Ban on smoking in vehicles with children

Apr 14, 2015
44
0
0
Visit site
Hi All,

About time too - today is the day a new law comes into play banning smoking in vehicles where persons under the age of 18 are present.

Being a non smoker, In my opinion, its common sense not to do that anyway and I'd guess most smokers would feel the same ? I doubt there are few who would consciously expose their kids to a car full of smoke.

Anyway, I spotted a link on Facebook which seems to sum up the law: http://www.motordefencelawyers.co.uk/motoring-news/ban-on-smoking-in-vehicles/

What do you think on the ban?
 
Jun 20, 2005
17,263
3,486
50,935
Visit site
As a non smoker brilliant.
However the reality is who is going to enforce it?
The Police? Doubt it. They don't have the time or man power.
 
Apr 14, 2015
44
0
0
Visit site
Yeah, I very much doubt the police have the resource to stop everyone they see. An it would (at a guess) be more difficult to spot? Certainly more difficult than someone using a mobile phone?
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
pmyo said:
Hi All,

About time too - today is the day a new law comes into play banning smoking in vehicles where persons under the age of 18 are present.

Being a non smoker, In my opinion, its common sense not to do that anyway and I'd guess most smokers would feel the same ? I doubt there are few who would consciously expose their kids to a car full of smoke.

Anyway, I spotted a link on Facebook which seems to sum up the law: http://www.motordefencelawyers.co.uk/motoring-news/ban-on-smoking-in-vehicles/

What do you think on the ban?

I think it is one more nail in the coffin of civil liberties, one among many of our mamby pampy state, there is more yet to come, thing is for those who say hooray well done, it dosen't effect me!!, what about when the next law does, remember the quote " first they came for jews ect" is it common sense of course it is, but that is not the point. it was common sense to ban smoking in the work place and in clubs unless you are an MP then it's OK to smoke in the bar or your office inside Westminster, says more about the ones making the laws, then the people who put them there!!
there are far more important things to legislate on but there deemed to be less popular, for the man in the street that pays their huge salaries.
yes we have to protect kids they are our future, but picking out one instance is just a rolling out of more. we are going to stop you doing this, or that, while we carry on interupted, if the people who this lastest bit of law is aimed at, are the sort that, acctually do smoke in the car with kids in, will certainly be the ones who smoke at home where the kids are or in the van where the kids are, or is this the next bit of wisdom to come along.
there are those that would love to see a total ban on tobacco products, also sounds reasonable to a non smoker [like me], but what comes after that, umm lets see how about a ban on using alcohol in public, or where the kids are.
sound familier, Orwell's 1984 is getting closer and closer,
not that this latest ban will be any more enforceable than any other ban they have thought up, just way of increasing revenue out of a few fines the kids will still be subject to tobacco smoke none the less often while inside the playground bike sheds like we were 50 years ago.
 
Jul 15, 2008
3,633
649
20,935
Visit site
........the boffins at VW are pretty good with electronics. :eek:hmy:

I am sure they could come up with door entry scanners that could determine if anybody was entering the vehicle that was not yet 18 years old.

Then a matter of hidding a smoke detector that would trigger an engine immobiliser ;)
 
Jun 2, 2015
605
0
18,880
Visit site
colin-yorkshire said:
, remember the quote " first they came for jews ect"

Nice to see Godwin's law being invoked at such an early point in a debate.
as for the ban, I am in favour although I believe that it is as uninforcable as the ban on mobile phones and fox hunting. As a retired smoker/recovering nicotine addict I am not particularly anti-smoking so long as the toxic fumes are kept away from the innocent. Claiming that it is against civil liberties is on par with claiming that preventing someone from forcing their children to breath asbestos powder is against their rights as parents. I can smell someone smoking in the car in front of me driving down the motorway; if I can smell the much diluted toxins and carcinogens in a car driving at 70MPH how much more concentrated are they going to be in the car where the child is sat?
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
saint-spoon said:
colin-yorkshire said:
, remember the quote " first they came for jews ect"

I can smell someone smoking in the car in front of me driving down the motorway; if I can smell the much diluted toxins and carcinogens in a car driving at 70MPH how much more concentrated are they going to be in the car where the child is sat?

perhaps you could get a part time job at the ferry ports sniffing out all the contraband save the customs a fortune on dog food, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Jan 3, 2014
131
0
0
Visit site
Whilst I agree to the law in principle I feel it is unenforceable, the police do not have the resources to enforce this. There is also a flaw in the law, if the driver is under 18 years old they cannot be prosecuted. This law has come in so the next one is to fine pregnant ladies who smoke as surely this is more harmful to a child?
 
Jun 11, 2012
1,523
23
19,685
Visit site
I packed up smoking close to ten years ago I felt that I had a choice to smoke or not my Daughter didnt. I looked at it like this If I had a smoke in her surroundings so did she .Surely Passive smoking is more harmful than the smoker. As was said earlier the Police wont have the resources but may be a few examples being made will have an impact I dont know . Everybody has the choice to smoke or not but lets keep it away from Children.
 

Mel

Mar 17, 2007
5,338
1,280
25,935
Visit site
Of course it is barely enforceable, but if it makes one person stop and think and not fill their child or babies lungs with carcinogens then it is a good thing. This is not about civil liberties this is about harming children. There are never too many laws when it comes to harming children. Plus smoking kills you: end of. If someone can refrain from from smoking in a car, they might be persuaded to refrain from smoking altogether.
Mel
 
Aug 11, 2010
1,362
0
0
Visit site
strange we all drive and tow our caravans using vehicles that either belch out soot Nox, CO or indeed known carcinogens into the the Air for all to breath and indeed it is Legal to do so and we don't give a second thought as we drive by pedestrians or children especially in rush hour on congested town roads chucking out these harmful fumes for All to breath in regardless of rights. and now they pass another unenforceable law! what a waste of time and money and indeed energy . sigh more toxins pushed out into our atmosphere simply by the processing of this law and of course the hot air created by all those meetings to come up with an unenforceable law!
 
Aug 8, 2015
74
0
0
Visit site
Let us all wait and see the response when the ban within prisons comes into force.
We all know the health issues as they are rammed down your throat at every opportunity, so yes basically it is bad for the world in general.
It would be far more cost effective to ban the manufacture of the product in the first place and then the use of said product countrywide. This way we could all lead healthier lives and live longer so the government will probably claw the tax revenue back by delaying state pensions until we are 90.
The nanny state is upon us and we all (as little people with little say) will once again bow down and just get on with it.
Remember back in the day butter was bad for you and we all were encouraged to eat margarine, now some years later we can't even buy margarine because guess what.......It's bad for you eat more butter. B)
Rant over :cheer:

It just occurred whilst writing this,
Last weekend the caravan next to us were doing no harm to anybody sat outside chatting whilst having a beer and smoking. Their smoke drifted into our awning, Oh dear do we now want a law that controls that or perhaps non smoking fields along with no everything else.
 
Apr 27, 2015
128
1
0
Visit site
This law is about protecting vulnerable children from being poisoned by those supposedly looking after them.

The health impacts of passive smoking are well known, but despite this some smokers are in denial and will still subject their kids to it. No adult has the right to endanger the lives of children as a consequence of their own perceived right to freedom of behaviour, but sadly some still think they do- and those need it spelling out in legislation that they are wrong.

This is no less enforceable than the laws regarding seat belts, drink driving, or mobile phone use. Catching 100% of the people doing it and dishing out the punishment is not the objective. The existence of the laws governing those things (and now smoking in cars) serves two purposes. Firstly, it allows the Police to do something if and when they come across someone brazenly doing it where previously the motorist could be sat there with no belt/drunk/on the phone/smoking, all with a car full of kids, and tell the Police where to go. No longer! Secondly, it stiffens society's view of what is and is not acceptable. If you look at those similar laws I cite above (deliberately mentioned in chronological order), you can see how they have influenced society over time. Smoking in the car with kids will start getting the tuts, disapproving looks, and horn honks, that mobile users are now starting to receive (but were not 5 yrs ago).

I support this 100%. For me, smoking in caravans (and the home for that matter) should be illegal when there are kids present, too - 90% of people consider it common sense not to smoke in enclosed areas with kids present, the other 10% don't deserve the right to the other view because of the cost it comes at.
 
Sep 10, 2014
247
10
18,585
Visit site
For me you can ban smoking in cars full stop.
Some years ago whilst out on my motorcycle I was overtaken by a car and as he returned to the lane he flicked his butt out of the window and it ended up being wedged inside my visor and burnt my face.
It has to be the most disgusting habit ever.
 
