Smoking in Vehicles 01/10/15

Dale V · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:19

Nasher said:
Should be banned full stop

corrected

snowdog · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:22

I'm wondering what gives you people the right to decide for others what they can and cannot do. Just who do you think you are. Mind your own business.

Fair enough that it's not really good for kids to sit in a car with smoke, however, this is still the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:25

snowdog said:
Fair enough that it's not really good for kids to sit in a car with smoke, however, this is still the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

Even when children are harmed from parent's poor decision making for no fault of their own? Isn't the government there to protect people who can't protect themselves?

snowdog · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:31

Burnsy2023 said:
Even when children are harmed from parent's poor decision making for no fault of their own? Isn't the government there to protect people who can't protect themselves?

I understand your point, but people are already way to protected imho. The reason I'm opposed is I am pretty much against any new rules/regulations/laws, and in my case in the NL, I think at least half the local municipality laws can and should be scrapped and a lot of the national laws too.

The legal drinking and smoking age was 16 in the NL until 1 jan 2013, I am opposed of the change to 18 too, I remember often enjoying a beer or other alcohol at 16-17 myself ( because in my time it was still legal) and don't think at that age kids should be protected against alcohol and smoke. They're old enough to make their own mistakes and learn from them.

I don't view 16-18 as children that are perhaps 3 or 4 years old. Young ones that can't make decisions should, perhaps, be protected. But come on, stopping cars and checking if the passenger might be 17 years old if the driver is having a smoke, that is going way to far.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:40

snowdog said:
I don't view 16-18 as children that are perhaps 3 or 4 years old. Young ones that can't make decisions should, perhaps, be protected. But come on, stopping cars and checking if the passenger might be 17 years old if the driver is having a smoke, that is going way to far.

I don't view them as children either, they are young adults. However, it would be disjointed for the age to be 16 when most of the UK law has a cut off at 18. You need to draw the line somewhere and 18 is a consistent place to draw it.

Libertarianism works as long as you have a well educated society where everyone can make rational and evidence lead decisions. The problem is when you have a minority of people who can't make good decisions and that adversely impacts others, communities need to make rules to prevent that. Like most things, the workable solution is somewhere in the middle.

Hagar · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:45

I think in principle one new law in, one old law out.

That should concentrate the minds of legislators. Why do we need 10x more laws now than fifty years ago? (figures plucked from the air, but you get the gist).

Glaucus · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:47

snowdog said:
They shouldn't have anything to say what you do in your own car or home, idiots.

.

They absolutely should have a say when you have kids though. Lots of parent don't care and can't look after them.

snowdog · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:48

You are correct in questioning my post/tone I guess, I can agree that little kids shouldn't breathe smoke in, it's more the fact that there was a government ban for this that makes me itch for an opposing response

.

The problem is when you have a minority of people who can't make good decisions and that adversely impacts others

This point is often very much exaggerated though. And by that I mean, loads of anti smokers have no clue about the big picture, how smokers actually cost less in healthcare and social costs over the course of their life.

They absolutely should have a say when you have kids though.

Perhaps in this example you are correct. But there are laws in place for children like banning corporal punishment that I disagree with. Don't get me wrong I am against corporal punishment, I'm even more against banning it though, parents should have the right to decide for themselves how to discipline their kids.

The meddling of big nanny state has gone way to far.

Glaucus · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:51

Tepible is it's just as silly to oppose all laws, as it is to implament all laws.

I agree there's to much law and control. However that doesn't make every new law silly,
It is very sensible to protect children, even older teens. You do not have a voice of not getting in the car with your parents, be you 2months or 16.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 14:57

snowdog said:
You are correct in questioning my post/tone I guess, I can agree that little kids shouldn't breathe smoke in, it's more the fact that there was a government ban for this that makes me itch for an opposing response .

I gathered that

snowdog said:
This point is often very much exaggerated though. And by that I mean, loads of anti smokers have no clue about the big picture, how smokers actually cost less in healthcare and social costs over the course of their life.

Going to need a source on that one.

snowdog said:
Perhaps in this example you are correct. But there are laws in place for children like banning corporal punishment that I disagree with. Don't get me wrong I am against corporal punishment, I'm even more against banning it though, parents should have the right to decide for themselves how to discipline their kids.

When you see how many parents "care" for their kids as I have it's hard to maintain that position. Sometimes I just have to accept that I have to give up my freedoms for the safety of others - but that's necessary in societies.

snowdog · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:08

Burnsy2023 said:
Going to need a source on that one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...moking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

he actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

Social costs are self explanatory.
Old people/pensioners/67+ ers get free money/benefits, the shorter they live the less it costs.

There is an opposing argument which is hard to calculate, the reduced productivity & income of smokers during their working years. I have a feeling it balances out though, esepcially with the high tobacco duty, and saved money on healthcare and especially old peoples benefits ( no idea about the UK, but in the NL any 67+ -er, even the ones with their own pensions/savings, get 800 or 900 ish per month in benefits).

Dogbreath · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:15

Uriel said:
Vaping doesn't involve fire,

Not until the lithium battery decides to throw the towel in anyway.

Dogbreath · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:17

snowdog said:
This point is often very much exaggerated though. And by that I mean, loads of anti smokers have no clue about the big picture, how smokers actually cost less in healthcare and social costs over the course of their life.

I've noticed that smokers do enjoy convincing themselves of that :rolleyes:

snowdog · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:18

Dogbreath said:
I've noticed that smokers do enjoy convincing themselves of that

Rolleyes yourself, people living longer cost society more. Not just in healthcare but also in social benefits costs.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:19

Dogbreath said:
I've noticed that smokers do enjoy convincing themselves of that

The link that snowdog provides references this paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Which technically does support his statement with the caveat that smokers live 7 years less and so that is 7 years worth of costs you don't have to pay out for compared to someone healthy.

spoffle · 17 Sep 2015 at 15:49

OpenToSuggestions said:
This has genuinely got to be the silliest comment I have heard in motors ever. It gives GD some serious competition.

Something isn't silly just because you don't like it or agree. What you've done is the opposite to rational though, and goes against your own user name as you very clearly aren't open to suggestions.

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155687/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

So, as I said there isn't actually any solid evidence that second-hand smoke causes harm.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 16:00

spoffle said:
Something isn't silly just because you don't like it or agree. What you've done is the opposite to rational though, and goes against your own user name as you very clearly aren't open to suggestions.

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155687/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

So, as I said there isn't actually any solid evidence that second-hand smoke causes harm.

You've linked to one paper. It's worth knowing a bit about the paper you citied:

Funding
The authors were partially funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research (funded primarily from US tobacco companies). Both authors have received funding in the past from the tobacco industry.’

If you know anything about clinical trials you'll know that pharmaceutical funding affect results and so it's very important to know the governance and funding of a particular trial.

Here is a systematic review of 216 papers published from 1985 to 2013.

The conclusion:

Exposure to passive smoking significantly increased the risk of several respiratory diseases in childhood, including asthma, wheeze, lower respiratory infections, and reduced lung function, and in adults lung cancer (1·4, 1·2–1·7, n=13).

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62168-1/abstract

spoffle · 17 Sep 2015 at 16:14

Yes, but my point again is that there isn't any solid evidence of it, it all seems contentious as to what it can or does do.

As I said, I'm not a smoker either, I just don't think things should be aggressively legislated against when it's not understood fully.

Burnsy2023 · 17 Sep 2015 at 16:15

spoffle said:
Yes, but my point again is that there isn't any solid evidence of it, it all seems contentious as to what it can or does do.

Have you missed the link to the systematic review? That is solid evidence. It's not like there's an evidence gap, there are 216 papers being reviewed.

shorttricky · 17 Sep 2015 at 16:39

Dogbreath said:
I've noticed that smokers do enjoy convincing themselves of that

Honestly, it's not hard to find multiple studies that agree that smokers put way more into the NHS than they take out.

Smokers pay about about £12.3bn in tax and cost the NHS around £2bn.

Even if you add in every potential cost that a smoker might rack up, they cost £12.9bn - and those figures also fail to account for the fact that smokers pay all the same taxes that non-smokers do, such as NI, Council tax, tax on wages, etc.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

Of course, alcohol is estimated to cost the UK around £21bn (using a similar system as the link above) while pulling in £15bn in taxes. Perhaps you should send your rollyeyes their way