Smoking with your kids in the car?
Discussion
Just like to add that flicking your ash into your child's breakfast hasn't been 'scientifically' proven to harm them either, but you wouldn't do it, would you?
Allowing your kids to stink of fags as you drop them off at school is not nice. I grew up in the 80's when people still smoked on buses and on a cold rainy day when all the windows were shut i used to regularly feel sick getting off at school
It's staggering how many people are demanding proof before they stop - these are generally the same people that spout 'id do enifin for ma kidz..' - well, a lot of people are telling you that second hand smoke might harm them so why take the risk?
Would you let a child minder who someone said might have fiddled with kids babysit? - No? why not? it hasn't been proven so surely there's no risk?
Idiots.
Allowing your kids to stink of fags as you drop them off at school is not nice. I grew up in the 80's when people still smoked on buses and on a cold rainy day when all the windows were shut i used to regularly feel sick getting off at school
It's staggering how many people are demanding proof before they stop - these are generally the same people that spout 'id do enifin for ma kidz..' - well, a lot of people are telling you that second hand smoke might harm them so why take the risk?
Would you let a child minder who someone said might have fiddled with kids babysit? - No? why not? it hasn't been proven so surely there's no risk?
Idiots.
carinaman said:
It's discussed in the last 11 minutes of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03sb5y6
There's a cracker at 37 minutes in. I know that Dianne Abbott MP has a bit of a following here on PH, so some may see her and Baroness Jenny Jones in one programme as a bit of a BOGOF.
Baroness Jenny Jones says that traffic cops have a 17% better detection rate than non traffic police as they invariably find lots of other stuff to do the people that trigger an ANPR 'ping' for. So I am wondering then if having more traffic cops would mean catching even more criminals, I assume if they're ANPR equipped, and also make for safer roads as they'd be more traffic cops out there, the effect of 'presence'?
It seems banning smoking in cars may be in the Labour manifesto. It's good to know they're reverting to their legislation creation addicted ways before they've even got in. I'm more interested in seeing the HS2 sums.
I'm sure it's been suggested already in the thread, but surely having the kids in the front driving while having the parents strapped safely in the back smoking cigarettes would be healthier for the children?
Labour really do despise the working classes. Stick them in debt, stick up their taxes, destroy their jobs and remove all their pleasures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03sb5y6
There's a cracker at 37 minutes in. I know that Dianne Abbott MP has a bit of a following here on PH, so some may see her and Baroness Jenny Jones in one programme as a bit of a BOGOF.
Baroness Jenny Jones says that traffic cops have a 17% better detection rate than non traffic police as they invariably find lots of other stuff to do the people that trigger an ANPR 'ping' for. So I am wondering then if having more traffic cops would mean catching even more criminals, I assume if they're ANPR equipped, and also make for safer roads as they'd be more traffic cops out there, the effect of 'presence'?
It seems banning smoking in cars may be in the Labour manifesto. It's good to know they're reverting to their legislation creation addicted ways before they've even got in. I'm more interested in seeing the HS2 sums.
I'm sure it's been suggested already in the thread, but surely having the kids in the front driving while having the parents strapped safely in the back smoking cigarettes would be healthier for the children?
Willy Nilly said:
You can't smoke in a work vehicle.
I'm not sure why anyone would subject their children to fag smoke in such a confined space as a car. If as adults they choose to smoke then that is fine, but at least let them make their own minds up.
Errr, yes you can, I do, and I see lots of it everyday !I'm not sure why anyone would subject their children to fag smoke in such a confined space as a car. If as adults they choose to smoke then that is fine, but at least let them make their own minds up.
Seems many are missing a fairly fundamental point: smokers breath in smoke from burnt tobacco, via a filter. Passive smokers dont have the filter. But if passive smoking doesnt cause cancer, then logically its the filter that does!!
Ban the filter, save lives!!
Can you get cigarettes without filters?
Ban the filter, save lives!!
Can you get cigarettes without filters?
Pixelpeep said:
Do you have access to google?
'absolutely no evidence' you say?
General: overall increased risk;[9] reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."[3]
Top cut n pasting from Wiki. 'absolutely no evidence' you say?
General: overall increased risk;[9] reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."[3]
Taking number one as example, please go and read the evidence [3] on which this bold statement is made. I've only read the part on passive smoking myself but it is far from compelling.
Breadvan, please dont' reply.
