No Smoking In Cars

I have just heard on the news and seen in the newspaper that top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!

This really winds me up, I can understand a ban on smoking in public places as there are other people around who don't want to breath in your smoke. Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.

Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....

So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????

I hate this country sometimes.....arrrrghhhhh!

If the evidence shows that it can cause harm just from the lingering chemicals then I think it makes sense (and will push up the value of smokers cars :p) But if they're just worried about the effect of smoking with children present then they should just ban that, rather than ruling out smoking in specific places whether or not they are present.

it would be fine if all the smoke stayed in the car, but i often walk past cars where someone is smoking with the window open to let the smoke out (since they dont want to have to sit in it). Doesnt strike me as much different from just smoking outside.

I think this proposed ban would only be for people parked around public places like schools etc, not in the middle of nowhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colincliff

I think this proposed ban would only be for people parked around public places like schools etc, not in the middle of nowhere?

---

No it's concerned with the effect that smoking in a car has on children that travel in that car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

I have just heard on the news and seen in the newspaper that top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!

This really winds me up, I can understand a ban on smoking in public places as there are other people around who don't want to breath in your smoke. Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.

Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....

So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????

I hate this country sometimes.....arrrrghhhhh!

---

I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired. The same can be said when you lit a cigarette and while you smoke it. You also have one hand off the steering wheel when lighting it and when smoking. So to be honest i'm glad there banning it, for one thing it may cut a small percentage of accidents and has health benefits. Had a few friends who were annoyed with the ban on smoking in pubs etc, and now 2 out of the 4 have stopped and are all the better for it.


edit: just read the bbc article I still would agree with a ban, but support is not as strong as it was. The reason being is that a safety and health reasoning should be the reason for the ban.

If they cared that much they would just ban smoking altogether. Its not like its about the money or anything, oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

No it's concerned with the effect that smoking in a car has on children that travel in that car.

---

in that case does seem a tad extreme, although fines etc for people spotted smoking in cars with children i are a good idea in IMO. Not sure who would be responsible for checking these things though - perhaps teams of smoking wardens - who might would help take the pressure of the hatred of traffic wardens..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

top doctors want a ban on smoking in cars!

---

Top hippies want a ban on animal testing.

Gosh, I hate this government!






This is much like that non-story a while ago that I don't care to remember where "top doctors" were proposing a ban on food, or some other mundanely aggravating thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AledJ

I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired.

---

That would be a better arguement yes, however it is still flawed, do you change a cd whilst you are driving? Maybe have a swig of water? Or eat a chocolate bar? All these are just as bad as having a fag.

In fact you can very easily drive with two hands whilst smoking, only occasionally taking your hands off the wheel, far less dangerous that trying to drink from a bottle which also impares your vision, you have to open the cap etc.

As for smoke coming out of a car and people breathing it in? Well that is no different from following someone on the street (walking) who is smoking and that isn't band (whether it should be is another arguement altogether) but in this instance it isn't a valid arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KidChameleon

This is much like that non-story a while ago that I don't care to remember where "top doctors" were proposing a ban on food, or some other mundanely aggravating thing.

---

Oh I know that it is a 'non-story' really. It is just that it is the sort of thing that winds me up. Doctors and governments constantly telling us what we can and can't eat/smoke do etc....

By the time you are an adult you should be able to choose (for better or worse) what you do with your body.

I would also support a ban on smoking while driving for the same reason as they banned mobiles, but for health reasons is taking it a bit too far.

I'm constantly amazed by the fact that, every time I end up stuck in a traffic jam on the M-whatever, the most pervasive smell, above all of the vehicle fumes, is the person three cars back smoking a fag. Seriously. I can't remember the last time I was parked up on the M6 between 11 and 8 and didn't get a lungful of tobacco smoke at some point.

On the other hand, a car is just about as private a space as you can get outside your own home, and I'd be disinclined to support a ban on people smoking in their cars. Although I would introduce some very harsh penalties for anyone caught smoking in an enclosed space with a child present...

p.s. there are already perfectly good laws in place to deal with people who have accidents while unnecessarily distracting themselves. If you want to ban everything that might distract people while driving, then we'll end up banning children in cars - they are easily the most distracting thing I can think of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

That would be a better arguement yes, however it is still flawed, do you change a cd whilst you are driving? Maybe have a swig of water? Or eat a chocolate bar? All these are just as bad as having a fag.

---

I have my ipod connected in my car and just select a play list before i set off. As for drinking water etc I can see your point, and accept my point is a bit flawed. However, what government idea/ law etc is not flawed.

In a safety aspect it seems sensible to me, if you're not allowed to use your phone or eat an Apple, why are you currently allowed to smoke. A lit object that you need to hold constantly, you could drop it and set something on fire!

In a health aspect, I can't really see the point, passive smoking from people walking passed your car whilst you are smoking seems a bit weak, as car fumes surely are worse?

It should still be banned for safety and of course that will keep the Dr's happy as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KidChameleon

Gosh, I hate this government!

---

What has the govt got to do with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris P

In a health aspect, I can't really see the point, passive smoking from people walking passed your car whilst you are smoking seems a bit weak, as car fumes surely are worse?

---

It's for the people *in* the car, not outside it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

Doctors and governments constantly telling us what we can and can't eat/smoke do etc....

By the time you are an adult you should be able to choose (for better or worse) what you do with your body.

---

Well a doctor's job is not only to fix the problem when they arises. Given that prevention is better than than treatment, it makes sense for them to push for what's best to keep one healthy. Government are the ones who can make it a legal requirements.

To be honest, I believe that the 'life choice' granted to adult is partly on the assumption that they can behave as responsible adults. Yet sometime I wonder why 'responsible adults' would choose to do what they do.

Ideally I think that at the very least, people should not smoke in the vicinity of children in an enclosed place (that means in their car, and even in the same room of their own home) and pregnant women should not smoke nor drink during pregnancy. But it's near impossible to enforce.

kalniel

Sure, I just read one of the comments about outside. Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason. It makes sense so children can't breath in smoke but this is more of a parental decision, just like a law can't be passed stopping you smoking in your house, where children may be present.

The safety aspect still makes more sense.

they did say that they would like a ban on smoking at homes with kids, but it's unenforceable, thus the least they could do is ban it in cars where it would be more visable if someone broke the law

also, cars are a lot smaller than most homes, thus smoking is confined to a much smaller area. imagine the smoke from two adults in the front seat with the windows closed because it's winter, and the impact that could have to a young kid in the back

i think many people would like to ban smoking, after all the majority of people don't smoke, yet a minority of people smoking near non smokers can have an adverse effect, but the logistics of such an immediate ban would be difficult to implement

if there are continued restrictions on smoking, such as advertising ban, restrictions on sales (ie. no point of sale advertising, fags kept under counter), public smoking ban, it can only serve to reduce smoking overall, and help eliminate future generations from starting to smoke, so effectively smoking may die out over time. it's a horrible addiction that kills people and makes others feel uncomfortable or ill, even if they don't smoke themselves, so if a stop can be put on new smokers, whilst existing smokers can feed the addition in private in their own homes without bothering other people, both sides win

Typical 'Think of the Children' argument.
Another small bite out of your liberty for no proven gain. You'd do better to ban all cars, smoking, drinking, and any other risk factor you can name. Then we'll all be immortal.

What's wrong with thinking about those who do not have a choice? If I don't want to sit in a car with a smoker, I can arrange my own transportation. Children do not have luxury. Babies do not have that luxury of choice while they are in their mother's womb. Of course, we can't control everything in life, but what's wrong with controlling what we can and be considerate of those who can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

What has the govt got to do with this?

---

That's my point. The joys of internet sarcasm. :)

"Some people with strong opinions not connected to the government want something banned, therefore I hate the government."


