Sussex MPs vote in favour of smoking ban in cars with children

Sussex MPs vote in favour of smoking ban in cars with children

Sussex MPs vote in favour of smoking ban in cars with children

First published in News

Sussex MPs voted in favour of paving the way for for legislation which could outlaw smoking in vehicles carrying children.

The vote in the House of Commons last night saw Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs join forces with Labour MPs to approve the ban by 376 votes to 107, majority 269.

The Commons gave the Health Secretary the power to impose a ban despite the opposition of some MPs, including leading members of the Cabinet.

Ministers were granted a free vote on the measure - successfully introduced by Labour in a House of Lords amendment to the Children and Families Bill - meaning they were not tied to a party line.

Two Sussex Tory MPs voted against the measure: Hove MP Mike Weatherley and Chichester MP Andrew Tyrie.

Worthing East and Shoreham MP Tim Loughton was one of the tellers of the noes.


MORE:


Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:41am Tue 11 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......
It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke...... Quiterie
  • Score: 8

8:53am Tue 11 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Rah,rah rah, they are all anti-car!
Rah,rah rah, they are all anti-car! HJarrs
  • Score: -10

8:59am Tue 11 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

Quiterie wrote:
It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......
A couple of google searches later I have the answer.... both Weatherley and Andrew Tyrie are members of the Free Enterprise Group which receives funding and hospitality from the tobacco industry ..... so there you go ..... the health of children goes out the window when you're worried about upsetting the hand that that feeds you....
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......[/p][/quote]A couple of google searches later I have the answer.... both Weatherley and Andrew Tyrie are members of the Free Enterprise Group which receives funding and hospitality from the tobacco industry ..... so there you go ..... the health of children goes out the window when you're worried about upsetting the hand that that feeds you.... Quiterie
  • Score: 17

9:10am Tue 11 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

HJarrs wrote:
Rah,rah rah, they are all anti-car!
http://www.samaritan
s.org/how-we-can-hel
p-you?gclid=CPLOzffc
w7wCFU_KtAodoA8AHA
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Rah,rah rah, they are all anti-car![/p][/quote]http://www.samaritan s.org/how-we-can-hel p-you?gclid=CPLOzffc w7wCFU_KtAodoA8AHA cynic_the
  • Score: 6

9:15am Tue 11 Feb 14

Morpheus says...

I have never smoked in my life but I object to the government dictating the details of how we should live our lives. I have also never owned a car. But if I had a car and smoked I would get a baby on board sticker, a plastic doll and I would drive around smoking.
I have never smoked in my life but I object to the government dictating the details of how we should live our lives. I have also never owned a car. But if I had a car and smoked I would get a baby on board sticker, a plastic doll and I would drive around smoking. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

9:29am Tue 11 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong Take it Personally
  • Score: 1

9:48am Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes. Richada
  • Score: 6

10:12am Tue 11 Feb 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Crumpets I don't believe it - MP's have come together for once to help save children from illnesses caused by sadistic parents - wonderful.
Crumpets I don't believe it - MP's have come together for once to help save children from illnesses caused by sadistic parents - wonderful. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 2

10:13am Tue 11 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern. Take it Personally
  • Score: 1

10:34am Tue 11 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
I'm happy for people to "self govern" as long as what they choose to do doesn't have a detrimental impact on other people. But smoking with children in the car does have an impact on others doesn't it......
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.[/p][/quote]I'm happy for people to "self govern" as long as what they choose to do doesn't have a detrimental impact on other people. But smoking with children in the car does have an impact on others doesn't it...... Quiterie
  • Score: 3

10:34am Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
I'm always concerned when governments resort to banning something - it's often due to a lack of imaginative thinking to try and resolve the issue in an alternative way.

In this instance I support the ban as it will hopefully protect children. Most parents wouldn't hand a child a bottle of wine to drink so why they think acceptable for children to effectively smoke is beyond me. There were calls by FOREST and co when smoking was banned in bars and restaurants that it was the beginning of the end yet I would imagine a vast majority of us now enjoy not being surrounded by smoke when we eat or drink.

Next ban needs to stop people smoking while driving.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]I'm always concerned when governments resort to banning something - it's often due to a lack of imaginative thinking to try and resolve the issue in an alternative way. In this instance I support the ban as it will hopefully protect children. Most parents wouldn't hand a child a bottle of wine to drink so why they think acceptable for children to effectively smoke is beyond me. There were calls by FOREST and co when smoking was banned in bars and restaurants that it was the beginning of the end yet I would imagine a vast majority of us now enjoy not being surrounded by smoke when we eat or drink. Next ban needs to stop people smoking while driving. Fight_Back
  • Score: 2

10:34am Tue 11 Feb 14

her professional says...

Quiterie wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......
A couple of google searches later I have the answer.... both Weatherley and Andrew Tyrie are members of the Free Enterprise Group which receives funding and hospitality from the tobacco industry ..... so there you go ..... the health of children goes out the window when you're worried about upsetting the hand that that feeds you....
Great research. Is is too much to hope that the Argus will pick up on this? Yeh, thought so.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......[/p][/quote]A couple of google searches later I have the answer.... both Weatherley and Andrew Tyrie are members of the Free Enterprise Group which receives funding and hospitality from the tobacco industry ..... so there you go ..... the health of children goes out the window when you're worried about upsetting the hand that that feeds you....[/p][/quote]Great research. Is is too much to hope that the Argus will pick up on this? Yeh, thought so. her professional
  • Score: 3

10:40am Tue 11 Feb 14

her professional says...

Quiterie wrote:
It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......
"Mike Weatherly" and "rationale" go together like "common sense" and "smoking".
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: It will be interesting to hear Mike Weatherley's rationale for being in favour of exposing young children to second hand cigarette smoke......[/p][/quote]"Mike Weatherly" and "rationale" go together like "common sense" and "smoking". her professional
  • Score: 2

11:08am Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it!

It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe.

In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state.

In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.[/p][/quote]Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it! It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe. In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state. In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations. Richada
  • Score: 1

11:17am Tue 11 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it!

It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe.

In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state.

In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.
with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue).

If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.[/p][/quote]Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it! It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe. In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state. In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.[/p][/quote]with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue). If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you. Take it Personally
  • Score: 0

11:28am Tue 11 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

If you smoke with children in the car, then you probably likely to smoke with children in the house. Is that the next step? Banning smoking in people's own homes?
If you smoke with children in the car, then you probably likely to smoke with children in the house. Is that the next step? Banning smoking in people's own homes? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 6

11:52am Tue 11 Feb 14

FC says...

Morpheus wrote:
I have never smoked in my life but I object to the government dictating the details of how we should live our lives. I have also never owned a car. But if I had a car and smoked I would get a baby on board sticker, a plastic doll and I would drive around smoking.
I bet you're the first person to jump on the bandwagon saying the government should do more to "protect us on the internet".

So which is? Do you want the government involved or not?
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: I have never smoked in my life but I object to the government dictating the details of how we should live our lives. I have also never owned a car. But if I had a car and smoked I would get a baby on board sticker, a plastic doll and I would drive around smoking.[/p][/quote]I bet you're the first person to jump on the bandwagon saying the government should do more to "protect us on the internet". So which is? Do you want the government involved or not? FC
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it!

It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe.

In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state.

In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.
with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue).

If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you.
Just because something is hard to enforce doesn't mean that a law shouldn't be passed to ban it.

There are lots of laws that are hard to enforce, but which are clearly sensible laws. Human trafficking is a perfect example. Should we legalise human trafficking just because it's hard to prevent?

Legislating against smoking in cars with children sends the message that it's socially unacceptable to do so. This will be enough to prevent a lot of people. Of course you're going to get the hardcore of people who think the law doesn't apply to them (as with mobile phone use in cars). But the new law should still result in a reduction of smoking in cars.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.[/p][/quote]Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it! It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe. In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state. In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.[/p][/quote]with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue). If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you.[/p][/quote]Just because something is hard to enforce doesn't mean that a law shouldn't be passed to ban it. There are lots of laws that are hard to enforce, but which are clearly sensible laws. Human trafficking is a perfect example. Should we legalise human trafficking just because it's hard to prevent? Legislating against smoking in cars with children sends the message that it's socially unacceptable to do so. This will be enough to prevent a lot of people. Of course you're going to get the hardcore of people who think the law doesn't apply to them (as with mobile phone use in cars). But the new law should still result in a reduction of smoking in cars. Quiterie
  • Score: 2

1:26pm Tue 11 Feb 14

wippasnapper says...

These days we are dictated to by governments that once allowed tobacco to be smoked by the masses… but if smoking is so bad and if smoking tobacco courses so many problems to your health and puts a strain on the NHS why dos this dictating government not ban the selling of tobacco in this country Why not? Because they get billons of tax revenue from the people addicted to tobacco but instead of putting a total ban on tobacco sells they dictate to use smokers where we can or can’t smoke.
Ill admit as a smoker I was all for the ban in public places as it would help those trying to stop but isn’t it anoth that this dictating government stop dictating how we live our lives! Yes smoking is bad for you we all know this but we who do smoke do so because we want to we understand the risks i.e. it is our lives.
These days we are dictated to by governments that once allowed tobacco to be smoked by the masses… but if smoking is so bad and if smoking tobacco courses so many problems to your health and puts a strain on the NHS why dos this dictating government not ban the selling of tobacco in this country Why not? Because they get billons of tax revenue from the people addicted to tobacco but instead of putting a total ban on tobacco sells they dictate to use smokers where we can or can’t smoke. Ill admit as a smoker I was all for the ban in public places as it would help those trying to stop but isn’t it anoth that this dictating government stop dictating how we live our lives! Yes smoking is bad for you we all know this but we who do smoke do so because we want to we understand the risks i.e. it is our lives. wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Number Six says...

So why is it acceptable to smoke in your living room but not in your car. Does they average house have a substance that protects children from cigarette smoke that cars don't have? Don't get me wrong. I would be more than happy to see smoking banned in cars entirely but because I think driving around with a burning bush in your hand isn't smart.

Anyway, if the Police can't stop the dangerous morons who drive while on their mobile what chance does this have
So why is it acceptable to smoke in your living room but not in your car. Does they average house have a substance that protects children from cigarette smoke that cars don't have? Don't get me wrong. I would be more than happy to see smoking banned in cars entirely but because I think driving around with a burning bush in your hand isn't smart. Anyway, if the Police can't stop the dangerous morons who drive while on their mobile what chance does this have Number Six
  • Score: -1

1:59pm Tue 11 Feb 14

All 9 of me says...

David Cameron has some nerve backing this move, at least the smokers remembered to put their children in the car ....
David Cameron has some nerve backing this move, at least the smokers remembered to put their children in the car .... All 9 of me
  • Score: 4

2:38pm Tue 11 Feb 14

bug eye says...

More worrying are pregnant women who smoke with a foetus in the smallest of confined spaces from which it cannot escape. labour love to propose stupid nannying laws, just ban it full stop that would be worth supporting. it would be interesting to see a poll on how many people actually smoke in a car with kids in 2014, and what section of society they are from, then they could be targeted with education, not criminality and child abuse convictions.
More worrying are pregnant women who smoke with a foetus in the smallest of confined spaces from which it cannot escape. labour love to propose stupid nannying laws, just ban it full stop that would be worth supporting. it would be interesting to see a poll on how many people actually smoke in a car with kids in 2014, and what section of society they are from, then they could be targeted with education, not criminality and child abuse convictions. bug eye
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Number Six says...

wippasnapper wrote:
These days we are dictated to by governments that once allowed tobacco to be smoked by the masses… but if smoking is so bad and if smoking tobacco courses so many problems to your health and puts a strain on the NHS why dos this dictating government not ban the selling of tobacco in this country Why not? Because they get billons of tax revenue from the people addicted to tobacco but instead of putting a total ban on tobacco sells they dictate to use smokers where we can or can’t smoke.
Ill admit as a smoker I was all for the ban in public places as it would help those trying to stop but isn’t it anoth that this dictating government stop dictating how we live our lives! Yes smoking is bad for you we all know this but we who do smoke do so because we want to we understand the risks i.e. it is our lives.
Surely the point of all this is that it's not your life anyone cares about. It's your child's life that is at the centre of this ban
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: These days we are dictated to by governments that once allowed tobacco to be smoked by the masses… but if smoking is so bad and if smoking tobacco courses so many problems to your health and puts a strain on the NHS why dos this dictating government not ban the selling of tobacco in this country Why not? Because they get billons of tax revenue from the people addicted to tobacco but instead of putting a total ban on tobacco sells they dictate to use smokers where we can or can’t smoke. Ill admit as a smoker I was all for the ban in public places as it would help those trying to stop but isn’t it anoth that this dictating government stop dictating how we live our lives! Yes smoking is bad for you we all know this but we who do smoke do so because we want to we understand the risks i.e. it is our lives.[/p][/quote]Surely the point of all this is that it's not your life anyone cares about. It's your child's life that is at the centre of this ban Number Six
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Richada wrote:
Take it Personally wrote:
Be careful what you wish for

I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation.
Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong
Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point.

By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine.

Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.
OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point.
Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing.
Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.
Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it!

It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe.

In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state.

In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.
with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue).

If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you.
Fair point.....apologies for my erronious assumption that you smoke too.

However, surely, if there is no legislation (obviously we're not talking about the "minor" issue of smoking here now) the result is, ultimately, anarchy.

Much as I rail against the nanny state and our PC culture, unfortunately human beings need a certain framework - rules / laws if you like - by which to live, otherwise society merely reverts to the law of the jungle.

You credit your fellow human beings with a far higher degree of responsibility, common sense even, than is now prevalent..........i
ndeed I blame a lot of useless legislation and the nanny state for that, but that's a whole different subject!
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Be careful what you wish for I think most people who smoke exercise common sense with regards to this issue. But allowing legislation of this kind sets a precedent for further more intrusive legislation. Many rights are being eroded "in the name of health" that are not necessary and pave the way for further infringement where the government doesn't belong[/p][/quote]Having been bought up in the 60's & 70's by two parents who smoked, I'd be inclined to disagree with you on your first point. By the time I was old enough not to have to travel in the rear of a small, smoke filled, car, not only was I detirmined never to smoke myself but also have never allowed anyone to smoke in a car of mine. Smoking in cars is dangerous from the wider point of view too - as with mobile phones, lighting and extinguishing cigarettes whilst driving is a highly hazardous occupation - car fires have also been caused by drivers dropping cigarettes.[/p][/quote]OK, you just need to wait until legislation affects something you do and then perhaps you will get my point. Go beyond the issue and look at the process employed. Sadly that's what many people are missing. Smoking is an emotive subject, don't let it blind you in giving up your rights to self-govern.[/p][/quote]Legislation affects all of us in daily life, running a business we're d*mn near strangled with it! It was your first point that I was disinclined to agree with. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not ALL smokers are responsible, just the same as not ALL drivers / cyclists / pedestrians etc etc..... are safe. In an ideal world we shouldn't need any legislaltion - trouble is that we don't live in one, which is why we end up with a PC nanny state. In practical terms, you and I both know that this will be almost impossible to enforce, just as now with smoking in works vehicles - which I am supposed to enforce, but simply can't due to practical (and sensible!) considerations.[/p][/quote]with respect, I never said I was a smoker (that is your assumption probably because I defended the process and not the issue). If practically it is not enforceable, then why legislate? You are allowing for a process that one day may just have a personal impact on you.[/p][/quote]Fair point.....apologies for my erronious assumption that you smoke too. However, surely, if there is no legislation (obviously we're not talking about the "minor" issue of smoking here now) the result is, ultimately, anarchy. Much as I rail against the nanny state and our PC culture, unfortunately human beings need a certain framework - rules / laws if you like - by which to live, otherwise society merely reverts to the law of the jungle. You credit your fellow human beings with a far higher degree of responsibility, common sense even, than is now prevalent..........i ndeed I blame a lot of useless legislation and the nanny state for that, but that's a whole different subject! Richada
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Reply to Richada (sorry, it gets ridiculous if I press "quote" and they reprint what's already been said)

Of course legislation is important for some things, but isn't this different? This proposes legislation in private areas of people's lives and that is a bit too close. Some people are already making the link that if you can get away with this in people's cars, then you can start to legislate in people's homes too -why not? The precedent has been set.

Set aside for a moment what the issue is. Of course nobody wants to see young people exposed to smoke in a confined space. Encourage people to change their behaviour, don't force it and certainly don't go down the scary road of legislating behaviour. I really do doubt how great the number of people smoking in confined spaces with children really is.

This type of legislation should be ringing alarm bells in everyone's ears.

Like I said, it's the process in which they are doing this, but everyone reacts to the issue. The two are very separate.
Reply to Richada (sorry, it gets ridiculous if I press "quote" and they reprint what's already been said) Of course legislation is important for some things, but isn't this different? This proposes legislation in private areas of people's lives and that is a bit too close. Some people are already making the link that if you can get away with this in people's cars, then you can start to legislate in people's homes too -why not? The precedent has been set. Set aside for a moment what the issue is. Of course nobody wants to see young people exposed to smoke in a confined space. Encourage people to change their behaviour, don't force it and certainly don't go down the scary road of legislating behaviour. I really do doubt how great the number of people smoking in confined spaces with children really is. This type of legislation should be ringing alarm bells in everyone's ears. Like I said, it's the process in which they are doing this, but everyone reacts to the issue. The two are very separate. Take it Personally
  • Score: 3

7:52pm Tue 11 Feb 14

jimpy762 says...

I've just voted myself, in favour of banning children from my car. No more sticky fingermarks, dropped food, squeaky voices or being subjected to feeble music.
I've just voted myself, in favour of banning children from my car. No more sticky fingermarks, dropped food, squeaky voices or being subjected to feeble music. jimpy762
  • Score: 2

8:23pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Reply to Richada (sorry, it gets ridiculous if I press "quote" and they reprint what's already been said)

Of course legislation is important for some things, but isn't this different? This proposes legislation in private areas of people's lives and that is a bit too close. Some people are already making the link that if you can get away with this in people's cars, then you can start to legislate in people's homes too -why not? The precedent has been set.

Set aside for a moment what the issue is. Of course nobody wants to see young people exposed to smoke in a confined space. Encourage people to change their behaviour, don't force it and certainly don't go down the scary road of legislating behaviour. I really do doubt how great the number of people smoking in confined spaces with children really is.

This type of legislation should be ringing alarm bells in everyone's ears.

Like I said, it's the process in which they are doing this, but everyone reacts to the issue. The two are very separate.
A complex issue indeed which brings us firmly into the emotive subjects of censorship and civil liberties, the infringement of both leading, ultimately, to some truly appalling pages in European history - indeed in some countries part of daily life still for millions.

In terms of principal I have to say you are winning this 'argument'.

I can see the point of those arguing in favour of "protecting the children" here - I wish someone had protected me from smoking in the car - a far more confined space than any living room - but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of parents to protect their own children, and we do now live in a much more enlightened, not to say better educated, era.
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Reply to Richada (sorry, it gets ridiculous if I press "quote" and they reprint what's already been said) Of course legislation is important for some things, but isn't this different? This proposes legislation in private areas of people's lives and that is a bit too close. Some people are already making the link that if you can get away with this in people's cars, then you can start to legislate in people's homes too -why not? The precedent has been set. Set aside for a moment what the issue is. Of course nobody wants to see young people exposed to smoke in a confined space. Encourage people to change their behaviour, don't force it and certainly don't go down the scary road of legislating behaviour. I really do doubt how great the number of people smoking in confined spaces with children really is. This type of legislation should be ringing alarm bells in everyone's ears. Like I said, it's the process in which they are doing this, but everyone reacts to the issue. The two are very separate.[/p][/quote]A complex issue indeed which brings us firmly into the emotive subjects of censorship and civil liberties, the infringement of both leading, ultimately, to some truly appalling pages in European history - indeed in some countries part of daily life still for millions. In terms of principal I have to say you are winning this 'argument'. I can see the point of those arguing in favour of "protecting the children" here - I wish someone had protected me from smoking in the car - a far more confined space than any living room - but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of parents to protect their own children, and we do now live in a much more enlightened, not to say better educated, era. Richada
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree