UK to ban smoking in cars where children are present

Forums › Off topic › UK to ban smoking in cars where children are present

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#984389 11-Feb-2014 19:20

I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#984500 11-Feb-2014 20:47

JimmyH: I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.

In the UK, they will not confiscate the lunch. A primary school kid has just been suspended for a few days and then expelled altogether because the parents were putting a pack of cheese crackers in the kids lunch and after the suspension was imposed they point blank refused to stop putting the crackers in the lunch.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#984569 11-Feb-2014 21:57

Up to what age is somebody in New Zealand and the UK classified as a child?

I seem to recall you only an adult when you turn 20 .... Here in NZ we have plenty of "children" that smoke LOL... Good luck on them trying to implement this one.
We have "children" that smoke and have kids ....

We have legal drivers at 15 ...

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#984576 11-Feb-2014 22:00

JimmyH: I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.

Its happening already ...

- We not allowed to put sweets or chocolates in our kids school lunches... And at one stage we were "warned" about peanut butter sandwiches ......

jpoc:

In the UK, they will not confiscate the lunch. A primary school kid has just been suspended for a few days and then expelled altogether because the parents were putting a pack of cheese crackers in the kids lunch and after the suspension was imposed they point blank refused to stop putting the crackers in the lunch.

Good on these parents ...

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#984631 11-Feb-2014 22:55

The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#984637 11-Feb-2014 23:05

Klipspringer: I would much rather see the banning of stupid parents.

We don't need laws to tell us we cant smoke with kids in our cars. Its common sense. Parents should write a test before having kids...

/tongue in cheek

I've said this - and that a test should be introduced for voting also.

I usually get called a fascist, not that I find that particularly insulting.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#984638 11-Feb-2014 23:08

Geektastic:
Klipspringer: I would much rather see the banning of stupid parents.

We don't need laws to tell us we cant smoke with kids in our cars. Its common sense. Parents should write a test before having kids...

/tongue in cheek

I've said this - and that a test should be introduced for voting also.

I usually get called a fascist, not that I find that particularly insulting.

If you live your life unoffended like I do you just can't get insulted. People "take" offence, you cant hand it out to somebody.

Ive been called a bigot, racist and a bunch of other things too LOL

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#984639 11-Feb-2014 23:10

Klipspringer: Up to what age is somebody in New Zealand and the UK classified as a child?

I seem to recall you only an adult when you turn 20 .... Here in NZ we have plenty of "children" that smoke LOL... Good luck on them trying to implement this one.
We have "children" that smoke and have kids ....

We have legal drivers at 15 ...

In the UK you have to be 18 to buy tobacco but you can smoke it legally at 16.

Driving age there is presently 17 but the government is considering introducing a one-year "learner stage" beginning at 17, during which drivers would have to total at least 100 hours of daytime and 20 hours of night-time practice under professional supervision. Learners can then take their test at 18 and, if they pass, will get a probationary licence and have to display a green "P" plate.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#984641 11-Feb-2014 23:16

What if the children smoke also?

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#984642 11-Feb-2014 23:17

JimmyH: The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.

I don't get the peanut butter angel at all. Peanut allergies tend to be a lifelong allergy. Why ban it only in the schools?

The exposure part is also a little over rated here in NZ. Casual contact with nuts and even touching peanuts is actually fine and its not likely to cause a severe reaction. Contact needs to be made with the eyes, nose or mouth. The kid would have to firstly get the peanut butter on his/her fingers and then rub his/her face/eyes with it. I have a friend that has a son thats super allergic to nuts. This is how it was explained to me.

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#984664 11-Feb-2014 23:35

Klipspringer:

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.

If only that were true. The Govt has restrictions on the strength of dishwasher powder. Due to cases of kids getting poisoned with it. Supposedly it was happening when the powder dispenser was loaded, the dishwasher door left open. Powder dispenser at kid height. Even though this is just lazy / careless parenting.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#984703 12-Feb-2014 07:02

Klipspringer:
JimmyH: The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.

I don't get the peanut butter angel at all. Peanut allergies tend to be a lifelong allergy. Why ban it only in the schools?

The exposure part is also a little over rated here in NZ. Casual contact with nuts and even touching peanuts is actually fine and its not likely to cause a severe reaction. Contact needs to be made with the eyes, nose or mouth. The kid would have to firstly get the peanut butter on his/her fingers and then rub his/her face/eyes with it. I have a friend that has a son thats super allergic to nuts. This is how it was explained to me.

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.

Kids share lunches, 5 year olds don't understand allergies, anaphylactic reactions can kill. Trying to save lives of those we as a mature society have a duty to protect is not rediculous.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Azzura

609 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 224

ID Verified

#984725 12-Feb-2014 08:22

What about women that smoke and are pregnant ....shouldn't they get a fine too? I mean they do have a passenger on-board err in-board.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#984732 12-Feb-2014 08:50

TimA:
KiwiNZ: Well done UK

I would like to see smoking banned period.

Ditto, would cost this country a lot less.

Then they'd have to find other way to garnish tax revenue to replace the duty and sale tax from tobacco sales plus the health problems will still be there for years to come.

Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..

Regards,

Old3eyes

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#984742 12-Feb-2014 09:01

old3eyes:
TimA:
KiwiNZ: Well done UK

I would like to see smoking banned period.

Ditto, would cost this country a lot less.

Then they'd have to find other way to garnish tax revenue to replace the duty and sale tax from tobacco sales plus the health problems will still be there for years to come.

Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..

Banning would be the honest thing to do. If a drink, medicine, chair, electric gadget etc etc were to be released and caused the deaths that smoking does they would be removed from the market immediately, sued from here to hades, probably fined and more.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7