The British Medical Association are calling for a ban of smoking in all cars

[ThDWgeek]

So I saw this on the news this morning, and even though I don't smoke and can't stand cigarettes, I thought this was stupid. Not only would it be incredibly hard to police, which admittedly the BMA point out, but I just feel like it's a massive invasion of privacy. I know it's only a proposal, but it does feel slightly, if not out rightly, fascistic. But what do you think? Do you agree with this proposal or are you against it?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15744352

 

[Thundercrack85]

Kind of surprised English people are still allowed to drive cars.

 

[chamber-music]

Its not going to happen. Its just one of those crackpot ideas the medical association or goverment talk about the press gets hold of it and makes a big deal out.

 

[ThDWgeek]

I know, but I just wanted to get other people's views on it.

 

[The Englishman]

Kind of surprised English people are still allowed to drive cars.

Whats that suppose to mean??

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Can't we just ban non smokers from our car?

 

[dnno1]

In california you can get a ticket for smoking in the car with the passenger. I could see a summer thing happening in Great Britain, but maybe not right now.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

This is dumb. The inside of a vehicle is private property, is it not?

 

[Marvolo]

I don't know how British law works, but in the US im pretty sure a warrant is required to search a vehicle making the inside private property. The government has very limited jurisdiction where private property is concerned so this would be going too far. That is, if Birtish law regarding private property works similar to the US.

 

[dnno1]

This is dumb. The inside of a vehicle is private property, is it not?

Not necessarily. If a law says that you have to have a rear view mirror (which is inside the car and belongs to the owner), then you mush comply. The same thing could go for smoking.

 

[The Morningstar]

Hah! They can go **** themselves.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Not necessarily. If a law says that you have to have a rear view mirror (which is inside the car and belongs to the owner), then you mush comply. The same thing could go for smoking.

If this falls under the category of safety(in other words, keeping people from distracted driving whether it's talking on a cell phone or smoking while driving) then I can understand it. If this is supposed to be an all out ban on any smoking inside vehicles(passengers smoking, sitting inside your car and smoking) then it's overreaching IMO.

 

[dnno1]

If this falls under the category of safety(in other words, keeping people from distracted driving whether it's talking on a cell phone or smoking while driving) then I can understand it. If this is supposed to be an all out ban on any smoking inside vehicles(passengers smoking, sitting inside your car and smoking) then it's overreaching IMO.

The article that ThDWgeek posted indicates that this will be due to safety. The insert bullet slide says that the concentration of toxins inside a smoker's car is 23 times higher than in a smoky bar. That sounds like a public and personal safety matter to me.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

The article that ThDWgeek posted indicates that this will be due to safety. The insert bullet slide says that the concentration of toxins inside a smoker's car is 23 times higher than in a smoky bar. That sounds like a public and personal safety matter to me.

If it's looking out for everyone's safety(distracted driving) then cool. If it's looking out for only the smokers' safety(as far as their health because of what you cited about the amount of toxins in the car) then it's B.S.

I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal liberties. My inclination without thinking of people's personal liberty is to think it's a good thing. However, I THEN think to myself that if I'm against the government prohibiting the smoking of marijuana on the same grounds of personal liberty than I would be a hypocrite to support this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Whats that suppose to mean??

Well, someone could get hurt. We can't have that in a nanny state.

 

[dnno1]

If it's looking out for everyone's safety(distracted driving) then cool. If it's looking out for only the smokers' safety(as far as their health because of what you cited about the amount of toxins in the car) then it's B.S.

I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal liberties. My inclination without thinking of people's personal liberty is to think it's a good thing. However, I THEN think to myself that if I'm against the government prohibiting the smoking of marijuana on the same grounds of personal liberty than I would be a hypocrite to support this.

It's hard to separate the two. If you have a car, you more than likely have a passenger seat or will at least let someone else drive your car (be it a valet, a mechanic, or even a friend). You might even sell it to someone else. It's a public health hazzard, not only to the owner, but to others, and it is justifiable to place a ban on smoking in vehicles.

 

[The Morningstar]

No it isn't. When i'm in my motor i do what i want, as long as i can actually drive properly and am not inebriated.

 

[The Englishman]

No it isn't. When i'm in my motor i do what i want, as long as i can actually drive properly and am not inebriated.

Do you talk on your mobile phone while driving??

 

[Godzilla2000]

Well, I don't smoke so this doesn't affect me at all. I'm not British as well.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

We also have a law which states all passengers and driver have to wear seat belts.

However, this does sound like the kind of legislation that someone came up with late at night after a really long meeting and several whiskey's.

"Hic! Tell you whatz, lez has a new law which stops peeps smookin in their cars!"
"Yeh and lets arest them for eating apples or banannnas two...."
"Seconded."
"Pazzed, I mean passed."
All fall unconscious, but we are all now safer thanks to these bureaucrats...

 

[Ultra Lantern]

Yes,and I don't smoke.