Smoking in the car BAN

[Bold Seagull]

Was the window open or closed?

All three cars were convertibles with the roofs down...


Honestly, do you really think a window open makes sharing a car with a smoker any more acceptable, especially for a kid? Bloody disgrace.

 

[Gazwag]

Honestly, do you really think a window open makes sharing a car with a smoker any more acceptable, especially for a kid? Bloody disgrace.

Unlesss the car is stationary all that happen is the smoke get blown in the car not out of it

 

[Gazwag]

When someone is smoking in a car and the window is open the smoke just goes straight out the window anyway so to me it doesn't damage anybody else in the car with second hand smoke.
.

 

[Billy the Fish]

All three cars were convertibles with the roofs down...


Honestly, do you really think a window open makes sharing a car with a smoker any more acceptable, especially for a kid? Bloody disgrace.

Yes, yes it does.

Unlesss the car is stationary all that happen is the smoke get blown in the car not out of it

Wrong. It's the opposite, the smoke is sucked out of a moving car. In a stationary car nothing much happens either way unless the window is wide open allowing for some kind of airflow.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, yes it does.

Wrong. It's the opposite, the smoke is sucked out of a moving car. In a stationary car nothing much happens either way unless the window is wide open allowing for some kind of airflow.

Bollocks. This isn't some hypothetical discussion, I've sat in the back seat of a car with someone smoking, and even with the window fully down, it is a thoroughly unpleasant experience.

If someone wants to put their kids through that, just so they can have a fag i.e. for their own pleasure, then they are complete selfish twats in my book.

 

[Gazwag]

Wrong. It's the opposite, the smoke is sucked out of a moving car. In a stationary car nothing much happens either way unless the window is wide open allowing for some kind of airflow.

Ok

Why opening a window won’t help.
Opening a window does not reduce the levels of secondhand smoke in a
car to a safe level as the smoke simply blows back into the vehicle, often
lingering for hours. A US study examined 100 different air change rate
measurements in four vehicles. Results showed that under all ventilation
circumstances, even with windows open and the fan on high, SHS
concentrations in a vehicle were greater than in any other small enclosed
place.12
In the Stanford Report discussing the study, one of the researchers noted
that:
“even with a car's windows open, smoke particle concentrations were
higher than the levels measured in California bars during studies in the mid-
1990s before the state banned smoking in taverns.”

But hey why believe the experts

 

[BigGully]

If someone wants to put their kids through that, just so they can have a fag i.e. for their own pleasure, then they are complete selfish twats in my book.

Thats fine, as a non smoker lets both think they are selfish twats.

But please no legislation ..........

The problem with people that wish to ban things is that they just cannot help themselves they soon find another bug bear to want to ban and add that to some loaded research and BINGO ......... its in their DNA and generally they live a boring, interfering and quite judgemental form of living that I have no wish to subscribe to.

Offer accurate information and let us, within reason make our own lifestyle choices.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Bollocks. This isn't some hypothetical discussion, I've sat in the back seat of a car with someone smoking, and even with the window fully down, it is a thoroughly unpleasant experience.

Those people are stupid then. I'm a non smoker and also don't find it pleasant, that's why most smokers will open the window about 6 inches (mabye slightly less) so there is no airflow going into the car, only past it, therefore sucking the air near the window out. I you have the window wide open of course it blows everything back in, you should've slapped them for being an idiot.

Ok



But hey why believe the experts

Experts in what, telling lies?

As I've demonstrated above, there are a ridiculous amout of variables in that experiment which will affect their findings, they are probably ignoring important ones like speed of travel and width of window opening to produce results like that. It's a problem with these scientific reports, they very often have an agenda and aren't entirely impartial.

I'm not going to suddenly disbelieve something I've seen with my own eyes 100s of times just because someone did a half arsed experiment and published their conclusion (with no raw data) on t'internet

 

[Bold Seagull]

Offer accurate information and let us, within reason make our own lifestyle choices.

That would be why there are so many thin healthy looking people walking about, they are completely able to make their own lifestyle choice. Now where's that battered mars bar gone...??

I use the obesity issue as clearly this is an example of society being left to make it's own choices, and that choice has been to get fat.

Another example is alcohol, leave society to manage itself and we end up with a binge drinking problem.

These 2 examples then start to cost us the taxpayer a load more money through the NHS, and so the government has to act.

I wish I had your conviction that people could act on the information provided to them. But clearly that is not the case, go through any NHS ward, and you will have a significant proportion of smoking, obesity, alcohol related diseases. All through bought on through choice.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Those people are stupid then. I'm a non smoker and also don't find it pleasant, that's why most smokers will open the window about 6 inches (mabye slightly less) so there is no airflow going into the car, only past it, therefore sucking the air near the window out. I you have the window wide open of course it blows everything back in, you should've slapped them for being an idiot.

So what about when the car is stationary at a junction or lights or what have you then Einstein? If there is a breeze outside the complete reverse to what you have just described will be happening. I hope you are being a twat for twat's-sake?

 

[BigGully]

That would be why there are so many thin healthy looking people walking about, they are completely able to make their own lifestyle choice. Now where's that battered mars bar gone...??

I use the obesity issue as clearly this is an example of society being left to make it's own choices, and that choice has been to get fat.

Another example is alcohol, leave society to manage itself and we end up with a binge drinking problem.

These 2 examples then start to cost us the taxpayer a load more money through the NHS, and so the government has to act.

I wish I had your conviction that people could act on the information provided to them. But clearly that is not the case, go through any NHS ward, and you will have a significant proportion of smoking, obesity, alcohol related diseases. All through bought on through choice.

Well you have ticked the judgemental and interfering box, please do not tell me you are boring too !!

I do not wish mine or anybody else's lives run by the NHS, BMA or any politicians view and certainly not legislation on those views.

Oh I forgot, tell me your hypocritical lifestyle option which isnt good for you, its ok I wont say that your action has consequences blah blah blah as I support your right to enjoy it ?

 

[Billy the Fish]

So what about when the car is stationary at a junction or lights or what have you then Einstein? If there is a breeze outside the complete reverse to what you have just described will be happening. I hope you are being a twat for twat's-sake?

Stationary = open the window more. Breeze = open both windows so airflow dilutes smoke.

I'm not trying to say it's a good thing that people smoke in cars or that people will possess the common sense to do the things I've said to negate the risk, but when people start spouting all this emotive and subjective crap (won't somebody purrrrleese think of the CHILDREN!!!) and backing it up with hearsay rather than actual facts, it makes my spidey sense tingle and my bullshitometer go through the roof.

It's a persons' right to be unhealthy, it is not the job of the state to control every aspect of an individuals life. The question is: collectively where do we all draw the line on state control. My line is obviously closer to personal choice than yours.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well you have ticked the judgemental and interfering box, please do not tell me you are boring too !!

I do not wish mine or anybody else's lives run by the NHS, BMA or any politicians view and certainly not legislation on those views.

Oh I forgot, tell me your hypocritical lifestyle option which isnt good for you, its ok I wont say that your action has consequences blah blah blah as I support your right to enjoy it ?

Ha ha, it has been said about the boring bit!

As for lifestyle choices, everything in moderation. However, the NHS is now awash with people with diseases and conditions directly related to choices they have made which is diverting resources away from those that have conditions through no direct choice by them. Frankly, I couldn't give 2 sh*ts if someone wants to eat or drink themselves into an early grave, however if their choice has a direct impact on the way my tax is spent, or on the impact they have on our NHS, and in the treatments others might receive, then yes, I firmly tick the interfering box.

I'm not saying don't do anything, but eat until your 20+ stone, or drink till your liver is like a mouldy old rock, then ask for ££ millions worth of treatments to be spent on you because you couldn't make a choice? Why should I pay for those choices, when I've made ones to keep me healthy?

 

[daveinprague]

Worrying about cigarette smoke in the car whilst pumping exhaust fumes into the atmosphere...usually at toddlers height is a bit ..?

Bold Seagull....Its not just non smokers who pay tax. Personally, Id rather my tax money didnt go towards ridiculous wars on behalf of America, but thats life.



psst..im bored..just wanted to stir things up a bit... ;-)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Worrying about cigarette smoke in the car whilst pumping exhaust fumes into the atmosphere...usually at toddlers height is a bit ..?

Is it?

If your subjecting them to one ill, you may as well subject them to all of them yes? What great logic.

 

[cheeseroll]

Don't let non smokers get into your car!

 

[dingodan]

You cannot legislate people into being better people, it doesnt work, and to accept the idea that you can do this is dangerous. Legislating on peoples personal habbits is a tyrannical approach to government.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You cannot legislate people into being better people, it doesnt work, and to accept the idea that you can do this is dangerous. Legislating on peoples personal habbits is a tyrannical approach to government.

Of course you can, it does happen, it is accepted and has been for years. Alcohol and cigarettes are already heavily taxed in order to both put people off the habit, and use the revenue toward the NHS. While not an outright ban, it is taxation through legislation that encourages people to adopt better habits. This applies also applies to duty on fuel.

The world has already seen bans on smoking in public places due to evidence to support that one persons personal habit can adversely damage the health of another.

As soon as something has an impact on others, then normally through litigation first, you end up with legislation second.

 

[dingodan]

Of course you can, it does happen, it is accepted and has been for years. Alcohol and cigarettes are already heavily taxed in order to both put people off the habit, and use the revenue toward the NHS. While not an outright ban, it is taxation through legislation that encourages people to adopt better habits. This applies also applies to duty on fuel.

The world has already seen bans on smoking in public places due to evidence to support that one persons personal habit can adversely damage the health of another.

As soon as something has an impact on others, then normally through litigation first, you end up with legislation second.

People dont stop smoking because the price goes up, people dont stop drinking if the price goes up. People are just forced to spend more money on these things. Some people probably get to the point where it becomes very difficult to afford these things, meaning that they are effectively penalised the poorer they are.

Have you made better, more virtuous people? no you have just ensured greater tax revenue.

If a person drinks alcohol, they have not adversely damaged the health of another person. If that person drinks alcohol and commits a violent act then they have commited a crime and should be punished for that crime. But drinking, smoking and any other personal habbits are the choices and responsibility of the individual, as are the consequences. The idea that the government should protect us from ourselves is stupid, it does not work and it undermines the principles of liberty and represents a tyrannical approach to government.

If increased taxation on alcohol actually worked to discourage drinking, why do more people drink more alcohol now than ever before?

But even if it worked, its the principle is wrong. By this logic the government should mandate our diets to ensure we don't get fat too.

 

[Bold Seagull]

QUOTE=dingodan People dont stop smoking because the price goes up, people dont stop drinking if the price goes up. People are just forced to spend more money on these things. Some people probably get to the point where it becomes very difficult to afford these things, meaning that they are effectively penalised the poorer they are.

Have you made better, more virtuous people? no you have just ensured greater tax revenue.

I beg to differ, 'giving up smoking' is a growing industry, patches, workshops, inhalers, this is because a huge number of people try to give up, many successfully. In 1972 half the population were smokers, at present it's about a quarter. If people who are poor don't give up a habit that costs £6 per packet, then they need to take a long hard look at themselves and what sacrifices they should consider in order to make ends meet. Life is tough, there is no divine right that you should be able to smoke.

If a person drinks alcohol, they have not adversely damaged the health of another person. If that person drinks alcohol and commits a violent act then they have commited a crime and should be punished for that crime. But drinking, smoking and any other personal habbits are the choices and responsibility of the individual, as are the consequences. The idea that the government should protect us from ourselves is stupid, it does not work and it undermines the principles of liberty and represents a tyrannical approach to government.

If increased taxation on alcohol actually worked to discourage drinking, why do more people drink more alcohol now than ever before?

Because alcohol is cheaper and more readily available than it's ever been before. Hence they are experimenting with a minimum price per unit in Scotland.

But even if it worked, its the principle is wrong. By this logic the government should mandate our diets to ensure we don't get fat too.

If there was no consequence of getting too fat, then there wouldn't be a problem. We have a health service that could be the envy of the world, and we have researchers and scientists coming up with ever more effective and sophisticated treatments and cures, and yet huge swathes of funding and money is spent on people who have perfectly preventable illnesses. It is a huge burden on society to have to deal with those that can't make decisions to look after themselves. I say that if you make the decision to have your personal liberty and make adverse decisions thereafter, then use that liberty to get a decent health care policy because you can't very well turn around and expect society to take care of you when those decisions go wrong.