# Smoking in cars



## bskinti (22 Feb 2007)

Heard a minister on radio yesterday evening say that: "_smoking while driving was as dangerous as using a phone, so if using a phone carries points so should cigarette smoking"._ 
What a load of baloney, imagine an  educated elected representative saying such a thing, the next thing we will get points for is turning on the radio or wiping/picking your nose, or winding down your window, even changing the gear your hands wont be on the steering wheel, ban radios,window winders and gears too and especally two way radios and sat navs, You don't look at a cigg while you smoke or have your hand off the wheel any longer than the above samples. Imagine how calm the smokers would be in traffic without their fix, I wouldn't like to cross their path anyway. How many lives do you all think would be saved or lost if such a ban came in ?


----------



## Superman (22 Feb 2007)

I believe it was a spokesman for ASH.  
Their logic is:
a. Second hand smoke is bad - so ban smoking to protect non smokers in a car.
b. Smoking in a car causes accidents - you can't concentrate on driving.
This is a truly ridiculous statement.  
Following their "logic", one would ban children, radios and while we're at it drivers etc. 

Their argument based on point a. is that, since it might be difficult to know if there is a second person in the car, that to make things simpler they want to ban all smoking.  

Insane.


----------



## jhegarty (22 Feb 2007)

I can't see a problem with a ban... but only if a minor is in the car.... anyone over can get out and walk if they don't like it...


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2007)

Germany, Sweden and many US states are also considering this.


----------



## Vanilla (22 Feb 2007)

As an ex-smoker I would agree that smoking in cars could cause accidents. The actual smoking isnt too bad, but the lighting up and extinguishing can be a distraction- how many smokers actually pull over to light up a new fag? 

I also think that secondhand smoke is a terrible thing to inflict on a child. Whether that be in a house or in a car. On the other hand there is only so far the state can intrude in our personal lives- ultimately people have to make a choice themselves.


----------



## dodo (23 Feb 2007)

Please bring this law in, especially for the dirty smokers who smoke with their children in the car with them


----------



## liteweight (24 Feb 2007)

Get a grip people..you can't legislate for everything! If you don't want people smoking in the car, tell them not to do it. People who smoke with children in the car are unthinking idiots IMO. Changing the law won't change the person. Ok it might save some children from some second hand smoke but that is all. Personally I don't want to live in a nanny state, although it feels like that's what Ireland is becoming. Individuality still matters to me and I neither want, nor expect others to conform to my views.....except ban chewing gum on the street of Dublin!  Maybe I should start a campaign?


----------



## rabbit (24 Feb 2007)

dodo said:


> Please bring this law in, especially for the dirty smokers who smoke with their children in the car with them


 
Hear hear.


----------



## z105 (25 Feb 2007)

> b. Smoking in a car causes accidents - you can't concentrate on driving.
> This is a truly ridiculous statement.


 
A ridiculous statement ?? can you imagine where ones thoughts would be if one dropped a cigarette between ones legs while driving (and try imagine it at 100km/h !!  I don't think you'd be concentrating on your driving !


----------



## Z100 (25 Feb 2007)

Havealaugh said:


> A ridiculous statement ?? can you imagine where ones thoughts would be if one dropped a cigarette between ones legs while driving (and try imagine it at 100km/h !! I don't think you'd be concentrating on your driving !


 
Hear, hear! And imagine where one's thoughts would be if one dropped one's ferret between one's legs while driving (and try it at 100km/h!!). I don't think you'd be concentrating on your driving! He could climb up your trouser leg and devour your private bits!


----------



## ajapale (25 Feb 2007)

Hi Bushfire, How did you get your name?


----------



## Z100 (25 Feb 2007)

ajapale said:


> Hi Bushfire, How did you get your name?


 
Were you the man who kindly helped me extinguish the flames that day?


----------



## liteweight (26 Feb 2007)

ajapale said:


> Hi Bushfire, How did you get your name?


----------



## oopsbuddy (26 Feb 2007)

I think its important that comments relating to a ban of smoking in cars 'per se' are made on the basis of safety in mind, as with the use of a mobile phone. However reference to smoking in cars in the presence of children is on a different level and is tantamount to an abuse of children. I think there is a civil liberty issue (up to a point) on the former, but not on the latter. 

Regarding the safety issue on the former point, personally I have an open mind so far, but I am tending towards the view that mobile phone use in a car is potentially a bigger safety issue than smoking, especially texting while driving, but being a non-smoker (I used to smoke for years, but very rarely in a car) I have to be careful not to simply pass comments based on my own view of smoking now. It would be too easy to simply claim for a ban on smoking in cars because I don't agree with smoking, especially in cars, but doing it with kids on board is stupid, selfish and ignorant, even before the debate starts on the likelihood of it causing an accident. 

Another poster also referred to other safety issues while driving, such as the use of satnav etc, and I have to say that during a recent trip in a car with someone who frequently adjusted his satnav while driving, it was a real concern. I was ready to grab the wheel and restore a straight line if necessary, but thankfully we got through it without incident...and yes, we did speak about it! Also, changing CDs or trying to tune in a certain radio station can cause serious distraction, but IMHO more commonsense should be "promoted" rather than trying to make certain things outlawed, especially when so many issues are unenforceable.


----------



## Welfarite (26 Feb 2007)

1. Ban radios, CD players.
2. Ban Sat Nav devices.
3  Ban short skirted females/males from roadsides
4. Ban all passengers in case of distraction.


----------



## Z100 (26 Feb 2007)

oopsbuddy said:


> I have to be careful not to simply pass comments based on my own view of smoking now. It would be too easy to simply claim for a ban on smoking in cars because I don't agree with smoking, especially in cars, but doing it with kids on board is stupid, selfish and ignorant, even before the debate starts on the likelihood of it causing an accident.


 
Have to admit, I find the anti-smoking brigade very strange people  

If their aim was the banning of smoking in public places (achieved), while also having concerns about children being subjected to smoking (in cars, etc), then that would be fine and understandable, but they seem to want to take it to a whole new level, eg talk of banning people from smoking in their _own_ homes and in open spaces . 

This suggests it's nothing to do with their wish not to be polluted by other people's smoke, it's just a desire to impose their views on others, what it's really about is control. The most virulent of the anti-smoking brigade remind me of those creatures in SPUC or Youth Defence, they tend to be miserable souls who are obsessed with how other's lead their lives. You can be sure, if they succeeded with banning smoking in the home, which they won't, they'd move on to another issue. All those who enjoy a glass of wine in the evening.........look out!


----------



## oopsbuddy (26 Feb 2007)

I agree with your comments Bushfire, and I hope not to be taken as one of those "anti-smoking brigade". As I said I used to smoke myself, quite a lot, and I made the point that, although I am now a typical reformed smoker in my views, I would not support anyone trying to ban it from cars for the sake of it. 

I couldn't care less what smokers do as long as they don't impose their habit on others, and in fact my point was that a ban on smoking in cars should not be promoted just because of an anti-smoking preference. 

I do however have very strong anti-smoking views when I see people smoking in cars where kids are also trapped inside, and I make no apology for feeling disgusted at the sight.


----------



## Z100 (26 Feb 2007)

oopsbuddy said:


> I couldn't care less what smokers do as long as they don't impose their habit on others


 
Fair enough! You're definitely *not* a member of the freaky anti-smoking brigade I mentioned because you're not concerned about what smokers do when it doesn't effect any one but themselves! 



oopsbuddy said:


> I do however have very strong anti-smoking views when I see people smoking in cars where kids are also trapped inside, and I make no apology for feeling disgusted at the sight.


 
No apology required, can't think of any defence of that behaviour.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Feb 2007)

Bushfire said:


> If their aim was the banning of smoking in public places (achieved),


Not achieved yet - the current ban only applies to workplaces - it may take a couple of years to get all public places included.

There is a special place in hell reserved for those who smoke in a car with children, with the fan blowing all the smoke straight back at the kids. Having said that, I think we have enough unenforced laws at present without bringing in more.


