Charity welcomes ban on smoking in cars with children

Charity welcomes ban on smoking in cars with children

Charity welcomes ban on smoking in cars with children

First published in News

SMOKEFREE South-West has welcomed the announcement of a consultation on new regulations to make it illegal to smoke in cars with children inside.

According to a YouGov poll conducted in March for the charity ASH and Smokefree South-West, people in the region overwhelmingly support the proposed ban.

The large majority of adults (77% ) say they agreed that smoking should be banned in cars carrying children younger than 18.

The same poll confirmed that 94% of adults in the South-West agreed that inhaling second-hand smoke increased the risk to children’s health.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:39pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Wellington Shrek says...

I am a non smoker and would say that a ban on smoking in cars does not affect me in the slightest. I do feel there is enough evidence to confirm it is harmful for children to inhale smoke. I have a son of 16 who is a smoker and would like to know how the law would stand if he smokes while I am in the car. It could get to a silly position where if I were a smoker and was travelling with my son in a car and we were both smoking I could be prosecuted for allowing him to inhale 2nd hand smoke. A bit daft when he is smoking himself
I am a non smoker and would say that a ban on smoking in cars does not affect me in the slightest. I do feel there is enough evidence to confirm it is harmful for children to inhale smoke. I have a son of 16 who is a smoker and would like to know how the law would stand if he smokes while I am in the car. It could get to a silly position where if I were a smoker and was travelling with my son in a car and we were both smoking I could be prosecuted for allowing him to inhale 2nd hand smoke. A bit daft when he is smoking himself Wellington Shrek
  • Score: 8

8:52pm Sun 20 Jul 14

boliston says...

Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban?
Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban? boliston
  • Score: 16

7:28am Mon 21 Jul 14

prickles says...

Maybe u should teach your son the dangers of smoking
Maybe u should teach your son the dangers of smoking prickles
  • Score: -4

9:00am Mon 21 Jul 14

Parmenion says...

Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere.
.. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." ...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l
l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo
urnals.org/content/9
0/19/1440.full.pdf
Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere. .. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." [My Emphasis]...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo urnals.org/content/9 0/19/1440.full.pdf Parmenion
  • Score: 2

9:12am Mon 21 Jul 14

billboyd says...

I suffer ill health because of smoking and do not know why legislation on such a subject should need so much time, we know secondary smoke is not good for anyone, especially children whose lungs are still growing, so I would ask that any consultation is short and common sense wins the day.
I suffer ill health because of smoking and do not know why legislation on such a subject should need so much time, we know secondary smoke is not good for anyone, especially children whose lungs are still growing, so I would ask that any consultation is short and common sense wins the day. billboyd
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Mi_Coc says...

Parmenion wrote:
Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere.

.. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."Th
e results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." ...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l

l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo

urnals.org/content/9

0/19/1440.full.pdf
Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness so if you want stick your head in the sand and say its all scaremongering that's up to you. The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really cigs are full of toxic chemicals.

I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so.


Its illegal to smoke in vehicle that people with connected to your work but it seems to be a law the police just arent interested in enforcing.

I think it should be mad as anti social as drinking at work so people give it up. Along with obesity its killing the nhs workloads and budgets.
[quote][p][bold]Parmenion[/bold] wrote: Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere. .. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."Th e results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." [My Emphasis]...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo urnals.org/content/9 0/19/1440.full.pdf[/p][/quote]Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness so if you want stick your head in the sand and say its all scaremongering that's up to you. The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really cigs are full of toxic chemicals. I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so. Its illegal to smoke in vehicle that people with connected to your work but it seems to be a law the police just arent interested in enforcing. I think it should be mad as anti social as drinking at work so people give it up. Along with obesity its killing the nhs workloads and budgets. Mi_Coc
  • Score: -2

1:28pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Somerset_BTGOG says...

boliston wrote:
Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban?
Mobile enforcement cameras.

Don't want to scare anyone but I saw a young Blonde Bimbo taking a selfie whilst driving at the weekend.

Let’s get these Muppets of our roads first.
[quote][p][bold]boliston[/bold] wrote: Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban?[/p][/quote]Mobile enforcement cameras. Don't want to scare anyone but I saw a young Blonde Bimbo taking a selfie whilst driving at the weekend. Let’s get these Muppets of our roads first. Somerset_BTGOG
  • Score: 9

2:31pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Mi_Coc says...

Somerset_BTGOG wrote:
boliston wrote:
Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban?
Mobile enforcement cameras.

Don't want to scare anyone but I saw a young Blonde Bimbo taking a selfie whilst driving at the weekend.

Let’s get these Muppets of our roads first.
its a very scary craze thats sweeping social media.

The lunacy is your incriminate yourself with every photo uploaded to social media. Seen mums doing it with kids in the car!

