Should smoking be banned in cars?

# 134

Posted: 04/03/2009 15:09

Lou, you were the one asking me to stick to topic, I believe. As for people rubber necking. The same could be said of a mobile phone ban. Really if one is so easily distracted that they don't take due care - should they be driving at all.If we were however to hypothetically take children out of the equation., then to my mind there would be no reason ban smoking in private cars. It is up to your own common sense as to whether it distracts you or not. Some people can manage to smoke and drive without any problem, I'm sure and there are others who can't.

With regard to the tax/ health argument, what I have heard is that the money spent on smoking related illness far outweighs that generated by taxes on cigarettes.

# 133

Posted: 04/03/2009 12:38

"altho to be honest I fail to see what it has to do with taxes."

Im talking about the cost of enforement and how the tax payer would have to pay for it when there are many more important issues that the money could be spent on.

I dont think any smoker has an issue with anti smoking campaigns or warnings or anything that tells people not to smoke. And lets be honest, the smoking ban is absolutly GREAT! Everyone is getting something out of it (though some people still complain). And the victimisation of smokers? We'll unfortunatly the Anti-smoking brigade always need something to complain about. Hehe watch the "Butt Out" episode of South Park some time, if south park is your thing. Its very amusing.

# 132

Posted: 04/03/2009 12:12

yes it should, as its not fair to others, especially children that suffer with asthma

# 131

Posted: 04/03/2009 11:28

Anonymous I actually agree with a lot of what Thrashattck says. It is typical of this country to introduce ridiculous restrictions on people and then fail to enforce them properly. I wonder also could we project a statistical analysis (estimate of course) to ascertain how many accidents would be caused by people rubber necking to see if Joe next to them or Mary behind them are smoking in their cars? Such a ban would be incredibly short sighted.

# 130

Posted: 04/03/2009 11:25

Anonymous it is called "the natural progression of an argument" to a related topic. What is the point in arguing about one discrete and isolated issue without looking at those issues which are related? Otherwise it is just a YES or NO answer and that would be very boring now wouldnt it. I was veering away from the title to point out a side issue which may be taken into account.

# 129

Posted: 04/03/2009 09:14

Thrashattack good point. I think really the only reason that they can legititmately put forward in support of the ban is if there are children in the car. Of course it is not viable to take children out of the equation, because to do so we would be denying the fact that they may be present in the car, and they should be proteceted. That said, if we WERE to take them out of the equation, I dont think there would be very many reasons left to support the move. People could argue that it is a distraction when driving, but they would then have to apply this logic across the board and also ban eating, drinking, applying makeup or anything else that involves removing one hand (or two) from the wheel. I am always torn in such debates, on the one hand I support any move that would protect children form passive smoking (and I would hope that there are very few who are exposed in this day and age) but on the other hand I think this is just another step in the direction towards ultimate nanny state, with particular emphasis on victimising smokers because they are easy targets. When discussing bans, anti-smoking ads and campaigns and general prejudice, people should remember how much the country benefits from revenue generated from tobacco tax, even taking into account expenditure on smoking related illness, there is still a huge surplus of money being pumped into the economy, purely from the huge tax on tobacco.

# 128

Posted: 04/03/2009 09:04

Lou, wit regard to sticking to topic, could you please take your own advice as we are not talking about overeating among children. Thrashattack I do take some of your points altho to be honest I fail to see what it has to do with taxes.

# 127

Posted: 03/03/2009 17:36

"Lou when you posting your inital post there was nothing whatever to indicate what the child was eating so in future if you expect people to comment on the whole picture, kindly present it as such" - can you stick to the issue at hand (kindly) please?

# 126

Posted: 03/03/2009 16:38

"but is it legislative duty to do so as reasonably and responsibly as we can."

I completely agree with you. But I think "reasonably" and "responsibly" are the two main words to look at in this statement. And there are a whole host of things that, in my opinion, make banning smoking in cars wrong.

I’m pretty sure there is no one posting here who would say "Yes smoking in cars with ur children is the right thing to do". If I’m wrong about this assumption someone should correct me.

But the discussion is "Should smoking be banned in Cars". Can Anyone give me a valid reason for BANNING smoking in Cars? Please don’t say "Because children will inhale blah blah blah". Lets leave children out of the equation for the moment. I’m talking across the board here.

Okay so while we're at it, people who are saying "Yes! Smoking in cars where there are children present should be banned".... Tell me how this would work at a practical level. Its all well and good throwing out statements but how should it be enforced? Think practical and think about ur taxes and think about the country as a whole.

 

# 125

Posted: 03/03/2009 15:49

Actually as a society we DO have rights over others when they put their children at risk. that is why it is illegal to drive children unbelted. No we can't protect all of the people all of the time but is it legislative duty to do so  as reasonably and responsibly as we can. I do take your point about education being important and about it not being policeable tho. If you are alone in your car or with other adults (consenting presumably), of course smoke away to your contentment. With regard to "wrapping a child in cotton" wool - this is highly subjective, smoking around children is not.

I don't believe anyone force-feeds their children - to do so would be abusive to say the least but when smoking in a car or other confined space witha child you are forcing your smoke from your addiction/ pass-time / choice or whatever you call it, into them. Lou when you posting your inital post there was nothing whatever to indicate what the child was eating so in future if you expct people to comment on the whole picture, kindly present it as such. Of coure smoking around children is not the only harmful thing that parents do but it is the subject of this topic. Should we fail to tackle one problem because we cannot tackle them all?

# 124

Posted: 03/03/2009 13:29

Anonymous 10.58: Since you know that it is dangerous for your children to smoke in their prsence then dont do it if you feel that way. However get out of my car and my life and stop trying to tell me what to do. You have no rights over me when I am not putting you or your children at risk.

---

More than spiders spin

# 123

Posted: 03/03/2009 13:05

I am not SAYING it is not harmful to smoke around children of course it is, my POINT was that it is not the ONLY thinkg that parents do wrong, but it is ALL society focuses on. Why? Because smokers are the target for everything.

# 122

Posted: 03/03/2009 12:40

I would like to revisit this site, perhaps in ten or twenty years, and show people current stats pertaining to 1) the effects of passive smoking and 2) early onset diabetes linked to childhood obesity - I am confident which would come out tops. All in good time, we shall see what is REALLY happening to our younger generation.

# 121

Posted: 03/03/2009 12:38

funny I knew that was going to be brought up. Obviously the big mac meal that he was stuffing into and the large coke he was guzzling were perfectly healthy. Yes there are glandular problems, metabolic problems, blood sugar, thyroid etc etc but SOME people are just fat because they eat too much - not everyone falls into the "hard case" category!

# 120

Posted: 03/03/2009 12:28

"Relly, silliness isn't helping your point at all."

I think my point may have gone over your head. The thing I was trying to point out was that trying to ban smoking in cars is stupid. You cant protect all the people all of the time. Its impossible. The answer is not legislation. The answer is education. But no matter what you do people are still going to smoke in cars because its not policable.

"Get off the band wagon and find a new group of people to judge and control please!"

I agree here. I mean, there is an issue with people smoking around children sure enough. But because smokers are targets that are fashionable to give abuse to (and also, I think ex-smokers have other psychological issues that I mentioned before), its very easy for people to grab their pitchfork and flaming torch and say "Ban smoking in cars", "Ban Cigarettes" etc etc.

The things is, there are a lot of things that should be looked at in tandem with the smoking around children issue but people tend to forget about these things due to their anti cigarette smoking crusade.

I could name many things. The "cake" example is just one. How about people who don’t pursue their children to study hard to get a good education. This could potentially be destroying the child’s future and quality of life. What about people who "wrap their children up in cotton wool" and don’t let them build up a good immune system? These people are destroying the child’s future health. And what about people who cant control their children due to laziness when chastising is needed? Surely they are doing the wrong thing too?

The problem is that people are blinkered. They focus on one thing because it suits them to do so, be it due to personal loss (of either a loved one to cigarettes or the loss of nicotine to their system). OR because they are so brainwashed by the fashionable thing to complain about that they forget all the other issues.

Don’t get me wrong here....I know cigarette smoking is damaging but there are a hell of a lot of other things that could be thought of as Child abuse in the same way.

Just on the point of the obese child.... Fair enough, you dont know if the child had a medical condition. But you cant deny that a fair percentage of people over feed their kids. Do you realise the obesity can do just as much damage (though in a different way) as cigarette smoking? But people with fat kids are okay with that but at the same time will complain about smokers. Oh but wait...people generally feel bad for fat people because it could caused by a health problem. Yea thats true but lets be honest, 80-90% of the time its cos they are gluttens who eat too much and dont get enough exercise.

So I think really the day that the police are going around with weighing scales checking the weight of ur children is the same day that smoking in cars should be banned. Now theres some real silliness to add to my point

# 119

Posted: 03/03/2009 10:58

Lou you have no way of telling whether that child's weight was to do with a medical condition or not - so you have no right to judge him or his parents. With smoking however, we do know that it is harmful to smoke around children.

# 118

Posted: 03/03/2009 09:44

I was on the tram yesterday and there was a couple on it with their son who was no more than about 11 and he was seriously overweight. it was actually disgusting he had a treble chin and you could barely see his eyes his face was so puffy and fat. The parents were not much better. People do lots of things that are bad for their kids but it is only ever smokes that are victimised. Get off the band wagon and find a new group of people to judge and control please!

# 117

Posted: 03/03/2009 09:14

If there are no children in the car, then it is entirely your own business whether you smoke or not and up to your own common sense as to whether it distracts you or not. I have no doubt that some people can manage to smoke and drive without any problem and there are others who can't.

Parents should have the cop on not to smoke near their children - but they don't. If they had there would be no question of legisltion being needed. If banning it where children are present is the wrong way to go about it, what would you propose instead

The obvious difference is that there are moderate or safe levels of sweets and carbs but there is no safe level with regard to cigarette smoke. Furthermore, I don't think anone is talking about banning smoking outright at all nor are we talking abot banning parents from buying cigarettes - so your comparison to banning cake is irrelevant. "Or maybe we could just stop parents from allowing children to eat cake in cars". Relly, silliness isn't helping your point at all.

# 116

Posted: 02/03/2009 14:20

"I'm sure that make up, eating, drinking a coke or radios do not have the effect of polluting the lungs of children with carcinogens."

Yes but if there are no children in the car its very difficult to pollute their lungs My arguement was in realtion to the distaction caused by smoking causing accidents.

Parents should have the cop on not to smoke near their children. Unfortunately this is not always the case. But to try and ban it across the board to protect children because some parents or irresponsible is the wrong way to go about it.

What about when chocolate cake is banned because parents are feeding it to their children making the fat? Thats killing them too, giving the heart disease and a whole host of other health problems. Ban Cake! Stop parents making their children fatties! So would you like cake to be banned? Or perhaps could we ban parents with Children from buying cake at all? Or maybe we could just stop parents from allowing children to eat cake in cars. It wouldnt solve the problem in the home but I guess in cars it would be grand....

# 115

Posted: 02/03/2009 09:23

I'm with benjy on this, if driver's discretion were sufficient in order to ensure that people didn't smoke in enclosed spaces and put their children at risk, then legislation would not be required. A car is a privately owned vehicle but laws still apply - just as they do for speeding and wearing seat belts. To say if someone travelling in that car doesnt like it, let them walk is totally unresonable Loum if the person is the drivers or passengers children. Banning smoking in houses is not actually enforceable - that is the difference. I agree that we should implement existing laws but that should not impede further legislation.

# 114

Posted: 01/03/2009 23:01

yes

# 113

Posted: 27/02/2009 17:00

Smoking should be banned in cars only when there is children on board.

Anything more than that would be against civil liberty and would be a non-runner.

# 112

Posted: 26/02/2009 16:05

I think it should be at the driver's discretion. A car is a privately owned vehicle it is not state property therefore by laws do not apply. If someone travelling in that car doesnt like it, let them walk. If they ban smoking in cars there is nothing to stop them banning smoking in houses. It amazes me that there is such a hate campaign against smokers in this country, yet the government are more than happy to cream millions in tobacco taxes every year. There are far worse things that people do, including breaking the law every day. How about actually implementing existing laws instead of invention new and ridiculous ones?

# 111

Posted: 26/02/2009 16:04

I'm sure that make up, eating, drinking a coke or radios do not have the effect of polluting the lungs of children with carcinogens.

# 110

Posted: 26/02/2009 14:36

Thats unreal.  Smoking banned in cars?  You have got to be joking. 

How about banning putting on makeup or eating in cars?  Or drinking a can of coke in a car!?!?!  AND RADIOS!  Oh my!  So bad for distraction.

In fact it might be a better idea to teach people in this country how to drive properly and how to properly use the roads. That Im pretty sure would mean less accidents.

# 109

Posted: 24/02/2009 23:15

yes smoking should be banned in cars, as its not fair to the person who has given up smoking.

# 108

Posted: 14/10/2008 01:24

Of course smoking should be banned from cars this is a silly question...

# 107

Posted: 14/12/2006 23:13

Lee, I have been driving (accident free) since 1979 and smoked whilst driving since that time.
I drive for a living by the way so am in my car more than most people.
I can drive and smoke without any problem.

Driving whilst talking to another person on a phone is a different matter. Trying to concentrate on driving whilst listening to my Boss is very dangerous but smoking.... no.

I get peeved when people say "What if... a cigerette fell on the floor... " etc etc.

What if..... a wheel came off your car?
What if..... a wheel comes off a car that is coming towards you?
What if..... I can drive safely whilst smoking and you can't?

Then you don't smoke whilst driving but you leave me to smoke when I am driving because I can do it safely regardless of what you think.

I certainly would not do so if I felt for a second that I was putting my own life at risk on the road.

As for smoking in my car when I have passengers who do not smoke, then I would not smoke out of consideration but again that is my own personal choice and manners.
But to make it illegal to smoke in your car is absurd to the highest degree.

# 106

Posted: 22/11/2006 11:32

I believe that if you want to smoke in your car, then go ahead, its your car. If you want to use a mobile i think its better to use a handsfree device just so that there is very little chance of an accident. Smoking isnt a diffcult task while driving if you have been doing it for a while. If you are new to driving then you should have the common sense to light up before you drive off, or to wait until you have reached your destination, if you think you cant drive and smoke.

# 105

Posted: 27/10/2006 23:35

I do think smoking should be banned in cars, as
I think that it is far more dangerous than using a mobile..
If while driving the cigarette fell or a bit of ash fell, then imagine what could happen..
I dont smoke-(I used to but never while driving)-and I think anybody who does in the car is incredibly inconsiderate to any passengers with them...

# 104

Posted: 19/10/2006 17:48

If there is enough proof that smoking causes accidents, yes. Like mobile phones. Otherwise, safer ashtrays, and a no smoking rule with children in the car.

# 103

Posted: 09/10/2006 10:21

Lucius Posted: 06/10/2006 11:34, this discussion I believe is really about the welfare of children and specifically the actions of people while children are in cars. This would definitely include the permission of children to roam freely in cars while the car is in motion. Also, many people are using car fumes as part of their arguments. Therefore, saying that children being unbelted in cars is not part of this discussion is folly. I am a smoker but I dont smoke in my car when my children are present, but this is a personal choice and one I would not like to see taken away. If such a ban was introduced I would never be able to smoke on my own property i.e. my car. This is my private space and no one should be allowed to dictate to me whether I can or can not smoke on my own private property. I support the smoking ban in the work place and feel this is the ONLY good thing Micheal Martin did while Minister for ill health.

# 102

Posted: 07/10/2006 03:17

Thats sad about your Aunt. My Father died of lung cancer also but he was a heavy smoker all his life. I am also a smoker. I know the risks but thats my choice. This topic is about banning smoking in cars.
As a smoker, I never smoke when there is a non smoker in my car or if there are children.
I don't actually know any smoker that does as we all respect the rights of others.
But I certainly am against banning smoking in cars.
I think that would be a total infringement of my own personal civil liberties. It would also be absolutely impossible to police.

# 101

Posted: 06/10/2006 13:06

My aunt owned and worked in a pub all her life and never smoked. She died as a result of lung cancer. There will be those of you who will argue that this was not a result of breathing in cigarette smoke for long hours 7 days a week.Those of you who will put up the most vehemnt arguments will, of course, be smokers. I'm afraid I will never be convinced that passive smoking does not do any harm.

# 100

Posted: 06/10/2006 11:34

Firstly Tom this discussion is not about children roaming around the car unbelted (which obviously is a real danger too).
And secondly second hand smoke does cause damage to others whether it be children or adults, ,that’s why there is a smoking ban in the work place and the likes of pubs and places that serve food.

# 99

Posted: 06/10/2006 11:12

it sounds like to me you\'re one of those people who smokes in cars, other wise you would agree as for children standing between seats that has nothing to do with smoking by the way. i dont allow smoking in my car when children are in the car, they also belt up in the back. i smoke an odd one ,1 or 2 a day maybe, none some days.

# 98

Posted: 05/10/2006 10:05

I dont agree with smoking in confind spaces with children around but I wouldn't ban smoking in cars. That is a step too far.

For all those whingeing about smoking in cars, and especially those that say it should be banned especially when children are present, a far more dangerouos act is letting your child roam around the back seat unbelted and invariably standing between the two front seats. That's child endangerment and infinitely more dangerous than exposing them to second hand smoke which still has not conclusively been linked to death and ill health.

# 97

Posted: 04/10/2006 16:58

hi all,i think that sould be left up to the person who owns the car to put the ban on smoking ,one thing I don\'t agree with is smoking with children in the car,I hate that and that\'s down to the person who\'s driving the car to put a stop to that.

# 96

Posted: 27/09/2006 11:51

Why don't ye all stop whinging and discuss something else!!! Rob, you are talking heresay, are smokers the cause of road accidents due to their lack of concentration? No, I don't think so.

# 95

Posted: 27/09/2006 09:56

The point is that it is a dangerous practice to smoke in a car, particularly for a driver.
I think i should be a penelty point offence.
Think about it, the driver has to find the cigs, find the lighter, take the cigarette out of the packet, light the cigarette and all this is usually done while trying to concentrate on the driving?
What would happen if the lighted tip of the cigarette, or the cigarett itself fell, maybe down between the legs of the driver?...
Even if it fell on the floor of the car, the driver could not just ignore it.
the missing cigarette would take a lot of driver concentration from the driving.
This could be responsible for some of the horific accidents like headon colisions that occur on our roads, and single car crashes where a car mysteriously smashes into a wall or a tree on a good road.
Yes I think this is more dangerous than using a mobile phone, and they will have pelelty points attached yery soon.