Nanny knows best! MPs vote to ban smoking in cars

[GommeInc]

Didn't see the bit where it states you have to be in a car with 18+ year old people. Is this to include parents of 16 year old children or has it been made 18 as the limit because of a position of trust in a professional capacity? It's likely it will be 16+ for adults driving their children, and 18+ for teachers although I'm fairly certain this is breaking the boundaries of teacher/pupil relationships OR business vehicle rules if a teacher is driving 17 year old students around.

It seems weird to assume that 16 year old children cannot consent, or even 17 year old children. It's as if the Government have erased years of letting children have their own voice, somehow. Are children not educated on the dangers of smoking any more? Usually the Government finds out when children are educated over something and set the threshold for that.

It seems a bit weird having it at 18 when, as Dan has stated, 17 year old drivers may penalised themselves - yes if they bought the cigarettes they would be breaking the law (you have to be at least 18) but you can smoke below this and this includes in your own personal vehicle, unless the Government are proposing changes to many different laws with subordinate legislation but this seems a lot for something that seems to be a quick fix for a minor problem.

The Government have skipped the Citizens Advice advertisements on TV like they do for other problems like alcohol addiction or obesity. Perhaps they should try teaching parents just not to smoke inside their cars first before penalising them and wasting resources and police time?

[Kardan]

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.



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?



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?

So you say that HIV is incurable, yet 2 people have been cured? Kind of missing the definition there...

And I wouldn't disagree with a ban on women with HIV getting pregnant... We wouldn't need to invest money into drugs for stopping the spread of HIV to children, but we both know that would be very hard to implement. What happens to women that don't know they are HIV positive? What happens after someone breaks the law? Do they lose the baby?

Of course, I can imagine you will reply with something like 'How will we enforce this smoking law?' - but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. It's not difficult to see someone smoking in a car with children...

With regards to the pub smoking situation... Who is to say that you consented to breathing in second hand smoke when walking into a pub? A pub is a public house...

And where in the last part of my quote do I mention adults? Pretty sure all I mention is a child.

- - - Updated - - -

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

As in you think the police will choose not to enforce it if they see it happening or you think many cases will be missed?

[dbgtz]

As in you think the police will choose not to enforce it if they see it happening or you think many cases will be missed?

Bit of both, but mostly because cases will be missed.

[Kardan]

Bit of both, but mostly because cases will be missed.

I suppose that happens all the time though. Think of all the people that smoke weed, or the people that buy alcohol for under 18's, and of course, people driving with mobile phones...

[GommeInc]

I suppose that happens all the time though. Think of all the people that smoke weed, or the people that buy alcohol for under 18's, and of course, people driving with mobile phones...

Or even driving with fog lights on. It's technically illegal, yet loads of people do it and the police do not enforce it, because it's so mundane to waste time over it. The only major enforceable driving laws are ones which rely on cameras e.g. speed cameras and tax/insurance check points.