[jeffsinclair]

just heard on the news that the government are talking about banning smoking in cars if they have kids in. FFS this is the nanny state gone mad. I know smoking around kids is bad for them( i smoke, tying to give up, but i don't smoke around bairns) but surely it should be down to the individual. I can see it going down the way of some American companies whose no smoking policy extends into their employees homes. George Orwell may have been onto something.
Jeff

[Grubes]

it would be a great law like a pregnant woman been able to piss in a bobbys hats in the street or no using your phone while driving. Its probably as enforcable too.

[tomtom]

Do you think there should be a law against putting little drops of mercury on your childs breakfast every morning?

As smoking in a car with a child in the car is slowly poisoning them...

[slackline]

Ban cars, they result in lots of unnecessary and avoidable deaths.

[Luke Owens]

just heard on the news that the government are talking about banning smoking in cars if they have kids in.

Good, why should children be subjected to passive smoking when they have no choice in the matter?

[SA Chris]

i don't smoke around bairns

Just because you don't it doesn't mean others won't. There are some fucking stupid people out there who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, are convinced that smoking is not bad for you and it's all a conspiracy theory. They really don't give a shit about their kids health who, in spite of additional evidence that passive smoking has an even worse effect on growing kids than adults, will still subject their kids to it. I personally think the ban should be extended to people's homes if they have young children. At least give their kids a fighting chance at growing up healthy.

[jeffsinclair]

agree with a lot of the comments, but shouldn't it be a personal choice? there are a lot of idiots about who still use mobiles while driving, but i havent heard of anyone getting done for it. think the goverment should man up and either ban smoking outright( which they wont do because of the taxes they rake in) or leave smokers alone. having said that i disagreed with the ban in pubs, and i have to admit i was wrong and they are a nicer place to be in, but to extend that to your own private and personal space is a step too far i think.

[Grubes]

I know a few people who have been done for using a phone while driving.
3points and a decent sized fine (£80ish) but the percentage of people who get caught is low.

As for smoking with kids in the car ... If your stupid enough to put kids through that you probably deserve the fine/points etc.

Catching some one smoking in a car with a kid will be even harder to enforce unless you have a police car next to you at lights while you are smoking its not that easy to spot.

[SA Chris]

agree with a lot of the comments, but shouldn't it be a personal choice? there are a lot of idiots about who still use mobiles while driving, but i havent heard of anyone getting done for it.

I've heard of many people getting done for using phone when driving. And as i said before, there are people out there stupid enough to beleive it does no harm. Yes, by all means kill yourself in any way you choose, but don't let your kids be victims of your addiction.

[rginns]

there are a lot of idiots about who still use mobiles while driving, but i havent heard of anyone getting done for it.

I've heard of a few cases in Lancashire of people being fined/banned due to driving using a mobile.

For me surely this could be covered by dangerous driving laws - i.e. using your hands to do something else other than control the car (oh, and 'I was using my knees to steer' apparantly doesn't cut it any more, not even in Yorkshire.)
What if you drop your fag on the floor? clearly you'll be more interested in putting it out than the bend you're heading towards.
If someone can be fined for eating an apple, then smoking shouldn't be exempt.

Of course, won't make a difference if you're parked up. Child protection laws?
While I instinctively am against the state getting involved in this sort of thing, I'm also a Dad and think a child's health outweighs the 'choice' argument.
Tricky...

[GCW]

i don't smoke around bairns

There is good evidence that the toxins from smoke stay on your clothes, hair, skin etc and are still harmful to children even if you don't smoke in their presence.

Like Pasty Lord, I'm not a big fan of nanny state stuff but I'd be in favour of this ban.

[slackline]

i don't smoke around bairns

There is good evidence that the toxins from smoke stay on your clothes, hair, skin etc and are still harmful to children even if you don't smoke in their presence.

Do you have any citations/references that quantify how much of an increased risk of various diseases this actually imparts (after disentangling the multitude of other risk factors of course)?

[GCW]

Not on me, but there was a fair bit came out a number of years ago.  Plenty of links here.

[petejh]

...FFS this is the nanny state gone mad. I know smoking around kids is bad for them( i smoke, tying to give up, but i don't smoke around bairns) but surely it should be down to the individual.

It still is down to the individual - as are most choices to break the law. All that's changed is that children will be afforded protection under law from being harmed by somebody else's actions, in this case enforced passive smoking (which kills). I can't see any good arguments against. I'd go further and say it should be unlawful to smoke in your own house if you have kids under 16; you shouldn't give an 8-year-old strong alcohol, you'd be breaking the law if you did. Why should you making them breathe your damaging smoke be acceptable?

[slackline]

you shouldn't give an 8-year-old strong alcohol, why should you make them breathe damaging smoke?

Perhaps extend that to open fires too then as beyond the immediate injury risk there are also health consequences (obviously a far greater problem in developing countries than centrally heated western homes and one of the things the Honnold foundation is seeking to alleviate, but open fires still persist and are used throughout the UK).

Not on me, but there was a fair bit came out a number of years ago.  Plenty of links here.

Thanks, I'll skim through that on the train tomorrow as I've a boring meeting to go to.

I ask because many things might increase (or decrease) risk, but the clinical difference (quantified however you want, such as odds-ratio or relative risk) may actually be so small as to be meaningless (albeit statistically significant in a large enough sample size), so worrying about them can be fruitless.

The greater risk in my opinion is to normalise smoking to youngsters who may then take up smoking themselves later in life.  We all know smoking is bad and kills, so why not make it illegal?  That'll be because government make lots of tax from it and if it were illegal the market would go underground and be in the hands of "criminals" with loss of quality control, much like all those other things which are currently illegal for which it would make a great deal of sense to legalise and treat addiction as a medical problem rather than to criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens.  Nice double standards there.

[Luke Owens]

...FFS this is the nanny state gone mad. I know smoking around kids is bad for them( i smoke, tying to give up, but i don't smoke around bairns) but surely it should be down to the individual.

It still is down to the individual - as are most choices to break the law. All that's changed is that children will be afforded protection under law from being harmed by somebody else's actions, in this case enforced passive smoking (which kills). I can't see any good arguments against. I'd go further and say it should be unlawful to smoke in your own house if you have kids under 16; you shouldn't give an 8-year-old strong alcohol, you'd be breaking the law if you did. Why should you making them breathe your damaging smoke be acceptable?

+1 Spot on

[Monolith]

With respect to the phones/driving argument; I might never have seen anybody 'done' for it directly but my father was a fireman for 30 years and had picked the brains of people using them up off the floor on far more than one occasion.

I would gladly see a ban on smoking in cars with children present enforced.

[Jim]

I would also like to see it made illigal to smoke not only in cars with children but also in any indoor/confined space

[petejh]

you shouldn't give an 8-year-old strong alcohol, why should you make them breathe damaging smoke?

Perhaps extend that to open fires too then as beyond the immediate injury risk there are also health consequences (obviously a far greater problem in developing countries than centrally heated western homes and one of the things the Honnold foundation is seeking to alleviate, but open fires still persist and are used throughout the UK).

Yes and perhaps then extend it further to include children cycling to school because cycling carries statistically greater risk of injury than driving, for the same journey. Of course I don't think that, just as I don't think open fires are worth considering for the cost/benefit involved. Whereas putting measures in place to reduce the 'smoking in enclosed spaces in the presence of kids' (I think anyone, not just kids) hazard is far more weighted in terms of benefit to many (including children) versus cost to some. It's also not necessary to smoke to stay warm and avoid illness.

[slackline]

Quite, and the rest of my post you've quoted gives my thoughts on how much risk I think is worth worrying about.

[Sloper]

The ideal solution is to stop stupid peolpe having kids.

[tomtom]

The ideal solution is to stop stupid peolpe having kids.

Including ones that can't spell? :D

[Sloper]

ohh dear, I though trying to score points for poor typing was so last century.

[GCW]

Amusingly ironic nonetheless   

[tomtom]

ohh dear, I though trying to score points for poor typing was so last century.

Yeah - sorry, its a lowish blow - but you've got to admit that given the context its quite funny