Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

kwmlondon

Horizon81 wrote: »

I agree with Ebe Scrooge. What next? A ban on smoking in your own house if a child is present? I thought all this nanny state nonsense was on the decline when Labour finally lost power. Sure, you shouldn't be subjecting your children to second hand smoke, but you have to let adults/parents make their own decisions in life. There's a thousand instances where the nanny state could intervene (for what they think is the greater good) but it doesn't mean they should.

By the way I've never smoked in my life .

Well, I used to smoke and I don't any more and I think that when you're dealing with people's addictions and the health of others the law is the only thing that works.

Just before I quit smoking I was in a bar that was hired out for a kids party. This was in the days before the smoking ban. The whole place was full of kids as well as adult friends of the parents and someone lit a cigarette. Then someone else did and, to my shame, I was one of the dozen who lit a cigarette when other people were smoking.

I quit after that. It was one of the things that made me realise that when you're faced with an addiction appealing to people's sense, reason and good manners just will never work.

The only thing that will stop people smoking in the company of children is the law. I don't care about whinging about "nanny state" that's what it means to be in a civilised country - decisions are made to protect society from danger and enforced by law. Get over it. If you don't like that model take a look at Afghanistan or Somalia.

There are things worth fighting for or against - big firms lobbying, invasive and illegal snooping by the security forces, police corruption, media control of the political agenda.

Getting all hoighty-toighty because someone can't gas a child in a car?

Get a grip!

JimmyTheWig

Strider590 wrote: »

I once heard a young lady (daughter of work colleague) state that she was smoking and drinking during pregnancy because it would stunt the babies growth and make childbirth easier........ I sh*t you not.

There was a pregnant woman on TV a while ago who said that by smoking she was making her baby's lungs work harder which meant they'd be stonger once they were born. :eek:

Horizon81

kwmlondon wrote: »

There are things worth fighting for or against - big firms lobbying, invasive and illegal snooping by the security forces, police corruption, media control of the political agenda.

Getting all hoighty-toighty because someone can't gas a child in a car?

Get a grip!

No, you get a hold of yourself! As I said, the nanny state could intervene in all aspects of our life. You can't go to McDonalds without seeing some mother feeding fries one at a time into her baby's mouth. Should we introduce fast food bans for anyone with a pushchair? So imagine smoking in cars is banned. What next? Labour gestapo extend it to your own home with random spot checks to ensure you aren't lighting up in your own living room. It makes no sense and isn't going to save anyone if parents can still do whatever they want in their own home, which accounts for the majority of the time vis a vis being in a car.

jase1

paddedjohn wrote: »

Im not saying there is any link but pensioners are now living longer than any generation before them and they wernt protected from the affects of tobacco smoke.

Faulty logic.

For that to have any relevance the previous generation to them would have had to have been non-smokers.

You're comparing two sets of people, neither of which were protected.

Johnnytwostep

Horizon81 wrote: »

No, you get a hold of yourself! As I said, the nanny state could intervene in all aspects of our life. You can't go to McDonalds without seeing some mother feeding fries one at a time into her baby's mouth. Should we introduce fast food bans for anyone with a pushchair? So imagine smoking in cars is banned. What next? Labour gestapo extend it to your own home with random spot checks to ensure you aren't lighting up in your own living room. It makes no sense and isn't going to save anyone if parents can still do whatever they want in their own home, which accounts for the majority of the time vis a vis being in a car.

impressive, only took 14 posts. Godwin was right

fivetide

Domino9 wrote: »

Smoking has adverse effects on more people than any of the other behaviours you have mentioned combined.

Actually - it doesn't.

That's drinking.

People don't have a couple of smokes then drive home and kill someone

They don't have too many smokes on a night out then commit random acts of violence, have a fight etc.

They don't spend all day smoking, gradually getting angrier before beating up the wife or kids etc etc.

I don't smoke but I also join the camp that wants to know what the official government approved way to die is.

We need to cut down on salt, sugar, horses, smoking, drinking, red meat etc etc all the while having to work longer and longer because people are living longer and we can't afford the pensions or long term care. Every time we're told that it will "save tousands of lives a year" but it won't. People will still die, that's what happens, it is just that they might die in a slightly different way (or they'll get cancer, heart disease or have a stroke anyway because hey, these are the things that are most likely to kill you).

My big issue with people smoking in cars is chucking tab ends out of the window! Anyone who smokes around their kids isn't going to stop, no matter what and lets be honest, they are probably in the demographic of 'more fingers than teeth' anyway.

aileth

Unfortunately, the reality is that people are idiots, their biggest danger is themselves, and if they actually used their single brain cell to realise that smoking in an enclosed metal box with children was harmful, then the Government wouldn't need to baby them as a nanny state.

The fact that this is even an issue makes me want to smash my head into a wall.

Jamie_Carter

paddedjohn wrote: »

I agree that its not a good idea to smoke infront of children but im sick to the back teeth of politicians poking their noses in peoples lives and telling how they must live. Im not saying there is any link but pensioners are now living longer than any generation before them and they wernt protected from the affects of tobacco smoke.
Just for the record im a non smoker.

Unfortunately laws need to be created to protect children from idiots.


What gives a parent the right to ruin their childrens health because they want to be selfish and smoke?

Jamie_Carter

Domino9 wrote: »

Smoking has adverse effects on more people than any of the other behaviours you have mentioned combined.

Not if done responsibly.

Jamie_Carter

Horizon81 wrote: »

No, you get a hold of yourself! As I said, the nanny state could intervene in all aspects of our life. You can't go to McDonalds without seeing some mother feeding fries one at a time into her baby's mouth. Should we introduce fast food bans for anyone with a pushchair? So imagine smoking in cars is banned. What next? Labour gestapo extend it to your own home with random spot checks to ensure you aren't lighting up in your own living room. It makes no sense and isn't going to save anyone if parents can still do whatever they want in their own home, which accounts for the majority of the time vis a vis being in a car.

Any deliberate act that can cause serious damage to a childs health should be illegal. We are supposed to protect our children from harm, not deliberately subject them to it.