Smoking in cars - young couples

[PurpleMoonlight]

ging84 said:

A lawful termination neither involves murder nor a baby

Rather depends on how you personally define a life, but the opposing sides of termination will never agree so little point in debating here and hijacking a smoking thread.

[ging84]

It doesn't depend on anything
Murder is a word for an unlawful killing, lawful killings, regardless if you agreed with them or not, are not murders, you can describe them as such if you wish, but you are misusing the word.

[hedgefinder]

PurpleMoonlight said:

To open a can of worms, it's legal to murder a baby in the womb.

and also once its out in the open judging from the ammount of mothers chain smoking whilst pushing a push chair or holding a small childs hand right next to them all the way to school... speaking as someone who grew up with one parent a heavy smoker for most of my childhood - its fking disgusting.

[spikey78]

Some top copper was on the radio yesterday, saying this law was a waste of time. This would be a very low priority to his coppers, which seems sensible

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PurpleMoonlight said:

it's legal to murder a baby in the womb.

That's an oxymoron. Murder is by definition unlawful. It's impossible to have a legal murder.

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, if they are travelling together and they both smoke, if he is 18 and she is 17, then she has to drive if they both want to smoke. If he drives, only she can smoke.

I don't think that's correct. The regulations make the vehicle smoke free if there is more than one person present AND one of those people is under 18. If it's smoke free then nobody's allowed to smoke ( link) - which would include the under 18(s). Who is driving is irrelevant - the regulations are made under general anti-smoking legislation, not road traffic legislation.

So the 17 year old can only smoke in a car if she's the only person in it. Even though she's the one supposedly being protected by the law. Which is a little bit silly really.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Aretnap said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, if they are travelling together and they both smoke, if he is 18 and she is 17, then she has to drive if they both want to smoke. If he drives, only she can smoke.

I don't think that's correct. The regulations make the vehicle smoke free if there is more than one person present AND one of those people is under 18. If it's smoke free then nobody's allowed to smoke ( link) - which would include the under 18(s). Who is driving is irrelevant - the regulations are made under general anti-smoking legislation, not road traffic legislation.

So the 17 year old can only smoke in a car if she's the only person in it. Even though she's the one supposedly being protected by the law. Which is a little bit silly really.

Fair enough. I don't smoke and neither does anyone in my close family so I've only taken a passing interest.

Thinking about it, I can only think of one of my friends that smoke. And in my office, 1 person out of 15. Seems to have gone right out of fashion.

[Amateurish]

clockworks said:

but is there actually a legal age for smoking?

No. A bit like drinking then - there's no legal minimum drinking age in the home (although it is illegal to give alcohol to an under 5!).

[R0G]

Is it illegal for an adult passenger to smoke in the car when a minor is present or just the driver?

[Marcellus]

The example i heard yesterday on the radion from a lawyer advising on it was;

- a 17 year old driving down the road on his own can legally smoke and can't be prosecuted.
- he sees his mother and stop to give her a lift.
- they are both smokers and smoke
- the mother can be prosecuted

[Aretnap]

R0G said:

Is it illegal for an adult passenger to smoke in the car when a minor is present or just the driver?

As above, the car becomes a smoke free place (just like a pub) if it contains two or more people, at least one of whom is under 18. Once it's a smoke free place it becomes illegal for anyone to smoke in it - driver, passenger, over 18, under 18, they're all breaking the law if they light up.

[Aretnap]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thinking about it, I can only think of one of my friends that smoke. And in my office, 1 person out of 15. Seems to have gone right out of fashion.

Me too - I work in a company of about 40 people and precisely one person smokes. And one or two of my friends might occasionally have a fag after their 5th pint, but I don't think any of them smoke regularly. OTOH my friends and workmates are uniformly middle class. I think smoking is largely a working class habit these days.

Edited by Aretnap on Saturday 3rd October 22:11

[PAULJ5555]

Amateurish said:

No. A bit like drinking then - there's no legal minimum drinking age in the home (although it is illegal to give alcohol to an under 5!).

Cool my 6 year old can have a pint with me watching the footy. Funny old world

[rewc]

Marcellus said:

The example i heard yesterday on the radion from a lawyer advising on it was;

- a 17 year old driving down the road on his own can legally smoke and can't be prosecuted.
- he sees his mother and stop to give her a lift.
- they are both smokers and smoke
- the mother can be prosecuted

And how we used to laugh at other countries for their laws.

[Mandalore]

spikey78 said:

Some top copper was on the radio yesterday, saying this law was a waste of time. This would be a very low priority to his coppers, which seems sensible

And that is what will happen.

I don't politicians check with the Police to see if these sorts of laws are workable before they push them through. Because after they pass that law its not their problem - the Police are stuck with it.

[smithyithy]

Marcellus said:

The example i heard yesterday on the radion from a lawyer advising on it was;

- a 17 year old driving down the road on his own can legally smoke and can't be prosecuted.
- he sees his mother and stop to give her a lift.
- they are both smokers and smoke
- the mother can be prosecuted

Barmy.

[Mandalore]

Marcellus said:

The example i heard yesterday on the radion from a lawyer advising on it was;

- a 17 year old driving down the road on his own can legally smoke and can't be prosecuted.
- he sees his mother and stop to give her a lift.
- they are both smokers and smoke
- the mother can be prosecuted

If you think people are going to prioritise that over arresting people for muggings, Road Fund Licence evasion, speeding and the use of 'innapropriate' words, then I fear that you may be disappointed.

[Disastrous]

Ki3r said:

It always makes me laugh that I could have sex with a 16 year old, see them naked and what not, but not film it until they are 18.

Bloody rules, eh? Forever tying you up in red tape!

[Marcellus]

Mandalore said:

If you think people are going to prioritise that over arresting people for muggings, Road Fund Licence evasion, speeding and the use of 'innapropriate' words, then I fear that you may be disappointed.

I don't think i ever said anyone would prioitise it over anything!!!

[battered]

Police fail to enforce certain laws every day, nothing's changed. Nothing to see here, move along.

Anyone remember the Video Recording Act? I'll remind you - it was illegal to tape something off the TV and keep it for longer than a month. Now AFAIK this is still on the statute, it certainly went through. Who do you know who *doesn't* have (or didn't back in the day) a video tape of a film from 2 years ago, or a football match, or whatever? Yet how many people were prosecuted? I'd put money on it being nobody, other than people illegally copying and selling on.