BMA suggesting smoking to be banned in cars..

[B Huey]

dickymint said:

But it lingers in the fabric for.... well ages!

I'm expecting the HSE to condemn my house as uninhabitable for decades

My car will be reclassified as toxic waste.

[rs1952]

chim said:

Ok, fk right off now, fk right off the end of the nearest fking cliff you bunch of self righteous fkwits.

If I want to smoke the fking fags that I paid for in the fking car that I paid for and own I fking well will, I will rot in a fking jail time and again before I pay one fking penny of any fking fine for smoking my fking fags in MY fking CAR. The very minute the fkwits bring in this ban I wil drive up to nearest fking cop shop, lock MY fking doors and smoke my self fking stupid and they can all go fk themselves.

Its my fking life, if I choose to smoke i fking will and no fking dhead in a uniform is going to stop me.

As you can probably tell i fully and wholly object to the consideration being put forward by the BMA. I consider it highly invasive with regards to my rights as an individual and intend to fully contest this with the utmost fervor.

No - go on - don't hold back, say what you really think

However, even as a smoker (and perhaps a militant one at that, as I have no desire whatsoever to pack it in and take little notice of ridiculous bans outside UK airport entrance doors and on UK railway stations) I have to add a bit of devil's advocacy here.

If us smokers are honest with ourselves, it isn't the conscious "us" that wants the weed - its the nictoine making us think we do.

That said (and back on topic) my car is a smoking area. If you persist in not smoking in my car you will be asked to leave

[dickymint]

He's not going to answer my question is he?

[MX7]

B Huey said:

Some BMA bint was on R4 earlier, saying how dangerous it is to smoke in the car. Their calculations assumed that people who smoke in cars don't open a window whilst smoking.

Did she?

"Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions.a*"

"a* In the studies a number of ventilation conditions were assessed, where airflow parameters included average driving speed, presence of air conditioning and open windows. Realistic ventilation is described as driving at average roads speeds with all four windows completely open."


It sounds like rubbish to me. How can a car with a 30mph breeze going through it be 23 times worse than a smoke filled pub?

A stupid and dishonest report?

[JensenA]

Puggit said:

Everyone take a step back... The suggested ban isn't being mooted due to the normal risks of smoking but because (according to reports) some of the worst carcinogens linger in the fabric of the car and can effect innocent parties well after a cigarette has been extinguished.

If you were only killing yourselves and had full control of the vehicle at all times, then fair enough, feel free to smoke in the car.

I agree, but really we should ban people from taking passengers in cars, and urgently pass legislation requiring that all cars should be single seaters. There have been real, reported instances, where passengers have actually been killed whilst being a passenger in a car that has crashed!

[deltaevo16]

I find the whole issue quite amusing it seems the smokers are treated as the devils incarnate. I for one cannot fathom out the thinking behind alot of information given out about smoking and smokers. Yes sensibly its been banned in public places which is fine for me, I smoke by the way, now totally electronic I might add. I do not pollute anywhere, anyone or anything. Still people seem intent on banning personal freedoms.

I find the attitude to alchohol and binge drinking bizarre. Given the amount of resources it takes to police a town full of drinkers on a weekend, as well as a cost to the NHS where the A&E is filled with people that have had too much to drink. Perhaps we should look at the effect of binge drinking culture that now exists in the UK. The attitudes that the big brewers take as well as supermarkets, in selling the stuff responsibly.

We have become overun with holier than thous, that quite frankly have nothing better to do than dream another ban up
When we need sensible bans for instance on economic migrants, nobody wants to say or do anything.

[hornetrider]

Smoking deserves to be banned just as much as mobile phone use needs to be banned.
















ie - not at all.

[mybrainhurts]

I don't favour smoking, but it annoys me when a person or organisation calls for a ban like this. It's another form of control that has no place in a free society.

Has the BMA investigated whether stressed up drivers, gagging for a fag, are more likely to cause an accident...?

No, didn't think so.

[AJS-]

I remember similar discussions to this about the ban on smoking in pubs before it was banned. Another couple of years and we'll all think this is normal, but will be equally adamant that houses should be fair game, as the government moves to ban smoking indoors in your own home.

Like the binding of Gulliver.

[Funkateer]

mybrainhurts said:

I don't favour smoking, but it annoys me when a person or organisation calls for a ban like this. It's another form of control that has no place in a free society.

Has the BMA investigated whether stressed up drivers, gagging for a fag, are more likely to cause an accident...?

No, didn't think so.

As someone who gave up smoking many years ago whilst I covered up to 80000 miles a year with my job, I certainly don't like the prospect of sharing the roads with nicotine addicts suffering withdrawal!

Let them smoke if they want to. Nicotine does benefit concentration as well.

[Derek Smith]

cwis said:

Got any figures or is this pure conjecture?

(Non smoker here, btw - but an objective one).

Last figures I saw showed smokers adding around 2 billion to the annual tax take once the costs of smoking were taken into account.

Just because you don't like something is not a reason to make stuff up.

The figures came a little while after the smoking ban.

It is simplistic in the extreme to think that tax pays for anything. If the government didn't get it from tobacco sales they'd get it somwhere else. It is a flawed argument. However the stats I read at the time took all on-costs into consideration, including taxes.

The stats included pension 'savings' but also the costs of the illnesses that smokers are heir to in the years leading up to their expensive death. It also included the massive investment in lung cancer research, one of the biggest killers of smokers, which is an infrequent one. Whilst there was some fallout into general cancers the fact is that lung cancer is very specific.

There is also a lot of expensive research into the many other diseases smoking causes.

Others costs included sickness - smokers are much more likely to take time off work - and low performance in later careers.

There was considerable emphasis on heart problems, which is massively expensive for the NHS and for employers. Further, there are many people who render themselves unable to work from an early age due to smoking.

I had a biopsy on two lumps in my throat. There were eight others there, all smokers. All had trachyoptomies apart from one who was sent home to die. The doctor said that he did these 'investigations' three times a week, eight people each time (I was an emergency), and the average age was around 40 years. Fair enough, the problem is not solely associated with smoking as drinking alcohol is also a trigger, but it needs both evidently.

The costs of smoking are not simple and the suggestion that it is just (just?) lung cancer is wrong. Other dieases caused by smoking are much more expensive as they are cronic and long lasting. They leave the person debilitated and therefore a drain on resources.

Further, a doctor who specialises in, say, lung cancer is then lost to the profession all his life, not a cost normally taken into consideration. Some fo the brightest medical minds have dedicated themselves to helping smokers with their self-inflicted illnesses. That's expensive.

Those who did the report may or may not have made up the report but it was logical and rather obvious in its conclusions.

I don't like smoking near me or in places I have to go to. However I have absolutely no need to 'make stuff up' as the evidence is there in front of you. Smoking costs. It costs me and you.

[ChrisW_77]

MX7 said:

It sounds like rubbish to me. How can a car with a 30mph breeze going through it be 23 times worse than a smoke filled pub?

A stupid and dishonest report?

You're right, it's rubbish. Quoting from the Canadian Medical Association Journal:

CMA Journal said:

We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.

For more on all this stuff read Christopher Snowdon's excellent blog:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

[dickymint]

"How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?', MacKenzie and Freeman showed that the "fact" was entirely without scientific evidence and stemmed from a, obscure quote in a local newspaper in 1998"


You couldn't make it up....oh wait - they did!

[NDA]

Derek Smith said:

smokers are much more likely to take time off work - and low performance in later careers.

There is a HUGE amount of nonsense spouted about smoking.

I smoke, I don't think I ever took a day off work for being ill - ever. I also did sort of OK in my career.

I could point you to a long list of extremely wealthy entrepreneurs who enjoy smoking and the freedom to do it.

So put that in yer pipe and, er, suck it.

[chris watton]

dickymint said:

"How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?', MacKenzie and Freeman showed that the "fact" was entirely without scientific evidence and stemmed from a, obscure quote in a local newspaper in 1998"


You couldn't make it up....oh wait - they did!

I mentioned in another thread that, to get the ‘Video nasties’ banned in the early ‘80’s, the government commissioned a report to see what effect they had on kids. The report concluded that an astonishing 40% had been ‘exposed’ to these films. The reality was quite different. It has emerged that, out of the hundreds of kids questioned when researching, only THREE said that they had seen them – and even then, that was spurious, as they mentioned films that never existed. But because they watched so many, that 3% translated into “40% of children in the UK watch video nasties” – and that was the ‘shocking’ headline in all the papers, and based on that lie, they were banned and some video shop owners even got sent to prison!

As soon as the 'shocking' headline gets published, their work is done.

Edited by chris watton on Thursday 17th November 09:37

[JMGS4]

dickymint said:

"How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?', MacKenzie and Freeman showed that the "fact" was entirely without scientific evidence and stemmed from a, obscure quote in a local newspaper in 1998"
You couldn't make it up....oh wait - they did!

Repeat a lie often enough (especially on the web or TV) to the mindless plebs and they will believe it.... see global wombling as a perfect example...... Lies, more lies, and statistics...

[ChrisW_77]

dickymint said:

You couldn't make it up....oh wait - they did!

It wouldn't be so bad if journalists did their job properly and checked their facts. The BBC seem particularly bad for repeating any old nonsense told to them by campaigners against tobacco/alcohol/global warming etc.

[Derek Smith]

NDA said:

There is a HUGE amount of nonsense spouted about smoking.

I smoke, I don't think I ever took a day off work for being ill - ever. I also did sort of OK in my career.

I could point you to a long list of extremely wealthy entrepreneurs who enjoy smoking and the freedom to do it.

So put that in yer pipe and, er, suck it.

I ran a department with about 70 people and there is little doubt in my mind that those who smoked took more time off. That is over and above the ten mintues they took off every hour to stand on a balcony and puff their fags whilst the rest of us worked on. Suggestions that they should wait until an official break were not supported by my boss.

I later ran a small unit of 7 where no one smoked. I was once asked by my boss what my 'secret' was with regards the lack of sickness leave.

Regarding your healty option: one person does not evidenced reports destroy.

If anyone wants to smoke then by all means do so. I would not dream of stopping you. The same goes for drugs. Both are, of course, anti-social but as long as they do not impinge on my quality of life too much I'm pretty laid back about it. All I'm repeating is that it costs.

I would not dream of suggesting that mountain climbing should be banned because it costs when they are injured or killed. I used to be a very keen off-road cyclist and injured myself a number of times. In fact a considerable number of times. I was even off work for a couple of weeks when I chipped a bone in my leg. I would resent anyone suggesting that I should have stopped because of the times I went to hospital. My son plays high level rugby and two or three are injured every match, often requiring NHS treatment. I would object to any suggestion that they should pay for the privilege of playing a sport.

However, it is not nonsense to suggest that people who smoke are considerably more unhealthy than those who don't. There is ample evidenced research to support this. But you have to accept that it is an average.

For one department I ran that worked shifts (historically much more likely to have a high sickness record) I got the sickness records of everyone for about six or seven years. One person had been in the dept for almost all that time and had never taken time off sick. What odds would you give against her being a smoker?

I once went to write an article at the Top Gear track. Clarkson drove the car I was writing about and afterwards I wanted to go for a run in it. Unfortunately the stench inside stopped me. I had to open all three doors to let the air through. I don't think smokers realise just how much smoke impregnates them and how repulsive it is to the rest of us. Even so, I would not suggest that Clarkson should be banned from smoking.

[rs1952]

I rarely find the need to argue with Derek, so this must be one of those special occasions

I write the following not based on any research, clinical, scientific or otherwise, just my experience of being here on this planet for a few months short of 60 years, and of by now witnessing three previous generations of my family pop off (about 50% of which were lifelong smokers)

Derek Smith said:

Others costs included sickness - smokers are much more likely to take time off work - and low performance in later careers.

Another "fact" that is frequently trotted out. When I was in full-time employment (I'm self employed freelance now, just in case anybody thinks I'm on my way out due to smoking ) this was not my experience. My personal sickness record was virtually nil for the 24 years I worked for the company. Certain people in the organisation were, however, known to take frequent sick leave, and every one that I can think of was a non-smoker. They were however, shall we say, a little on the portly side .....

Likewise, in my family, none of the smokers had a particularly bad sickness record. I did have one uncle (a smoker) who died at 62, but I think the car that hit him in Gloucester Road, Bristol, probably had more to with that than his liking of his Players

Derek Smith said:

There was considerable emphasis on heart problems, which is massively expensive for the NHS and for employers. Further, there are many people who render themselves unable to work from an early age due to smoking.

There were very few people in that organisation I worked for who died in service (3 in those 24 years) and a few more who retired throuh ill-health of one sort or another. From memory, one had a bone wasting disease, another developed severe arthritis, another had leukemia. None were smokers. To be fair, we did have one smoker who dropped dead at age 47 with a heart attack (ex-military guy), but he was a fair size as well.

In my family, the smokers have tended to die three or four years earlier than the non-smokers. However, none of them popped off through smoking related diseases per se. But this of course is a difficult call to make - death is the one certainty of life and if, for sake of argument, you drop dead with a smoking-related diease at 80, then something else would be getting you shortly anyway even if you were a non-smoker

In my experience, and my experience only, there was no clear link between smoking and an inability to complete a full working life.

Derek Smith said:

I had a biopsy on two lumps in my throat. There were eight others there, all smokers. All had trachyoptomies apart from one who was sent home to die. The doctor said that he did these 'investigations' three times a week, eight people each time (I was an emergency), and the average age was around 40 years. Fair enough, the problem is not solely associated with smoking as drinking alcohol is also a trigger, but it needs both evidently.

We move on to another interesting point. Lifestyle. There are many things that will cause you to suffer from long term ill health, and smoking is only one of them. An unhealthy liking for the tipple, bad diet, lack of exercise and physical environment will all be factors.

Jumping off on a tangent for a moment, when I left school first I went to work for the railway in an engine shed in Bristol. In those days, it was not uncommon for engine drivers to drop dead in their 50s for all manner of reasons. These men had spent most of their working life in the muck and filth of working on steam engines, and working all the hours that God sent around the clock so never really got into a "standard" sleeping pattern. Add smoking 80 Woodbines a day to that lot and it was hardly surprising that some dropped off the perch early!

I am not saying that smoking is good for you - that would be plain daft. But what I am saying is that smoking in isolation is being disproportionately blamed by the "medical circus" I would hazard a guess that many "smoking related diseases" being quoted have smoking certainly as a factor, but it is not necessarily the sole factor.

I would pose a question to those in the medical "know." if you had, say, a bloke in his 60s who sat in front of the TV all day eating crisps and pizza, whose idea of exercise was walking to the fridge to get another beer (he used to go to the pub every night for 40 years but he can't be arsed to walk 200 yards down there any more so he gets his carer to get his beer from Tesco's now), smokes 40 a day and whose high blood pressure finally led to a cardiac arrest, would you put that down as a "smoking related disease?"

Derek Smith said:

I don't like smoking near me or in places I have to go to. However I have absolutely no need to 'make stuff up' as the evidence is there in front of you. Smoking costs. It costs me and you.

So if we ever get to have that meeting we've been talking about since February, I'll have to leave my fags in the car then?

Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 17th November 10:09

[rs1952]

Derek Smith said:

I ran a department with about 70 people and there is little doubt in my mind that those who smoked took more time off. That is over and above the ten mintues they took off every hour to stand on a balcony and puff their fags whilst the rest of us worked on. Suggestions that they should wait until an official break were not supported by my boss.

I later ran a small unit of 7 where no one smoked. I was once asked by my boss what my 'secret' was with regards the lack of sickness leave.


For one department I ran that worked shifts (historically much more likely to have a high sickness record) I got the sickness records of everyone for about six or seven years. One person had been in the dept for almost all that time and had never taken time off sick. What odds would you give against her being a smoker?

You know, we might be finding agreement here within disagreement

I would imagine that the work of Plod can be pretty stressful at times. Also, shift work is involved. Think back to my musings about the railway in the 1970s - driving a train is a pretty stressful occupation, and the shift "pattern" is non-existent. Yes you can be on "days" shall we say, but that might mean starts for a week at 0600, 0730, 0530, 0330 and 0200. And then you've got a week of "nights" next week, which will also not be all a simple 2200 start. Repeat for 50 years

Smoking + stress + unsocial hours + bad diet + too much tipple = a bad idea. Is any one of those factors worse than the others, or are they all combining to cause you a problem? And what is the medical profession putting your early demise down to?


Finally, it is a little patronising to trot out the old line about smokers going out fo fag breaks "while the rest of us work on." I don't know about you, but I can think of many examples of non-smokers who could waste time for England whilst sitting at their desks nattering about football (males) or shopping last weekend (females). Just a couple of examples - there are many more