***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to continue the discussion *****
==========================================================
The Lords has backed a Labour plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children, despite opposition from the government.
Labour peers tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill detailing their proposal for England, which they said was about "protecting children".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25939908
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 1 Oct 15 at 13:36
|
Unenforceable.. Bringing law into disrepute..
If they wanted to protect children,ban smoking in homes.. (unenforceable as well)
Numpties.
|
Fair enough idea I suppose, on the basis that children can't protect themselves.
But I dislike the idea of banning everything, and it's fairly pointless given that the children probably live in a permanent fug at home if the smoker is their parent.
|
|
Talking to a woman today - a non smoker, her husband has an 80 a day habit. She has contracted COPD as a result. Didn't ask about their children....
|
Good grief - just checked the price of fags - even cheap ones seem to be 30p each. £24 a day out of net income? Nearly £9k a year. I suppose he rolls his own.
At least he won't need a pension.
|
"the children probably live in a permanent fug at home if the smoker is their parent"
Not necessarily M.
Mrs W and I are both smokers (I know, I know).
We have never smoked in house or car since kids were born (well over 30 years ago). Kids left home many years ago - we still don't smoke in house or car.
Having said that, no-one should smoke in cars with kids in.
But will it be as well enforced as the ban on hand-held phones in cars? I see numerous people driving and phoning every day.
By the way - drinking alcohol is bad for you - and a bad example to set to kids. Should it be banned in homes with kids?
Let alone putting sugar in your tea in front of kids- ban that as well?? ;-)
|
Exactly, let's just ban breathing, it would be far simpler!
Unenforceable and will bring law into disrepute, as said above.
|
Well you said it yourself Phil - you don't smoke in house or car. Those who smoke in the car, especially with the children there, probably will in the house was my (possibly wrong) assumption.
Not sure about alcohol - possibly make a case for responsible use? Sugar the same - who wants to live without desserts?
But as I say, I'm not into banning things. The people who do only ever want to ban what other people do, in my experience!
|
>> Well you said it yourself Phil - you don't smoke in house or car. Those
>> who smoke in the car, especially with the children there, probably will in the house
>> was my (possibly wrong) assumption.
>>
>>
I smoke in my car unless I have a passenger but I do not smoke in the house, that's what the back porch is for. In the car I can leave a window open which soon clears any odour, but I hate the smell of stale tobacco indoors. It's not fair on Mrs O'Reliant either as she is a non-smoker.
I'm not generally in favour of bans, but I wouldn't dream of inflicting cigarette smoke on kids in the close confines of a car.
|
"You're mistaken Officer it was an electronic cigarette. Here it is"
I see a potential business opportunity for cigarette smoke breath test machines :)
|
>>
>> I see a potential business opportunity for cigarette smoke breath test machines :)
>>
They already exist. When I recently had a medical to get life insurance I claimed to be a non-smoker. I had to blow into a bag and it confirmed that I didn't smoke. It can detect smoke I think up to a week, or perhaps longer.
|
" Those who smoke in the car, especially with the children there, probably will in the house was my (possibly wrong) assumption."
I don't disagree with that M. I just wonder how they will enforce a ban given the number of driving phoners (and even worse, driving texters, identified by erratic driving and downcast eyes let alone those holding phone against steering wheel) there are on the roads.
Not smoking in the home? It has been suggested but how to enforce and I bet that's far more common than smoking in car with kids?
Alcohol will be next in line. With fags it was increasing price through tax, then banning in pubs, offices etc (Much of which I agree with). Alcohol going same way (tax, minimum price suggestions etc)
Next it will be "think of the children" - seeing you drinking and setting a bad example.
Then sugar - "the next tobacco" - as has been said.
Education is really the only way - smoking could kill you, excess alcohol can kill you, smoking in front of kids is bad, too much sugar will harm you, too much fat could kill you etc., etc..
But, some people don't want to learn, and there are those who despite all the increases in tax etc will continue to smoke (who would have thought that fags that used to cost about 17p for 20 now cost £8) and then there are those who deliberately take risks with their lives - smoking, driving (far too) fast, going skiing, rock-climbing, playing rugby, hang-gliding, and a million other things.
Can they all be regulated?
Maybe I am just going round in circles.
Really, all I want to say is "Leave me alone!!! I will make some bad decisions and some good ones - that's life"
|
you could of course ban all smoking in car (inc electronic ciggies*) as a safety measure. Easy to enforce - easy as mobile phone anyway.
* I don't get these things . They cost as much as a normal ciggy, you don't give up the habit, and you look a complete plank with one in your mouth. And they are being banned in pubs, So what is the point.
|
>> Really, all I want to say is "Leave me alone!!! I will make some bad
>> decisions and some good ones - that's life"
+1.
Education is important.
Interesting Horizon on now. Cutting out sugar entirely seems to be a bad idea, ditto fat.
Moderation in all things (except possibly smoking!) looks the best option.
|
"Moderation in all things (except possibly smoking!) looks the best option"
Now, now M. Don't overdo it.
How about
"Moderation in all things, followed by a small cigar and a whisky, looks the best option"
;-)
|
"Cutting out sugar entirely seems to be a bad idea, ditto fat."
Excellent. About time the health police had a setback.
|
>> Interesting Horizon on now. Cutting out sugar entirely seems to be a bad idea, ditto
>> fat.
DM report (written by one of the twin doctor participants): tinyurl.com/nhhp899
|
|
They'll try to ban sex in cars and girls in T-shirts sooner or later.
|
|
Sex in cars is against the law.
|
Interesting Horizon on now.
Not half! Well, as it turns out, half-and-half. An excellent, thought-provoking piece of work. Some nice rats too.
|
I've managed to get this far without having to carry out that particular exercise in a car.
So I'll just have to hire a van.
|
Lord Hunt (with an 'h') said that "The level increased to 11 times when the car was not moving with the windows closed". This is somewhat lower than the 23x quoted on the radio this morning, but still utter tosh if the car has a working ventilation system or, indeed, working windows.
HMG made over £12bn from tobacco taxes last year, so they should be careful what they wish for!
|
Busybody crap. 'Protecting children' indeed... that's just a supposedly unanswerable excuse for being a PITA about smoking, as so many non-smokers are.
I smoke. I smoke in the car. Sometimes when there are children in it. A couple of inches of driver's window open, combined with heating or ventilation on at an inaudible level, sucks the smoke out straight away when you're moving. Naturally one doesn't want to oppress people with a fug of stale and new smoke. So one tries not to. I don't think I'm harming anyone.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 30 Jan 14 at 01:05
|
>>I don't think I'm harming anyone
Except yourself, maybe.
|
>>Except yourself, maybe<<
Which of course, we have a right to do if we wish. In fact it's one of the few 'choices' we have left in this totally governed and restricted life we lead these days.
Interesting to see that more hotel chains are bringing back smoking rooms...is that a financial decision or a health one?
Pat
|
>>Which of course, we have a right to do if we wish
Absolutely.
|
>> Interesting to see that more hotel chains are bringing back smoking rooms...is that a financial
>> decision or a health one?
Its about the financial health of the hotel.
|
>> HMG made over £12bn from tobacco taxes last year, so they should be careful what
>> they wish for!
>>
The cost to HMG (throuth the NHS) of dealing with all the smoking related diseases is likely to be far higher.
|
>>
>> The cost to HMG (throuth the NHS) of dealing with all the smoking related diseases
>> is likely to be far higher.
>>
But the saving on pensions and old-age care must be enormous.
|
Diabetes is (I think) the single biggest cost to the NHS - over 10% of the entire budget iirc.
And it's largely due to fatties..
|
"But the saving on pensions and old-age care must be enormous."
And you have to die of something. When the NHS finally collapses under its own bureaucratic weight, I hope someone points out that a less draconian attitude by the health police might have preserved their income for a while. A bit like pubs...
|
>>
>> >
>> The cost to HMG (throuth the NHS) of dealing with all the smoking related diseases
>> is likely to be far higher.
>>
How do you know?
Every respiratory Illness or fatal disease is put down to smoking even though no-smokers get them too. The figures out out by the health facists are pure guesswork and are an ever increasing amount despite the huge drop in the number of smokers over recent years.
I would give up tomorrow if I thought I'd live forever, but I won't so I'll take my chances (like my Grandad did with his Capstan Full Strength, unfortunately the habit caused his premature death age 97).
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 30 Jan 14 at 16:15
|
Well said R O'R... I smoked those Capstan FS for a while to be macho, but they were a bit much and I reverted to Player's.
What I miss with these tipped girls' snouts we have to smoke nowadays is having yellowy brown nicotine-stained fingers, like all the adults when I were a nipper. I wonder if Pat ever had them.
|
Of course, I was proud of them.
I even worked in a real old fashioned tobacconists in Grantham for a short while and I can still remember the delightful aroma when I unlocked the shop door in the morning!
Pat
|
"HMG made over £12bn from tobacco taxes last year"
"The cost to HMG (through the NHS) of dealing with all the smoking related diseases is likely to be far higher."
Latest figure I can find is from ASH (Action on Smoking and Health - who are not likely to underestimate it) is that
"the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year."
Full report here
www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf
Of course they add on a lot of other things
"loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m)"
but don't take into account my increase in productivity when I think " got to finish this job before I can have a cigar break" or "think I've done a good job - might reward myself with a cigar and glass of"
Nor do they mention "Had a good lunch today, with a bottle of wine and fell asleep all afternoon. Still, at least I didn't have a fag". (That's not me, by the way!!)
"Cleaning up cigarette butts £342 million" - oh do come on - how about "cleaning up MaccyD's wrappers or dog stuff?
Nor do they mention one other thing the NHS spent money on - a bloomin' useless IT system which would have kept track of how many smoking, drinking related illnesses I have had and days off because of same. (None so far!! But time will tell!) Only £10 BILLION ( sorry for shouting!)
Oh well, "think of the children" - mine and Mrs W's smoking stopped our kids from taking it up - they both hate it. Mind you, they show a fine appreciation of wine and daughter did bring me some fantastic cigars from Cuba!!
Look you nanny-staters, I know smoking and drinking are bad for me, I know they may/ will kill me in the end, but I have had a bloomin' good life - fantastic parents, wife and kids and if I died tomorrow - well, I've had a good time on this earth.
But, please, LEAVE ME ALONE!!
|
|
Oops, sorry for that - bit of a rant, but had a good day today!!
|
My sentiments exactly Phil.
Pat
|
>>Look you nanny-staters, I know smoking and drinking are bad for me, I know they may/ will kill me in the end, but I have had a bloomin' good life - fantastic parents, wife and kids and if I died tomorrow - well, I've had a good time on this earth.
But, please, LEAVE ME ALONE!!
You're not a Kipper by any chance are you??
|
|
Brilliant! As Matt so often is.
|
"LEAVE ME ALONE!!"
Absolutely! I smelt a rat the other day when a ‘spokesman’ said that the level of smoke in a car was 23x that in a house, which sounded to me like a straight comparison with room volume! Never mind that cars have (very effective) ventilation systems.
The game was up a couple of days later, when a similar wonk came up with a completely different figure (11x) which just shows that they’re making it up as they go along. Did you know, BTW, that the recommended alcohol consumption figures were also plucked from the air? They had to be, because nobody really knew at the time:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488682/Safe-drinking-limits-simply-guess.html
And worse, the evidence since then has all been the other way! I did read that because alcohol in moderation has some beneficial effects (e.g. anti-oxidants), the amount you would have to drink to cancel that out (to be no worse off than a teetotaller) is three times the current limit...
