BMA suggesting smoking to be banned in cars..
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
But you don't object to the exhaust fumes from other cars invading your vent system whilst in traffic?
Would you like to come back with a sensible response.
I'm not aware of that ever happening, apart maybe from the odd incident involving a catalytic converter. It's funny that this has cropped up, because just t'other day at work we were talking about the recirc facility on car heaters, and apart from making the windows steam up no-one knew what other function it performs. I've never felt the need to use one in over 30 years. Would you like to come back with a sensible response.
Diderot said:
If it stops the moronic b
ds flicking butts into the road as if it were an ashtray or blowing their stinking smoke out of the window right into my car or its vent system when in traffic, then it's a damn good thing IMO.
instead of complaining about the HC's, CO, NOX, particulates, SOX, CFCs and other VOC that are coming out of the exhaust which is nearer to you? and in magnitudes far greater due to the sheer number of carsds flicking butts into the road as if it were an ashtray or blowing their stinking smoke out of the window right into my car or its vent system when in traffic, then it's a damn good thing IMO. smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
.the_bear said:
instead of complaining about the HC's, CO, NOX, particulates, SOX, CFCs and other VOC that are coming out of the exhaust which is nearer to you? and in magnitudes far greater due to the sheer number of cars
smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
But we need cars, cars serve a purpose and alcohol actually does something for you. Fags don't do anything, at all, except makes you hand your hard-earned over whilst making you think it's a good idea.smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
heebeegeetee said:
the_bear said:
instead of complaining about the HC's, CO, NOX, particulates, SOX, CFCs and other VOC that are coming out of the exhaust which is nearer to you? and in magnitudes far greater due to the sheer number of cars
smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
But we need cars, cars serve a purpose and alcohol actually does something for you. Fags don't do anything, at all, except makes you hand your hard-earned over whilst making you think it's a good idea.smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
heebeegeetee said:
Foshiznik said:
The BMA should be banned.
I will continue to smoke in my car when i am on my lonesome. If they don't like it, i will happily stub my fag in their faces.
As for selling the car afterwards... Have you not used a hoover and cleaning products on your car before? My old motor was like brand new after cleaning it before it was sold after 5 years of smoking.
It takes a hell of a lot more than that. I can guarantee that a non-smoker would not have described your car as brand new.I will continue to smoke in my car when i am on my lonesome. If they don't like it, i will happily stub my fag in their faces.
As for selling the car afterwards... Have you not used a hoover and cleaning products on your car before? My old motor was like brand new after cleaning it before it was sold after 5 years of smoking.
I was talking to a chap who had just acquired a new (to him) car. It had had the deep-clean treatment, but, i was stood outside talking to my pal who was sat inside the car, and I could smell the the tobacco wafting out through the open window.
The ban will come in eventually. Debating it will only hold the process up and waste more money. Might as well get it over with.
If not, then i suggest the previous owner didn't scrub hard enough.
Foshiznik said:
You sure your mate wasn't smoking at the time?
If not, then i suggest the previous owner didn't scrub hard enough.
My pal doesn't smoke, and was seriously questioning his wisdom at having bought a smokers car.If not, then i suggest the previous owner didn't scrub hard enough.
You're wrong about the cleaning though. A car may smell fresh for a day or two but the tobacco soon takes over. It takes years for the smell to go, if it goes at all.
heebeegeetee said:
My pal doesn't smoke, and was seriously questioning his wisdom at having bought a smokers car.
You're wrong about the cleaning though. A car may smell fresh for a day or two but the tobacco soon takes over. It takes years for the smell to go, if it goes at all.
Not in my experience it doesn't. I guess we use different products to clean then.You're wrong about the cleaning though. A car may smell fresh for a day or two but the tobacco soon takes over. It takes years for the smell to go, if it goes at all.
the_bear said:
Diderot said:
If it stops the moronic bds flicking butts into the road as if it were an ashtray or blowing their stinking smoke out of the window right into my car or its vent system when in traffic, then it's a damn good thing IMO.
instead of complaining about the HC's, CO, NOX, particulates, SOX, CFCs and other VOC that are coming out of the exhaust which is nearer to you? and in magnitudes far greater due to the sheer number of carsds flicking butts into the road as if it were an ashtray or blowing their stinking smoke out of the window right into my car or its vent system when in traffic, then it's a damn good thing IMO. smokers = easy target
I'm sure some of the virtuous on here will kick up when drinking is called to account.
I also note you sidestepped the issue of treating the world as an ashtray.
Thing is cars have a purpose. Smoking is utter - and stinking - f
kwittery with no purpose. Point 1 - the government has already said that it has no plans to adopt the idea (not sure if Labour would have taken the same view, mind 
)
Point 2 - as we all know, because that's what the politicians tell us, 90% of Plod spend most of their time sitting on their fat arses in the station eating doughnuts, and so have plenty of spare time for nicking people for having a Woodbine in their Vectra. Don't they.
Don't they?
)Point 2 - as we all know, because that's what the politicians tell us, 90% of Plod spend most of their time sitting on their fat arses in the station eating doughnuts, and so have plenty of spare time for nicking people for having a Woodbine in their Vectra. Don't they.
Don't they?
From what I've seen on the news regarding this it's being pushed through under the premise of 'think of the children'. If an adult is smoking in the car with their kid in then it's more a case of banning stupid people from having kids as they're too fking irresponsible.
What about homes, surely kids spend much more time about their smoking parents in the home than a car and thus their focus is on the wrong target.
I think ASH et al are just trying to justify their existance now they've not got much to do since the national smoking ban a few years ago. No better than the unions imo.
king irresponsible.What about homes, surely kids spend much more time about their smoking parents in the home than a car and thus their focus is on the wrong target.
I think ASH et al are just trying to justify their existance now they've not got much to do since the national smoking ban a few years ago. No better than the unions imo.
Smoking is a dilemma for most governments. It provides a shedload of tax, but costs a lot in care when the smokers are dying early and there is a subsequent loss of taxable income when they have popped off.
The ideal remedy is to let them smoke in a coastal field with an offshore wind and make them pay for there own palliative care.
All this banning talk is nonsense, smoking is an excellent form of population control and if handled carefully would be cost effective.
The ideal remedy is to let them smoke in a coastal field with an offshore wind and make them pay for there own palliative care.
All this banning talk is nonsense, smoking is an excellent form of population control and if handled carefully would be cost effective.
Edited by Saddle bum on Wednesday 16th November 10:32
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.
So you are in fact saying ban smoking anywhere.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.
Saddle bum said:
Smoking is a dilemma for most governments. It provides a shedload of tax, but costs a lot in care when the smokers are dying early and there is a subsequent loss of taxable income when they have popped off.
The ideal remedy is to let them smoke in a coastal field with an offshore wind and make them pay for there own palliative care.
All this banning talk is nonsense, smoking is an excellent form of population control and if handled carefully would be cost effective.
The economic argument are usually one-sided ie. "smoking costs the NHS £x billion per year"The ideal remedy is to let them smoke in a coastal field with an offshore wind and make them pay for there own palliative care.
All this banning talk is nonsense, smoking is an excellent form of population control and if handled carefully would be cost effective.
But, and I make these comments from spending almost 3 score years on this planet and having watched 3 previous generations of my family pop off:
1. Smoking doesn't "get" many people until they retire. The amount of taxable income lost is negligible. And somebody else would be employed to do the job anyway.
2. Through their smoking lives, smokers pay a bleedin' fortune to the government in tobacco taxes
3. Smokers generally die a bit younger than non-smokers so there is a saving on pension costs
4. As they generally die younger, smokers tend not to cost the NHS the large sums that elderly non-smokers do in staying here and getting other terminal and expensive illneses and treatments like dementia, long term day care, living aids such as wheelchairs, adapted "granny flats" etc etc
Perhaps somebody more knowledgable than me of the actual figures involved could put that lot into a spreadsheet and tell me what the "true cost" of smoking is to the nation?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff