Why legislation to ban smoking in cars with children is unnecessary
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 9:48 Fancy that.
A study in Ireland supports our view that there is no good reason to legislate to ban smoking in cars with children.
Researchers at the UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population observed 2,230 drivers in Dublin and found the prevalence of mobile telephone use was 2.56 per cent compared to 1.39 per cent for smoking.
The study, published in the Irish Medical Journal, concluded that the "resources required for a ban in vehicles may be labour intensive for the yield in detection or prevention."
Although this is an Irish study, there is no reason to believe that the same research conducted in London (for example) wouldn't produce a very similar result.
See: Ban on smoking in cars would have little impact, says study (Irish Independent).
Update: Smokers’ group welcomes study showing low level of smoking in cars (The Journal.ie)
Reader Comments (9)
It will have next to no impact in terms of health or fewer people taking up smoking; but that's not their criterion. It would be more place where smoking is banned and so, for them, a success. Notice they are always very imprecise about whether these proposed bans apply to all cars or just those caryying children.
Yes Jonathan. I agree. It would be another step in 'denormalising'.
People who smoke in their car when a child or children are passengers are being irresponsible but I agree that the resources required to stop them being stupid couldn't be justified. I can't understand why people like Norman go on about "denormalising" smoking. Surely, these days it isn't normal to smoke and we don't want young people to see the habit as a normal or good thing to do - because it just isn't.
Because you cannot denormalise smoking without socially excluding or marginalising ppl who have smoked for a lifetime. This is no longer an anti-smoking crusade but anti-smoker after the war moved from the industry to the little consumer.
As a lifelong smoker I have never harmed anyone in my whole life. I have never been harmed by any other smoker. I resent the attacks on my cultural way of life because I haven't done the decent thing and dropped dead yet.
Each to his or her own. Leave us alone and get your hands off our kids. They do not belong to the anti-smokers or the state. We are quite capable of listening to what they want.
This is just another step to making the general public hate, fear and loathe adult tobacco consumers by pushing the "They're disgusting and selfish agenda" and that is why it is morally wrong.
Pat, I sympathise with your view but I think the tide is against you. Of course or government has taken action against the consumption of tobacco but so has just about every other government in the developed world. Public sentiment is not readily swayed by the actions of government and it seems to me that the majority have decided that smoking isn't very nice all by themselves. I don't think smokers should be stigmatised and some provision should be made for them to indulge their habit without affecting those who don't like smoke. Inhaling toxic smoke can't be described as normal behaviour any more and that's a fact, not a moral judgement. Reasonable measures should be taken to protect the vulnerable and that includes children so smokers shouldn't smoke in their car with kids present and I would argue they shouldn't smoke in their house either.
If you support denormalisation then you do support stigmatisation.
In Greece and Hungary the public tide is turning against the tolerant as far as other cultures are concerned. So I assume you back their racist causes on that basis - just because public opinion is turning that way?
I see no difference. I am A.Smoker as tagged and labelled in 2007 when I used to be just someone who smoked.
If I wasn't socially excluded and marginalised just because of who I am then I could go to places where I could freely associate with my own kind, away from others, not exposed on the street, and never have to be anywhere where I'll be bothered by the likes of the intolerant, fake cougher and hand-flapper.
Choice is the progressive way forward to be fair to both sides of this debate and support what really matters - tolerance.
Pat, you're sounding a little bit paranoid. Why assume I approve of racism because I've pointed out what everybody knows is happening in the UK? In the UK less than 10% of educated people smoke and it's about 28% for the rest and this averages out at around 20% overall, so a large majority don't smoke. It's clear that the non-smoking majority have become much less tolerant of the habits of smokers in recent years but I'm not sure you can blame the government for that. Your perception is that you're being "excluded and marginalised just because of who I am" but in reality if you feel put upon it's because of what you choose to do. Confusing the consequences of choice with the possible consequences of being black is not valid.
I do agree that you're entitled to choose to smoke and that some provision should be made for your habit but your farting in the wind if you think things are going to get any better because it's the dictatorship of the majority that calls the shots these days.
Again, as an anti-smoker you can only throw abuse in response to debate and you fail to understand the issue from those who are affected by it.
There are three types of smoker. Those who smoke, non smokers and anti-smokers. I think you'll find in the main the non smokers are very tolerant people who have no problems with choice for both sides and never did. It is only the well-funded smokerphobic antis who are not.
I always find it really strange that disgusting antis prefer the smell of shit or farts to fresh aromatic tobacco burning but each to his or her own.
If you don't smoke then you have no right to decide whether someone feels marginalised or not. The evidence, however, speaks for itself.
So, you also support dictatorships plus racism if public opinion turns that way. Nice person - not.
I think you got a bit confused about "three types of smoker" but moving on. I'm certainly not an anti-smoker because many years ago I did smoke and I found it a terrible struggle to give up so I do understand how horribly addicted smokers are to nicotine and I sincerely sympathise with their unenviable plight. "Farting in the wind" is a common expression and I can't see how its use indicates any scatological preferences on my part. I don't think I suggested that the unthinking application of the prejudices of the majority was a good thing, only a fact of life in the UK just now. I recently emailed my local Health Board to say that trying to make the hospital campus a no smoking area just on idealogical grounds was illogical and they should provide a smoking shelter for patients and visitors. This would prevent the smoking around the hospital entrance which has generated a lot of complaints and resulted in the arrest of a belligerent smoker. So perhaps it's best not to assume that everyone who has a view that doesn't correspond exactly with yours is agin you.
Kind regards