Aug 11, 2010
1,362
0
0
Visit site
Jules_ht said:
This law is about protecting vulnerable children from being poisoned by those supposedly looking after them.

The health impacts of passive smoking are well known, but despite this some smokers are in denial and will still subject their kids to it. No adult has the right to endanger the lives of children as a consequence of their own perceived right to freedom of behaviour, but sadly some still think they do- and those need it spelling out in legislation that they are wrong.

This is no less enforceable than the laws regarding seat belts, drink driving, or mobile phone use. Catching 100% of the people doing it and dishing out the punishment is not the objective. The existence of the laws governing those things (and now smoking in cars) serves two purposes. Firstly, it allows the Police to do something if and when they come across someone brazenly doing it where previously the motorist could be sat there with no belt/drunk/on the phone/smoking, all with a car full of kids, and tell the Police where to go. No longer! Secondly, it stiffens society's view of what is and is not acceptable. If you look at those similar laws I cite above (deliberately mentioned in chronological order), you can see how they have influenced society over time. Smoking in the car with kids will start getting the tuts, disapproving looks, and horn honks, that mobile users are now starting to receive (but were not 5 yrs ago).

I support this 100%. For me, smoking in caravans (and the home for that matter) should be illegal when there are kids present, too - 90% of people consider it common sense not to smoke in enclosed areas with kids present, the other 10% don't deserve the right to the other view because of the cost it comes at.
utopia at last! firstly you want to drive a lorry then you will see mobile phone use whilst driving has not receded in the last 5 years it is now a nightmare of people driving and texting at the same time which incidentally coincides with the arrival of the smartphone.... latest figures. smoking is down and yet lung cancer up! in some countries smoking is up and yet lung cancer is down! the health issues of passive breathing of pollutants are well known smoking accounts for an ever decreasing percentage Air quality is or should be a major concern to all and major pollutants,smoking is not one of them.. obesity and lack of exercise in today kids is surely more of a concern or should be. the general air quality should be of major concern! instead a worthless law is passed! but heck it'll con a fare few into thinking it makes a difference!!!
 
Apr 27, 2015
128
1
0
Visit site
JonnyG said:
utopia at last! firstly you want to drive a lorry then you will see mobile phone use whilst driving has not receded in the last 5 years it is now a nightmare of people driving and texting at the same time which incidentally coincides with the arrival of the smartphone.... latest figures. smoking is down and yet lung cancer up! in some countries smoking is up and yet lung cancer is down! the health issues of passive breathing of pollutants are well known smoking accounts for an ever decreasing percentage Air quality is or should be a major concern to all and major pollutants,smoking is not one of them.. obesity and lack of exercise in today kids is surely more of a concern or should be. the general air quality should be of major concern! instead a worthless law is passed! but heck it'll con a fare few into thinking it makes a difference!!!

Smoking is "not a major concern" when considering air quality?

I have been researching the impacts of passive smoking in the light of this law, and found an interesting article analysing the conclusions of peer reviewed studies. Of the 106 studies identified, 67 found negative health impacts. Of the 39 that concluded no impact, 29 of them were published by people with tobacco industry affiliations.

So whilst you may well be able to find articles asserting that passive smoking is harmless, I challenge their credibility in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's akin to climate change denial.

Yes there are other factors in air quality (and yes they should be tackled), but to attempt to use them to debunk the idea that passive smoking is harmful for children is not credible.

The existence of opinions such as yours is evidence enough for me that each individual member of society cannot be trusted to come to the right conclusion on this matter. It's not a massive leap to deduce that some of those who are kidding themselves into thinking it's OK, are choosing to smoke in front of their kids as a result (be that in the car or in the home). This proves that this law is an essential part of the child protection arsenal as far as I'm concerned, and I hope the authorities do start nailing people to the wall for it (and that it gets extended into the home).
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
The trouble with non-smoking junkies is the inability to see the wood for the trees, it is a single one sided view, that gets in the way of seeing the whole picture, while they absolutely maintain their absolute right to live in a non smoking enviroment by banning others who also have rights by the way, from being in the enviroment they wish to be in.

