Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

kwmlondon

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Because unfortunately we have to legislate for stupidity.

This isn't bad manners. We're not talking about a law to stop people getting crumbs in the Flora. This is a law to protect people's rights to a healthy childhood, as much as we realistically can.

I know, we ought to protect kids in so many other ways, but it's a balance between what we can achieve and what's just unrealistic.

We just brought in a law to stop kids buying e-cigarettes - nobody complained that it would stop companies making a profit because we put kids health first. Why treat people's right to smoke in a car any differently?

kwmlondon

DKLS wrote: »

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

Ooh, not traveling with them would be many people's ideal choice!

Ebe_Scrooge

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

I think the point is that if we are talking about introducing a law to ban smoking in cars, in order to protect children, then it's just as valid to introduce a law to stop parents feeding their kids rubbish - both are harmful to the kids.

Horizon81

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And your point is???

But we are talking about smoking in a confined space and forcing children to breathe the smoke in.

Yes just like in the house. So let's say a family of smokers spend 1 hour a day in a smoke filled car versus say 16 hours a day in a smoke filled house. The benefit of banning smoking in the car is negligible, not to mention nigh on impossible to police.

fivetide

qetu1357 wrote: »

This may be so.

But smoking increases the chances of getting cancer.

Never said it didn't did I?

sinbad gets it entirely.

What I don't like to see is smoking being put down as the only cause of cancer if the person happens to be a smoker.

It makes a nice story and it is great for the anti-tobacco lobby but personally I'm in the anti-cancer lobby and I really don't think it is helpful.

As kwmlondon says, it is about risk but calculating it this way fudges the figures and that isn't right.

qetu1357

fivetide wrote: »

Never said it didn't did I?

sinbad gets it entirely.

What I don't like to see is smoking being put down as the only cause of cancer if the person happens to be a smoker.

It makes a nice story and it is great for the anti-tobacco lobby but personally I'm in the anti-cancer lobby and I really don't think it is helpful.

As kwmlondon says, it is about risk but calculating it this way fudges the figures and that isn't right.

What rational person believes that only smoking causes cancer?

Are you saying that coroners do?

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

fivetide

qetu1357 wrote: »

What rational person believes that only smoking causes cancer?

Are you saying that coroners do?

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

Re-read what I wrote. You didn't get it the first time and even though I patiently explained it to you - as did sinbad, you are back with this aggressive tone and misguided opinion having jumped immediately to the wrong conclusion just so you can try to have a fight.

No point trying to have a discussion with someone like that. Sorry.

qetu1357

fivetide wrote: »

Re-read what I wrote. You didn't get it the first time and even though I patiently explained it to you - as did sinbad, you are back with this aggressive tone and misguided opinion having jumped immediately to the wrong conclusion just so you can try to have a fight.

No point trying to have a discussion with someone like that. Sorry.

"What I don't like to see is smoking being put down as the only cause of cancer if the person happens to be a smoker."

You may think I am being agressive - but this is a forum where you state opinions that can be challenged.

Hintza

Hmmmm........lots of people posting on this thread who are not regular posters on the Motoring board, must be here to push their agenda of more State control.

Hintza

kwmlondon wrote: »

Ooh, not traveling with them would be many people's ideal choice!

Do you have children?