Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

fivetide

qetu1357 wrote: »

But my point is that no-one rational would say that everyone who gets cancer, and smokes, has got cancer because they smoke.

Coroners don't think like that. Cancer Research UK don't think that.

Again, the cancer resereach website doesn't seem to say that. It talks about the various causes of lots of different types of cancer but i can't see anywhere that supports your assertation.

As for coroners. That works on probability. Given (as cancer research say) smoking increases the probability of someone having cancer, the chances are they got it because they smoked. That's what will go down on the sheet. With a death like that do you really think a coroner, with no foul play suspected is going to go beyond "lung cancer, John Doe was clearly a long term smoker quod erat demonstratum" because they won't and that's why, unless you can prove what you are saying, the argument is wrong.

Horizon81

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

How is it impossible to police?? A police officer sees someone smoking in a car containing children, and they allocate whatever penalty is decided. How is that impossible?

It's worked so well for mobile phones hasn't it? Rarely a week goes by without me seeing a driver chatting on one. I'm sure people who spend much more time on the roads than I do see it almost daily.

Anyway, back to smoking. How can police judge at a glance if a passenger is under 18? Are we even looking at 18 or 16 as the definition for a child?

I see Clegg has now said he opposes the ban and doesn't want to 'sub-contract' parenting. Good man!

kwmlondon

Hintza wrote: »

I'll take that as no then.

I'll take that as a no from you too then.

qetu1357

fivetide wrote: »

Again, the cancer resereach website doesn't seem to say that. It talks about the various causes of lots of different types of cancer but i can't see anywhere that supports your assertation.

As for coroners. That works on probability. Given (as cancer research say) smoking increases the probability of someone having cancer, the chances are they got it because they smoked. That's what will go down on the sheet. With a death like that do you really think a coroner, with no foul play suspected is going to go beyond "lung cancer, John Doe was clearly a long term smoker quod erat demonstratum" because they won't and that's why, unless you can prove what you are saying, the argument is wrong.

This (from CRUK website)

"The many causes of cancer
There are about 200 different types of cancer. It can start in any type of body tissue. What affects one body tissue may not affect another. For example, tobacco smoke that you breathe in may help to cause lung cancer. Overexposing your skin to the sun could cause a melanoma on your leg. But the sun won't give you lung cancer and smoking won't give you melanoma.

Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses (including cancer) are multifactorial. This means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one type of cancer."

and

"Cancer causing substances (carcinogens)
A carcinogen is something that can help to cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is a powerful carcinogen. But not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. So there must be other factors at work as well"

So smoking is not the only cause of cancer but smoking increases the chance of getting cancer.

Bantex_2

Hintza wrote: »

I don't think she does!

I had children (grown up now) and hated taking them on long car journeys.

fivetide

qetu1357 wrote: »

So smoking is not the only cause of cancer but smoking increases the chance of getting cancer.

Which was my point all along!

You argued that they wouldn't say that lung cancer in a smoker wasn't caused by smoking. None of what you quoted supports that argument.

Once again, are you seriously saying a coroner, faced with a body of a smoker who clearly died of lung cancer is not going to say it was a smoking related disease because according to you, they won't.

andygb

Hintza wrote: »

Now, that is stretching it a bit.

I don't think so, and that is talking from a personal point of view.
From the day I was born (also prior to my birth - my mother smoked during pregnancy), to the day I left home, I was subjected to cigarette smoke on a daily basis (in the home and in the car) from two, 40 a day addicts.
The house stank, the ceilings were yellow, I suffered from constant headaches and nosebleeds, also ear infections, bronchitis each year, and my clothes reeked of stale cigarette smoke - that was abuse, intentional or otherwise.
The headaches and nosebleeds stopped when I left home, but I have the legacy of bronchitis to look forward to most years.

Hintza

kwmlondon wrote: »

I'll take that as a no from you too then.

I have three children 10-24 years old. I used to smoke a lot and when in the car I smoked with the window down, I will agree it was probably not great for them but it also hasn't done them much harm either.

The eldest played Hockey up to County standard

The middle one has played rugby for Scotland in his age grade.

The youngest has represented Scotland in Triathlons since she was eight years old.

aileth

Has this seriously degraded into an argument about what causes cancer?

Bloody hell, people.

kwmlondon

Hintza wrote: »

I have three children 10-24 years old. I used to smoke a lot and when in the car I smoked with the window down, I will agree it was probably not great for them but it also hasn't done them much harm either.

The eldest played Hockey up to County standard

The middle one has played rugby for Scotland in his age grade.

The youngest has represented Scotland in Triathlons since she was eight years old.

You don't get it.

If you drive through a red light you probably won't crash. But you might.

If you drive through every red light you may not crash, but you probably will.

It's about probability and risk and it's very hard to appreciate that what you've been doing may have effects far down the line.

Your kids are okay.

Now.

However, you don't know what will happen to them in the future. They could be fine. They could no but sharing a car with a smoker has increased their likelihood of suffering lung and heart disease as adults and put them at greater risk of cancer. How much of a risk is up for debate.

My mum smoked in the car with me, she'd never smoke in the car with her grandson as she knows the risks now.