The problem here, IMO, is that people are sensitive to different things (I’m not that keen on diesel fumes, myself) and depending on your predispositions, you may be prone to diabetes, or hardened arteries, or gout, or anaphylactic shock from eating peanuts, or a million other things, one of which will get you in the end. Unfortunately, the catastrophists are in the ascendant, so every trivial setback for a minority is shouted from the rooftops, knowing that politicians will always agree that ‘something must be done’.
No it mustn’t - the world will never be perfect, but throwing away perfectly reasonable (and hard won) freedoms to satisfy a few noisy and ill-informed do-gooders does not improve it.
Sorry - that was a rant too, wasn’t it? I recommend Matt Ridley's book 'The Rational Optimist' if you need an antidote...
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Fri 31 Jan 14 at 10:19
|
Thing is, I spent the first three and a half decades of my life wishing smokers (including close relatives) would LEAVE ME ALONE with their filthy smoke. They didn't, they just carried on with it, selfishly forcing me to share their poison if I wanted to have any kind of social or family or even work (yes, I'm old enough to have worked in offices where smoking was allowed) life.
If it hadn't been for nanny state wonkerism, or whatever other crap you want to call it, I'd still be breathing their/your rubbish in to this day.
The same does not apply to alcohol, I have never witnessed someone unwillingly having beer or whisky poured down their neck.
Hurray for nanny.
|
"wishing smokers (including close relatives) would LEAVE ME ALONE with their filthy smoke."
So how do you cope with the relatives now - should the law intervene..?
|
"but throwing away perfectly reasonable (and hard won) freedoms to satisfy a few noisy and ill-informed do-gooders does not improve it."
I'm not sure when or how the freedom to smoke in a car with children was obtained but it does seem a dubious right to defend.
Non-smokers of course too have rights. I wouldn't wish to remain long in a room or a car where someone is smoking and it is almost certainly harmful to some degree. I can easily avoid such situations but a child cannot. Education and common sense should prevail but unfortunately some people have neither. It is therefore correct that the law should protect those that are unable to defend themselves.
|
"a dubious right to defend."
Point taken, CG, but it’s the chipping away of larger, general rights that I object to. If people behave sensibly (and I know common sense ain’t that common) then the world ticks along pretty well without legal intervention. The UK is (or was) a nice place to live, largely because of the lack of state interference in everything.
The government employs no less than 5000 lawyers and, rather than send them all away to lead better, productive lives, HMG insists on always giving them something to do!
People shouldn’t smoke in cars with young children if they can avoid it (although it may be the lesser of two evils if they get too psychotic without it!) but that should be obvious to most; it shouldn’t be yet another duty for policemen, IMO.
|
>>I did read that because alcohol in moderation has some beneficial effects (e.g. anti-oxidants),
Alcohol is toxic to the liver comrade Jagworth, it's the polyphenols (I believe) that have an anti-oxidant effect.
I'm not knocking booze though - I've downed more-than my fair share o'er the years, not to mention the acid, pot, benzo's, amphetamine etc. etc. etc..
Moved on though now, and get high on life :-)
|
|
You're right, Dog - I meant alcohol as shorthand for red wine in that instance. I agree that Vodka probably has fewer benefits...
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Fri 31 Jan 14 at 12:02
|
Gin and tonic has only beneficial effects. The quinine prevented me catching malaria in Lagos, South Africa , New York and of course the UK..
What's not to like?
|
I liked Clarissa Dickson-Wright's quinine experience. It can be pretty toxic stuff, but poisoning isn't too common and her doctor was slow to make the connection. When she suggested it might be the quinine in her G&T’s, he was not impressed: “why, you’d have to have gallons of the stuff to get quinine poisoning!”
“Well” she said, “would the tonic to go with two bottles of gin a day be enough..?”
|
Passed the Commons last night on a free vote - at least on the Gov side.
