OT: Smoking ban in cars
Comments
-
Crapaud wrote:
Ash UK are roughly 10 years behind the US and are using the same model. The stage after that is banning smokers from employment then banning non-smokers whose partners smoke from employment. There have been calls to have children of smokers taken into care and the parents jailed on the grounds of child abuse. Is this right and just?WheezyMcChubby wrote:Good news there Crapaud, thanks for posting
How far is it acceptable to go in coercing and bullying people into doing what one wants?
This is the same successful campaign model that they want to use with alcohol, junk food and god knows what else. A campaign of coercion and stigmatisation that has less to do with health and more to do with the zealots not liking 'something'.
First they came for the smokers ...
That's nonsense of the very highest calibre“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Dr Michael Siegel, once a leading light in the tobbacco control movement, until he started to question the claims and motivation of the anti lobby, would disagree ...WheezyMcChubby wrote:... That's nonsense of the very highest calibre
From Distinction Between War Against Cigarette Smoke and War Against Cigarette Smokers Continues to Blur; Researcher Warns Public Not to Be Around Smokers... In previous times, I would have said: "Absolutely not. Our goal is simply to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke." Today, I'm not so sure. In fact, that's not true. I am sure. I am sure that many in the anti-smoking community have exactly that as a goal: the punishment, social isolation, and ostracization of smokers.
Psycologist Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD in Rampant Anti-smoking (well worth a read if you have the time, IMO) ...... Many claims/conclusions made at the 3rd World Conference were anything but scientifically ‘settled’. A pertinent question, then, is who authorized denormalization/abnormalization/stigmatization of smokers? Who decided that it was ‘the way to go’? Who decided that ‘elimination of cigarette smoking’ was a coherent goal? It seems that it was this antismoking group at the 3rd World Conference that manufactured all the conclusions. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, and under the banner of “Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”, this small group led by Godber (a WHO representative) decided that it had a definitive view of the world and smoking - the issues were “settled” - establishing a ‘blueprint’ for action. The overriding goal of the ‘blueprint’ was to eradicate smoking from public (indoor and outdoor) places through denormalization of smoking/smokers. ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
That's nonsense of the very highest calibre
Why is that nonsense? The forum has pretty much agreed that one typical argument used to enforce a belief on the public is that the activity costs the taxpayer/NHS money. Smoking doesn't. So that argument is dead.
The house of Lords strongly questioned the claims of evidence out forward about passive smoking when the pub ban came in, so the idea that there'd be some big boost to the nation's wellbeing if passive smoking in the remaining places it is allowed to occur is even weaker and unproven.
Then we start on the idea that smoking is antisocial because a certain number of them do it near you. Well, that's the same as all other anti-social activities and is down to behaviour. Lone adult smokers in cars doesn't effect you.
As for the "somebody think of the children" claim. Come on!
So, now we are down to the idea that grown adults are not allowed to do something that hurts only themselves because other people don't like it.0 -
Crapaud wrote:
Dr Michael Siegel, once a leading light in the tobbacco control movement, until he started to question the claims and motivation of the anti lobby, would disagree ...WheezyMcChubby wrote:... That's nonsense of the very highest calibre
From Distinction Between War Against Cigarette Smoke and War Against Cigarette Smokers Continues to Blur; Researcher Warns Public Not to Be Around Smokers... In previous times, I would have said: "Absolutely not. Our goal is simply to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke." Today, I'm not so sure. In fact, that's not true. I am sure. I am sure that many in the anti-smoking community have exactly that as a goal: the punishment, social isolation, and ostracization of smokers.
Psycologist Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD in Rampant Anti-smoking (well worth a read if you have the time, IMO) ...... Many claims/conclusions made at the 3rd World Conference were anything but scientifically ‘settled’. A pertinent question, then, is who authorized denormalization/abnormalization/stigmatization of smokers? Who decided that it was ‘the way to go’? Who decided that ‘elimination of cigarette smoking’ was a coherent goal? It seems that it was this antismoking group at the 3rd World Conference that manufactured all the conclusions. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, and under the banner of “Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”, this small group led by Godber (a WHO representative) decided that it had a definitive view of the world and smoking - the issues were “settled” - establishing a ‘blueprint’ for action. The overriding goal of the ‘blueprint’ was to eradicate smoking from public (indoor and outdoor) places through denormalization of smoking/smokers. ...
Nothing in your post supports your assertion that the campaign has has "less to do with health and more to do with the zealots not liking 'something'. "
You may have a point however when you characterise the campaign as one of "coercion and stimatisation", but then again you are criticizing the strategy rather than the objective.
In my view the erradication of smoking is a legimate goal and exactly what I would expect from public health policy. Key to acheiving this goal is the 'denormalization/abnormalization' of smoking. Quite right too, it should not be considered a normal activity to partake in the inhalation of a addictive chemical cocktail with such proven health risks.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
davmaggs wrote:The forum has pretty much agreed that one typical argument used to enforce a belief on the public is that the activity costs the taxpayer/NHS money. Smoking doesn't. So that argument is dead.
Firstly I never made that argument
I don't know the numbers but I bet that I could soon Google a set of links that could prove the claim either way
Assume that smoking costs the tax paper money and you have an argument for reducing smoking (or increasing the duty)
However if we assume that smoking is cost neutral or pofitable for the taxpaper I don't accept that as a reason not to reduce the level of smokingThen we start on the idea that smoking is antisocial because a certain number of them do it near you. Well, that's the same as all other anti-social activities and is down to behaviour.
I've no idea what your point isAs for the "somebody think of the children" claim. Come on!
Again I have no idea what your point is here, you seem to be mocking other arguments rather than constructing your own.
Perhaps you don't accept that breathing in second hand smoke effects the health of children?So, now we are down to the idea that grown adults are not allowed to do something that hurts only themselves because other people don't like it.
You could make the same argument about 'self harm', anorexia, bulimina?
Let's again ask another question.
A product exists that is easily availiable, is addictive and has proven effects on health for the user and possible effect on those in the users environment.
What should the governments health policy be on this product?
Ignore it?
Tax it and hope to break even?
Take steps to erradicate it?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Wheezy, this is a sensible post just for you.davmaggs wrote:
That's nonsense of the very highest calibre
Why is that nonsense? The forum has pretty much agreed that one typical argument used to enforce a belief on the public is that the activity costs the taxpayer/NHS money. Smoking doesn't. So that argument is dead.
Actually smoking does so the argument is very much alive.
The need for health care services can be a direct or indirect result of smoking. Therefore I doubt, though I admit I haven't looked in intimate detail, that any research that attempts to identify the cost smokers have on the health services will not account for all the potential services the smoker is likely to use in their life time.
Of the research I've gleaned, while working for the NHS, most research focuses on the cost of cancer treatments. It doesn't consider other forms of treatment, lung, chest infection, mental disorders such as depression and generally treatments for poor physical health. While, some of those treatments aren't directly linked to the negative affects of cigarettes, smoking can have an indirect affect on poor health. I.e. smoker is unwell, poor health leads to weight gain, gets depressed and/or other illnesses/infections creep in due to poor overall health.
The bottom, final and undeniable line is that ultimately a healthier (both physically and mentally healthy) person is likely to cost the health service less than an unhealthy person (This isn't always the case but I assure you, you get more outwardly unhealthy people seeking health care treatment than outwardly healthy people). Smoking makes a person unhealthy so I'd say that it is safe to say that in general a smoker is likely to cost the health service more than a non-smoker who lives a fit healthy life.
I also think any argument to the contrary is monumentally shortsighted.
However the decision for banning smoking in cars isn't one of health concerns or safety in my honest opinion (and this may creep up as a policy issue/off cuff discussion next time I'm at the Department of Health so I need to brief myself (pronto)). I don't think it's about health or safety because the money generated from smoking is too much to ignore and there are numerous other way's to damage your health that the government and health officials do not actively focus on. Also if it was about health, they would ban cigarettes or place stipulations that limit the amount of nicotine and tar allowed.
I'm all for a public ban on smoking as the byproduct affects others and the choice to damage your health should be your own (within reason) and said decision should not impose itself on others: secondary smoke, anti-social behavior. But to place a government ban when you are on your own or in company of friends and family, when such a decision should be a personal one, is an invasion on civil liberties.
Whether we (the health service) should treat people who smoke and become ill directly from smoking as that is the eventual step if this ban should come into affect along with telling people whether they can smoke in their homes. Is something I don't have a position on because I have a professional and personal opinion, which conflict with each other.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 -
You support persecution, then? :shock:WheezyMcChubby wrote:... In my view the erradication of smoking is a legimate goal and exactly what I would expect from public health policy. Key to acheiving this goal is the 'denormalization/abnormalization' of smoking. Quite right too, ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Crapaud wrote:
You support persecution, then? :shock:WheezyMcChubby wrote:... In my view the erradication of smoking is a legimate goal and exactly what I would expect from public health policy. Key to acheiving this goal is the 'denormalization/abnormalization' of smoking. Quite right too, ...
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me
But please include the full quoteKey to acheiving this goal is the 'denormalization/abnormalization' of smoking. Quite right too, it should not be considered a normal activity to partake in the inhalation of a addictive chemical cocktail with such proven health risks.
I don't agree that any of the actions taken to date by government qualify as persecution.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Couple of points to throw in;
Playing with fire whilst partaking of psychoactive substances whilst allegedly being "in control" of a vehicle. It's not on really is it?
Personal freedom? In my opinion it's fine for consenting adults to poison themselves with what ever they wish, as long as they are prepared (and able?) to deal with the consequences with their own resources (I would include what are considered illegal substances, as I have a fairly broad libertarian streak). However I do not accept that these same people should put others at risk by their behaviours. I would say that nobody has a right to inflict their poisons upon anybody else, without their consent (and I don't think that smokers' children are in a position to give their consent). All road users have a right to expect that people who drive vehicles are paying attention and are not under the influence of mind-altering substances. It is not permitted to eat, comb hair, shave, drink, use a mobile phone etc. whilst driving. Why do people think they should be allowed to smoke nicotine whilst driving a car?
Who's freedoms are we talking about here?0 -
(I've changed my position on this) How much does a cigarette alter your mind?
If smoking when driving is distracting then we better ban eating, drinking(non alcoholic drinks) hands free phones, sat nav and radios/stereos.
It encroaches on personal freedom because the decision to smoke in our cars or in the presence of friends, families (even kids, now that its generally accepted smoking is bad for health) should be the informed decision of the smoker (a decision influenced by those around him at the time).
I would no sooner have a government tell me when to smoke than I would them tell me how to raise my child, whether I should drink alcohol in front of my child and whether I can or can't give them or choose to eat fast food everyday.
The decision should always be the individuals, if the Government wants to see a shift in private habits then it should educate so individuals can make informed decisions. A Government should never dictate to this level.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 -
CiB wrote:Non-smoker here, but seeing babies strapped in the back seat baby thing trapped in a car full of smoke is not a pleasing sight, esp when the driver has the window down on the bassi that all the smoke goes out of the window. Does it f... It all gets blown back in so you have a cold baby covered in smoke. But smokers tend not to care about this. The general refrain is 'we have a right to smoke if we want to'. Yeah right, but you don't have a right to inflict it on small babies that you're supposed to care for and to put ahead of all your own needs m'duck.
I'm not a fan of the smoking in pubs ban tbh; it's robbed pubs of their atmosphere now that half of he locals are off outside most of the time rather than being in the bar having a larf, a joke & a pint. There should be relaxation on that aspect of the ban.
Banning it in cars where children are carried is a good thing - 6 month-old babies don't have much say in whether their parent(s) smoke or not, come to think of it most kids under say 6 or 7 probably don't get much say in whether they have to sit in a car or a living room that stinks of smoke. So on balance, surprisingly for me, I'd agree with a ban in this case. Ban smoking where children are likely to be on a regular basis.
Well ---
Alberta has a workplace ban on smoking (which covers any work vehicle) . Several Canadian Provinces have banned smoking in cars when kids are present. Careful balancing act - ....Cervelo Soloist
Cervelo P2 (Carbon)
Trek 4500
some sort of cx bike
It's not that cold out, it's just a bit windy.
http://www.ridecalgary.blogspot.com
www.bikecalgary.org0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:If smoking when driving is distracting then we better ban eating, drinking(non alcoholic drinks) hands free phones, sat nav and radios/stereos.
It IS illegal (or at least you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention / dangerous driving, depending on the circumstances) if you eat or drink or comb hair or use a mobile phone (whether hands-free or not) or use a sat-nav or fiddle with your stereo etc. whilst driving. Smoking should be seen as equally as distracting from the serious matter of not steering your car into other road users....... Oh, and nicotine IS psychoactive - why else do people use it?0 -
No Sweat wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If smoking when driving is distracting then we better ban eating, drinking(non alcoholic drinks) hands free phones, sat nav and radios/stereos.
It IS illegal (or at least you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention / dangerous driving, depending on the circumstances) if you eat or drink or comb hair or use a mobile phone (whether hands-free or not) or use a sat-nav or fiddle with your stereo etc. whilst driving. Smoking should be seen as equally as distracting from the serious matter of not steering your car into other road users....... Oh, and nicotine IS psychoactive - why else do people use it?
"Depending on the circumstances" somewhat undermines "is". "Can be" would be accurate. But less attention-seeking.
Caffeine is psychoactive. Do you think people who have drunk coffee or coca-cola should be banned from driving?
One might assume that if smoking were as truly detrimental to road safety as you seem to think, it would have been banned in cars long ago. But it hasn't, and even now that isn't the basis of the ban that's being called for.0 -
Crapaud wrote:
How far is it acceptable to go in coercing and bullying people into doing what one wants?
The church...Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:Crapaud wrote:
How far is it acceptable to go in coercing and bullying people into doing what one wants?
The church...
The Great War on Terror (either side)...0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:It encroaches on personal freedom because the decision to smoke in our cars or in the presence of friends, families (even kids, now that its generally accepted smoking is bad for health) should be the informed decision of the smoker (a decision influenced by those around him at the time).
I would no sooner have a government tell me when to smoke than I would them tell me how to raise my child, whether I should drink alcohol in front of my child and whether I can or can't give them or choose to eat fast food everyday.
The decision should always be the individuals, if the Government wants to see a shift in private habits then it should educate so individuals can make informed decisions. A Government should never dictate to this level.
The area of personal responsibliity versus 'government' isn't black or white but many shades of grey.
If you accept that passive smoking is harmful to children's health then it quite clearly is abuse/neglect to subject your children to 2nd hand smoke.
Obviously abuse/neglect exists on a spectrum from the horrors of the 'Baby P' case to the failure to provide for the child's basic needs of education, nutrition,hygiene etc. We could debate where on this spectrum passive smoking sits. but there should be no doubt that it's on the scale.
Yes education is important, but the question is a what point does society step in when the 'informed descision' is clearly the wrong one?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg66 wrote:
Caffeine is psychoactive. Do you think people who have drunk coffee or coca-cola should be banned from driving?
One might assume that if smoking were as truly detrimental to road safety as you seem to think, it would have been banned in cars long ago. But it hasn't, and even now that isn't the basis of the ban that's being called for.
On could make a cogent argument for banning driving under the influence of caffeine - it does afterall alter perception and affect people's judgement of speed and promotes aggressive behaviour - however the affects are very mild compared to those related to the nicotinic pathways. Also the cravings, and obsessive behaviours related to the cravings, are not nearly as marked as for nicotine.
I think the health impacts of secondary smoking should be so self-evident to everybody by now that the idea of banning smoking anywhere that non-consenters may be exposed to the effluents (either at the time of smoking activities or later deposited on surfaces such as seating, door handles etc.) should be readily accepted. It really is a non-argument.
I made the comments about broader road safety issues to highlight another less considered but equally important matter.
The fact that it has not hithertoo been banned has more to do with the prevalence of nicotine addiction in society at large, and so by extension also amongst law-makers and law-enforcers, who have come to see smoking as a normal and acceptable behaviour, so, from this somewhat skewed perspective, it has been seen to be "OK" to smoke and drive. It isn't. Fortunately, the times they are a changin'!0 -
As mentioned before, I don't think if you go there, you can stop there.
As DDD said, it would have to encompass all parenting related activities which could/would have a detrimental effect on the child, not least food...
To me, feeding a 2yo a pack of crisps is just as bad, if not worse, than smoking in his/her presence.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 -
No Sweat wrote:
On could make a cogent argument for banning driving under the influence of caffeine - it does afterall alter perception and affect people's judgement of speed and promotes aggressive behaviour - however the affects are very mild compared to those related to the nicotinic pathways. Also the cravings, and obsessive behaviours related to the cravings, are not nearly as marked as for nicotine.
execpt the government has signs telling us to stop for a coffee on long drives...No Sweat wrote:I think the health impacts of secondary smoking should be so self-evident to everybody by now that the idea of banning smoking anywhere that non-consenters may be exposed to the effluents (either at the time of smoking activities or later deposited on surfaces such as seating, door handles etc.) should be readily accepted. It really is a non-argument.
how...the only person I have ever heard of who died of passive smoking was Roy Castle, who spent 12 hours a day in a jazz club, so might as well have smoked. Is passive smoking worse than living in our iar polluted cities?No Sweat wrote:I made the comments about broader road safety issues to highlight another less considered but equally important matter.
The fact that it has not hithertoo been banned has more to do with the prevalence of nicotine addiction in society at large, and so by extension also amongst law-makers and law-enforcers, who have come to see smoking as a normal and acceptable behaviour, so, from this somewhat skewed perspective, it has been seen to be "OK" to smoke and drive. It isn't. Fortunately, the times they are a changin'!
the broader comments about road safety are moot for me, as it doesn't matter what the activity is..the fact is if an activity (smoking, shouting at children, changing the radio station etc) distracts your concentration and you have an accident, then your penalty should be harder.
No-one is saying it is not OK to smoke and drive except you and maybe one or two other people on here....if it isn't OK to smoke and drive, then why is it the childrens health aspect which is being used to sell the idea?Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Has WeAdmire contributed to this thread yet?
I'm with DDD on the cost of smoking to society - if you throw in the cost of enforcing the legislation that most of the population supported (witness the votes cast by their democratically elected reps i.e. MPs) etc., plus the actual cost of all treatments etc then it'll be a lot of lolly.
And it stinks.
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
cee wrote:....execpt the government has signs telling us to stop for a coffee on long drives...
...the only person I have ever heard of who died of passive smoking was Roy Castle...
....if it isn't OK to smoke and drive, then why is it the childrens health aspect which is being used to sell the idea?
Hard to know where best to start!
Sorry if I did not make it clear enough, but I do agree that it would be daft to ban caffeine for drivers..I should have added that the deleterious effects are very small compared to the benefits that MODERATE use have on alertness.
As for the unfortunate Roy Castle; citing passive smoking as a direct cause of death is very unusual - more often, and very incidiously, passive smoking causes a general reduction in overall health - chronic increased risk of other conditions e.g. infections, various cancers etc. etc., and in children a "failure to thrive" and a slowing of the attainment of normal developmental markers, as well as increased risk of respiratory conditions such as asthma.
The reason that children's health is so often used to "sell the idea" is that, firstly children are very vulnerable to the effects of exposure to smoking pollutants (they are in a developmental stage, so consequences tend to be life-long) secondly they have absolutely no choice in the matter, so need to have their "rights" protected by someone with a sense of responsibility, thirdly a car is (relatively speaking) quite a closed environment, often with a slow rate of air replenishment, so concentrations of pollutants can be high (both during a smoking "event" and afterwards from surface contamination).
Smoking has been a part of "normal" society for so long that people find it hard to accept that it should be stopped. Change can be good - embrace it!0 -
Greg66 wrote:No Sweat wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If smoking when driving is distracting then we better ban eating, drinking(non alcoholic drinks) hands free phones, sat nav and radios/stereos.
It IS illegal (or at least you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention / dangerous driving, depending on the circumstances) if you eat or drink or comb hair or use a mobile phone (whether hands-free or not) or use a sat-nav or fiddle with your stereo etc. whilst driving. Smoking should be seen as equally as distracting from the serious matter of not steering your car into other road users....... Oh, and nicotine IS psychoactive - why else do people use it?
"Depending on the circumstances" somewhat undermines "is". "Can be" would be accurate. But less attention-seeking.
Caffeine is psychoactive. Do you think people who have drunk coffee or coca-cola should be banned from driving?
One might assume that if smoking were as truly detrimental to road safety as you seem to think, it would have been banned in cars long ago. But it hasn't, and even now that isn't the basis of the ban that's being called for.
I posted you a series of articles showing evidence that smoking whist driving increased risk of accidents.0 -
Banning smoking in private cars is not a road safety issue.
What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Aguila wrote:Greg66 wrote:No Sweat wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If smoking when driving is distracting then we better ban eating, drinking(non alcoholic drinks) hands free phones, sat nav and radios/stereos.
It IS illegal (or at least you can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention / dangerous driving, depending on the circumstances) if you eat or drink or comb hair or use a mobile phone (whether hands-free or not) or use a sat-nav or fiddle with your stereo etc. whilst driving. Smoking should be seen as equally as distracting from the serious matter of not steering your car into other road users....... Oh, and nicotine IS psychoactive - why else do people use it?
"Depending on the circumstances" somewhat undermines "is". "Can be" would be accurate. But less attention-seeking.
Caffeine is psychoactive. Do you think people who have drunk coffee or coca-cola should be banned from driving?
One might assume that if smoking were as truly detrimental to road safety as you seem to think, it would have been banned in cars long ago. But it hasn't, and even now that isn't the basis of the ban that's being called for.
I posted you a series of articles showing evidence that smoking whist driving increased risk of accidents.
That's right. You did. But plainly whatever those papers concluded, neither this Govt nor its predecessor (the papers are from the 1980s and 1990) considers smoking sufficiently dangerous to ban it whilst driving on safety grounds. Which was my point.
Either those papers don't represent the weight of the evidence (I have no idea either way), or that position has been rejected by the Govt. So perhaps I'm the wrong person to refer those papers to.0 -
WheezyMcChubby wrote:What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.
+1
I believe I made this exact point a few pages back. 8)0 -
WheezyMcChubby wrote:When in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.
Never driven in central London then?
0 -
Greg66 wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:When in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.
Never driven in central London then?
In between traffic jams I understand that they can sometimes exceed 30mph. :shock:0 -
Porgy wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.
+1
I believe I made this exact point a few pages back. 8)
In that case I take it back“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
No Sweat wrote:As for the unfortunate Roy Castle; citing passive smoking as a direct cause of death is very unusual - more often, and very incidiously, passive smoking causes a general reduction in overall health - chronic increased risk of other conditions e.g. infections, various cancers etc. etc., and in children a "failure to thrive" and a slowing of the attainment of normal developmental markers, as well as increased risk of respiratory conditions such as asthma.
The reason that children's health is so often used to "sell the idea" is that, firstly children are very vulnerable to the effects of exposure to smoking pollutants (they are in a developmental stage, so consequences tend to be life-long) secondly they have absolutely no choice in the matter, so need to have their "rights" protected by someone with a sense of responsibility, thirdly a car is (relatively speaking) quite a closed environment, often with a slow rate of air replenishment, so concentrations of pollutants can be high (both during a smoking "event" and afterwards from surface contamination).
Smoking has been a part of "normal" society for so long that people find it hard to accept that it should be stopped. Change can be good - embrace it!
cool. reasonable debate rocks!
OK....if the nature of passive smoking is as insidious as you say, then I suspect that actual evidence would be impossible to actually get. Unless passive smoking is cited by doctors on death certs, and or in health records then these claims about the risks of passive smoking are anecdotal and as such studies willbe able to statistically prove things both ways round....i.e. really bad news...not as bad as we thought it would be......is that fair?
my point about children is that if the health drive is for them, then better to clean up our air quality in big cities. that will affect more children, more often than a ban on smoking whilst children are present in any location.
for the record...i believe that all drugs should be legalised and controlled by the state. thus decriminaliing thier use, freeing up billions of pounds a year, earning yet more through tax and giving people the choice to do with their bodies as they see fit. I guess that was just to counter your last point about 'normal'...I know of many people who feel that prohibition does not work, just as strongly as you feel that the smoking of cigarettes should be stopped.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0
