BMA suggesting smoking to be banned in cars..
Discussion
If this happens I'm painting my car to look like a cigarette.
I smoke in the car, and allow all of my mates smoke in the car. If I, or any of my mates, go in someone else's car who doesn't want smoking in the car, then we don't smoke in their car. I don't smoke with kids in the car; in fact, I don't smoke in front of kids (on a family level at any rate).
Everyone who I know who smokes also follows this system of "choice". I'm failing to see the shortcomings of this evil, selfish way of living that the BMA are seeing.
I smoke in the car, and allow all of my mates smoke in the car. If I, or any of my mates, go in someone else's car who doesn't want smoking in the car, then we don't smoke in their car. I don't smoke with kids in the car; in fact, I don't smoke in front of kids (on a family level at any rate).
Everyone who I know who smokes also follows this system of "choice". I'm failing to see the shortcomings of this evil, selfish way of living that the BMA are seeing.
Well in that case you'll be able to find a link. Until then it's just conjecture.
Derek Smith said:
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.
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.
R500POP said:
I don't see how smoking in cars is any less dangerous than using a phone to be honest. BAN IT
Just for you.............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjNyuCZa_Qw
R500POP said:
I don't see how smoking in cars is any less dangerous than using a phone to be honest. BAN IT
Oh no what have you let yourself in for! You'll soon have a certain sanctimonious self righteous smoker throwing his dummy at you, closely followed by his arse sniffing poodle and then some silly sod asking you if you eat barley sugars in the car or have ever adjusted your sun visor!!!! anonymous said:
[redacted]
Oooohh get you!Now let's get back to the [junk]science. It seems that the BMA have done a massive U turn on their statement. Link here with the details.........
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/
Basically it's lies lies lies. Care to comment?
vit4 said:
If this happens I'm painting my car to look like a cigarette.
I smoke in the car, and allow all of my mates smoke in the car. If I, or any of my mates, go in someone else's car who doesn't want smoking in the car, then we don't smoke in their car. I don't smoke with kids in the car; in fact, I don't smoke in front of kids (on a family level at any rate).
Everyone who I know who smokes also follows this system of "choice". I'm failing to see the shortcomings of this evil, selfish way of living that the BMA are seeing.
It seems to be accepted around here, even amongst smokers, that smoking in the vicinity of kids is a bad idea. And as I haven't got any kids any more (my "kids" being between 27 and 39 and long since buggered off) it doesn't affect me personally.I smoke in the car, and allow all of my mates smoke in the car. If I, or any of my mates, go in someone else's car who doesn't want smoking in the car, then we don't smoke in their car. I don't smoke with kids in the car; in fact, I don't smoke in front of kids (on a family level at any rate).
Everyone who I know who smokes also follows this system of "choice". I'm failing to see the shortcomings of this evil, selfish way of living that the BMA are seeing.
However, just to look at this isue in a different perspective:
1. When I was a kid in the 50s then virtually all of my immediate family smoked around me (and every other kid come to that)
2. There were ash trays in all the shops my mother took me into. And they were used. Even in the bloody chemist
3. I used to go upstairs on the bus when I was a kid for two reasons; a) better view b) I liked the smell of the smoke
4. I left school in 1969 and worked in a blue fog because everybody smoked. You were the odd one out if you didn't. It was another 20 years before smoking bans became fashionable.
5. I, and milllions of my generation who had the same experience when they were young, are still alive
thinfourth2 said:
The poorer someone is the more likely they are to smoke.
Stupid people smoke.On the whole, stupid people don't succeed so it's obvious they end up being poorer. So NO, the poorer someone is the more likely they are to smoke, HOWEVER if someone smokes, chances are they are poorer.
I used to be stupid and smoked. I did the sensible thing and gave up. Haven't smoked for over 12 years and now am not poor anymore
As for any ban, meh. Make it socially unacceptable by all means but bans just mean more legislation.
As for people that smoke with children in the car (or any non smoking person come to it) then you have to ask what sort of parent/person they really are. As I recollect, I have smoked in a car with non-smokers. As I think about it, it was nothing other than downright rude and inconsiderate.
Edited by Dracoro on Friday 18th November 09:56
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Oh that hurts, I feel so slighted, being abused by someone with such such an obvious superior intellect, it really stings. Your ability to turn my comments and those of other back on me, wow, would never have expected that. Well, saying that, I would have expected it if I was 8 and in the playground and it normally went along the lines of "you're a big fat bum" followed by the other kid, stutter a bit, think some more, stutter a bit and then"you're a bigger fat bum, fat bum HA HA"
Great stuff Sir, inspired
Anyway, please justify your comments, please present evidence that smoking in the car causes accidents, please do not trail the internet for one stry of some poor sod that dropped his lighter and rammed into the back of someone while trying to retrieve it. I could find equally as many stories of drivers that have done the same while fiddling with the radio, picking their bloomin teeth in the mirror, trying to retrieve a juice bottle of the floor, shouting at the kids while looking at them in the rear view mirror, adjusting the airco, scratching your leg, hunting for your sunglasses, watching the blonde on the pavement, fixing their lipstick, arguing with your wife etc etc etc. These are all common causes for "accidents". Please note the term accident, they happen all the time, it's part of life, the majority of (your perfect self excluded of course) humans are rather fallible and we tend to f
k up a good bit.Unfortunately, stupid arses like the BMA and their even dumber supporters seem to believe that we can legislate away risk as we are all obviously incapable of making our own life choices and need a committee of idiots to do this for us.
I for one, and many others as can be seen here will never support this view, I make my own choices, good or bad. There are times when these choices will impact others, that's life, very few things we do have no impact on others. Just sneezing on a f
king tube train impacts at least half a dozen other lifes, in fact that sneeze could very easily lead to some poor old buggers death from pneumonia, again, thats life.So go back to your perfect box, you can sit in it happy in the knowledge that you are leading and exemplary life that limits risk to yourself and others. I think you will find though that all you are doing is robbing yourself of enjoyment while still impacting everyone around you in ways that you have not imagined.
Coming to this thread late - but my two penniworth is...
More unwanted nanny state nonsense. If people want to smoke in their cars then let them, by all means prosecute people that flick ash and fag buts out of the window (its your habit, keep the remnants of it in your car please)for littering but the act of smoking ?. Whats next - passing laws precluding people from playing music in their own homes ? - its all getting a little Orwellian for me.
I am a non-smoker. I still think that if someone else chooses to smoke they should be allowed to do so.
R.
More unwanted nanny state nonsense. If people want to smoke in their cars then let them, by all means prosecute people that flick ash and fag buts out of the window (its your habit, keep the remnants of it in your car please)for littering but the act of smoking ?. Whats next - passing laws precluding people from playing music in their own homes ? - its all getting a little Orwellian for me.
I am a non-smoker. I still think that if someone else chooses to smoke they should be allowed to do so.
R.
chim said:
Oh that hurts, I feel so slighted, being abused by someone with such such an obvious superior intellect, it really stings. Your ability to turn my comments and those of other back on me, wow, would never have expected that.
I don't get you. You acted the childish prick in your post which the mods removed, all f- words and emoticons. You get all self righteous and uppity when someone displays an opinion that differs from yours and from other threads it appears you get very patronising when someone posts something on a subject you think you know more about. You have a snidey pop at Derek when he dares offer some of his personal experience to a thread. You dish it out but can't take it. Just suck on one of your cancer sticks and relax, some opinions don't match your's, so what!!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff