Car smoking ban

MugMugs

the culture of deference wrote: »

• 7,000 people die from smoking related disease in Ireland every year
• 90% of Lung cancers are caused by smoking
• 50% of all smokers will die from smoking related diseases
• Smokers have an increased risk of cancers, heart disease, strokes, low birth weight and many other diseases
• Standing in the path of a smoker or their cigarette or being in a room in which there are smokers means being exposed to at least 50 agents known to cause cancer and other chemicals that increase blood pressure, damage the lungs and cause abnormal kidney function.
• Smokers lose an average of 10-15 years from their life expectancy

But jaysus, it's great with a pint

Snickers Man

senordingdong wrote: »

Are you against child protection?

Would you prefer these 'parents' be permitted to destroy their own childrens health for the protection of 'their personal space in their cars'?

I'm against the obsession some people have to tell others what to do, and when they use the smokescreen of "child protection" to view with suspicion any adult male within 50m of a playground, forbid parents from filming their kids' nativity plays and endanger other road users because they are so busy peering into passing cars to see whether there's a child in the back and a cigarette in the driver's mouth that they fail to keep their own bloody eyes on where they're going, well it just makes me angry.

And what's "their children's health" when compared with your immortal soul?That's what the previous generation of "concerned citizens" were obsessed with. However atheist you may be, you can't deny that their concerns for their fellow citizens outweighed the relative trivia of bronchial well being.

My son broke his collar bone playing rugby at the age of 13. Total accident. No culpability. One of the risks you take. Am I to be castigated as a bad parent for letting him participate in such a risky sport? Some of those with priggish tendencies would say yes.

Sooner or later kids have to venture into the deep end of life. An obsessive desire to keep them safe from all the dangers of the world can actually be harmful in the long run.

Eric Cartman

why havent they made drinking / smoking while pregnant illegal first, or how about giving your children sugar.

the government really needs to stop all this needless regulation.

While I disagree with smoking in cars with kids in them , theres at least 100 worse things for your kids that theres no sign of regulations on.

Eric Cartman

the culture of deference wrote: »

• 7,000 people die from smoking related disease in Ireland every year
• 90% of Lung cancers are caused by smoking
• 50% of all smokers will die from smoking related diseases
• Smokers have an increased risk of cancers, heart disease, strokes, low birth weight and many other diseases
• Standing in the path of a smoker or their cigarette or being in a room in which there are smokers means being exposed to at least 50 agents known to cause cancer and other chemicals that increase blood pressure, damage the lungs and cause abnormal kidney function.
• Smokers lose an average of 10-15 years from their life expectancy

1) 28,898 died in 2009 , making smoking the 'cause' of 24% of deaths
2) 1 in 3 people will get cancer full stop.
3) everyone will die !
4) fat people have increased risks of many of those, athletes have increased risk of SADS , salesmen have increased risk of stress related heart attacks.
5) car exhaust, the sun, light bulbs, contaminated water, food, and a million other things also cause cancer
6) do you really want to live into your 90s

dr.fuzzenstein

At this stage I have to say I smoke and I'm proud of it.
At no stage has the Irish robbin' bastid exchequer ever seen a penny from me and the fact that some people (especially that cnut Luke Clancy) are driven to white hot rage by the fact that some people still choose to smoke just fills me with a warm, fuzzy glow.
I don't smoke around others and it has to be said that a good aul' Irish fry-up every day will do you even more damage, as will chips, soft drinks, processed meat of any type, ready meals, crisps, alcohol, chocolate bars and frying everything in a pound of lard.
In fact you can indulge in any of the above mentioned sin (and I do) and still be healthy, as long as you balance it out with living sensibly and adhering to a good diet for most of the time. I can leave most people my age (OK, I'm only 41) in the dust and the last time I had the need to see my doctor was in 2005 to get a sick cert for a bad back.
The odd fag is not going to kill you.
If it where up to the Health Fascists we would all be woken up at 6am by the Waffen SS, forced to run 10 miles naked, given a carrot and sip of water for breakfast along with ten lashes and then marched off to forced labor in a gym and off to bed at 8.
This law is silly, you might as well say "It is illegal to knife someone", it's just something that shouldn't need to be said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI0mOnmErnU

coolbeans

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

At this stage I have to say I smoke and I'm proud of it.
At no stage has the Irish robbin' bastid exchequer ever seen a penny from me and the fact that some people (especially that cnut Luke Clancy) are driven to white hot rage by the fact that some people still choose to smoke just fills me with a warm, fuzzy glow.
I don't smoke around others and it has to be said that a good aul' Irish fry-up every day will do you even more damage, as will chips, soft drinks, processed meat of any type, ready meals, crisps, alcohol, chocolate bars and frying everything in a pound of lard.
In fact you can indulge in any of the above mentioned sin (and I do) and still be healthy, as long as you balance it out with living sensibly and adhering to a good diet for most of the time. I can leave most people my age (OK, I'm only 41) in the dust and the last time I had the need to see my doctor was in 2005 to get a sick cert for a bad back.
The odd fag is not going to kill you.
If it where up to the Health Fascists we would all be woken up at 6am by the Waffen SS, forced to run 10 miles naked, given a carrot and sip of water for breakfast along with ten lashes and then marched off to forced labor in a gym and off to bed at 8.
This law is silly, you might as well say "It is illegal to knife someone", it's just something that shouldn't need to be said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI0mOnmErnU

Hyperbole much? I reckon you're the angriest man on the motors forum.
I just think that they should not bring in laws that they're not going to enforce. It breeds a culture of disrespect for the laws that we already have and that's bad.

Greyfoot

While I have my opinion on the OP`s question, I`d rather keep it to myself, this is not the place and thread for discussing my "spider sense".
However I think on a basic level it is absolutely, shockingly laughable attempt to raise further funds and has nothing to do to promote a healthier generation and/or (!!!please someone think of the poor!!!)children.

Gardai should enforce and promote sensible driving standards, including on the spot fines for failure to use indicator, illegal u-turns, crossing continuous white line etc instead of watching people smoking..

Skatedude

You should be allowed to smoke in your own car providing you are alone.

Saying that. i have looked at a number of used cars over the years and i often found a seller that couldnt understand that his car stinks when he was trying to sell it.
I would never, ever buy a smokers car.

Jimbob 83

As a Smoker i think it is a great idea, any law that protects children from idiots is a great idea.

I rarely if ever smoke while driving, sometimes in traffic, i hate smoking inside generally because it creates a nasty smell, 99.9% of the time i smoke outside

dr.fuzzenstein

coolbeans wrote: »

Hyperbole much? I reckon you're the angriest man on the motors forum.
I just think that they should not bring in laws that they're not going to enforce. It breeds a culture of disrespect for the laws that we already have and that's bad.

Forgot to add tongue very much in cheek when I wrote that. Hyperbole just added for effect. And I really like that song.;)
You made the point much simpler, it's just "Babies Will Die!" type hysteria and as such needs to be lampooned.
Maybe a few people will get caught but by and large this is simply an exercise in "look, we're doing something", and the vast majority of sane people who wouldn't dream of smoking in a car with kids present will not be affected.
I think this proposed law is just the start of the summer silly season.

Sonnenblumen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What say you to this proposal?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0626/govt-approves-car-smoking-ban-draft-laws.html


A step too far?

I can see this being just one more unenforced motoring law if it does get brought in. Can't really see the point of it either in the larger context, children can still be subject to smoke in their home etc where they spend much more time with their (smoker) parents. Is it really worth the effort to police in the grand scheme of things?

Can't see the point? You got to be having a laugh? Why are you avoiding the obvious concerns and necessity for this new rule? It's such a pity we have to wait on legislation in order to compel some people into behaving more responsibly. I hope the penalties for non compliance are severe.

Next up, ban smoking in the presence of all children in all environments (including 'home').

Mr Simpson

This proposal is nonsense, albeit well intended nonsense. A law the guards will have great difficulty enforcing. Anybody who smokes in a car with kids, is more than likely going to smoke at home with kids, difference is, they spend more time at home than in the car. I would much rather Dr Reilly spends his time looking at the problems in the HSE rather than drafting stupid unenforceable laws. /rant

galwaytt

Senna wrote: »

I honestly cant see why people have a problem with this, if your stupid enough to smoke in a car with a child you deserve more than penalty points.

Its been proven with the 2004 smoking ban that law itself can be enough of a deterrence without wide scale checks and enforcement.

Nobody has a problem with it. Smoking IS disgusting, unhealthy, dangerous.

The problem is, it's completely unenforceable. When they can't get everyone to wear seatbelts , to stop using phones, to stop drink driving , to even - gasp - stick to speed limits, then htf do they think they have even the remotest chance in Hell of policing this?
And who's going to ?
It's not a motoring offence. Its a health one.
Is there a new police force we don't know about , for this ?

Dumb, Dumb, and Dumber, and then there's this......

dr.fuzzenstein

My guess is that the government is planning some severe cuts in the health sector, so they're publishing this cock and bull story and get everyone arguing.
Then they will unveil their plans and hope we're too busy with this to notice that more people are dying on 2 hour ambulance road trips due to huge catchment areas and no air ambulances.
Don't think me cynical for saying this, Micheal Martin used the original smoking ban to detract from the dire state of the health service when he was butchering it.

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

The problem is, it's completely unenforceable. When they can't get everyone to wear seatbelts , to stop using phones, to stop drink driving , to even - gasp - stick to speed limits, then htf do they think they have even the remotest chance in Hell of policing this?

They're actually doing very well at enforcing the above. Just think about what the levels would be without enforcement.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

They're actually doing very well at enforcing the above. Just think about what the levels would be without enforcement.

I remember how it used to be before penalty points and enforcement.
Reps where told they had to do the entire country in a day and the company would pay any speeding tickets. So you would see people overtaking coming up to hills, ahead of blind bends, into oncoming traffic, etc...
And other than that anything was fair game.
Once a guy thought that my car looked a bit too slow for him to be stuck behind (he drove a Celica), so as I was turning onto the main road he overtook me as I was turning!
And of course there where people who where annoyed by that kind of driving, so every now and then you'd see a car driving right on, or slightly over, the middle line at 60 km/h, moving out and speeding up as people went to pass.
Farmers would deliberately wait on a side road for fast moving traffic and at the last second pull out with a cattle box at 40 km/h.
It was, compared to today, absolute anarchy.
The very next day after penalty points came out, Ireland was a transformed country, I have never seen such polite, careful driving anywhere at any time.
Sure the initial shock wore off and people returned to some kind of normal driving, but the total free-for all that existed before that was over.
The introduction of penalty points had a much more pronounced impact than speed cameras.
Compared to that, Ireland is not a bad country to drive in today.

senordingdong

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'm against the obsession some people have to tell others what to do, and when they use the smokescreen of "child protection" to view with suspicion any adult male within 50m of a playground, forbid parents from filming their kids' nativity plays and endanger other road users because they are so busy peering into passing cars to see whether there's a child in the back and a cigarette in the driver's mouth that they fail to keep their own bloody eyes on where they're going, well it just makes me angry.

Rugby and cigarette smoke don't really compare, but the fact is some children do need to be protected from their own parents.

And was said elsewhere, even if this doesn't stop people, I hope it will go a long way toward educating people. Even someone who disagrees with this law will at some stage have to think about why it was made law.

dr.fuzzenstein

But what if my kids won't put out their fags?

Anan1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But what if my kids won't put out their fags?

Beat them.

djimi

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?

blastman

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?

So one of the best reasons doesn't count, just like that? I don't know what penalties the government are actually proposing to go along with this (the link in the original post doesn't say), but if they're really concerned about children's health (and how much damage is actually done by passive smoking is still under debate), then they should be prepared to take the kids into care, because you can be damn sure that if someone smokes with their child in the car, then they will smoke in the house in front of them too. Fines and/or penalty points don't cut it and will merely indicate this is a law for its own sake with a bit of revenue generation on the side. If you're going to play the "won't someone think of the children" card, you shouldn't be allowed do it selectively.

Anan1

blastman wrote: »

So one of the best reasons doesn't count, just like that?

The nanny state argument doesn't address the question at all, it's just an appeal to emotion.

Del2005

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?

There's nothing wrong with the law apart from it being totally unenforceable and there are bigger dangers out there for kids in cars. It's against the law to have a child unsecured in a car yet I see this every day. It's against the law for a child to be in the front seat of a car, again I see this every day. I'd say that running a red light with a child in a car is much more dangerous than 2nd hand smoke. The amount of dangerous parking I see outside schools is scandalous. Yet I've never seen any of these things being enforced.

A Garda could make their weeks pay outside most schools in a day if they cared about children's safety by applying our current laws. But no they spend their time doing speed checks on motorways or wide open roads. Has anyone seen a speed check outside a school at start or end time. Stopping dangerous parking and speeding around schools would be a better use of resources than making a law that everyone knows won't really be enforced. In the US most states have double fines and lower limits at schools and they have a visible police presence at schools.

We have loads of laws which aren't or can't be enforced, making another law won't make the slightest bit of difference to the people who don't care about their children's safety. Also how do we deal with persistent offenders, if it's enforced there will be a good few?

There's also the fact that children will spend much more time in a house full of smoke, that negates the tiny amount of time they spend in a car. If they really wanted to protect children they'd ban smoking totally but that's never going to happen so stopping smoking in a car won't help the children who are at risk.

Anan1

Del2005 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the law apart from it being totally unenforceable and there are bigger dangers out there for kids in cars.

The first isn't true, and the second isn't relevant.

the culture of deference

username123 wrote: »

So what? Youre still dealing with an addiction, not an rational decision making process. Its not relevant to intelligent levels. Intelligent people do irrational things all the time.

Its still a move I support - but it makes little practical sense.

It cannot be classed not an rational decision making process,

If you smoke when pregnant, or smoke when driving with children in your car, or smoke in your house with children then you are not intelligent. You are a moron who knows the damage you are causing, but using this addiction BS as some kind of justification for damaging your children.

The nicotine in cigarettes increases your baby's heart rate, causes blood vessels to narrow, making it harder for your baby to get the oxygen and nourishment it needs.

Smoking during pregnancy by a mother is a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or 'cot death'), and Increases the risk of miscarriage, complications during the birth, the likelihood of having a low-weight baby who is more vulnerable to infection and other health problem.

djimi

blastman wrote: »

So one of the best reasons doesn't count, just like that? I don't know what penalties the government are actually proposing to go along with this (the link in the original post doesn't say), but if they're really concerned about children's health (and how much damage is actually done by passive smoking is still under debate), then they should be prepared to take the kids into care, because you can be damn sure that if someone smokes with their child in the car, then they will smoke in the house in front of them too. Fines and/or penalty points don't cut it and will merely indicate this is a law for its own sake with a bit of revenue generation on the side. If you're going to play the "won't someone think of the children" card, you shouldn't be allowed do it selectively.

Okay then. If they had come out and said that its now illegal to smoke around children full stop, with the penalties being 2 years in prison and you lose custody of your kids (ie take the revenue generating angle out of it) then would your reaction be any different?

Im disregarding the "nanny state" arguement; if you truely feel that way then why not do away with all laws and let people live their lives exactly as they see fit? Any law you bring out will always incovenience someone and will always have someone complain that it interferes with their lives/government meddling too much etc, but such is life.

Basically what I was asking is can anyone come up with a reason why a parent should be allowed to put the health of their child at risk, which is essentially what you are saying if you oppose this law?

djimi

Del2005 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the law apart from it being totally unenforceable and there are bigger dangers out there for kids in cars. It's against the law to have a child unsecured in a car yet I see this every day. It's against the law for a child to be in the front seat of a car, again I see this every day. I'd say that running a red light with a child in a car is much more dangerous than 2nd hand smoke. The amount of dangerous parking I see outside schools is scandalous. Yet I've never seen any of these things being enforced.

A Garda could make their weeks pay outside most schools in a day if they cared about children's safety by applying our current laws. But no they spend their time doing speed checks on motorways or wide open roads. Has anyone seen a speed check outside a school at start or end time. Stopping dangerous parking and speeding around schools would be a better use of resources than making a law that everyone knows won't really be enforced. In the US most states have double fines and lower limits at schools and they have a visible police presence at schools.

We have loads of laws which aren't or can't be enforced, making another law won't make the slightest bit of difference to the people who don't care about their children's safety. Also how do we deal with persistent offenders, if it's enforced there will be a good few?

There's also the fact that children will spend much more time in a house full of smoke, that negates the tiny amount of time they spend in a car. If they really wanted to protect children they'd ban smoking totally but that's never going to happen so stopping smoking in a car won't help the children who are at risk.

So essentially youre saying that the problem lies with the Gardai, not the laws which are being brought in? I agree completely; there are plenty of laws that they either cannot enforce or choose not to, but thats an entirely different arguement altogether. Also I dont see how the fact that there are bigger problems to tackle has any relevance to this problem.

As for what can be done, for me its quite simple; you make the penalty harsh and you enforce it as often as possible. If it gets out that in the first month of the law being in force 250 received a fine of €5000 for smoking a car with children then Im sure an awful lot more people would think twice about it. It wont stop everyone, no law ever does, but it might help make a significant difference and in reality thats all you can ask of any law.

username123

the culture of deference wrote: »

It cannot be classed not an rational decision making process,

If you smoke when pregnant, or smoke when driving with children in your car, or smoke in your house with children then you are not intelligent. You are a moron who knows the damage you are causing, but using this addiction BS as some kind of justification for damaging your children.

The nicotine in cigarettes increases your baby's heart rate, causes blood vessels to narrow, making it harder for your baby to get the oxygen and nourishment it needs.

Smoking during pregnancy by a mother is a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or 'cot death'), and Increases the risk of miscarriage, complications during the birth, the likelihood of having a low-weight baby who is more vulnerable to infection and other health problem.

Impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who doesnt understand the nature of addiction. Constantly spouting 'smoking is bad' information does not a reasoned discussion make. I suggest you educate yourself. There is plenty of information out there. Even people of lower intelligence should find it accessible. Addiction is long a medically well understood condition. Calling it

addiction bs

just outlines ignorance of the subject.

blastman

djimi wrote: »

Okay then. If they had come out and said that its now illegal to smoke around children full stop, with the penalties being 2 years in prison and you lose custody of your kids (ie take the revenue generating angle out of it) then would your reaction be any different?

Yes. If it's that big a problem, why not ban it altogether?

djimi wrote: »

Im disregarding the "nanny state" arguement; if you truely feel that way then why not do away with all laws and let people live their lives exactly as they see fit? Any law you bring out will always incovenience someone and will always have someone complain that it interferes with their lives/government meddling too much etc, but such is life.

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.

djimi wrote: »

Basically what I was asking is can anyone come up with a reason why a parent should be allowed to put the health of their child at risk, which is essentially what you are saying if you oppose this law?

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.

Sitec

I'm a smoker and I'm all for this law but it won't be enforced, same as truck drivers smoking in the workplace.