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

[steve_k243]

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.

Any attempt at charging smokers--drink drivers--junkies etc etc would be met with expensive (for the taxpayers) litigation which only ever benefits the likes of those legal firms that advertise between episodes of the Jeremy Vile show.

 

[Alex Crow]

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...

In playing football he took a risk, that could have lead to ill health.
He knew the more he played the higher the risk, and also that there was no certainty that he would suffer any harm at all.
He also smoked.
In smoking he took a risk, that could have lead to ill health.
He knew that the more he smoked the higher the risk,and also that there was no certainty that he would suffer any harm at all.

The footballer did not twist his ankle on purpose any more than the smoker contracted lung disease on purpose, but both suffered ill health as a result of their choices.

I know two ex motocross racers who are now wheelchair bound - the risks in motocross are high, and injuries common. If you don't ride you don't get hurt, if you do you might.
Same with smoking.

 

[C350Carl]

Alex, most footballers and other sports stars have insurance that covers them for injury and illness. Both for medical care (if not provided by the club) and loss of any earnings.

As has been said a footballer isn't twisting/breaking his leg 20times a day.

Whilst I agree that I wouldn't let someone die. I still think people who intentionally inflict serious injury on themselves should have to pay.

So I don't see how you think it's ridiculous. In fact it seems to me that it's a bit short sighted from you if you are comparing it to sports injuries and can't see how your counter argument is flawed.

The easy solution is to Carte Blanche ban smoking. But that will never happen for two reasons.

1. It would be used as a political tool to gain votes. I.e one government bans it. Another party then says they'll relax the ban to get into power.

2. The government take far too much money in taxation (and probably back handers at some levels) to stop it.

So in essence your solution is to let them crack on and use tax payers money to pay to ease their suffering that they have willingly caused themselves?

Maybe things would be easier if the government actually used the taxation on tobacco to go to the NHS. But it doesn't.

Me personally, I would ban it Carte Blanche. But no doubt that would upset those individuals who will start banging on about human rights and freedom of choice.

Until people change their attitudes and start accepting responsibility for their own actions then this will be a vicious circle we endure. But

 

[Alex Crow]

...So I don't see how you think it's ridiculous. In fact it seems to me that it's a bit short sighted from you if you are comparing it to sports injuries and can't see how your counter argument is flawed...

It is not flawed, and stands well.
Are you really suggesting that insurance pays for sports injuries, rather than the NHS? Not in the vast majority of cases it doesn't. 'Sports Stars'? I am thinking kids playing on the rec and at school, a long way from sports stars, but still get injured.
So a footballer isn't twisting his leg 20 times a day, but he is going in for 20 tackles, and each one carries a risk. They say the same of smoking, that not every one will do harm, not every cigarette will cause cell mutations, but the more you do it the higher the risk.
And as for the notion that a smoker intentionally injures themselves, do you really think that? The motocross riders I mentioned did not intend to suffer such horrific and life changing injuries, but knew the risks. Just like a smoker.

 

[C350Carl]

Ok then. So look at it another way. Take every kid that plays football and see how many injuries there are.

Then take the same number of smokers and see how many have ill health.

I'd put good money the ill smokers is a far higher percentage than injured kids.

Also I don't see how you can say smokers don't intentionally harm themselves. They know if they smoke it leads to all sorts of problems which cost the NHS millions each year.

Compare that to the number of sporting injuries in children and see which costs the most to treat.

The other way to look at it is the risk of serious complicated and life threatening injuries in football is far smaller than the same risk of smokers.

I'm no Albert Einstein but I can see the massive flaw in your argument.

Still think it stands well as you put it?.....

 

[C350Carl]

Maybe you should have a read of this

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2344.aspx?CategoryID=53

And for football

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/medical/playershealth/injuries/commoninjuries/

Can I ask Alex. Are you a smoker?

 

[Alex Crow]

The world of motocross will yield awful statistics if you look.
As will free/ice climbing, base jumping, downhill BMX and even horse riding, along with many many others.
Football is just a conveniently innocuous sport to start with.
Still happy my case works well here.

Smokers do not intentionally harm themselves, any more than free climbers, or even footballers. The harm comes as an unintended consequence, albeit predictable to a degree.
I doubt any free climber falling to certain death, intended to do so - but fall they do.

 

[C350Carl]

We will agree to disagree then that smokers don't intentionally harm themselves.

 

[Alex Crow]

Do you believe that smokers intend to become harmed?
(I never did, in fact I hoped not to become harmed)
If you do then yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[C350Carl]

Anyone who smokes knows what can happen to them. There are enough adverts on the packets for one. In fact I seem to remember, from smokers I know, it states in big letters 'smoking kills'. So I don't see how you think someone who is smoking isn't intentionally harming themselves.

There is absolutely no reason on this earth for people to smoke. People do it as they succumb to peer pressure, think it looks cool or any other dumb reason they say is the reason they smoke.

I succumbed to peer pressure as a 12yr old to try it. I threw up and then never did it again.

So maybe when anyone under 16 starts to smoke they don't understand what they are doing to there bodies. However any adult that does is willingly harming their own body. It only takes some will power to give up as they become addicted to nicotine and any other carp that's in cigarettes. But it's not impossible to do so or you would never have ex smokers.

If you can't see that. Then yes we will agree to disagree.

There is a wealth of information on the tinterweb about smoking. Have a read of this. Then try and find something comparable in sport or other areas that you say cost just as much as smokers do.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

The one bit that jumps out is:

Cost to society
Research commissioned by ASH has shown that the total cost to society (in England) is approximately £12.9 billion a year.5 This includes the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking in England which is approximately £2 billion a year.5 Other costs include:
• loss in productivity due to premature deaths (£3bn) • cost to businesses of smoking breaks (£5bn)
• smoking-related sick days (£1bn)
• social care costs of older smokers (£1.1bn)
• costs of fires caused by smokers’ materials (£391m)

 

[WG M-B]

It's ironic ..........
Someone who has spent a large part of his working life protecting the very freedom of the people of his nation, could be so single minded.

It's dillusional

 

[C350Carl]

It's ironic ..........

Someone who has spent a large part of his working life protecting the very freedom of the people of his nation, could be so single minded.



It's dillusional

How is it single minded? I haven't said people can't smoke (although I would ban it for the greater good). That's their choice in the current legislation of this country. All I said is that if they are placing so great a burden on the NHS that means the other unfortunate people, who's freedom I protect as you put, end up not getting the resources they require. Then they should have to pay for that burden.

Maybe I am delusional. But it's delusional to the fact that one day smokers might actually realise they are willingly harming their body. The problem is people seem to be blinkered to the facts. Smoking kills and gives people serious illnesses which is preventable.

A government is never going to please everyone. The utopia doesn't exist. But if they actually made the correct decisions, which might pi55 off a few people, that ultimately benefited society as a whole. Then maybe we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

Just because I protect the freedom of this country doesn't mean I have to sit back and agree with people who smoke. I am also allowed to voice an opinion. I respect other views, regardless as to wether I agree with them or not.

I'll make it simple.

There are NO benefits to a smoker. They damage their body, often beyond repair, it costs them money. It then costs society and the taxpayer money.

The only benefit is that the government gets tax from the sale of it all. But unfortunately that money goes into one big pot and isn't channelled where it is needed.

One day society might actually start to think like me in that we should take responsibility for our own actions.

The NHS is one of the great things about the UK. But due to a number of things (one of which is smokers) they can't make their current resources treat everyone as people would expect.

So me delusional - I'm afraid not. I think I'm actually very worldly wise, grounded and have a strong moral compass. As I said I lost my grandfather due to smoking. I know just how finite life is and I will never understand why people choose to smoke knowing full well what it will do to them.

Like I said to Alex. We will agree to disagree agree. I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it and I will express a counter opinion. That's called a healthy debate.

 

[Alfie]

It's ironic ..........
Someone who has spent a large part of his working life protecting the very freedom of the people of his nation, could be so single minded.

It's dillusional

What about the freedom of the public not to have carcinogens freely exhaled in their vicinity? Its delusional.

 

[Alex Crow]

Look up the definition of the words intend and intentional, please.

As I say, ill heath for the smoker is an unintended consequence of smoking, albeit a predictable one, to a degree.
They do not smoke to become ill, or with the intention of becoming ill.
The born again middle aged biker was only trying to regain some of those happy experiences of bygone days. Hitting the truck head on after misjudging the corner was an unintended consequence, but predictable to a degree.

 

[Miffy]

What about the freedom of the public not to have carcinogens freely exhaled in their vicinity? Its delusional.

The exact same statement can be said for diesel exhaust fumes?

 

[C350Carl]

Look up the definition of the words intend and intentional, please.

As I say, ill heath for the smoker is an unintended consequence of smoking, albeit a predictable one, to a degree.
They do not smoke to become ill, or with the intention of becoming ill.
The born again middle aged biker was only trying to regain some of those happy experiences of bygone days. Hitting the truck head on after misjudging the corner was an unintended consequence, but predictable to a degree.

I think that maybe you should!

The only thing that happens with smoking is you damage your body. Even one cigarette will damage it however small it still causes damage. Smokers are fully aware that smoking harms them. Ergo they are intentionally harming themselves. There is no way of avoiding the harm. The minute the smoke enters your body. The carcinogens and chemicals start to cause damage. To do so wilfully knowing the consequence is unavoidable means it's intentional.

The person who gets on his bike does so to get from A to B. If he goes too fast or exceeds his perceived skill level and crashes. That is unintended as there is every chance exceeding the speed limit/skill level will not result in an accident/crash. Same with a football tackle, same with a motocross rider etc

But to save both of us going round in circles. I think we should just agree to disagree. I respect any opinion people give and will always consider any opinion and look at it with a balanced view. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. After all I'm putting forward my opinion and people are disagreeing with me. Not an issue I just think we are at a stalemate.

Group hugs in the shower after tea.

 

[Alfie]

The exact same statement can be said for diesel exhaust fumes?

Indeed which is why they have been just about eradicated in new cars now.

 

[Miffy]

Indeed which is why they have been just about eradicated in new cars now.

Just how many of the "old" cars are, and will still be on the road for years to come?

 

[Frontstep]

Just how many of the "old" cars are, and will still be on the road for years to come?

Hmm smokers to be fitted with DPF filters.

Especially when they have to drink their own wee

There's an answer

 

[Alfie]

Just how many of the "old" cars are, and will still be on the road for years to come?

Like the smokers, they will die off.......