Doctors urge ban on smoking in cars

Azrael · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:00

How does that equate to me caring about my health? Just because I don't want to smoke all my life doesn't mean I care about my health. My diet is one of the worst I know, I don't exercise and I smoke. I don't plan on changing anything but the smoking...eventually

Steve - What about people's right to freedom? I.e. to do what they want? If you ban something, you take away freedom. Why control people by banning something some people enjoy?

EDIT - Steve, no I'm not hanging about for the 250 posts thing. How dare you judge me, when you don't even know me. Do I judge you? No.

JIM_BOB7813 · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:00

It seems silly that people are allowed to hold a 600°C burning stick while they are driving.

RDM · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:02

Azrael said:
Steve - What about people's right to freedom? I.e. to do what they want?

As the old saying goes. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Freedoms need to be balanced which is why I have no real problems with restricting smokers from impacting others, but I would have significant issues with trying to restrict smokers from harming themselves or others that choose to expose themselves to second hand smoke.

Banzai_Joe · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:03

Azrael said:
The simple truth is, I just don't care. I don't plan on smoking all my life, but I really don't care about my health.

Dude, seriously?! This is definitely troll territory....and daft as i am, i'm biting.

How can someone not give a toss about their health? Granted, some people don't go to the gym, they may even have a bad diet, but thats often down to ignorance, not to lack of care about their health? That shows your selfishness. Or are you trying to tell us that none of the family and friends, the only people you care for will mourn your passing should you (very possiblly) die young due to health issues.
I imagine you don't have kids and never will judging from your outlook on life.

I reckon this is all a big windup.....no one could be so......hell i haven't even got the words to describe your way of thinking, lol.

Not a pikie traveller are ya? :rolleyes:

SteveOBHave · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:04

Azrael said:
Steve - What about people's right to freedom? I.e. to do what they want?

What about my right to not have some self destructive nit wit blowing smoke in my face? What about a families right to not have to go through the heart ache of watching a loved one die a painful cancerous death? What about a childs right to not grow up in an environment where they are constantly breathing in carcinogens?

Rights are to be cherished and treated with respect - not flaunted in what ever way you feel like.

Gaygle · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:05

RDM said:
You said "much more likely to be one of the unlucky ones" but it seems that 50% of people that smoke die of smoking related illnesses (that doesn't actually mean that smoking caused it all, but for the sake of argument we will say that it did). If half die and half dont then you can't be "much more likely" can you?

To be honest, those figures don't go into enough detail - as they don't specify what middle age is, what old age is, whether a person had a smoking related illness in old age but then got hit by a bus etc. I've removed it now and replaced it with more reliable and slightly more detailed stats, shown below:

Patient said:
About half of all smokers die from smoking-related diseases. If you are a long-term smoker, on average, your life expectancy is about 10 years less than a non-smoker. Put another way, in the UK about 8 in 10 non-smokers live past the age of 70, but only about half of long-term smokers live past 70. The younger you are when you start smoking, the more likely you are to smoke for longer and to die early from smoking.

Azrael · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:09

Banzai - I'm not a troll, traveller or anything else you want to call me. It's not a wind up either. You're right, I'll never have kids. Why? Because I don't like them. I'm content to live my life as it is now.

Steve - As I said earlier, people are going to die anyway. So the families you mention are going to watch a member of said family die a cancerous death anyway most likely. If I want to smoke, I'll smoke. If you don't like it, fair enough, you have your reasons. I respect that, but a ban on smoking infringes on a human's right to freedom.

RDM · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:11

SteveOBHave said:
What about a families right to not have to go through the heart ache of watching a loved one die a painful cancerous death?

They don't have that right. And stopping smoking probably wouldn't change it all that much considering how many people will get cancer regardless.

Banzai_Joe · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:16

Azrael, i respect your cander, and i shake my head and laugh as i write this. Not out of disrespect to you mate, but purely that your lifestyle choices are a million miles away from mine and very possibly 99% of the forum and i find it hard to fathom.
I asked if you were a pikie/traveller as i cannot imagine a bunch of similar like-minded people all congregating together in society (except chavs

).
I may be wrong but can i/we assume that the family and friends that you care for are of similar ilk? Overweight smokers who don't give a fig about anything else?

SteveOBHave · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:18

Azrael said:
Steve - As I said earlier, people are going to die anyway. So the families you mention are going to watch a member of said family die a cancerous death anyway most likely. If I want to smoke, I'll smoke. If you don't like it, fair enough, you have your reasons. I respect that, but a ban on smoking infringes on a human's right to freedom.

You could say that about most laws that exist - they are there to protect us from people that flaunt their 'human rights' in such a way that they effect others. Lets take the likes of heroin, cocain, crystal meth etc... individuals should have the right to use this stuff as long as it doesn't effect others. But the problem is that it does - whether it be from fatalities or addicts committing crime to support their habits. The laws have been put in place to make these things illegal for a reason - because some people don't have the personal integrity or the strength of self to not effect other people. I see smoking in a similar light - it effects others - by in large the users don't care and IMO in being that way they are forgoing their given 'human right'.

Oddly it's smoking, drinking alcohol, polluting by countries (whether by industry or vehicles) that are all blatantly harmful and yet because society says that it's ok (to a greater or lesser extent) it's not legislated against.

SteveOBHave · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:19

RDM said:
They don't have that right. And stopping smoking probably wouldn't change it all that much considering how many people will get cancer regardless.

No this is true - but wouldn't you wish to reduce the possibility of putting your family through it?

I get around · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:21

Azrael said:
They were raising me, they raised me to be a polite, respectful man. But the more I see of some people in the world, the more disillusioned I become. So that's why I'd rather care about myself and people close to me, because to me, that's all that matters.

Humanity is made up of 90% ****'s.
I accept that, but you have to give people a chance in order to find the ones who aren't tools.

Azrael · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:21

Aha, you couldn't be further from the truth. For one, I'm not overweight, I'm 10 stone and 5 ft 8, which is average I believe.

My family/friends all smoke, apart from my mother who is an ex-smoker. One of my mates thinks the same as me, whereas the others are all diverse and have many differing opinions on things. Some I agree with, some I don't, but I respect their views and they respect mine.

EDIT - I get around - I've given people a chance, aka the ones I associate myself with. I distrust people on sight, so for me to like them, I need to spend enough time with them to get to know them.

RDM · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:28

SteveOBHave said:
You could say that about most laws that exist - they are there to protect us from people that flaunt their 'human rights' in such a way that they effect others. Lets take the likes of heroin, cocain, crystal meth etc... individuals should have the right to use this stuff as long as it doesn't effect others. But the problem is that it does - whether it be from fatalities or addicts committing crime to support their habits.

Really bad example to choose. Considering how useless prohibition has been at controlling drugs and most of the issues with drugs are due to their illegality. Also what is with the hyperbole again? "Most laws...are there to protect us from people that flaunt their "human rights"? Utter rubbish.

SteveOBHave said:
The laws have been put in place to make these things illegal for a reason - because some people don't have the personal integrity or the strength of self to not effect other people. I see smoking in a similar light - it effects others - by in large the users don't care and IMO in being that way they are forgoing their given 'human right'.

Alternatively the laws have been put in place due to popular opinion with no real evidence that they do anything to reduce harm.

SteveOBHave said:
Oddly it's smoking, drinking alcohol, polluting by countries (whether by industry or vehicles) that are all blatantly harmful and yet because society says that it's ok (to a greater or lesser extent) it's not legislated against.

There is a suprisingly large amount of legislation around smoking, drinking alcohol (is this your next target if you manage to smoking banned?) and pollution so I am not sure where you get "it's not legislated against" from?

SteveOBHave said:
No this is true - but wouldn't you wish to reduce the possibility of putting your family through it?

What so I can put them throught the pain of another non smoking related cancer death or the pain of watching me slowly slip away to dementia or one of the hundred other unpleasent ways to die? It was a stupid argument the first time you made it and it really hasn't got any better.

Banzai_Joe · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:30

I distrust people on sight

Lol, dude.....you have issues! Or you have been around the very dregs of society.
At least you aint fat though, smoking will keep you thin.....go for it!

Azrael · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:31

I distrust people because that's the way I am. Makes it easier to deal with people. Keep them away from me, to avoid unnecessary contact

Banzai_Joe · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:41

Azrael said:
I distrust people because that's the way I am. Makes it easier to deal with people. Keep them away from me, to avoid unnecessary contact

Lol, err.....o..k...then! :eek:

The age old paradoxical argument i guess, "the more people i know, the more people let me down."
But...
"the less people i know, the less people i can count/rely on"

I dunno. :confused:

RobotXander · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:43

JIM_BOB7813 said:
It seems silly that people are allowed to hold a 600°C burning stick while they are driving.

that made me lol

I think it's a good idea to ban smoking while driving. Anything that takes the drivers hands/concentration etc away from the wheel/road should be banned.

Same principle as to why driving while on a mobile was banned

RDM · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:50

RobotXander said:
I think it's a good idea to ban smoking while driving. Anything that takes the drivers hands/concentration etc away from the wheel/road should be banned.

So, passengers, the radio, the all important boiled sweets for long journeys, car sat nav, hands free phones, that about cover the things that should be banned too?

SteveOBHave · 26 Mar 2010 at 12:53

RDM said:
Really bad example to choose. Considering how useless prohibition has been at controlling drugs and most of the issues with drugs are due to their illegality. Also what is with the hyperbole again? "Most laws...are there to protect us from people that flaunt their "human rights"? Utter rubbish.

Alternatively the laws have been put in place due to popular opinion with no real evidence that they do anything to reduce harm.

So why do you think that laws are put in place? I'm not talking about the effectiveness of the laws, merely why they were put there in the first place. You may not agree with them, or with the effectiveness of them but the reason they are there are to protect everyone else from those that attempt to do harm.

RDM said:
There is a suprisingly large amount of legislation around smoking, drinking alcohol (is this your next target if you manage to smoking banned?) and pollution so I am not sure where you get "it's not legislated against" from?

Ok again poorly worded. What I mean is made illegal. I personally love a good wine or a good whisky and I'm very responsible with my drinking, others aren't. I don't think drinking should be banned but then in reasonable quantities drinking is not harmful to the majority of people. From the first puff on a cigarette smoking is. Now in a hypothetical world, should drinking be illegal? Possibly - it would surely make for a better world for many people and save many lives. I guess in reality the question is, does making it illegal to drink and drive reduce the number of deaths due to intoxicated driving - I personally believe that it does. Would making it illegal to smoke in public or around non consenting adults make for a better world - I believe it would. Going all the way - would making it illegal for cigarettes to be produced and sold have a positive effect on the world - I believe it would. Is it realistic - perhaps not but I think it's a target worth aiming for (extreme view yeah I know).

RDM said:
What so I can put them throught the pain of another non smoking related cancer death or the pain of watching me slowly slip away to dementia or one of the hundred other unpleasent ways to die? It was a stupid argument the first time you made it and it really hasn't got any better.

No of course not - and taking it so literally is poor semantic argument - my point, as you well know, is that if you have the opportunity to reduce your chance of dying in an particular needless way then shouldn't you take it?