smoking in cars ban?

[ivykaty44]

Will it actually work? I can't see that many people smoke around children anyway and those that do will not stop due to legislation anyway, then if people haven't been policed about mobile phones it will be even harder with smoking.

I am not a smoker and don't think people should allow smoking around children but can't see this having any effect

Inertia
Enforcement by officers is a joke

I see council vans driving past police cars with the driver on a phone and the police do NOTHING
I reported the bin lorry where the driver was on his phone. The police chose not to act.

Count how many times in a day you see a traffic car on your daily journey.
Ten, eleven, twelve?

now think how many of those dozens of traffic cars you see have the time to process an hour of paperwork for a mum smoking a fag
rather than cars crashing and jumping red lights

So, how many traffic cars DO people see on a normal day?

I suspect most of you see none at all because they have REAL crime to deal with.

My twopenn'orth.

1. Enforceablity isn't really the issue. As PP have said, see seatbelts, mobile phones. Of course its enforcible. The question is one of resource allocation - would the public prefer the police to stop people smoking in cars with children, or stop another type of crime? (not murder - its a different department)

1. If it is illegal to subject colleagues to second hand smoke, surely it should be illegal to subject children to it. (obviously this only holds weight if you believe in the dangers of passive smoking - which most people do)

1. Its unfortunate that there is so little hard evidence with regards to smoking as the offence would be greater - i.e. child abuse, assault - if there were.

1. The argument about laws not being used to invate private space - laws are only useful if they do invade one's private space. Otherwise coppers will be just stood outside peoples houses looking a bit lost.

It's a good thing, but I'd prefer if they banned buses tbh.

Bloody bastard empty huge fuck off things with passive aggressive drivers usually trying their level best to kill you.

Well done, Mini, for being opposed to this Labour policy.

This is what our politics has descended to. Labour are so ineffectual and impotent over serious issues that they resort to these type of infringements on liberty. They may gain a victory, but it may turn out to be Pyrrhic. Yet again, Labour will be associated with banning, control and the nanny state.

Eventually the silent majority will swing against them.

Here is something from Paul Nuttall, deputy leader of UKIP, from a while back that argues against this policy.

"UKIP Euro MP, Paul Nuttall today described moves by the British Medical Association in favour of banning smoking in cars as “draconian”.

And he also accused the BMA of flagrantly abusing the facts in its attempt to bully the Government into introducing such a ban.

“The key argument that the BMA is using is that ‘ the restrictive internal environment in motor vehicles exposes drivers and passengers to 23 times more toxins than a smoky bar.’

“This is demonstrably rubbish”, said Mr Nuttall, Deputy Leader of UKIP and North West MEP.

“Anybody who has any claim to be interested in scientific evidence – and one hopes that an august organisation like the BMA should be interested in scientific evidence – would know that this fictional statistic is derived from a tiny article in an obscure Canadian newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News.

“It was never scientific, but merely the expression of rage on the part of an anti-smoking campaigner.

“It is wrong that such a false statistic should be used to back up this move, which is plainly a step too far.

“The evidence of their sleight of hand can be found in a study of the evidence published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

“The proposed ban is based on junk science and would be an outrageous infringement of civil liberties. Not only would it be wrong, but it would be impossible to police.

“Nobody would encourage people to smoke and no one thinks forcing children to breath your smoke is wise. But there are such things as car windows.”

www.paulnuttallmep.com/?p=1617

My parents used to smoke in the car when I was a child and I HATED it. I was just told to stop moaning when I asked them to stop... I think it's a completely selfish thing to do for that reason! It's interesting how much things have changed and how society is so pro-children - thirty years ago you were told to stop moaning, next year you may be able to place your parents under a citizens arrest

Long overdue. It is basic common sense that shouldn't really need a law but, if it still happens, then a law is absolutely necessary. More worrying tho', is the number of children living in homes which are not smoke free indoors.
As for those who see such a move as a 'further erosion of parental liberties', smoking in an enclosed space which also contains your child is not, in my view, a 'parental liberty' and should never be seen as such; it is an inconsiderate, unkind and selfish act and certainly not any form of positive parenting at all! Parents who consider they are entitled to 'parental liberties' should also consider their parental responsibilities and balance them accordingly!

threeleftfeet - are you saying - i hope you are not - that you dh will not sot smoking in the car until this legislation is law?

I think it's more about spreading a message that secondary smoking is dangerous than enforcement.

It's like using safety belts and child seats - not many people will be prosecuted, but a line is drawn to show that a particular kind of behaviour is not acceptable.

three left feet, smoking while driving already comes under the 'driving without due car and attention' law. (I am assuming that if only he and your ds were in the car he must have been driving).

However, I agree, this law makes it clear to people who would argue the toss that smoking in a confined space with children is not acceptable.

Really, I think they should just ban all smoking in cars and be done with it.

Either you are driving and you are endangering yourself and other road users or you are subjecting somebody to your second hand smoke in an enclosed space.

just wait till cannabis is legalised in a couple of years ....

cars are small metal boxes and claustrophobic. and shut windows.

houses are bigger and so more space for smoke to hopefully not be near children.

apart fro m that, smoking in cars dangerous as you can drop the fag and burn yourself, both hands aren't on the steering wheel, and can cause accidents.

ps-car smokers. you do know theres an ashtray in the car? stop flicking your ash and fag ends out of the window to hit cyclists/motorbike riders/car behind with open window in peoples eyes and clothing and cars!

Thurlow

"Yes, that is all smokers need to quit. In fact, we hadn't realised it before. Thank you for pointing it out! I thought it was making me healthier..."

I take it that you are trying to quit, Thurlow? I wish you well with that - it must be tough.

But presumably there are lots of people who DON'T take the health consequences on board otherwise how come they start smoking, or carry on? Are you telling me that every single smoker is trying to give up and only still smokes because they can't physically quit? I know that applies to some, but not all surely - the remainder must have not really processed/ understood/ believed the consequences hence the need to keep bringing the message home.

Sasha in particular, sounded lovely and genuinely caring about her DC - being so particular not to smoke near their little lungs. In fact, she seemed so nice that I can't believe she would be smoking at all if she had properly taken in what she is quite likely condemning them to in the future as a result.

Most smokers start as children. I was 12. I do believe that the majority (not all) of people still smoking are the ones who find it incredibly difficult to stop and not start again

We've had pictures of diseases on fag packets for a few years now. Smokers are reminded of the health consequences every time they pick up the packet. It doesn't seem to be working too well.

If you read Allen Carr's books on smoking, ProfPlum, he discusses how thinking about health risks and the warnings on packs are often ineffective because they terrify smokers, put them in a state of stress that makes them want another cigarette.

As Plenty says, most of us start young, thinking we're invincible, that we'll quit whenever we want to. But it doesn't work like that. I really want to not be a smoker, but I haven't made it there yet. I won't stop trying, though.

Albert - 4. The argument about laws not being used to invate private space - laws are only useful if they do invade one's private space. Otherwise coppers will be just stood outside peoples houses looking a bit lost.

And so they are unless they have applied for and been granted a warrant. I'm quite pleased about that personally, I'd hate to live somewhere the police could enter your home at any time for no particular reason (or somewhere that children were encouraged to video their parents and shame them publicly, come to that).

Claig, do you have a link to the Canadian Medical Association research? I'd be interested in reading that.

Profondo, have you tried an e cig?

those who want to stop smoking and cant cold turkey....cant you just have one less fag a day? for a week? then one less after that next week etc etc.

that's how I stopped having 4 sugars in my tea! cut down bit by bit and now cant stand sugar!

And back we go to telling people how to live their lives. They can't even police bad drivers. .. people who actually cause accidents .. resulting in instant death. They don't police mobile phones, only police drunk driving in the run up to Christmas. . but god help you if your bulbs gone . How are they going to police this??

It's laws to appease the masses that acheive nothing but beauracracy and paperwork.

Really. .. do we not have bigger fish to Fry?

Cutting down to stop doesn't work, sadly. All it does is reinforce how 'lovely' the few fags you are smoking are, especially when you get down to the few 'special' ones in the day.

african - but what is more important than protecting the health of children? And yes,if people aren't responsible enough to want to protect their own children then the law should stand in.

we now protect the health of bar workers in pubs against others cigarette smoke, whats wrong with doing the same for children in cars?

ProfPlum - nope, I'm just like sasha, I do exactly the same as her. I just wanted to point out that most smokers know the bloody obvious. From my.experience, actually most smokers smoke a smaller amount now, outside, in the evening, that sort of thing. However I do agree with an earlier poster that smoking fewer but much wanted cigarettes might actually be harder to quit,.psychologically they are moving from 'need' to 'treat'

I smoke, wouldn't in the car, keep it to the garden, what really gets me is pub gardens, if I go out and it is Rare with two dc's how dare someone complain about it my usual reaction is fuck off inside then and why have you got your children in a pub at night!

I think they should just ban smoking and be done with it. Speaking as a smoker. Fed up of death by a thousand cuts - the government should just be honest, instead of making billions out of smoking while simultaneously lecturing and punishing smokers. Feck 'em.

'Claig, do you have a link to the Canadian Medical Association research? I'd be interested in reading that.'

The claim about the '23 times more toxic' was made several years ago. It is no longer being made.

It sounds a bit similar to how some of the exaggerated claims about what is called 'global warming' are spread.

'The British Medical Association has admitted that its claim that smoking in cars generates 23 times more toxins than you would find in a smoky bar is wrong. It included the claim in a press release issued yesterday, and the churnalists of the mainstream media, from respectable broadsheets to intemperate tabloids, repeated it without question. Yet as I argued in a post here yesterday, it is bunkum: last year a serious academic study for the Canadian Medical Association Journal said it had "failed to locate any scientific source" for the idea that lighting up in cars produces secondhand smoke 23 times as potent as that found in a bar. Now, quietly, with no media fanfare, the BMA has corrected its press release. It now says: "The restrictive internal environment in motor vehicles could expose drivers and passengers to toxins up to 11 times greater than in a smoky bar."

But this is also a dubious claim. Can it really be the case that having a ciggie in a car exposes passengers to a climate 11 times nastier than you would find in a bar packed with people puffing on fags? Even one of the studies cited by the BMA as proof for this figure actually says something quite different.'

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100118383/the-bma-admits-it-was-wrong-about-smoking-in-cars-yet-it-is-still-making-dubious-claims/

Below is a link to the Canadian Medical Association Journal article which says that the claim is a myth

www.cmaj.ca/content/182/8/796.full?sid=15d952f7-ea67-4b88-be4f-4767491fdcc4