Doctors urge ban on smoking in cars

[SteveOBHave]

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?

I agree it's not a reasonable reason to ban smoking in a car - there are more than enough things that are far more distracting in a car than holding a durry. I think the health reasons are enough on their own.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Semi-Pro

Another well balanced response, someone should make you admin

The quip that pingwing quotes? I'm afraid I can't claim credit for that, I heard it years ago and just remembered it. Or the responses in this thread? Either way thanks for the vote of confidence.

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?

I'd also suggest adding driving while tired or upset, other road users/accidents and weather conditions could all be added as potentially taking concentration away for drivers. However it's a bit of a silly argument, some things are more distracting than others of course - I don't think smoking generally would feature in the most distracting things for drivers but bad drivers will remain so almost irrespective of what is or is not banned.

 

[RobotXander]

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?

Well, prolonged activities such as smoking and chatting on the phone, yes.

 

[RDM]

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.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. I do not have the right to punch you, I do not have the right to steal your stuff, I do not have the right sexually assualt you and so on and so on.

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).

Your hypothetical world sounds like an authoritarian nightmare where others get to decide what I can and cannot do with my life due to level of harm. Personally I am a big fan of personal freedom, even if that means sometimes we have the freedom to hurt ourselves.

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?

But it isn't reducing your chance of dying (which hovers around the 100% mark) it just changes what you die of. What if I don't die of cancer but instead take many years to die from dementia? Is that really an improvement? Personally I would rather a "You have got lung cancer, you are going to be dead in 3 months" than "You have got dementia, you are going to live for years but frankly in about 3 months time you won't be able to remember how to go to the toilet."

 

[RDM]

Well, prolonged activities such as smoking and chatting on the phone, yes.

So you aren't interested in how distracting it is, but rather how long it takes? Do you possibly work for the government with such delightful logic as that?

 

[Azrael]

RDM - you think like me with regards to personal freedom. It's a refreshing change from the usual views I hear about.

 

[RDM]

RDM - you think like me with regards to personal freedom. It's a refreshing change from the usual views I hear about.

Not entirely as I would have no real issue with restrictions on smoking where it impacts others. However if it is only impacting the smoker then feel free to kill yourself, it is of no concern of mine.

 

[Banzai_Joe]

Not entirely as I would have no real issue with restrictions on smoking where it impacts others. However if it is only impacting the smoker then feel free to kill yourself, it is of no concern of mine.

This! Absolutely this.
Azrael, i'd defend your right to smoke if your own private company if you wanted. But ONLY as long as it didn't have a negative impact on someone elses health.

To reiterate, i'm actually against the ban on a 'human rights' level.
I abhore smoking utterlly though, so would gladly see if wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[RDM]

This! Absolutely this.
Azrael, i'd defend your right to smoke if your own private company if you wanted. But ONLY as long as it didn't have a negative impact on someone elses health.

I would also extend that to those that choose to expose themselves to second hand smoke. Which is why a blanket ban on smoking in cars is a retarded idea.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. I do not have the right to punch you, I do not have the right to steal your stuff, I do not have the right sexually assualt you and so on and so on.

Don't you? Why not? Is it because if you punch someone, it harms them? What if you steal something or sexually assault someone - why is that not something you should be able to do as a human right? Again it's because it harms someone - it infringes on their human right to live a pain free life.

Why is it then that someone should have the right to smoke when it effects others? And lets look at this from a realistic position not from the "but some of them are conscientious smokers that don't harm anyone else" but from the standpoint that the vast majority do.

Your hypothetical world sounds like an authoritarian nightmare where others get to decide what I can and cannot do with my life due to level of harm. Personally I am a big fan of personal freedom, even if that means sometimes we have the freedom to hurt ourselves.

Oh I agree.

But it isn't reducing your chance of dying (which hovers around the 100% mark) it just changes what you die of. What if I don't die of cancer but instead take many years to die from dementia? Is that really an improvement? Personally I would rather a "You have got lung cancer, you are going to be dead in 3 months" than "You have got dementia, you are going to live for years but frankly in about 3 months time you won't be able to remember how to go to the toilet."

It's a rather spurious argument - it's like saying - I really like to have sex without condoms and along the way I got aids - so I'm giving all my other sexual partners aids but it's ok because I enjoy it. At least I'm going to die doing something I enjoy rather than getting slowly eaten by army ants whilst being stretched naked over their nest.

 

[I get around]

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.

And thats all you want? A few people you associate yourself with, people are generally *******s but the more good freinds you have the more meaning you life will have.

And you've got to wade through a load of **** to find good people. At the moment, you're just fitting with the general selfish stereotype most people fit in with, "I don't care outside of me and my little group" now see, I find that to be a bad attitude to take, I'm not gonna lie, I think you're just another one of the general public. You don't think about other people, this is why society has gone to hell, whens the last time you helped an old lady cross the road eh? According to your logic you don't care about her?

 

[RDM]

Don't you? Why not? Is it because if you punch someone, it harms them? What if you steal something or sexually assault someone - why is that not something you should be able to do as a human right? Again it's because it harms someone - it infringes on their human right to live a pain free life.

Why is it then that someone should have the right to smoke when it effects others? And lets look at this from a realistic position not from the "but some of them are conscientious smokers that don't harm anyone else" but from the standpoint that the vast majority do.

Which is why, time after time, I have said that I do not have any problems with well considered restrictions that stop smokers harming others that do not choose to be harmed.

Oh I agree.

Then why on earth do you support taking us that little bit closer to that sort of world?

It's a rather spurious argument - it's like saying - I really like to have sex without condoms and along the way I got aids - so I'm giving all my other sexual partners aids but it's ok because I enjoy it. At least I'm going to die doing something I enjoy rather than getting slowly eaten by army ants whilst being stretched naked over their nest.

What? How on earth is it anything like that? Remember we are talking here about the persons own death and not commiting assault on others. This bit of the argument started from your rubbish assertion about families having the right not to watch their loved one die.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Which is why, time after time, I have said that I do not have any problems with well considered restrictions that stop smokers harming others that do not choose to be harmed.

So no smoking in a car is ill considered then?

Then why on earth do you support taking us that little bit closer to that sort of world?

Because anything less is still going to leave cigarettes available, still harming people and damaging peoples lives.

What? How on earth is it anything like that? Remember we are talking here about the persons own death and not commiting assault on others. This bit of the argument started from your rubbish assertion about families having the right not to watch their loved one die.

Because we're still talking about smoking here - to get cancer due to smoking is in one way or another going to harm other people. I don't see how asserting that you should have the conscience of mind to look after your health so that your family can have you around for longer is a good thing. I also don't understand your assertion that on the outside risk that you're going to get dementia later in life you think that you'd be better off smoking yourself to death? It's a ridiculous argument.

 

[RDM]

So no smoking in a car is ill considered then?

Yes of course it is. Considering how many car journeys are taken with only one person in the car. A blanket ban on smoking in a car is represive and almost unenforceable.

Because anything less is still going to leave cigarettes available, still harming people and damaging peoples lives.

And once cigarettes are gone do you move on to the next thing?

Because we're still talking about smoking here - to get cancer due to smoking is in one way or another going to harm other people.

But it isn't going to harm them in any way different to dying by some other reason. It certainly isn't giving them a life altering and potentially fatal disease. Everyong is going to die and someone is going to get upset about it. What they die of is going to have little impact on them being upset. Dying from something other than a smoking related disease could be worse, or it could be better.

I don't see how asserting that you should have the conscience of mind to look after your health so that your family can have you around for longer is a good thing.

I am assuming you mean "isn't a good thing", if you do, then I agree with you. What I don't agree with is forcing people to do it.

I also don't understand your assertion that on the outside risk that you're going to get dementia later in life you think that you'd be better off smoking yourself to death? It's a ridiculous argument.

No, I was just pointing out that there are worse ways to die. So your "good intentions" are actually going to make some people worse off.

 

[RobotXander]

So you aren't interested in how distracting it is, but rather how long it takes? Do you possibly work for the government with such delightful logic as that?

Wow, you're on some sort of crusade here Are you a chain smoking joyrider?

I'm not singling out smokers.....I don't agree with Smoking, mobile phones, eating, drinking etc while DRIVING. Your rather sarcastic suggestions about passengers etc was pathetic.
It's my opinion, that’s all, I don't work for the government.

 

[Tefal]

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?

Then i hope you don't drive, drink alcohol or eat fatty food then.


All of them a major killers and can be avoided.

 

[RobotXander]

Or use stairs, play football or exercise

Aren't we being a little bit pedantic?

Sure you could get hit by a car or have a crash (been in an accident myself) but you don't knowingly set out to do so.
Smoking causes health problems that are self inflicted....Isn't that the difference?

 

[SteveOBHave]

Yes of course it is. Considering how many car journeys are taken with only one person in the car. A blanket ban on smoking in a car is represive and almost unenforceable.
And once cigarettes are gone do you move on to the next thing?

Even a partial ban on smoking in cars - i.e. if there are passengers/minors in the car is unenforceable. Banning smoking in home is unenforceable but both of these are harm causing through inconsideration - ergo - a ban on import, production and sale as well as consumption.

Odd thing - the idea of not fixing one problem because you'd only have to move on to the next. I'm glad we as humans don't really operate like that - we'd all pretty much give up then wouldn't we?

But it isn't going to harm them in any way different to dying by some other reason. It certainly isn't giving them a life altering and potentially fatal disease. Everyone is going to die and someone is going to get upset about it. What they die of is going to have little impact on them being upset. Dying from something other than a smoking related disease could be worse, or it could be better.

No I get that - coming from the direction of emotional harm due to dying - fair call, I'll retract that. But from the perspective of dying unnecessarily from something that they had a good chance of avoiding by not smoking seems to me to be a thing worth doing. As a family member I would vastly prefer my family to have the best chance at living a full life and I'd be upset at someone doing something that could jeopardise that.

I am assuming you mean "isn't a good thing", if you do, then I agree with you. What I don't agree with is forcing people to do it.

No, I was just pointing out that there are worse ways to die. So your "good intentions" are actually going to make some people worse off.

Yeah sorry I did mean 'isn't'. It's where you and I differ then - smoking is one of the few things that I would consider saving people from themselves over. However it is a really slippery slope - what if I thought that wearing Burberry clothing was damaging and then tried to stop everyone from doing it. Where do I get off making that call? It's a tough one and I understand that.

As for my good intentions making some people worse off? I would've thought on balance it would make more people better off. But you can never know till it happens.

 

[RDM]

Wow, you're on some sort of crusade here Are you a chain smoking joyrider?

Never smoked, never intend to.

I'm not singling out smokers.....I don't agree with Smoking, mobile phones, eating, drinking etc while DRIVING. Your rather sarcastic suggestions about passengers etc was pathetic.
It's my opinion, that’s all, I don't work for the government.

Maybe some of the smokers can say just how distracting smoking while driving is, from what I can deduce the answer seems to be "not very distracting at all". So if you are happy to ban smoking due to the distraction, surely anything more distracting (like a chatty passenger) should also be high on your list?

 

[SteveOBHave]

Wow, you're on some sort of crusade here Are you a chain smoking joyrider?

I'm not singling out smokers.....I don't agree with Smoking, mobile phones, eating, drinking etc while DRIVING. Your rather sarcastic suggestions about passengers etc was pathetic.
It's my opinion, that’s all, I don't work for the government.

No - he's just a little inclined to pulling apart ill considered statement with semantic argument - I'm afraid in this case I have to agree with him. The activity itself is not something to be overly concerned with when it comes to driving - the health implications are.