Here we go again !

[Samray]

Plea to ban smoking in cars.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... g_in_cars_

[Firestarter]

Having been that child, I think it's a great idea. Both parents smoked, in the house and in the car. I didn't know what smoke smells like until a year after I left home, because I had grown so used to it. Can now smell it when someone has nipped out for a fag at lunch. I dread to think what was going on with my health, sat in a car with two people smoking away.

I suffered from asmtha as a kid - cleared up when I left home. Grew out of it, or reduction in exposure to smoke? Don't know, but I know what my guess would be.

[Samray]

Smoke must be a relatively minor danger to any kid in a car.

Mebbe we should ban kids from cars ......


...... or ban cars.

[Kwackerz]

A minor immediate danger, but a major long term danger.





I dont smoke in the car or the house normally.

[Samray]

The more immediate major dangers may mean there is no long term.

[Gio]

More fecking crap from tree huggers.

I'd guess and I expect I'd be far more accurate than the arseholes who want to ban everything bad for us, that pollution is the worst cause of disease.

So lets ban public transport that relies on powered vehicles as well as all forms of internal combustion engine.

Scrap all ships that use oil as a driving force and return to about 1780 which would reduce the planets population by two thirds as they'd die from malnutrition.

[D-Rider]

Well I'm a natural defender of personal freedom but not where it significantly affects others. I'm all for banning smoking in cars. Why?

• * Well there's the case made in the article about other passengers having to breathe the smoke - particularly kids. They really shouldn't have to.
  * The concept of people driving around with a stick of smouldering embers seems stupid too. If I'm eating a kitkat while driving and there's a crisis, I can drop it with no ill effects .... not quite the same with a stick of fire.
  * It seems absolutely inconsistent that van drivers, lorry drivers and company car drivers have this ban already yet the remaining personal car drivers do not. Doesn't exactly make it easy for the authorities to enforce either. Off the point a bit but it also winds me up that I have to show no smoking signs in my company car - nobody has ever smoked in my car - nor will they - I don't need a fecking sign! We don't have "no committing murder in this vehicle" signs or signs to tell us what not to do in many places. In fact we have few signs on the roads to tell us what the speed limit is - just cameras to catch us for breaking the unknown limit .... I digress .....
  * Finally I hate rolling up to the lights on my bike and have to endure the stink of some motorist smoking in his car with his widow open ... it seems to be the case at almost every set of lights.

Not as bad as when I started work in the '70s. Worked at a bank and the room out the back where most of the work was done was always just full of smoke. By the middle of the afternoon you couldn't see clearly across the room ... hard to believe but I really am not exaggerating. We've come a long way but we're not there yet.

[Samray]

Off the point a bit but it also winds me up that I have to show no smoking signs in my company car - nobody has ever smoked in my car - nor will they - I don't need a fecking sign! We don't have "no committing murder in this vehicle" signs or signs to tell us what not to do in many places. In fact we have few signs on the roads to tell us what the speed limit is - just cameras to catch us for breaking the unknown limit .... I digress .....

Not off the point at all. In fact it makes the point well.
FFS take responsibility for your own actions and stop paying for/expecting a police force/justice system to change your nappies.

[BikerGran]

Smoking is dangerous. Drinking is dangerous. Most of the foods we eat are dangerous. Riding bikes is dangerous.

I rest my case.


Oh no, I don't.

If I'm eating a kitkat while driving and there's a crisis, I can drop it with no ill effects .... not quite the same with a stick of fire.

Bit of a NIMBY here! If you're eating a kitkat while driving, you're not in full control of your vehicle. Oh and changing gear is dangerous cos you have to take your hand off the wheel, so everyone should drive automatics. No, what am I saying? Driving is dangerous, that should be banned too.
Oh and we can't go back to horse drawn transport, cos horses fart too much, that would be bad for global warming or something.

Oh feck it, living is just too dangerous, lets all commit suicide.

[Firestarter]

I'd written a long, snotty post, but I deleted it. So I'll summarise (trust me, the longish post below is shorter than the original!):

ANTI-smoking campaigners are calling for parents to be banned from lighting up in their own cars to protect children.

From the link in Sam's post. The main point here being PARENTS vs CHILDREN, not smokers vs anti-smoking lobby. Kids get little/no say in what their parents inflict upon them. It's nothing to do with the anti-smoking lobby (well the paranoid among you might think it's another excuse to stop you smoking, you just might be right - I can't second-guess the "real" motives behind this) but I think the net benefit to kids (especially babies and young children) far outways the "restriction" on your civil liberties. What about your kid's rights, not to have to smoke? I'm happy to see this as a benefit to kids, not as a "reduction" in your freedom.

To me, it's nothing to do with stopping YOUR choice, it's about ensuring your kids get a choice. Sam, spot on - you said everyone should take responsibility for their own actions and stop waiting for someone else to put a law in to stop you. Great, admirable attitude, but what about all the arseholes who don't share that attitude, and don't consider that sticking their kids in a smoke-filled box might not be advantageous to their health? And then complain how crap their health is due to smoking, and wished their kids didn't smoke?

You want to smoke, by all means smoke. I don't give a sh!t, it's your right to do what you like. I drink, I ride a bike (not after drinking, smart-arse!) , I do things that may be dangerous because I want to and get enjoyment from them. I don't make anyone else do these things, I don't make other people process the alchol in my system through their bodies. So I won't subject them to smoke either just cos I might want to smoke myself.

Rant over

[Firestarter]

Smoking is dangerous. Drinking is dangerous. Most of the foods we eat are dangerous. Riding bikes is dangerous.

I rest my case.

Oh no, I don't.

Oh feck it, living is just too dangerous, lets all commit suicide.

Quick follow-up - yes BG, life is dangerous - there's a risk involved every time you step out the door. But you choose those risks, which ones you feel are acceptable to you. The kids in the smoke-filled steel box don't get that choice - there's a proven increase in the risk of getting cancer from smoking, the kids in that car don't get the choice over whether the increased risk of cancer to them is worth the nicotine hit that their parents get from the fag.

[BikerGran]

And if they ban smoking in cars I won't get the choice to smoke in my own car. My kids are grown up, and when my grandchildren are in the car I choose not to smoke in it. When they're not, I choose to smoke. It is, after all, one of the few places left where I can smoke.

[Samray]

Quick follow-up - yes BG, life is dangerous - there's a risk involved every time you step out the door. But you choose those risks, which ones you feel are acceptable to you. The kids in the smoke-filled steel box don't get that choice - there's a proven increase in the risk of getting cancer from smoking, the kids in that car don't get the choice over whether the increased risk of cancer to them is worth the nicotine hit that their parents get from the fag.

I think you are getting very confused about the difference between smoking and passive smoking.
If you are suggesting that passive smoking causes cancer please supply sources.
The World Health Organisation doesnt seem to agree.

Critique of the Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places Section 3.6 This section, relying on a WHO publication of 1999 as the Committee’s fourth “key document,” continues the misdirection of Section 3.4 and also ignores the fact that in the previous year, 1998, the WHO published its own massive international case-control study of the effects of secondary smoke. That study was notable in that it failed to deliver almost any significant findings with regard to harm from exposure to secondary smoke. Note that I said “almost,” because the single scientifically significant finding that did come out of that report has been buried deeply by Antismoking publicists. Referencing the study itself in Appendix A one finds that the WHO did indeed find something significant: children of smokers eventually developed 22% LESS lung cancer than matched children of nonsmokers. The pressure against admitting such a finding publicly was so great that the authors themselves classified it as simply indicating “no association” in their study abstract despite the fact that it was the single significant finding in their entire report. For the Committee to emphasize the 1999 finding while ignoring the 1998 study is a clear case of misdirection and misfeasance of their charter. Again, the proper remedy as recommended earlier should be applied.

[kneescratch]

Quick follow-up - yes BG, life is dangerous - there's a risk involved every time you step out the door. But you choose those risks, which ones you feel are acceptable to you. The kids in the smoke-filled steel box don't get that choice - there's a proven increase in the risk of getting cancer from smoking, the kids in that car don't get the choice over whether the increased risk of cancer to them is worth the nicotine hit that their parents get from the fag.

I think you are getting very confused about the difference between smoking and passive smoking.
If you are suggesting that passive smoking causes cancer please supply sources.
The World Health Organisation doesnt seem to agree.

Critique of the Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places Section 3.6 This section, relying on a WHO publication of 1999 as the Committee’s fourth “key document,” continues the misdirection of Section 3.4 and also ignores the fact that in the previous year, 1998, the WHO published its own massive international case-control study of the effects of secondary smoke. That study was notable in that it failed to deliver almost any significant findings with regard to harm from exposure to secondary smoke. Note that I said “almost,” because the single scientifically significant finding that did come out of that report has been buried deeply by Antismoking publicists. Referencing the study itself in Appendix A one finds that the WHO did indeed find something significant: children of smokers eventually developed 22% LESS lung cancer than matched children of nonsmokers. The pressure against admitting such a finding publicly was so great that the authors themselves classified it as simply indicating “no association” in their study abstract despite the fact that it was the single significant finding in their entire report. For the Committee to emphasize the 1999 finding while ignoring the 1998 study is a clear case of misdirection and misfeasance of their charter. Again, the proper remedy as recommended earlier should be applied.

What a load of BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about all the other deseases and problems passive smoking causes?????????

Don't make kids breath your second hand smoke...........Wether in the car or not......

[Kwackerz]

Quick follow-up - yes BG, life is dangerous - there's a risk involved every time you step out the door. But you choose those risks, which ones you feel are acceptable to you. The kids in the smoke-filled steel box don't get that choice - there's a proven increase in the risk of getting cancer from smoking, the kids in that car don't get the choice over whether the increased risk of cancer to them is worth the nicotine hit that their parents get from the fag.

I think you are getting very confused about the difference between smoking and passive smoking.
If you are suggesting that passive smoking causes cancer please supply sources.
The World Health Organisation doesnt seem to agree.

Critique of the Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places Section 3.6 This section, relying on a WHO publication of 1999 as the Committee’s fourth “key document,” continues the misdirection of Section 3.4 and also ignores the fact that in the previous year, 1998, the WHO published its own massive international case-control study of the effects of secondary smoke. That study was notable in that it failed to deliver almost any significant findings with regard to harm from exposure to secondary smoke. Note that I said “almost,” because the single scientifically significant finding that did come out of that report has been buried deeply by Antismoking publicists. Referencing the study itself in Appendix A one finds that the WHO did indeed find something significant: children of smokers eventually developed 22% LESS lung cancer than matched children of nonsmokers. The pressure against admitting such a finding publicly was so great that the authors themselves classified it as simply indicating “no association” in their study abstract despite the fact that it was the single significant finding in their entire report. For the Committee to emphasize the 1999 finding while ignoring the 1998 study is a clear case of misdirection and misfeasance of their charter. Again, the proper remedy as recommended earlier should be applied.

Source: World Health Organisation.

FACT SHEET

How passive smoking damages health and kills

This information is taken from WHO's new publication, the second edition of
Air quality guidelines for Europe.

Chronic exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been found to lead to significant increases in deaths from lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases in nonsmokers.

There is no evidence for a safe level of exposure to ETS.

In Europe, WHO estimates that exposure to ETS causes some 3000-4500 cases of cancer in adults per year.

The impact of ETS on public health is most likely substantially greater for cardiovascular diseases than for cancer.

In many European countries, over 50% of homes contain at least one smoker, resulting in a high prevalence of ETS exposure for children and other nonsmokers. Many nonsmokers are similarly exposed at work.

Populations at special risk from ETS are young children and infants, people with asthma and adults with other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.

Each year, ETS is responsible for 300 000-550 000 episodes of lower respiratory illness in infants.

ETS reduces the birth weight of the babies of nonsmoking mothers. Recent evidence also suggests that ETS is a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). For asthmatic children, ETS increases the severity and frequency of asthma attacks.

ETS irritates the eyes and respiratory tract, and increases the risk of pneumonia and bronchitis.

http://www.euro.who.int/mediacentre/PR/2001/20010909_4

Shouldnt need a ban on smoking in cars with kids in it tho' should be common sense.