Smoking ban in cars with anyone under the age of 18

nilagin said:
the amount is so small, you have to consume 100 litres a week.
Click to expand...
I'm sure a few people wouldn't have a problem with that :D
I didn't catch all the report TBH, all I heard was that its supposed to good for you ( this week at least! )
 
norters said:
I've got Hendrix hands. You can hardly see it when I'm actually using it.
Click to expand...
I guess its a similar size then.

n0chex said:
What's in the E Cigs flavoured liquids also concerns me
Click to expand...
And the last I heard was that is why the government is trying to ban it.
I'm sure they'll reach a compromise though, and just tax it like tobacco ;)
 
norters said:
Not as ridiculous as my lungs after 20 years as a smoker. I'm young enough still for them to recover and now have a harmless way to enjoy nicotine so everything is good.

I wish there was e sweets now as the pain I've endured in the dentists this morning was harrowing!
Click to expand...
Totally agree on that health aspect, but as someone who has used e-cigs himself I just can't imagine why to get something so large.
 
dejongj said:
Totally agree on that health aspect, but as someone who has used e-cigs himself I just can't imagine why to get something so large.
Click to expand...

It's mostly to do with the mah of the batteries and the fact that something like the one I have there can cope withhigh voltages and lower resistances. It's all very boring vape related science!
 
jakeblu said:
My wife ate liver and took iron tablets for my first two :eek:
Click to expand...
Same here. Well for the first one and by the second one the guide lines changed and she was recommended to absolutely not do that.

Conclusion, they really haven't got a scooby.
 
norters said:
It's mostly to do with the mah of the batteries and the fact that something like the one I have there can cope withhigh voltages and lower resistances. It's all very boring vape related science!
Click to expand...
So basically a more realistic vape hitting the throat?
 
dejongj said:
Same here. Well for the first one and by the second one the guide lines changed and she was recommended to absolutely not do that.

Conclusion, they really haven't got a scooby.
Click to expand...

There was around 7 years between son no2 and son no3 and in that time the guidelines had changed but I can remember sat in the maternity clinic with Cath and thinking ffs last time I was here they were extolling the virtues of iron and now its a definite no no. Clueless doesn't quite sum it up.
 
jakeblu said:
There was around 7 years between son no2 and son no3 and in that time the guidelines had changed but I can remember sat in the maternity clinic with Cath and thinking ffs last time I was here they were extolling the virtues of iron and now its a definite no no. Clueless doesn't quite sum it up.
Click to expand...
Fully agree, although nowhere near as bad as those earth mothers and the nct etc.
 
jakeblu said:
There was around 7 years between son no2 and son no3 and in that time the guidelines had changed but I can remember sat in the maternity clinic with Cath and thinking ffs last time I was here they were extolling the virtues of iron and now its a definite no no. Clueless doesn't quite sum it up.
Click to expand...

To be fair, iron is still very important, it;s just the sources that differ.
 
viv1969 said:
Thanks.
So we can't definitively put it down to the reduction of things listed in post 57....or to the rise in the efficacy of vaccination.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think even with a detailed study you could definitely put it down to a group of factors. However the environmental changes such as those in that post would certainly have had an effect (imho!).
 
viv1969 said:
To be fair, iron is still very important, it;s just the sources that differ.
Click to expand...
Actually I wasn't really complaining and have nothing but praise for the NHS. With our first, a little girl, my wife had pre-eclampsia and nearly died. Sadly my daughter did, but their excellent care and attention saved Cath for which I am forever grateful. Still I always wondered if it was the iron that made son no1 such a git. :)
 
jakeblu said:
There was around 7 years between son no2 and son no3 and in that time the guidelines had changed but I can remember sat in the maternity clinic with Cath and thinking ffs last time I was here they were extolling the virtues of iron and now its a definite no no. Clueless doesn't quite sum it up.
Click to expand...
They still encourage iron (at least they did for my wife, perhaps due to preeclampsia in the family) but not liver or other offal due to food poisoning risk. Same reason shellfish and soft, unpasteurised cheese is out (unless you cook the cheese).
 
Cobra said:
Goddamit Mother! not only did you smoke when you were pregnant, but you also drank too! Its no wonder I'm such a weedy little thing :(
Click to expand...
I'm 6'1".
My mum drank AND smoked with my older brother - he's 6'4"!

[/irrelevant anecdote]
 
dejongj said:
Conclusion, they really haven't got a scooby.
Click to expand...
Agreed, plus, I believe in these fads that pregnant women get, they eat what they need or their body is telling then they need.
 
nilagin said:
You do realise that height is only a part of growth and development.
Click to expand...

It hardly suggests stunted growth though, does it? :lol:
 
Llamaman said:
I'm 6'1".
My mum drank AND smoked with my older brother - he's 6'4"!

[/irrelevant anecdote]
Click to expand...
That is very liberal of her. Mine gave me my first spliff :) but I wished they drank and smoke more as I am too short.
 
More legislation for the distinct lack of common sense that is the norm these days.......Challenge their love for their kids and you will get a mouthful, but that's what it is a lack of care and love for their kids well being....
 
dejongj said:
That is very liberal of her. Mine gave me my first spliff :) but I wished they drank and smoke more as I am too short.
Click to expand...
Hmm, there's a paper here. 'Liberal behaviour of mothers during term and subsequent political inclination of offspring'.

Epigenetics is hot right now so we might even get a book & TV series deal.
 
norters said:
Not as ridiculous as my lungs after 20 years as a smoker. I'm young enough still for them to recover and now have a harmless way to enjoy nicotine so everything is good.

I wish there was e sweets now as the pain I've endured in the dentists this morning was harrowing!
Click to expand...

Ooh when were ecigs or vapes officially tested as harmless?
Thought they were still mostly unknown at best apart from a small health report recently.......
 
I appreciate they are trying to do something but it needs to go further. As always smokers will ignore it and keep puffing away in your face (well their kids faces in this instance).

At work we have lots of no smoking sings outside. There is almost always a plonker standing right against it and polluting more than a Californian VW. Bastards.
 
norters said:
Not as ridiculous as my lungs after 20 years as a smoker. I'm young enough still for them to recover and now have a harmless way to enjoy nicotine so everything is good.

I wish there was e sweets now as the pain I've endured in the dentists this morning was harrowing!
Click to expand...
Vaping is extremely unlikely to be "harmless", but very likely to be less harmful than smoking.
There are still nasty chemicals in the vapour from e-cigarettes. Notably formaldehyde and metal particulates. But at significantly lower levels than in cigarette smoke. Also, nicotine itself is linked to cardiovascular stress and certain cancers.
So vaping is probably (almost certainly) a better option than smoking but it would be foolhardy to vape under the impression that it is "harmless".
 
ghoti said:
Vaping is extremely unlikely to be "harmless", but very likely to be less harmful than smoking.
There are still nasty chemicals in the vapour from e-cigarettes. Notably formaldehyde and metal particulates. But at significantly lower levels than in cigarette smoke. Also, nicotine itself is linked to cardiovascular stress and certain cancers.
So vaping is probably (almost certainly) a better option than smoking but it would be foolhardy to vape under the impression that it is "harmless".
Click to expand...

If it does no to little harm to anyone in the vicinity of the offending device then that is a massive improvement. The neurotoxin users will still put their health at risk but I'm much more concerned about the damage from 2nd hand smoke exposure.
 
ghoti said:
Vaping is extremely unlikely to be "harmless", but very likely to be less harmful than smoking.
There are still nasty chemicals in the vapour from e-cigarettes. Notably formaldehyde and metal particulates. But at significantly lower levels than in cigarette smoke. Also, nicotine itself is linked to cardiovascular stress and certain cancers.
So vaping is probably (almost certainly) a better option than smoking but it would be foolhardy to vape under the impression that it is "harmless".
Click to expand...
Breathing in outside air is also far from harmless, come and take a look in the big smoke ;) For me, and I know many others, vaping has really helped quitting smoking all together...It helped break the habit which was the hardest part, the chemical addiction doesn't last long but the habit was hard to break. And the vaping experience is just too different to find it appealing....Saying that, I'll always be a smoker, get me drunk enough and I'll smoke like a chimney....But at least I don't punch anyone or end up in the wrong bad...I just smoke and fall asleep :)
 
dejongj said:
Breathing in outside air is also far from harmless, come and take a look in the big smoke ;) For me, and I know many others, vaping has really helped quitting smoking all together...It helped break the habit which was the hardest part, the chemical addiction doesn't last long but the habit was hard to break. And the vaping experience is just too different to find it appealing....Saying that, I'll always be a smoker, get me drunk enough and I'll smoke like a chimney....But at least I don't punch anyone or end up in the wrong bad...I just smoke and fall asleep :)
Click to expand...
No doubt that vaping is is a great development in a smoking suggestion. I'm not at all opposed to it. People shouldn't kid themselves that it's harmless though.
 
Llamaman said:
Hmm, there's a paper here. 'Liberal behaviour of mothers during term and subsequent political inclination of offspring'.

Epigenetics is hot right now so we might even get a book & TV series deal.
Click to expand...
I would make an interesting test case then, since I'm a libertarian (far more than any left/right inclination in my politics) and my parents most definitely are not!
 
Have to say I dont think this rule serves much point. Now I am anti smoking - the smoking ban was one of the best bits of legislation ever! But I only like rules if they serve a purpose or point and not done for 'show'.

Issues are that will this be enforced? How many will actually get stopped and fined? Also, if they smoke in the car, chances are they smoke in the house - so its a bit like me not using carrier bags to help the environment... China will offset that in 10 seconds! What about pregnant women smoking - you see that, how is that allowed? Lets face it - 16 & 17 yo smoke... so if a 17yo is sole occupant and smoking then what?

IMO its a law that looks good and is done for the sake of it - but will have little effect or purpose.
 
cambsno said:
Also, if they smoke in the car, chances are they smoke in the house
Click to expand...
A car is much more confined space. I imagine to produce the same concentration of smoke in a home would require half a dozen chainsmokers puffing Capstan Navy Strength all day.

cambsno said:
What about pregnant women smoking - you see that, how is that allowed?
Click to expand...
It probably shouldn't be. But to change that would require, if my legal knowledge is correct, some more profound changes to law since the unborn are not 'persons' in law.

cambsno said:
Lets face it - 16 & 17 yo smoke... so if a 17yo is sole occupant and smoking then what?
Click to expand...
A very good point, which highlights an inconsistency in the law. Could have been easily avoided if the age was set at 16/17, not 18. That should have been picked up at committee stage.
There's a similar inconsistency in our approach to sex - old enough to do it at 16, but not to watch it until 18! :naughty:

cambsno said:
IMO its a law that looks good and is done for the sake of it - but will have little effect or purpose.
Click to expand...
If it has even a mild deterrent effect, it will have done some good. And since it only stops people doing something they shouldn't have done in the first place, I don't see it doing any harm. Unfortunately, it will be impossible to quantify the benefit unless they've secretly fitted air pollution detectors into smokers' cars.
 
Llamaman said:
A very good point, which highlights an inconsistency in the law. Could have been easily avoided if the age was set at 16/17, not 18. That should have been picked up at committee stage.
There's a similar inconsistency in our approach to sex - old enough to do it at 16, but not to watch it until 18! :naughty:


If it has even a mild deterrent effect, it will have done some good. And since it only stops people doing something they shouldn't have done in the first place, I don't see it doing any harm. Unfortunately, it will be impossible to quantify the benefit unless they've secretly fitted air pollution detectors into smokers' cars.
Click to expand...

If they have a VW it will be ok!!!

Yeah, the porn one is strange. A 17yo can do it but not film themselves or watch others!!
 
cambsno said:
Yeah, the porn one is strange. A 17yo can do it but not film themselves or watch others!!
Click to expand...
It doesn't even have to be porn - an 18-rated film at cinema for example.

So, watching simulated sex at 17 years, 364 days = bad, Having actual sex at 16 years, 0 days = OK. o_O
 
fabs said:
Yes, believe at 16, you can have sex but have to wear a blindfold.
Click to expand...

Which becomes compulsory when you start drinking copiously at 18.
 
Safety laws are odd.
The driver gets the fine for smoking in the car if there's anyone under 18 in there. OK.
Seatbelts? Anyone over 14 is responsible for their own decision to wear the seatbelt, and is liable for the fine if caught not doing so (with certain exceptions both medical and vehicular).
Bizarre.
 
viv1969 said:
Which becomes compulsory when you start drinking copiously at 18.
Click to expand...

I thought keeping an extra bottle of scotch under your pillow worked. Always woke up next to someone who looked just as good in the morning that way ;)

(I've said too much haven't I?)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top