Smoking illegal in your car with under-18-year-old "Children" inside?!!

[Frontstep]

Luckily for me I never took to smoking always finding it horrible.
Girls who smoked were always given short shrift.

I suppose like most addicts they don't want to hear.
I have a few friends who are addicted to overeating food there is always an excuse and indolence almost inevitably follows.

Its a shame but I have no answer, its beyond me what to do.
Its actually quite upsetting to see friends killing themselves I bl**dy hate funerals.

 

[C350Carl]

I once tried smoking as a kid. It made me throw up after two 'drags' so never did it again.

I think they should just ban free NHS care for certain illnesses if you smoke.

People know the risks but they choose to do it. So why should I and others who don't smoke pay to prolong their life, often at massive cost?

For anyone thinks that I'm a blinkered non-smoker my grandfather died from lung cancer caused by smoking. But I still think they should have to pay for care.

Same thing should be done to alcoholics, drug takers etc. That way people have freedom of choice still. But the burden they currently place on the NHS can be reduced by them having to pay for any care they require.

The argument about non smoking pubs used to be empty is pretty flawed. The reason they were is because smokers wouldn't/couldn't use them. Most groups of friends will have a smoker somewhere. So everyone just went to smoking pubs.

I don't have anything against people who want to smoke. It's their choice. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it in ANY public space. It should also be illegal whilst a vehicle is in motion as a driver. I've seen quite a few people nearly have accidents due to trying to 'spark up' whilst, supposedly, being in control of a vehicle.

But as I don't make the rules (the world would be a better place if I did ) then I just have to follow them like everyone else should. Apart from JimM of course!

 

[Alfie]

There used to be a No Smoking pub in Bury before the enforced ban .... that was the one that nobody went into. All the pubs where smoking was allowed were full. IMHO it should have been up to the individual pubs whether they allowed it or not .......

So are you saying that these same pubs are no longer full?

Its quite simple because the smokers can still go to the pubs they just have to stand outside (until we get a full public ban) to chuff away so the rest of us don't stink of their filth.

I too have seen two relatives die a very painful drawn out death due to smoking and I agree make them pay for their treatment.

 

[toby1]

As long as smoking's legal, the tax/duty should pay for the healthcare. Smokers die younger as well so they won't collect a pension for as long.

In fact, could smoking be a solution to an ageing population for which we don't have the money to pay for?

 

[drmw]

The “make them pay for NHS treatment” argument is pretty flawed.

Firstly, they probably have paid up front by virtue of the tax & duty on tobacco.

Then, what about other so called avoidable costs on the NHS?
Motor cyclists
Cyclists
Pedestrians that didn’t look before they crossed the road
People whose jobs involve an element of risk that they accept comes with the territory
Those whose lifestyle meant they developed diabetes

It goes on and on ….

 

[C350Carl]

The “make them pay for NHS treatment” argument is pretty flawed.



Firstly, they probably have paid up front by virtue of the tax & duty on tobacco.



Then, what about other so called avoidable costs on the NHS?

Motor cyclists

Cyclists

Pedestrians that didn’t look before they crossed the road

People whose jobs involve an element of risk that they accept comes with the territory

Those whose lifestyle meant they developed diabetes



It goes on and on ….

Whilst i agree they have paid SOME cost with taxation. The cost of treatment for something like lung cancer FAR outweighs the tax paid even from the heaviest smoker. So i fail to see how you say the argument is flawed.



Of the list:



Motor Cyclists - Most don't chose to have a serious accident. But if you want to be pedantic then if excessive speed is a contributory factor on their part then make them pay

Cyclists - Most don't want to be run over

Pedestrians that didn't look - as for cyclists

People who's jobs involve an element of risk - I'm a soldier and the majority of the burden is borne by the MoD at the start of and whilst still employed by the MoD. Yes I know it's paid by taxes but MoD employees all pay tax and it doesn't come from the NHS pot. Only on medical discharge is this transferred to the NHS. Most soldiers then use their compensation to help with the cost. I can't speak for other professions but most require some form of life/injury insurance. So that covers the cost.

The ones with diabetes - If they have caused it by their lifestyle then yes make them pay.



It really isn't that hard. It's just that sort of policy wouldn't get a government votes....

 

[turbopete]

just to throw a spanner in the works.......

my grandad smoked from around age 14 or 15 i believe. he was hospitalised with diabetes (blood sugar went sky high despite him never taking sugar in anything, cakes etc made to special sugar free recipe etc) and the guy in the next bed had undergone a tracheotomy (no idea if ive spelled that right but im sure you get the drift)
anyhow, grandad came out of hospital a couple of weeks later, aged 60 and never touched his pipe again.
he died aged 71 from cancer. IIRC it was his liver. apart from a couple of measures of Gin at christmas, (and it literally was 2) i never once knew of him drinking.

i personally believe that the disease is in everyone, it just takes something to trigger it. in my grandads case, although i dont smoke and hate smoke, i believe had he continued with his pipe his body wouldnt have had the shock of him stopping and the liver cancer wouldnt have occurred. my Gran, his wife, dies a couple of months ago, aged 86. never smoke, seldom had a drink, but as soon as grandad died, her mind began to fail (she had her own shop and post office and her accountant had the easiest job ever, he admitted it!) despite being brilliant with all kinds of mental puzzles etc before. within 6 years, she had no idea who i was, or my dad, her son. i can only attribute the sudden downturn to the loss of my grandad, only a few months before their 50th wedding anniversary, as it was that point where the deterioration began to occur

 

[Crazycarb]

Anybody got any snout? I think jimM might need some soon.

 

[Miffy]

I dont have any images of that but think it will be hard to find as the cigarette companies aggressively target the poorer countries where there is little or no industry.

I think you missed the point.

Look at global stats for death rates from Lung Cancer. Africa, India etc have one of the lowest death rates yet according to the information you found, they will be smoking more than we do in the UK. Well its certainly not going to be down to the quality of their healthcare.

ref: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/lung-cancers/by-country/

 

[grober]

I think you missed the point.

Look at global stats for death rates from Lung Cancer. Africa, India etc have one of the lowest death rates yet according to the information you found, they will be smoking more than we do in the UK. Well its certainly not going to be down to the quality of their healthcare.

ref: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/lung-cancers/by-country/

Unfortunately that's because lung cancer is essentially a long term killer. The figures are skewed because most of these folks will die of other causes before lung cancer develops. For example if you look at the figures for Malaria the stats almost reverse.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malaria/by-country/

 

[geraldrobins]

I think you missed the point.

Look at global stats for death rates from Lung Cancer. Africa, India etc have one of the lowest death rates yet according to the information you found, they will be smoking more than we do in the UK. Well its certainly not going to be down to the quality of their healthcare.

ref: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/lung-cancers/by-country/

Yes but isn't life expectancy much lower in these countries anyway and as most deaths from smoking occur to older people, and they die of other causes before smoking takes it toll.

 

[Miffy]

I dont deny there are other factors, in fact, that is my point. Smoking alone is not the killer. Some die from Lung cancer and have never smoked in their life. Others smoked coffin nails from the age of 15 and live to be a ripe old age. As Pete has already said, Cancer is in all of us, just waiting for the trigger.

Talk to any Doctor, once you pack up smoking, and stay off for 5 years, your risks are more or less the same as if you had never smoked in your life.

 

[C350Carl]

Talk to any Doctor, once you pack up smoking, and stay off for 5 years, your risks are more or less the same as if you had never smoked in your life.

Which is a why those that choose to smoke should have to pay for any associated illness care.

Their really is no reason or excuse to smoke. I'm yet to see someone put up a convincing and coherent argument for smoking.

 

[Miffy]

Which is a why those that choose to smoke should have to pay for any associated illness care.

Their really is no reason or excuse to smoke. I'm yet to see someone put up a convincing and coherent argument for smoking.

I don't think anyone, even hardened smokers will try and put a case forward as to why we should smoke. But, how many of us have stopped driving (in particular Diesels) due to the carcinogenic properties of the exhaust? Or stopped getting a Taxi/Bus.

What about those that suffer from Lung Cancer and have never smoked? they should pay also as they have a smoking related illness? My son was seriously ill with Pancreatitus and was told he needs to reduce his alcohol intake as that's what caused it. He drinks the odd half of lager every few months.

 

[C350Carl]

I don't get buses or taxis. I run or walk to work unless I absolutely have to take the car due to having to take kit in or wearing dress uniform.

I still drive a diesel and it's only recently that the 'great diesel lie' has been publicised.

Stick your mouth over the exhaust of a petrol car and apart from melting your lips I don't think it's going to do you any good.

The diesel argument is carp now anyway as the EU6 standard turns it into a harmless emission.

There is no standard like that for petrol cars.

There are a whole host of things that are harmful to us. But the likes of driving vehicles are beyond most people's control. I'm lucky in that I live 4miles from where I work and I'm young enough and fit enough to run or walk 8miles a day plus doing mandatory fitness in work.

Some people live a lot further away and don't have the choice but to drive. Unless someone develops a completely 100% 'green' car then there will still be some sort of emission price to pay. Be it from the exhaust or the power plant producing the electrickery to charge it.

When I said about smoking related illness I was referring to those that smoke. I.e if they get ill as a result of smoking.

 

[Miffy]

But where do those that get a smoking related illness stand, when they have never smoked in their life? If (god forbid) I was to fall fowl of this because I have little choice other than to use public transport, where would I stand? and just how many of the diesels out there are 6 compliant?

The argument is flawed, as in my sons case, there was no link to his illness and his lifestyle. Yet according to some, he should pay for his treatment as it looks as though he caused it with alcohol abuse even though in reality he drinks a lot less than the average person.

 

[C350Carl]

They can tell if someone is an Alcoholic and I would hazard a guess they can tell a smoker.

So if you got a illness that normally is associated with smokers, but didn't ever smoke, you'd be given free treatment.

A lot of diesels are 6 compliant especially with regards trucks etc as they have to be these days. I think all new diesels have to be now but would need to check the rulings as can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[television]

Life is hard to work out, my elder brother 82 has never smoked, drinks little and led a so called healthy life style, yet 2 year to live as a particle of asbestos that has been dormant for 60 has brought on serious cancer. His wife, never smoked either, only 57 and on borrowed time.

When I lived in Sweden they were well ahead in the diesel particle nightmare, for they annualized the soil in the verges along motorways. So plenty of things out there to cause all these thing that take lives .

 

[Alex Crow]

I think the notion of charging people for their own NHS care for certain 'self imposed' medical conditions is so flawed, it is completely ridiculous.

So a football player with a broken ankle has to pay?
What if he is 15 years old?
What if he was playing football at school, as part of physical education?

Or maybe football is OK, and the NHS should pay?
But he did choose to play football, knowing that injury could result...

And what about that smoker with lung cancer, who is in great pain but has no money for pain killers, shall we pull up a chair and watch? Maybe jeer a little bit as well, as he dies an agonising death?

Just a ridiculous proposition, and not a state I would want to be a citizen of.

 

[Frontstep]

Well the footballer had an accident and didn't twist his ankle on purpose twenty times a day with a packet of ankle twisters from the shop till it broke.

The smoker "relentlessly twisted his lungs" twenty times a day.

I do agree with the second point though I wouldn't let someone die a miserable death even if he had "twisted his ankle" twenty times a day.