Vote: should there be a ban on smoking in cars with children?

St Albans & Harpenden Review: Vote: should there be a ban on smoking in cars with children? Vote: should there be a ban on smoking in cars with children?

A Labour plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children is due to be put to a vote in the House of Lords.

But smoking at the wheel can also lead to serious financial implications on top of any health issues according to experts at British Car Auctions (BCA).

Tim Naylor of BCA said: “The British Medical Association has previously released research showing the levels of toxins in a car can be up to 11 times higher than in a smoky bar.

“But if drivers aren’t motivated by the health of their passengers, perhaps they will be by the diminishing health of their finances. Lighting up inside a car seriously devalues the vehicle for resale.

“Presentation is one of the top factors influencing the price of used cars. So if a car is more like an ashtray on wheels, chances are buyers will move on to find one that looks and smells fresh as a daisy.”

Professional valeting can alleviate most of the effects of smoking, but is expensive and time consuming and might mean replacing some interior trim, such as nicotine-stained headlinings and repairing any cigarette burns in the cabin.

In the worst cases, this can represent an investment of several hundred pounds.

Mr Naylor concluded: “Motorists should avoid having a cigarette in their car, especially if they intend to sell it in the near future. This will avoid the lingering smell of cigarettes in the interior, as well as eliminate the risk of scorch marks on the upholstery or dash. All of these things will put buyers off, even if they smoke themselves.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:56am Thu 6 Feb 14

dented says...

Whilst I agree that smoking in the same space as a child isn't the thing to do, I am wholeheartedly against this ban. I don't believe that we should be allowing the banning of things just for the sake of it. What's next? Ban frisbee throwing in case someone gets hit on the head. It is a slippery slope we are heading for.
Whilst I agree that smoking in the same space as a child isn't the thing to do, I am wholeheartedly against this ban. I don't believe that we should be allowing the banning of things just for the sake of it. What's next? Ban frisbee throwing in case someone gets hit on the head. It is a slippery slope we are heading for. dented
  • Score: 15

7:58am Thu 6 Feb 14

dontknowynot says...

Yes it makes more sense than a smoking ban in pubs.
Yes it makes more sense than a smoking ban in pubs. dontknowynot
  • Score: -9

8:09am Thu 6 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

Given how unsuccessful the police have been on enforcing a ban on mobile phone usege whilst driving why is yet another law being introduced?
Given how unsuccessful the police have been on enforcing a ban on mobile phone usege whilst driving why is yet another law being introduced? gpn01
  • Score: 23

9:00am Thu 6 Feb 14

motco says...

Handling a smouldering paper tube with a red-hot ember likely to drop out on to one's genitalia has always seemed to be an unwise activity whilst driving anyway, never mind children in the car. How can anyone drive safely when arching one's back and grabbing underneath the elevated posterior for the lit end of the cigarette that is burning its way through expensive leather upholstery?
Handling a smouldering paper tube with a red-hot ember likely to drop out on to one's genitalia has always seemed to be an unwise activity whilst driving anyway, never mind children in the car. How can anyone drive safely when arching one's back and grabbing underneath the elevated posterior for the lit end of the cigarette that is burning its way through expensive leather upholstery? motco
  • Score: -4

10:16am Thu 6 Feb 14

garston tony says...

dented wrote:
Whilst I agree that smoking in the same space as a child isn't the thing to do, I am wholeheartedly against this ban. I don't believe that we should be allowing the banning of things just for the sake of it. What's next? Ban frisbee throwing in case someone gets hit on the head. It is a slippery slope we are heading for.
Seeing the damage that inhaling the smoke can do,especially to a still developing child this is hardly seeking to ban something 'for the sake of it'.

Or is someone going to try and argue that smoking is not harmful?!

I get the argument about curbing peoples liberties in their own space, but doesnt that happen already anyway? There are a whole host of laws making all sorts of activities illegal in our own personal domains, so far from a slippery slope this would just be an addition to an already existing body of law protecting children.

I personally think that going down the education route would be more succesful long term, and I agree that it wouldnt be easy to enforce but there is nothing wrong with the principle of wanting to protect children from harmful tobacco smoke. I would possibly go as far as saying people smoking around children is a form of child abuse.

And whilst we're at it can we ban smoking in all public areas including outdoors. Whats the point of not allowing people to smoke in indoor public spaces when you have to run the gauntlet of smokers having a fag by entrances?

Oh, and as well as resale value of cars isnt a smoker statistically more likely to have a car accident? Lighting up whilst driving is hardly being in full control of a vehicle or having proper attention on the road
[quote][p][bold]dented[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that smoking in the same space as a child isn't the thing to do, I am wholeheartedly against this ban. I don't believe that we should be allowing the banning of things just for the sake of it. What's next? Ban frisbee throwing in case someone gets hit on the head. It is a slippery slope we are heading for.[/p][/quote]Seeing the damage that inhaling the smoke can do,especially to a still developing child this is hardly seeking to ban something 'for the sake of it'. Or is someone going to try and argue that smoking is not harmful?! I get the argument about curbing peoples liberties in their own space, but doesnt that happen already anyway? There are a whole host of laws making all sorts of activities illegal in our own personal domains, so far from a slippery slope this would just be an addition to an already existing body of law protecting children. I personally think that going down the education route would be more succesful long term, and I agree that it wouldnt be easy to enforce but there is nothing wrong with the principle of wanting to protect children from harmful tobacco smoke. I would possibly go as far as saying people smoking around children is a form of child abuse. And whilst we're at it can we ban smoking in all public areas including outdoors. Whats the point of not allowing people to smoke in indoor public spaces when you have to run the gauntlet of smokers having a fag by entrances? Oh, and as well as resale value of cars isnt a smoker statistically more likely to have a car accident? Lighting up whilst driving is hardly being in full control of a vehicle or having proper attention on the road garston tony
  • Score: -6

10:20am Thu 6 Feb 14

miccles says...

I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke? miccles
  • Score: 9

11:13am Thu 6 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

miccles wrote:
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.
[quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke?[/p][/quote]What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety. gpn01
  • Score: 2

11:48am Thu 6 Feb 14

PDplum says...

I've always thought smoking in a home with children should be banned as well
It's a form of child abuse and shows a complete lack of responsibility, common sense or good ethics.

If you have children you have a responsibility to their wellbeing as priority not to getting your quick fix of lung cancer
I've always thought smoking in a home with children should be banned as well It's a form of child abuse and shows a complete lack of responsibility, common sense or good ethics. If you have children you have a responsibility to their wellbeing as priority not to getting your quick fix of lung cancer PDplum
  • Score: -4

12:04pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Ivor'sbestfriend says...

gpn01 wrote:
miccles wrote:
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.
Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke?[/p][/quote]What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.[/p][/quote]Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards? Ivor'sbestfriend
  • Score: 5

12:08pm Thu 6 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
miccles wrote:
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.
Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?
Car radios,fellow passengers and adverts don't typically cause a 'sufficient' distraction.

Buttons on dashboards are interesting - yes, maybe everything should be voice activated? It's a real shame that the DfT is already proposing a ban on wearable computing devices (e.g. Google Glass) as these could actually improve road safety by reducing the time & effort taken to perform non-driving functions (e.g. map reading, hazard avoidance).
[quote][p][bold]Ivor'sbestfriend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke?[/p][/quote]What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.[/p][/quote]Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?[/p][/quote]Car radios,fellow passengers and adverts don't typically cause a 'sufficient' distraction. Buttons on dashboards are interesting - yes, maybe everything should be voice activated? It's a real shame that the DfT is already proposing a ban on wearable computing devices (e.g. Google Glass) as these could actually improve road safety by reducing the time & effort taken to perform non-driving functions (e.g. map reading, hazard avoidance). gpn01
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

Before you read this, just to put it in context, I have never smoked.


Smoking is bad for you and everyone around you, but that is not the point here. The question is, how far do we go in letting the state take over the parenting of OUR children?

Parents are by nature intensely defensive of their offspring and rightly resent interference in their upbringing. Part of that job requires that they make personalised decisions, every day, about how they will raise their children and how much risk they are prepared to put them at during that process, and at what ages they will expose them to various risks.

Thus, every time they feed their child a fattening doughnut, or let them play out on the street where there are cars, or walk to the shops on their own for the first time, or let them cycle on the road, or ride a horse, or take their first sip of alcohol, or let a friend smoke in their car, they are making a difficult risk assessment. That has always been the way of it and until very recently, everyone since the dawn of civilisation has accepted that the parents had the right to make those choices. Tragically, sometimes that ended in tragedy and sometimes people would, in hindsight, say they had been stupid and at fault, but it was still seen as clearly the parents job to decide the best way to bring up their children without state interference.

That has always been the nature of family. It is a closed unit and, except in the case of gross abuses, people and the state kept their noses out.

What we have seen in recent years though is a new breed of busybodies who are no longer satisfied with just dealing with clear childhood abuse. Increasingly, they want the state to interfere in parental lifestyle choices for their children. No longer is it for you as a parent to decide the casual balance of risk. No, the state will now do that for you and punish you if you refuse to comply.

Overweight child? Send in Social Services.
“You let a child how young cycle on the road? Sorry that’s not the state recommendation. £60 fine!”
“You let your passenger smoke in the car with a 15 year old in it? £100 fine. No, I don’t care if he’s been sneakily smoking at school for a year. Hand over the dosh, you disgustingly bad parent you.”

The Liberal Dictatorship supporters driving this new legislation must be wetting themselves in excitement as in one swoop they can attack their three favourite targets; smoking, the motorist and parenting. But trust me, this is the thin end of the wedge. It won’t be long after this before there are calls to ban smoking in your own home where there are children.

The point is that we are now at the doorway where state interference is no longer about dealing with immediate threats to children. Now it is about any risk, no matter how unquantifiable it is. There are so many possible threats to a child’s long term health that to jump on smoking in cars when say, living by a main road may be ten times as harmful is as stupid as it is unfair. However, when has stupidity or unfairness ever stopped the moral high-ground, ban it, brigade from dictating to others. Nanny State knows best you know.
Before you read this, just to put it in context, I have never smoked. Smoking is bad for you and everyone around you, but that is not the point here. The question is, how far do we go in letting the state take over the parenting of OUR children? Parents are by nature intensely defensive of their offspring and rightly resent interference in their upbringing. Part of that job requires that they make personalised decisions, every day, about how they will raise their children and how much risk they are prepared to put them at during that process, and at what ages they will expose them to various risks. Thus, every time they feed their child a fattening doughnut, or let them play out on the street where there are cars, or walk to the shops on their own for the first time, or let them cycle on the road, or ride a horse, or take their first sip of alcohol, or let a friend smoke in their car, they are making a difficult risk assessment. That has always been the way of it and until very recently, everyone since the dawn of civilisation has accepted that the parents had the right to make those choices. Tragically, sometimes that ended in tragedy and sometimes people would, in hindsight, say they had been stupid and at fault, but it was still seen as clearly the parents job to decide the best way to bring up their children without state interference. That has always been the nature of family. It is a closed unit and, except in the case of gross abuses, people and the state kept their noses out. What we have seen in recent years though is a new breed of busybodies who are no longer satisfied with just dealing with clear childhood abuse. Increasingly, they want the state to interfere in parental lifestyle choices for their children. No longer is it for you as a parent to decide the casual balance of risk. No, the state will now do that for you and punish you if you refuse to comply. Overweight child? Send in Social Services. “You let a child how young cycle on the road? Sorry that’s not the state recommendation. £60 fine!” “You let your passenger smoke in the car with a 15 year old in it? £100 fine. No, I don’t care if he’s been sneakily smoking at school for a year. Hand over the dosh, you disgustingly bad parent you.” The Liberal Dictatorship supporters driving this new legislation must be wetting themselves in excitement as in one swoop they can attack their three favourite targets; smoking, the motorist and parenting. But trust me, this is the thin end of the wedge. It won’t be long after this before there are calls to ban smoking in your own home where there are children. The point is that we are now at the doorway where state interference is no longer about dealing with immediate threats to children. Now it is about any risk, no matter how unquantifiable it is. There are so many possible threats to a child’s long term health that to jump on smoking in cars when say, living by a main road may be ten times as harmful is as stupid as it is unfair. However, when has stupidity or unfairness ever stopped the moral high-ground, ban it, brigade from dictating to others. Nanny State knows best you know. D_Penn
  • Score: 11

1:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

miccles says...

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
miccles wrote:
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.
Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?
should they also produce cars with only 1 seat for the driver, and make it a ban to carry passengers.
[quote][p][bold]Ivor'sbestfriend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke?[/p][/quote]What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.[/p][/quote]Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?[/p][/quote]should they also produce cars with only 1 seat for the driver, and make it a ban to carry passengers. miccles
  • Score: 2

7:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

robteifi says...

PDplum wrote:
I've always thought smoking in a home with children should be banned as well
It's a form of child abuse and shows a complete lack of responsibility, common sense or good ethics.

If you have children you have a responsibility to their wellbeing as priority not to getting your quick fix of lung cancer
And squabbling children in the back of the car aren't distracting? Perhaps we should just ban children from cars, that would avoid this pointless law.
[quote][p][bold]PDplum[/bold] wrote: I've always thought smoking in a home with children should be banned as well It's a form of child abuse and shows a complete lack of responsibility, common sense or good ethics. If you have children you have a responsibility to their wellbeing as priority not to getting your quick fix of lung cancer[/p][/quote]And squabbling children in the back of the car aren't distracting? Perhaps we should just ban children from cars, that would avoid this pointless law. robteifi
  • Score: 4

9:59pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

When I was a child my maternal grandparents’ house was like a temple to tobacco with ashtrays in every room, pipes in every room, and the remains of cigarettes and cigars in all the fireplaces. When I was five I put my grandfather’s unlit pipe in my mouth and I also tried one of my grandmother’s cigarettes when no one was looking. My mother was the only child in the family not to become a smoker when she grew up. Both my parents were anti-smoking but when my maternal aunts and uncles visited us the smell of tobacco pervaded my parents’ house, and when one uncle travelled in the family car we all inhaled smoke, although that uncle would open the rear window slightly to make a through draught. Several of my maternal aunts and uncles died of smoking-related illnesses or suffered from them before dying of other causes.
When I was a middle-aged man, many years before my mother’s death, my mother and I were talking about how she was likely to die. I told her I thought she would fade away, become a tiny frail old lady, and fall asleep one night at a highly advanced age - after all she was probably safe from breast cancer as I could remember she had breast fed me and my siblings and also - I thought - from lung cancer too as she had never smoked and she had been a very moderate consumer of alcohol.
In fact my mother did eventually die of lung cancer. When she was dying she said - perhaps remembering my words many years earlier - that she could not understand why she should have this disease of all others - she had never smoked at all and had drunk alcohol occasionally and only in moderation. I had thought this too and I could only suggest she was the victim of passive smoking when she was a child and in the car with her brother.

When children are grown up they can start to stimulate their own cancer and respiratory illnesses, but until then I think saving children from exposure to tobacco smoke in cars (and elsewhere) is a consideration that outweighs all the others mentioned here.
When I was a child my maternal grandparents’ house was like a temple to tobacco with ashtrays in every room, pipes in every room, and the remains of cigarettes and cigars in all the fireplaces. When I was five I put my grandfather’s unlit pipe in my mouth and I also tried one of my grandmother’s cigarettes when no one was looking. My mother was the only child in the family not to become a smoker when she grew up. Both my parents were anti-smoking but when my maternal aunts and uncles visited us the smell of tobacco pervaded my parents’ house, and when one uncle travelled in the family car we all inhaled smoke, although that uncle would open the rear window slightly to make a through draught. Several of my maternal aunts and uncles died of smoking-related illnesses or suffered from them before dying of other causes. When I was a middle-aged man, many years before my mother’s death, my mother and I were talking about how she was likely to die. I told her I thought she would fade away, become a tiny frail old lady, and fall asleep one night at a [italic]highly[/italic] advanced age - after all she was probably safe from breast cancer as I could remember she had breast fed me and my siblings and also - I thought - from lung cancer too as she had never smoked and she had been a very moderate consumer of alcohol. In fact my mother [italic]did [/italic] eventually die of lung cancer. When she was dying she said - perhaps remembering my words many years earlier - that she could not understand why she should have [italic] this [/italic] disease of all others - she had never smoked at all and had drunk alcohol occasionally and only in moderation. I had thought this too and I could only suggest she was the victim of passive smoking when she was a child and in the car with her brother. When children are grown up they can start to stimulate their own cancer and respiratory illnesses, but until then I think saving children from exposure to tobacco smoke in cars (and elsewhere) is a consideration that outweighs all the others mentioned here. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

9:30am Fri 7 Feb 14

motco says...

Roy Castle was a life-long non-smoker and yet died from lung cancer. One or two examples do not a statistic make. Like you, I was brought up surrounded by smokers and was a smoker myself until 1969. I hope that any incipient damage done by the habit has been ameliorated by time...
Roy Castle was a life-long non-smoker and yet died from lung cancer. One or two examples do not a statistic make. Like you, I was brought up surrounded by smokers and was a smoker myself until 1969. I hope that any incipient damage done by the habit has been ameliorated by time... motco
  • Score: 0

10:33am Fri 7 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

motco wrote:
Roy Castle was a life-long non-smoker and yet died from lung cancer. One or two examples do not a statistic make. Like you, I was brought up surrounded by smokers and was a smoker myself until 1969. I hope that any incipient damage done by the habit has been ameliorated by time...
I agree one or two examples do not a statistic make. I wouldn't claim that for my mother - after all some of her smoker siblings did not die directly from smoking. I just think she exemplified what we know from other sources - second hand smoke is bad for people.

I'm not sure what you mean by Roy Castle - if I remember aright he lived at Gerrards Cross and he was reported in the BFP and elsewhere attributing his cancer to the inhalation of tobacco smoke in the places where he worked.
[quote][p][bold]motco[/bold] wrote: Roy Castle was a life-long non-smoker and yet died from lung cancer. One or two examples do not a statistic make. Like you, I was brought up surrounded by smokers and was a smoker myself until 1969. I hope that any incipient damage done by the habit has been ameliorated by time...[/p][/quote]I agree one or two examples do not a statistic make. I wouldn't claim that for my mother - after all some of her smoker siblings did not die directly from smoking. I just think she exemplified what we know from other sources - second hand smoke is bad for people. I'm not sure what you mean by Roy Castle - if I remember aright he lived at Gerrards Cross and he was reported in the BFP and elsewhere attributing his cancer to the inhalation of tobacco smoke in the places where he worked. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Fri 7 Feb 14

LSC says...

This whole idea is ridiculous. Hands up anyone here who doesn't know smoking is bad for you and those around you, especially in an enclosed space.
Anyone?
No, thought not.

If an adult smokes in a car with a child in it, they are therefore a selfish fool and a £100 roadside fine won't change that, because parenting is more than a car journey, it is a state of mind.
Anyone who does so obviously doesn't care, about the health of the child, so I would suspect they smoke at home with the kids in the room, I would wonder about a healthy diet, and so on. Are we going to police the lot?

Why not just have done with it and take the children into care if the parent is seen smoking? The State knows best and the children will be brought up properly. After all, you never hear of a kid in care getting into any mischief.

This proposal is simply barmy. Who is going to enforce it anyway? In Bushey alone we have murders, stabbings, constant burglaries, car crime, anti social behavior, the list is endless. Can we really spare the police to conduct parenting classes as well?
This whole idea is ridiculous. Hands up anyone here who doesn't know smoking is bad for you and those around you, especially in an enclosed space. Anyone? No, thought not. If an adult smokes in a car with a child in it, they are therefore a selfish fool and a £100 roadside fine won't change that, because parenting is more than a car journey, it is a state of mind. Anyone who does so obviously doesn't care, about the health of the child, so I would suspect they smoke at home with the kids in the room, I would wonder about a healthy diet, and so on. Are we going to police the lot? Why not just have done with it and take the children into care if the parent is seen smoking? The State knows best and the children will be brought up properly. After all, you never hear of a kid in care getting into any mischief. This proposal is simply barmy. Who is going to enforce it anyway? In Bushey alone we have murders, stabbings, constant burglaries, car crime, anti social behavior, the list is endless. Can we really spare the police to conduct parenting classes as well? LSC
  • Score: 1

1:02pm Fri 7 Feb 14

D_Penn says...

There are many sad stories around smoking, but that will always be the case, as with any risk taking. That does not mean we can go around banning everything that might affect children and their future.

Cycling. Many children die doing this. Should we ban it?

Many children are killed or maimed by being hit by cars or in car crashes. Are we going to ban cars? Are we going to bring back the red flag act?

Children even die whilst playing games but nobody would suggest banning play.

Smoking in cars where there are children carries a tiny but virtually unquantifiable risk. Be assured though that it is massively lower than the risk of being killed or injured in an accident happening during the journeys being taken, yet nobody is going to ban children from cars.

To try to put in place an almost unenforceable law that nobody knows whether it will have any effect at all on children's health may be well meaning, but it is an interfering step too far.
There are many sad stories around smoking, but that will always be the case, as with any risk taking. That does not mean we can go around banning everything that might affect children and their future. Cycling. Many children die doing this. Should we ban it? Many children are killed or maimed by being hit by cars or in car crashes. Are we going to ban cars? Are we going to bring back the red flag act? Children even die whilst playing games but nobody would suggest banning play. Smoking in cars where there are children carries a tiny but virtually unquantifiable risk. Be assured though that it is massively lower than the risk of being killed or injured in an accident happening during the journeys being taken, yet nobody is going to ban children from cars. To try to put in place an almost unenforceable law that nobody knows whether it will have any effect at all on children's health may be well meaning, but it is an interfering step too far. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Fri 7 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

miccles wrote:
Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
miccles wrote:
I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else.
I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO.

p.s. how many children still smoke?
What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.
Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?
should they also produce cars with only 1 seat for the driver, and make it a ban to carry passengers.
On the contrary. The problem isn't what's causing the distraction but what the person is being distracted from (driving). The 21st Century solution therefore isn't to remove the passenger but replace the driver.....and driverless cars aren't that far in the future. Google is investing a lot of time, effort and money into that technology.
[quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ivor'sbestfriend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miccles[/bold] wrote: I think whether you smoke in your private vehicle is up to you, and nobody else, if you want to smoke in your privately owned house, again its up to you, nobody else. I think now the ban on smoking in pubs etc, is good, but the answer to this thread for me is NO. p.s. how many children still smoke?[/p][/quote]What people do in their own homes is up to them. When they're driving however there's a need to PAY ATTENTION! Anything that serves as a distraction can risk other road users' safety.[/p][/quote]Should we also ban car radios, advertising within sight of roads, and buttons on dashboards?[/p][/quote]should they also produce cars with only 1 seat for the driver, and make it a ban to carry passengers.[/p][/quote]On the contrary. The problem isn't what's causing the distraction but what the person is being distracted from (driving). The 21st Century solution therefore isn't to remove the passenger but replace the driver.....and driverless cars aren't that far in the future. Google is investing a lot of time, effort and money into that technology. gpn01
  • Score: -1

4:13pm Fri 7 Feb 14

motco says...

Undercover Euro Yob, yes Roy Castle did attribute his cancer to second hand smoke from jazz club patrons where he played trumpet. However, he was never a smoker himself, reportedly. This neither proves nor disproves the assertion that second hand smoke is deadly. It depends a lot on the genetic susceptibility of any one individual. I think the physical act of smoking whilst driving is dangerous in itself without the chemical effects on the smoker or their passengers. Likewise use of a telephone at the wheel, hands free or not, is too distracting for safety.
Undercover Euro Yob, yes Roy Castle did attribute his cancer to second hand smoke from jazz club patrons where he played trumpet. However, he was never a smoker himself, reportedly. This neither proves nor disproves the assertion that second hand smoke is deadly. It depends a lot on the genetic susceptibility of any one individual. I think the physical act of smoking whilst driving is dangerous in itself without the chemical effects on the smoker or their passengers. Likewise use of a telephone at the wheel, hands free or not, is too distracting for safety. motco
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Dear Motco

Still not sure why you brought in Roy Castle - earlier you pointed out that he had died from lung cancer but was a lifelong non-smoker. I did not disagree with any of that (it is true after all) but I pointed out that he attributed his lung cancer to second-hand smoke in clubs. Now you say:

… yes Roy Castle did attribute his cancer to second hand smoke from jazz club patrons where he played trumpet.

So you agreed with this but then continued rather as if his status as a non-smoker were in doubt:

However, he was never a smoker himself, reportedly.

If, as you also said: This neither proves nor disproves the assertion that second hand smoke is deadly. and that One or two examples do not a statistic make. then why bring up Roy Castle in reply to my little story about my mother?
I would be the first to agree that my mother - and Roy Castle - do not make a statistic. I brought up my grandparents’ house and my mother’s death as they seemed to be classic examples of the long-term damage to health of childhood exposure to tobacco smoke.

Health professionals seems to believe second hand smoke generally is bad for us - individual genetic predispositions notwithstanding - and scientists paid for by the tobacco industry sincerely shake their heads and maintain doubts. I know which set of scientists I believe, and if tobacco smoke contains carcinogens (apparently it contains half a dozen or more which can each be linked to individual types of cancer) then commonsense suggests it is a bad idea to make children inhale it in cars.
Dear Motco [italic] Still [/italic] not sure why you brought in Roy Castle - earlier you pointed out that he had died from lung cancer but was a lifelong non-smoker. I did not disagree with any of that (it is true after all) but I pointed out that he attributed his lung cancer to second-hand smoke in clubs. Now you say: [italic] … yes Roy Castle did attribute his cancer to second hand smoke from jazz club patrons where he played trumpet. [/italic] So you agreed with this but then continued rather as if his status as a non-smoker were in doubt: [italic] However, he was never a smoker himself, reportedly. [/italic] If, as you also said: [italic] This neither proves nor disproves the assertion that second hand smoke is deadly. [/italic] and that [italic] One or two examples do not a statistic make. [/italic] then why bring up Roy Castle in reply to my little story about my mother? I would be the first to agree that my mother - and Roy Castle - do not make a statistic. I brought up my grandparents’ house and my mother’s death as they seemed to be classic examples of the long-term damage to health of childhood exposure to tobacco smoke. Health professionals seems to believe second hand smoke generally is bad for us - individual genetic predispositions notwithstanding - and scientists paid for by the tobacco industry sincerely shake their heads and maintain doubts. I know which set of scientists I believe, and if tobacco smoke contains carcinogens (apparently it contains half a dozen or more which can each be linked to individual types of cancer) then commonsense suggests it is a bad idea to make children inhale it in cars. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -2

