Recent Posts and Categories

England bans smoking in cars with children

OWoN: This is good legislation. If Mobile phones are banned, Cigarettes have to go too. Yes to protecting innocent children from breathing in this shit. Dealing with the cancerous lungs of these addicts is no joke for Hospital staff. Looking at these sad, mindless buffoons sucking on yet another cigarette outside a hospital ward, their oxygen tanks at their sides as they slowly die of Emphysema, raises how much it costs and the pain levels as cancer hits in. It's a filthy habit guys, disgusting, and by the way, your breath stinks and so do your clothes. You stink up a room even being in it with your left over cigarette stench all over you. Wake up, be a Thinker, not a Stinker LOL.




England bans smoking in cars with children


Smoking will be banned if under-18s are in the car

BBC News
11 February 2015

Drivers in England will be banned from smoking in their cars if they are carrying children as passengers.

The move, which will become law on 1 October, follows a similar ban in Wales and aims to protect young people under 18 from second-hand smoke. Scotland is also considering introducing a ban.

Anyone found flouting the law in England could be fined £50.

The British Lung Foundation welcomed the ban as a victory, but smokers' group Forest said it was unenforceable.

It will not apply to anyone driving alone or driving in a convertible car with the top down.

The regulations were passed in the Commons after 342 MPs voted in favour of legislation while just 74 voted against.

More than 430,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars each week, according to the British Lung Foundation,

Passive smoke in children can increase the risk of asthma, meningitis and cot death, say public health experts.

While many support a ban, some say it is an unnecessary intrusion. 'Important step'

Public Health Minister, Jane Ellison, said:

"Three million children are exposed to second hand smoke in cars, putting their health at risk.

"We know that many of them feel embarrassed or frightened to ask adults to stop smoking which is why the regulations are an important step in protecting children from the harms of secondhand smoke."

Dr Penny Woods, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said:

"This is a tremendous victory.

"We urge the Government to show the same commitment to introduce standardised packaging for all tobacco products, in order to protect the 200,000 children taking up smoking every year in this country.

"We are certain that these measures together will prove to be two of the most significant milestones for public health since the smoke-free legislation of 2007."

But Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said the legislation was excessive.

"The overwhelming majority of smokers know it's inconsiderate to smoke in a car with children and they don't do it. They don't need the state micro-managing their lives," he said.

"The police won't be able to enforce the law on their own so the government will need a small army of snoopers to report people."

link

1 comment :


  1. I do not agree with the intro to this article and feel obliged to give my take on the intro as to clarify my position as I am shown as the 'poster'.

    The last thing we need is another government cash grab - a fine.

    There are laws in most nations, including the UK, dealing with child endangerment and abuse. Charge them criminally. A fine is a joke and just another form of income for a bloated, wasteful government. They already tax the hell out of cigarettes as a cash grab because public opinion has swayed to the point that smokers are looked at as, in old days, Lepers would have been, so they get away with it.

    The defense most use is that it dramatically rises healthcare costs. This is totally unsubstantiated and false. It is well known that the elderly are the most straining on healthcare. As smoking is proven to shorten life expectancy, most do not make it to elderly age. My bother and I had this argument for years. It was not until we lost our father and two sisters. Father and one sister to cancer, the other sister to 'early stages' of heart disease.

    My father had not smoked for 35 years when he started his first bout with cancer. He successfully survived the first two, the third did not get him in the end as such, the treatment and age took its toll and we lost him to heart failure as it was his wish to have a DNR in place. The cancer and treatment sucked the life out of him and his will to fight on. Every cancer he got was attributed to smoking because he did at one time many years ago. When I raised the fact that my father work in a pulp mill using harsh chemicals for 15 years, the doctors simply did not want to hear it. When I mentioned that he sprayed pesticides and chemical weed control commercially as a city employee for 25 years, with no protection whatsoever, the doctors didn't want to hear it. He had not smoked 50 years prior to his death. So was smoking the cause? Did it contribute? Were there other contributing factors? Damn right! None were listed in his file or even mentioned, just smoking.

    My one sister fought and lost to cancer. She had not smoked in 20 years. Hers was also attributed to smoking.

    My other sister was in 'early stages' of heart disease caused from, you guessed it, smoking. Though she was in poor health due to several diseases that I will not get into here, it must have been smoking. She was taking 20+ pills a day. All the autopsy would say is that 'medications in her system were at the levels prescribed'. 20+ pills, which all have dangers and side effects, but her death was caused by 'early stages' of heart disease brought on by smoking.

    Let me be clear here, I am not an advocate for smoking. It is an unnecessary risk imposed on life expectancy.

    I am, however, an advocate for choice. If you are not hurting anyone else, you should be allowed to live as you wish. Free of punishment from any majority that feels otherwise. Allowing the government to prey on a small portion of society just because you believe that what they choose to do is wrong, is arrogant and just plain vain. It is a statistical fact that most smokers are of lower income and have high school or less education. Why prey on them?

    Education about the dangers of smoking is working, let it take its course. Punishment has NO place here. Also, stripping them by way of an extra tax - a F***ing TAX, come on people. A tax that does not effect you should still make you angry, we are taxed too much already. Wake up.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment violates OWON's Terms of Service or has in the past, then it will NOT be published.

Powered by Blogger.