lets put it this way there are 6 people in a room 5 who smoke one who doesn't is it more of a priority that the 5 who do smoke are stopped in favour of the one who doesn't, ,if your answer is yes you are one of the above. if your one of the reasonable people who would take the view that it would be better for the non smoker to refrain from entering the room where the smokers are, you are probably in a minority such is the way the pendulum has swung.

it is a popular view now so it's ok to ban smokers eveywhere so some may get there way in a eventual total ban, the trouble with that is two fold, one the USA tried that with another product called prohibition and that turned out well, second is who's next, the drinker, the car driver, or the caravan owner who holds up the traffic every weekend, won't happen can't happen wait and see. whatever is deemed popular at the time for the few votes to be had at election time.

ha, one would say it is about the kids and protecting them ok so lets explore that, why was pub ban introduced there is no kids there [or shouldn't be] oh forgot one can take kids into pubs now, and therefore exposing them to a much bigger problem, Alcohol consumption from an early age, then there the fast food industry obesity is the fastest growing child problem but there is little incentive to tackle this, together with the cuts in child welfare, and social services exposing the poorest kids to abuse and poverty, yeah we are doing a lot to protect the kids aren't we. at least reducing the risk of a diluted lung full of smoke is something but in the grand scheme of things very little indeed.

so whats next a total ban on smoking in the home yeah good idea, so how does this get policed, by having someone peering into peoples living rooms, to see if there smoking, while the footies on on sat afternoon, or fitting every house with a CCTV monitoring system, to watch people, umm seen that some where before.

it just seems a bit OTT to me, popular it may be at the moment, does not make it right though. I don't smoke and for that matter don't drink either but I would defend the rights of other to do so if they wish, seems the most reasonable approach to me, if you dont want to be with smokers stay away if you dont want to be around drinkers do the same. and let them get on with it, and as such can well distinguish the difference between and Alder and a Sycamore when looking at a wood. and as such are well in a minority with today's thinking.
 
Aug 11, 2010
1,362
0
0
Visit site
Jules_ht said:
JonnyG said:
utopia at last! firstly you want to drive a lorry then you will see mobile phone use whilst driving has not receded in the last 5 years it is now a nightmare of people driving and texting at the same time which incidentally coincides with the arrival of the smartphone.... latest figures. smoking is down and yet lung cancer up! in some countries smoking is up and yet lung cancer is down! the health issues of passive breathing of pollutants are well known smoking accounts for an ever decreasing percentage Air quality is or should be a major concern to all and major pollutants,smoking is not one of them.. obesity and lack of exercise in today kids is surely more of a concern or should be. the general air quality should be of major concern! instead a worthless law is passed! but heck it'll con a fare few into thinking it makes a difference!!!

Smoking is "not a major concern" when considering air quality?

I have been researching the impacts of passive smoking in the light of this law, and found an interesting article analysing the conclusions of peer reviewed studies. Of the 106 studies identified, 67 found negative health impacts. Of the 39 that concluded no impact, 29 of them were published by people with tobacco industry affiliations.

So whilst you may well be able to find articles asserting that passive smoking is harmless, I challenge their credibility in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's akin to climate change denial.

Yes there are other factors in air quality (and yes they should be tackled), but to attempt to use them to debunk the idea that passive smoking is harmful for children is not credible.

The existence of opinions such as yours is evidence enough for me that each individual member of society cannot be trusted to come to the right conclusion on this matter. It's not a massive leap to deduce that some of those who are kidding themselves into thinking it's OK, are choosing to smoke in front of their kids as a result (be that in the car or in the home). This proves that this law is an essential part of the child protection arsenal as far as I'm concerned, and I hope the authorities do start nailing people to the wall for it (and that it gets extended into the home).
i do love google. but then i usually start at page 20 that way i get by all the popular tainted stuff and find some real alternative info then i start to read the popular tainted stuff. i also keep an open mind which for some is soo difficult to do, indeed your heated but tainted response does suggest that. it also suggests a closed mind to alternatives going by your remarks about the type of person you would deem me to be ,.... but lets see how close minded you are ,you made a BIG point about the studies and indeed those studies you don't like that involved the tobacco industry therefore the negative interest side of the argument .but exactly how many of those studies that clearly you rely on to be true were funded or backed or done by cancer research facilities? do they also not have alteria motives to promote funding for their research,meaning there studies could also be bias? if the answers are so clear and straight forward as you seem to think,why so many studies? i don't easily make my mind up as to what is what. your mind seems made up those and from your response you must be right! umm so your view point could not be tainted . .bet you were one of those global warming types all the scientific studies supported that, then shock of horrors Global warming was replaced by climate change! imagine that the power that be sold us something we already had and you bought it! some people are not in denial of climate change just how we effect it and to what degree.alas those that don't want to listen those that have already made up their minds use the denial as a derogatory term,as if their is unquestionable proof that we are to blame,imagine these are the same people who fell for the global warming rubbish...! now back to thenew useless law, you so much admire and think will make a difference,ha it. only stops adults smoking in their cars if a child under 18 is present it does not stop them smoking in front of the same child in their homes, the place they most properly spent more time and indeed with worse ventilation! some law ! it will make zero impact except to get some people on their high horses saying what a wonderful law it is! laws should make a difference this one wont .that's the point. .
 
Jun 2, 2015
605
0
18,880
Visit site
When my wife was pregnant with our second child we visited obviously had a few trips to the hospital for scans, the maternity ward and so on. Outside of the hospital main entrance there was always someone in a dressing gown smoking; some were even taking the oxygen mask away from their faces in order to have a drag on the very thing that was most likely the reason that they needed the mask. The main thing that I noticed was that nearly always the smokers were stood directly outside of the entrance doors so that the toxic fumes from the burning leaf that they were inhaling were wafting into the hospital. This is despite there being a perfectly good designated smoking shelter. There was even a bit of a scuffle one day when a group of smokers form the lower ends of the intellectual scale (judging by the accents and limited vocabulary) arguing that it was their human rights to smoke by the door and that smokers were being persecuted. For some reason, smokers are either unaware of the fact that their smoke is contaminating the breathing air for nonsmokers or are just unwilling or too inconsiderate to do anything about it. On a recent visit to Monkey World in Dorset I was absolutely disgusted to find a woman sat down right next to a children’s play area smoking away like a chimney; when I challenged her about the fact that this wasn’t a designated smoking area she dismissed it as not doing the children any harm. I am unsure if it was desperation to get a nicotine fix or just laziness but she was showing the level of denial often demonstrated by smokers (I was guilty of this when I was a smoker) regarding the damage that tobacco smoke does. In this respect the smoker, as a whole does not help themselves by simply flouting the rules; hence we see them smoking directly outside of pub doors with the smoke blowing in, we see them smoking in no smoking areas that they think are unpoliced and I am sure we will see them continue to smoke in cars with children in.
The simple answer is that tobacco smoke is harmful to humans when inhaled either directly or indirectly; if you want to smoke then please at least make the effort to prevent other humans form being subject to the cocktail of carcinogens and other toxins that you choose to deliberately poison yourselves with.
As was mention earlier in the debate, what about on campsite with folk in adjacent pitches smoking? Well let’s use a bit of common sense, it is a temporary situation but I personally wouldn’t be against it if it was brought in. If you rent a static caravan then you sometimes get the choice of smoking or non smoking and many camp site have pet friendly and pet free areas. Why not smoking free zones?
I am obviously biased against smoking, being a retired smoker, but I also know how strong the need to smoke is and how reckless smokers will become in order to get their fix.
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
saint-spoon said:
When my wife was pregnant with our second child we visited obviously had a few trips to the hospital for scans, the maternity ward and so on. Outside of the hospital main entrance there was always someone in a dressing gown smoking; some were even taking the oxygen mask away from their faces in order to have a drag on the very thing that was most likely the reason that they needed the mask. The main thing that I noticed was that nearly always the smokers were stood directly outside of the entrance doors so that the toxic fumes from the burning leaf that they were inhaling were wafting into the hospital. This is despite there being a perfectly good designated smoking shelter. There was even a bit of a scuffle one day when a group of smokers form the lower ends of the intellectual scale (judging by the accents and limited vocabulary) arguing that it was their human rights to smoke by the door and that smokers were being persecuted. For some reason, smokers are either unaware of the fact that their smoke is contaminating the breathing air for nonsmokers or are just unwilling or too inconsiderate to do anything about it. On a recent visit to Monkey World in Dorset I was absolutely disgusted to find a woman sat down right next to a children’s play area smoking away like a chimney; when I challenged her about the fact that this wasn’t a designated smoking area she dismissed it as not doing the children any harm. I am unsure if it was desperation to get a nicotine fix or just laziness but she was showing the level of denial often demonstrated by smokers
I am obviously biased against smoking, being a retired smoker, but I also know how strong the need to smoke is and how reckless smokers will become in order to get their fix.

very interesting, but it is not really supprising that the resort to insults and abuse instead of a calm discussion as the subject gets under their skin. so smokers are lazy, inconsiderate, and on the lower end of the intellectual scale, so why are the most so called respected members of society make sure the smoking ban did not effect them in the work place ie in westminster,

couple of facts one probably are not interested in hospitals are, at positive pressure only slightly so one would not notice but none the less, smoke in the door way would not contaminate the inside, and why is it that the most popular places are where the smokers are, ie in shelters and beer gardens. you cannot call all banana eaters "monkeys" because Monkeys eat bananas.

before the smoking ban came to the work place, we had a 200 seater canteen, and a small room in one corner that had one table and six chairs, come break time the canteen was empty and the smoke room had a queue to get in standing room only, yet 50% of the people in there were none smokers, when the ban came in the smoke room was closed, guess were all the staff went at break time yes outside even in the rain, looked there was mass picket on, and also yes the non smokers followed the morons outside and the canteen remained empty.

I well remember going to see a specialist after suffering the 4th chest infection in one year, the first question he asked do you smoke "NO" have you ever smoked "yes" years ago, AH that will be it then, "but doctor would not the fact that I spent the first 20 years of my working life breathing in coal dust and the next 30 breathing in glass dust make a difference, nope it was the smoking that has done it, such is the closed mind of the anti brigade,
 
Jun 20, 2005
17,263
3,486
50,935
Visit site
Cutting the chase smoking around children must be one of the most selfish acts going. I a non smoker for the last 10 years am the world's worst! I hate smoking and can easily and politely move away from those who enjoy their habit. A child cannot act the same. If they could walk away there wouldn't be a Law.
I don't believe this Act is a detraction of anyone's personal liberties but more so to protect those who can't speak up for themselves.
Is it bad for you? Who knows?
Ask the people with emphasemia and 9 times out of 10 they are a smoker.
Remember those terrible films of experiments on smoking Beagles.
The fact is this Act is realistically unworkable. Even the Police have said so.
The seedy distasteful side to this is the fags now cost £10 a packet. Most of that is tax for Mr Osborne. Do you really expect he and his cronies want this Act to succeed with reductions in tobacco sales? I don't know the answer .
 

Parksy

Moderator
Nov 12, 2009
11,904
2,399
40,935
Visit site
This is an emotive issue which has the potential to degenerate from a reasonable discussion amongst adults into a slanging match so I will be watching closely to ensure that lines are not crossed.
Terms such as 'anti-smoking junkies', besides being a complete contradiction in terms, have no place here.
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
Parksy said:
This is an emotive issue which has the potential to degenerate from a reasonable discussion amongst adults into a slanging match so I will be watching closely to ensure that lines are not crossed.
Terms such as 'anti-smoking junkies', besides being a complete contradiction in terms, have no place here.
I disagree Steve, perhaps "anti smoking Mafia" is nearer the mark. but a junkie is person that gets a rush from something that others don't, like the term "speed junkie" adreneline junkie, some people get so worked up regarding anti smoking that it is difficult to describe the total animosity they show towards others with a different view. lazy is ok inconsiderate is ok below par inteligence is ok, but some of these very same people are the ones parked outside the school gates with engines running listening to the radio 30mins before school ends poluting the air with exhaust fumes so all the other kids can breath it in as they pass. but a person having a smoke in the open air were kids happen to be is disgusting, sounds about right, somehow.
still the moderators keyboard has spoken so thats fair enough.
 
Sep 27, 2015
94
0
0
Visit site
I must confess I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and I can't abide the smell in my car, thank god for re-circulating air heater while in traffic, smoking in cars with anyone not just kids in the car is selfish and wrong on every level, on the other hand how will it be policed, it's like the use of mobile phones there's still people doing it every day, I lived with three smokers for nearly twenty five years and as such suffer respiratory problems so a ban is music to my ears.

Sean.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts