Jump to content

smoking in your car?


capcloser

Recommended Posts

Dad smoked a lot and was a drinker too,mum was what they called a social smoker,what a strange concept now! Basically she only had the odd fag when they went out.All my aunts and uncles smoked and both my grandads smoked pipes,blimey i should be a kipper by now! Anyway my point was i agree you shouldnt smoke with kids about,car or home,but just cant see the need for another law to enforce it,i dont see it as a police matter.I hope people aren't as stupid and selfish as had enough seems to think
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Longsight Rd in Manchester is well known as the curry mile with lots of Asian curry houses, where the non smoking ban is totally ignored by the Shisha bar owners, but then again these people are a law unto themselves aren't they? Another thing when I was 18 some 54 years ago it was quite acceptable to smoke as an in patient in hospital, the nurses used to come round and ask you did you smoke? and they would supply you with an ashtray, true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough

Wow! I'm learning so much from the political experts on here. When the government introduced new laws about speeding, talking on phones, driving while drunk, smoking in confined spaces or all the other hundreds of pieces of legislation, I was silly enough to think that they were just introducing new laws to make us safer and healthier.

 

I now realise that it's all one big conspiracy to cover up things that they don't want us to notice. When you consider how many laws are introduced in our ever more complex society it makes you realise that there must be hundreds of things that they want to hide!

 

So, I'm agog. Come on guys, what are they trying to divert attention from by mentioning a minor little law about smoking in cars? It must be something huge.

 

Next thing there'll be a law threatening to jail silly conspiracy theorists who can't think for two minutes before opening their mouths. And I wonder what that will be diverting us from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
capcloser - 2014-01-31 9:02 PM

 

The smoking ban was a good idea ..

 

Ah, now I understand you. If you approve of a law it's a good idea. But if you don't it's an erosion of our personal freedoms. What about the freedom of the children who have no say in the matter and who have to breathe in second-hand smoke every day on the school run and on longer journeys.

 

You do need to start thinking a little more deeply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just pause a minute. No one is likely to say smoking is good for us, and it is certainly linked to some fairly nasty health problems, but what if is not the main contributor to these problems? As of a few years ago they had not worked out how it causes the various problems, or why people, and animals, who do not smoke still get cancer and heart problems. What if there is another, even more deadly process, working against us.

We all know that oxygen is one of the most corrosive substances known to man, and there's quite a lot of that around. The rays of the sun can do quite a lot of damage, and this rain will eventually stop. My favourite is the various toxics etc., given of during the use of hydro carbons, and there's an awful lot of extremely wealthy and influential people with money invested in that particular industry, and a government or two who would not want to lose out.

All of these things are connected with health problems, and please don't start on me, but I think that it is not unlikely that we get so much aggro against the tobacco industry because it is easiest.

AGD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair i'm not the deepest thinker going,seems like i am not getting my point across,i agree with the smoking ban,i dont want an ashtray full of fags near me when i'm eating,i just dont think a law is required in this case,it seems overkill,i mean has there been any studies done on how many people actually smoke in the car with kids? Surely not that many these days,or have i too much faith in human nature?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

capcloser - 2014-02-01 11:45 AM

 

...............,i mean has there been any studies done on how many people actually smoke in the car with kids?

 

Surely not that many these days,or have i too much faith in human nature?

 

 

 

 

I think the idea is to reduce it from " not many " to none.

 

Not much consolation for a child in a smoke filled car to know that he is only one of a few.

 

 

Your second point :

 

Yes - you do have too much faith in human nature.

 

:-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
enodreven - 2014-01-31 9:19 PM

 

But it does seem to be questionable to make it into law, as I really can't see how they can police it.

 

Er, I think you'll find that they'll police it in the same way that they police people driving without seatbelts, talking on mobile phones or doing their makeup whilst trying to maneuver across a difficult roundabout.

 

They'll use their eyes!

 

If a policeman sees a driver with a fag in his mouth and kids in the back he may just have a clue that the chap is breaking the law in question.

 

Not that difficult is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Had Enough - 2014-02-01 7:49 AM

 

Wow! I'm learning so much from the political experts on here. When the government introduced new laws about speeding, talking on phones, driving while drunk, smoking in confined spaces or all the other hundreds of pieces of legislation, I was silly enough to think that they were just introducing new laws to make us safer and healthier.

 

 

I wonder if I can sue the government for the 10 years of passive smoking, I endured whilst on the lower deck of Er Madges Navy?.................... >:-)

 

Anyone got the number of a good lawyer? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i'm losing this one,yes it can be policed but you dont actually see that many cops on the roads these days,but your all right there should be no smoking at all in cars,but thats what these debates are about,i've kinda changed my view on it now,although when will talking to your passenger be banned? When i first read the article i was thinking oh another pointless law but some of the responses have made me think again,so not a bad thing eh? So thanks HA your slightly sarcastic comments got through to someone lol *-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

capcloser - 2014-02-01 4:30 PM

 

I think i'm losing this one,yes it can be policed but you dont actually see that many cops on the roads these days, *-)

 

 

In this area I see a policeman about once every two or three weeks - and people using mobile phones in cars about once a week - so the ' detection rate ' will vary according to where you live.

 

:-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2014-02-01 4:41 PM

 

 

 

In this area I see a policeman about once every two or three weeks - and people using mobile phones in cars about once a week - so the ' detection rate ' will vary according to where you live.

 

:-D

 

Yes but that's because your nurses only let you out for an hour on a Sunday afternoon. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

donna miller - 2014-02-01 5:13 PM

 

malc d - 2014-02-01 4:41 PM

 

 

 

In this area I see a policeman about once every two or three weeks - and people using mobile phones in cars about once a week - so the ' detection rate ' will vary according to where you live.

 

:-D

 

Yes but that's because your nurses only let you out for an hour on a Sunday afternoon. :D

 

 

How did you know that ?

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
teflon2 - 2014-02-01 7:06 PM

 

What if the suspected offender is using an e/cigarette how on earth can a policeman tell the difference, it's an impossible to enforce law which makes the law look an ass. *-) John

 

What is it in this very simple law that you can't understand? Anyway, despite the fact that it's all been said I'll try to explain it to you again.

 

First of all, how is this law going to be more difficult to enforce than driving whilst talking on a phone or driving without a seatbelt? A police officer will see you and will stop you and give you a ticket.

 

The police will, as they do with mobile phones, mount roadside checks, in this case the morning or evening school run would seem a good opportunity.

 

As a few people get caught others will eventually catch on and stop doing it. Far fewer people drive without seatbelts or talk on mobiles than they did some years ago.

 

And as for the silly red herring about e-cigarettes, if it turns out that the driver is smoking one of these and they're not illegal the police officer will say: "No problem sir, I see it's an e-cigarette, you may go on your way".

 

Now, how has that made the law an ass? It's actually shown the law to be very sensible.

 

What is it with you that finds it so hard to work out that this is a very good suggestion that will stop lots of young children from spending years inhaling second-hand smoke?

 

For a start you should try reading this thread from the beginning and taking it all in.

 

I've no doubt that when smoking was banned in pubs and restaurants, when the breathalyzer was introduced and when talking on phones when driving was made illegal, you were bleating about the law being an ass and all these things being unenforceable.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

I wonder what penalty these criminals will receive? :-S ...................Considering GBH rarely gets much more than a caution these days *-)....................

 

 

I expect those caught smoking to be hung drawn and quartered at the very least >:-)............

 

 

Gawd bless our justice system.............. :-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2014-02-01 7:29 PM

 

teflon2 - 2014-02-01 7:06 PM

 

What if the suspected offender is using an e/cigarette how on earth can a policeman tell the difference, it's an impossible to enforce law which makes the law look an ass. *-) John

 

What is it in this very simple law that you can't understand? Anyway, despite the fact that it's all been said I'll try to explain it to you again.

 

First of all, how is this law going to be more difficult to enforce than driving whilst talking on a phone or driving without a seatbelt? A police officer will see you and will stop you and give you a ticket.

 

The police will, as they do with mobile phones, mount roadside checks, in this case the morning or evening school run would seem a good opportunity.

 

As a few people get caught others will eventually catch on and stop doing it. Far fewer people drive without seatbelts or talk on mobiles than they did some years ago.

 

And as for the silly red herring about e-cigarettes, if it turns out that the driver is smoking one of these and they're not illegal the police officer will say: "No problem sir, I see it's an e-cigarette, you may go on your way".

 

Now, how has that made the law an ass? It's actually shown the law to be very sensible.

 

What is it with you that finds it so hard to work out that this is a very good suggestion that will stop lots of young children from spending years inhaling second-hand smoke?

 

For a start you should try reading this thread from the beginning and taking it all in.

 

I've no doubt that when smoking was banned in pubs and restaurants, when the breathalyzer was introduced and when talking on phones when driving was made illegal, you were bleating about the law being an ass and all these things being unenforceable.

 

Before posting try using your brain, Cars in our area delivering children to school tend to be SUVs with the latest fashion dark tinted rear windows the police cannot see if there are passengers in the back let alone if there are children the driver usually female mid to late 30s perhaps with what looks like a lighted cigarette does the officer stop the car in case the driver is carrying children in the rear seats or ignore the possible offence. I can assure you that if they stopped the car and the driver was innocent they would have no hesitation in accusing the police of harassment, like I said a foolish law that makes the law an ass. John

 

 

*-) *-) *-) *-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an admittedly rabid anti-smoker (having been a smoker myself) I agree with the sentiment of the law.

 

But the issue is here is exactly as Teflon points out - we risk making the Law more of an ass than it is already because to be effective a law has to be enforceable.

 

A while back they introduced an entirely sensible law to stop Tailgaiting and Hogging the Centre lane. A news report just two days ago said that enforcement of these laws was virtually non existent because of a lack of Police (wo)manpower. (you see! - I do try to be PC B-) )

 

So how the hell anyone expects our Police on the streets to be able to catch anyone smoking a fag in a car who may or may or not have kids in the back amazes me.

