Doctors urge ban on smoking in cars

Tefal said:
Still proven to be a a relaxant though.
Click to expand...

Is it? Or is it the action of doing it that is relaxing? Is it because you're sating the craving bought on by addiction? Is the cigarette smoke itself actually chemically a relaxant? I think I need to do some searching...
 
Cheers Tefal, that is indeed my point.

Majority of people with certain cancers are smoking does not allow you to conclude that smoking causes these cancers, only that it makes them more likely. Since some people get said cancers who do not smoke, and others smoke indefinitely without developing these cancers, it is not and cannot be a causal relationship.

So deciding that lung cancer of a smoker is his own fault doesn't actually make much sense. Yet it's common knowledge that it serves the smoker right. I think this is a ridiculous position to be in, smoking should be assessed rationally rather than with the moral outrage it generally receives. My best guess at the source of this moral outrage is a government/nhs acting to make smoking socially unacceptable in order to reduce and in time eliminate the practice.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
I think he's saying that you can get lung cancer from things other than smoking (genetics etc).

Just because you smoke doesn't mean that the cancer was caused by smoking.

And just because you have lung cancer when you've never smoked does not mean other people passive smoke caused it.

But smoking can cause cancer.
Click to expand...

It is however certainly reasonable to state that being around people that smoke or smoking yourself vastly increases the possibility of developing lung cancer. Granted as does living in the middle of a hugely polluted city and a few other things, but surely if you have the opportunity to eliminate such a fundamentally basic thing we should go for it.
 
JonJ678 said:
Cheers Tefal, that is indeed my point.

Majority of people with certain cancers are smoking does not allow you to conclude that smoking causes these cancers, only that it makes them more likely. Since some people get said cancers who do not smoke, and others smoke indefinitely without developing these cancers, it is not and cannot be a causal relationship.
Click to expand...

Despite having just presented you with the clear medical evidence to the contrary... weird...
 
JonJ678 said:
Aren't you two eager to jump to conclusions. By drop out of fashion I mean the number of people smoking decrease to almost none as a consequence of social pressure, not that all people smoking are doing so to look cool. I'm well aware that smoking is enjoyable.

Smoking is being portrayed as antisocial behaviour by removing smokers from social situations and emphasising/exaggerating the harm smoking does to other people. Emphasis is also placed on it being expensive and offering no perceptable benefits, often glossing over that smoking is a pleasant experience. If smoking is considered stupid by the non-smoking majority as a consequence of this, then smokers are therefore stupid, and people do not like to appear stupid.

Fingers crossed you two will actually read this and not just come back with "what gives you the right to call me stupid".
Click to expand...

That is a very different point than your previous post.

To answer that you would need to look at what makes people start smoking.
I started because everyone that I was friends with was also smoking and it was just the done thing in my group of friends. If I could go back and chose again, then I would never start. The problem is that in my group of friend where the majority of them smoke, it is not considered stupid (anti social or offensive) to smoke.

That said I do see where you are coming from and what you are trying to say. However, I feel that this is getting slightly off topic.

I dont agree with the proposed ban as They are saying that passive smoke kills.

Kills who? There is no one else in my car and I am old enough to smoke.
 
The odds that each of these cancers would have arisin independent from smoking are very low, so it is reasonable to conclude that smoking makes cancers more likely. I take no issue with that. It's the black and white "You have lung cancer, do you smoke? That'll be why then" that annoys me.

I don't consider this offtopic, I'm offering my reasoning on why this ban is being suggested. If previous bans on smoking in public are an attempt to gradually remove the practice, and this acts to affirm in peoples minds that smoking is evil, then it will lead to fewer people smoking. Whether smoking in cars actually harms people or not is borderline impossible to prove, but if you can't smoke in your own car that's a big step towards underlining that smoking is not forgivable/acceptable in civilised society.

"Passive smoke kills" is an excellent phrase in that it's incredibly difficult to run a study on (so can't really be disproved as a hypothesis), and it encourages people who don't smoke to apply pressure to those that do.

@SteveOBHave there's a very big difference between testing under controlled conditions and correlating smokers with cancer patients. Correlation suggests causation but does not prove it. You're doing sterling work in demonstrating my point that people have a rational blind spot where smoking is concerned.
 
Last edited:
SteveOBHave said:
With all due respect I drink responsibly and rarely to the point of being drunk. I have never in my entire life endangered any ones life with my drinking and I have NEVER even considered getting behind the wheel even after a single beer. My drinking and driving has very little collateral damage past the pollution that the car produces. At least I have a legitimate reason for driving as opposed to "it relaxes me (when ironically it increases heart rate and blood pressure)".

I agree there are more dangerous things out there and hey if you decided that you absolutely needed to smoke then by all means do so, but do it with a large plastic bag wrapped around your upper body so the only one you're killing is yourself.

I'm in a position to tell you what to do because you're harming me as a smoker. (You being the generalisation as opposed to you specifically).
Click to expand...

My bad, sorry.

I do not mean you specifically, I also mean a generalisation to drinkers.
So you are very careful about how much you drink and when you drive. I applaud you. Bravo.

Problem is that I am very careful about where I smoke. I dont smoke around kids (or anyone for that matter unless they smoke) and I make sure that I dispose if the cigarettes in a manor that will prevent any fires or animals from eating them.

So can you explain why I should not be able to smoke in my car when there is no one else in it?

Who am I hurting (apart from me)?
 
JonJ678 said:
The odds that each of these cancers would have arisin independent from smoking are very low, so it is reasonable to conclude that smoking makes cancers more likely. I take no issue with that. It's the black and white "You have lung cancer, do you smoke? That'll be why then" that annoys me.
Click to expand...

More or less than someone who has continuously smoked with the clear message on their cigarette packet of "SMOKING KILLS" or the clear knowledge that as a direct result of smoking they could die a horrible and painful death?

I don't consider this offtopic, I'm offering my reasoning on why this ban is being suggested. If previous bans on smoking in public are an attempt to gradually remove the practice, and this acts to affirm in peoples minds that smoking is evil, then it will lead to fewer people smoking. Whether smoking in cars actually harms people or not is borderline impossible to prove, but if you can't smoke in your own car that's a big step towards underlining that smoking is not forgivable/acceptable in civilised society.

"Passive smoke kills" is an excellent phrase in that it's incredibly difficult to run a study on (so can't really be disproved as a hypothesis), and it encourages people who don't smoke to apply pressure to those that do.
Click to expand...

As well we should. Historically smoking was not considered harmful and a rather pleasant social pastime. Oddly now, despite extremely clear information, we now know that it does kill and that it is harmful to the tune of 114000 deaths a year and yet cigarettes are not even classed as a drug. Yet as two or three people die from ingesting plant food (Mephedrone) the classing of the drug is urgently rushed through Parliament. It's a strange world we live in. (Yes I am aware of the Alcohol parallels and related figures)
 
Smoking while driving should be illegal anyway, same as using a mobile phone. If it's considered dangerous to drive while holding a mobile phone, then how can smoking a cigarette be any less dangerous... especially when you have to light the thing to begin with.

Also, fine anyone that throws a cigarette out the car window... which is probably everyone who smokes while driving. Also, while we are at it, adopt a shoot-on-sight policy for anyone that throws a lit cigarette out of the car window which then lands on the bonnet of the car behind.
 
It was widely publicised that Roy Castle died as a result of 'passive smoking'.
It was part of my post that seemed to prompt JonJ678 to retort:
Maybe so....but what would you think if in a few months time you found out you had lung cancer as a direct result of passive smoking?
Click to expand...

With respect mate, i don't think the context of what i was saying was hard to understand, yet you seem to have twisted it somewhat. I posed the question to someone who didn't seem to care about smoking as he grew up around it (much like me). But if he found out he had [lung] cancer (whatever cancer) "as a direct result of passive smoking" i asked how he thinks he'd feel.
I'd be gutted. So would my parents cos they'd most likely feel responsible.
It wasn't meant to spark an OT debate about what type of cancer passive smoking causes. That's semantics and i'll hedge my bets that none of us are medical professionals(?)
My point was quite clear (so i thought).
The very fact that they want to introduce a law to ban smoking in cars does prove that passive smoking is not an urban myth. So who cares what particular illness it gives you....none of em are good.
 
dandos23 said:
So can you explain why I should not be able to smoke in my car when there is no one else in it?

