Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

UK Government consider ban on smoking in cars... Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    Hi Guys, recently blogged about this issue, it can be found here: http://patrickmcintyre1.wordpress.co...e-ban-in-cars/

    I'd like to hear peoples arguments for and against this (particularly for) - also I've included a poll on my blog, if you read it - be sure to vote
    I think it should be banned. Im a non smoker but i think if you're smoking in a car you aren't exactly going to be completely focused on the road because you have a lit object in your hand that you cant exactly set down and pick right back up again!
    I think also if you have passengers the smell is revolting and its just going to fill the car with the fumes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What is it with people throwing out all the typical phrases such as "tyranny" and "totalitarianism" whenever any little thing like this happens? I'm surprised there isn't any mention of Orwell in there either, people just love to throw that one around.

    It's a ban on smoking when children are present. Smoking with them around is going to affect their health and we should try to stop that. You might as well say that having a smoking age at all is tyrannical at that rate. People really shouldn't be doing anything other than driving when behind the steering wheel to begin with.


    Smoking inside the house or in public is slightly different as it's not a cubicle full of smoke. Opening the windows gets rid of a lot of it, but it still lingers. The other comparisons are just odd. It being your own property is not, and never has been, a legal reason to allow you to do anything. You must still abide by the law!


    It just bugs me when people hit on the really small things and forget about the bigger picture surrounding it. Totalitarianism, though? Seriously?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    About time! They banned eating, yet they didn't ban smoking, a distraction and an ignition hazard as opposed to a sloppy sandwich splattering on the floor
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Having read about the significant effects of second hand smoking on children and the possibilities of being distracted at the wheel, I am not opposed to the ban any longer.

    I understand that a "responsible" parent would open the window and etc but that doesn't change the fact that some would not especially when it rains or it is cold.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Having read about the significant effects of second hand smoking on children and the possibilities of being distracted at the wheel, I am not opposed to the ban any longer.

    I understand that a "responsible" parent would open the window and etc but that doesn't change the fact that some would not especially when it rains or it is cold.
    Some parents would also feed their children fatty or salty foods, not take them out for exercise, or not being "responsible" in caring for their child's education. Should those things be criminalised as well? They too could have significant effects on the health of children.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Some parents would also feed their children fatty or salty foods, not take them out for exercise, or not being "responsible" in caring for their child's education. Should those things be criminalised as well? They too could have significant effects on the health of children.
    Well, we have to talk about laws that are effective and relatively easy to enforce at the same time.

    Having laws to monitor the eating and exercise habits of children will not be easy. That can only really be effectively combated through education.

    A ban on smoking in cars is relatively easy to enforce and may be able to reduce the incidence of long term health problems in children.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Some parents would also feed their children fatty or salty foods, not take them out for exercise, or not being "responsible" in caring for their child's education. Should those things be criminalised as well? They too could have significant effects on the health of children.
    Very valid point and exactly how I feel. What about consistency?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, we have to talk about laws that are effective and relatively easy to enforce at the same time.

    Having laws to monitor the eating and exercise habits of children will not be easy. That can only really be effectively combated through education.

    A ban on smoking in cars is relatively easy to enforce and may be able to reduce the incidence of long term health problems in children.
    Easy to enforce? Are you serious? They can't even enforce mobile phone bans or illegal red lights properly...

    My argument is 'where will it stop?' - will they ban smoking in houses or smoking while wearing clothes as the smoke will cling to clothes. Here's a post I recent wrote on another forum regarding the same issues raised here:

    I said it's about consistency. How can smoking in a car with a child be harmful for them, but smoking in a house with them not? Consistency is key. Where do we go once we've banned it in cars? Or since this is about people not being in a position to say no (i.e. a minor) then what about adults with confidence issues that can't say no to 4 guys who smoke beside them? Because the logical thing to do would be to say 'well it's also harmful in houses, let's stop that'. It's only common sense to think along these lines. Consistency.


    Secondly, peer pressure does outweigh legislation with minor offences - i.e. Someone would answer their phone on loud speaker and chat away or hold it to their ear in one scenario, would they if their mothers/wee grannys were present? Or someone would get in a car after a few pints and drive home - would they if people seen them leave the pub and walk to a car? The law would be a shambles and the fine irrelevant because most people would be paying in instalments as per the legal system up here at least, it's not about how well it'll be enforced necessarily, it's about giving people the autonomy to make the right/wrong decisions on their own because if the government is to be consistent with this law, they must consider EVERY time a child will come in to contact with second-hand smoke (houses, materials etc) I struggle to see how people can't see this. Also, they claim a child could be put in danger via smoking in cars. If a child is in danger by fault of the parent, I'd say it were neglect. So would the law. Neglect must be treated the same across the board - consistent if you like - so taking that in to account, is a £500 fine really suitable? For exposing a child to cancerous toxins? For neglecting them and failing to protect them? Of course it isn't. It's astounding how many people fail to see the knock on effect this ban would have or how many questions it would raise.

    And I'll ask again - who here for the ban has EVER said to themselves 'oh my, that woman is smoking in that car with a child in it' (or words to this effect), the answer will be very little of you - and for those who did, were you honestly so shocked and disgusted? Did you leave thinking that that child was in danger? This is not a major problem in out society. So why this stir? And that's before we've even defined 'child' - is this a 9 month old baby or a 16/17 (since you can't smoke till your 18) year old boy who's legally entitled to and perfectly capable to make the decision to get married and drive... But can'y say no to second-hand smoke? Or what about the criminal offence... Since I'd assume putting a child in danger would be a criminal act - not a driving one. Has a perfectly able parent to be tarnished with a crime of basically neglecting their child in a car for the rest of their lives potentially effecting job prospects etc? Questions questions questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do they have evidence of the efficacy of such a ban? The government isn't exactly known for its competence on these matters - the failure of the introduction of speed cameras is an indication of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    Easy to enforce? Are you serious? They can't even enforce mobile phone bans or illegal red lights properly...

    My argument is 'where will it stop?' - will they ban smoking in houses or smoking while wearing clothes as the smoke will cling to clothes. Here's a post I recent wrote on another forum regarding the same issues raised here:

    Well, they can. I wouldn't suggest running a red light by the way either.

    As I said. I don't care if you want to smoke in your house. Don't smoke around children. It is abuse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, they can. I wouldn't suggest running a red light by the way either.

    As I said. I don't care if you want to smoke in your house. Don't smoke around children. It is abuse.
    Your posts are contradictory. Are you saying it's not ok to smoke in a car with a child in it - but it's ok to smoke in a house with a child in it? Also, second-hand smoke is the issue here. Since second hand smoke lingers and clings to materials - should we stop smoking all together since either way (smoking in a car or second hand smoke from materials) a child will be harmed?

    Also - I repeat - the police are stretched already trying to enforce existing driving laws. This should not be a 'driving' offence as it's putting a child at risk i.e. neglect. So no, they can't easily enforce it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    Your posts are contradictory. Are you saying it's not ok to smoke in a car with a child in it - but it's ok to smoke in a house with a child in it? Also, second-hand smoke is the issue here. Since second hand smoke lingers and clings to materials - should we stop smoking all together since either way (smoking in a car or second hand smoke from materials) a child will be harmed?
    Actually, I didn't say that. So, it wouldn't be contradictory.

    Well, there is little evidence that second hand smoke clinging onto clothes causes serious health problems. So...no...I wouldn't extend it to that.

    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    Also - I repeat - the police are stretched already trying to enforce existing driving laws. This should not be a 'driving' offence as it's putting a child at risk i.e. neglect. So no, they can't easily enforce it.
    Well, that is just another assertion with no evidence. The police do not actively enforce a lot of driving laws. That does not mean they shouldn't exist.

    If you don't make sure the child in your car has a seat belt then that is a driving offence as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Totally against the ban. An owner of a private vehicle should be able to smoke in that vehicle if they want.

    If you're concerned about passengers who don't like it then by your reasoning smoking should be banned anywhere there's a person who objects to it, which it isn't, and which it shouldn't be.

    And I wouldn't say lighting a cigarette in the car is enough of a distraction from the road to be a significant risk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Actually, I didn't say that. So, it wouldn't be contradictory.

    Well, there is little evidence that second hand smoke clinging onto clothes causes serious health problems. So...no...I wouldn't extend it to that.



    Well, that is just another assertion with no evidence. The police do not actively enforce a lot of driving laws. That does not mean they shouldn't exist.

    If you don't make sure the child in your car has a seat belt then that is a driving offence as well.

    Actually, there is evidence to support the fact that second hand smoke clings to materials and the toxins are released over time.

    There is also evidence to support the fact that second hand smoke is harmful - I don't get where your going with what you're saying?

    The governments argument is that second hand smoke is harmful to children and children can't say no to being in that situation So again - if this is to be consistent, it would make sense to ban it in houses (as how can smoking be dangerous when in a car with a child, but no in a livingroom with one?)... Furthermore, if logic prevails and consistency is again in the agenda - it would also mean that this wasn't while the child was in the car of present - it would be if a child was EVER gona be exposed to second hand smoke (which can cling to and linger on materials. Why are you finding it so difficult to see this?

    As for there being no evidence to support the fact that the police do a poor job enforcing laws that the should be actively enforcing on a daily basis? If you drove (I'm assuming you don't due to your ignorance surrounding driving offences) then an observation (on a daily basis) would be evidence enough. Countless people on phones, countless red lights ran, countless people speeding, undertaking etc. So yes - they are already stretched and finding it hard to enforce laws currently. This coupled with an almost crippled public sector and cuts galore suggests this isn't viable.

    To reiterate: you can't say smoking in a car with a child is dangerous, yet smoking in a living room with one isn't. And if this law is to be consistent (that second hand smoke is dangerous for children and there are laws in place to prevent it) then we must note EVERY TIME a child comes in to contact with second hand smoke, and yes - that includes on materials. What part don't you get?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AvocatDuDiable)
    Totally against the ban. An owner of a private vehicle should be able to smoke in that vehicle if they want.

    If you're concerned about passengers who don't like it then by your reasoning smoking should be banned anywhere there's a person who objects to it, which it isn't, and which it shouldn't be.

    And I wouldn't say lighting a cigarette in the car is enough of a distraction from the road to be a significant risk.
    Exactly, it's confusing moral issues with legal issues. I don't even smoke and I think it's ridiculous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Again - since the argument is about a child being unable to say no to being in this situation - should we just ban smoking all together since there will be adults out there who can't say no to their peers.

    But of course the government won't do that. They rely on taxation too much.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    Actually, there is evidence to support the fact that second hand smoke clings to materials and the toxins are released over time.

    There is also evidence to support the fact that second hand smoke is harmful - I don't get where your going with what you're saying?
    Stop wasting my time.

    I didn't say there wasn't any evidence. I said there was "little evidence that second hand smoke clinging onto clothes causes serious health problems."

    Also, where did I say that second smoke isn't harmful? SO what does your second line have to do with anything I have said.

    I can't be bothered to read the rest if your first two lines have nothing to do with what I said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Stop wasting my time.

    I didn't say there wasn't any evidence. I said there was "little evidence that second hand smoke clinging onto clothes causes serious health problems."

    Also, where did I say that second smoke isn't harmful? SO what does your second line have to do with anything I have said.

    I can't be bothered to read the rest if your first two lines have nothing to do with what I said.
    If you were capable of basic understanding: You say there is little evidence to suggest second hand smoke clinging to materials is harmful...

    In return I highlighted that second hand smoke does cling to and linger on to materials. And that it's dangerous. Is that better? I didn't realise I would have to go through my train of thought with you.

    Don't worry about reading the rest. People often ignore things they can't comprehend or argue against. You're position is flawed and your argument's poor. What you type doesn't make sense and you shy away from any valid points regarding consistency or the questions such a ban would raise

    Feel free to ignore this and refrain from replying too - that means I get to spend less time making someone look sheepish. Have a good evening Dorian
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    If you were capable of basic understanding: You say there is little evidence to suggest second hand smoke clinging to materials is harmful...
    Yes...that is correct.


    (Original post by pmc:producer)
    In return I highlighted that second hand smoke does cling to and linger on to materials. And that it's dangerous. Is that better? I didn't realise I would have to go through my train of thought with you.
    No. Wrong. You haven't shown it is dangerous. The evidence just shows the presence of toxins. It fails to show if there is a long term effect that would make it toxic to children.

    (Original post by pmc:producer)

    Don't worry about reading the rest. People often ignore things they can't comprehend or argue against. You're position is flawed and your argument's poor. What you type doesn't make sense and you shy away from any valid points regarding consistency or the questions such a ban would raise

    Feel free to ignore this and refrain from replying too - that means I get to spend less time making someone look sheepish. Have a good evening Dorian
    Another irrelevant ramble.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. Wrong. You haven't shown it is dangerous. The evidence just shows the presence of toxins. It fails to show if there is a long term effect that would make it toxic to children.
    You're becoming tiresome, so one more quick thing before I finally ignore you. You imply toxins are not dangerous. that there is no long term effect that would make a toxin toxic to children lol - Hopefully when you re-read that you see how silly you sound. Do you even know what a toxin is? Here:

    Definition of toxin
    noun

    • a poison of plant or animal origin, especially one produced by or derived from microorganisms and acting as an antigen in the body.

      - Oxford Dictionary.

      I think we can now go ahead and assume that toxins are toxic eh? And that poison/toxins are damaging to not only children, but adults too. You've got that tangled up in your own argument 'for the ban' that you're now arguing that toxins are not bad for children... Make your mind up. If they aren't why ban smoking in cars? The level a child is exposed to makes no difference (be it in a car with a window open or second hand smoke lingering to cloth). Toxins are toxins.

      From now on I'll ignore you dude. Trying to get an educated, compendious debate from you is like trying to get blood from a stone. You're full of quasi-academic statements that are tiresome. Good evening.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.