OT: Smoking ban in cars

Clever Pun

Pokerface wrote:

Just the same way that even though using a mobile in the car is illegal and yet people still do it - if it was fully legal, EVERYONE would still be doing it.

do you really believe that? would you?

I certainly wouldn't that's for sure, my spelling really suffers while driving at the same time

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

It's funny how people only get upset about their rights when driving their fecking car is involved. :roll:

As they should.

why?

Why not? A car is an expensive item, people quite rightly get upset when their use is curtailed, especially bearing in mind that for many using a car is a necessity, and particularly when it is a private space.

Nothing to do with smoking in cars, obviously.

I think the key word there is "only" - why should they only get upset when their car is involved?

Well that's patently untrue - people get upset about lots of things, nothing to do with their cars, don't they?

But it's quite right for people to get upset when their freedom to do as they please is limited without justification by the hand wringers.

Pokerface

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

I would like to think that to the greatest degree possible in the realms of the law that should be true. Banning smoking in your own home is a step to far and without justification. Same for the car.

But then everyone else wants to ban everything (until it comes to banning something they enjoy, when all of a sudden it's a 'uman right).

Why is banning smoking in the home a step too far? Or banning it in a car?

cee

Porgy

you seem to have misunderstood me...apologies if you have...

i am making no judgements about your opinions. merely giving mine. thats what makes us richer for conversing.

I have recently given up smoking...so am understandably noticing every person that smokes anywhere near me, and I can honselty say that I have not noticed the behaviour that you have described.

Although I have only given up for 9 days (this time. i stopped for 6 months last year), being more than 30 years old gives me a slightly broader perspective than the 9 days you suggested, and still don't think that smokers deliberately blow smoke in peoples faces just to annoy them.

As for smoking litter...my only point about that before it was dispenificated was meant to be that actually...smoking litter is minor, compared to the other littering issues we face. In my experience at least.

again. my opinion..i am happy that your opinion is different as that gives me an opportunity to enrich my knowledge and understanding with your view.

Its just a shame that other individuals do not see other peoples views like that.

W1

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

I would like to think that to the greatest degree possible in the realms of the law that should be true. Banning smoking in your own home is a step to far and without justification. Same for the car.

But then everyone else wants to ban everything (until it comes to banning something they enjoy, when all of a sudden it's a 'uman right).

Why is banning smoking in the home a step too far? Or banning it in a car?

Because it's not the government's business. Are you really such an advocate of state control that you think this is something that needs to be banned? Really? There are thousands of things that people do, probably including yourself, that have an element of danger to you or to others. Should we ban them all?

I'm fed up of hearing people calling for everything and anything to be banned. Just let people be, stop interfering and leave people alone. The government are OUR servants, NOT the other way round. And not introducing streams of legistation that "needs" to be enforced will reduce the bloated public sector non-jobs too.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Pokerface wrote:

Why is banning smoking in the home a step too far? Or banning it in a car?

For the same reason that banning overeating in the home is wrong. It's an activity for which an individual's judgment should be respected, even if it carries with it a risk for them and their dependants.

Jesus, if you can commit suicide in your home, you should at least be able to do it slowly with fags.

Porgy

cee wrote:

Porgy

you seem to have misunderstood me...apologies if you have...

i am making no judgements about your opinions. merely giving mine. thats what makes us richer for conversing.

I have recently given up smoking...so am understandably noticing every person that smokes anywhere near me, and I can honselty say that I have not noticed the behaviour that you have described.

Although I have only given up for 9 days (this time. i stopped for 6 months last year), being more than 30 years old gives me a slightly broader perspective than the 9 days you suggested, and still don't think that smokers deliberately blow smoke in peoples faces just to annoy them.

As for smoking litter...my only point about that before it was dispenificated was meant to be that actually...smoking litter is minor, compared to the other littering issues we face. In my experience at least.

again. my opinion..i am happy that your opinion is different as that gives me an opportunity to enrich my knowledge and understanding with your view.

Its just a shame that other individuals do not see other peoples views like that.

and to clarify my opinion, I don't think anyone does it deliberately - when I end up with a face full cigarette smoke I'm pretty certain that the smoker does not even realise what they've done. As I said before - I think it's pure ignorance.

I assure you I'm not making it up - I have a had problems with my breathing all my life so am particularly senstive to smoke - also - have very sensitive eyes - the occasions where I've had to leave venues / pubs/ clubs early in the evening due to painfully sore eyes is too numerous to count. The last few years have been bliss.

bomberesque

No; I'm an ex smoker (the worst kind ) but if someone wants to stink up their car then that's their right and not imposing on anyone else (except passangers perhaps but ffs, why aren't you on a bike in the first place?)

However; People who flick their fag butts out of teh window, especially in town, shouold be fined end of. It really pisses me off how many butts I see chucked out of cars here, it's worse than teh dog sh1t on the pavement I tell you!

Pokerface

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

I would like to think that to the greatest degree possible in the realms of the law that should be true. Banning smoking in your own home is a step to far and without justification. Same for the car.

But then everyone else wants to ban everything (until it comes to banning something they enjoy, when all of a sudden it's a 'uman right).

