Smoking ban

[Steve Walker]

The BMA does not want to ban it for road safety reasons. Ostensibly, they want to ban it to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, the real motive is simply to further reduce the availability of opportunities for people to smoke. They believe that if they make smoking inconvenient enough, more people will quit.

 

The existing law, which has been used to prosecute people for driving carelessly while eating, drinking or applying makeup, would also cover someone driving carelessly because they were smoking. As far as I know, there haven't been cases where someone has been seen to be driving badly as a result of smoking and prosecuted for it, which suggests to me that a separate and explicit prohibition is probably not justified by the scale of the problem.

[Andrew]

Not really. You did kinda throw a curveball by saying

 

 

When i said " us " it meant to cover non smokers also. But not to worry, alls well that ends well, innit

[DavyR]

They believe that if they make smoking inconvenient enough, more people will quit.

 

They won't though, will they? They'll just carry on, but with an ever-expanding image of themselves as Martyrs To The Cause Of Freedom.

[Steve Walker]

They won't though, will they? They'll just carry on, but with an ever-expanding image of themselves as Martyrs To The Cause Of Freedom.

 

I don't know, it might work - that's what they believe. I don't think efficacy is really the issue, though. I think the BMA has enough good intentions to pave a motorway, but it is rather too keen on coercion for my liking, and rather too disingenuous in making its case.

[chesters1]

They won't though, will they? They'll just carry on, but with an ever-expanding image of themselves as Martyrs To The Cause Of Freedom.

 

no they give up when they want to ,if a packet of fags is a fiver ? then force wont work.

i gave up when i decided to and the help in the form of champix was available (there is the addiction factor most people dont just smoke because they want to).

i gave up and my daughter seeing if i a hard line smoker could used champix and she quit ,force really doesn't work even with stuff that most probably is harmful

 

not my first attempt i used patches and zyban but had a miserable existence which just reinforced the idea smoking was nice ,champix was different it worked but it doesnt remove the cravings i get even 3 years later thats where the will power comes in ,as for the benefits other than my mrs spending what i saved giving up theres nothing yet

Edited November 18, 2011 by chesters1

[Now there's a right un.]

You're right. The state shouldn't stop you from smoking in a car containing your infants.

Perhaps they should simply unfetter the regulation on the insurance industry and force you to declare that you are smoking in your car and let them adjust your premiums appropriately.

After All you are driving around whilst periodically destroying your night vision by waving a flame in front of your face. You are also sucking on a mixture of carbon monoxide (which will reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood and hence make you less alert) and the drugs that you are smoking the cigarettes to get.

That's gotta increase your risk of an accident right ?

Perhaps they should be allowed to share this information with your life insurance provider who would I'm sure be interested to know that you are exposing yourself to smoke in the closed environment of a car.

Why not even go a stage further so the insurance companies can force you to disclose the names of any children that you expose to smoke in your car so they can be charged higher premiums latter in life.

Isn't there a Bible phrase about this ? "The sins of the fathers.......?"

Or perhaps you would rather be protected from what the insurance industry would really like to be able to do by some sort of "Nanny State" style system of regulation of financial service providers and protection of personal information.....?

 

 

 

 

I agree smoking in the presence of children is harmful.

 

However, on your own in your own car ffs come on.

 

What next ban FARTING in your own car in case you have to screw up your burning eyes and quickly open a window thus taking your attention off the road.

 

We are being pushed into boxes...do this don't do that...our own freedoms are slowly being eroded.

 

IF THEY WANT TO STOP SMOKING THEY SHOULD FCKING BAN IT OUTRIGHT!!! and I don't smoke.

[Sportsman]

The problem is that banning things just doesn't work.

Recreational drugs have been banned for many many years and are used more widely now than at any time in history. The same would happen with tobacco.

Banning alcohol in the States invented a whole new organised crime industry just as banning recreational drugs has done.

Personally I would legalise it all and let people kill themselves any way they want, just like they do now with alcohol and tobacco. The problem is they tend to be irresponsible and kill other people.

[Andy_1984]

im a heavy smoker, 40 roll ups a day more or less. no way is that going to stop me smoking, even the ever increasing price rises in tobacco hasnt stopped me, if given the choice of buying my lunch or a pouch of tobacco ill get the tobacco. which ive done many times.

 

as for stopping me smoking in my own personal property they can go to hell. i try not to smoke in the car with my nephew in it or if the cravings get to much on a long journey its down with the windows and on with the ac.

[Phone]

All,

 

I'm a heavy smoker. It is "banned" in the city limits of Kansas City, a city of a couple million and 200 sq/mi. First, a ban has to be enforceable. It's a joke. We'll be back to the days of victory gardens. OTOH, I guess history always repeats itself.

Second, I hope they don't ban everything that, in someone's eyes, is "bad" for me. The common preception of food is - "if it tastes good - spit it out. Our bodys like fats and sugars. Not healthy?!

 

IMO the health care industry is subversively in favor of affliction. They are not considerate of quality of life for you, me or my kids. I'm positive they, my Dr's, have no idea how the 12 medications I take interact with each other in my specific body. It's a crap shoot.

 

Phone

[Lee Enfield]

All,

 

I'm a heavy smoker. It is "banned" in the city limits of Kansas City, a city of a couple million and 200 sq/mi. First, a ban has to be enforceable. It's a joke. We'll be back to the days of victory gardens. OTOH, I guess history always repeats itself.

Second, I hope they don't ban everything that, in someone's eyes, is "bad" for me. The common preception of food is - "if it tastes good - spit it out. Our bodys like fats and sugars. Not healthy?!

 

IMO the health care industry is subversively in favor of affliction. They are not considerate of quality of life for you, me or my kids. I'm positive they, my Dr's, have no idea how the 12 medications I take interact with each other in my specific body. It's a crap shoot.

 

Phone

 

I did smoke, I went through 60 cigs aday easy when you are driving long distance but give it up 25yrs ago. my personal opinion is

that it is already a nanny state, if you take drugs, if you drink alcohol, if you over eat, if you abuse your body in any way then accept the

consequences, the state should not be providing care for people who get ill through self harm.

As for Doctors, Well I knew a doctor who chain smoked and would not treat anyone with chest problems who smoked and, became the leading oncologist in the Manchester district. Smokeing in cars or when chikdren are in closed areas is a No No.

Dave