Should car smoking be banned when children are present?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by uktotalgamer
I really cannot comprehend how on earth someone is missing the common sense to not smoke in front of their children. It's simply unfathomable. The fact that we need to put a law on stupidity is another stake through the heart of this broken hell hole of a society.
Common sense left the masses long ago. My friend is in court defending the owner of a lodge who is being sued by a girl who got steaming drunk, fell over and twisted her ankle. Apparently the owner should have had more suitable surfacing in place.
Nobody likes being told what to do, but some people are so stupid that we need laws to protect them from themselves.
(edited 10 years ago)
Yes, of course.
I personally think so. First of all, the risks have already been highlighted by numerous eminent figures in the medical world and the recent BMJ publication seems to show that the majority of experts on the health aspect, which is the most important thing here, support the ban.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with adults smoking themselves once they are fully aware of the risks. But children do not, generally, know the full potential damages that even passive smoking can lead to and so I don't think it is fair or right at all for responsible adults (parents in many cases) to put them at risk in this way. It's an incredibly selfish thing to do anyway, and arguments along the lines of freedom of autonomy are ridiculous in this case. I do think that the potential health of children should trump the ability to do whatever one wishes in his or her vehicle, so I support this ban.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with adults smoking themselves once they are fully aware of the risks. But children do not, generally, know the full potential damages that even passive smoking can lead to and so I don't think it is fair or right at all for responsible adults (parents in many cases) to put them at risk in this way. It's an incredibly selfish thing to do anyway, and arguments along the lines of freedom of autonomy are ridiculous in this case. I do think that the potential health of children should trump the ability to do whatever one wishes in his or her vehicle, so I support this ban.
No, although it may seem like common sense it sets a dangerous precedent. It means that the state is the ultimate protector of children, instead of parents, and who knows where it will go next? Could be banning within people's homes, etc.
The way to prevent the small minority of people who do smoke in cars with children is through education simply - campaigns like the recent advertising one which showed exactly where the smoke goes - they're hard-hitting and make people realise what they're doing.
No way legislation should be brought in. Even apart from the fact that it is actually not supported by the government but just tagged onto some legislation by the Lords.
The way to prevent the small minority of people who do smoke in cars with children is through education simply - campaigns like the recent advertising one which showed exactly where the smoke goes - they're hard-hitting and make people realise what they're doing.
No way legislation should be brought in. Even apart from the fact that it is actually not supported by the government but just tagged onto some legislation by the Lords.
Of course it shouldn't. The state have no right to intervene in individuals matters unless it seriously harms someone .
The risk of second hand smoke is widely exaggerated and most who do smoke in their car have their window open.
Eventually pregnant women will be punished for smoking or drinking. Parents will be punished for giving their children unhealthy lunches.
Authoritarianism in the name of public health is a danger to liberty.
Heh, so much for TSR being liberal.
The risk of second hand smoke is widely exaggerated and most who do smoke in their car have their window open.
Eventually pregnant women will be punished for smoking or drinking. Parents will be punished for giving their children unhealthy lunches.
Authoritarianism in the name of public health is a danger to liberty.
Heh, so much for TSR being liberal.
Original post by Falcatas
Of course it shouldn't. The state have no right to intervene in individuals matters unless it seriously harms someone .
The risk of second hand smoke is widely exaggerated and most who do smoke in their car have their window open.
Eventually pregnant women will be punished for smoking or drinking. Parents will be punished for giving their children unhealthy lunches.
Authoritarianism in the name of public health is a danger to liberty.
Heh, so much for TSR being liberal.
The risk of second hand smoke is widely exaggerated and most who do smoke in their car have their window open.
Eventually pregnant women will be punished for smoking or drinking. Parents will be punished for giving their children unhealthy lunches.
Authoritarianism in the name of public health is a danger to liberty.
Heh, so much for TSR being liberal.
Well yes, this this this. (although second hand smoke is extremely unpleasant especially if you can't get away from it)
People just don't think past their initial "of course, it's a disgusting thing" reaction and understand how this is a disgustingly authoritarian piece of legislation.
Original post by Observatory
Then you have broken free of reason's moorings. Almost every action that people take bears some risk, eg. crossing the road, yet most actions are not illegal. To justify outlawing an action - that is, to justify inflicting violence and suffering on those who choose to undertake that action - requires special justification. As I read the evidence, the risk to children of suffering from lung cancer as a result of exposure to cigarette smoke, if it exists at all, is so small as to be unmeasurable. Bizarrely, you continue to imply that the data shows something else and that I dispute that data. I believe it does not, and I do not! It is possible that I am mistaken on this point, but if so it is incumbent on you to provide evidence and you have now repeatedly refused to do so
Yes, you are mistaken but I'll give it one final go. Your opening post only referred to lung-cancer. I thought it worth making the point that smoking is also attributable to other illnesses too and these should also be given consideration. I haven't disputed the data or your point about lung-cancer!? I can't make this any clearer to you and actually the only bizarre thing is how much you're struggling with it.
Original post by Observatory
I'm not offering an opinion that I am asking you to accept on the basis of my credentials. I am offering a reasoned argument based on evidence.
Some sources claim that passive smoking is detrimental to health and often cite evidence to back this up. Are you telling me that this is all made up nonsense? If you are, why should I trust evidence to the contrary that states there is no significant risk? Furthermore, is it not my right to do whatever I can to avoid said risk, however small it may be and in doing so seek to protect the ones unable to make this choice, i.e minors?
Original post by Observatory
I agree: far more children die as a result of using swimming pools than as a result of passive smoking. Yet, this is still not considered an activity that should be illegal.
So using your logic, we should be looking to ban motor-vehicles too as a good many people are killed in road accidents. Brilliant.
Original post by Observatory
Then do you support the ban on smoking in "public places", that includes private establishments such as pubs and bars? You have no right to enter a pub or bar that does not belong to you.
Yes I do.
Original post by Heliosphan
So using your logic, we should be looking to ban motor-vehicles too as a good many people are killed in road accidents. Brilliant.
So using your logic, we should be looking to ban motor-vehicles too as a good many people are killed in road accidents. Brilliant.
No, he was pointing out that your logic says that.
Original post by RVNmax
No, he was pointing out that your logic says that.
No, it's the way he worded it. If you read our exchanges, you'll see that he's the one making comparisons to other activities that carry risk.
Original post by Arbolus
If the passengers were adults then they'd have the option to get some other form of transport. However, for children, all too often they've got no choice but to be driven by an adult, and therefore they've got no way to avoid the smoke. Forcing a child to breath in their parent's smoke should be treated as nothing less than child abuse.
Well said.
Original post by Jjj90
Liberal fascism.
so you think children should be forced to sit in smoke filled cars?
The fact is smoking in cars should be banned in the same rule as mobile phone use is, because it is a distraction...
Original post by Heliosphan
No, it's the way he worded it. If you read our exchanges, you'll see that he's the one making comparisons to other activities that carry risk.
Nope. Firstly, I read your exchanges.
Observatory:
With respect, I think you have missed point. I agree that it should be illegal to harm children; I am disputing the claim that smoking in cars is in fact significantly harmful to children (more so, than, for instance, letting them ride a bicycle in the street or use a swimming pool, which are uncontroversially legal things for parents to make their children do).
I agree: far more children die as a result of using swimming pools than as a result of passive smoking. Yet, this is still not considered an activity that should be illegal.
He was using the other activities as examples, which according to him are more harmful than smoking in cars. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to ban something like smoking in cars or even debate it on the basis that more harmful things are uncontroversial/not banned. He was saying if by your logic you ban the less harmful activity, then it doesn't make sense to not ban the other more harmful ones.
The fact that you are totally against the prospect of banning other activities that carry a greater risk(proven by the fact you tried to raise it against him, albeit incorrectly), shows that he was indeed correct that it does not make sense to ban activities on risk/harm factor alone.
From this you cannot conclude that Observatory wants those other activities banned, as he may just as well want none of them banned(which imo is what he implied rather than the former)
My own two cents on the subject: I am in favour of this ban, because to me smoking is more harmful than swimming, riding bicycles, other motor vehicles. The other activities are not solely harmful children, the harm is caused by the user and specific conditions and maybe there should be certain other restrictions on those activities as well but not an outright ban.
Original post by RVNmax
Nope. Firstly, I read your exchanges.
Observatory:
He was using the other activities as examples, which according to him are more harmful than smoking in cars. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to ban something like smoking in cars or even debate it on the basis that more harmful things are uncontroversial/not banned. He was saying if by your logic you ban the less harmful activity, then it doesn't make sense to not ban the other more harmful ones.
The fact that you are totally against the prospect of banning other activities that carry a greater risk(proven by the fact you tried to raise it against him, albeit incorrectly), shows that he was indeed correct that it does not make sense to ban activities on risk/harm factor alone.
From this you cannot conclude that Observatory wants those other activities banned, as he may just as well want none of them banned(which imo is what he implied rather than the former)
My own two cents on the subject: I am in favour of this ban, because to me smoking is more harmful than swimming, riding bicycles, other motor vehicles. The other activities are not solely harmful children, the harm is caused by the user and specific conditions and maybe there should be certain other restrictions on those activities as well but not an outright ban.
Observatory:
He was using the other activities as examples, which according to him are more harmful than smoking in cars. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to ban something like smoking in cars or even debate it on the basis that more harmful things are uncontroversial/not banned. He was saying if by your logic you ban the less harmful activity, then it doesn't make sense to not ban the other more harmful ones.
The fact that you are totally against the prospect of banning other activities that carry a greater risk(proven by the fact you tried to raise it against him, albeit incorrectly), shows that he was indeed correct that it does not make sense to ban activities on risk/harm factor alone.
From this you cannot conclude that Observatory wants those other activities banned, as he may just as well want none of them banned(which imo is what he implied rather than the former)
My own two cents on the subject: I am in favour of this ban, because to me smoking is more harmful than swimming, riding bicycles, other motor vehicles. The other activities are not solely harmful children, the harm is caused by the user and specific conditions and maybe there should be certain other restrictions on those activities as well but not an outright ban.
Your opening paragraph captures the absurdity of the point. It's perfectly reasonable to discuss banning something rather than something else that has a larger death-rate because each activity has to be judged on it's own merit, particularly where the two are unrelated. To be fair, I pretty much made this point in an earlier post.
Thanks for your input and glad you agree.
Original post by doodle_333
so you think children should be forced to sit in smoke filled cars?
The fact is smoking in cars should be banned in the same rule as mobile phone use is, because it is a distraction...
The fact is smoking in cars should be banned in the same rule as mobile phone use is, because it is a distraction...
I don't think anyone thinks that. I think the point is that we do not need legislation to prevent it. Of course people shouldn't do it but it's not the state's business to tell us what we can and can't do in our private property.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I am skeptical as to how it would be enforced, but I fully support it in principle. Putting children's health at risk by effectively forcing them to breathe in airborne poison from cigarette smoke is not far off child abuse.
Original post by bananaminion
I don't think anyone thinks that. I think the point is that we do not need legislation to prevent it. Of course people shouldn't do it but it's not the state's business to tell us what we can and can't do in our private property.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
so we should be allowed to beat our children in our own private property if we so choose? this isn't about infringing on people's rights to do whatever they want in their own property it's about protecting vulnerable children
Original post by doodle_333
so we should be allowed to beat our children in our own private property if we so choose? this isn't about infringing on people's rights to do whatever they want in their own property, it's about protecting vulnerable children
But this legislation is not needed. The vast majority of smokers with children do not smoke with them in the car anyway. And for those who do, legislation is not needed, education is needed. And if they don't respond to education then there's something wrong which isn't simply smoking in a car with children.
People already have the right to beat their children, private property or not...
This is about saying that the state ultimately has the best judgment and it sets a bad precedent. What next, no smoking in your house if you have children? Or if you have pets? No smoking at all if you have children? Legislating against parents allowing their children to watch 12s and 15s?
That might sound ridiculous but it's not really very much of a step from this.
There are a lot of things which are bad for children, including smoking at all, swearing, drinking alcohol, arguing, not cooking them wholesome meals, exposing them to violent and sexual content in films and stuff. But it's up to the parent, it is the parent's responsibility and not within the state's jurisdiction.
Original post by bananaminion
But this legislation is not needed. The vast majority of smokers with children do not smoke with them in the car anyway. And for those who do, legislation is not needed, education is needed. And if they don't respond to education then there's something wrong which isn't simply smoking in a car with children.
People already have the right to beat their children, private property or not...
This is about saying that the state ultimately has the best judgment and it sets a bad precedent. What next, no smoking in your house if you have children? Or if you have pets? No smoking at all if you have children? Legislating against parents allowing their children to watch 12s and 15s?
That might sound ridiculous but it's not really very much of a step from this.
There are a lot of things which are bad for children, including smoking at all, swearing, drinking alcohol, arguing, not cooking them wholesome meals, exposing them to violent and sexual content in films and stuff. But it's up to the parent, it is the parent's responsibility and not within the state's jurisdiction.
People already have the right to beat their children, private property or not...
This is about saying that the state ultimately has the best judgment and it sets a bad precedent. What next, no smoking in your house if you have children? Or if you have pets? No smoking at all if you have children? Legislating against parents allowing their children to watch 12s and 15s?
That might sound ridiculous but it's not really very much of a step from this.
There are a lot of things which are bad for children, including smoking at all, swearing, drinking alcohol, arguing, not cooking them wholesome meals, exposing them to violent and sexual content in films and stuff. But it's up to the parent, it is the parent's responsibility and not within the state's jurisdiction.
Personally I think all of the last paragraph constitutes mild forms of child abuse and should be prosecutable if working with parents doesn't work
ideally education would always be the solution but there will always be people who just refuse to listen/don't care
as a side note, I think it is a valid arguement that smoking in a car should be considered the same as using a mobile, its not just the child in the car who is at risk it's other road users too
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