Why is banning smoking in the home a step too far? Or banning it in a car?

Because it's not the government's business. Are you really such an advocate of state control that you think this is something that needs to be banned? Really? There are thousands of things that people do, probably including yourself, that have an element of danger to you or to others. Should we ban them all?

I'm fed up of hearing people calling for everything and anything to be banned. Just let people be, stop interfering and leave people alone. The government are OUR servants, NOT the other way round. And not introducing streams of legistation that "needs" to be enforced will reduce the bloated public sector non-jobs too.

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Or we could live in state where anything goes. A complete state of anarchy - where we simply reply on people's 'better judgment' to keep us on the straight and narrow.


Sure - I'd LOVE to live in a world where I never had to wear my seatbelt, all drugs were legal, there was no such thing as 'health and safety', etc, etc.

:roll:

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

It's funny how people only get upset about their rights when driving their fecking car is involved. :roll:

As they should.

why?

Why not? A car is an expensive item, people quite rightly get upset when their use is curtailed, especially bearing in mind that for many using a car is a necessity, and particularly when it is a private space.

Nothing to do with smoking in cars, obviously.

I think the key word there is "only" - why should they only get upset when their car is involved?

Well that's patently untrue - people get upset about lots of things, nothing to do with their cars, don't they?

But it's quite right for people to get upset when their freedom to do as they please is limited without justification by the hand wringers.

I've been involved in campaigns related to human rights over the years and people are frankly apathetic on almost every issue - unless cars are involved. From my point of view it seems there are only a few rights that people value and one of them is driving their car in any way they feel like, including using a mobile phone and faster than is safe.

I find that my rights as a cyclist are reguarly sidelined by people who hold such views.

The other thing people seem to think they have a god given right to do is to throw all their waste wherever they like.

Pokerface

Greg66 wrote:

Jesus, if you can commit suicide in your home, you should at least be able to do it slowly with fags.

Yeah - but you can't. It's illegal.

W1

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

I would like to think that to the greatest degree possible in the realms of the law that should be true. Banning smoking in your own home is a step to far and without justification. Same for the car.

But then everyone else wants to ban everything (until it comes to banning something they enjoy, when all of a sudden it's a 'uman right).

Why is banning smoking in the home a step too far? Or banning it in a car?

Because it's not the government's business. Are you really such an advocate of state control that you think this is something that needs to be banned? Really? There are thousands of things that people do, probably including yourself, that have an element of danger to you or to others. Should we ban them all?

I'm fed up of hearing people calling for everything and anything to be banned. Just let people be, stop interfering and leave people alone. The government are OUR servants, NOT the other way round. And not introducing streams of legistation that "needs" to be enforced will reduce the bloated public sector non-jobs too.

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Or we could live in state where anything goes. A complete state of anarchy - where we simply reply on people's 'better judgment' to keep us on the straight and narrow.


Sure - I'd LOVE to live in a world where I never had to wear my seatbelt, all drugs were legal, there was no such thing as 'health and safety', etc, etc.

:roll:

That's all well and good - until the "general public" is you, and the ban affects something you do.

The general public have a right to do what they like to themselves. If they aren't smart enough (or more usually, don't care enough) to want to consider the consequences it's not the state's role to step in, because at that stage you blanketly restrict those who can decide for themselves. it's this lowest common denomanator which is the really dumbing down of Britain - no one is allowed to think.

I've never suggested a complete state of anarchy - but the balance is going too far the other way, not helped by people such as yourselves who seem unable to empathise with the fact that this could be you, albeit not on this particular issue. But cycling - that's dangerous, that puts peoples lives at risk - ban it.

For what it's worth, there are very strong arguments that drugs should be legalised, I see no particular reason why wearing seatbelt is obligatory for a front seat passenger and I think that time and time again the general public have just let their liberties be eroded because the "banning" brigade have a louder voice, largely because it appears that people are increasingly buying into increasing state control as being a good thing. It isn't.

davmaggs

There seems to be a large number of very iliberal people on here. Only a couple of decades ago the public strongly believed that the state should pretty much stay out of their lives unless absolutely necessay, and every law that infringed on that (like seatbelts) was fought over hard. Now one lobby group says something is bad, and people want to inflict a ban on something that has nothing to do with them and for which no evidence is put forward.

In the last decade hundreds of laws have been inacted, and how many were written well or are enforced?

Put it another way. What evidence is there to show that this would have any health impact above marginal at all?

Cycling probably has more deaths or injuries than passive smoking in cars.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Pokerface wrote:

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Labour.

In two sentences. Chapeau.

el_presidente

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."




I suspect a significant percentage of people in this country would like to see cyclists banned from the roads. Be very very careful when you support Governement intervention in private individual's choices.

cee

Porgy

do other things affect your eyes as well...I guess I am thinking smoke machines (since you mentioned having to leave clubs).

thats kind of an aside...

to bomberesques point...in edinburgh, there are environmental wardens who do fine people for dropping cigarette butts. They take down reg numbers of cars and fine people by post.

Now clearly, people still get away with it, but...the deterrent for the antisocial part of the behaviour is being seen more.

Its a 60 quid fine (unless you pay quick, then its £30)

I have no issue with fining people for dropping litter of any kind (including dog mess).

Pokerface

Greg66 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Labour.

In two sentences. Chapeau.

ironic that I'm a Tory - innit?

lost_in_thought

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

Oh come now. Yes, I mean that private space means one should be allowed to do what one wants in it, but I don't mean breaking the law, and I'm not an inconsiderate @rsehole.

:roll:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Pokerface wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Jesus, if you can commit suicide in your home, you should at least be able to do it slowly with fags.

Yeah - but you can't. It's illegal.

You, of course, quite right.

Assuming the date is earlier than 3 August 1961. That's when s 1 of the Suicide Act 1961 ceased to make suicide illegal.

Close though.

W1

Greg66 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Labour.

In two sentences. Chapeau.

Indeed. It's unbelievably patronising.

If it's not "ban it" it's "tax it". We must get rid of this lot of hypocrites.

lost_in_thought

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

But the general public have proven time and again that they aren't smart enough to make judgments for themselves. So someone has to step in to mandate such laws for the protection of the general public.

Labour.

In two sentences. Chapeau.

Indeed. It's unbelievably patronising.

If it's not "ban it" it's "tax it". We must get rid of this lot of hypocrites.

+1

Pokerface

W1 wrote:

The general public have a right to do what they like to themselves.

They don't. You think they SHOULD, but they don't.

But cycling - that's dangerous, that puts peoples lives at risk - ban it.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Driving is! Ban the cars and us cyclists would be safe.

I see no particular reason why wearing seatbelt is obligatory for a front seat passenger

Well - I thought you might actually be capable of a rational debate until you said this.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Jesus, if you can commit suicide in your home, you should at least be able to do it slowly with fags.

Yeah - but you can't. It's illegal.

You, of course, quite right.

Assuming the date is earlier than 3 August 1961. That's when s 1 of the Suicide Act 1961 ceased to make suicide illegal.

Close though.

Ooooh unlucky, missed it by a whisker. Tough break.

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

It's funny how people only get upset about their rights when driving their fecking car is involved. :roll:

As they should.

why?

Why not? A car is an expensive item, people quite rightly get upset when their use is curtailed, especially bearing in mind that for many using a car is a necessity, and particularly when it is a private space.

Nothing to do with smoking in cars, obviously.

I think the key word there is "only" - why should they only get upset when their car is involved?

Well that's patently untrue - people get upset about lots of things, nothing to do with their cars, don't they?

But it's quite right for people to get upset when their freedom to do as they please is limited without justification by the hand wringers.

I've been involved in campaigns related to human rights over the years and people are frankly apathetic on almost every issue - unless cars are involved. .

So clearly incorrect on so many levels. Do you think 400,000 people were apothetic about the hunting ban? Or a million people just happened to be walking in the same direction around london on the day of the protest against the Iraq war? In fact there has never been a "pro car" movement or protest, except the fuel protest and that was by the truckers. Get real.

Clever Pun

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

The general public have a right to do what they like to themselves.

They don't. You think they SHOULD, but they don't.

But cycling - that's dangerous, that puts peoples lives at risk - ban it.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Driving is! Ban the cars and us cyclists would be safe.

I see no particular reason why wearing seatbelt is obligatory for a front seat passenger

Well - I thought you might actually be capable of a rational debate until you said this.

Cyclists kill pedestrians.... ban pedestrians? cyclists cycle into each other it can be dangerous... we don't know what we're doing; ban us

Clever Pun

Ban the internet!! facebook gives the public syphilis

el_presidente

Pokerface perhaps you shoudl just list the things that should be allowed, we'll assume everything else is banned.

Pokerface

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

b) A private car is just that - private. 'Nuff said.

What's your point?

The point is - by saying that it's a private car (or private residence as someone else said) you are implying that you can do whatever you want in, regardless of the consequences, and that the government shouldn't be able to have a say.


And by 'you' I mean the figurative 'you'

Oh come now. Yes, I mean that private space means one should be allowed to do what one wants in it, but I don't mean breaking the law, and I'm not an inconsiderate @rsehole.

:roll:

But you can already do what you want ANYWHERE - as long as it's within the law. So being in your own 'space' is no different. By saying that the rules are somehow different because it's a 'private' place - seems to imply that suddenly a different set of rules apply.

W1

Pokerface wrote:

W1 wrote:

The general public have a right to do what they like to themselves.

They don't. You think they SHOULD, but they don't.

But cycling - that's dangerous, that puts peoples lives at risk - ban it.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Driving is! Ban the cars and us cyclists would be safe.

I see no particular reason why wearing seatbelt is obligatory for a front seat passenger

Well - I thought you might actually be capable of a rational debate until you said this.

Well it's quite evident you aren't.

Go on then, justify it as a law.

People should have the right to do as they please as far as legitimately possible. That's what freedom is. Do you think that shouldn't be the case? And try and think of what you do that others might want to ban before you engage keyboard.

cee

Clever Pun wrote:

Ban the internet!! facebook gives the public syphilis

no you are wrong.

facebook causes cancer....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ancer.html