AIBU to think that the next step will be to ban smoking around children in people's homes?

[Carter1]

OK, first off, I don't smoke and, yes, I do think it is selfish to smoke around children in enclosed spaces OR around other adults who hate it for that matter. So just to get that out of the way. But...

The reasoning behind this ban is that it protects children from adult cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces even if the enclosed space such as a car is privately owned. This is important as all bans previously have concerned public buildings NOT owned by the smoker.

Now I may be missing something here but what's the difference between an enclosed space- i.e. a room in a privately-owned house- and a car when it comes to smoking around children?

I see none. So if it's wrong in cars then logically it must be extended to homes too, right?

If right, then how will this be enforced? Will the police have right to enter homes uninvited? So they can just enter uninvited to somebody's home because they suspect somebody is smoking around a child? If they have to give warning then the law is useless as it is impossible to prove who has smoked where.

AIBU?

If smoking - and alcohol for tht matter - were discovered today, they would be banned on public health grounds. The only reason they are not is because the revenue generated from them is huge. Until such time as mopping up the consequences costs more than the revenue generated, they will remain.

I suspect what will happen is that they will remain legal but money-raising consequences will be brought in for anyone who doesn't smoke/drink in an acceptable fashion as governments will see it as an easy way to raise cash and look like they're tackling public health, without actually banning it, losing the revenue and being accused of infringing civil liberties.

I don't think it will be long before we can expect a ban in all public spaces, including the streets, and possibly the introduction of fees for NHS treatment arising as a result of using/abusing alcohol and tobacco. That starts us on a very slippery slope, but I see it coming.

sorry 940million raised in tax*

If they were going to be logical about it, they'd have made it illegal for pregnant women to smoke before they banned it in cars with children in them.

It is however somewhat ironic that smoking has been banned in cars in order to protect children's health, when cars don't exactly have a positive impact on the environment in which those children live.

I wonder whether the next step is going to be to fine parents who have overweight children, or overtired children, both of which have been shown to have adverse affects on children's health?

Pregnant women can't be banned from smoking on the grounds of harm to the child, because the fetus has no legal rights.

If you need a law to tell you not to smoke in the house with your children, you're probably going to smoke in the house with your children.

I think this is one of those things that future generations will be amazed about. Just like smoking in pregnancy.

Ie:
Future gen: ''what Nan - years ago it was really allowed for people to smoke with little kids in the car or the room with you?''

Us: ''Yep. And even when we knew it was harming the kids lungs some people actually still argued that it was wrong to try and stop it, because they felt it was against their rights, and because it was 'what they had always done'''.

Thing is, they are going to end up making it illegal to smoke anywhere (I'm NOT disagreeing about the ban in cars btw, I HATED that as a DC, and wouldn't have it around my. DC's despite being a smoker myself), without making the sale of cigarettes illegal.

They will never ban the SALE of cigarettes because of the huge amounts of taxation generated in the purchase of fags.

So we will end up in an odd limbo where it is perfectly legal to PURCHASE cigarettes, yet you can be fined as soon as you light one up...

Money generating exercise?

I think the judging of parents with overweight children has already begun. There have already been cases where children have been removed in part because of their diet (it was considered that this represented a wider pattern of neglect and failing to act co-operatively with the authorities in the children's best interests).

Personally, I think if we start prosecuting people for behaviours like this, there won't be many left who would have a clear CRB check. How many of us can say we never break any laws or health guidelines ever? How many of us eat a perfect diet, exercise regularly, don't smoke, don't drink and ensure our children have exactly the right balance of food/exercise/reading/learning/extra-currucular activies/downtime/sleep, etc.

Those who make the laws can make one which gives a fetus legal rights.

The point is if we make too many laws, people have less regard for the law in general, and ultimately you have anarchy.

If smoking were to be banned in people's homes, it wouldn't mean the actual culprit would have to be detected.
I imagine it would work on the same basis as smoking in communal areas of flats does now.

The tenant/householder would be responsible for ensuring that smokers did not smoke in their homes, or it would be the responsibility of the parents to ensure their children were not exposed to cigarette smoke, just as it is already a parents responsibility to prevent or remove their child from other forms of abuse.

If your great uncle Arthur came to your house and got his baccy out, it would be up to the person responsible for the child to either ask him to leave or remove your children from the situation.

Anything less would be seen as parental neglect.

Dahlen, I agree no parent is perfect. To be honest, if all the things you mention are taken to the extreme, then all children should be handed over to government-run institutions to let them raise the children.

Well we all got a letter (council) house where we're prohibited from smoking in the house prior to a council visit of any form so I could see it happening. I don't know how they could lay the law down if people own their houses.

Personally it's just the start of the uber nanny state that requires a licence before you start breeding imo.

I think smoking in any enclose space with small child say under ten years old should be frowned upon and discouraged. I am an ex smoker who never smoked when pregnant and always smoked outside when there were children around or if in pub years ago I wouldn't smoke if people were eating on the next table or if they had kids. IMO You can smoke considerately if you try. In theory must people wouldn't belch, fart or spray perfume all over another person so why smoke near them?

I can see smoking tobacco products in an enclosed area where children are is likely to be made illegal at some point.

As we have seen on many threads on here before, albeit about different issues, there wouldn't be a shortage of people willing to report parents if they thought a child was being mistreated.
Smoking stinks so it wouldn't be too difficult to suspect that a child has been exposed to second hand smoke even if you couldn't see the smoking taking place.

You can't give a fetus rights without taking away the woman's, and no matter how hard various groups might try, I can't see that ever happening in the UK.

And we have laws in place to limit the toxic chemicals cars emit. We have laws in place to stop all kinds of harmful behaviour that could hurt children. I don't see why smoking, which everyone know is horrendously bad for you, should be exempt?

It's been public knowledge for a very long time that smoking and second hand smoke are killers, that they are very bad for you and everyone around you. Obviously people are either not getting it or are willfully ignoring the information, because we're having to enact a law to prevent people from smoking in the car with their child. There is no excuse for it. You shouldn't need a law telling you not to do this, but clearly, we do.

I think smoking should be banned within a certain distance of children whereever that may be.

so in my back garden when I am eating, swamped in neighbours smoke...that would stop and so on....

But I think, simpler than banning it here and discouraging it there, simpler to make it illegal, no? But they can't do that because of the revenue and the vested interests of the tobacco lobby

The police don't beat people's doors down once a week to check whether parents are beating their children or feeding them heroin or alcohol but it's still worthwhile making it illegal.

Making smoking illegal wouldn't stop the majority of smokers smoking though.
By making smoking illegal, it would just go underground and it would be more likely, not less, that people would smoke indoors with the windows closed, which would be awful for their children if they had any.

Stopping people smoking outside their own house would be a step too far and wouldn't happen.

Eat in your own house like a normal person.. you can't control peoples gardens like that.

Personally I think you either go for a ban completely or nothing as where do you draw the line, can you smoke 6 foot from a child? What about smoking in the street with a child behind you? Smoking whilst pushing a pram? Smoking whilst hanging out a door in a house, there are so any little technicalities. Of course they will never ban it as they it's a nice tax earner.

Oh and smoke never goes out the window in a car, depends in the way the ribs is blowing but would commonly get covered in ash blown back or in my parents case they would roll the window down half an inch like that made a difference.

We all know that smoking is harmful to children yet agencies working with children at risk and in need currently have little power to do anything when a parent is smoking around a child. At least if it were made illegal they would have a lever of sorts. It may not be perfect but it is something.

It might also help people like MNers who post about being unable to stop exs, extended family, etc smoking over their children.

It wouldn't be easy to police but that doesn't justify not bothering at all.

Banning smoking completely is a pointless exercise sweetkitty.

I really don't see how smoking could be completely banned.

It is a nice tax earner, I agree, but banning smoking wouldn't be effective in getting the majority to stop smoking, so all it would achieve to ban it is to turn away an opportunity to raise money for something that smokers are going to do whether it's taxed or not.

It might also help people like MNers who post about being unable to stop exs, extended family, etc smoking over their children.

AND........pigs might fly

Honestly, the people who are saying 'make it illegal to smoke' and 'just ban smoking', do you honestly think this would be an effective way to stop people smoking? Do you think if smoking were banned tomorrow, that people who currently smoke would suddenly accept that it was now an illegal activity and stop?

Or is it more likely that they would just make much more effort to hide it? Meaning they would be more likely to smoke indoors with windows and curtains closed?

If smoking were banned, I'd imagine the police would have a very hard time going after everyone who chose to continue smoking.