Ban Smoking in Cars

[Storm™]

Just a poll to see where people stand. Today the Medical Profession sets in motion a movement to get smoking banned in cars either stationary or moving. The agenda is to protect children passengers (totally agree here) and also vulnerable adults from the effects of passive smoking. I am sure the usual excuses will be trawled out such as - its the single biggest drain on the NHS - which despite what any figures may show I assure you (I worked in the NHS for years) the biggest drain on resources is obesity. Obese patients require all sorts of funky equipment to move them, and they have to have special beds/mattresses/care plans and when an obese patient needs to be moved it requires a gathering of staff to use the special kit - slide sheets etc. They are needed many times throughout the day to be moved as part of the pressure sore plans and any time they need the toilet and also any time they slip down, need sitting out, washing, bed changing .... the list goes on. As well as special medical considerations with regard to breathing and operations. Dietitians. The list really does go on. And its far smaller for smokers, because anyone who has nursed a smoker will know, they stay under the radar. Get in get out.

AND this is the biggy - the most notorious smokers and drinkers are doctors. In fact I used to sit next to a lung cancer leading expert in this part of the Uk and he used to pinch fags off me lol. Anyway rant off, I just wondered how you feel about these Dr's have nothing better to do than spend your money trying to remove peoples rights. Must be a slow day in the medical profession I guess.... let the games begin.

 

[drstitson]

aside from the health issues:

enclosed small space meaning more smoke exposure per fag
exposure of kids

IMHO the biggest issue is the safety one - one hand by definition will be holding the wheel properly less often. plus you have the issue of lack of concentration while riffling through pockets,bag, glove compartment for fags/lighter whilst on the move.

all smoking, eating and drinking on the move should be banned.

 

[Storm™]

The safety issue will always be there, but that does not apply to just smokers, those that use phones (policing that is a drain on resources and not as lucrative in fines as they thought), turning the heating on, AC on, radio on, windscreen wipers, itchy face (no one with dermatitis will be allowed to drive next. Someone can drive who is blind in one eye ..... now that surley is FAR more dangerous. Those who wear glasses (in case they knock them off and cant see properly). I mean the list is endless and where will it all end. No kids in cars, telling them off is a distraction. No passengers in case we turn and talk to them (my partner does this and I Sh*t myself). I mean smoking and driving is a skill.

Rolling a fag while driving now that makes you a Jedi.

 

[JamezF]

Anyway rant off, I just wondered how you feel about these Dr's have nothing better to do than spend your money trying to remove peoples rights.

This is where it all starts to get tricky though, isn't it? Why should someone claim that they have "a right" to smoke in their car? What's so special about that activity that it should be protected in preference to, say, walking around public places naked, or any number of other relatively harmless things that other people might like to do but aren't allowed to by law? "Rights" aren't some sort of inalienable gift of one's mere existence. They're what society decides they are, and they change over time.

It's simple to claim that it does no-one else any harm, but considerably harder to actually demonstrate when you take into account the potential lack of attention to driving, the fag-ends that are carelessly thrown from windows (I know of a couple of bikers who have been hit by them, and one who managed to hang onto it and drop it back through the car window), the passive smoking issues and so on.

If it is to be banned on health grounds then the doctors should have to make their case. On the other hand, I can see a fair number of people supporting the idea from the road safety point of view. After all, no-one has "the right" to put other peoples' lives at risk by propelling a tonne and a half of steel along the road at 60mph in close proximity to others and giving less than their full attention to controlling it, do they? The police may well support it because it's easier to get a conviction for smoking than it is for driving without due care and attention as a result of smoking.

Personally I really don't know enough about the health issues to make a judgement, and from a road safety point of view there are probably other ways to spend parliament's time and our money that would result in a greater improvement in safety.

And anyhow, the government isn't going to lightly cut off an income stream from people who are physically addicted to paying huge amounts of tax, is it?

James

 

[susbees]

It's only a further step from the fact that if you use a car/van on business then it is part of the workplace and you already aren't allowed to smoke in it, even as the sole user.

Just as if I were daft enough to smoke I couldn't smoke in my beeshed or haybarn (doubly stupid!) as both are three sided buildings and it's a farm....even though no-one else is around and it's virtually outside (and probably raining).

 

[greatbritishhoney]

Let's face it, smoking is only still legal at all because of an accident of history (i.e - no one knew it was bad for you until half the world was addicted to tobacco), and the vast tax income it generates.
On the grounds of health there's no rational argument in favour of smoking at all. There are many less damaging pursuits that are already banned.
Smoking is becoming more and more socially (and politically) unacceptable and obesity will probably go the same way eventually (when everyone realises how much money it is costing the tax payer to prop up other people's lifestyles).

 

[Winker]

I go out for a drive and smoke! on my own. I some times just sit in the car on a cold day and have a puff. I am forced to smoke outside the house for health reasons (children in the house). Why cant i just sit/drive on my own and have a few puffs?

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I go out for a drive and smoke! on my own. I some times just sit in the car on a cold day and have a puff. I am forced to smoke outside the house for health reasons (children in the house). Why cant i just sit/drive on my own and have a few puffs?

From the Mayo Clinic...

"The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children"

 

[Headnavigator]

I go out for a drive and smoke! on my own. I some times just sit in the car on a cold day and have a puff. I am forced to smoke outside the house for health reasons (children in the house). Why cant i just sit/drive on my own and have a few puffs?

Sit in in and have a puff on a cold day by all means, my only beef is the frequent bad driving I see (still) from one-handed phone-using fruitloops, and I - possibly unfairly - suspect some smokers are driving pretty similarly with fag in hand. I've noticed I have a tendency not to use the radio in bad conditions, an almost automatic judgement that I need the extra focus for the road.
However I am an ex-smoker and we know that there are none so self-righteous as the converted - sorry!

 

[Hivemaker.]

Perhaps they should ban cars and lorrys from smoking as well,plenty of it comes out of the exhaust pipes,and also ban road signs,far to many of them..real hazard trying to look at them all while driving.

 

[Storm™]

Why should someone claim that they have "a right" to smoke in their car? What's so special about that activity that it should be protected in preference to, say, walking around public places naked, or any number of other relatively harmless things that other people might like to do but aren't allowed to by law? "Rights" aren't some sort of inalienable gift of one's mere existence. They're what society decides they are, and they change over time.

I see your point but, I pay for the rights to use my car on the road. I have to pay for the car and I have to pay to keep it going along on that road. I had to pay for the right to learn to drive it and I have to pay for its upkeep and I have to pay for it to be repaired and I have to pay to check to see if its road worthy. I have to trust that a garage wont rip me off each MOT. And apart from buying the car in the first place (free will obviously though I live in a rural area so only have the car as a mode of transport as there are no buses here) I have no choice in the rest of the crap that comes with it. I pay a LOT for the privilege of having a car. No one else pays for it for me - so how does someone who does not know my skill levels, have a say in what I do in my private "Lawful" property. It will be the home next. And then once smokers are criminals they will turn to drinkers and you wont be allowed to drink.... ever...

It's simple to claim that it does no-one else any harm, but considerably harder to actually demonstrate when you take into account the potential lack of attention to driving

Yep I agree but then there are Police who drive along using radios (seen at every turn on any police programme on telly). Using the radio in your car, opening the window - I've stated the obvious in previous post, and as for Bikers. Hmmmm well I have lost count of the Bikers that have nearly ended up as a smudge on my car, when I change lanes in crawling traffic and they roar through the gap, or I open my door on the passenger side and a biker has to mount the curb to avoid death where he has roared down the inside. Drive past me when I am doing 70 and have literally rocked the car with their speed. No helmets being worn by them or the child on the back. Bikers are not ones to moan. And I was a biker.

After all, no-one has "the right" to put other peoples' lives at risk by propelling a tonne and a half of steel along the road at 60mph in close proximity to others and giving less than their full attention to controlling it, do they?

In fact because it is not as easy as just sitting there, you tend to pay more attention when you are smoking. And let us not forget - I defy anyone to say they have driven to a destination, got out, and remembered most of the journey there. If anyone says they do, they lie like a fibbing thing. So smoking is not an excuse to claim a lack of attention.

and from a road safety point of view there are probably other ways to spend parliament's time and our money that would result in a greater improvement in safety.

Aren't there just - better road definition, gritting all roads, faster road clearance for traffic accidents - that list is endless.

the government isn't going to lightly cut off an income stream from people who are physically addicted to paying huge amounts of tax, is it?

And yet they are brow beaten by the likes of ASH on a regular basis. 5 minutes alone in the room with them, thats all I want, just 5, me and a big unbreakable stick. Get a life ya unemployed self promoting leg irons.

 

[Bee-Key-Pur]

As long as they don't ban me from using my smoker, I get my ar$e stung to bits with it....

 

[Storm™]

...(when everyone realises how much money it is costing the tax payer to prop up other people's lifestyles).

I wonder how much it costs the tax payer to investigate other peoples lifestyles and then decide that they need to stop it, and then implement the stop. And police the stop. Hasn't worked for drugs has it. Its effected it, its reduced it perhaps (no one knows the truth because if they did they would have stopped it because they would know where all the drugs are). All they can say is that they have increased their capture rate 100%. Which sounds impressive but it only means doubled. And thats out of what percent of the total.... no one knows.....

Trying to stop people enjoying lifetsyle choices is waste of money time and resources. Tax payers money fighting any bans. Legal fees. And of course if we are all healthy.....unemployment of the medical profession. Its a one way road that curves at the top. Once your over the hump you have to live with whats ahead. You cant go back.

 

[Winker]

From the Mayo Clinic...

"The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children"

This is taking things to the extreme, You may as well say that when I light my smoker I should make sure there is no one within 500 yards just in case the breath in my toxic mix of wood and paper or anything else I may find to stuff in there and burn. Or children should not be allowed near beekeepers as they may breath in the toxic fumes from the tar residue inside my smoker. Where does it end?

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I wonder how much it costs the tax payer to investigate other peoples lifestyles and then decide that they need to stop it, and then implement the stop. And police the stop. Hasn't worked for drugs has it. Its effected it, its reduced it perhaps (no one knows the truth because if they did they would have stopped it because they would know where all the drugs are). All they can say is that they have increased their capture rate 100%. Which sounds impressive but it only means doubled. And thats out of what percent of the total.... no one knows.....

Trying to stop people enjoying lifetsyle choices is waste of money time and resources. Tax payers money fighting any bans. Legal fees. And of course if we are all healthy.....unemployment of the medical profession. Its a one way road that curves at the top. Once your over the hump you have to live with whats ahead. You cant go back.

to an extent.
But what I'm getting at is that as economic pressure mounts, people inevitably start looking around them and wondering why other people's "rights" to do something have a higher cost than their "rights" not to pay for it through taxes, if you see what I mean.
The example of driving is a valid point - but as oil becomes more scarce and fuel prices continue to rise, the focus on "unecessary" car use may go the same way as the smoking debate - those of us in rural areas who depend on our cars will start wondering why the chelsea tractor drivers aren't taxed at a higher rate than us etc etc.
At heart we are all quite selfish. Especially where money is involved.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

This is taking things to the extreme, You may as well say that when I light my smoker I should make sure there is no one within 500 yards just in case the breath in my toxic mix of wood and paper or anything else I may find to stuff in there and burn. Or children should not be allowed near beekeepers as they may breath in the toxic fumes from the tar residue inside my smoker. Where does it end?

Don't shoot the messenger
I thought it was a reasonably well known fact that cigarette toxins cling to soft furnishings (like the inside of cars), so I was just offering some info as to why you might avoid smoking in your car if you've got kids.

 

[Storm™]

This is what will happen if the extreme happens:

Total ban on smoking -

It will go underground and cigarette smoking will become a booming smuggling industry. (lost revenue)

The laws will have to change to change retail outlets that sell cigarettes (lost revenue) and billions spent on 1)filling landfill with millions of kiosks 2) legal cases across the land to change the level of penalty for smuggling/selling/smoking to deter it 3)More jails for those that refuse to stop 4)controlling the riots/clean up for protests on and on 5)Legally fighting Europe when they wade in (AND THEY MOST DEFINITELY WILL) and on, and on, and on for YEARS.

The massive uptake of the NHS stop smoking scheme - nicorette will become richer than China and we will become taxed to death to pay for it - because we always do.

Later - the aftercare when people go slightly boozyquack because they cant cope - billions. Heaven forbid anyone sue for human rights and win....jesus that would crumple the governments crotch like finding out Cameron is a KKK Grand Master.

I think if it could have been done America would have done it. We are after all an annex of America.

 

[victor meldrew]

Perhaps they should ban cars and lorrys from smoking as well,plenty of it comes out of the exhaust pipes,and also ban road signs,far to many of them..real hazard trying to look at them all while driving.

Especially through a haze of pipe smoke
VM

 

[Winker]

Don't shoot the messenger
I thought it was a reasonably well known fact that cigarette toxins cling to soft furnishings (like the inside of cars), so I was just offering some info as to why you might avoid smoking in your car if you've got kids.

I didn't mean to come across as holding a gun and being ready to shoot the messenger. I am/was just pointing out how things can go to extremes. My neighbour 2 doors down had another back yard fire yesterday (pissing me off now, he never had any fires before I got bees). The smoke was pure black and we had to close all our windows due to smoke coming in the house. I could not see 3 feet in front of me at the end of the garden where the bees are kept.

But I am told by the council he has a right to have back yard fires, "now and then" as long as it not too often and apparently once every other month is not too often.

But that’s ok for him to blast my children/wife/dogs/bees/myself with toxic smoke as long as its not too often.

You drive your car past children every day, forcing them to breath in your Toxic smoke from your exhaust, but this too is ok.

Remember a lot of these laws are thought up by people who have nothing better to do than sit on the toilet all day long, trying to justify there existence/pay check.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I once set my hair on fire trying to light up while driving.
Nearly crashed into a hedge.
No one mention darwin awards please

To me it's obvious - smoking IS a distraction. How can it not be?
Yes, there are lots of other distractions too - some of them much more distracting than smoking. But I thought the reason the doctors were suggesting this ban was more to do with passive smoking than distraction?

Winker: I tend to agree with you. I once heard that the average passive smoke from a barbecue is equivalent to something like 20 fags. BUT that (and your neighbours bonfires) are in the open air - so some might say that it is easier to avoid the fumes than it would be in an enclosed space like the back of a car.