----------



## Z100 (27 Feb 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Not achieved yet - the current ban only applies to workplaces - it may take a couple of years to get all public places included.


 
Apart from restaurants, pubs, cinemas and _most_ public places where else would you like to see smoking banned?


----------



## Danmo (27 Feb 2007)

Bushfire said:


> Have to admit, I find the anti-smoking brigade very strange people
> 
> If their aim was the banning of smoking in public places (achieved), while also having concerns about children being subjected to smoking (in cars, etc), then that would be fine and understandable, but they seem to want to take it to a whole new level, eg talk of banning people from smoking in their _own_ homes and in open spaces .
> 
> This suggests it's nothing to do with their wish not to be polluted by other people's smoke, it's just a desire to impose their views on others, what it's really about is control. The most virulent of the anti-smoking brigade remind me of those creatures in SPUC or Youth Defence, they tend to be miserable souls who are obsessed with how other's lead their lives. You can be sure, if they succeeded with banning smoking in the home, which they won't, they'd move on to another issue. All those who enjoy a glass of wine in the evening.........look out!


 
hear hear. facists the whole lot of them


----------



## podgerodge (27 Feb 2007)

Bushfire said:


> but they seem to want to take it to a whole new level, eg talk of banning people from smoking in their _own_ homes and in open spaces .
> 
> This suggests it's nothing to do with their wish not to be polluted by other people's smoke, it's just a desire to impose their views on others, what it's really about is control.



Indeed. When Matt Cooper asked Ash that day on the radio what they thought about banning it in homes their reply was no - as it would not be enforceable!  Now if it was enforceable.....!  The safety issue they brought up was nothing other than a feeble attempt to bolster their insane visions. 

It's a step up from 'normal' anti smokers who, when they got their way and got clean air in the workplace, moaned on and on about the few minutes a day we smokers popped out for a smoke.  Incidently, there was a survey (well there always is isin't there) that said smokers who spent 6 minutes an hour on the doss smoking built the whole thing into their routine at work - to the extent that they just worked harder for the other 54 minutes to get the same work done! So there!


----------



## Z100 (27 Feb 2007)

podgerodge said:


> Indeed. When Matt Cooper asked Ash that day on the radio what they thought about banning it in homes their reply was no - as it would not be enforceable! Now if it was enforceable.....! The safety issue they brought up was nothing other than a feeble attempt to bolster their insane visions.
> 
> It's a step up from 'normal' anti smokers who, when they got their way and got clean air in the workplace, moaned on and on about the few minutes a day we smokers popped out for a smoke. Incidently, there was a survey (well there always is isin't there) that said smokers who spent 6 minutes an hour on the doss smoking built the whole thing into their routine at work - to the extent that they just worked harder for the other 54 minutes to get the same work done! So there!


 
A man after my own heart  

The indisputable fact is that non-smokers *don't* work any longer than smokers who take fag-breaks, because the non-smokers spend the entire break whinging and moaning about the injustice of it all. And then when the smokers return and get back to work, the non-smokers sit there and seethe silently before emailing ASH and posting on Askaboutmoney to complain about it all. So, in fact, smokers work longer hours. Therefore, I am starting a campaign for non-smokers to be paid less. Join up here.


----------



## RainyDay (27 Feb 2007)

Bushfire said:


> Apart from restaurants, pubs, cinemas and _most_ public places where else would you like to see smoking banned?



Anywhere that it impinges on me, e.g. Luas platforms, streets/pavements, outside of buildings (e.g. the phalanx of smokers clogging up the steps of Holles St hospital) etc. One possible benefit of banning smoking in cars would be the elimination of butts being dumped out of car windows, but I guess it is probably still unenforceable.


----------



## Z100 (27 Feb 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Anywhere that it impinges on me, e.g. Luas platforms.


 
Would you not just take a taxi instead and leave the Luas platforms to the poor smokers? It's all they have left.


----------



## extopia (28 Feb 2007)

RainyDay said:


> One possible benefit of banning smoking in cars would be the elimination of butts being dumped out of car windows...



Nah, it's still normal practice to offload the butt.


----------



## Z100 (28 Feb 2007)

RainyDay said:


> One possible benefit of banning smoking in cars would be the elimination of butts being dumped out of car windows, _but I guess it is probably still unenforceable_.


 
Oh, I'm not sure. The Gardai have so little to do these days I'm sure they'd be happy to chase smoking car drivers across the countryside. And up and down the M50.


----------



## gramlab (28 Feb 2007)

Isn't car smoke supposed to be a carcinogen. Does that mean that at some stage in the future a law will be passed where people must turn off their engines everytime they come close to someone !!!

Looking  forward to seeing all those non smokers pushing their cars to work and trying to pat themselves on the back while pushing.

(Ex Smoker who hasn't turned into an ASH head)


----------



## RainyDay (28 Feb 2007)

gramlab said:


> Looking  forward to seeing all those non smokers pushing their cars to work and trying to pat themselves on the back while pushing.


Just FYI, not everyone drives to work. Some cycle (as I do 4 days per week) or use the Luas or the bus or the train or.......


----------



## podgerodge (28 Feb 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Anywhere that it impinges on me, e.g. Luas platforms, streets/pavements, outside of buildings (e.g. the phalanx of smokers clogging up the steps of Holles St hospital) etc.



Are u sure it's not just the act of smoking near you that annoys you?  Because you just think it's a filthy habit? Or do you consider walking through a little smoke in the open air a threat to your health?


----------



## ragazza (28 Feb 2007)

podgerodge said:


> Are u sure it's not just the act of smoking near you that annoys you? Because you just think it's a filthy habit? Or do you consider walking through a little smoke in the open air a threat to your health?


 
I agree with RainyDay. People can smoke wherever they want, as long as it doesnt affect public places/kids. If I'm walking down the street or in a park etc enjoying the fresh air, the last thing I want is to be engulfed in, and get a lung-full of, smoke. And its not just one lung-full - every time you pass a smoker, its the same. And if you are in a queue downwind of a smoker, your hair and clothes get smelly from the smoke.


----------



## ajapale (28 Feb 2007)

podgerodge said:


> Because you just think it's a filthy habit?



Im interested in the use of the expression _"filthy habit"_? Am I wrong or is it almost exclusively smokers that use the expression?


----------



## DrMoriarty (28 Feb 2007)

Bushfire said:


> So, in fact, smokers work longer hours.


_And_ contribute more to alleviating the pensions crisis, by conveniently popping their clogs at a younger age? 

Ash should take a leaf out of [broken link removed]'s book.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Feb 2007)

podgerodge said:


> Are u sure it's not just the act of smoking near you that annoys you?  Because you just think it's a filthy habit? Or do you consider walking through a little smoke in the open air a threat to your health?



Yep - I'm sure it is the smoke itself and/or the butts that bother me, not the act of smoking. Smoking in ATM queues is another bone of contention.


----------



## Z100 (1 Mar 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Yep - I'm sure it is the smoke itself and/or the butts that bother me, not the act of smoking. Smoking in ATM queues is another bone of contention.


 
The smoke itself, the butts, the puffin' in ATM queues............Rainyday, I fear you are displaying ASH symptoms. But I have good news - these symptoms (eg a tendency to set out to be irritated) can be easily cured, all you need to do is: chill. Failing that either (a) love your fellow filthy habit brothers/sisters or (b) wear a gas mask. (INSERT SMILEY THINGIE HERE - CAN NO LONGER DO IT SINCE THIS SITE FIDDLED WITH ITSELF, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN)


----------



## Z100 (1 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> _And_ contribute more to alleviating the pensions crisis, by conveniently popping their clogs at a younger age?


 
But not before more than paying for our medical care through the cigarette taxes we pay the Government. In fact, me suspects we smokers fund the entire health service. Hence Mr Cowan's reluctance to price us out of buying our ciggies. (INSERT SMILEY THINGIE HERE - CAN NO LONGER DO IT SINCE THIS SITE FIDDLED WITH ITSELF, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN)


----------



## Z100 (1 Mar 2007)

ajapale said:


> Im interested in the use of the expression _"filthy habit"_? Am I wrong or is it almost exclusively smokers that use the expression?


 
You're categorically not wrong. Although I will add: most virulent anti-smokers I know have the filthy habit of (a) being far more interested in others' private lives than is healthy, (b) being incapable of chillin' (c) being so anal, as the modrin lingo puts it, that they've long since forgotten how to enjoy themselves. And they all look miserable and world-weary. 

They focus in on others' shortcomings - eg smokin' and drinkin' and laughin' - because, havin' stuck rigidly to 'The Guide to Living a Clean, Good and Healthy Life' they realise their lives are actually intensely dull. And the gang who leave the pub every 10 minutes for a fag are the ones who are having fun. 

Yes, these anal people might (stress: MIGHT) live longer, but their bonus 10 years or so will be spent in a home, the highlight of their day watching Countdown. Oh yes, we all want that. Quantity, not quality, that's we're after. Is't it?

They nibble on sunflower seeds, we have a fag. They whinge incessantly about filthy habits, we just enjoy the filth and get on with it. 

And they hold mobile phones to their ears and suck in the fumes from their SUVs. And they wonder why not enough smokers die as early as them? 

As the seminal Frankie Goes to Hollywood tried to tell you: Relax.


----------



## Vanilla (1 Mar 2007)

Bushfire said:


> You're categorically not wrong. Although I will add: most virulent anti-smokers I know have the filthy habit of (a) being far more interested in others' private lives than is healthy, (b) being incapable of chillin' (c) being so anal, as the modrin lingo puts it, that they've long since forgotten how to enjoy themselves. And they all look miserable and world-weary.
> 
> They focus in on others' shortcomings - eg smokin' and drinkin' and laughin' - because, havin' stuck rigidly to 'The Guide to Living a Clean, Good and Healthy Life' they realise their lives are actually intensely dull. And the gang who leave the pub every 10 minutes for a fag are the ones who are having fun.
> 
> ...


 
Eh Bushfire, don't you think your post is a little anal and whingy?


----------



## DrMoriarty (1 Mar 2007)

Bushfire said:


> As the seminal Frankie Goes to Hollywood tried to tell you...


Great pun, though!


----------



## podgerodge (1 Mar 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Eh Bushfire, don't you think your post is a little anal and whingy?




Dunno Vanilla, it sounded quite factual to me. I have mates that are far more bothered about my smoking habit than I am.  It stresses them out how bad it is for my health.  They would want to be careful!


----------



## Murt10 (1 Mar 2007)

Havealaugh said:


> can you imagine where ones thoughts would be if one dropped a cigarette between ones legs while driving (and try imagine it at 100km/h !!




As an ex-smoker I can remember several times driving where the fag would stick to your lips as you tried to pull it out of your mouth. You ended up pullinf the tip off it, burning the fingers off yourself and trying to extinguish the cigarette in your lap at the same time and trying to stop it burning the seat. 

Highly dangerous, and you were far less in control of the car than you would be with a dozen pints in you.

I regard smoking as a tax on the poor. From my own observations, more poor  people seem to smoke than middleclass, I accept that this is a generalisation but that's the way it seems to me.

In the UK and on Contintenal Europe on the other hand smoking seems to be much more common in the middle classes than here.



Murt


----------



## Danmo (2 Mar 2007)

ragazza said:


> I agree with RainyDay. People can smoke wherever they want, as long as it doesnt affect public places/kids. If I'm walking down the street or in a park etc enjoying the fresh air, the last thing I want is to be engulfed in, and get a lung-full of, smoke. And its not just one lung-full - every time you pass a smoker, its the same. And if you are in a queue downwind of a smoker, your hair and clothes get smelly from the smoke.


 
Engulfed? Isn't that a tad exaggerated?


----------



## ragazza (2 Mar 2007)

Danmo said:


> Engulfed? Isn't that a tad exaggerated?


 
I live in Spain where every second person smokes. So walking down the street, its not that you get just one blast of smoke - instead it comes at you constantly from all sides. So yes, 'engulfed' is how I'd describe it.


----------

