Smoking in Vehicles 01/10/15

I agree with this completely, I wouldn't agree on a blanket ban on smoking in private vehicles. Insert fiddling with sat navigation, adjusting stereo, changing gear etc.

I wouldn't smoking my car with any non smoking passengers out of courtesy, never mind if they were minors.

Although I fear it's purely lip service and will be enforced with the same amount of vigour as the middle lane hogging offence, i.e. None.
 
Last edited:
Seems like they are talking the wrong problem?

This is all aimed at ensuring your passengers don't get second hand smoke, whereas the issue with smoking is the rummaging in your pocket, getting the fags out, opening the pack 1 handed digging inside for one that isnt squashed, searching in the glove box for the lighter, sparking up while steering with your knees and then driving permanently one handed.
 
Finally got round to this, great news!

What about vapeing...?

Janesy B said:
Another law that won't be enforced because there's barely any police on the road.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that. I've been driving to work on my new route for about 5 months now and seen 1-2 Police cars. Takes me 30-45 mins to get to work, think you'd seem them more often!
 
I had countless terrible trips as a child/teenager due to my boneheaded family insisting on smoking in the car (sometimes 3 of them at once). This is so long overdue.
 
spoffle said:
Are you suggesting that is solid evidence?
Click to expand...

I'm giving an example where a life time non smoker died from lung cancer attributed to his playing in smoke filled clubs. You're welcome to further read into the effects of passive smoking that's linked from that article.

I'm a heavy smoker. But to deny there being any evidence of passive smoking being harmful is just stupid. The tobacco industry heavily invested in and lobbied research and it should be treated with a large dose of scepticism.
 
OhEsEcks said:
I'm giving an example where a life time non smoker died from lung cancer attributed to his playing in smoke filled clubs. You're welcome to further read into the effects of passive smoking that's linked from that article.

I'm a heavy smoker. But to deny there being any evidence of passive smoking being harmful is just stupid. The tobacco industry heavily invested in and lobbied research and it should be treated with a large dose of scepticism.
Click to expand...

It says he thinks it was. That isn't evidence. I'm not denying evidence, I'm saying there's nothing solid.

I'm not a smoker and I can't stand the habit, it's disgusting.
 
and there are many more papers and studies a google away

Papers
The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke
BMJ 1997; 315 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7114.980 (Published 18 October 1997)
Cite this as: BMJ 1997;315:980
Article
Related content
Metrics
Responses
A K Hackshaw, lecturera, M R Law, readera, N J Wald ([email protected]), professora
Author affiliations
Correspondence to: Professor Wald
Accepted 7 October 1997
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the risk of lung cancer in lifelong non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

Design: Analysis of 37 published epidemiological studies of the risk of lung cancer (4626 cases) in non-smokers who did and did not live with a smoker. The risk estimate was compared with that from linear extrapolation of the risk in smokers using seven studies of biochemical markers of tobacco smoke intake.

Main outcome measure: Relative risk of lung cancer in lifelong non-smokers according to whether the spouse currently smoked or had never smoked.

Results: The excess risk of lung cancer was 24% (95% confidence interval 13% to 36%) in non-smokers who lived with a smoker (P<0.001). Adjustment for the effects of bias (positive and negative) and dietary confounding had little overall effect; the adjusted excess risk was 26% (7% to 47%). The dose-response relation of the risk of lung cancer with both the number of cigarettes smoked by the spouse and the duration of exposure was significant. The excess risk derived by linear extrapolation from that in smokers was 19%, similar to the direct estimate of 26%.

Conclusion: The epidemiological and biochemical evidence on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, with the supporting evidence of tobacco specific carcinogens in the blood and urine of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, provides compelling confirmation that breathing other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer.

Key messages

A woman who has never smoked has an estimated 24% greater risk of lung cancer if she lives with a smoker
Neither bias nor confounding accounted for the association
There is a dose-response relation between a non-smoker's risk of lung cancer and the number of cigarettes and years of exposure to the smoker
The increased risk was consistent with that expected from extrapolation of the risk in smokers using biochemical markers
Tobacco specific carcinogens are found in the blood and urine of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
All the available evidence confirms that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cance
 
anticonscience said:
Well no, but holding a fag is pretty much the same thing as holding phone, so there's that.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of smoking but holding a cigarette doesn't take into account that when you're on a phone your attention is diverted to a conversation and/or using the phone whilst holding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom