Ban smoking in cars with children
The effects of passive smoking to children in cars. A study (January 2011) found tobacco toxins inside a car with a smoker were comparable to those in a smoke-filled pub before the smoking ban.
Ban all smoking in cars where a child may be present. Previous bans on driving while intoxicated, with a mobile phone or without a seatbelt, are the most effective way of changing behaviour.
The dangers of second hand smoke
Second hand smoke is smoke that is either breathed out by a smoker or comes from the burning end of a cigarette/cigar/pipe.
It contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which have been confirmed as causing cancer.
There is no safe level of exposure
Every year in the UK because of exposure to second hand smoke:
10,000 children are admitted to hospital
300,000 visits to their doctors surgery
Can result in 25,000 children under the age of 16 years starting to smoke
The costs to the health service are significant
Children are at greater risk of:
Breathing problems: asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, lower respiratory infection
Glue ear: can cause deafness
Tips for a smoke free car:
Try to always take smoking outside
Try to make your car a smoke free car at all times for everyone
Have a cigarette before and after your journey
On long car journeys, stop, have a break and smoke outside the car
Remove car cigarette lighters
Clear out car ash trays
Issued by the Communications Team, Office of External Affairs, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen. Tel: (01224) 272014.
Issued on: 20 January 2011
Started 124 weeks 6 days ago
markspringettCllr - Date posted: 29 May 2013 14:21
The benefits are obvious, enforcement is another matter.
Would you deliberately give your child a toxin ?
Some parts of Australia ban smoking in cars when a child is in the car.
Vellocatus, I could happily get into a discussion about Nazism and the Jewish situation but I think that would be highly inappropriate considering this debate is about something entirely different. I assure you we are taught the same way and I did not find your questions at all difficult. Just because we disagree on something we do not need to be derogatory.
I read your link and found it interesting. I would have to look deeper into it because that one article is not enough evidence. That article does, however, argue for smoking rather than passive smoking. Arguably, it could be presumed that a passive smoker may receive some of the benefits, if there are indeed any.
I am not actually anti-smoking. I did not support the ban on smoking in bars and so on.
My argument concerns freedom of choice.
I used my own example because as a child I did not have the choice whether I wished to be subjected to sitting in a confined space for hours with a smoker or not. As an adult I now refuse to sit in a car with a smoker. That is the significant difference. I personally find smoking unpleasant because it leaves everything stinking and it never left me feeling very good after being around it for a while. I always felt very wheezy, bunged up, light headed and sick.
In addition, I have been told by several doctors that my chest problems are because I smoked too much when I was younger - I have never smoked, which they could not accept no matter how much I protested. They were adamant that with the complaints I was having I had to have been a smoker. Admittedly, Vellocatus, you will probably dispute this and tell me that I was gullible to believe them. Perhaps I was gullible, but I am not trained in medicine and my physical situation was very real to me.
Vellocatus, you are opposed to banning smoking in a car with children present because that is your personal view. I support the idea because that is mine. I am not supporting this because anyone is telling me to. We disagree on something but it does not mean either of us are uneducated, stupid or gullible. We simply disagree and that is something that comes with argument and democracy. This occurs a lot in a History class - opposing views, but dealt with in a respectable manner and not lowering to derogatory remarks.
The Nazi propaganda campaign is VERY relevant to todays anti-smoker campaign Hadyn. I notice that while you say you would not find my questions difficult - you make no attempt to answer any of them, but refer to this as 'inappropriate' - these questions are far from inappropriate! (Don’t worry, NO ONE has ever answered these questions satisfactorily) Exploitation of children, and emotive response to childrens health is probably the best tool in the propagandist's toolbox. Hitler knew it;
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
" (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403 )
You think this is just one narrow issue - that SHS is harmful to children! If is was then yes, the anticipated response would be to agree that their health is of utmost importance NO ONE would disagree with this - BUT- it is far more complex than that. SHS is NOT harmful and almost ALL the evidence suggests this.
Hitler again: “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”
I am opposed to banning smoking in cars because the purpose is NOT to protect children - the purpose is to USE children as means to impose a fanatical, socially engineered, decades long agenda on an unsuspecting public.
Interesting that your GPs wouldn't accept your non-smoker status. A study was done some years ago where doctors death certs were examined and post mortem exams done (when they would normally not be). They found some remarkable results - eg smokers were more likely to be wrongly diagnosed with 'smoke related' deaths and non-smokers the opposite. They were wrong much of the time (haven't got the actual figures to hand). The 'moral' was that doctors are just as likely to have been brainwashed with anti-smoker rhetoric/propaganda as anyone else. In fact the medical profession has been subjected to far more anti-tobacco propaganda over a much longer period of time than other section of society.
