More smoking restrictions on the way.

[alchresearch]

Maybe it will bring about a reduction of fag ends thrown from car windows.

[ampersand]

How many people have died of lung cancer (Since records existed - which is quite a while)

 

How many were smokers?

 

How many were not smokers?

 

If the answer to the last question is a significant number, you may have difficulty in proving that lung cancer is caused by smoking.

 

 

True - it could have been caused by passive smoking

 

Just because some non-smokers get lung cancer, and some smokers do not get lung cancer, does not mean that smoking is not a cause of lung cancer

[RJRB]

For heavens sake,most smokers have read enough to accept that there is a risk associated with this and an increasingly higher cost,which has been artificially escalated whilst the cost of drink has been deflated.

Historically which one has caused the most misery to individuals and others around them.

The anti smoking lobby has done a great job in blaming all ills on smoking by quoting all statistics which are in their favour,and people are swayed by this publicity.

It's time that some people thought things through for themselves.

Why is asthma in children far more prevalent today. Not because of smoking,which is much reduced over the same period,but more likely because of air borne particles resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.just investigate the products resulting from diesel and petrol.

If you live in a town or city,you are not going to inhale fresh air.

We are all going to die one day,perhaps of old age or perhaps prematurely because of our own lifestyle or pre disposition to certain conditions.

So you can keep on quoting the old Roy Castle adage about passive smoking,but there's plenty of elderly show biz people still kicking around who performed at the same venues as he did.

[Riannon]

As a heavy smoker, I can't see this legislation making a blind difference to me.

I didn't smoke in the house, or car, after my children were born.

My son was 7 weeks premature and didn't want my smoke in his lungs.

Now they have moved on, I still don't smoke in the house.

Saves a fortune in decorating

 

I can't smoke in my taxi,

I can't smoke in a pub,

Smoking on public transport/aeroplanes, never bothered me.

I used to work in the pit, no smoking there !!

 

So yes, bring the new laws in, it'll be about as good as the 'don't use your mobile whilst driving'.

Most folk will ignore it, and do it anyway.

 

 

Who's going to police it

 

 

I presume the same people who police wearing seat belts, not using mobile phones when driving, bald tyres and cars being taxed and insured. There are on the spot fines for some offences but the crusher always works best now the scap price is so high.

[chem1st]

I am really sick to death of people talking about you cannot smoke here, you cannot smoke there it’s getting like a police state. I agree don’t smoke with the kids in the car which to me is more about bad parenting rather than not smoking.

This country is supposed to be a free country but this is slowly changing into a don’t do this state. In my opinion a pub should be able to choose if it wants to be a smoking pub or non smoking pub, they should have a sign outside stating if it is a smoking pub and if people don’t want to go in that is up to them. This gives us back our freedom of choice and may make some pubs popular again.

Whether you none smokers wish to hear it or not I know of plenty of none smokers who say they would have no problem if smoking was allowed in pubs again. All you not smokers stop bleating on about us smokers think one day they could stop something you enjoy

 

Your made to feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany.

 

And if non smokers paid the tax we do, the government would have never had a deficit.

 

Non smokers should bow down before us and kiss our feet.

[Bruno]

I think babies in pushchairs about the same height as a car (exhaust) giving out exhaust fumes in a traffic jam is more dangerous

[foxy lady]

I think babies in pushchairs about the same height as a car (exhaust) giving out exhaust fumes in a traffic jam is more dangerous

 

Apparently not.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/smoking-cars-ban-bma

 

The BMA called for a ban after reviewing previously published research studies into cars and smoking.

 

A car's occupants could be exposed to 11 times more toxins than they would encounter in a smoky bar, the BMA's review found [see footnote]. Older people, who are more likely to have breathing problems, are also at extra risk of health damage from inhaling secondhand smoke in a car, it added.

[Muldoon]

But do you think had your parents not smoked with you in the car, there may have been a chance that you never started smoking in the first place?

 

But I enjoy smoking, just like others like drinking alcohol or taking recreational drugs. My choice to take it up and it was not my parents that swayed my decision it was friends at a very young age.

 

And I will add, that in no way am I a Numpty Rich

[kermit103]

For heavens sake,most smokers have read enough to accept that there is a risk associated with this and an increasingly higher cost,which has been artificially escalated whilst the cost of drink has been deflated.

Historically which one has caused the most misery to individuals and others around them.

The anti smoking lobby has done a great job in blaming all ills on smoking by quoting all statistics which are in their favour,and people are swayed by this publicity.

It's time that some people thought things through for themselves.

Why is asthma in children far more prevalent today. Not because of smoking,which is much reduced over the same period,but more likely because of air borne particles resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.just investigate the products resulting from diesel and petrol.

If you live in a town or city,you are not going to inhale fresh air.

We are all going to die one day,perhaps of old age or perhaps prematurely because of our own lifestyle or pre disposition to certain conditions.

So you can keep on quoting the old Roy Castle adage about passive smoking,but there's plenty of elderly show biz people still kicking around who performed at the same venues as he did.

 

Spot on

[foxy lady]

For heavens sake,most smokers have read enough to accept that there is a risk associated with this and an increasingly higher cost,which has been artificially escalated whilst the cost of drink has been deflated.

Historically which one has caused the most misery to individuals and others around them.

The anti smoking lobby has done a great job in blaming all ills on smoking by quoting all statistics which are in their favour,and people are swayed by this publicity.

It's time that some people thought things through for themselves.

Why is asthma in children far more prevalent today. Not because of smoking,which is much reduced over the same period,but more likely because of air borne particles resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.just investigate the products resulting from diesel and petrol.

If you live in a town or city,you are not going to inhale fresh air.

We are all going to die one day,perhaps of old age or perhaps prematurely because of our own lifestyle or pre disposition to certain conditions.

So you can keep on quoting the old Roy Castle adage about passive smoking,but there's plenty of elderly show biz people still kicking around who performed at the same venues as he did.

 

 

But isn't the thread and any proposed legislation aimed purely at cars with children in them? That is the whole point to protect the health of people who AREN'T free to make their own choice.

 

The fact that some people seem prepared to argue that they have every right to damage their children's health is exactly the reason why this proposal is likely to go on the statute book.