OT: Smoking ban in cars
Comments
-
"Greg66 wrote: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.
Yes but you have to see this proposal in the context of other existing and future steps.
Our fathers generation would have been exposed to tobacco advertising on TV and Cinema, the corner shop would have sold them single cigarettes as young teenagers, they would perhaps have smoked at the breakfast table as the effects on their family weren't made explicit. They would have smoked on the train going to work. Maybe they worked in an office, if so they may have been able to smoke at their desk, if they worked in factories smoke breaks would have been common practice. They maybe attended meetings where passing round a packet of cigarettes was as socially expected as tea and coffee. Maybe they went for a quick pint after work and had another couple there.
While this proposal may just displace their smoking it fits into a bigger picture.
The next logical step is the banning of smoking in public areas.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
WheezyMcChubby wrote:The next logical step is the banning of smoking in public areas.
If so, then surely you'd think that the ultimate policy objective would be the banning of cigarettes.
According to something I found trawling yesterday, the fourth biggest single item of revenue for HMG is the money raised from cigarettes. That tells me why we'll never see a true smoking ban, irrespective of any other considerations. I wouldn't assume therefore that any proposed ban - limited or total - has as its long term goal the elimination of smoking.
(I did wonder whether a Govt would be receptive to banning smoking (political death) if the cost of treating smokers was close to the cigarette "take". I suspect the problem there is that the NHS has a lot of fixed overheads - staff, buildings, admin infrastructure - which wouldn't be saved by having fewer patients coming in the door. So short of scything back the NHS (second political death), you wouldn't see the full savings of a smoking ban reflected in the NHS budget.)0 -
StuAff wrote: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.
I'm not sure that cycling and smoking can be equated in this way.
Should be not be equating smoking with other drugs which are addictive and with proven health risks. Say for example, cocaine?
Society/ government has always taken steps to limit personal freedom for the overall good of society. This may take the form of imposing safety equipment (seat belts in cars) or outlawing dangerous activities (bare knuckle prize fighting) , or banning addictive substances (cocaine).
Obviously when I say 'any law' that's not to be taken excessively literally.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
legin wrote: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.
Finally it's been said "will somebody please think of the children". No need to produce evidence or allow free people to make decisions as you are a bad parent if you don't support this. Do kittens also die everytime you smoke?
how does banning a single person with no children or someone alone in their car "save the children"?0 -
Greg66 wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:The next logical step is the banning of smoking in public areas.
If so, then surely you'd think that the ultimate policy objective would be the banning of cigarettes.
The 'banning' of cigarettes would be a desirable goal as it is a product with no merits what so ever and only causes harm
An immediate ban is impossible, firstly for the financial reasons you suggest above (plus a backlog of 50-60 years of smoking related illness), secondly it would create a massive unregulated criminal opportunity.
No, the current policy of incremental steps is IMO the correct one. Gradually reducing the number of smokers in society by making it more difficult to manufacture, market, distribute and consume the product.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
WheezyMcChubby wrote:Should be not be equating smoking with other drugs which are addictive and with proven health risks. Say for example, cocaine?
Society/ government has always taken steps to limit personal freedom for the overall good of society. This may take the form of imposing safety equipment (seat belts in cars) or outlawing dangerous activities (bare knuckle prize fighting) , or banning addictive substances (cocaine).
What we have now is a arbitrary line between what's addictive and legal and what's addictive and illegal, which is largely an accident of history.
Once you turn your fire on smoking and destroy it, what next? Alcohol? Sugary foods? Pornography? Video games? Adrenaline sports?
And what does history tell us about attempts to ban addictive substances? Prohibition and the current War on Drugs were only successes if you were on the production side. You won't eliminate smoking by a ban, and the Govt would lose all its filthy lucre derived from taxing it.
I bet we could solve the country's money problems by legalising all hard drugs and taxing the shite out of them. Prolly shrink the population a bit too.0 -
sorry WheezyMcChubby, what's it got to do with you if someone wants to smoke?
The taxes from cigs cover the NHS costs with a profit, and help with the pensions crisis so it's not cost. Smokers can't smoke inside public buildings so you are safe there.
So, if someone is smoking outside away from you then why can't they kill themselves and waste their own cash?0 -
Greg66 wrote: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.
My wife gave up smoking only after the pub ban; and my friend has now for the first time talked about giving up becasue he is finding it difficult going without a smoke for long periods at work, on transport and in pubs.
On that basis it works for some people. People who still wish to slowly kill themselves - there are many opportunities for smoking elsewhere.
And noone talks about the right fro freedom from the pressures to smoke which are many - I believe that a little bit of help for those who wish to give up is the least society can put back.0 -
davmaggs wrote:sorry WheezyMcChubby, what's it got to do with you if someone wants to smoke?
and whats it to anyone if I want to take an illegal drug? I believe everything should be legalised and then regulated - much like tobacco and alchohol - but getting the level of regulation right is going to be extremely important - and we're no where near that at the moment.0 -
zanes wrote:davmaggs wrote:sorry WheezyMcChubby, what's it got to do with you if someone wants to smoke?
+1. As others have said, once (or if?) smoking is banned they'll just move on to banning something else. Ban bikes- think of all the accidents that cost the NHS money and time :roll:
:shock: :? :roll:
who's they?
The evidence that smoking is unhealthy is clear - the evidence that cycling is healthy is also clear. Therefore what you say is utter drivel.0 -
Greg66 wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:The next logical step is the banning of smoking in public areas.
If so, then surely you'd think that the ultimate policy objective would be the banning of cigarettes.
According to something I found trawling yesterday, the fourth biggest single item of revenue for HMG is the money raised from cigarettes. That tells me why we'll never see a true smoking ban, irrespective of any other considerations. I wouldn't assume therefore that any proposed ban - limited or total - has as its long term goal the elimination of smoking.
(I did wonder whether a Govt would be receptive to banning smoking (political death) if the cost of treating smokers was close to the cigarette "take". I suspect the problem there is that the NHS has a lot of fixed overheads - staff, buildings, admin infrastructure - which wouldn't be saved by having fewer patients coming in the door. So short of scything back the NHS (second political death), you wouldn't see the full savings of a smoking ban reflected in the NHS budget.)
This is a bit simplistic, the major revenue problem for the NHS/govt would be that it would take decades before you saw a substantial reduction in admissions from smoking related illness because it there already. If someone with severe emphysema stops smoking they will not just get better, the benefit is that they wont get worse any quicker than someone who doesn't smoke (as everyones lungs deteriorate a little over time). So, you would lose smoking revenue overnight but not the expenditure on smoking related illness.0 -
jedster wrote: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
Very simply put - if you take away the taxation and profit issue of cigarettes and alcohol - the downside of these two products far outweighs the upside.
Various cancers, liver disease, addiction, violence, death, etc - vs the freedom and enjoyment of a social pint or glass of wine and a fag. To me - there is no contest.
If people could enjoy all these things in moderation and with responsibility, I would support them being legal. And to someone like yourself who knows how to enjoy responsibly - well... you are clearly the type of model citizen that we need to mold ourselves after. (No sarcasm intended).
But in comparison to drinking and smoking, very few people die or suffer long-term illnesses from partaking in alpine sports.
As soon as you put taxation back into the equation - it becomes a non contest. In fact - I don't know why the government doesn't legalize weed and prostitution - and tax the hell out of them too. We could climb out of this recession VERY quickly if they did that!
It's not so much that I place my faith in the government to make good decisions on behalf of the public - it's more that I have lost faith in the public's ability to make good decisions for themselves.
In fact, I think the government are a bunch of knobs.0 -
Life is dangerous, get over it.
Here is a link to a book covering ridiculous deaths
http://www.amazon.co.uk/1001-Ridiculous ... 1853756784
Should all related activities be banned because they are dangerous?
Banning smoking when non-smokers are in the vehicle would be fair enough (hard to prove though) but that is not what is being proposed. What if I choose to smoke in my car, when parked, and I have no children?
I would be fined according to the proposal.
Zero risk due to dangerous driving, or passive smoking.
Ban it completely, or leave it alone. (No, I do not smoke).None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Pokerface wrote:
As soon as you put taxation back into the equation - it becomes a non contest. In fact - I don't know why the government doesn't legalize weed and prostitution - and tax the hell out of them too. We could climb out of this recession VERY quickly if they did that!
Moral and thical arguments aside. The only reason, the only reason is that the subsequent costs and demands on the health service would negate all the tax gained.
It's a dark little secret that the NHS does provide medical herion (the really really really good stuff)...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Pokerface wrote:
As soon as you put taxation back into the equation - it becomes a non contest. In fact - I don't know why the government doesn't legalize weed and prostitution - and tax the hell out of them too. We could climb out of this recession VERY quickly if they did that!
The only reason, the only reason is that the subsequent costs and demands on the health service would negate all the tax gained.
How do you figure? The Netherlands seem to have mastered it?0 -
I'm beginning to see the argument.
Smoking is banned and it is a good thing that it is banned from public indoor places. The ban has also helped increase procreation and sex, in that now you can 'smirt' (smoke outside and get chatting to a girl/boy)..
You shouldn't tell people that they can't smoke in the comfort of their own property. If you were driving and smoking I could understand cause for a ban but sitting in your car, not so much.
And you have to ask where will the line be drawn? When they start enforcing a law that states I can't have sex in my car*, can't pee outdoors, drink on the train or on the road in a city center and can't throw plastic or cardboard in my bin then that's too far.
When that happens and it will, I say we march!
*Especially that one.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I am also in favour of legalization of all drugs.
More money to spend on education/prevention and on healthcare.
Cut the income from the criminal world.
Stop criminalizing a good chunk of the population who are fully functional otherwise, and would never have to deal with the underworld.
But back on the topic: if you want me to agree on stoping people from smoking in cars, you have to make sure they feed their kids decent food.
Oh, and that counts for nurseries too: over 20% of kids starting school (2-3yo) are already overweight.
You say cancer, I say type 2 diabetes.
No half measures, no persecution on a whole class because of a minority.FCN 4(?) (Commuter - Genesis Croix de Fer)
FCN 3 (Roadie - Viner Perfecta)
-- Please sponsor me on my London to Paris ride --
http://www.diabeteschallenge.org.uk/cha ... n_to_paris0 -
Pokerface wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Pokerface wrote:
As soon as you put taxation back into the equation - it becomes a non contest. In fact - I don't know why the government doesn't legalize weed and prostitution - and tax the hell out of them too. We could climb out of this recession VERY quickly if they did that!
The only reason, the only reason is that the subsequent costs and demands on the health service would negate all the tax gained.
How do you figure? The Netherlands seem to have mastered it?
I don't know the Dutch health system or culture. Presumably their 'drug and prosy' system is fully integrated into their health system and society so:
1). People don't abuse it
2). People don't try to exploit it.
3). Public is wiser to the dangers.
Its the same thing as drinking on the continent, you get a lot less binge drinkers in say France and Italy than you get in the UK with or without a 24hr drink license.
But going back to the implication of legal drugs and whores (are you sure the latter isn't legal because I walked through Soho the other night and I saw at least five guys leave a busty blonde models flat...)
If drugs were legal the NHS would find itself treating addicition and other far reaching mental and physical ailments that are all side affects from using, then there are the presumed increase of injuries and crime (and there will be drugs affect people in unexpected ways, some people get violent) while spaced out on drugs. As for prostitutes increased potential for STDs = need for treatment, increased people trafficikng and the ever ending question of who benefits Olgar whose parents sold her at 13, the client or her pimp and the government?
Englands attitude and infrastructure would need to change.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:But going back to the implication of legal drugs and whores (are you sure the latter isn't legal because I walked through Soho the other night and I saw at least five guys leave a busty blonde models flat...
If drugs were legal the NHS would find itself treating addicition and other far reaching mental and physical ailments all side affects from overuse, then there are the injuries while spaced out on weed. Increased potential for STD's = need for treatment etc.
Englands attitude and infastructure would need to change. (Trust me I just came back from the NHS leadership day event - all promising, all worrying).
Well - I guess it depends on WHICH drugs are legalized - but I think many people already get their hands on the drugs they want. They just do it illegally. Therefore the burden to the healthcare system would not necessarily rise as drastically as you say.
Prostitution may be legal. Not sure. Isn't it solicitation that isn't legal? Semantics.
Again - less likely to be injured while spaced on weed than amped up on Redbull and vodka.
Be wary of the lines they feed you at an NHS seminar. They are just angling for more money/support.0 -
This thread's just getting silly now“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
WheezyMcChubby wrote:This thread's just getting silly now
Because some peoples don't agree with you?
Because some peoples are trying to bring a broader view on the topic?FCN 4(?) (Commuter - Genesis Croix de Fer)
FCN 3 (Roadie - Viner Perfecta)
-- Please sponsor me on my London to Paris ride --
http://www.diabeteschallenge.org.uk/cha ... n_to_paris0 -
Very simply put - if you take away the taxation and profit issue of cigarettes and alcohol - the downside of these two products far outweighs the upside.
How do you assess this then? I think that the vast majority of people enjoy drinking sensibly. I think you place little or no value on this. I disagree. Sure, the negative effects for/of the minority who become alcoholic or antisocial drunks is significant but you have to trade one against the other taking account of the different sizes of the two populations.If people could enjoy all these things in moderation and with responsibility, I would support them being legal.
As indeed the vast majority of people do.But in comparison to drinking and smoking, very few people die or suffer long-term illnesses from partaking in alpine sports.
Well the issue is not the number but the incidence isn't it? If 10 people a year chose to play Russian Roulette and caused 5 casualties, would we argue that it's only 5 people or say it's 50% death rate?
Now as it happens, I don't take wild risks but those mountaineers who climb 8000m peaks take very grave risks and have a high death rate. Should they be stopped?
Obviously I think they should be allowed to make their own judgments.
Having said all that, I think the pro-smoking banners have not been stessing their strongest argument. If someone invented cigarettes today, there is no way that they would be allowed on the market. The product liability issues would kill the idea pretty quick. The logic of this is that they should be withdrawn from sale immediately.
Why doesn't that happen? Well because they are such an established part of lots of people's lives and our tax system. Given that we try to ween people off them by educating them of the risks, providing support to quit on the NHS and (fairly recently) preventing people from being exposed to secondary smoking in enclosed public spaces. We are trying to be balanced - say we would prefer that you son't harm yourself but if you are free to do so provided that you don't harm others in the process. This seems sensible to me.
To my mind, the only possible justification for the car smoking ban is to prevent secondary smoking being inflicted on people who cant avoid it - i.e., children. Adult passengers can get out of the car. If this is the objective then logically they should hit the issue head on and deal with smoking at home too (where children are in the same room!).
Personally I think education/advertising aimed at making it unacceptable to inflict smoke on children would be the place to start rather than a law.
J0 -
jedster: you mean like trying to educate pregnant women on the risk of smoking/drinking?
FCN 4(?) (Commuter - Genesis Croix de Fer)
FCN 3 (Roadie - Viner Perfecta)
-- Please sponsor me on my London to Paris ride --
http://www.diabeteschallenge.org.uk/cha ... n_to_paris0 -
I think someone dropped into this the old chestnut about smokers effectively paying for their own treatment via the taxation on nic-sticks?
I'd love to see some robust evidence of this, because a) treating cancer can be fantastically expensive and b) the cost probably doesn't include the loss to society of additional benefit from the person living "X" years longer if they hadn't smoked and got Cancer.
Source: am working on a cancer project at the moment.
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Pokerface wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Pokerface wrote:
As soon as you put taxation back into the equation - it becomes a non contest. In fact - I don't know why the government doesn't legalize weed and prostitution - and tax the hell out of them too. We could climb out of this recession VERY quickly if they did that!
The only reason, the only reason is that the subsequent costs and demands on the health service would negate all the tax gained.
How do you figure? The Netherlands seem to have mastered it?
I don't know the Dutch health system or culture. Presumably their 'drug and prosy' system is fully integrated into their health system and society so:
1). People don't abuse it
2). People don't try to exploit it.
3). Public is wiser to the dangers.
Its the same thing as drinking on the continent, you get a lot less binge drinkers in say France and Italy than you get in the UK with or without a 24hr drink license.
But going back to the implication of legal drugs and whores (are you sure the latter isn't legal because I walked through Soho the other night and I saw at least five guys leave a busty blonde models flat...)
If drugs were legal the NHS would find itself treating addicition and other far reaching mental and physical ailments that are all side affects from using, then there are the presumed increase of injuries and crime (and there will be drugs affect people in unexpected ways, some people get violent) while spaced out on drugs. As for prostitutes increased potential for STDs = need for treatment, increased people trafficikng and the ever ending question of who benefits Olgar whose parents sold her at 13, the client or her pimp and the government?
Englands attitude and infrastructure would need to change.
Ironically the dutch refer to their system as the "British System" because it's what we had in place - and which worked effectively for decades prior to the moral panic and rightwing backlash of the 60s and 70s.0 -
Pokerface wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:But going back to the implication of legal drugs and whores (are you sure the latter isn't legal because I walked through Soho the other night and I saw at least five guys leave a busty blonde models flat...
If drugs were legal the NHS would find itself treating addicition and other far reaching mental and physical ailments all side affects from overuse, then there are the injuries while spaced out on weed. Increased potential for STD's = need for treatment etc.
Englands attitude and infastructure would need to change. (Trust me I just came back from the NHS leadership day event - all promising, all worrying).
Well - I guess it depends on WHICH drugs are legalized - but I think many people already get their hands on the drugs they want. They just do it illegally. Therefore the burden to the healthcare system would not necessarily rise as drastically as you say.
Again - less likely to be injured while spaced on weed than amped up on Redbull and vodka.
Having worked for a Mental Health Institution and generally a career in the health and social care sector I disagree. Exposing the general public to legal drugs will, over time, increase the use of said drugs and subsequently the demand on health services treating people afflicted from drug related problems. To draw a comparision, smoking was banned in public places and over time the amount of smokers reduced. Lift the ban and you will get more smokers over time and subsequently people unwell from smoking related problems.*
*Though I fully accept that its what and where you ban. Which is what we are discussing, I don't think banning people from smoking in cars (given the solitary environment) will reduce the number of smokers. I do think it will, however marginally, increase the potential for road safety but such a nominal increase is probably not worth the expense of enforcing the ban.
As for drugs there are many misconceptions about weed, especially as demand for stronger strains have increased the all damaging side effects (dispite some thinking said side affects are enjoyable they don't realise the enjoyment and damage are interlinked)Be wary of the lines they feed you at an NHS seminar. They are just angling for more money/support.
Not always.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Porgy wrote:
Ironically the dutch refer to their system as the "English System" because it's what we had in place - and which worked effectively for decades prior to the moral panic and rightwing backlash of the 60s and 70s.
30 - 40 yrs of social conditioning is hard to break.
Unless we had a massive political, social, ethical, moral and cultural shift. I can't see it happening.
Trouble is its more unlikely these days as well as people are more reluctuant to protest, march, strike, campaign and complain. Much rather wanting to go with the status quo.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
SecretSam wrote:I think someone dropped into this the old chestnut about smokers effectively paying for their own treatment via the taxation on nic-sticks?
I'd love to see some robust evidence of this, because a) treating cancer can be fantastically expensive and b) the cost probably doesn't include the loss to society of additional benefit from the person living "X" years longer if they hadn't smoked and got Cancer.
Source: am working on a cancer project at the moment.
Google quickly shows the figures. A fairly recently studied increased the cost estimates from about £1.5bn to £5bn. Tax raises £9-£10bn. Even if you don't quibble the rise in costs, that's still a net profit.
Also smokers get a better pension annunity because they (on average) don't live us long. Figures on for the state pension saving is something I can't be bothered to help with as the point is made.
And having said all that the liberty/freedom debates only moved to tax issues in recent years because it was the argument used by politicans to justify their actions.
Also not a single life has ever been saved by reducing the amount of smoking. Death is just delayed.0 -
holybinch wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:This thread's just getting silly now
Because some peoples don't agree with you?
Because some peoples are trying to bring a broader view on the topic?
No.
I'm happy to debate the issue.
But the level of nonsense being spouted has gone up significantly.
Time to withdraw.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