 

So this is a well meaning law that should really be common sense - but the reality of common sense is that it can distinctly rare.

 

The net result will be yet more people having the view that the law can be an ass and that the Police pick and chose what laws they want to enforce. And that is, to my mind, a far bigger threat to our society as a whole than a few idiots smoking in front of their children.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Surely responsible people should not be worried whether such things as the 'smoking in cars' are made laws or not as they would not do this in the first place. Laws are there for the people who will not be responsible. As for policing certain laws, the onus in law is often shifted from the police eg by making the pub landlord or the shopkeeper responsible under threat of fines for making sure the law is carried out.

The fact is that some individuals will probably ignore advice or break laws but if overall less children are subject to the smoke effects then the end will justify the means.IMO

cheers

derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2014-02-03 8:56 AM

 

But the issue is here is exactly as Teflon points out - we risk making the Law more of an ass than it is already because to be effective a law has to be enforceable.

 

 

So how the hell anyone expects our Police on the streets to be able to catch anyone smoking a fag in a car who may or may or not have kids in the back amazes me.

 

 

But WHY wouldn't this be enforceable?...Presumably they(plod) would just use the same methods that they've used to catch those who use mobile phones, or fail to wear seatbelts..? They'd "look"!

It's hardly "amazing"...? 8-)

 

The chances of them catching the toe rag who breaks into your house or shed, are pretty slim...So does that mean we just shouldn't bother with making it an illegal act then.... :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
pepe63 - 2014-02-03 1:31 PM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-03 8:56 AM

 

But the issue is here is exactly as Teflon points out - we risk making the Law more of an ass than it is already because to be effective a law has to be enforceable.

 

 

So how the hell anyone expects our Police on the streets to be able to catch anyone smoking a fag in a car who may or may or not have kids in the back amazes me.

 

 

But WHY wouldn't this be enforceable?...Presumably they(plod) would just use the same methods that they've used to catch those who use mobile phones, or fail to wear seatbelts..? They'd "look"!

It's hardly "amazing"...? 8-)

 

The chances of them catching the toe rag who breaks into your house or shed, are pretty slim...So does that mean we just shouldn't bother with making it an illegal act then.... :-S

 

I fear you miss the point Pepe ;-).................our lords and masters are incapable of evicting foreign criminals from this land ...............so resort to inventing low level, nice little earner crimes to cover up how ineffectual they are with real criminals *-).............

 

Vote UKIP >:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pepe63 - 2014-02-03 1:31 PM

 

[

But WHY wouldn't this be enforceable?...Presumably they(plod) would just use the same methods that they've used to catch those who use mobile phones, or fail to wear seatbelts..? They'd "look"!

It's hardly "amazing"...? 8-)

 

 

 

I doubt if there are any laws which are un-enforceable - if you throw enough time and effort into it.

 

It will be interesting to see how high a priority this law is given - maybe nick a few for the first couple of weeks to " send a message " - but - after that ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2014-02-03 1:58 PM

 

 

 

......so resort to inventing low level, nice little earner crimes to cover up how ineffectual they are with real criminals *-).............

 

Vote UKIP >:-)

 

 

I'm surprised that you don't support a law to protect children Dave - 'cos that 's what this one is about.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2014-02-03 2:05 PM

 

pelmetman - 2014-02-03 1:58 PM

 

 

 

......so resort to inventing low level, nice little earner crimes to cover up how ineffectual they are with real criminals *-).............

 

Vote UKIP >:-)

 

 

I'm surprised that you don't support a law to protect children Dave - 'cos that 's what this one is about.

 

;-)

 

The only law we need is one to stop unfit adults breeding Malc *-)..................I knew I'd be a rubbish parent when they stopped kids being sent up chimneys ;-).........

 

Stop the benefit culture...........and you'll stop the making of meal tickets :-| ...........

 

Or better still don't give cash to the feckless......give them a roof and regular meals.......and a open door to a school what ever their age..........I still fancy learning ancient Greek :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems the mostly law abiding are easier to nick for the odd accidental infringement than your habitual criminal,less work for plod maybe and more likely to put their hand up and admit they did wrong.My younger brother at the age of about 13 was hanging out near the village shop,they all used to sit on this old fellas wall,one day he came flying out to tell them all off and half a dozen lads all jumped up together,result middle of wall collapsed.Although all the parents were willing to pay for repairs the police insisted on a prosecution for criminal damage,but it was accidental damage,in the end they were cautioned,but still a waste of time! Mind you he is a civil servant now so you can see he's a bit dodgy! And dear old mum has been done for speeding driving from bedford back to suffolk she was doing about 37 in a 30 but it was 2 o'clock in the morning so she put that in her mitigating circumstances,she got a very pompous letter back telling her that most pedestrian accidents occur at that time! What a load of b*****ks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...