"We disagree on something but it does not mean either of us are uneducated, stupid or gullible." I agree, but, closing your mind to possibilities that initially may appear absurd because of years of 'education', WITHOUT making any attempt to verify WOULD suggest gullibility (eg Goodfellows “Don't believe him, believe me, cos ee is a liar an me is telin the truffe’).
There is much much more to the anti-smoker deception than we have discussed here but I hope I have highlighted a few contradictions and anomalies to anti-smoker rhetoric and provided some evidence that would spur the reader into looking deeper, however, as the saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water but...'
Your campaign to 'protect' children will not result in anything of the sort nor will those children you wish to 'protect' thank you for this, it is more likely that they may even despise you for surrendering their future freedoms.
Oh, and read your previous post for derogatory comments Hadyn.
Last word goes to Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda expert);
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Cant support this campaign at all.
Ah..... ban it in cars with children.
Well its already banned in work places and work cars so that only leaves private individuals in cars with children.
How precisely would you like this enforced.... perhaps we could enfored it in the same way as the mobile phone ban. I.e. it is mostly ignored by police officers. Hence mostly ignored by drivers.
We dont even stop people who speed with any regularity as you will notice if you travel on any motorway. How far would you like resources stretched. Id rather they actualy banned people for speeding and pulled them over for dangerous driving than spent time dealing with a smoker.
Furthermore children are rather small....
would we like every smoker in a car pulled over to check for possible toddlers? What age of child would you like this applied to, shall we then pull over cars to check the passengers age? Are you going to pull over smokers with vapourisers on the basis it might be a cigarette?
This appears unenforcable and largely uneeded, anyone who smokes with their child in a car will smoke with their child in their home. So claiming its for the health of the children is nonsense. You need to legislate against doing it at home as well.
Which basically means what you actually want is a complete ban.
Flannel - I agree with your comments about how enforceable such a ban could be.
The last thing that I would want is a complete ban because you can see how well bans have worked with other drugs. Driving it underground can be more dangerous, and the Government would lose lots of tax and duty revenue!
This is about education of how dangerous smoking and passive smoking can be, compared to other life choices.
I also agree with Flannel and Steven moyes comments about how enforceable such a ban could be.
But it is similar to wearing seat belts and not using a mobile phone. People don't listen to the education and the nicely nicely approach. That's why it needs to be seen as illegal. It won't be the police just giving fines but the general public will not tolerate it when they see it. How many times have you complained to somebody driving near you with a mobile phone talking and driving? I complain all the time to anybodyt I see as they could buy a hands free kit for £20 or pull over and take the phone call.
If education worked then that would be fine but people just don't act on it therefore the best way to stop it is for it to illegal.
These are innocent children having their health damaged by an inconsiderant adult.
Actually they do act on education hence the drop in smoking since the HEalt implications were made clear and we stopped advertising them as 'the doctors choice.'
Your point about mobile phones proves exactly the opposite of what you state. It is not enforced with any regularity and therfore most people dont see it as a problem so they continue to do it so..... No, illegalising something does not make the public toe the line where education will not. See also Cannabis .
If anyone really belived this was neccessary they would be trying to ban smoking in any home or place with children not just in cars.
If it's banned in cars, it'll be banned in all public places and eventually homes. This process is so predictable. I've taken a close interest ever since the fraudulent smoking ban was enforced, so I know how this works. Drip, drip, drip. Even you must have noticed how drinkers are now a major target. What's the latest? Oh yea, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, smokers and the obese will be refused certain treatments. How can any intelligent person not see where this is going?
Tobacco Control present corrupt evidence. It's as simple as that. Try, if you can, to place your prejudices to one side and do some in depth research.
Bear in mind that virtually all the sources that have been quoted by ASH etc are studies etc that have been sponsored by groups who seek to denormalise smokers and/or make profits from nicotine marketing. Basically anti tobacco studies seek to find tenuous associations, rather than unbiased evidence. Epidemiology is the main tool, usually utter junk and an insult to those scientists who place integrity before career advancement and financial gain. When it comes to tobacco any university, other research groups or fake charities such as ASH are hardly likely to be granted more funding if they come up with the wrong results. ASH, of course, NEVER come fail to disappoint. Even if others do, their studies are usually buried or ignored. Post normal science - make an assumption and then concoct the evidence to 'prove it'. Believe me, you are being hoodwinked and exploited.
I understand that you'll probably not bother to seek out the other side of the argument, so I'll leave you with a bit of light entertainment...these guys are good at spotting a con trick.........
Post your message