There are already laws in place to deal with this thought were as smoking in a car with children aren't covered by any laws yet unless its in connection with your business.
[quote][p][bold]Somerset_BTGOG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boliston[/bold] wrote: Considering the number of people who still blatantly use hand-held phones whilst driving, what hope have they got of actually enforcing this proposed ban?[/p][/quote]Mobile enforcement cameras. Don't want to scare anyone but I saw a young Blonde Bimbo taking a selfie whilst driving at the weekend. Let’s get these Muppets of our roads first.[/p][/quote]its a very scary craze thats sweeping social media. The lunacy is your incriminate yourself with every photo uploaded to social media. Seen mums doing it with kids in the car! There are already laws in place to deal with this thought were as smoking in a car with children aren't covered by any laws yet unless its in connection with your business. Mi_Coc
  • Score: 2

3:11pm Mon 21 Jul 14

heather147 says...

I agree with Boliston above. When very few people are caught using a hand held mobile phone, who is going to enforce a smoking ban on people in cars with children under 16 in them. It is a complete waste of time and money bringing in theses laws if nobody is going to bother enforcing them.

You only have to stand on a street corner for 5 minutes to see the number of people happily chatting away on their mobiles. I am sure the old speed cameras could be adapted in some way to catch drivers using mobile phones.
I agree with Boliston above. When very few people are caught using a hand held mobile phone, who is going to enforce a smoking ban on people in cars with children under 16 in them. It is a complete waste of time and money bringing in theses laws if nobody is going to bother enforcing them. You only have to stand on a street corner for 5 minutes to see the number of people happily chatting away on their mobiles. I am sure the old speed cameras could be adapted in some way to catch drivers using mobile phones. heather147
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Wellington Shrek says...

prickles wrote:
Maybe u should teach your son the dangers of smoking
He watched his aunt die of lung cancer caused through smoking. I think he is more than aware of the dangers of smoking. Typical though of someone to read these posts and miss the point completely
[quote][p][bold]prickles[/bold] wrote: Maybe u should teach your son the dangers of smoking[/p][/quote]He watched his aunt die of lung cancer caused through smoking. I think he is more than aware of the dangers of smoking. Typical though of someone to read these posts and miss the point completely Wellington Shrek
  • Score: 2

7:39pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Dunfo87 says...

it should be banned. its careless towards kids and looks chavvy
it should be banned. its careless towards kids and looks chavvy Dunfo87
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Parmenion says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
Parmenion wrote:
Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere.


.. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."Th

e results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." ...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l


l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo


urnals.org/content/9


0/19/1440.full.pdf
Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness so if you want stick your head in the sand and say its all scaremongering that's up to you. The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really cigs are full of toxic chemicals.

I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so.


Its illegal to smoke in vehicle that people with connected to your work but it seems to be a law the police just arent interested in enforcing.

I think it should be mad as anti social as drinking at work so people give it up. Along with obesity its killing the nhs workloads and budgets.
Mi_Coc wrote:

"Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness".

85% of smokers die from a 'smoking related' disease.
84% of non-smokers die from a 'smoking related' disease.
Your point is?


"The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really".

More anti-smoking propaganda I'm afraid. A smokers lungs are as pink and as a non-smokers and last year in the UK, half of all lungs used in transplants came from smokers.
The 'black lung' is, infact, a cancerous lung. If a smoker gets lung cancer, yes, the lung will turn black. If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, his lung will also turn black.
Trying to label a cancerous lung and a smokers lung as one and the same thing is just more downright dishonesty from the anti-smoking industry.
“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”
Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”
Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”
http://cfrankdavis.w
ordpress.com/2012/08
/06/the-black-lung-l
ie/


"cigs are full of toxic chemicals."

The fact that most anti-smokers conveniently overlook, is that toxins found in tobacco smoke are also found in far greater numbers in everyday foods...arsenic in water, formaldehyde in meat and fish etc etc. In fact, chemical analysis reveals that there are over 600 known toxins in a cup of coffee!!
Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, wrote:
."All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
Or, more commonly..."The dose makes the poison."
That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed.
The fact is, we are surrounded by, consume, and inhale toxins everyday...all in harmless doses.


"I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so."

The World Health Organisations own study (Boffetta et al) concluded that children exposed to passive smoke are 22% LESS likely to get lung cancer in later life compared to non-exposed children (RR 0.78).
From the horses mouth......
"The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS
in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood...Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."
http://jnci.oxfordjo
urnals.org/content/9
0/19/1440.full.pdf
Regarding asthma, children of mothers who smoke at least 15 cigarettes a day tend to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis
, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/11422
156
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parmenion[/bold] wrote: Many people been brainwashed by the anti-smoking propaganda, including doctors, politicians, the media etc etc, and understandably so...considering it's been non-stop for the last few decades. They want you to feel guilty. They want you to believe that your kids' health is at risk. However, the so called health risks are all a scam, with no credible evidence...anywhere. .. to back up their assertions. The World Health Organisations own study (Bofetta et al), concluded..."Th e results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from environmental tobacco smoke in several European countries showed a REDUCED risk for exposure during childhood... VEHICLES and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." [My Emphasis]...Never read that before?...Of course you haven't. It's not politically correct for the WHO, or TV and the newspapers to say anything positive about tobacco as it goes against their own agenda. However...if you click on the following link and scroll down to page 5 of 11, under the heading 'Discussion'...you'l l see it laid out in black and white. http://jnci.oxfordjo urnals.org/content/9 0/19/1440.full.pdf[/p][/quote]Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness so if you want stick your head in the sand and say its all scaremongering that's up to you. The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really cigs are full of toxic chemicals. I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so. Its illegal to smoke in vehicle that people with connected to your work but it seems to be a law the police just arent interested in enforcing. I think it should be mad as anti social as drinking at work so people give it up. Along with obesity its killing the nhs workloads and budgets.[/p][/quote]Mi_Coc wrote: "Watched my father die painfully from smoking related illness". 85% of smokers die from a 'smoking related' disease. 84% of non-smokers die from a 'smoking related' disease. Your point is? "The black lungs of a dead smoker say it all really". More anti-smoking propaganda I'm afraid. A smokers lungs are as pink and as a non-smokers and last year in the UK, half of all lungs used in transplants came from smokers. The 'black lung' is, infact, a cancerous lung. If a smoker gets lung cancer, yes, the lung will turn black. If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, his lung will also turn black. Trying to label a cancerous lung and a smokers lung as one and the same thing is just more downright dishonesty from the anti-smoking industry. “Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.” Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.” Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.” http://cfrankdavis.w ordpress.com/2012/08 /06/the-black-lung-l ie/ "cigs are full of toxic chemicals." The fact that most anti-smokers conveniently overlook, is that toxins found in tobacco smoke are also found in far greater numbers in everyday foods...arsenic in water, formaldehyde in meat and fish etc etc. In fact, chemical analysis reveals that there are over 600 known toxins in a cup of coffee!! Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, wrote: ."All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." Or, more commonly..."The dose makes the poison." That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed. The fact is, we are surrounded by, consume, and inhale toxins everyday...all in harmless doses. "I hate walk around people smoking or people who think it acceptable to blow smoke around my children. I see it as similar giving your children alcohol and that is not considered acceptable so why should smoking in a car with them be so." The World Health Organisations own study (Boffetta et al) concluded that children exposed to passive smoke are 22% LESS likely to get lung cancer in later life compared to non-exposed children (RR 0.78). From the horses mouth...... "The results of our study of the risk of lung cancer from ETS in several European countries showed a reduced risk for exposure during childhood...Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." http://jnci.oxfordjo urnals.org/content/9 0/19/1440.full.pdf Regarding asthma, children of mothers who smoke at least 15 cigarettes a day tend to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis , allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/11422 156 Parmenion
  • Score: -2

10:55am Tue 22 Jul 14

Bob L says...

Lighting up a fag while driving is just as distracting and risky as answering a mobile phone when driving and a really unsafe practice , smoking and flicking ash out of the window while driving is distracting ( usually followed by the fag end ) it is classed as littering and a danger to animals etc . The channel islands have already announced they going to ban smoking in cars with children in them , I am not anti smoking but it should be done where it does not affect others with secondary smoke inhalation , the law against smoking in commercial vehicles ( vans buses lorries etc ) gets totally ignored and that has been in for for years , Proscecutions do happen but very rarely indeed .
Lighting up a fag while driving is just as distracting and risky as answering a mobile phone when driving and a really unsafe practice , smoking and flicking ash out of the window while driving is distracting ( usually followed by the fag end ) it is classed as littering and a danger to animals etc . The channel islands have already announced they going to ban smoking in cars with children in them , I am not anti smoking but it should be done where it does not affect others with secondary smoke inhalation , the law against smoking in commercial vehicles ( vans buses lorries etc ) gets totally ignored and that has been in for for years , Proscecutions do happen but very rarely indeed . Bob L
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Tue 22 Jul 14

Parmenion says...

Only the extremely gullible still believe that passive smoke poses any sort of health risk.
TRUST THE SCIENTISTS.
http://tctactics.org
/index.php/Critical_
Scientists
Only the extremely gullible still believe that passive smoke poses any sort of health risk. TRUST THE SCIENTISTS. http://tctactics.org /index.php/Critical_ Scientists Parmenion
  • Score: 0

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