Ban on smoking in motorhomes next?

[Brock]

George, I started smoking when I was 7. My Aunty, who smoked 40 a day, gave me a fag. After two puffs, I threw up in her sink. "Good lad, you'll never smoke again" she said and I haven't!

 

Sometimes I think we overlook the wisdom of our forbears.

[Guest Had Enough]

George Collings - 2015-02-10 9:51 PM

 

Only fools start smoking and I never have and this is just one more bit of legislation that on the face of it seems a good idea.

 

I just have to wonder if its proposer ever did any research into how many children its ever likely to affect. My money is its hardly four figures and the danger must be related to the length of time exposed. Most camping is summer time and the kids will be outside in daylight.

 

Talk about sledge hammers and nuts.

 

 

I'd be interested to know how you can state that it's only four figures. How have you come up with this number? Informed opinion or just a wild guess?

 

And as for sledgehammers and nuts you should read this:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/childrens-health-up-in-smoke

 

But for those who can't be bothered here's the first paragraph:

 

'Over 800 children visit their doctor every day due to the serious effects of secondhand smoke exposure, according to research published by the Royal College of Physicians? '

 

You're right, it's not even four figures - per day!

 

And for your information there is a massive amount of research that's been done and it's still continuing. Governments don't normally enact legislation just for the fun of it. They do it because others better informed recommend it to them. Having thoroughly discussed the evidence in sub-committees consisting of MPs and experts they then advise the ministers in question.

 

Sledgehammer and nuts? Really?

 

 

 

[Wasnt Me]

Personally I think it utterly preposterous that it has taken this long.

 

If you smoke in a confined space with a child, it will cause harm to that child.

 

Therefore surely it should be classed as child abuse. Is that not the definition of causing harm to a child?

 

Simples me thinks, like the people who think it's acceptable.

 

I also believe that parents who feed their children so much and allow them to become so overweight that it damages their health, should also be questioned about the abuse that is taking place.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

Wasn't Me - 2015-02-10 10:29 PM

 

Personally I think it utterly preposterous that it has taken this long.

 

If you smoke in a confined space with a child, it will cause harm to that child.

 

Therefore surely it should be classed as child abuse. Is that not the definition of causing harm to a child?

 

Simples me thinks, like the people who think it's acceptable.

 

Yes, but didn't you know, it's only a few hundred children that will suffer all their lives from bronchial disease! ;-) Hardly worth bothering about! :D

[Wasnt Me]

Only 800 is that all ?

 

Who started this worthless thread what a waste of my time reading it, for the sake of only 800 kids.

 

Where are the moderators I wish to complain.

 

I could have been reading on of those other threads where people are just having a go at each other.

 

 

You know the ones

[Guest Had Enough]

Wasn't Me - 2015-02-10 10:42 PM

 

Only 800 is that all ?

 

Who started this worthless thread what a waste of my time reading it, for the sake of only 800 kids.

 

Where are the moderators I wish to complain.

 

I could have been reading on of those other threads where people are just having a go at each other.

 

 

You know the ones

 

800 a day, but it's still not worth bothering with is it! (lol)

 

I must have missed the threads with people having a go at each other. I must log on more often. :D

[George Collings]

How did I come up with less than four figures.

 

This is a motorhome forum. An activity in which I have been active for 17 years spending around 80 nights a year on sites. Apart from school holidays the number of children on site is very low and even during the holidays less than 20% of camper vans contain children. Mostly they are with grandparents and the vast majority are non smokers . Kids hate being cooped up and are outdoors making life a misery for some grouchy campers. Kids holidaying in motorhomes have minimal exposure time.

 

It was I hope an educated guess,

 

If heavens forbid I was dictator my first edict would be no new law without repealing three old ones.

[Guest Had Enough]

George Collings - 2015-02-11 9:08 AM

 

How did I come up with less than four figures.

 

This is a motorhome forum. An activity in which I have been active for 17 years spending around 80 nights a year on sites. Apart from school holidays the number of children on site is very low and even during the holidays less than 20% of camper vans contain children. Mostly they are with grandparents and the vast majority are non smokers . Kids hate being cooped up and are outdoors making life a misery for some grouchy campers. Kids holidaying in motorhomes have minimal exposure time.

 

It was I hope an educated guess,

 

If heavens forbid I was dictator my first edict would be no new law without repealing three old ones.

 

You must have missed the bit about this applying to children in caravans as well as motorhomes. Thousands of children take holidays in caravans, many more then in motorhomes as motorhomes tend to be owned by older people whereas families plump for caravans.

 

Hundreds of children live permanently in caravans.

 

Your four figures is looking a bit dodgy I'm afraid. It's many more than four figures but even if it is only four figures, so what? Should hundreds of children suffer life-long ill health just because people such as you have an aversion to what is sensible legislation, simply because you object to legislation per se?

 

 

 

 

[RogerC]

Extracted from 'The Man versus The State' by Herbert Spencerand published in The Westminster Review in July 1853....................nothing much has changed in reality:

 

Did the State fulfil efficiently its unquestionable duties, there would be some excuse for this eagerness to assign it further duties. Were there no complaints of its faulty administration of justice; of its endless delays and untold expenses; of its bringing ruin in place of restitution; of its playing the tyrant where it should have been the protector: did we never hear of its complicated stupidities; its 20,000 statutes, which it assumes all Englishmen to know, and which not one Englishman does know; its multiplied forms, which, in the effort to meet every contingency, open far more loopholes than they provide against: had it not shown its folly in the system of making every petty alteration by a new act, variously affecting innumerable preceding acts;.................

Change the point of view however we may, and this conclusion still presents itself. If we define the primary State-duty to be that of protecting each individual against others, then, all other State-action comes under the definition of protecting each individual against himself—against his own stupidity, his own idleness, his own improvidence, rashness, or other defect—his own incapacity for doing something or other which should be done. There is no questioning this classification. For manifestly all the obstacles that lie between a man's desires and the satisfaction of them are either obstacles arising from other men's counter-desires, or obstacles arising from inability in himself. Such of these counter-desires as are just, have as much claim to satisfaction as his; and may not, therefore, be thwarted. Such of them as are unjust, it is the State's duty to hold in check. The only other possible sphere for it, therefore, is that of saving the individual from the consequences of his nature, or, as we say—protecting him against himself.

 

Leap forward to the 21st century and little has changed.  Government is still in varying degrees faulty, responsible for endless delays and untold expenses both on a personal level(MP's expenses) and Corporately (NHS reshuffle/computer database to name but one) and is so eager to bring in legislation it has been reported that the Blair government brought in more laws in it's time in office than the total for the preceeding 100 years!!  Yet it still insists on interfering with the daily lives of the individual instead of concentrating on running the State.

Now we come to the second premise............'Protecting the individual from him/her self'.  Legislate for this, that and the other and the law of unintended consequences runs riot. 

 

The bottom line is that yes there is a time, place for what one would consider 'peripheral' legislation by which I mean legislation that relates to the greater good of society without penalising/criminalising otherwise law abiding citizens.  Such laws should also be considered regarding enforceability.  If the law is deemed in mainstream society to 'be an ass' it diminishes the authority of such law and those who try to enforce it.  For as the French were reported as saying regarding the smoking ban.......'If we think a law is stupid......it does not exist'.

 

For example prior to 1994 in the UK, not really that long ago, idiotic laws resulted in idiosyncrasies such as the legal ability to buy a pornographic magazine but not a Bible or birthday card on a Sunday.  Now at the time of enactment 'someone' must have thought the law being enacted was a good thing.

 

Is this making the case against 'over legislation' a little more clearly now?

 

So without going into detail regarding how, where, when, enforcement etc a smoking ban in motorhomes/caravans would IMO be yet another piece of unenforceable legislation designed to placate the anti smoking element of society enacted (as quoted above) to protect himself against himself.  You can not legislate for 'everything'.  There comes a time when personal responsibility is left to take over and if it doesn't then so be it.  So no smoking in motorhomes/caravans because it 'potentially' harms children..............What next?  Legislate a ban on pregnant women drinking alcohol because medical science says it is harmful?  How the hell would that be enforced?  Thin end and wedge springs to mind!

 

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2015-02-12 2:54 PMSo without going into detail regarding how, where, when, enforcement etc a smoking ban in motorhomes/caravans would IMO be yet another piece of unenforceable legislation designed to placate the anti smoking element of society enacted (as quoted above) to protect himself against himself.  You can not legislate for 'everything'.  There comes a time when personal responsibility is left to take over and if it doesn't then so be it.  So no smoking in motorhomes/caravans because it 'potentially' harms children..............What next?  Legislate a ban on pregnant women drinking alcohol because medical science says it is harmful?  How the hell would that be enforced?  Thin end and wedge springs to mind!

But as I've said more than once, the simple fact that a law is hard to enforce doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enacted.We had the same argument about mobile phones, where the chances of being caught are very slim but as a result of legislation the number of people using phones when driving is a fraction of what it was and many accidents have been avoided as a result.Citizens, who are now aware of the dangers are taking action themselves as we saw in Scotland a couple of days ago where a man using a laptop and talking on his phone was filmed by a cyclist and reported. Good for him I say!Drink driving was tolerated and even boasted about but now everyone accepts that it's very dangerous and drink drivers are social pariahs.The law on smoking in cars is enforceable, but the biggest effect of legislation will be to change minds and make people aware that, by doing so, they are harming children, and when their friends and colleagues see them doing it they will express their disgust just as they now do with those who wilfully risk lives by drinking or talking on phones.Finally, laws such as this are not normally on the whim of some MP. They are the result of representation by medical bodies who are becoming aware of the deleterious effects of smoke on young bodies.I never worry about the number of laws, as long as they are sensible. Society and life becomes more complex and we cannot trust people to act responsibly, that much must be clear. Without a law millions of people would be risking driving when drunk, driving without a seatbelt or driving whilst talking on a phone.I know which scenario I prefer and, compared to some dictatorships and the old communist states, our laws also protect us from the tyranny of a government that would want to take away our basic rights.

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2015-02-12 3:10 PM

RogerC - 2015-02-12 2:54 PMSo without going into detail regarding how, where, when, enforcement etc a smoking ban in motorhomes/caravans would IMO be yet another piece of unenforceable legislation designed to placate the anti smoking element of society enacted (as quoted above) to protect himself against himself.  You can not legislate for 'everything'.  There comes a time when personal responsibility is left to take over and if it doesn't then so be it.  So no smoking in motorhomes/caravans because it 'potentially' harms children..............What next?  Legislate a ban on pregnant women drinking alcohol because medical science says it is harmful?  How the hell would that be enforced?  Thin end and wedge springs to mind!

But as I've said more than once, the simple fact that a law is hard to enforce doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enacted.We had the same argument about mobile phones, where the chances of being caught are very slim but as a result of legislation the number of people using phones when driving is a fraction of what it was and many accidents have been avoided as a result.Citizens, who are now aware of the dangers are taking action themselves as we saw in Scotland a couple of days ago where a man using a laptop and talking on his phone was filmed by a cyclist and reported. Good for him I say!Drink driving was tolerated and even boasted about but now everyone accepts that it's very dangerous and drink drivers are social pariahs.The law on smoking in cars is enforceable, but the biggest effect of legislation will be to change minds and make people aware that, by doing so, they are harming children, and when their friends and colleagues see them doing it they will express their disgust just as they now do with those who wilfully risk lives by drinking or talking on phones.Finally, laws such as this are not normally on the whim of some MP. They are the result of representation by medical bodies who are becoming aware of the deleterious effects of smoke on young bodies.I never worry about the number of laws, as long as they are sensible. Society and life becomes more complex and we cannot trust people to act responsibly, that much must be clear. Without a law millions of people would be risking driving when drunk, driving without a seatbelt or driving whilst talking on a phone.I know which scenario I prefer and, compared to some dictatorships and the old communist states, our laws also protect us from the tyranny of a government that would want to take away our basic rights.

 

I appreciate the introduction of legislation that tackles the ills of society but you can not legislate for 'everything' and there comes a point where individual responsibility has to be allowed it's free rein.  However I do take issue with that highlighted in red above on the understanding that you are including the current topic as coming under the umbrella of your assertion..  As the legislation under comment here was the subject of a 10 minute bill the following applies:

Ten Minute Rule

Ten Minute Rule Bills are often an opportunity for Members to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation, rather than a serious attempt to get a Bill passed.  In other words a presentation of self over substance given the rarity whereby such presentations progress beyond the 10 minute rule sessions.

Members make speeches of no more than ten minutes outlining their position, which another Member may oppose in a similar short statement. It is a good opportunity to raise the profile of an issue and to see whether it has support among other Members......'Personal interest'?

Any Member may introduce a Bill in this way as long as he or she has previously given notice of their intention to do so. Members formally introduce the title of the Bill but do not speak in support of it - they rarely become law.

In essence 10 minute bills are a vehicle used by backbenchers to 'forward' themselves ..........to be 'noticed' albeit to an almost empty chamber.  Hence they rerely make it any further than the 10 minute bill debate.

 

I agree that as society and it's lifestyle/technology becomes evermore complex that more legislation is inevitable.  However that is no reason to impose legislation based on the whims of self promoting MP's.  We 'need' legislation to put a stop to the widening poverty gap, to stop those in public office profiting from their failings, to stop the payment of massive bonuses to those in public office and we need legislation to be enforced in cases of dereliction of duty which causes others to suffer(Rotherham) and in numerous other instances I could mention.  In essence there is so much that is wrong with the 'fabric' of this country that could be resolved by the imposition and enforcement of current legislation but isn't so do we really need more legislation when what we already have is not enforced?  .........when existing legislation is flouted by some in positions of power in public office yet are never prosecuted because of the weakness of, or the departmental corruption and/or ineffectiveness of, those who are supposed to enforce the law?  Before we allow laws to be passed that criminalise those who are otherwise law abiding members of society surely it is time to ensure that those who we know are lawbreakers are brought to book?  HMRC chases poor little Joe Public for a few hundred quid yet does a deal with a multi national which is known to have 'sidestepped' paying billions of pounds and lets them off the hook.  The law has to be seen to be fair and in so many instances where there is 'big money' or corporate corruption involved the law is a toothless tiger.  At local level the police are hidebound by correctness edicts and ineffective politicised Chief Constables who more concerned with knighthoods than in doing their duty to the public.

 

I could go on but hopefully you get my point.  Yes I agree legislation can be good.........good for all but only if it is seen to be enacted and enforced fairly and applicable to all.  Otherwise it will be seen as yet another nail in the coffin of the freedoms of 'Joe Public'.

 

[Guest peter]

Had Enough - 2015-02-10 10:33 PM

 

Wasn't Me - 2015-02-10 10:29 PM

 

Personally I think it utterly preposterous that it has taken this long.

 

If you smoke in a confined space with a child, it will cause harm to that child.

 

Therefore surely it should be classed as child abuse. Is that not the definition of causing harm to a child?

 

Simples me thinks, like the people who think it's acceptable.

Yes, but didn't you know, it's only a few hundred children that will suffer all their lives from bronchial disease! ;-) Hardly worth bothering about! :D

[pheasantplucker]

747 - 2015-02-10 1:06 PM

 

I am not against this new legislation but is that the best that Parliament can offer? There are much more urgent subjects that need addressing than this.

 

Obesity shortens the life quicker than smoking and can cost many more times the cost. As long as unsuitable processed food is readily available, we can forget the smokers.

 

Retrieving the unpaid Tax from HSBC customers will keep a few Hospitals afloat for a year or two.

 

Why don't we use the same diesel as mainland European countries, where diesel is frequently about 0.20 Euros cheaper than unleaded or are their kids more resilient?

 

 

 

 

[pheasantplucker]

747 - 2015-02-10 1:06 PM

 

I am not against this new legislation but is that the best that Parliament can offer? There are much more urgent subjects that need addressing than this.

 

Obesity shortens the life quicker than smoking and can cost many more times the cost. As long as unsuitable processed food is readily available, we can forget the smokers.

 

Retrieving the unpaid Tax from HSBC customers will keep a few Hospitals afloat for a year or two.

 

Why don't we use the same diesel as mainland European countries, where diesel is frequently about 0.20 Euros cheaper than unleaded or are their kids more resilient?

 

 

 

 

[Muswell]

The disel is the same, it's the taxes that are different.

[Guest pelmetman]

Do smokers have smoke alarms? :-S ................Ours goes off nearly every time I light the cooker *-).........

 

 

[Guest peter]

pelmetman - 2015-02-13 9:26 AM

 

Do smokers have smoke alarms? :-S ................Ours goes off nearly every time I light the camp fire *-).........

 

:-|

[Bulletguy]

pheasantplucker - 2015-02-12 11:44 PM

 

Why don't we use the same diesel as mainland European countries, where diesel is frequently about 0.20 Euros cheaper than unleaded or are their kids more resilient?

 

Muswell - 2015-02-13 8:17 AM

 

The disel is the same, it's the taxes that are different.

 

Don't forget to add the cynicism of UK Gov too. Remember when diesel was cheaper than petrol because everyone owned petrol cars with just a handful of diesels? Then as the diesel engine became more refined, everyone went out buying diesel cars.

 

Suddenly diesel becomes higher priced than petrol. Amazing!!

 

Now, because of the huge amount of diesel cars owned by people in UK, Government are attempting to demonize them as the latest anti Christ!

 

Back on thread topic. I wonder just how many people realise by introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children......it will include cars such as this. http://i.imgur.com/qyTZZHE.jpg

 

Oh brother!! *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

peter - 2015-02-13 3:12 PM

 

pelmetman - 2015-02-13 9:26 AM

 

Do smokers have smoke alarms? :-S ................Ours goes off nearly every time I light the camp fire *-).........

 

:-|

 

Or as I call it the BBQ ;-).......

 

 

 

I'll be lighting it tomorrow as the warm weathers back B-) ..............

[Rayjsj]

Now, because of the huge amount of diesel cars owned by people in UK, Government are attempting to demonize them as the latest anti Christ!

 

Back on thread topic. I wonder just how many people realise by introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children......it will include cars such as this. http://i.imgur.com/qyTZZHE.jpg

 

Oh brother!! *-)

 

 

 

 

 

Those kids look a bit old to still be with 'mum n dad' anyway

 

 

Couldn't we put a '10 minute rule' on Frank, he really 'takes over' any post he comments on doesn't he .

[Guest Had Enough]

Rayjsj - 2015-02-13 8:29 PM

 

Couldn't we put a '10 minute rule' on Frank, he really 'takes over' any post he comments on doesn't he .

 

You're just upset because the very few posts that I do take part in often end up proving that you're talking rubbish. And that usually takes about five minutes. ;-)

[Muswell]

Bulletguy - 2015-02-13 3:20 PM

 

[

 

Back on thread topic. I wonder just how many people realise by introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children......it will include cars such as this. http://i.imgur.com/qyTZZHE.jpg

 

Oh brother!! *-)

 

No it won't, if the roof is down. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329885/Smoking_in_cars_carrying_children.pdf

[Bulletguy]

Muswell - 2015-02-13 8:40 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2015-02-13 3:20 PM

 

[

 

Back on thread topic. I wonder just how many people realise by introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children......it will include cars such as this. http://i.imgur.com/qyTZZHE.jpg

 

Oh brother!! *-)

 

No it won't, if the roof is down. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329885/Smoking_in_cars_carrying_children.pdf

 

PMSL.......so now they "propose that a private vehicle would become a smokefree place when:

• there is more than one person present;"

 

Many couples smoke, but not all smoke at the same time. So now we've got a situation where if the driver lights up, but his wife or mate doesn't even though they are smokers themselves......the driver could get done!

 

Good job this is only a proposal and NOT law. *-)

 

Totally bats and completely unenforceable. The Police force is already undermanned and overstretched attending to real crime without having to mither over someone having a fag in their OWN vehicle.

[Guest Had Enough]

Bulletguy - 2015-02-13 10:47 PM

 

Totally bats and completely unenforceable. The Police force is already undermanned and overstretched attending to real crime without having to mither over someone having a fag in their OWN vehicle.

 

Totally unenforceable? You mean like wearing seat belts, or talking on mobile phones or having a few drinks? Yet amazingly our undermanned and overstretched police forces manage to catch and prosecute thousands of people for these crimes.

 

I love the arguments about how the police should deal with 'real crime' or 'catch terrorists'. Aren't people aware that the police have many sections? Some deal with serious crime, murder, kidnapping and rape. Some divisions deal with fraud and white-collar crime, and of course we have traffic police who deal with driving offences.

 

So presumably you think that subjecting young people to second-hand smoke in a confined space isn't worth the trouble of addressing by the medical profession, society, government and law enforcement?

 

I've heard it all before. Seat belts, bloody nuisance. A couple of drinks when driving? Never affected me! Talking on my phone? No problem, I can text as well you know at 70 mph.

 

Haven't our under-manned and overstretched police forces better things to do than try to enforce these bats and totally unenforceable offences? Shouldn't they be out catching terrorists?

 

It's a great attitude until your daughter is killed by some bloke on mobile or who's had a a couple of drinks. Or when you've been assaulted on the street and the police tell you that they can't be bothered about it because they're too busy with 'real crimes'.

 

Subjecting others to second-hand smoke in a very confined space is criminal. Many wives in certain sections of society are totally dominated by their husbands and wouldn't dare tell him that he couldn't smoke in the car, even if it was harming them.

 

Every sensible bit of legislation that the vast majority of us now welcome receives the same reaction from those who haven't really thought about it in depth. Can't we remember those who railed against the 'nanny state' when it banned smoking in restaurants and similar places? Well, let me tell you, sensible folk, which is the majority, would never go back to the old system where we could pollute the air for everybody else.

 

And finally, and yet again, haven't you learned that even if a law is difficult to enforce, the fact that something becomes illegal means that the vast majority of us obey it? And eventually public pressure is brought to bear on those who don't, just as drinking and driving, once something that many people did and even boasted about, is now seen as unacceptable and anti-social.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Joe90]

So say's the man that in another thread said this.

 

 

You ought to try putting in a swimming pool. They now have to have a fence around them so that any unwatched little darlings don't fall in and drown

 

 

Obviously a great defender of children's well being and safety. :D