I cant believe people still doubt the negative effects of passive smoke. If you still need evidence do a search of the scientific literature, there are heaps of peer-reviewed journal articles!
Try reading the last line of my opening post.
It's a step. If it makes one selfish ignoramus NOT light up then job done.
I read the opening post thanks... I was responding to a different post in the discussion perhaps you should try reading and understanding the context of a reply.
If they are looking to introduce any more anti-smoking legislation then surely they should be starting with a mandatory death sentence for anyone who stops in a busy doorway to light up the second they leave a building.
My fiance works for the British Lung Foundation and lead the media campaign to bring this to the attention of the government. Its so good to see it being discussed, whether you are for the ban or against it.
Your argument is just as valid for banning smoking in the home.
Fine by me, I have no children and I don't smoke.
It's an incredibly poor argument to say that we shouldn't take steps to prevent A just because it's possible to do B.
If there is good reason to ban smoking in cars, then we should do it, and then debate whether it should be banned in houses as well if you think that would be justified. It's two separate issues, that just happen to have one thing in common.
I agree with the 'Agree that its not healthy but not too sure about it being made illegal' side.
I don't agree for one minute with people smoking in the car with their children inside, I also don't agree with people smoking in their houses with children.
No, going into the kitchen and shutting the door does not prevent the smoke from reaching the children in the sitting room. Its a wooden door, not an airtight submarine valve.
I think making it law is going too far though, i would imagine that the amount of people who smoke in cars with their children is minimal and where does it stop? Children, like adults, are exposed to all kinds of things detrimental to their health every day, you can't ban it all, nor can you ban parents from doing all and everything that might harm thier children.
It's an incredibly poor argument to say that we shouldn't take steps to prevent A just because it's possible to do B.
If there is good reason to ban smoking in cars, then we should do it, and then debate whether it should be banned in houses as well if you think that would be justified. It's two separate issues, that just happen to have one thing in common.
As I'm sure you are aware, the dangers of passive smoking are well documented. A simple google search will expose that, along with other information such as he number of children exposed to smoke being pegged at ~ 430,000 according to a survey conducted by the British Lung Foundation.
Personally, I think if parents can't be trusted to take very simple steps to avoid harming their children then the law should do it for them. Smoking firsthand is personal choice, but that can't be said for kids breathing in their parents smoke.
Nag people it's nasty, horrible and bad for the children but do we really need to criminalise people for it? I honestly don't think we do. Priorities as another person on here has said.
But unlike some ridiculous laws, this is a win win. Most of us will abide by it, so no problem and those idiots who ignore it will hopefully get caught.
Do you see how you come across and do you think it helps your cause looking down your nose at people?
Tell us, who was the group you looked down on before attacking smokers in the vilest way possible became trendy?
The government interferes in enough of our liberties. For me it's common sense for someone not to do this. If they choose not to then more fool them. I completely agree with bans where safety is involved - e.g. the mobile phone ban, but not with this.
Is this a democracy or a dictatorship where the government tell us how to bring up our children?
I think the Police State is almost upon us, can we just build the Death Camps for smokers, Daily Mail readers and fat people.
Our spineless acceptance of government interference in our lives is limitless.
I dont understand. Are you basically saying you should be allowed to smoke in a car with kids in it? Regardless of any other laws, interference, nanny state control, I am talking about THIS law. So what do you say?
Comments
Try reading the last line of my opening post.
It's a step. If it makes one selfish ignoramus NOT light up then job done.
I agree.
I read the opening post thanks... I was responding to a different post in the discussion perhaps you should try reading and understanding the context of a reply.
Our spineless acceptance of government interference in our lives is limitless.
It's an incredibly poor argument to say that we shouldn't take steps to prevent A just because it's possible to do B.
If there is good reason to ban smoking in cars, then we should do it, and then debate whether it should be banned in houses as well if you think that would be justified. It's two separate issues, that just happen to have one thing in common.
if one child was not comfortable breathing in toxic smoke and the law helped that child would you be in favor?
Yes, we're just like East Germany was aren't we.
It's a sad state of affairs that a law has to be considered to stop ignorant parents doing this anyway.
I don't agree for one minute with people smoking in the car with their children inside, I also don't agree with people smoking in their houses with children.
No, going into the kitchen and shutting the door does not prevent the smoke from reaching the children in the sitting room. Its a wooden door, not an airtight submarine valve.
I think making it law is going too far though, i would imagine that the amount of people who smoke in cars with their children is minimal and where does it stop? Children, like adults, are exposed to all kinds of things detrimental to their health every day, you can't ban it all, nor can you ban parents from doing all and everything that might harm thier children.
I agree.
Now where is the good reason to ban it in cars?
No. Children are subject to all sorts of 'uncomfortable' situations.
The question is about whether it is significantly harmful. If it is then I could support a ban. I've never said I wouldn't.
Frankly, the easiest solution to 'protect the children' is simply to ban smoking - in cars or otherwise. In the same way many other drugs are banned.
The added benefit being it would protect everyone - not just children.
I wonder how many drivers who are against smoking in cars are themselves prolific tailgaiters who seem to drive at high speed everywhere?
As I'm sure you are aware, the dangers of passive smoking are well documented. A simple google search will expose that, along with other information such as he number of children exposed to smoke being pegged at ~ 430,000 according to a survey conducted by the British Lung Foundation.
Personally, I think if parents can't be trusted to take very simple steps to avoid harming their children then the law should do it for them. Smoking firsthand is personal choice, but that can't be said for kids breathing in their parents smoke.
But it's nothing to do with dangerous driving though, it is to do with the effect smoking has on children in enclosed spaces.
Having a red hot stick in your hand whilst driving at 70mph is pretty dangerous. I know from experience when I dropped the bloody thing in my lap!
Do you see how you come across and do you think it helps your cause looking down your nose at people?
Tell us, who was the group you looked down on before attacking smokers in the vilest way possible became trendy?
And who will be next?
Is this a democracy or a dictatorship where the government tell us how to bring up our children?
I dont understand. Are you basically saying you should be allowed to smoke in a car with kids in it? Regardless of any other laws, interference, nanny state control, I am talking about THIS law. So what do you say?