Who am I hurting (apart from me)?
Click to expand...

There is the argument similar to the one for not using Mobile phones in a car but I don't hold it as particularly legit. Honestly I can't see a particularily strong reason for not allowing you to smoke in your car if there is no-one else in it. The problem as I see it is that smokers haven't been able to demonstrate their own self control in this situation so that choice should be taken away from them. IMO of course.
 
Last edited:
@Steve Somehow you're still not following me. I'll try again, please be patient with me until you see what I'm driving at here.

If our governement makes mephedrone illegal overnight, it upsets a quiet minority and generally leads to good things. If they make smoking illegal overnight, something that people have done for so long that at least a few nutters will consider it a "human right", there will be uproar. That's not going to make our leaders very popular.

If however, over a period of many years, smoking is increasingly shown as an evil, stupid, dangerous thing, alongside preventing people smoking in social environments (banning it in pubs really sucked, and nightclubs now smell much worse than before imo) people become increasingly convinced that they don't want to smoke. Further, that they don't want anyone around them to smoke.

So the current long term campaign is going to end with no one smoking, and everyone feeling quite pleased with themselves about it. That's an awful lot better than enraging hundreds of thousands of people.

Banning smoking in cars is a reasonable next step in making smoking socially unacceptable.

@Banzai, you've quoted someone else but attributed it to me, so I'm a bit unsure how to reply to that part.
Banzai_Joe said:
The very fact that they want to introduce a law to ban smoking in cars does prove that passive smoking is not an urban myth.
Click to expand...
:(
No, it doesn't. The government is quite capable of passing laws under false pretenses, or laws which it doesn't understand the implications of. As long as the general public makes deductions like your one, it all works out fine.
 
Last edited:
JonJ678 said:
Somehow you're still not following me.
Click to expand...

No I get your point.

JonJ678 said:
If our governement makes mephedrone illegal overnight, it upsets a quiet minority and generally leads to good things. If they make smoking illegal overnight, something that people have done for so long that at least a few nutters will consider it a "human right", there will be uproar. That's not going to make our leaders very popular.

If however, over a period of many years, smoking is increasingly shown as an evil, stupid, dangerous thing, alongside preventing people smoking in social environments (banning it in pubs really sucked, and nightclubs now smell much worse than before imo) people become increasingly convinced that they don't want to smoke. Further, that they don't want anyone around them to smoke.

So the current long term campaign is going to end with no one smoking, and everyone feeling quite pleased with themselves about it. That's an awful lot better than ****ing off hundreds of thousands of people.

Banning smoking in cars is a reasonable next step in making smoking socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning, I really do, and it make a certain amount of sense but I also understand that the slowly gently approach still means that there are going to be entire generations of kids growing up around smoking parents. If making a few hundred thousand people annoyed is going to save one life - I say have at it...
 
Aye, but you're not relient on the population voting you into power in a few years time. And you're not responsible for dealing with the civil unrest that would result from an overnight ban.
 
Jon, post #54 matey :). You quoted me.

Government may be capable of passing 'false' laws, but i don't believe for a second that they have the whole medical fraternity under the influence whereby they'll agree to say "passive smoking kills" if it weren't true.
I agree with your idea that they are gradually making smoking more socially unnaceptable (and that's a good thing), but surely that is solely because it IS damaging to health and it DOES kill people.
 
JonJ678 said:
"Passive smoke kills" is an excellent phrase in that it's incredibly difficult to run a study on (so can't really be disproved as a hypothesis), and it encourages people who don't smoke to apply pressure to those that do.
Click to expand...

Going on what you have said it could also be argued the other way, as in, it also cant be proved as a hypothesis.

You say that it is an unsociable activity.
If I go out side for a cigarette with my mates, that would be considered a sociable activity, just because non-smokers dont like it, it does not make it unsociable. It creates a community of "smokers". We all meet up for a cigarette break at work and have a chat at the same time.

Definition
sociable adjective

describes someone who likes to meet and spend time with other people.

I just happens that when we meet up we have a cigarette as that was the reason for meeting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom