News & Comment

Forest slams proposal to ban smoking in cars

Friday 8th July 2011, posted by forest

'I wouldn’t encourage anyone to light a cigarette in a car with children, out of courtesy if nothing else, but a ban is out of all proportion to the problem."

Writing in The Times, Simon Clark, director of Forest, went on:

"I wouldn’t encourage anyone to light a cigarette in a car with children, out of courtesy if nothing else, but a ban is out of all proportion to the problem.

"According to a survey last year of 1,000 adult smokers, 85.3 per cent said that they would not smoke in a car if a child was present. A further 6.5 per cent said that they would ask before lighting up, and only 8.2 per cent said that they would smoke as normal.

"What this tells me is the vast majority of smokers have changed their behaviour voluntarily, without government intervention. So why do we need another law that even its supporters accept would be difficult to enforce? Education has to be better than coercion.

"Legislation is justified, we are told, because of the serious harm caused by 'passive smoking'. Speaking at the BMA conference in Cardiff last week, Douglas Noble, a public health doctor, argued: 'It would be safer to have your exhaust pipe on the inside of your car'. What nonsense. Sadly, it is typical of the myths and hyperbole we have come to expect from the militant anti-smoking brigade.

"Another claim, often repeated, is that second-hand smoke is '23 times more toxic in a vehicle than in a home'. Yet last year an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated that there is no scientific evidence to support this argument. 'In [an] exhaustive search of the relevant literature, we failed to locate any scientific source for this comparison,' Ross MacKenzie, of the School of Public Health at Sydney University, said.

"Others have described smoking in a car with children as child abuse. The entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne wants children to be able to report parents who smoke in a car to the police. He also believes that it should be illegal to smoke at home in front of children. The only way that this could be enforced is for neighbours, family members or even the children to go to the police or social services. Is that the type of over-regulated, curtain-twitching society we want Britain to become?

"Significantly, campaigners aren’t satisfied with banning smoking in cars with children. Just as smoking is banned in every pub and private members’ club, the BMA wants a ban on smoking in all cars, regardless of who is in them. In other words, individuals would be prohibited from smoking even if they were the only person in the vehicle. How can that be justified, and is the Government really going to waste police time enforcing such an illiberal, spiteful law?

"Grasping at straws, campaigners argue that smoking while driving is a threat to other road users. Large international studies show that smoking while driving is one of the least distracting activities in which a driver can engage. Far more distracting are chatting with passengers, outside activity, changing a CD or tuning the radio. Should we ban those as well?

"Banning smoking in a private vehicle, with or without children, is an unnecessary infringement of people’s civil liberties. The Government, and the BMA, should butt out."

Source: The Times (8 July 2011)

Comments:

sue
Posted on
Oh for goodness sake - enough of dictating and controlling folk already - why not just remove our free will and replace with something that turns us all into robotic plastic people who no longer have the ability to think, make choices, use reason etc etc.
Who made these 'authorities God anyway? - not God that's for sure - he is all for free will!!!
Adam
Posted on
I am 25 years old and I am already sick of this country. Who are these people governing for? They are supposed to represent the general consensus of opinion amongst the public. The smoking ban wasn't what the public asked for and neither are these further intrusions into peoples private lives. I actually lost sleep over the smoking ban, I was that angry. I would toss and turn thinking about the total injustice of it all. This takes that intrusion to the next level. A pub is open to the public but car is not, its totally private. Its not only smokers who should be worried, this interference sets a very disturbing precedent.
John
Posted on
GOOD! Its horrible. MAKE IT ILLEGAL ALL TOGETHER! not just under 16!
VJ
Posted on
I totally agree, make smoking illegal. This would once and for all resolve all the silly demands being made, such as the no smoking in your own car demand. This kind of demand (I keep repeating this word on purpose, as these people don't know how to compromise or accomodate, only how to demand what they want like toddlers in a supermarket) is made by self-righteous, self-important, know-it-all action groups and individuals, if smoking was made illegal it would pull the rug from under their feet immediately. The larger anti-smoking organisations would all be out of jobs and/or hobbies, they could then turn their attention to banning something else, probably fat people, products with sugar or salt in them or alcohol. It would stop charities such as cancer research using funds raised by people who think their money is helping ill people to commission expensive research about the non-topic of passive smoking in order to obtain vague, obscure or downright false smoking statistics. It would cut off the government from billions in tax revenue and force many more cuts in public services, including the NHS. It would instantly increase the illegal trade in cigarettes and smoking would become a clandestine activity like drinking was during the American prohibition years, with all the attendant violence, child labour abroad, dangerous products etc. However, I am at a point where I would rather break the law and just smoke at home, where it would be very unlikely, due to lost tax revenue, that the police would be able to afford the extra officers to to watch my house for 24 hours a day in case I had a ciggie and then arrest me for this transgresion, than listen to any more nagging, nanny-stateism and be bullied by all these perfect people who are obsessed with smoking and smokers. And for Gods sake - where did the comment about it being safer to have fumes being released from the car exhaust pipe pumped into the car that the smoke from a cigarette. Whoever said this (if it was said at all) should be forced to spend half an hour in a sealed car with constant ciggy smoke followed by another half an hour with the exhaust fumes being pumped into it. We would at least hear their views on the first experiment, but I'm not so sure that they would be around to let us know if the second experience was so much nicer!
Dave
Posted on
It might also free up some cash for a little basic grammatical instruction...
Leave a Reply



(Your email will not be publicly displayed.)

Please type the letters and numbers shown in the image.Captcha Code


Back to top

Recent posts

Share this page

Social Forest

Join the conversation online:



Friends of Forest