On 19 Nov 2011 at 8:46am Paul Newman wrote:
I see the BMA are once again invading that land we call, ‚??None of your business‚?Ě, suggesting that the state prescribes smoking in your own car. As ever their supposed concern for children is the Trojan horse to boss around adults.
My dad smoked in the car and yet I am ALIVE, perhaps I was lucky, most of my friends survived mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried them. Mine didn`t .She took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer. Ye gods ! Then, this evil woman put me in a cot covered with cheerful lead-based paint in a house made of asbestos.
I went on to survive ,no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets no bike helmets riding in the dad drivingOVER 20 MPH Matt Kent, with no booster seat ,or even seat belt, .
I survived a diet of white bread , real butter ,soft drinks with sugar in it, artic rolls chips ands sweets made of industrial colouring fizz and more sugar.
I left leave home in the morning and came back for tea .No one was able to reach me all day‚?¶and yet ..I LIVE. A day usual spent in trees, jumping bikes, eating worms fighting and yet ‚?¶ .
I survived a catapult for my 10th birthday and a Webley air gun pistol when I was about twelve. Despite all this and to the evident irritation of many people . PAUL NEWMAN appears to have suffered no ill effects. I live ,I breath, I speak, and I say .BMA‚?¶SOD OFF ! I `ll decide what I do in the car ,( or rather Mrs. Newman will and she won`t let me smoke ‚?¶sigh‚?¶)
Mornin‚?? heroic members of the "I survived" club.Think what I `ll do next is go out , drive at over 20MPH and LOOK WHERE I AM GOING!
On 19 Nov 2011 at 8:51am DFL wrote:
Paul, for heaven's sake, just be reasonable and sensible about these things, there are always excepts to the rule - everything in moderation....although smoking and drinking too much will not be good for you in the end.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 8:52am DFL wrote:
You're not having a bad hair day are you Paul ?
On 19 Nov 2011 at 9:31am Grunge wrote:
Paul: in your first post, I think you meant "proscribed" not "prescribed". The latter means you are told to do it; the former means that you are told NOT to do it. I am sure you know that anyway, so it must be the bad hair day.
Regarding passive smoking in the car, I have survived it so far, but who knows what the future will bring.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 9:50am Paul Newman wrote:
Quite so Mr. Grunge should have stuck to 'ban' and not tried to be smarty pants.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 10:50am Extra wrote:
And who exactly will enforce this proposed ban?
On 19 Nov 2011 at 11:26am Southover Queen wrote:
Rarely do I agree with PN, but on this subject I have some sympathy: I think trying to stop people smoking in cars is probably doomed to failure as a violation of civil liberties.
I think though that there is a much clearer danger associated with smoking in cars, and that is that it's quite likely to be dangerous - what if you drop a lighted cigarette into your lap, for instance (every smoker has done this) or what about faffing around getting a fag out of the packet and then lighting it? It's got to be as distracting as using a mobile phone. Ban it for that reason maybe, but not because it's a quicker way to kill yourself sometime in the future.
And here's a question which naturally arises from PN's point: what about treating people who have actively contributed to their illness? Should we stop treating people with smoking related lung cancer on the NHS? If it can be shown that the risk of an illness has been significantly enhanced because of some extreme activity (such as smoking in the car?) do you reduce the right that person has to treatment?
On 19 Nov 2011 at 1:20pm Paul Newman wrote:
Arguing in the car causes more accidents .Why not stop treating fat people , drinkers, horse riders , rugby players demolition workers. If we all got our money back and had to buy insurance I could live with that.If the government provides universal care with our money then its universal, end of.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 4:14pm DFL wrote:
It's the SMELL though, isn't it, absolutely awful, like nestling up to an ashtray, yuk.
But help yourselves, please don't let me stop you....how are the lungs by the way, still gurgling nicely with tar...
On 19 Nov 2011 at 5:10pm cyclist wrote:
Given that travelling by car appears to be fairly dangerous (according to statistics) and that the main reason for the smoking in cars is that it harms children, would it not be easier to just ban children from cars? An added bonus would be that it may help with the childhood obesity problem.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 7:24pm Matt Kent wrote:
Blimey. Sepp Blatter'll be on here next saying, 'You'll always expect a bit of racist banter on the football pitch, but after the game it's OK to shake hands and forget about it.'
