England and Wales smokers, beware!

[platypus]

Given the different sources of energy available - No, they're not necessary... They're just not as taxable, profitable or already in-place as viable earners.
In other words, you let yourself be harmed because someone else is making money off it.

I realise there are other sources of energy available, but that's a colossal expense to throw money at, and will take time to replace. Plus to say "I let myself be harmed because..." is a tad harsh. I have no more control over our power generation policy than I do my wife's boot buying habit .

I'm not sure the comparison to smoking is valid - we need power and generate it in this fashion, there is enough known now that we are trying to change it, it takes time and a lot of money and whilst the oil and gas industry are such powerful lobbyists it will continue to limp along at a snails pace. We do not need smoking.

And where is all that electric gonna come from? What powers the industry that makes the equipment for all these green solutions?

Not sure if you're being facetious or not but obviously if we drastically reduce the usage of combustible materials in industry, employ various technologies to capture harmful emissions (which are only going to get better), and so on, we reduce the overall output. Imagine if all cars were electric overnight? The reduction alone in that output of harmful gases would be significant. Nuclear power perhaps? I'm not advocating that as the only solution but there are safe ways to store the waste. Stick it on the moon maybe ? Great steps are being made in fusion, who knows. To bring it back to the topic though, I was making the point that pollution from industry is necessary, pollution from smoking is not.

I agree - Ban all alcohol!

I'm not entirely against that idea .

 

[anything I don't mind]

Are you honestly banding children and private property together ?

Does the state own your car or your children?

 

[Glaucus]

I don't have blind faith at all. For most studies to be published in reputable journals they need to declare their funding and governance to be transparent in relation to conflicts of interest. This is all published and has been taken into account.

So I'll reiterate, the evidence is comprehensive and sound whether you like to believe it or not.

Just something else to add to his ever growing lists of CT nuttiness.

 

[Wazz-1]

To be fair I wouldn't trust an anti smoking campaign either.

A lot of the science surrounding second hand smoke is a complete joke.

I listened to a lecture few months back and the guy was talking about how the anti smoking groups are nuts and killing the pub industry and the rest.

If you actually look in to it, the evidence supporting second hand smoke is very weak.

You ever been in a car with someone smoking? It's like not even 0.5% of what you would get from even one proper hit on a smoke. Even if someone blows smoke in your face it's still doesn't get inhaled. It's just hysteria and gov public health over reach.

I agree with your statement highlighted above, it has had a massive effect on the industry. I believe you should have the choice to go to a smoking pub (run by people who smoke or are happy to be in that environment) if you want, it is your choice not the nanny state.

But kids in smokey cars is a no no, and to say it has little effect is just plain silly.

 

[MooMoo444]

Does the state own your car or your children?

Since if you mistreat your children they can be removed from your possession, I guess the state does own them actually. The state owns you too.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Since if you mistreat your children they can be removed from your possession, I guess the state does own them actually.

The definition of ownership isn't 'something that can be removed from you legally' so not really.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

This new ban smacks of micromanagement. The police forces are stretched enough as they are.

True story: I used to get travel sick as I hated the smell of petrol, to the point that I would puke up. I would actually tell my step-dad to smoke. He obliged every time, and the passive smoking made me feel better and ward away the sickness. I was a pre-teen. After a few years, I grew out of it and no longer get travel sick.

Do I smoke now? Nope.

Have I ever smoked? Nope.

Does step-dad still smoke? Nope.

My above story is an example that more serious crimes should be under the police's radar

 

[Glaucus]

It'll take no more time for police, it'll be same as now if they not doing much and see someone with a phone, or smoking etc, you get pulled.

 

[Van Diemen]

Is good news.

I'm a smoker myself but hate people who smoke around kids,

I don't smoke in the car or in the house

 

[estebanrey]

There's a meme flying about which, for once, makes a good point. Why, on the same logic, haven't they made it a criminal offence to smoke when pregnant?

If you can't smoke with a child in the car then surely you shouldn't be able to do it with one in the womb either?

The feminists would never allow a law that specifically targets women I suppose

 

[Avenged7Fold]

^
Unborn children have different(less) rights according to the law depending on what stage of pregnancy the woman is in.

 

[estebanrey]

It'll take no more time for police, it'll be same as now if they not doing much and see someone with a phone, or smoking etc, you get pulled.

The difference is not only do they have to spot the action, they also have the asses the circumstance. It's always illegal to use your phone [hand-held] whilst driving but this law only applies if there is a child under 18 in the car.

So the officer also has to get a good enough view to see it's definitely a child.

If the 'child' says they're over 18, backing up the driver, will the police have the power to make them produce ID?

 

[[TW]Fox]

They'll just use common sense, meaning 17 year olds likely don't get a stop but a car with two baby seats does.

 

[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.

Bbc news is showing the research now that proves you completely and utterly wrong.

235 times the safe limits with the windows up. Over 100 times the safe limits with the windows down.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You joke but sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place.

I don't really joke that much, actually...

I realise there are other sources of energy available, but that's a colossal expense to throw money at, and will take time to replace.

I wonder who would have a colossal amount of money.... oh, those fuel companies. Weird, huh!

Plus to say "I let myself be harmed because..." is a tad harsh. I have no more control over our power generation policy than I do my wife's boot buying habit .

But you choose to live here with all that, rather than off somewhere greener, right?

We do not benefit from smoking and there is enough known now that we are trying to change it, it takes time and a lot of money and whilst the tobacco industry is such a powerful lobbyist it will continue to limp along at a snails pace.

^ See what I did there?
Same things are said about smoking and EVERYONE knows it kills you, yet it's still going on...

Not sure if you're being facetious or not

Generally not.

Imagine if all cars were electric overnight? The reduction alone in that output of harmful gases would be significant.

But the plants that produce that electrickery - They burn fossil fuels, no?
More leccy Lexuses means more leccy required, which means more fossil fuels burned?
What about all the factories that make these turbines and wave devices and all that? What's the environmental impact of all that?

We have a whole business park here (supposedly) powered by just one nice, green wind turbine... It spends half its time not working and word is that it still hasn't paid for itself, let alone the maintenance costs...

Nuclear power perhaps?

Thorium - THAT would be a nice one!!
Apparently, despite being the best candidate for alternative energy, research into it stopped in 1964(ish) because it could not easily be refined into weapons-grade for missiles...!!!

To bring it back to the topic though, I was making the point that pollution from industry is necessary, pollution from smoking is not.

My argument is that smoking kicks out FAR less pollution and is FAR less of a worry than all the other stuff.... even more so, now that we're going over to vaping.

If your biggest concern is me kicking out large clouds of 'mostly harmless', sweet-smelling vapour and setting off the occasional old-fashioned smoke alarm, then your life is pretty good....

 

[kitfit1]

Over 100 times the safe limits with the windows down.

Then one really has to question the methods of the testing. I'm a 57 year old smoker and have been since the age of 16. I've been driving since the age of 17. If i open the drivers window about 100mm and light a cig, ALL the smoke goes straight out the window. It always has in any car i've owned and still does in my current car. If i open the window all the way down, most of it stays in the car. I'm 100% that the testers were looking for the result they wanted.........................................and just like me, knew exactly how to get that result...................................................open the window all the way down. Totally predictable and completely what they wanted to see. In fact no different from lighting a fire in a fireplace when there is no draw up the chimney......................................then just opening a window, result= a room full of smoke. Create a small draw up the chimney, result= warm room and no bloody smoke..........................................not rocket science and has been practiced by all forms of humans for thousands of years.

 

[Dis86]

Then one really has to question the methods of the testing. I'm a 57 year old smoker and have been since the age of 16. I've been driving since the age of 17. If i open the drivers window about 100mm and light a cig, ALL the smoke goes straight out the window. It always has in any car i've owned and still does in my current car. If i open the window all the way down, most of it stays in the car. I'm 100% that the testers were looking for the result they wanted..........................................and just like me, knew exactly how to get that result...................................................open the window all the way down. Totally predictable and completely what they wanted to see. In fact no different from lighting a fire in a fireplace when there is no draw up the chimney......................................then just opening a window, result= a room full of smoke. Create a small draw up the chimney, result= warm room and no bloody smoke..........................................not rocket science and has been practiced by all forms of humans for thousands of years.

Are you a peer reviewed scientist? If not then...well...no.

Also the chimney thing is wrong. Particles enter the room hence large numbers of deaths when people switched to smokeless fuel.

 

[kitfit1]

Are you a peer reviewed scientist? If not then...well...no.

Also the chimney thing is wrong. Particles enter the room hence large numbers of deaths when people switched to smokeless fuel.

Do you smoke ? if not then...well...no
I can only presume you have never lived in a house with a proper fire and chimney as well

 

[Dis86]

Do you smoke ? if not then...well...no
I can only presume you have never lived in a house with a proper fire and chimney as well

I don't but lived with one. And I do. Which you can smell as soon as you walk in.

Want to talk any more rubbish from your opinion that has no basis in fact at all?

 

[kitfit1]

I don't but lived with one. And I do. Which you can smell as soon as you walk in.

Want to talk any more rubbish from your opinion that has no basis in fact at all?

In that case then get a Gas safe installer to do a smoke test up your chimney, because it clearly hasn't got a proper draw on it.