ban smoking in cars

yoby said:
Marcel you forgot to add that we should all pay an extra 5p in the pound tax to cover the 11 billion revenue shortfall. Plus an additional 5p for enforcement costs and an additional 5p to fight the new criminal activities that spring up around the now illegal tobacco trade.

That's before the corporation tax that the tobacco companies have to cough up
Click to expand...

I'm sure the saving on the NHS might go someway to alleviate that.
Could always make it up by letting people sell crack in shops :p
 
Marcel said:
I'm sure the saving on the NHS might go someway to alleviate that.
Could always make it up by letting people sell crack in shops :p
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be a saving !! We'll all live to 150 and suffer the same illnesses anyhow.

Crack in shops could be interesting.
 
Anyone know why non smokers stand outside pubs and bars with the smokers?

Cant use the pavements around here any more.
 
When I smoked, a colleague always used to recoil if I went to talk to him after going for a cigarette. I thought it was a ridiculous typical anti-smoker reaction. 2 weeks after I gave up, another colleague came over to me after having been for a cigarette, it was :gag: :puke: so it's true, you don't realise the smell until you give up.

That said, a ban on people smoking in their cars is a ridiculous idea. It's down to a bit of common sense and consideration for passengers and if you bring in laws for that, then we might as well jack it all in!
 
joescrivens said:
my only desire is for the smoker to not be able to smoke whilst children are in the car. Mostly the child has no choice and shouldn't be punished for doing so. If most smokers are considerate and don't smoke in the car anyway then it won't be a big deal for them, so why would they oppose it.
Click to expand...

Because it's ALL smokers, not everyone has kids in the car. FWIW I don't smoke whilst driving and always get out of the car to have a fag. Even before the smoking ban in pubs came along I would go outside for some lovely fresh air with the ciggy.

If people really feel that kids are the victims then it's about time anyone with fat children in public received an on the spot fine of £50 for each brat.
 
Last edited:
The Greek said:
Anyone know why non smokers stand outside pubs and bars with the smokers?
Click to expand...


That's me. Because in my experience smokers are often more sociable and better company than non-smokers :D

Get to know professional musicians in a symphony orchestra, and you'll find the woodwind players - who don't normally smoke themselves - hang around outside with the "disgusting" strings and tympanists for just that reason :)
 
The argument put forward by the Quacks is for the benefit of others. In that respect, yes, they may have a point with Children, but if its adults that re in my car, then they have the choice, like it or get out.
The safety argument put forward by some on here, is in my experience spurious. In 19 years of dealing with accidents, and investigating the cause, I've have not investigated one that was due to smoking. I have never heard of one caused by smoking either. Thats not to say they don't happen, just if they do, they are rare.
On the other hand, drinking coffee, coke (the fizzy stuff!), snorting coke (the non fizzy), playing with **** nav (anyone who needs that shouldn't be driving!) mobiles, eating I have seen dealt with and heard of all of them causing accidents.
However, the best cause was a Policeman friend of mine who was driving along the South Side of the Thames one xmas day, (not in a police car), with a young lady in the passenger seat. You wouldn't have known she was there if you'd been following him though, if you get my drift. Anyway, as he got to the roundabout at the South end of Westminster Bridge, he lost control, in every sense, and ended up embedded in the roundabout.
Anyway, if it gets banned when there are kids in the car, then fine, but adults? We all have the option, and a ban in those circumstances is nanny state going too far.
 
Just thought I'd mention that I have been following this thread all day during my fag breaks :D and whilst I've been doing it all the non-smokers have been stuck inside... Working.:lol:

Irony...huh!
 
Catdaddy said:
Huh? You only need to enforce legislation if something is illegal or restricted in some way - ie banned. If you don't want the enforcement, don't go for the ban in the first place...

Better yet, ban everything that's bad for us and have the authorities spoonfeed us every single life choice that we would have been able to make otherwise...
Click to expand...

So legalise everything, cannabis, LSD, cocaine etc.
 
I suppose it will be against someone's human rights if they were asked to pack it in ........ what about the poor dog in the lab....does he have human rights too..............

Common sense when smoking should be the order of the day anywhere (I know it is banned inside public and workplaces), it is the same as anything else we do as so called responsible humans.

What about driving pipe smokers in cars.....how do they get away with that???
 
Disphotic said:
So legalise everything, cannabis, LSD, cocaine etc.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I was driving at... I smoke, I enjoy smoking, I don't ram it down people's throats, I don't have a crafty cig under the extractor fans in the bogs at work... I don't object to anyone NOT smoking, so why should some fat cat tell me that I'm not allowed to do it any more than they already have?

tiler65 said:
I suppose it will be against someone's human rights if they were asked to pack it in ........ what about the poor dog in the lab....does he have human rights too..............
Click to expand...

No... he's a dog...! :lol:

EDIT: Sorry, Graham - you must have typed your reply as I was typing mine! :lol:
 
using facebook should also be banned as it's very addictive and can be harmful to children! also listening to loud music and exposing your skin to sun! this country will benefit from this a lot if police will be issuing even £20 ticket for each of this crimes against humanity!
kind regards,
non-smoker
 
His name really fits this thread

[YOUTUBE]0TL2Vh7goJc[/YOUTUBE]
 
Marcel said:
He's the reason (and method) I quit smoking.
Click to expand...

Is that the guy that wrote that book?

I tried it once, ages ago, and I vowed to never try giving up that way again! :lol:
 
This thread .............






























nah not going to get involved :cuckoo:
 
Splog said:
Just thought I'd mention that I have been following this thread all day during my fag breaks :D and whilst I've been doing it all the non-smokers have been stuck inside... Working.:lol:

Irony...huh!
Click to expand...

thats ok, we'll make it up when we retire and you have died from lung cancer :thumbs:
 
joescrivens said:
thats ok, we'll make it up when we retire and you have died from lung cancer :thumbs:
Click to expand...

You lose there, Joe. As Aldous Huxley said "Drug taking is debilitating. Do you want a short life but a good one?"
 
joescrivens said:
thats ok, we'll make it up when we retire and you have died from lung cancer :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Denis Leary said:
Smoking takes ten years off your life. Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair, kidney dialysis, adult diaper ****ing years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, alright?
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Catdaddy said:
Not quite what I was driving at... I smoke, I enjoy smoking, I don't ram it down people's throats, I don't have a crafty cig under the extractor fans in the bogs at work... I don't object to anyone NOT smoking, so why should some fat cat tell me that I'm not allowed to do it any more than they already have?
Click to expand...

What I mean is if you want to have your right to a fag, shouldn't other people have the right to a tab of acid or a line of coke if they want it? Why allow one harmful stimulant and criminalise others.
 
Disphotic said:
What I mean is if you want to have your right to a fag, shouldn't other people have the right to a tab of acid or a line of coke if they want it? Why allow one harmful stimulant and criminalise others.
Click to expand...

The answer to that one is bordering the obvious - money !!!!!
If they'd have found a reliable and viable way of de-criminalising and subsequently taxing other drugs it would have been done.

Was all down to the timing !!
 
Disphotic said:
What I mean is if you want to have your right to a fag, shouldn't other people have the right to a tab of acid or a line of coke if they want it? Why allow one harmful stimulant and criminalise others.
Click to expand...

Because tobacco can be taxed.......
 
yoby said:
The answer to that one is bordering the obvious - money !!!!!
If they'd have found a reliable and viable way of de-criminalising and subsequently taxing other drugs it would have been done.

Was all down to the timing !!
Click to expand...

Its obviously not just about money. The tax income from alcohol and cigs is enormous but so is the tax outlay because the harm associated with both drugs is so great. The 'profit' from drugs like cannabis would be greater because the associated harm for user and society more widely is lower.
 
Disphotic said:
Its obviously not just about money. The tax income from alcohol and cigs is enormous but so is the tax outlay because the harm associated with both drugs is so great. The 'profit' from drugs like cannabis would be greater because the associated harm for user and society more widely is lower.
Click to expand...

Exactly deaths from canabis vs those from alcohol, even factoring in the percentages is far less. No one has ever died from the effects of canabis. Smoking it with tobacco will cause damage obviously, but the drug itself compared with tobacco or alcohol has killed far less, in fact I don;t think there is a fatality attributed to canabis directly.
 
Disphotic said:
Its obviously not just about money. The tax income from alcohol and cigs is enormous but so is the tax outlay because the harm associated with both drugs is so great. The 'profit' from drugs like cannabis would be greater because the associated harm for user and society more widely is lower.
Click to expand...

You missed the point - the tobacco 'industry' historically was started by rich plantation owners, who formed companies to maximise profit from their crops - it wasn't taxed initially but when the time came it was relatively easy to do as its never been illegal. To try and tax the production and the use of substances such as cocaine and cannabis would be much more complicated, without the perceived u-turn on the damage that year drugs do to you. Of the lot cannabis would probably fit the model best and I'm all honesty it isn't that unrealistic to expect to see that legalised at some point anyhow.

It goes without saying that alcohol abuse and heavy smoking cause harm, from mild discomfort to painful death. That aside, I suspect that many conditions would still exist without smoking (think of the crappy processed food we all enjoy) and the actual benefit would be relatively small in monetary terms. Factor in the thought that even if smoking ceased tomorrow the real health service benefits wouldnt be realised for 20 years or so it's moot anyhow (at least from my perspective).
 
joescrivens said:
:D

Nah as soon as I hit 60 I'm going onto heroin! Get the best of both worlds!
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your sanctimonious bubble, Joe, but 1000's of none smokers die every day too.
 
ding76uk said:
Exactly deaths from canabis vs those from alcohol, even factoring in the percentages is far less. No one has ever died from the effects of canabis. Smoking it with tobacco will cause damage obviously, but the drug itself compared with tobacco or alcohol has killed far less, in fact I don;t think there is a fatality attributed to canabis directly.
Click to expand...

Maybe Cannabis cannot kill you but read this as there are many more detriments than just death;

Main article: Health issues and effects of cannabis

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main active compound in cannabisCannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed, usually by smoking or ingestion. The minimum amount of THC required to have a perceptible psychoactive effect is about 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight[54] (which, in practical terms, is a varying amount, dependent upon potency). A related compound, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarin, also known as THCV, is produced in appreciable amounts by certain drug strains. This cannabinoid has been described in the popular literature as having shorter-acting, flashier effects than THC, but recent studies suggest that it may actually inhibit the effects of THC. Relatively high levels of THCV are common in African dagga (marijuana), and in hashish from the northwest Himalayas.[citation needed]

Health issues

Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet [2])Smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since combustion of material and inhalation of smoke in itself from organic materials such as tobacco, wood, gasoline and cannabis causes various health problems. By using a vaporizer or orally consuming cannabis, many health problems and many objections to using cannabis as medicine can be eliminated.

A recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[55] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke.

Smoking cannabis is the least healthful method of consuming cannabis, yet the most practiced.In spite of this, a recent large-scale study found no correlation between heavy marijuana use and lung cancer, despite noting that cannabis contains the same carcinogens as tobacco. The same study found a 20-fold increase in lung-cancer rates of smokers who consumed two or more packs of cigarettes per day.[56] These researchers postulated that the THC present may have a "protective effect" by causing aging cells to die before they become cancerous.[57] Other recent research suggest the cannabinoid CBD may stop certain cancers from spreading, although not in concentrations consumed during smoking.[58]

Tar, a sticky incomplete combustion product from smoking, clogs the lungs of both tobacco and cannabis smokers; vaporization is a much healthier alternative.In contrast, a study published in the January 2008 edition of the journal Respirology found that "regular" cannabis smokers who developed bullous lung disease[3] did so on average 24 years sooner than tobacco smoking counterparts.[59] Researchers attributed this to the inhalation of a larger volume of smoke, and typically holding it for four times longer than tobacco smokers. Bullous lung disease is considered an uncommon cause of respiratory distress.[60] In general, habitual inhalation of any kind of smoke is detrimental to lung health.[61]

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.[62] More recently, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study published research showing an increased risk of psychosis for cannabis users with a certain genetic predisposition, held by 25% of the population.[63]


Vaporization pipe with flame filter
28. Tobacco, herbs or essential oils
36. Flame filter made of a stack of metal screens (5+) or a heat resistant porous materialStudies have also shown links between heavy long-term use (over five joints daily over several years) and incidence of heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain.[64][65]

In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.[66][67][68]

Aspergillus fumigatusTo kill potentially dangerous Aspergillus and other microorganisms, researchers "Levitz and Diamond (1991) suggested baking marijuana in home ovens at 150 °C [302 °F], for five minutes before smoking. Oven treatment killed conidia of A. fumigatus, A. flavus and A. niger, and did not degrade the active component of marijuana
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top