Car smoking ban

Anan1 wrote: »

People should be allowed to do whatever they want, insofar as it does not negatively affect others.

So we should ban really fat people wearing swimsuits because that REALLY negatively affects me? What about queue jumpers too? , the list goes on.

djimi wrote: »

Has anyone actually provided any good reason, other than nanny state/government controlling our lives etc, why a law like this shouldnt be passed? Has anyone actually come up with a compelling arguement as to why parents should be allowed to put the health of their children in serious risk, and why the government cannot step in to try and prevent this from happening?

OK. Let's just talk about the pragmatics of this.

Is it going to be illegal to smoke in a car while a child is present or is it going to be illegal to bring a child into a car where smoking previously took place?

The latter is what any decent right thinking busybody would say is all they want to achieve. The latter would be such a ridiculous infringement of personal liberty that it should be unconscionable. ("Aha! A cigarette might have been smoked in this car a week ago! If you put a child into it you're a criminal!" or alternatively "Oh my God! I gave a lift home last night to somebody who lit up a cigarette. Sorry kids! You'll have to take the bus to school today!")

So, assuming the former is the only offence, how in the name of hell is it going to be enforced?

A Garda is going to have to stop a car, ascertain that the driver is indeed smoking a cigarette (or presumably cigar or pipe), determine that their are children in the car and issue a fixed penalty notice/summons.

How is that going to happen? "The same way we check for those driving under the influence of alcohol" you might say. But it's very different. You have a fag in your mouth. You see the checkpoint up ahead. You extinguish it, close the ashtray and maybe turn on the blowers and open the sun roof. "Not smoking now, Guard. Had a fag on the way home from work, before the kids got in." is there a test for "being under the influence of nicotine? I don't think so.

Far more likely is that the crusaders for children's protection are going to spot people smoking while they're out driving and phone in (on hands free sets of course) their details to the Gardai. Quite apart from the fact that concentrating on what other people are doing IN their cars is very bad practice for somebody driving their own car who should be concentrating on the road, the Gardai are likely to prioritise their meagre resources to more serious, or at least more readily indictable crime.

So after a few months or years of blind eyes being turned and FOI requests for conviction rates for this crime revealing to the concerned citizenry that "Nothing is being done" a campaign will be launched insisting that "the law be upheld."

So Gardai, yielding to "public pressure" from "Concerned citizenry" will, briefly, take a tough line and send out plainclothes units to peer into car cabins to make sure that children's lives are not being placed at any minute risk by smoke inhalation.

Older people may remember what happened in Belfast in the 1960s when Sinn Fein hoisted a tricolour over their offices on the Falls Road and a radical young preacher named Paisley, demanding that the Flags and Emblems Act be enforced for the good of law and order, had the RUC sent in to take it down. Several days rioting ensued.

This is not at all comparable to stricter enforcement of road traffic laws, alluded to by a former poster. That not only punishes the ill mannered and reckless but also reassures those who are willing and ready to observe normal road etiquette that they will not be unduly disadvantaged. EG, you're stuck in a long queue at a traffic light. People keep zooming up along the bus lane beside you and cutting in ahead. Nobody does anything about it. Why the hell should you continue to wait in line?

Ditto for speed limits, dangerous overtaking of slow moving traffic etc etc. These are all about ensuring that everybody uses a common resource fairly and safely.

But this is a completely different matter. It's about one individual saying to another that "You cannot do something that I have no intention of ever doing." It's infringing the personal habits of one person to satisfy the fastidious values of another.

The prigs and busybodies (or people concerned for the welfare of children) should also be forcefully reminded that the preponderance of smoke-free locations nowadays is only made possible by the co-operation of smokers. If they chose to be stroppy about it, they could make life a lot worse for the rest of us.

Scenario: a full inter city coach or train. Suddenly 20 people in unison pull out their packets of fags and light up. What are you going to do about it? Harrumph and tut tut. And they will say: "Tut all you like. We're making a point that if we really want to do something it's very difficult for you to stop us." And you might say "We'll call the police" And they will say "Good luck to that. How quickly do you think they're going to arrive and would you rather wait at the side of the road for an hour or so until they do, or would you rather just getting to your destination? How badly do you want to prove your point?"

If it's going to be a fight every time you ask somebody to put out their cigarette just because it's legal, then nobody wins.

To take the broader "Child protection" argument. For decades we had a superb solution to the protection of vulnerable children ie ( the sick, the orphaned, the mentally challenged, the abandoned) We let the church look after them. Church men, and women, were, we thought, beyond reproach, paragons of virtue, children of God in whom our trust was absolute.

Turned out they were only human after all, As indeed are the guards and the traffic wardens and the railway ticket inspectors. How much power do you want to give these people? If you require their intervention every time somebody's personal behaviour outrages you, it will be necessary to give them powers that could corrupt a saint.

At the moment we have a reasonable balance between the rights of smokers and the rights of those who don't want to breathe in secondary smoke. It exists because of the general cooperation of both sides. You need to think very carefully about increasing the coercive element beyond what is necessary.

And telling people they can't smoke in their own cars is a step too far.

blastman wrote: »

If you feel the "nanny state" is a non-argument, why not do the opposite and have laws for everything? My point is that you can't legislate for absolutely every aspect of people's lives.

No you cant legislate for every aspect of peoples lives, nor should you, but you can take a look at the serious issues and legislate against those, especially where it involves the lives and health of others. What people do to themselves is entirely their own business, which is why Id not be in favour of banning smoking altogher, however when it affects others, and especially where those people are not in a position to do anything about it, then I think its only right that someone step in and try and do something.

blastman wrote: »

I don't think you should be allowed put the health of your child at risk, but I'm not in favour of banning McDonalds either.

Whether or not children should be allowed to eat McDonalds is another valid arguement, but its another issue that would need another discussion.

djimi wrote: »

Why do some people always assume that when a new law is brought in that its there to make money? NCT, speed cameras, now this; it gets a bit tedious when it gets dragged out again and again, especially when its blatently obvious that money making is not the primary concern (okay, maybe the speed cameras are questionable...!)

Why do some people always assume that it isn't for money? I find it tedious when people keep assuming that the government has the best interests of its people as its MAIN priority when there has been little to no evidence of that in as long as i can remember.

Wetbench4 wrote: »

Why do some people always assume that it isn't for money? I find it tedious when people keep assuming that the government has the best interests of its people as its MAIN priority when there has been little to no evidence of that in as long as i can remember.

Agree to disagree I guess. Take the NCT for example; biggest money making racket going according to some people, yet its taken the vast majority of the dangerous bangers off our roads. Sometimes theres more to their actions than just making money (not that Im saying profit isnt a factor).

djimi wrote: »

Agree to disagree I guess. Take the NCT for example; biggest money making racket going according to some people, yet its taken the vast majority of the dangerous bangers off our roads. Sometimes theres more to their actions than just making money (not that Im saying profit isnt a factor).

I can see your point completely, and the principle of the proposed law is great but for me its the trend of dropping in new stupid unenforcable laws to make it look like the government are doing a fantastic job while the country falls to pieces. The new irish SOPA law or whatever it was called, is another recent example.

Also i think the celtic tiger had a lot to do with the reduction of bangers on the roads aswell.

djimi wrote: »

No you cant legislate for every aspect of peoples lives, nor should you, but you can take a look at the serious issues and legislate against those, especially where it involves the lives and health of others. What people do to themselves is entirely their own business, which is why Id not be in favour of banning smoking altogher, however when it affects others, and especially where those people are not in a position to do anything about it, then I think its only right that someone step in and try and do something.

I think the problem is that this reaction i.e. potentially criminalising people for smoking in their car, is not in proportion to the actual risk.

As I said before, should we charge people for bringing their kids to McDonalds, too? Or for allowing them to watch an age-inappropriate film? How would you measure which of the three activities is potentially the most harmful?

username123 wrote: »

Every nail in the coffin for smoking in this country is a good thing. So why dont they ban it outright? Oh wait - too much revenue to be made off it. I dont believe it will ever be made illegal.

We're going OT now, but does the state have any business stopping an adult from doing anything that affects only themselves? In my book, the only reasonable grounds for banning something is when it's absolutely necessary to protect non-participants.

username123 wrote: »

It does affect you. Have you seen the state of the health service recently? Have you had to watch a family member spend 72 hours on a trolley in a corridor because there are no beds? Do you know how much smoking related diseases cost the health service? Smoking affects society at large, unless smokers are refused treatment by hospitals that are funded by the state.

True, but so does horse riding. Do we ban that too?

username123 wrote: »

I could be wrong, and feel free to find the actual stats to prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect the cost of treating horse riding related illnesses is a lot lower than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.

I'd say per participant you might be surprised - horse riding is not safe. Let's take a better example, though - alcohol. Would you ban that?

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Net the excise duty paid by smokers against the cost of their healthcare (and factor in that they die earlier).

I'd say smokers MAKE money for the State

Quite possibly. And they don't inflate the crime statistics like drinkers either.

Edit: Although of course they would if we banned it.

Anan1 wrote: »

Let's take a better example, though - alcohol. Would you ban that?

Alcohol is not as addictive as smoking. Alcohol, in moderation, has been proven to be good for you. There is no medical evidence that smoking is good for you, infact all medical evidence says otherwise.

Any hooo, how come the pros and cons of smoking is being discussed in the motor forum?

I haven't time to read 10 pages but my opinion on this is fairly straightforward. My uncle was addicted to cigarettes (and paid the price). He smoked in the car when I was present growing up but those were different times and I don't judge him harshly for it.

I don't smoke, I hate smoking. Smoking in a car with children present - knowing all we know about the effects of 2nd hand smoke on young lungs - is disgusting and wrong.

However this is another example of a minister making unenforceable laws to be seen to be doing something amongst the electorate and - more importantly perhaps - to make a name for himself amongst his peers in Europe (gravy train coming down the line if viewed as 'progressive' i.e. good at coming up with more-and-more rules!).

pburns wrote: »

However this is another example of a minister making unenforceable laws to be seen to be doing something amongst the electorate and - more importantly perhaps - to make a name for himself amongst his peers in Europe (gravy train coming down the line if viewed as 'progressive' i.e. good at coming up with more-and-more rules!).

We all said the same about smoking in pubs and that is now policed by the public. It is unacceptable.

The idea is to adjust our thinking so that you will not want to be seen by your neighbours/peers/kids smoking in the car. It will take years and will need a few court cases to highlight this. Unfortunately it will catch those who actually care about having their name in the paper. You will not stop your average scumbag smoking in the car but not everyone who smokes in the car is a scumbag. Ordinary people are susceptible to peer pressure. Eventually it will be seen as unacceptable behaviour when the kids are in the car.

Snickers Man wrote: »

If smokers wanted to make a big deal out of this, they could quite easily.

But how? Their right to smoke isn't being infringed upon, only their right to affect children while doing so. They can still smoke in the car if they don't brink the kids.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Wasnt the point of the smoking ban from workplaces that it most certainly isnt just confined to the individual? IT's the individual plus whoever is in the same enclosed area.

This came up in work today and happened to be me in a room with 4 lads that smoke. All 4 said that smoking in cars with kids should be banned. 3 said it should just be banned in cars altogether.

It wasn't always, but it is now - in theory at least. Whatever about banning smoking in cars, i'd have my reservations about allowing smoking while driving. 99.999% of the time it's fine, but anyone who's ever dropped a lit cigarette in their lap will tell you that the other .001% is anything but.