Never ceases to amaze me that the scientists are deemed to be ok as long as the results of their experiments don't present inconvenient truths - and then it's just "scientists are just scaremongering because it's never happened to me".
Well the inconvenient truth about second hand smoke is that it contains:
Cancer-causing chemicals:
Formaldehyde: Used to embalm dead bodies
Benzene: Found in petrol
Polonium 210: Radioactive and very toxic
Vinyl chloride: Used to make pipes
Toxic metals:
Chromium: Used to make steel
Arsenic: Used in pesticides
Lead: Once used in paint
Cadmium: Used to make batteries
Poison gases:
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen cyanide: Used in chemical weapons
Ammonia: Used in household cleaners
Butane: Used in lighter fluid
Toluene: Found in paint thinners
These are just some of the 7000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke and cancer is just one of the many conditions that can be caused through regular exposure.
Why would any (halfway decent) parent knowingly expose their children to this in a confined space....in a car, their home, wherever?
As far as making it illegal in cars, I think there is no point as people don't tend to spend a significant proportion of their family time in cars. If parents are happy to poison their kids, they will do it primarily in their own homes. And let's not forget, it is their right as a parent to do that if they wish.
Well the inconvenient truth about second hand smoke is that it contains:
Cancer-causing chemicals:
Formaldehyde: Used to embalm dead bodies
Benzene: Found in petrol
Polonium 210: Radioactive and very toxic
Vinyl chloride: Used to make pipes
Toxic metals:
Chromium: Used to make steel
Arsenic: Used in pesticides
Lead: Once used in paint
Cadmium: Used to make batteries
Poison gases:
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen cyanide: Used in chemical weapons
Ammonia: Used in household cleaners
Butane: Used in lighter fluid
Toluene: Found in paint thinners
These are just some of the 7000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke and cancer is just one of the many conditions that can be caused through regular exposure.
Why would any (halfway decent) parent knowingly expose their children to this in a confined space....in a car, their home, wherever?
As far as making it illegal in cars, I think there is no point as people don't tend to spend a significant proportion of their family time in cars. If parents are happy to poison their kids, they will do it primarily in their own homes. And let's not forget, it is their right as a parent to do that if they wish.
PartridgeWagon said:
As far as making it illegal in cars, I think there is no point as people don't tend to spend a significant proportion of their family time in cars. If parents are happy to poison their kids, they will do it primarily in their own homes. And let's not forget, it is their right as a parent to do that if they wish.
What? We're legally entitled to poison our kids.....? 
NWTony said:
Top cut n pasting from Wiki.
Taking number one as example, please go and read the evidence [3] on which this bold statement is made. I've only read the part on passive smoking myself but it is far from compelling.
Breadvan, please dont' reply.
I quoted wiki because others clearly don't have access to even the most basic reference point.Taking number one as example, please go and read the evidence [3] on which this bold statement is made. I've only read the part on passive smoking myself but it is far from compelling.
Breadvan, please dont' reply.
you have read ONE of a list of over 30, don't find it compelling so this means it isn't true?
what would satisfy you as proof? - seeing one of your kids die of cancer?
edit to add (yet again) - why even take the risk?
PartridgeWagon said:
Never ceases to amaze me that the scientists are deemed to be ok as long as the results of their experiments don't present inconvenient truths - and then it's just "scientists are just scaremongering because it's never happened to me".
Well the inconvenient truth about second hand smoke is that it contains:
Cancer-causing chemicals:
Formaldehyde: Used to embalm dead bodies
Benzene: Found in petrol
Polonium 210: Radioactive and very toxic
Vinyl chloride: Used to make pipes
Toxic metals:
Chromium: Used to make steel
Arsenic: Used in pesticides
Lead: Once used in paint
Cadmium: Used to make batteries
Poison gases:
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen cyanide: Used in chemical weapons
Ammonia: Used in household cleaners
Butane: Used in lighter fluid
Toluene: Found in paint thinners
These are just some of the 7000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke and cancer is just one of the many conditions that can be caused through regular exposure.
Why would any (halfway decent) parent knowingly expose their children to this in a confined space....in a car, their home, wherever?
As far as making it illegal in cars, I think there is no point as people don't tend to spend a significant proportion of their family time in cars. If parents are happy to poison their kids, they will do it primarily in their own homes. And let's not forget, it is their right as a parent to do that if they wish.
Care to list the dose of those scary chemicals? Hydrogen cyanide - used in chemical weapons? Also used the world wide in somewhat greater amounts as a lab and industrial solvent, but yeah what the hell, say chemical weapons.Well the inconvenient truth about second hand smoke is that it contains:
Cancer-causing chemicals:
Formaldehyde: Used to embalm dead bodies
Benzene: Found in petrol
Polonium 210: Radioactive and very toxic
Vinyl chloride: Used to make pipes
Toxic metals:
Chromium: Used to make steel
Arsenic: Used in pesticides
Lead: Once used in paint
Cadmium: Used to make batteries
Poison gases:
Carbon monoxide
Hydrogen cyanide: Used in chemical weapons
Ammonia: Used in household cleaners
Butane: Used in lighter fluid
Toluene: Found in paint thinners
These are just some of the 7000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke and cancer is just one of the many conditions that can be caused through regular exposure.
Why would any (halfway decent) parent knowingly expose their children to this in a confined space....in a car, their home, wherever?
As far as making it illegal in cars, I think there is no point as people don't tend to spend a significant proportion of their family time in cars. If parents are happy to poison their kids, they will do it primarily in their own homes. And let's not forget, it is their right as a parent to do that if they wish.
Just for clarification, I say don't smoke in enclosed spaces (homes, cars) with children present.
It seems to be yet another case of what is immoral being made illegal by heavyweight legislation. I smoke, and I don't have children, yet it's fairly easy to practice responsible smoking.
For example: I don't smoke indoors, I don't smoke in my car, I don't smoke around people who dislike the habit. I'll happily smoke with other smokers in a designated area, but that's about it. I even avoid smoking in busy shopping streets etc. If I feel the urge I'll nip into a side street or car park or whatever then I won't bother anyone else. If someone is walking behind me, I will let them pass so any smoke blown behind me doesn't go on them.
Negative impacts on me? Absolutely none! I like smoking, but I know it's an unpleasant habit that many others dislike. I don't feel persecuted by them as it's fairly easy to accept the negative aspects of smoking: litter, smell, air pollution and whatever. Other people do anti-social things for fun: make noise, cause mess, damage the environment and whatever. I would expect them to extend the same courtesy to others, i.e. do their hobby in a manner that doesn't impact anyone else unduly.
Now smoking around children, more so in a confined space, is not a good thing. Not at all! The fact should be obvious to anyone halfway reasonable. Those who do so are either ignorant (unlikely) or boorish to the degree that they don't care about the impact on others.
Which leads us to the unfortunate conclusion that there are many ignorant and/or boorish people in the world and it's not practical to legislate against their existence. Because everything they do will have similar intent behind it.
So I don't think smoking in cars with children should necessarily be made illegal. It shouldn't happen - but applying statute is a blunt instrument. We live in a country where there is freedom to be boorish!
For example: I don't smoke indoors, I don't smoke in my car, I don't smoke around people who dislike the habit. I'll happily smoke with other smokers in a designated area, but that's about it. I even avoid smoking in busy shopping streets etc. If I feel the urge I'll nip into a side street or car park or whatever then I won't bother anyone else. If someone is walking behind me, I will let them pass so any smoke blown behind me doesn't go on them.
Negative impacts on me? Absolutely none! I like smoking, but I know it's an unpleasant habit that many others dislike. I don't feel persecuted by them as it's fairly easy to accept the negative aspects of smoking: litter, smell, air pollution and whatever. Other people do anti-social things for fun: make noise, cause mess, damage the environment and whatever. I would expect them to extend the same courtesy to others, i.e. do their hobby in a manner that doesn't impact anyone else unduly.
Now smoking around children, more so in a confined space, is not a good thing. Not at all! The fact should be obvious to anyone halfway reasonable. Those who do so are either ignorant (unlikely) or boorish to the degree that they don't care about the impact on others.
Which leads us to the unfortunate conclusion that there are many ignorant and/or boorish people in the world and it's not practical to legislate against their existence. Because everything they do will have similar intent behind it.
So I don't think smoking in cars with children should necessarily be made illegal. It shouldn't happen - but applying statute is a blunt instrument. We live in a country where there is freedom to be boorish!
Nigel Worc's said:
Willy Nilly said:
You can't smoke in a work vehicle.
I'm not sure why anyone would subject their children to fag smoke in such a confined space as a car. If as adults they choose to smoke then that is fine, but at least let them make their own minds up.
Errr, yes you can, I do, and I see lots of it everyday !I'm not sure why anyone would subject their children to fag smoke in such a confined space as a car. If as adults they choose to smoke then that is fine, but at least let them make their own minds up.
MagneticMeerkat said:
It seems to be yet another case of what is immoral being made illegal by heavyweight legislation. I smoke, and I don't have children, yet it's fairly easy to practice responsible smoking.
Of course it is. Just like it's easy to practice responsible driving, parking etc etc. However the minority can't seem tp practice it which is why the majority don't care if legislation is used to correct their behaviour.MagneticMeerkat said:
We live in a country where there is freedom to be boorish!
Sadly yes. 
Hasbeen said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wow! Years of evidence and expensive studies showing smoking is bad for you can now be ignored following this extensive and scientific study of your family. Even the cigarette makers acknowledge the potential harm. Have you written to them to advise them they are wrong? I'm sure they'd be very grateful. Get them out of all liabilities in court etc.
Yep, & "Years of evidence and expensive studies show" that CO2 is making the arctic is the new tropics, it is never going to snow again, & the whole earth is going to flood, if it doesn't turn into a desert first.Believing so called "scientists" is the route to madness.
Now that's not to say it's not harmful, but people are making up stats to influence the law and prod public opinion, and that's not on whichever side of the argument you're on.
The main pro-smoking argument (in regards to this issue) seems to be that it would be an impingement on your personal freedoms and rights. Understandable. I don't think anyone's still trying to save smokers from themselves. And how you choose to parent is still your choice, of course.
But what about your children's rights? To grow up without unnecessary exposure to massively increased risk of cancer, or asthma, or any of the other potential side effects of concentrated second hand smoke? They don't get to ask you to stop for the sake of their health. They don't even know anything is wrong.
Yes it could be argued that there are many more risk generators such as diesel fumes etc. - but those are unfortunate and necessary evils, a byproduct of our modern society and largely unavoidable (besides the slow march of technology to electric transport, for example). I can't think of anything that is as widespread and as entirely selfish as a smoking habit.
You may say that most smokers don't light up with the kids in the car and therefore it's unnecessary. Just like most people don't drink drive these days. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to stop the people that DO!
Until such a time as technology moves on enough that it can be categorically guaranteed that a smoking habit affects nobody but the smoker (perhaps a ban on everything besides e-cigarettes?), then I think smokers are appropriately on the back foot with regard to their rights.
But what about your children's rights? To grow up without unnecessary exposure to massively increased risk of cancer, or asthma, or any of the other potential side effects of concentrated second hand smoke? They don't get to ask you to stop for the sake of their health. They don't even know anything is wrong.
Yes it could be argued that there are many more risk generators such as diesel fumes etc. - but those are unfortunate and necessary evils, a byproduct of our modern society and largely unavoidable (besides the slow march of technology to electric transport, for example). I can't think of anything that is as widespread and as entirely selfish as a smoking habit.
You may say that most smokers don't light up with the kids in the car and therefore it's unnecessary. Just like most people don't drink drive these days. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to stop the people that DO!
Until such a time as technology moves on enough that it can be categorically guaranteed that a smoking habit affects nobody but the smoker (perhaps a ban on everything besides e-cigarettes?), then I think smokers are appropriately on the back foot with regard to their rights.
Pixelpeep said:
these are generally the same people that spout 'id do enifin for ma kidz..' -
My mates idiot brother is one of those. "I'd die for my bleeding kidz, do anyfink for 'em". When I casually mentioned that he might want to spend some time with them, move in with their mother, stop shagging around, and provide some financial support, he went into one and tried to punch my face in. Had to be held back by 4 others. But he really loves them! His dad pissed off when he was a kid and it never did him any harm!
watched a great video ages ago by a US cop arguing for the legalisation of drugs - made a great point which was
'the law was designed to protect people from others, not themselves' - i also believe this to be true. Natural selection had been thinning the stupid quite well until all this elf and safety b
ks!
My point of view on this particular topic is parents shouldnt smoke with their kids in the car, and if they don't realise that then i weep for the future. Do i think there should be a law against it, no, i dont.
'the law was designed to protect people from others, not themselves' - i also believe this to be true. Natural selection had been thinning the stupid quite well until all this elf and safety b
ks!My point of view on this particular topic is parents shouldnt smoke with their kids in the car, and if they don't realise that then i weep for the future. Do i think there should be a law against it, no, i dont.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff