Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

Bantex_2

qetu1357 wrote: »

Old age??????

Tends to be very slow and painful.

fivetide

kwmlondon wrote: »

Oh get real.
Honestly, do you want kids to die of cancer?

To be fair, the kids won't die of cancer.

Kids get cancer. Non-smokers get cancer. This is my issue with the 'figures' and the anti-smoking lobby.

My Gran died from lung cancer. Never smoked, never worked with asbestos etc and it was "just one of those things" that happens to people in their 80's.

It wasn't nice but if she had been a smoker than it wouldn't have been "one of those things" it would have been put down to smoking pure and simple.

Until we stop saying that everyone who smokes and gets cancer gets cancer as a result of smoking as opposed to just being genetically prone as some people clearly are (otherwise non smokers, including kids, wouldn't get it) we'll never find a cure for the thing.

kwmlondon

Bantex wrote: »

What would you prefer they died of?

Old age after a long life.

qetu1357

fivetide wrote: »

To be fair, the kids won't die of cancer.

Kids get cancer. Non-smokers get cancer. This is my issue with the 'figures' and the anti-smoking lobby.

My Gran died from lung cancer. Never smoked, never worked with asbestos etc and it was "just one of those things" that happens to people in their 80's.

It wasn't nice but if she had been a smoker than it wouldn't have been "one of those things" it would have been put down to smoking pure and simple.

Until we stop saying that everyone who smokes and gets cancer gets cancer as a result of smoking as opposed to just being genetically prone as some people clearly are (otherwise non smokers, including kids, wouldn't get it) we'll never find a cure for the thing.

Are you trying to argue that smoking - and passive smoking - doesn't increase the chances of getting cancer?

sinbad182

qetu1357 wrote: »

Are you trying to argue that smoking - and passive smoking - doesn't increase the chances of getting cancer?

I think he's quite clearly arguing that not every smoker who gets cancer got it because they smoke, and that many people who dont smoke at all end up getting cancer

Jamie_Carter

Horizon81 wrote: »

Jamie - you say any deliberate act that can cause serious damage to a childs health should be illegal. Easy to say in theory, impossible in practice. You'd have to ban smoking in the home, limit junk food etc. This is just an attention grabbing story. If a parent is too thick to be a proper parent then why invent laws to band aid round their stupidity. The easiest option is to just stop them breeding in the first place. Doh! Back to Godwin's Law!

Because unfortunately we have to legislate for stupidity.

kwmlondon

fivetide wrote: »

To be fair, the kids won't die of cancer.

Kids get cancer. Non-smokers get cancer. This is my issue with the 'figures' and the anti-smoking lobby.

My Gran died from lung cancer. Never smoked, never worked with asbestos etc and it was "just one of those things" that happens to people in their 80's.

It wasn't nice but if she had been a smoker than it wouldn't have been "one of those things" it would have been put down to smoking pure and simple.

Until we stop saying that everyone who smokes and gets cancer gets cancer as a result of smoking as opposed to just being genetically prone as some people clearly are (otherwise non smokers, including kids, wouldn't get it) we'll never find a cure for the thing.

It's all about risk.

If we had 100 versions of the same person and they lived the same live with the same genes etc. then statistically some of them would die in infancy (disease, accident etc.), maybe 4. 10 would die before the age of 30, more would die before 40 but most would die 75 to 85 and a few would go on to 90+.

If you smoke then most of this identical group would die aged 65 to 70 and more would suffer ill health than the other, identical group.

It's easy to ignore all this because it's so far away when you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s.

However, at least as an adult you can make the decision.

A child who spends time in a car with someone smoking is at greater risk of developing illness in later life. It may be a long way away but there's a conflict between the rights of a child to a healthy future (or, if you want to be pedantic, a grater chance of a healthy future) and the right of someone to smoke.

I can't see how this requires any discussion at all. The smoker can take a break and smoke outside the car, but many won't.

We stopped ID cards becoming a reality, we can stop serious infringements of our liberties.

This isn't a serious infringement of someone's rights, it's stopping hopeless addicts from gassing children.

qetu1357

sinbad182 wrote: »

I think he's quite clearly arguing that not every smoker who gets cancer got it because they smoke, and that many people who dont smoke at all end up getting cancer

This may be so.

But smoking increases the chances of getting cancer.

Jamie_Carter

Bantex wrote: »

I would suspect that fat kid referred to earlier is in for a much more miserable life than the child whose parents smoke in their car.

And your point is???


I don't know what law the fat kid would be protected by. It would possibly be described as neglect, or child cruelty. But we are talking about smoking in a confined space and forcing children to breathe the smoke in.

DKLS

Easily solved, just stick your kids in the boot or even better don't travel with them.