England and Wales smokers, beware!

[antijoke]

Why not just ban smoking completely?

 

[koolpc]

Excellent news. I often see adults smoking away in a car with kids in the back.

 

[Mr Badger]

Very good news. I can't believe that there are still idiots out there that would damage a child's health by doing this.

I've had a smoking ban in my car for years. Last time someone lit up I threatened to crash the car, needless to say she threw the fag out of the window when I put my foot down.

If you had crashed would the deaths have been recorded as being smoking related?

 

[Luggs]

If an adult chooses to smoke, they can live with consequences. Children don't get that choice when stuck in a car/home. If parents won't care for their kids health, i'm all for someone else doing it...

 

[Vulcan]

I agree, but how do you enforce it?

You could say that about most laws, police can't be everywhere at once, but when they are, they can do something about it.

Why not just ban smoking completely?

Because people should be free to damage their own health as long it's only their health, see alcohol for example.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

More government over reach! Your home is next and don't think they won't go there. Telescreen needed to monitor parents smoking in their houses.

It's not over-reach, it's common sense applied by law to people who have none, people should not expose others to noxious substances, anywhere.

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

Of course, the smoke just heads for the nearest window, makes every effort not to come in contact with non-smokers and fly's away quickly to be free! doubly quick if the car is diesel, cigarette-smoke would not want to be mixing with such dirty death causing substances.

 

[ci_newman]

Why not just ban smoking completely?

There needs to be a gradual transition away from it, the Govt. couldn't take the tax hit by doing it all in one go.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

You could say that about most laws, police can't be everywhere at once, but when they are, they can do something about it.

My point being there will be targets for this now it is formal policy. Which puts our Police under even more pressure when they are already under staffed and under funded.

I agree with the law in principle, but I really do think the Police have got bigger fish to fry in terms of traffic offences.

 

[Dis86]

More government over reach! Your home is next and don't think they won't go there. Telescreen needed to monitor parents smoking in their houses.

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

Um...ok. Guys, we have a crazy here. Warning warning. Alert alert.

 

[Vulcan]

My point being there will be targets for this now it is formal policy. Which puts our Police under even more pressure when they are already under staffed and under funded.

"Brian, today you have to catch 3 speeders, 1 middle lane hogger, and a smoker"... I seriously doubt it.

I agree with the law in principle, but I really do think the Police have got bigger fish to fry in terms of traffic offences.

It damages the health, it's a pretty big issue.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

"Brian, today you have to catch 3 speeders, 1 middle lane hogger, and a smoker"... I seriously doubt it.

No need for pedantry, you know exactly what I mean and how government targets/performance indicators work within organisations like the Police.

It damages the health, it's a pretty big issue.

True, but the relative harm in causes on a wider stage is not likely to impact other members of the public and road users/pedestrians in the same way as other driving offences where the results can be instant and fatal.

 

[Dis86]

My point being there will be targets for this now it is formal policy. Which puts our Police under even more pressure when they are already under staffed and under funded.

I agree with the law in principle, but I really do think the Police have got bigger fish to fry in terms of traffic offences.

I don't think what you've said is necessarily true but certainly agree about the direction. Because our police have limited resources each moment they spend focused on a new crime takes away a moment they could have been tackling an existing crime.

 

[Steedie]

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

Haha what?!

 

[Burnsy2023]

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

There is plenty of evidence to show that passive smoking harms as spoffle should be aware of:

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

 

[Vulcan]

No need for pedantry, you know exactly what I mean and how government targets/performance indicators work within organisations like the Police.

You said they would have targets for this law, when I told you they won't, you reply back saying I'm pedantic.

If you didn't mean there would be targets for this new law, then don't say there will be targets for this new law.

True, but the relative harm in causes on a wider stage is not likely to impact other members of the public and road users/pedestrians in the same way as other driving offences where the results can be instant and fatal.

Do you think they shouldn't enforce seatbelt use?

 

[Uther]

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

 

[dekez]

Good, anything that even slightly reduces smoking around kids is a good thing IMO, even if it's not massively enforced.

 

[platypus]

The idea of protecting people who get snooty about walking past a smoking person out on the street

Protecting against second hand smoke aside, why is it snooty to dislike walking past cigarette smoke? It's disgusting.

 

[platypus]

Because people should be free to damage their own health as long it's only their health, see alcohol for example.

Except its well documented that they don't just damage their own health, and they cost health services a significant amount by doing so.

Banning smoking in public places should certainly be the next step.

 

[Mr-White]

Second hand smoke is a complete lie. Zero evidence that second hand smoke has any negative effect in a car.

It's disgusting getting into a car where anyone has smoked let a lone while they're smoking.

MW