@Paul. Society changes, humankind supposedly evolves, but peoples expectations and outlook in life change also (not necessarily for the good in some cases). We will all probably wake up one day and have a good old rant about those halcyon days. Underpinned by the erosion of morals, living in the disposable global village, and having a thirst for consumables, life moves at a technologically hellish pace. And from what you suggest above you dote on a life of a little less conformity and a little more chaos. Maybe I've read that wrong.
Apart from the little dig Paul, I look forward to you bombing past my kids school in your backlash to the nanny state. The safety, future and wellbeing of our children, however, should never be ignored.
On 19 Nov 2011 at 11:31pm Not again wrote:
I'd say it was pretty obvious that Newmans parents had passed damaged genes on to him.
On 20 Nov 2011 at 11:44am brixtonbelle wrote:
I actually agree with Paul ! Oh Cripes. Alexander Chancellor in the Guardian on Friday gets it right I think. if smoking is so dangerous to health then ban it completely. Until then people should be allowed to smoke in their own private spaces including cars and homes.
On 20 Nov 2011 at 1:13pm Mme B wrote:
As one (a non smoker) whose ex used to insist on driving whlle chain smoking with the windows shut, whether alone or with me and the children, I can't agree with you, BB. In those days we didn't really know about passive smoking, but the stink alone is offensive, let alone the health risk.
On 20 Nov 2011 at 2:33pm Hay Nonnie Mouse wrote:
If I were you I wouldn't be so smug...I'm still alive only applies to today who knows what tomorrow brings?
How dare parents inflict this on innocent lungs, not caring whether your kids develop asthma or suffer when they have colds or infections is bad enough, putting them at risk of cancer is abuse, putting other drivers at risk because you aren't concentrating is a risk we can avoid. We all know we made a mistake when cigarettes were invented - smoking is only perceived as a pleasure by the addicted. We need to take measures to get rid of this horrific habit which causes nothing but sufferering. A quarter of all smokers will die because of their habit, mostly long slow painful deaths. It's a ridiculous, stupid activity.
On 20 Nov 2011 at 5:18pm Paul Newman wrote:
Hay Nonnie Mouse- Then why not have the state set up cameras in your home to stop you smoking there ? Why not force fat people to turn up a state farm and lose weight .They all kill themselves with heart failure and look repulsive in the meantime . We need to get rid of this scourge which brings me to drinking ....
On 20 Nov 2011 at 9:37pm Mercian wrote:
Indeed, society moves on. No doubt when child labour was banned, or slavery abolished, someone like Paul was standing on a box banging on about infringing people's liberty to own slaves or liberty to set their children to work.
On 21 Nov 2011 at 9:21am Dingo wrote:
Paul will be defending the right to shove kids up chimneys next.
On 21 Nov 2011 at 9:55am Ed Can Do wrote:
Does anyone have any decent statistics about how many accidents are caused by someone smoking in the car and how many are caused by old people driving around who took their test in the 1940's when the roads were a little quieter?
I'm not saying smoking in the car is a good idea, although I do do it myself, but if you're looking for a way to cut down road accidents, I'd suggest compulsary re-tests for people when they hit 60 years old and every 5 years thereafter would be a far more effective method.
As for the danger posed to kids from second hand smoke, I'd argue that anyone callous enough to smoke in the car with their kids is probably going to smoke at home around them too so how long until that gets banned? We all know why smoking will never get banned full stop and it's the same reason a law limiting healthcare access for smokers would never get passed. The tax income from smokers dwarfs the cost to the NHS from smoking related illnesses and without snokers, the public finances would be in an even worse shape. Smokers pay more tax and die earlier, saving on public pensions.
I know that smokers are a popular choice of social pariah these days but at least we pay our way. Fat people are rapidly catching up in terms of a drain on public funds, the sight and smell of fat people is often as bad if not worse than a smoker and they don't pay 65% of the cost of their addiction in tax. I'll support legislation to ban smoking in cars when legislation is introduced prohibiting anyone overweight from using a car for a journey that can reasonably be walked, anything up to a couple of miles for example.
On 21 Nov 2011 at 1:45pm Slarty wrote:
The dangers of driving whilst smoking are not really applicable in this argument as it will ban passengers from smoking too.
I had no objections to my passenger smoking the other day, even though I am a reformed smoker. There were just us two adults in the car, windows were down and I even had the roof off.
Now, why should such an situation be banned, just because some selfish git may smoke with kids in the car. There is no smoking in confined spaces, no little lungs to get poisoned and I was not being put off as I was not smoking.
On 21 Nov 2011 at 5:50pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
"As for the danger posed to kids from second hand smoke, I'd argue that anyone callous enough to smoke in the car with their kids is probably going to smoke at home around them too so how long until that gets banned?"
Took the words right out of my keyboard ECD!
On 22 Nov 2011 at 6:16pm Burn em wrote:
I hope they bring in this ban as soon as possible.
The health issues are obvious - and reaching for cigarettes, lighters etc can be just as distracting for nicotine-addicted drivers as using a mobile phone.
Grow up Newman. You cannot decide what YOU do in YOUR car. Why? Because it affects other people. There are a whole host of rules and laws about what you can and cannot do - for blindingly obvious reasons.
You are espousing such nonsense I wonder if perhaps the catapult, the airgun pellet and the smoke have had some effect...
On 22 Nov 2011 at 6:57pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Knowing how bad tempered and grumpy smokers get when they can't get their fix, I'm inclined to believe it's safer for them to spark up a cig in the car than drive around in a nicotine deprived rage.
On 23 Nov 2011 at 10:02am Brixtonbelle wrote:
Burn 'em - I would normally be against smoking and pro a ban, but I am very concerned about the invasion of private spaces and personal liberties.
Yes, I don't want children (or anyone) to be inhaling second hand smoke but I think this is a slippery slope to the complete invasion of privacy in our lives by the state (or anyone else). Parents who are irresponsibile enough to smoke in a confined space with their kids will continue to do it anyway - in their homes.
Are we then looking at spot checks by the authorities on known smokers, or worse, constant video monitoring by the state, even in our own cars/homes ? We are definitely looking at the criminalisation of parents for what is currently a legal activity - do they then get referrred to social services for bad parenting ?
If it is banned in cars then it has to be banned in homes as well - and then we may as well have a total ban because of the health issues for everyone.
Back to school everyone and re read 1984.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 12:44am AYATOLLAH HOGMANNY wrote:
ACT, totally agree, who wants a driver with nicotine withdrawal!!! I do not drive but I do smoke, my cigs are far less toxic than the car fumes I have to breathe everyday from selfish drivers, how about banning cars, they are far more toxic than cigarette smoke and your kids are exposed to this all day long and everywhere!!!!
On 24 Nov 2011 at 1:28am Burn em wrote:
Brixtonbelle: I would hope that parents would be reported, because it is bad parenting.
I also hope we do have a total ban.
There is a simple way to look at the issue of smoking: Imagine it had never existed. Now try to imagine introducing it i.e. introducing something that is highly addictive and is extremely bad for you and will probably kill you - and that will damage others at the same time.
No right-minded person would want it introduced. And no government would ever allow it.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 10:10am Ed Can Do wrote:
Burn em, whilst your concern for the health and wellbeing of others is commendable, should a total ban on smoking be introduced, how would you suggest the government make up the massive shortfall in income once the tax revenue from cigarettes is gone? This year's take in duty and VAT is estimated at 11.1 billion pounds, that's a fifth of the total spent by local authorities on education in 2010. Perhaps we could ban smoking then shut one in five schools? I don't have kids so it sounds reasonable enough to me but I can see some people complaining.
Whether you're pro or anti smoking, you can't simply cut out a 10 billion pound a year revenue stream from the economy, not to mention all the offies and newsagents that'd go bust without selling tobacco.
On 24 Nov 2011 at 5:24pm Not from around here wrote:
The "safety, future and wellbeing of our children" is the business of the parents, not the state. If people decide to have children then they must decide and crucially take responsibility for those same children.
My Dad smoked, I'm still alive as well!
Personally I can't stand smoking but find myself wanting to defend the rights of smokers to do as they please in their own space.
On 25 Nov 2011 at 11:59am burn em wrote:
Ed: It is well reported that the costs of health care for patients who are ill due to smoking outweighs the income it generates to the national coffers.
NFAH: Sadly parents can not be relied upon to do the best thing for their children.
Are you suggesting it should be up to parents whether or not they send their kids to school for example, or whether or not they should wear a seatbelt? Of course the vast majority of parents do the right thing for their children most of the time. But there are many who don't - or wouldn't, if they weren't compelled to by law. Just last week, for example, I saw a heavily pregnant woman outside Lewes station enjoying two cigarettes...
On 27 Nov 2011 at 1:38am AYATOLLAH HOGMANNY wrote:
burn em, It is the parents responsibility for their child that they decided to bring into this world, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. If you try to interfere with that there is probably some Human Rights Law that says otherwise and if you do you will be accused of all sorts, best let them get on with it and when their child gets killed or injured because of it they have no one to blame but themselves!!!