Another Barmy PC Idea

mercedes said:
Lets not forget, the smoking ban wasn't introduced for the good of our health. It was brought in to save the massive insurance claims by - 'injured in the workplace'.
Click to expand...

Well that's one conspiracy theory that I've not hear before. Mind you it holds less water than a rusty colander.

Then of course the fascist busybodies couldn't contain their dictators rights and have now continued their quest for another absurd intrusion into others personal lives.
Click to expand...

I invoke Godwin's law!

This smoking ban directive was also supposed to be Europe wide. But in Spain a smoker can choose between smoking or non smoking bars/restaurants - the busiest ones are always the smoking ones - Full of non smokers too. :D
Whereas the UK bars have seen trade plummet and many have closed despite the pledges from non smokers to fill the pubs with their half pints of lemonade shandies trade which didn't materialise.
Click to expand...

Of course the UK pubs weren't introuble beofre the smoking ban were they? The smoking ban certainly hasn't helped pubs, but it's not the only cause for many pubs shutting

b****r all to do with health. If it was a genuine 'the nation's health issue', petrol and diesel motor vehicles would also have been banned.
Click to expand...

What is this obsession with attacking cars and the pro-smoking brigage? Why not alcohol whihc would be a better analogy? Probably because few smokers are tee total.
 
The reason the smoking ban for pubs was brought in was not to protect the health of the visiting general public who can decide for themselves if they go into a smokey pub or not but to protect pub employees who didn't have the option.

Or more likely it was instigated by the pubs' insurance companies who didn't want to pay out on claims made by pub employees against their employers who have a duty of care towards their staff.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
The reason the smoking ban for pubs was brought in was not to protect the health of the visiting general public who can decide for themselves if they go into a smokey pub or not but to protect pub employees who didn't have the option.
Click to expand...

The ban was not a speciifc smoking ban in pubs, it was a general ban in all places of work.
 
Since the smoking ban in the workplace has been introduced I can now go outside and get some nice fresh air whilst having a fag, a bit of sun and I'm able to watch the Peregrine falcons flying around :) If I go out for a meal I can get away from those annoying people slurping their soup and talking crap :D

I never smoke when driving and will always stop off for a fag whenever I feel the urge, makes the journey much more relaxed and enjoyable. :D

To answer the OP!..... When the ban was introduced which included company vehicles I could never understand why people could smoke in cars with kids :shrug: personally I support it 100%

Best thing that ever happened :thumbs: Oh and BTW if I get sunburn from being forced outside does anyone think I could sue my employer?...:thinking:
 
NorthernNikon said:
Don't worry, no offence taken here.

Of course, you are right, childhood obesity is a huge issue, however I don't hold with the argument that because something is a bigger issue (whether it is or not) means that smaller issues can't be tackled. Banning smoking in cars with children is relatively straightforward, encouraging kids (and their parents) to do more and eat less is far more complicated.

As I said in my first post, I really don't see the problem with this suggested law. Anyone who smokes in the car with kids in should have a long hard looka t themselves.

I also don't agree with the 'thin edge of the wedge' victimisation argument either. Banning smoking in the workplace has made the work place a far safer and more comfortable place to be in. I've no doubt that some employers have made it hard to smoke than it necessarily has to be, but then I have my sympathies with them, smokers have been having paid breaks to satisfy their habit for long enough. I used to joke that I'd be getting a doctors note stating that I'm a habitual masterbater just so I can go and knock one off **** couple of hours on work time. (The joke doesn't work now I work form home, but then I don't need the doctor's note either :thumbs: )

From my point of view, whenever I hear smokers whinging about 'their right to smoke' all I can think of is other people's rights not to be smoked upon. I've no problem with people smoking at home, but I would love to see a total ban on smoking in public.
Click to expand...


No personal offense but this is the line that the health fascists peddle,for all those who call for full bans in public remember that the tax on tobacco pulls in 3 times the cost of the NHS so we more than pay our way whilst subsidizing health care for non smokers.I dont want to impose my habit on others but why I should not be allowed to smoke in the open air I dont really know
 
Steve Smith said:
The reason the smoking ban for pubs was brought in was not to protect the health of the visiting general public who can decide for themselves if they go into a smokey pub or not but to protect pub employees who didn't have the option.

Or more likely it was instigated by the pubs' insurance companies who didn't want to pay out on claims made by pub employees against their employers who have a duty of care towards their staff.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Nice to see some are less blinkered by the 'smoke'screen of health :clap:
 
CaptainPenguin said:
[/U]No personal offense but this is the line that the health fascists peddle,for all those who call for full bans in public remember that the tax on tobacco pulls in 3 times the cost of the NHS so we more than pay our way whilst subsidizing health care for non smokers.I dont want to impose my habit on others but why I should not be allowed to smoke in the open air I dont really know
Click to expand...

And your source for this data is?
 
NorthernNikon said:
The ban was not a speciifc smoking ban in pubs, it was a general ban in all places of work.
Click to expand...

I know. It did start out as a non smoking in pubs bill but its scope was increased vastly before it became law.

A vaguely connected story:

I have a friend who is a musician and singer and like a lot of us musicians, she does three or four gigs a week in pubs. Before the smoking ban came in she was having throat problems and went to see her doctor. Having looked at her vocal chords the doctor asked "how much do you smoke? About thirty or forty a day?". My friend has never smoked so it came as quite a shock to learn that she had been passively smoking enough for a doctor to think she was a heavy smoker.
This all happened a couple of months before the ban came into force and she was relieved to hear about it as she was thinking that her only option would be to give up performing. Something which she loves to do.
Now after a few years of playing in smoke free pubs, the problem with her vocal chords has gone away.

I think this and other smoke filled environment related problems is the real reason the ban was introduced and it has my total support.


Steve.
 
I did read somewhere that healthy people cost the NHS far more money then Smokers and Drinkers because:

A) Smokers and drinkers help fund the NHS with tax on Alcohol and Smokes
B) Healthy people live longer

That was the best bit of information i have ever heard! :lol:
Actually the above comment was a lie, the best bit was that obesity causes global warming, because of the increase in traffic on the roads! :lol: It still makes me laugh but its so true.

Anyway, just another 2p from me :)
 
Splog said:
Is that classed as PPE? If it is they have to provide it FOC :lol:
Click to expand...

When I was a self employed painter and decorator, sun screen wasn't even a legitimate tax deductable expense - it was regarded as a cosmetic.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
It was a figure I had heard on a news programme but I was wrong,however the following attachments show that the tobacco tax brings in £3 billion more that the cost of treating smoking related diseases on the NHS

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/newsarchive/2009/june/19211181
Click to expand...

So you're adding two separate reports together and getting four? I think not. What you haven't acknowledged is that if smoking was banned tomorrow and all revenue ceased, the NHS would still be paying billions treating smoking related diseases for decades to come. Your statement that smokers "more than pay our way whilst subsidizing health care for non smokers" is therefore, at best unsubstantiated (if it can be substantiated at all).

Plus all the above doesn't take into account the cost to the economy of lost time due to fag breaks and time of work.
 
Last edited:
if they wanted to ban it, raise the age for smoking by a year every year. that way you arent denying people of a legal addiction, and rather than stupid bans of smoking, in twenty years or so you will find most places would be relatively smoke free and the habit would have become unsocialable. :shrug:

to ban smoking completely would probably cause a bit of backlash and then people will see the opportunity to import them and charge ridiculous prices just to get around the law, much like cannabis which isnt difficult to source somewhere locally
 
hepburn said:
As a non smoker I can't agree with this, and not for any other reason than your car is your personal space. Having a law preventing you from smoking in it is akin to a law which says you can't do XYZ in your own space - be it a car or home.
Click to expand...

But the point is it can affect other people negatively. Since i'm for the ban smoking in the car completely, that effect is the danger to people around them caused by not having two hands on the wheel and waving their hand in front of their face while trying to see where the car is going.
You say it is like you cant do XYZ in your own space but that is just like building a bomb in your own space....illegal since it is probably ok if you know what you are doing but any cock-ups and the neighbours are going to have a bad day.....

The effect it has on kids in the car is a little more difficult to argue because they are probably breathing in smoke at home, so hey, why not in the car as well.
(not that some parents don't step outside for a fag, but if you smoke in the car with kids then you probably smoke around them at home)
 
Last edited:
I heard this on the jeremy Vine show the other day. The very next item was about how eating carrots can save you from getting Cancer.

So if you smoke in the car whilst your kids are eating carrots, does one cancel the other out?
 
Blue Eagle said:
But the point is it can affect other people negatively. Since i'm for the ban smoking in the car completely, that effect is the danger to people around them caused by not having two hands on the wheel and waving their hand in front of their face while trying to see where the car is going.
You say it is like you cant do XYZ in your own space but that is just like building a bomb in your own space....illegal since it is probably ok if you know what you are doing but any cock-ups and the neighbours are going to have a bad day.....

The effect it has on kids in the car is a little more difficult to argue because they are probably breathing in smoke at home, so hey, why not in the car as well.
(not that some parents don't step outside for a fag, but if you smoke in the car with kids then you probably smoke around them at home)
Click to expand...



A complete ban now that is scary but of course its for public safety, strangely the cretin who nearly sideswiped me on the A2 last week wasn't smoking maybe he was distracted by something more politically correct
 
CaptainPenguin said:
A complete ban now that is scary but of course its for public safety, strangely the cretin who nearly sideswiped me on the A2 last week wasn't smoking maybe he was distracted by something more politically correct
Click to expand...

lol, I don't really understand your argument here, because there isnt anything 'PC' about a smoking ban. Political correctness is about not insulting the minorities or anything to do with children.

And obviously not all accidents are caused by smoking, but if you are driving like you should (because realisitically a lot of people dont) it should be two hands on the wheel, watching when you are going. However I don't think that can be achieved when smoking, for the reasons given in my other post, especially not in an emergency situation where you have to take action at a high speed (like on the A2)
Would it have helped your situation if you were taking a drag when the other person nearly sideswiped you?
 
But if you take that reasoning then surely all other things in the car should also be disallowed in vehicles for example car stereo's, window winders etc. Any control where you have to remove your hand from the steering wheel.

What about changing gear? What if he was changing gear on the A2 when that cretin sideswiped him?

Do you see my point? Either ban it for a proper reason, or not at all.

If it's because of the health implications, then why not ban it altogether?

Whilst I wouldn't now smoke in a confined space with my kids (I ashamedly did when I was much younger, usually only when I had my window open and making sure the smoke went straight out.......but still), I think the very thought of the government restricting what we can do in our own private space, something that they allow in other places is too far IMO.

SO IMO either ban it properly, or not at all.

PS. No, I no longer smoke ;)
 
Marcel said:
But if you take that reasoning then surely all other things in the car should also be disallowed in vehicles for example car stereo's, window winders etc. Any control where you have to remove your hand from the steering wheel.

What about changing gear? What if he was changing gear on the A2 when that cretin sideswiped him?

Do you see my point? Either ban it for a proper reason, or not at all.

If it's because of the health implications, then why not ban it altogether?

Whilst I wouldn't now smoke in a confined space with my kids (I ashamedly did when I was much younger, usually only when I had my window open and making sure the smoke went straight out.......but still), I think the very thought of the government restricting what we can do in our own private space, something that they allow in other places is too far IMO.

SO IMO either ban it properly, or not at all.

PS. No, I no longer smoke ;)
Click to expand...

I'm mostly with you on this. No one has the balls to do what they should be doing and that is banning smoking entirely. There is no harm with one less distraction (sparking up a fag) while driving.

But I don't see any real argument against not subjecting kids to other people's filthy habits. You can say it's "political correctness gone mad!" (it's not) or make claims there's an ulterior motive for them wanting to ban smoking in cars with kids, at the end of the day it'll mostly be of benefit without any real negative repercussions so get on with it, government. Obviously some people will continue to be selfish and continue smoke in their car with their kids present and get away with it, like they do with mobile phones. Less gum flapping and more action.
 
but I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke, I am against almost all forms of regulation (apart from ya know the biggies that are there for our safety) I can make my own dammed decisions and I don't want to be told what I can and can't do
 
david1701 said:
but I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke, I am against almost all forms of regulation (apart from ya know the biggies that are there for our safety) I can make my own dammed decisions and I don't want to be told what I can and can't do
Click to expand...

That's fine, I have no problem with your choice to smoke, but you can do it in the privacy of your own home. You can pollute your own space.
 
welly said:
That's fine, I have no problem with your choice to smoke, but you can do it in the privacy of your own home. You can pollute your own space.
Click to expand...

the thread is about your own car which is your own space, also a complete ban has been mentioned.

I think that doing anything anywhere should be allowed provided it doesn't break the basic laws, with the management of any building free to impose restrictions as they see fit but without being forced, and the outside free of anything.

It is unnecessary control of what we do and how we live our lives.
 
david1701 said:
but I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke, I am against almost all forms of regulation (apart from ya know the biggies that are there for our safety) I can make my own dammed decisions and I don't want to be told what I can and can't do
Click to expand...

I totally agree. You're well within your rights to choose how badly you damage the health of your children by smoking in there presence.

:bang:

I don't think this legislation is about YOU the smoker. It's about YOUR CHILDREN.

You know what it reminds me of? People that get their children's ears pierced as soon as they're born. How does a baby who can't yet communicate tell you that they want their ears pierced?

*sigh*
 
KayJay said:
You know what it reminds me of? People that get their children's ears pierced as soon as they're born. How does a baby who can't yet communicate tell you that they want their ears pierced?

*sigh*
Click to expand...

You've just hit on one of my biggest hates! I just can't get my head around why anyone would do it.
 
KayJay said:
You know what it reminds me of? People that get their children's ears pierced as soon as they're born. How does a baby who can't yet communicate tell you that they want their ears pierced?

*sigh*
Click to expand...



I actually agree with how unpleasant and chavvy kids like that look, my sis got my niece done at 7 which was imho a bit early.

Smoking in cars doesn't upset the people in the rest of the car as it is sucked out the window (until a lorry goes past the other way at speed when it blows back in but that was isolated incident)

and actually yes I do want the right to choose if I am going to harm my children, cos I'd rather I had it than someone else.
 
david1701 said:
and actually yes I do want the right to choose if I am going to harm my children, cos I'd rather I had it than someone else.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, unfortunately a lot of people are stupid enough to make the wrong decision.
 
KayJay said:
You know what it reminds me of? People that get their children's ears pierced as soon as they're born. How does a baby who can't yet communicate tell you that they want their ears pierced?

*sigh*
Click to expand...

Same reaction many people get when they see kids in a pub sitting watching adults swill beer all day. Ok, no physical harm, just the mindset that says getting p**sed in front of kids must be ok cause they haven't banned it yet.

From media stories, the cost of treating the anti social side of drinking to excess is the biggest burden on the NHS.
At least smokers and ear piercers don't usually go round wrecking the joint and picking fights with others.
 
mercedes said:
Same reaction many people get when they see kids in a pub sitting watching adults swill beer all day. Ok, no physical harm, just the mindset that says getting p**sed in front of kids must be ok cause they haven't banned it yet.

From media stories, the cost of treating the anti social side of drinking to excess is the biggest burden on the NHS.
At least smokers and ear piercers don't usually go round wrecking the joint and picking fights with others.
Click to expand...

No, smokers are just killing over 11,000 nonsmokers a year instead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm

I don't think ear piercers have killed anyone though.
 
welly said:
No, smokers are just killing over 11,000 nonsmokers a year instead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm
QUOTE]

If you're gonna use outdated quotes - here's another:D

"These are guesstimates, statistical projections that bear no relation to reality what so ever," he said.

"We keep asking the BMA for hard evidence of the health impact of passive smoking, and they simply cannot provide it.

"It is fraudulent to call for a total ban on smoking in all public places based on statistical projections, and not hard evidence."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top