"The old lady up the road thinks cars louder than 30dB should be banned. Damn this government for telling me what to do."

I detest smoking (I am an ex-smoker and we are notoriously hypocritcal about it) but in your own car, with no-one else in it? I cannot see that being bad for anyone except yourself.

Of course most kids hate being in a car with a smoker, so they are a real PITA and tend to discourage smoking anyway.

Besides, I bought my wife's previous Merc from a smoker and got a nice discount (about 3,500 Euros) because of the smell, which vanished after a few months of keeping some smell-suck stuff in the back. Actually, even the windscreen had a yellow tint from the layer of tar, but that came off with a wipe of nail polish remover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AledJ

I don't really see why your angered by this. I mean mobile phone use in cars was banned because your concentration was impaired. The same can be said when you lit a cigarette and while you smoke it. You also have one hand off the steering wheel when lighting it and when smoking.

---

I'm pretty sure there's already a law which covers all the eating/drinking/smoking/putting on make up while driving, something like "Driving without due care and attention". But it has the clause that it must be having a noticeable negative effect on your driving, instead of an outright ban like with mobile phones.

I rather they use the money spent on drafting legislation, implementation and enforcement of this ban with better tests for driving so that we get better drivers on average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

So are they going to ban smoking in houses next????

---

Would not surprise me in the slightest, in fact i'm surprised it hasn't already been suggested.

This pains me too, haven't we got more important issues to debate? Honestly they may as well suggest hanging smokers by their neck until they are dead and have done with. I quit years ago and it still annoys me when i see the constant attack on smokers. We have already put them out into the cold, segregated them from the rest of society.

If they want to smoke in their own car who are we to stop them, and what ground does anyone have to stipulate otherwise.

As for safety, well personally i prefer smokers to have a smoke while driving, that way when they are late for work and stuck in temporary traffic lights or behind a tractor, cyclist or moron driver in rush hour with a two mile long queue behind them they remain in control, calm and don't plow head on into oncoming traffic or mount the curb and run over your kids on the way to school.

If safety is a cause for concern, or indeed plays any pivotal part in this debate, surely the use of CD players, Sat-Navs and hungry hippos should come 1st..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeteSmith

If they want to smoke in their own car who are we to stop them, and what ground does anyone have to stipulate otherwise.

---

On the grounds that they're harming people who don't have a choice to avoid that harm. Smokers have always had the choice to make decisions that affect themselves, it's when they affect other people that recommendations have been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

On the grounds that they're harming people who don't have a choice to avoid that harm. Smokers have always had the choice to make decisions that affect themselves, it's when they affect other people that recommendations have been made.

---

Most people have a choice; they have a choice to walk away (or get out of the car in this particular case). If it's a child then okay, we need to ensure they are protected from 3rd party smoke. But a blanket ban on smoking in cars? No. It's a silly notion that holds no credit what so ever.

I have to say that I support a ban on smoking in cars, if you are driving. If you've got a lit fag in your hand, or are lighting one whilst driving, or worse rolling one when driving you don't have full control of the car.

Speaking as someone who has been rear ended by a driver who was more concerned about lighing one up than she was stopping for the traffic lights and smacking into my car she should have had the book thrown at her.

That said you could argue that your not in full control of the car if your changing station on the radio or turning the volume up/down but alot of modern cars come with those controls on the steering wheel now.

I've no issue with anyone smoking in their car when its stationary, just not your when driving thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeteSmith

As for safety, well personally i prefer smokers to have a smoke while driving, that way when they are late for work and stuck in temporary traffic lights or behind a tractor, cyclist or moron driver in rush hour with a two mile long queue behind them they remain in control, calm and don't plow head on into oncoming traffic or mount the curb and run over your kids on the way to school.

---

I don't understand this bit???? So we should let heroin user shoot up in the car so they don't get agitated or jumpy ?

If i'm stuck in traffic I mange to keep myself under control so why would a smoker be any different. Very flawed point tbh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeteSmith

Most people have a choice; they have a choice to walk away (or get out of the car in this particular case). If it's a child then okay, we need to ensure they are protected from 3rd party smoke. But a blanket ban on smoking in cars? No. It's a silly notion that holds no credit what so ever.

---

The recommendation was talking about children, yes.

they should first stop people from smoking in doorways...
I have never smoked and never intend to but we all know second hand smoke is a killer and thats why smoking in doorways should of been stopped at same time as the current smoking ban.

As to smoking in cars well if its your own car and only you are being harmed i see no problem with it.

i really dont know why people still smoke. it costs ton,it makes you smell,and you will have a shorter life. wow i can see why so many young people still start smoking haha.

Just a thought.

Maybe we should ban cars in confined spaces? Eg multi sotry car parks, tunnels etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abaxas

Just a thought.

Maybe we should ban cars in confined spaces? Eg multi sotry car parks, tunnels etc.

---

Buses too. Have you seen how much pollution they pump out ? They should be banned from public roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris P

kalniel

Sure, I just read one of the comments about outside. Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason. It makes sense so children can't breath in smoke but this is more of a parental decision, just like a law can't be passed stopping you smoking in your house, where children may be present.

The safety aspect still makes more sense.

---

Well, a law could be passed about smoking in the home. If the perceived problem is that it's a parental decision, the same could be said about smacking kids and that didn't stop legislation being passed. The problem would be enforcement, but it isn't insurmountable. It would just be a case of the relevant authorities, be they police or social services, gathering sufficient evidence.

Another parallel would be TV licensing. That takes place in the home, but it didn't stop legislation making it mandatory for those receiving TV broadcasts, so it isn't as simple s it not being a public place.

As for cars, well, the parallel with using handheld mobiles is obvious, so that could work for smoking too.

Whether such a law will be passed is one thing, but I have no doubt that it could be, both in relation to cars and homes. How heavily it's enforced would largely be a function of the level of resources allocated to it.

Whether it should be passed, either for cars or homes is another matter, and that, IMHO, comes down to whether the medical evidence supports the requirement .... and my suspicion is that it does, where kids are present at least.

I see no problem in principle in banning it either in cars or private homes where kids are exposed. If there are no kids, then it's grossly intrusive, If adults don;t like it, they can always leave. Kids of then don't have that option.

I also wouldn't be supposed to see this type of law on the statute books, but I don't see it happening yet. But the attitude of the public to what is or is not acceptable changes, and the result is often legislation. Seatbelts would be one example, smoking in public places is another and attitudes to drink driving yet another. In each case, attitudes changed and legislation came along with it. Some of it, like seatbelts, we now all pretty much take for granted, and my bet would be that the same will happen to smoking, publicly or privately. The process is already well underway. It may take some more years, but in my view, it's coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phage

In terms of being distracted ? What a pity the argument is based on health grounds.What else in the car is a distraction ? Radios ? Passengers ?
....

---

No, nothing to do with distraction. My point was that it being inside your own car won't stop a law being passed. It was in response to the bit I quoted ...

Quote:

---

Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phage

Source ? I haven't seen any causal links shown at all. All we have is a purported correlation. A stronger case could be made for diesel particulates. Ban the buses !

---

The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other. There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect, including the lady that described the effect on her child's asthma on the TV the other night. There is also my personal experience of the effect second hand smoke has on me. It is certainly not conclusive for the general case, but I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about my case. And that is why nobody smokes in my home or car, and why I won't travel in a car with those that do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phage

....

So your proposed solution to parental negligence is to legislate and let the courts sort it out ? That's always worked well in the past.

---

Please indicate where I proposed anything of the sort? I didn't propose anything at all. I also said I see no problem in principle, that being to err on the side of protecting kids because some parents are selfish enough to smoke and expose their kids to high levels of second hand smoke. My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk. What do you prefer ..... expose kids to risk where we believe there to be a serious risk until we can prove categorically that their is? By then, many kids will have been harmed. I prefer the principle of acting on the side of caution.

But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.

i agree with chris p on first page, its a safety thing, if you cant change the cd/tape, use phone, eat etc while driving, why should you be able to hold a light object and then constantly take hand off wheel to put the lit object to mouth. Also fire hazard... if you drop the cigarette you are either going to stamp it out or try and grab it which is dangerous and distracts you from road.

But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozwin

But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.

---

We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other.

---

And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect,

---

Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk.

---

How do you feel about other risks with anecdotal evidence ? Pylons ? EMF ? WiFi ? Mobile Phones ? Diesel exhaust ? Auras ? Your attitude is that we should eliminate all risk, whatever the cost. To keep legislating until all risks are eliminated. I understand the motivation, but the end result is repugnant. If parents are negligent, find a way to educate them, or more realistically make tobacco a banned substance. Nothing less will stop people (possibly not even then.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.

---

Very true. But I am again mystified. Becuase we have one piece of crap legislation we should have another ? Should we not try to avoid such laws where possible ? They only bring the law into disrepute.

Reading people's arguments is very interesting.

It seems to me that most people haven't really touched upon the issue that this is being proposed upon - kids in cars with smokers.

Most are saying that it should be banned from a safety point of view, which I would see as a more valid point.

I agree with Phage here, parent's need to be educated, not just a blanket ban which would affect people who are not within the constraints of having children in the car.

Again the argument here would be why not ban it on safety grounds and therefore solve the problem?

The thing is, like drinking a bottle of water, or changing a cd etc, smoking is already covered under the 'driving without due care and attention law'. To ban smoking completey would mean having a ban on drinking, fiddling with radio's, cd changing etc.

It is not the same as using a mobile, for two reasons, firstly a mobile conversation means you HAVE to have one hand off the wheel ALL the time you are using the phone. Not so when smoking, you can have the offending item in one hand whilst holding the wheel, only occasionally taking it away for a puff.

A phone also means you are having a conversation, which means not all your attention is on driving, therefore this leads to accidents. A cigarrette doesn't do that.

My problem is with it, if you ban that then where does it stop? No talking when driving? No music? No farting? They are all distractions like anything else. These are the things that drivers have to contend with everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phage

And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?

---

Again, you're putting words in my mouth and asking me to justify things I didn't say.

I did not say I thought such legislation should pass. I said that the evident weaknesses did not mean it wouldn't be passed.

Quote:

---

Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.

---

Now you're being pedantic. Alright, instead of anecdotal evidence, which is a term generally used (or perhaps misused) to refer to evidence from personal account, let's refer to "personal account". That is evidence, and evidence that can be used in a court. That is not to say it's scientific evidence, or that it should be used to draw conclusions that cannot be supported, but nonetheless, where a sufficient body of such personal account exists, it is enough to at the very least justify there being a case to investigate.

If you have 50 people all of whom saw smoke emerging from a wooden box, a workable hypothesis is that something in the box, or the box itself, is on fire. It could be, of course, that 50 people saw a box containing a working smoke machine. Where there are lives at stake if it turns out to be fire, it's worth assuming it is fire until such time as investigation proves otherwise.



Hence my comments. In principle, if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed, you have two choices while you ascertain if it is the case or not :-

1) Assume it is not, and if you're wrong, children's heath is damaged or perhaps ruined
2) Assume it is, and if you're wrong, no kids have been harmed.

I see nothing wrong with the principle of acting to prevent harm to kids health, where sufficient grounds for reasonably believing it to be the case exist, even in the absence of actual proof.

But absolutely nowhere did I say I thought such legislation should be passed. I did not express an opinion on whether it should be passed, one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

parent's need to be educated

---

Sometime it's not negligence or lack of education, but plain selfishness. More education won't help under such circumstances, but depending on their priorities, a fine might just swing their behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....

---

If I have kids in my car, I think the fact I am smoking is the least of the their worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.

---

As one of the most powerful legal stimulants, yep :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Hence my comments. In principle,

---

The lawyers equivalent of the physicists frictionless vacuum. We should discuss facts, and scientific evidence. You did use the term medical evidence did you not ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed,

---

It doesn't - and a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking. My point is that there are much better uses of parliaments time. Time that could be based looking at arguments based on facts and a real risk assesment. This is pseudo-science and political posturing. Nothing more.
Either ban it, and alcohol, or do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

even in the absence of actual proof.

---

Or indeed rational debate. Say no more. No sacrifice too great etc etc.

Please note - this is the cleaned up version of the thread. No continuation of the previous argument in this thread please. The other one is still there for that.

How I see this, it will keep children and passengers safe from drivers that are smoking in the car when they have no say i.e. parents smoking in the car with their children, which, unless you are some scumbag parent, is a very very good idea.

You want to smoke in your car and give yourself cancer or w/e - fine, do what you want.

But, then you run to the NHS when you get lung cancer or develop breathing problems etc - Not exactly a good thing for the Government and the already screwed NHS. I think non smokers don't understand this compared to smoking in a house for example, your car is confined, even if the window is open, it's more damaging - And it's one of the reasons why weed users smoke in cars, it gets you stoned much much quicker because it becomes like a smoke oven - and the effects in the air last longer - and it becomes very hard to remove the smell (tobacco or weed).

People who smoke in cars = Gonna hate it
People who don't smoke = Gonna love it

And, even someone stated that smoking is pretty much the same as eating or drinking in a car

In all honesty, I don't see why the smoking bans need to go much further, as it is smokers are kept out of 90% of our social and working environments, pay a hefty tax on their habit and are generally made to feel ashamed of what they do anyway. The laws passed seem to have been pretty effective and unless they're willing to go to a total ban, I think enough is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammEl

How I see this, it will keep children and passengers safe from drivers that are smoking in the car when they have no say i.e. parents smoking in the car with their children, which, unless you are some scumbag parent, is a very very good idea.

You want to smoke in your car and give yourself cancer or w/e - fine, do what you want.

But, then you run to the NHS when you get lung cancer or develop breathing problems etc - Not exactly a good thing for the Government and the already screwed NHS. I think non smokers don't understand this compared to smoking in a house for example, your car is confined, even if the window is open, it's more damaging - And it's one of the reasons why weed users smoke in cars, it gets you stoned much much quicker because it becomes like a smoke oven - and the effects in the air last longer - and it becomes very hard to remove the smell (tobacco or weed).

People who smoke in cars = Gonna hate it
People who don't smoke = Gonna love it

And, even someone stated that smoking is pretty much the same as eating or drinking in a car

---

I agree. Parents in cars with kids, smoking, is wrong. And people smoking when they're not allowed to even pick up a phone and hold it to their ear... I mean.. lighting a fag while driving.. gotta be banned,

BUT>.without people paying for fags, there would be NO NHS... so that bit's not quite right. I argued it here years ago and was flattened on the fact.. fag tax pays for when we all get ill :)

Nanny state getting ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 99Flake

Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.

---

Isn't it already in the highway code now about smoking in cars? I know when i've driven in a company vehicle i couldn't smoke for a few years now.

It's an interesting one, i've smoked for 20+ years and driven for 20+ years, and it's never caused an issue from my perspective. Having a window open automatically creates a vacuum for the smoke to be drawn outside the vehicle when moving.

I think that IF the goverment wants to get so heavily involved in areas like this they should avoid the grey areas and just outright ban smoking, or leave everyone in peace and take the tax revenues as they have done happily for years without conscience.

Either way, i'm not really concerned as i've recently given up smoking :help: