Geronimo Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 England is quickly becoming a nanny state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Good to see the smoking apologists out in full force. See my post above. I've nothing against smoking or smokers, I just don't agree with it in cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Good to see the smoking apologists out in full force. I would never smoke in a car with non-smokers of any age, unless an adult on their own told me they weren't bothered. What annoys me are the phony statistics dressed as fact that they come out with to justify it. Any scientist or doctor who points out that they have no evidence for what they're claiming will be called a smoking apologist. BTW I have no problem with a ban on smoking in cars with children. Unless it's the children who light up first of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 I would never smoke in a car with non-smokers of any age, unless an adult on their own told me they weren't bothered. What annoys me are the phony statistics dressed as fact that they come out with to justify it. Any scientist or doctor who points out that they have no evidence for what they're claiming will be called a smoking apologist. BTW I have no problem with a ban on smoking in cars with children. Unless it's the children who light up first of course. How do you know they are phony stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 How do you know they are phoney stats? Voting by mobile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 How do you know they are phony stats? First, they don't quote the source. Secondly they use the phrase "Research indicates", a sure tell that they've made it up. Thirdly they come up with exact numbers, 300,000 and 9,500. How can they be sure whether an individual lung problem, say, is caused by second hand smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty meadow Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I just can't understand why anyone in this day and age would want to smoke at all. How can something which pollutes your body with chemicals and makes your body and breath smell like an ashtray seem attractive. I have to use public transport for work and the smell coming off smokers more than anyone else is f*****g disgusting. Personally I would ban it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza_Paisley Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Someone has probably already stated this but if pressing a button on your sat nav or radio can get you stopped and fined by the police then why are smokers allowed to continue fumbling around for lighters and smoking whilst driving? Can't be a civil liberties thing surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I just can't understand why anyone in this day and age would want to smoke at all. How can something which pollutes your body with chemicals and makes your body and breath smell like an ashtray seem attractive. I haven't smoked in over 20 years but a few nights back I was watching 'Casablanca' yet again. That scene where Humphrey Bogart lights the two cigarettes then hands one to Ingrid Bergman? Almost made me want to start up again. Of course, then I remembered he died of lung cancer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Its almost as if the powers that be don't want to see anyone smoking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 Its almost as if the powers that be don't want to see anyone smoking I hope you don't smoke throbber, that would upset me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I hope you don't smoke throbber, that would upset me Nah mate i never really got into it which i suppose can only be a good thing but had i been careless in my younger years i dare say i would have taken to it as i have a pretty addictive personality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Leaving aside the "how would they police this?" debate, the fact this law is even considered necessary just boggles my mind. I just can't get my head around anyone thinking it was alright to do it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I had asthma for a spell too, and grew out of it after leaving home. None of my family smoked. They were probably in contact with people who did - third hand smoke causes untold damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 More nanny state nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Its almost as if the powers that be don't want to see anyone smoking Nah, they could just shut their eyes if it was that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Leaving aside the "how would they police this?" debate, the fact this law is even considered necessary just boggles my mind. I just can't get my head around anyone thinking it was alright to do it in the first place. It smacks of Clause 22 or whatever it was. A law to stop something that nobody was doing anyway ie. promoting homosexuality in schools. Any measure against smoking will get overwhelming support no matter the logic. And the police will have another excuse to invade our privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 As a novice driver and smoker I had a few hairy incidents with smoking and driving. Once, I was heading with my girlfriend on a camping trip. I'd always have the window down and a fag on the go. Wind caught the fag and sent it flying into the back of the car with all the bedding, tents etc. It was like having Archie McPherson in the back seat - WOOFT Another time I was labouring in Edinburgh as a summer job and driving a few of the boys from the site into town. I never noticed the end falling off my fag and landing in my lap. I got no sympathy as I screamed as my balls and driver seat burned as I negotiated the Leith Walk traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'd like to know if cars are more dangerous to children than inhaling second hand smoke in them. They'd have to include pollution as well as crashes and getting knocked over in the figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 At the end of the day, it's just another way to make more money out of motorists and smokers. Don't kid yourself they are doing it for health reasons. If they want to do something for health reasons, they would ban smoking altogether, but they have to remember the tax revenue they would lose that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.