It's only enabling so they'll now need to bring forward secondary legislation on the detail. Next step presumably will be a consultation on a draft.
Think coverage this morning said that regs would be subject to affirmative process so further votes possible in both houses. It is however very rare for affirmative procedure votes to be lost - even where the scrutinising committees have been heavily critical.
|
I have no objection to the banning of smoking in cars carrying kids, especially as I never carry them anyway (Kids, not cigarettes).
What worries me is the ratchet effect, next it's likely to be a complete ban in case because kids may be carried in a car that has been smoked in. This already applies to company vehicles.
We are heading for an eventual complete ban on smoking, little by little, proving that the well meaning legislators have learned nothing from prohibition in America or the ban on drugs, both of which spawned an illegal and lucrative trade for organised criminal gangs which sprang up directly because of both pieces of ill thought out meddling. In the case of prohibition those gangs simply moved on to something else when the law was repealed, just as they would now if drugs were legalised.
|
|
Curiously, Robin, I'd rather have an illegal trade in tobacco than in any other illegal drug!
|
>> Curiously, Robin, I'd rather have an illegal trade in tobacco than in any other illegal
>> drug!
>>
Or why not a legal trade in tobacco or any other drug?
Control it, tax it and take it out of the hands of people who use the profits to fund other parts of their criminal empire such as terrorism and child pornography for instance.
Organised crime businesses expand their empires just as much as any legitimate concern. Ask the Mafia.
|
Many laws are only there to try to rein in the terminally stupid or wilfully selfish.
In this case I can't find any reason not to support it. I don't see why some selfish bar steward should light up in a confined place when anyone's in there with them, let alone kids.
If nanny state tries to use this instance to bring in more legislation that is unnecessary, we should fight that then.
|
|
Those who dislike the "nanny state" have a difficulty with events. They drive them to more intervention. Planning liberalisation: the floods. Government spending cuts: the floods. Taxation cuts: the floods. The small state tendency have eggy faces!
|
|
Not a criminal offence. A civil one according to the news. So who exactly is going to enforce it and how ? Nonsense....it'll die a death I reckon.
|
Those who dislike the "nanny state" have a difficulty with events. They drive them to more intervention. Planning liberalisation: the floods. Government spending cuts: the floods. Taxation cuts: the floods. The small state tendency have eggy faces!
I think the floods episode shows that a unelected quango given carte blanche to spend money and usurped by one side of its responsibilities and run by an incompetent - is a bad thing..
Especially when it makes a decision to return land to marsh without apparently telling the affected residents...
As for smoking in cars with children, I suspect the law will be a> unenforceable, b> unenforced and c> result in minimal prosecutions and d> have minimal impact.
See use of mobile phones in cars...
|
>> I think the floods episode shows that a unelected quango
What would an elected quango look like?
|
What would an elected quango look like?
Give me a year to reply please :-)
|
|
And then consult, muddle it around and produce a 2500 page report ?
|
The law will have no effect. Most smokers I know wouldn't smoke in a car with children present. Without exception, the few I know who would are so hopelessly addicted that the small chance of getting pulled wouldn't even register against the need to spark up.
I'm a very happy ex-smoker but I think people should be free to indulge in what is a perfectly legal habit if they choose or feel the need to. The kind of people who want to ban stuff in my experience tend to be those horribly shouty and generally offensive individuals who always fall woefully short of simple manners and respect when disagreed with.
|
EA took over at, Government direction, National Rivers Authority. So, maybe they lost focus? Not to mention the purblind accountancy-driven policies which postulate that reducing spending is GOOD.
Sometimes the Treasury ought to consider the phrase "penny wise, pound foolish"?
|
|
Hardly pennies. More like £1 billion = a year.
|
Smoker here.
I don't have any objection to the purpose of the specific piece of legislation; I would not dream of smoking in my car if I had children as passengers, and it's not something I like to see other people doing either.I very rarely smoke in the car at all, and certainly not when the wife is with me; she insists she doesn't mind provided I keep the window open but she suffers with asthma and I don't want to risk her having an attack. Like many others though I am suspicious of the subsequent intentions of the promoters of this law, can't help thinking it's the thin end of the wedge, started already by the ban on smoking in the workplace which encompasses my lorry.
Thing is, no reasonable person would argue against it, and this is how antis of any persuasion get their foot in the door.
I await the first prosecution of the driver of a convertible with the top down though!
|
>>no reasonable person would argue against it
So where's the problem?
|
"the thin end of the wedge"
Indeed. And a reminder of the Puritans, whose objection to bear-bating was not out of sympathy for the bear, but because of the enjoyment of the onlookers.
I don't smoke, but am considering taking it up by way of dissent.
|
|
Somewhat hard to argue against, but it's another example of the nanny state.
|
The urge to ban things is an undesirable one and should be banned:)
How many of the middle class smoking ban promoters would be happy with a ban on second homes, which clearly exacerbate the housing shortage since nobody can live in two at the, same time.
|
Although I was a smoker, I never thought it was a great idea to smoke in confined spaces whether they contained children or not.
It does though cause me to reflect on how many things have been banned in my lifetime and how many more we'll see in in the future. It's quite difficult to remember them all, perhaps we should all be issued with a little book to remind us.
|
>> It does though cause me to reflect on how many things have been banned in
>> my lifetime
Progress and change, it's called, good few things have been unbanned or at least are allowed now where they were not allowed before, again maybe not all for the better.
Life isn't the same as it was 50 years ago, is that good or bad?
|
I routinely disobey nanny rules. But it's a bit unkind to smoke in a car with small children in it, unless all the windows are open and perhaps even then. I hated the adults smoking when I was small.
These days of course their mothers object vociferously too, and almost everyone looks askance. Even the most iron will bends to social pressure when it's persistent enough. I haven't exactly joined them, but I realised ages ago that I couldn't beat them.
|
I don't smoke around kids and I never carry them in my car (Kids, that is, not cigarettes). But the woman who parked next to me in a fairly empty Tesco's car park while I was happily blowing smoke out the window got a disdainful look when she got her own nippers out of the car and then started waving her arms about and glaring at me.
Some people look for opportunities to be offended.
|
>> parked next to me in a fairly empty Tesco's car park while I was happily blowing smoke out the window got a disdainful look when she got her own nippers out of the car and then started waving her arms about and glaring at me.
Yup. People like that deserve to come across a nutter with a loaded sten gun. Thick busybodies deluded by anti-smoking propaganda in the media from zealots like themselves.
All this self-righteous misbehaviour came from the US decades ago, and it's become entrenched here.
|
>> Going ahead by the looks of it.
Clearly from a moral and sensible viewpoint its laudable legislation. Impossible to enforce and police i would guess tho
|
And from the enforcement point of view, a bad law. Reason being, to be a good law, it has to be enforceable. True the aim is laudable, but then so is the idea that it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
Was still listed in 2010, could have been repealed by now...
|
>> And from the enforcement point of view, a bad law. Reason being, to be a
>> good law, it has to be enforceable.
>>
The police won't be bothered. Enforcement will be left to yet another army of earnest time servers with clipboards and hi-viz tabards, most of whom would be unemployable in any real occupation.
|
When I smoked, I didn't even like smoking near my children outside in the open air, never mind in a confined space. The odd occasion I got "caught short" (it is an addiction after all) in the car and the kids were present, I pulled over somewhere safe and got out of the car.
The decision whether or not to smoke in a car with children present is one for conscience and common sense in my view, not one for the law.
|
|
Wholeheartedly agree with DP's response.
|
>> it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
>>
>> Was still listed in 2010, could have been repealed by now...
>>
But not on a Sunday?
tinyurl.com/pwd84aa
|
Ban on smoking in cars carrying children - madf