3:17pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

D_Penn wrote:
There are many sad stories around smoking, but that will always be the case, as with any risk taking. That does not mean we can go around banning everything that might affect children and their future.

Cycling. Many children die doing this. Should we ban it?

Many children are killed or maimed by being hit by cars or in car crashes. Are we going to ban cars? Are we going to bring back the red flag act?

Children even die whilst playing games but nobody would suggest banning play.

Smoking in cars where there are children carries a tiny but virtually unquantifiable risk. Be assured though that it is massively lower than the risk of being killed or injured in an accident happening during the journeys being taken, yet nobody is going to ban children from cars.

To try to put in place an almost unenforceable law that nobody knows whether it will have any effect at all on children's health may be well meaning, but it is an interfering step too far.
The activities described in the first 89 words of this letter are necessary parts of life. Exposing or subjecting children to tobacco smoke is not.
As I just said to ‘Motco’ I brought up my grandparents’ house and my mother’s death not to make you cry because they were one of the ’ many sad stories around smoking’ but because they seem in retrospect to be classic examples of the long-term damage to health of childhood exposure to tobacco smoke.

Be assured the law may be difficult to enforce but it is not an interfering step too far.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: There are many sad stories around smoking, but that will always be the case, as with any risk taking. That does not mean we can go around banning everything that might affect children and their future. Cycling. Many children die doing this. Should we ban it? Many children are killed or maimed by being hit by cars or in car crashes. Are we going to ban cars? Are we going to bring back the red flag act? Children even die whilst playing games but nobody would suggest banning play. Smoking in cars where there are children carries a tiny but virtually unquantifiable risk. Be assured though that it is massively lower than the risk of being killed or injured in an accident happening during the journeys being taken, yet nobody is going to ban children from cars. To try to put in place an almost unenforceable law that nobody knows whether it will have any effect at all on children's health may be well meaning, but it is an interfering step too far.[/p][/quote]The activities described in the first 89 words of this letter are necessary parts of life. Exposing or subjecting children to tobacco smoke is not. As I just said to ‘Motco’ I brought up my grandparents’ house and my mother’s death not to make you cry because they were one of the [italic]’ many sad stories around smoking’ [/italic]but because they seem in retrospect to be classic examples of the long-term damage to health of childhood exposure to tobacco smoke. Be assured the law may be difficult to enforce but it is not an interfering step too far. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

This page gives you some facts about the cancerous results of smoking in all ways:

http://search.cancer
researchuk.org/searc
h/results.jsp?siteid
=1&query=second+hand
+smoke&searchsubmit.
x=0&searchsubmit.y=0

As do:
http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/science/
research/who-and-wha
t-we-fund/browse-by-
location/london/medi
cal-research-council
/grants/shona-hilton
-16930-children%E2%8
0%99s-exposure-to-se
cond-hand-tobacco
http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/cancer-i
nfo/healthyliving/sm
okingandtobacco/pass
ivesmoking/
http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/about-us
/cancer-news/press-r
elease/second-hand-s
moke-exposure-slashe
d-after-three-months
-of-smokefree-englan
d
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/health/205384
0.stm
http://www.cancer.or
g/cancer/cancercause
s/tobaccocancer/seco
ndhand-smoke
This page gives you some facts about the cancerous results of smoking in all ways: http://search.cancer researchuk.org/searc h/results.jsp?siteid =1&query=second+hand +smoke&searchsubmit. x=0&searchsubmit.y=0 As do: http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/science/ research/who-and-wha t-we-fund/browse-by- location/london/medi cal-research-council /grants/shona-hilton -16930-children%E2%8 0%99s-exposure-to-se cond-hand-tobacco http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/cancer-i nfo/healthyliving/sm okingandtobacco/pass ivesmoking/ http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/about-us /cancer-news/press-r elease/second-hand-s moke-exposure-slashe d-after-three-months -of-smokefree-englan d http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/health/205384 0.stm http://www.cancer.or g/cancer/cancercause s/tobaccocancer/seco ndhand-smoke Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -1

3:29pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

This page gives you some facts about the cancerous results of smoking in all ways:

http://search.cancer
researchuk.org/searc
h/results.jsp?siteid
=1&query=second+hand
+smoke&searchsubmit.
x=0&searchsubmit.y=0


As do:


http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/science/
research/who-and-wha
t-we-fund/browse-by-
location/london/medi
cal-research-council
/grants/shona-hilton
-16930-children%E2%8
0%99s-exposure-to-se
cond-hand-tobacco


http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/cancer-i
nfo/healthyliving/sm
okingandtobacco/pass
ivesmoking/


http://www.cancerres
earchuk.org/about-us
/cancer-news/press-r
elease/second-hand-s
moke-exposure-slashe
d-after-three-months
-of-smokefree-englan
d


http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/health/205384
0.stm
http://www.cancer.or
g/cancer/cancercause
s/tobaccocancer/seco
ndhand-smoke
This page gives you some facts about the cancerous results of smoking in all ways: http://search.cancer researchuk.org/searc h/results.jsp?siteid =1&query=second+hand +smoke&searchsubmit. x=0&searchsubmit.y=0 As do: http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/science/ research/who-and-wha t-we-fund/browse-by- location/london/medi cal-research-council /grants/shona-hilton -16930-children%E2%8 0%99s-exposure-to-se cond-hand-tobacco http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/cancer-i nfo/healthyliving/sm okingandtobacco/pass ivesmoking/ http://www.cancerres earchuk.org/about-us /cancer-news/press-r elease/second-hand-s moke-exposure-slashe d-after-three-months -of-smokefree-englan d http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/health/205384 0.stm http://www.cancer.or g/cancer/cancercause s/tobaccocancer/seco ndhand-smoke Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -1

3:33pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

I didn't think that was quite enough so here's another one:

http://www.cancer.go
v/cancertopics/facts
heet/Tobacco/ETS
I didn't think that was quite enough so here's another one: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/facts heet/Tobacco/ETS Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -1

3:33pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

I didn't think that was quite enough so here's another one:

http://www.cancer.go
v/cancertopics/facts
heet/Tobacco/ETS
I didn't think that was quite enough so here's another one: http://www.cancer.go v/cancertopics/facts heet/Tobacco/ETS Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -1

3:34pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

The last one is really good!
The last one is [italic]really [/italic]good! Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 28

1:07am Sun 9 Feb 14

romanisis says...

Yes no smoking with under 18's in a car , Were anyone is under this age in the car.
Yes no smoking with under 18's in a car , Were anyone is under this age in the car. romanisis
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Sun 9 Feb 14

motco says...

UCEY, I seem to have touched a nerve, sorry. I was in no way doubting Roy Castle's non-smoking; 'reportedly' was to indicate that I had no first hand knowledge, that's all. I cited Castle only to provide another 'outlying' example, not to throw any argument in the ring with regard to you mother's case. My mother also died of cancer but of the breast in her case. She was teetotal but had been a smoker for many years. Which if either is relevant I have no idea. My feeling about second hand smoke is that it is primarily an unpleasant intrusion on the civil liberties of the majority. It may well be harmful, but clearly not as harmful as the act of smoking is on the smoker.
UCEY, I seem to have touched a nerve, sorry. I was in no way doubting Roy Castle's non-smoking; 'reportedly' was to indicate that I had no first hand knowledge, that's all. I cited Castle only to provide another 'outlying' example, not to throw any argument in the ring with regard to you mother's case. My mother also died of cancer but of the breast in her case. She was teetotal but had been a smoker for many years. Which if either is relevant I have no idea. My feeling about second hand smoke is that it is primarily an unpleasant intrusion on the civil liberties of the majority. It may well be harmful, but clearly not as harmful as the act of smoking is on the smoker. motco
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

No need to apologise - you have not touched a nerve - just not made a great deal of sense.
No need to apologise - you have not touched a nerve - just not made a great deal of sense. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

You have not touched a nerve - just not achieved consistency or made a great deal of sense. (No need to apologise for that either.)
You have not touched a nerve - just not achieved consistency or made a great deal of sense. (No need to apologise for that either.) Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree