OT: Smoking ban in cars

Clever Pun

cee wrote:

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

probably bad aids too

yey for the Daily Mail, the article is against the suns reporting of people meeting up for casual sexy times and does use words like could and potentially, the sun used words like romp and illicit


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/24/sun-national-newspapers

W1

Pokerface wrote:

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.

FFS. They do - there are plenty of things that are illegal in public, but not in the privacy of your own home. Hell, even you might be able to think of one or two.

Jeez.

lost_in_thought

Pokerface wrote:

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.

So, let's say, hypothetically, that someone's endeavouring to bring in a law that bans doing something legal in a private place...

For example, banning smoking in a private car...

Now re-read in that context.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk, eh? Where the hell did I get such a kooky idea from?

:roll:

PS. Careful you don't get done for indecent exposure...

Pokerface

el_presidente wrote:

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

When I run for office - I'll make sure to do just that.


Personally - I CAN think for myself and would quite happily live my life without the government telling what to do all the time.


I just find it laughable when people argue so vehemently in favour of things that are so clearly bad for you.

greg66_tri_v2.0

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.

Is that right? So, tell me, what says I don't have the right to inflict some self harm on myself? Or eat myself to death? Or starve myself until I weigh bobbins all?

Pokerface wrote:

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

Never been in a collision with another cyclist then. Or had an off courtesy of ice or a pothole. etc, etc, ad nauseam.

el_presidente

Pokerface wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

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

When I run for office - I'll make sure to do just that.


Personally - I CAN think for myself and would quite happily live my life without the government telling what to do all the time.


I just find it laughable when people argue so vehemently in favour of things that are so clearly bad for you.

Drinking alcohol is clearly bad for you. Why is that not banned?

Pokerface

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

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.

So, let's say, hypothetically, that someone's endeavouring to bring in a law that bans doing something legal in a private place...

For example, banning smoking in a private car...

Now re-read in that context.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk, eh? Where the hell did I get such a kooky idea from?

:roll:

PS. Careful you don't get done for indecent exposure...

Let's say hypothetically, you re-read my post.

And note the part where I say "as long as it's WITHIN THE LAW".

I am aware there are some things you can do in your house, but not in public (and the law says you can't do those things in public.


Or remind me to follow you around next time you are driving around in your car naked.

jedster

I'm basically a libertarian so I voted no. Personally I think smoking in cars is pretty squallid but I'd let people do it if they want to. I do see the argument about inflicting your smoke on kids in the car but we can't legislate against every bit of bad parenting.

I also tend to agree that unenforceable laws are bad laws. Laws that you can't enforce just bring The Law into disrepute.

That said, I think it is wrong to say that the mobile phone "ban" is completely unenforceable. Sure, drivers are seldom prevented from using a mobile phone by passing policemen but if they have an accident and the phone records show they were on the phone then they do get treated more harshly by the courts - this will gradually have an impact on poeple's behaviour.

Clearly the ban on drink driving does not prevent people form drink driving - most prosecutions happen when people are breathalysed following some other incident. The legal anctions have some deterrent effect.

J

Pokerface

el_presidente wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

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

When I run for office - I'll make sure to do just that.


Personally - I CAN think for myself and would quite happily live my life without the government telling what to do all the time.


I just find it laughable when people argue so vehemently in favour of things that are so clearly bad for you.

Drinking alcohol is clearly bad for you. Why is that not banned?

Same reason smoking isn't.

££££££££££££££

cee

Clever Pun wrote:

cee wrote:

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

probably bad aids too

yey for the Daily Mail, the article is against the suns reporting of people meeting up for casual sexy times and does use words like could and potentially, the sun used words like romp and illicit


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/24/sun-national-newspapers

nothing better than a good romp. especially when its illicit!

el_presidente

Pokerface wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

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

When I run for office - I'll make sure to do just that.


Personally - I CAN think for myself and would quite happily live my life without the government telling what to do all the time.


I just find it laughable when people argue so vehemently in favour of things that are so clearly bad for you.

Drinking alcohol is clearly bad for you. Why is that not banned?

Same reason smoking isn't.

££££££££££££££

Do you think it should be banned?

lost_in_thought

Pokerface wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

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.

So, let's say, hypothetically, that someone's endeavouring to bring in a law that bans doing something legal in a private place...

For example, banning smoking in a private car...

Now re-read in that context.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk, eh? Where the hell did I get such a kooky idea from?

:roll:

PS. Careful you don't get done for indecent exposure...

Let's say hypothetically, you re-read my post.

And note the part where I say "as long as it's WITHIN THE LAW".

I am aware there are some things you can do in your house, but not in public (and the law says you can't do those things in public.


Or remind me to follow you around next time you are driving around in your car naked.

So, wait, you ignore the entire body of the post and skip straight to the indecent exposure bit? Blimey, you really should go into politics.

Porgy

W1 wrote:

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.

Those weren't human rights protests. Human rights might be an element - but then it will be an element in every protest.

Mainly becasue the government have been too scared to confront the powers behind the motoring industry - hugely powerful lobbyists who could whip up a massive public protest any time - as they did during the fuel dispute.

When a vested interest has so much political and media support it does not need to protest.

You get real.

Clever Pun

cee wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

cee wrote:

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

probably bad aids too

yey for the Daily Mail, the article is against the suns reporting of people meeting up for casual sexy times and does use words like could and potentially, the sun used words like romp and illicit


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/24/sun-national-newspapers

nothing better than a good romp. especially when its illicit!

ohhh steamy and sordid

Pokerface

el_presidente wrote:

Drinking alcohol is clearly bad for you. Why is that not banned?

Same reason smoking isn't.

££££££££££££££[/quote]

Do you think it should be banned?[/quote]


Yes.

tailwindhome

Lets rephrase the question


Should we as a society, through our elected representatives, continue to take incremental steps to reduce the number of smokers in our society in order to improve the the general health of our society?

Porgy

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Lets rephrase the question


Should we as a society, through our elected representatives, continue to take incremental steps to reduce the number of smokers in our society in order to improve the the general health of our society?

While generally not being much in favour of representative politics I'm very pleased that my wife was pushed into the position of giving up smoking.

I'll be pleased again if one of my friends - who is starting to suffer from breathing difficulties - gives up too.

In that sense - I think incrementally pushing back smoking might be a good idea - undoing decades of cynical manipulation by one of the most heartless and evil industries on earth.

Aguila

Greg66 wrote:

Aguila wrote:

I think it should be banned, but mainly due to safety. If it's dangerous to drive a car whilst on the phone it seems reasonable to say that openning a packet of fags/lighting it/smoking it all whilst trying to drive cannot be as safe as just driving with the full use of both hands etc.

I thought mobile phone point was based on some research about focussing on a conversation with someone not in a car was a lot more dangerous than speaking to someone in the car/listening to the radio etc. Not sure than the fag lighting ceremony would fit that bill. Plus - logically you'd end up banning car stereos, with sat navs much further up the hit list (having said that, I recognise that both operating and reading a sat nav whilst driving is well beyond a lot of people).

I always enjoy the "not in full control of the car unless both hands are on the wheel" line. It's perfectly plain that some people can drive perfectly well with one hand on the wheel talking to their passenger and several leptons over the speed limit; equally it's perfectly plain that some people can have both hands on the wheel, plus the hands of a helper, stay under the speed limit, and still not drive safely.

Sorry Greg though you are correct about phones I'm afraid your wrong there, there is evidence that smoking whilst driving does increase your risk of accidents:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/1 ... 1/i28.full

Brison RJ, "Risk of automobile accidents in cigarette smokers" in Can J Public Health 1990;81:102-6.

DiFranza JR, Winters TH, Goldberg RJ, et al, "The relationship of smoking to motor vehicle accidents and traffic violations" in NY State J Med 1986;86:464-7

Grout P, Cliff KS, Harman ML, et al, "Cigarette smoking, road traffic accidents and seat belt usage" in Public Health 1983;97:95-101.

legin

regardless if your for or against smoking the law is intended to protect children of smokers from the affects of passive smoking.if your a responsible parent you would support it.
there is ample evidence that passive smoking can affect the health of children and make them more succeptible to become smokers.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Lets rephrase the question


Should we as a society, through our elected representatives, continue to take incremental steps to reduce the number of smokers in our society in order to improve the the general health of our society?

Let's not. I like my question.

However... I have an open mind. So let's rephrase the rephrased question:

Will banning smoking in all vehicles reduce the number of smokers in our society?

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Lets rephrase the question


Should we as a society, through our elected representatives, continue to take incremental steps to reduce the number of smokers in our society in order to improve the the general health of our society?

Let's not. I like my question.

However... I have an open mind. So let's rephrase the rephrased question:

Will banning smoking in all vehicles reduce the number of smokers in our society?

Marginally, but the increase in fuel duty will reduce the number of drivers, who will sit at home and smoke instead.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Lets rephrase the question


Should we as a society, through our elected representatives, continue to take incremental steps to reduce the number of smokers in our society in order to improve the the general health of our society?

Let's not. I like my question.

However... I have an open mind. So let's rephrase the rephrased question:

Will banning smoking in all vehicles reduce the number of smokers in our society?

Maybe

While a law banning smoking in cars may be impossible to enforce absolutely*, some people will stop smoking in their car because it is the law.

It may just displace their smoking habit to another place and time.

However another incremental obstacle in the way of their smoking habit may be enough to motivate them to attempt to give up.

If you had asked me the same question a couple of years ago I would have given you a different answer, but as I commented earlier my Dad is dying of Pulminary Fibrosis, he's currently 9months into a 6 month prognosis.

Any law which could prevent another human being going through what he is enduring is OK by me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Maybe

While a law banning smoking in cars may be impossible to enforce absolutely*, some people will stop smoking in their car because it is the law.

It may just displace their smoking habit to another place and time.

However another incremental obstacle in the way of their smoking habit may be enough to motivate them to attempt to give up.

If you had asked me the same question a couple of years ago I would have given you a different answer, but as I commented earlier my Dad is dying of Pulminary Fibrosis, he's currently 9months into a 6 month prognosis.

Any law which could prevent another human being going through what he is enduring is OK by me.

You have my sympathies. You'll see from my original post my Dad isn't in a great way either. But I know for sure that had he not been able to smoke on trains (which was how he got to and from work) it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to his smoking. As you say: displacement.

cjcp

I truly despise smoking (similar reasons to WMC), but I don't see the point in banning it in private vehicles. As said above, it's unenforceable. It's enough of a problem for the police enforcing the ban against mobile phones or speed limits.

el_presidente

Pokerface wrote:

"el_presidente wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

Drinking alcohol is clearly bad for you. Why is that not banned?

Same reason smoking isn't.

££££££££££££££

Do you think it should be banned?

Yes.

fun guy!. Fancy a pint?

Christophe3967

As Sarajoy pointed out earlier, there is already a law in place to cover a situation where smoking is adversely affecting the driver's control of the car.

Now if only we could ban dreary people who believe they should tell the rest of us what we can do...

jedster

pokerface,

I must admit that I find your views scarily authoritarian. You seem to place very high confidence in The States ability to work out what is good for people and totally discount individuals abilities and rights to trade risk for reward in ways that make sense for them.

You would ban alcohol. Leaving aside the appaliing track record of prohibition and the similarly dismal results of banning other drugs, there is still the issue that you would wish to take a way a pleasure of mine which has no detrimental effects on anyone else. In the quantities that I drink there is even little evidence it does any harm to me.

What is your attitude to alpine mountaineering and off-piste skiing. I love these things and am willing to accept a higher risk of accidental death to do them. Perhaps you think someone in Government is better placed to take those risk/reward decisions than me?

People smoke because they enjoy it. They know about the health risks. Let them make their own decisions.

J

tailwindhome

jedster wrote:

People smoke because they enjoy it. They know about the health risks. Let them make their own decisions.

Even though there decisions have consequences for others and society?

Where do you suggest society stops intervening in people's rights to make their own decisions?

Should society intervene before enjoy turns to addiction?

il_principe

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Any law which could prevent another human being going through what he is enduring is OK by me.

Sorry but no, even though I sympathise. I lost my Grandad and my Dad to smoking (in part). Doesn't mean I want to see it banned. I could have a bad cycle crash and become a vegetable etc, does this mean cycling should be banned to prevent another human being going through it? No it doesn't. Smoking is a personal choice, it maybe a stupid one, but banning it is not the answer. Thin end of the wedge.

stuaff

Il Principe wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Any law which could prevent another human being going through what he is enduring is OK by me.

Sorry but no, even though I sympathise. I lost my Grandad and my Dad to smoking (in part). Doesn't mean I want to see it banned. I could have a bad cycle crash and become a vegetable etc, does this mean cycling should be banned to prevent another human being going through it? No it doesn't. Smoking is a personal choice, it maybe a stupid one, but banning it is not the answer. Thin end of the wedge.

+1. I'm pro-helmet (wearing one has saved me from serious head injuries before) but I'm certainly not going to tell people to wear one, in many accidents- including others I've had- they wouldn't help at all. Ditto with smoking. My best mate's recently quit. I'm obviously delighted at anything that's going to keep her around for as long as possible, but nor have I spent 20 years nagging her about it. It was her choice to start smoking and hers to quit. Quite right too.