Nanny knows best! MPs vote to ban smoking in cars

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26081640

MPs have backed a call for an England-wide ban on smoking in cars when children are passengers.

They voted in favour of a Labour-supported amendment to the Children and Families Bill by a majority of 269.

This will give Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt the power to bring in a ban in England but will not immediately mean a change in the law.

Last week, more than 700 experts wrote to MPs urging them to back change. But critics say legislation is not needed.

The amendment - passed by 376 votes to 107 - empowers, but does not compel, the government to make it a criminal offence for drivers to fail to prevent smoking in their privately owned vehicles when children are present.

QUICK WRAP EVERYBODY IN COTTON WOOL.

As it happens my parents never smoked around us when we were kids and no sensible parent would do around small children, especially in a car. So the people who pay attention to the law are smart enough to understand that you don't smoke in the car with small children just as you don't smoke when you are pregnant. Those who are silly enough to smoke around young children are going to carry on doing it anyway.

The problem the western world now has is over-regulation - if we something is bad, we instantly jump to legislate against it which is a serious threat to our freedom.... not to mention the fact that laws such as these are actually pointless and unenforcible and are designed merely as PR gestures on how much we all care about the children.

But as Guido Fawkes pointed out...

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 13m

Smoking with children in the car banned. So if you're 17 and light up while driving, will you be prosecuted?

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

Good The issue with 17 year olds can easily be solved as well when they write the law

[-:Undertaker:-]

Good The issue with 17 year olds can easily be solved as well when they write the law

Just out of interest since you seem keen on using the law to protect everybody and enforcing your moral opinions on everybody else: would you consider a law raising the age of homosexual sex to 18 in order to protect minors from the high rates of STDS and HIV that are involved? And would you also consider a ban on women with HIV becoming pregnant in order to protect the unborn to potentially contracting HIV whilst in the womb?

I mean these laws may curtail freedoms, but surely if it's protecting the children from deadly disease then it's worth a look at introducing legislation?

[Kardan]

Just out of interest since you seem keen on using the law to protect everybody and enforcing your moral opinions on everybody else: would you consider a law raising the age of homosexual sex to 18 in order to protect minors from the high rates of STDS and HIV that are involved? And would you also consider a ban on women with HIV becoming pregnant in order to protect the unborn to potentially contracting HIV whilst in the womb?

I mean these laws may curtail freedoms, but surely if it's protecting the children from deadly disease then it's worth a look at introducing legislation?

Second hand smoking isn't comparable to willingly having sex. Also I'm pretty sure medicine has advanced far enough that we can potentially make all babies HIV free even if they are born from HIV positive mothers if the pregnancy is caught early enough..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Second hand smoking isn't comparable to willingly having sex.

But minors cannot make certain decisions due to the fact they are minors, not adults. This is a question of whether you wish to use the law to protect 16 year olds who may not be sexually aware enough of the risks or who are simply just reckless in their behaviour - as many 16 year olds are. In very much the same way that the smoking age was raised from 16 to 18 - i'm sure you were in agreement with that, weren't you?

So why not have the law come in and protect them at least until they're 18?

Also I'm pretty sure medicine has advanced far enough that we can potentially make all babies HIV free even if they are born from HIV positive mothers if the pregnancy is caught early enough..

HIV is incurable.

So again, why not bring the law in to protect these innocent children from contracting the disease?

[GommeInc]

Seems a bit stupid really and unenforceable, but we'll let them pretend they're doing something to help.

[Kardan]

But minors cannot make certain decisions due to the fact they are minors, not adults. This is a question of whether you wish to use the law to protect 16 year olds who may not be sexually aware enough of the risks or who are simply just reckless in their behaviour - as many 16 year olds are. In very much the same way that the smoking age was raised from 16 to 18 - i'm sure you were in agreement with that, weren't you?

So why not have the law come in and protect them at least until they're 18?



HIV is incurable.

So again, why not bring the law in to protect these innocent children from contracting the disease?

I meant that babies can be born HIV free if they are treated whilst still in the womb, although it seems I am right, medicine can actually cure HIV even if you're born with it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21651225

If you believe that 16 year olds do not understand the risks of sex, then raise the age of consent to 18. I wouldn't be against that. But as I said before, you can't compare consenting to sex with second hand smoking.

If you consent to sex, you are aware of the risks - just like if you choose to smoke, you are aware of the risks. If you are a child breathing in second hand smoke, the majority of the time - you do not have a choice, and you are having the risks enforced upon you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I meant that babies can be born HIV free if they are treated whilst still in the womb, although it seems I am right, medicine can actually cure HIV even if you're born with it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21651225

That is one case just as there are a few cases of some people who are immune to HIV. HIV remains an incurable disease, which although it can be fought with for a few decades after contracting it, those infected will develop AIDs and die.

If you believe that 16 year olds do not understand the risks of sex, then raise the age of consent to 18. I wouldn't be against that. But as I said before, you can't compare consenting to sex with second hand smoking.

You can compare it when it involves minors, which is what this law (and the law I am putting to you) are concerned with. A minor does not have a choice whether or not second hand smoked is enforced on them just as they do not have a choice as to whether they are born and thus contract HIV from their mother. On your logical basis, surely the mother should be barred from becoming pregnant?

I am interested in this consent thing you've raised though, because I am sure in the past we've debated second hand smoke and you have brushed aside my argument that when you walk into a pub - you are consenting to breathe in smoke therefore smoking in public places shouldn't be banned due to private property rights. Why do you now (if I am correct) suddenly believe in the moral ideal of consent when you didn't when it came to the smoking ban which revolved around consenting adults?

If you consent to sex, you are aware of the risks - just like if you choose to smoke, you are aware of the risks. If you are a child breathing in second hand smoke, the majority of the time - you do not have a choice, and you are having the risks enforced upon you.

We are talking here about minors here, not adults.

So you agree with my original two laws I proposed to protect people who are not legally consenting adults from HIV?

[Ardemax]

It is a good thing that this has passed. No one can exactly stick up for the children in these situations can they?

[dbgtz]

I hardly doubt it's going to be enforced particularly well.