smoking in cars with kids?


Well Duh!


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Andyg_TSi said:


> stuartr said:
> 
> 
> > Remember before the smoking ban in pubs/clubs, after a night out your clothes used to absolutely stink of *** smoke even the day after when you'd thrown your stuff in the wash basket.
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> cheekymonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your argument. I'm not saying banning smoking, ban it in buildings or cars where others can't get access clean air.
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

m4rkymark said:


> *put the kids outside where all the proven harmful diesel fumes are? * as I said before no one has proven second hand smoke has any harmful effects on anyone - that's an absolute fact that no one has proven the link - its all pie in the sky. I cant believe people want to be so compliant with the law...
> 
> speaking about kids in cars and choice - there is more people speed than there is smoke in cars so what about all the people who speed in their car with kids in them - do the kids have a choice? maybe we should ban them or there chould be stronger fines or jail sentences if people have their kids in cars
> 
> this new law is completely bonkers and badly thought out - its a knee jerk reaction.


but there legal even even though there way worse than smoke fumes


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

stuartr said:


> Psst... the earth is flat and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

and did you think that one up yourself or read the posts above you:wall:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't seem to recall pubs closing due to people not smoking, just higher taxes on alcohol.

Ban non smokers? Eh?

So, you're for forcing smoke on people but not exhaust fumes?

You're quite random.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

GleemSpray;4987235[B said:


> ]If you need proof of how insular and selfish many smokers are about their addiction; just find one of the many "secret" smokers, who believe that their wife / family / friends / work mates don't know that they sneak out for a smoke.[/B]
> 
> They are completely oblivious to the overpowering and disgusting smell that surrounds someone who has just finished a ***.
> 
> ...


So your having a dig at someone going outside for a *** away from everyone else,
AS for the e cigs its just like when you pull off in your car and members of the public are around, Or do you wait till they have all gone.
I know many smokers who put others first. You on the other hand seem to put your anti smoking addiction first.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> I don't seem to recall pubs closing due to people not smoking, just higher taxes on alcohol.
> 
> Ban non smokers? Eh?
> 
> ...


not at all its all to do with passing the buck you complain about the harm of smoking yet happy to cause more pollution with your car.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> *I don't seem to recall pubs closing due to people not smoking, just higher taxes on alcohol.*
> 
> nothing to do with taxes, Alcohol has always had high taxes. When the ban came in was when the problems started.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> I don't seem to recall pubs closing due to people not smoking, just higher taxes on alcohol.
> 
> Ban non smokers? Eh?
> 
> ...


thank you


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> not at all its all to do with passing the buck you complain about the harm of smoking yet happy to cause more pollution with your car.


Uhm, so ban all cars from the roads? Also, petrol is a pretty clean burning fuel, I don't agree with diesel, never have. Breathing in... CO2?

Also, what buck? All the law is enforcing is common sense, i.e. not smoking in front of kids.

Tell me what civil liberties it is breaking?

I don't get the sanity of arguing against a law with no downsides other than enforcement?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> RisingPower said:
> 
> 
> > *I don't seem to recall pubs closing due to people not smoking, just higher taxes on alcohol.*
> ...


----------



## Peugeot (Apr 19, 2014)

For the Smokers

Second-hand smoke in the family car is a Killer so you don't mind killing your children? and others? so why should a smoker get a new lung to live again just like a heavy drinker get a new kidney The NHS shouldn't waste good money on people who wouldn't change their bad habits.

Fine them might stop this but not all, Shame them in the media might! But than again some might get a kick out of it, only one way then Prison for Murder.

I's all about mind control.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> cheekymonkey said:
> 
> 
> > There were problems iirc waaay before the ban on smoking came into effect, different era, too much tax, then gastropubs and wetherspoons. Wetherspoons with cheap alcohol was the death of pubs.
> ...


----------



## Peugeot (Apr 19, 2014)

I like to see smoker pubs closed down and more non-smoker family pubs open wouldn't that be something!


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Peugeot said:


> For the Smokers
> 
> Second-hand smoke in the family car is a Killer so you don't mind killing your children? and other?* so why should a smoker get a new lung for to live again just like a heavy drinker get a new kidney* The NHS shouldn't waste good money on people who wouldn't change their bad habits.
> 
> Fine them this will not stop all of them, Shame them in the media might! But than again some might get a kick out of it, only one way then Prison for Murder.


That argument has to be the most stupid selfish no human thing i have ever heard but, because the extra taxes they paid on **** and drink and what they normally pay means they pay in more than you or i. 
Where would it end i guy goes to shop in car has accident on way back. dont treat him shops only half a mile away he should of walked. Dont treat that kid he went way to fast down the hill. what did he think would happen.

Just remember that good money comes from smokers, drinkers,fat people and drug takers. Its not just yours


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Peugeot said:


> I like to see smoker pubs closed down and more non-smoker family pubs open wouldn't that be something!


there are no smokers pubs:lol::lol::lol:. comments like this will make people think your smoking but not tobacco:wall:


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Peugeot said:


> I like to see smoker pubs closed down and more non-smoker family pubs open wouldn't that be something!


There arn't any 'smokers' pubs anymore though are there, smoking in public places such as pubs is banned.
If you're in a pub & want to smoke, you have to go outside into the beer garden, or on the street, or, if the landlord has the space, an outdoor 'smoking area' with one of those patio heaters.

Pre smoking ban, you came home from a night on the sauce smelling of *** smoke, but it at least the smell of smoke in pubs/clubs covered up the smell of BO & bad farts :lol: :lol:

Anyhow, socialising has changed, back in 1989/1990 when I was 1st going out, you HAD to go out to socialise & meet people.

These days, 18 - 24 year olds don't necessarily need to go out to interact with other people they can do it online via Facebook etc.
The amount of times I've been in the local near me & if a group of young people are in, there mainly sat looking at their phones......especially the young women.

Plus, I don't know about everywhere else, but round here it feels almost like the council (Tameside) doesn't want a night time economy (clubs/late night pubs) because of the potential for trouble & the cost of policing that trouble.
In Ashton-Under-Lyne now, we have The Snipe leisure park, which is full of pub/eateries like The Harvester, a choice of restaurants & cinema/bowling places.
It caters for the families who go out earlyish grab some food in a generic chain pub or restaurant & then go see a film & go home early/late evening at say 11pm.

Meanwhile Ahton town centre, which used to be full of pubs back in the day & a couple of decent clubs is DEAD at night. No decent pubs left or anything

If you want a decent proper night out, you've got to go into Manchester which is expensive for beer & a proper 'on it' night.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> RisingPower said:
> 
> 
> > vast majority of pubs in this are closed in the last 4 to 5 years. We got a weatherspoons last year, no other pub has closed since then.
> ...


----------



## Peugeot (Apr 19, 2014)

Andyg_TSi said:


> There arn't any 'smokers' pubs anymore
> .


Maybe where you live. But I can name one or two in city.



cheekymonkey said:


> *there are no smokers pubs*:lol::lol::lol:. comments like this will make people think your smoking but not tobacco:wall:


Wrong I know some, but I never smoke never & never drink so I don't want to lean these bad habits


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

I think this went off topic way back.


----------

