Doctors urge ban on smoking in cars

eddiemcgarrigle said:
I'd just ban cigarettes completely. The amount of lives that would be saved in the house fires that wouldn't happen is more than enough reason. I'd ban booze too.
Click to expand...

Would you be happy about inevitable tax rises that would come with banning these two highly lucrative money makers for the treasury?
 
You could say the same for regular visitors of a crack house then?
Social, yes (to junkies), but acceptable? I don't think so (generally).
And smoking will eventually be frowned upon in the same way i'm sure.
 
Ah, cheers. I follow now. I'm torn on why eliminating smoking makes political sense. There are studies suggesting it will save the nhs money, but equally tax on tobacco is obscene which I imagine counteracts it somewhat. I don't really follow why it's useful to ban smoking, on a national scale it just doesn't matter very much if more people get cancer and die young. At least a few papers showing that smoking doesn't do anything like as much harm to people as current thought suggests have been written, and were not published. For obvious reasons I can't cite sources, so don't take this statement as evidence. It would be hugely nieve to believe that everything with scientific merit is published though. If you feed doctors research papers showing that smoking is bad and send them to lectures where they're told smoking is bad I've no doubt that they'll go on to tell patients that smoking is bad. I'm not at all sure the "you smoked? that's why you've got cancer" perspective is held by medical doctors but it does seem very popular in the general population.

All I'm outlining and defending here is the mechanism by which I believe the government is going about stopping people smoking. I don't know enough to guess at why they're doing so. I very much doubt it's because they feel it's the right thing to do in a moral sense.

dandos23 said:
You say that it is an unsociable activity.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Smoking is inherently very sociable, I've spent many happy hours sitting in pubs and smoking. If however you can't legally smoke anywhere which is warm and comfortable, it becomes less sociable. Standing outside a pub in the rain is not as nice as sitting in the pub, needing to leave work to smoke is much worse than people crammed into a smoking room.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate you would be, but I reckon there would be riots if they announced an outright ban on booze and smokes. Not to mention the extra policing required to enforce it. There would be bootleggers and moonshiners all over the place, customs at ports and airports would have their work cut out for them.

As a smoker and someone who likes a tipple or 12 come Friday night, having both axed would be a real blow - especially if I had to pay extra for the privilege. Then there's all the public houses put out of business, the unemployment, sober teens wondering the streets looking for something else to do...
 
SteveOBHave said:
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.
Click to expand...

You will have to forgive me, I am a little slow (probably because of smoking)
What "self control" do you mean?


Banzai_Joe said:
You could say the same for regular visitors of a crack house then?
Social, yes (to junkies), but acceptable? I don't think so (generally).
And smoking will eventually be frowned upon in the same way i'm sure.
Click to expand...

If smoking was illegal then it would also be viewed in the same way.
By keeping it legal it means that the government can control it. If they make it illegal then the production will just go underground and you will start to get some very dodgy stuff in cigarettes.
 
JonJ678 said:
Ah, cheers. I follow now. I'm torn on why eliminating smoking makes political sense. There are studies suggesting it will save the nhs money, but equally tax on tobacco is obscene which I imagine counteracts it somewhat.
Click to expand...

I think last time I checked revenue from tobacco brought in somewhere in the region of £11 billion per year but smoking related diseases cost the NHS approximately £2 billion. The figures are from memory so may well be wrong but the general gist is that smokers pay way more in taxes than they cost in terms of treatment on the NHS.

There is obviously the question of whether it should be reduced to a simple fiscal equation as it has a moral dimension also but that's one that depends on your viewpoint.
 
JonJ678 said:
Not quite. Smoking is inherently very sociable, I've spent many happy hours sitting in pubs and smoking. If however you can't legally smoke anywhere which is warm and comfortable, it becomes less sociable. Standing outside a pub in the rain is not as nice as sitting in the pub, needing to leave work to smoke is much worse than people crammed into a smoking room.
Click to expand...

You have forgot that the average English person loves to moan.
So they have been provided with another reason to be sociable, have a fag and moan about how unfairly they are treated at the same time. If they really wanted to they could also moan about the weather.

This is starting to look like a very sociable activity. :D

(Please dont take offence, I am only playing with this post)
 
dandos23 said:
If smoking was illegal then it would also be viewed in the same way.
By keeping it legal it means that the government can control it. If they make it illegal then the production will just go underground and you will start to get some very dodgy stuff in cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a fair point dude.
 
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 made no sense, I don't care if people think i'm stupid as a result of smoking.
No one thinks smokers are stupid, people think stupid smokers are stupid. That is like saying "Well, drivers knock down people occasionally, therefore all drivers are dangerous" no one see's it like that.

Smoking has it's uses anyway, there is research indicating that people suffering from bowel problems (IBS, IBD) can benefit from 1-2 cigarettes a day. It is also what gets me through work, having a 5 minute fag break is a godsend if you're working hard.
And I also know a few non smokers who like the smell of certain tobaccos, golden virginia mainly.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't think that it could ever be banned completely. All that they could do is try to deter people from starting.

The amount of money that it brings in is massive and the risk of it going underground is too high.
 
dandos23 said:
I honestly don't think that it could ever be banned completely. All that they could do is try to deter people from starting.

The amount of money that it brings in is massive and the risk of it going underground is too high.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd prefer it to be underground anyway - means I don't have to walk through clouds of smoke every time I walk down the pavement in London. At least that way I wouldn't have to see it or smell it.
 
platypus said:
Money that would be offset if the NHS didn't have to spend billions treating smoking related diseases.
Click to expand...

Of course it does raise the question of people living longer - but then what is the quality of life like for those old people compared to old smokers with smoking related issues... I don't see the point in complicating it - it's bad, it kills, and in my opinion it should be stopped. The arguments against are all semantic cop outs by smokers and a government too spineless to deal with the issue.
 
I get around said:
If I'm going down the motorway and have to keep pulling off every hour for a smoke it will mean road rage hell.

If you get lightheaded after your first fag of the day, thats just slightly wierd.
Click to expand...

Guys, guys!
Getting lightheaded after a fag is wierd but having road rage after an hour isn't?

I believe some countries forbid even changing radio or playing with center console controls, if they have you on tape doing it, it's enough to slap you on the wrist or more.
Forgetting the health implications, I'm all for people who want to smoke damage themselves, it's their own choice and they know it.
But I truely believe it should be in the same category as mobile phones (even though I think it's a stupid law as it's pretty much no different to talking to passengers in your car).

But using health as a ban excuse is wrong.
 
Last edited:
SteveOBHave said:
Take your pick - self control in constantly inhaling a toxic substance for addictive pleasure. Smoking around others, smoking full stop.
Click to expand...

I dont think that you could have answered that in a worse way.

It makes no sense. Are you saying that I have no self control?
Some one smoking where they are not allowed to smoke because they cant wait is someone with no self control. Someone smoking where they are allowed to is just someone smoking.

I ask again, what do you mean by self control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom