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

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#984784 12-Feb-2014 09:23

old3eyes:
Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..

I don't know about "dogodders" (or even dogooders ;-)), but alcohol is already entering the firing line. Some sports events, for example, are have already banned alcohol advertising.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984812 12-Feb-2014 10:02

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..

What u mean it would cost this country a lot less?

Most people don't realise that smokers pay for their own treatment further down the track if they get sick. The tax on cigarets is very high and its in the governments best interest to keep smokers smoking :-) People seem to have this illusion that if smoking was banned taxpayers would be better off. Thats far from the actual truth.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984833 12-Feb-2014 10:11

KiwiNZ:
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.

Kids are not allowed to share lunches at school. Its a school rule.

5year olds can be taught a number of things. Like riding bicycles, cleaning their bedrooms, doing their homework, respecting their parents etc. teaching them to not each or touch somebody else s lunch is really not that hard.

If its about saving lives then what are we doing about the other allergies. Some kids are highly allergic to bees. If they stung she would need urgent medical attention. What do we do? Remove all gardens and flowers from schools in an effort to keep the bees away? Most of these kids know they allergic and they adapt. We teach them to take the necessary precautions like not walking around barefoot on grass.

As for the nuts. Like I said they everywhere. You will be surprised at what items have nuts in them. Go look it up. Why ban only peanut butter?

Its only in a nanny state where we try and enforce rules on everyone else. NZ is right up there.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#984835 12-Feb-2014 10:11

Klipspringer:
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..

What u mean it would cost this country a lot less?

Most people don't realise that smokers pay for their own treatment further down the track if they get sick. The tax on cigarets is very high and its in the governments best interest to keep smokers smoking :-) People seem to have this illusion that if smoking was banned taxpayers would be better off. Thats far from the actual truth.

It is about health

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984836 12-Feb-2014 10:12

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
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..

What u mean it would cost this country a lot less?

Most people don't realise that smokers pay for their own treatment further down the track if they get sick. The tax on cigarets is very high and its in the governments best interest to keep smokers smoking :-) People seem to have this illusion that if smoking was banned taxpayers would be better off. Thats far from the actual truth.

It is about health

And smokers more than subsidize their own health problems with the taxes on cigarets.

Lyderies

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#984838 12-Feb-2014 10:19

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
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..

What u mean it would cost this country a lot less?

Most people don't realise that smokers pay for their own treatment further down the track if they get sick. The tax on cigarets is very high and its in the governments best interest to keep smokers smoking :-) People seem to have this illusion that if smoking was banned taxpayers would be better off. Thats far from the actual truth.

It is about health

Then it is my choice as a smoker to look after my own health, i wont be forced into not smoking (or in fact forced into any type of you have to be healthy), why don't they ban fast food and unhealthy food and make it you need government issued dinners on your table?

Edit: Also i am sure obesity costs more than smokers do in any country (dont quote me on it)

I'm going to noob myself past judgement

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#984839 12-Feb-2014 10:19

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:
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.

Kids are not allowed to share lunches at school. Its a school rule.

5year olds can be taught a number of things. Like riding bicycles, cleaning their bedrooms, doing their homework, respecting their parents etc. teaching them to not each or touch somebody else s lunch is really not that hard.

If its about saving lives then what are we doing about the other allergies. Some kids are highly allergic to bees. If they stung she would need urgent medical attention. What do we do? Remove all gardens and flowers from schools in an effort to keep the bees away? Most of these kids know they allergic and they adapt. We teach them to take the necessary precautions like not walking around barefoot on grass.

As for the nuts. Like I said they everywhere. You will be surprised at what items have nuts in them. Go look it up. Why ban only peanut butter?

Its only in a nanny state where we try and enforce rules on everyone else. NZ is right up there.

The Anaphylactic reaction to Peanuts even in very very small quantities can be very quick and very nasty including rapid death. This is why food labels must by law state if peanuts or parts there of are used in or the production or may be in contact with the product. Also a scenario a child may have peanut butter sandwich say for lunch and there this peanut material on the child's hands, in the first class after lunch they have an activity where they hold hands child B be now has the peanut material in them and they in some way ingest it... get the picture.

It is not being a nanny state it is about caring and being a responsible society.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#984843 12-Feb-2014 10:22

Lyderies:
KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
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..

What u mean it would cost this country a lot less?

Most people don't realise that smokers pay for their own treatment further down the track if they get sick. The tax on cigarets is very high and its in the governments best interest to keep smokers smoking :-) People seem to have this illusion that if smoking was banned taxpayers would be better off. Thats far from the actual truth.

It is about health

Then it is my choice as a smoker to look after my own health, i wont be forced into not smoking (or in fact forced into any type of you have to be healthy), why don't they ban fast food and unhealthy food and make it you need government issued dinners on your table?

but your smoke is not kept just to you, it is inhaled by those that are not interested in or want to smoke or those who cannot avoid it. The residue of poisons are left to come in contact with those who don't want it. As for food unless you are an extremely messy eater the food you eat will not be ingested
by others unless they choose t.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984846 12-Feb-2014 10:23

banning tobacco smoking from NZ completely will just move the industry out of the hands of government and into the hands of criminals.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984857 12-Feb-2014 10:31

KiwiNZ:
The Anaphylactic reaction to Peanuts even in very very small quantities can be very quick and very nasty including rapid death. This is why food labels must by law state if peanuts or parts there of are used in or the production or may be in contact with the product. Also a scenario a child may have peanut butter sandwich say for lunch and there this peanut material on the child's hands, in the first class after lunch they have an activity where they hold hands child B be now has the peanut material in them and they in some way ingest it... get the picture.

It is not being a nanny state it is about caring and being a responsible society.

Your argument is flawed because there are hundreds of other types of things that my kids are allowed to take to school which contain nuts. Check the contents of the items in your grocery cupboard. Its extremely hard to eliminate nuts. Actually virtually impossible. If you want to then you should order organic items. If you want to eliminate nuts from schools then everyone should be eating organic.

We send our kids to school with choc nut bars. And the school is fine with them. Even though they contain chocolate and nuts.

Washing hands after and before lunch etc is a much better way to eliminate what you say. Its something else that children can be easily taught. Your example is also flawed because it totally leave out basic hygiene.

BTW. Peanuts are not actually nuts ...

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#984859 12-Feb-2014 10:32

Buzz Bumble:
old3eyes:
Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..

I don't know about "dogodders" (or even dogooders ;-)), but alcohol is already entering the firing line. Some sports events, for example, are have already banned alcohol advertising.

The EU stamped hard on alcohol advertising in general some time ago I think - when I was growing up, we had booze ads on TV in the UK but they disappeared decades ago now and you never see them. Even the "Wine & Beer Week At Pak n Slave" ads you get here would not be run in the EU. Formula One of course got rid of tobacco advertising quite some while ago and I can't recall seeing any alcohol advertising there.

None of the doom and gloom the booze companies predicted seems to have come to pass so no doubt it will eventually happen here too, I am sure.

(PS Can't stop thinking about new hybrid creature called a 'dogotter' now!)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#984861 12-Feb-2014 10:33

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:
The Anaphylactic reaction to Peanuts even in very very small quantities can be very quick and very nasty including rapid death. This is why food labels must by law state if peanuts or parts there of are used in or the production or may be in contact with the product. Also a scenario a child may have peanut butter sandwich say for lunch and there this peanut material on the child's hands, in the first class after lunch they have an activity where they hold hands child B be now has the peanut material in them and they in some way ingest it... get the picture.

It is not being a nanny state it is about caring and being a responsible society.

Your argument is flawed because there are hundreds of other types of things that my kids are allowed to take to school which contain nuts. Check the contents of the items in your grocery cupboard. Its extremely hard to eliminate nuts. Actually virtually impossible. If you want to then you should order organic items. If you want to eliminate nuts from schools then everyone should be eating organic.

We send our kids to school with choc nut bars. And the school is fine with them. Even though they contain chocolate and nuts.

Washing hands after and before lunch etc is a much better way to eliminate what you say. Its something else that children can be easily taught. Your example is also flawed because it totally leave out basic hygiene.

BTW. Peanuts are not actually nuts ...

The nut or legume issue is off topic and should really be discussed elsewhere, so I won't respond further regarding it here.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#984864 12-Feb-2014 10:35

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:
The Anaphylactic reaction to Peanuts even in very very small quantities can be very quick and very nasty including rapid death. This is why food labels must by law state if peanuts or parts there of are used in or the production or may be in contact with the product. Also a scenario a child may have peanut butter sandwich say for lunch and there this peanut material on the child's hands, in the first class after lunch they have an activity where they hold hands child B be now has the peanut material in them and they in some way ingest it... get the picture.

It is not being a nanny state it is about caring and being a responsible society.

Your argument is flawed because there are hundreds of other types of things that my kids are allowed to take to school which contain nuts. Check the contents of the items in your grocery cupboard. Its extremely hard to eliminate nuts. Actually virtually impossible. If you want to then you should order organic items. If you want to eliminate nuts from schools then everyone should be eating organic.

We send our kids to school with choc nut bars. And the school is fine with them. Even though they contain chocolate and nuts.

Washing hands after and before lunch etc is a much better way to eliminate what you say. Its something else that children can be easily taught. Your example is also flawed because it totally leave out basic hygiene.

BTW. Peanuts are not actually nuts ...

I was at boarding school for 15 years so had 3 meals a day at school for 36 weeks every year: I do not recall them making the slightest concession to anyone in terms of diet! We had peanut butter on the table at supper every night.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#984865 12-Feb-2014 10:35

KiwiNZ:

but your smoke is not kept just to you, it is inhaled by those that are not interested in or want to smoke or those who cannot avoid it. The residue of poisons are left to come in contact with those who don't want it. As for food unless you are an extremely messy eater the food you eat will not be ingested
by others unless they choose t.

I have the same problem when I sit next to somebody in the train for example. I'm not interested in their body odors. I can't avoid it and in some cases its so bad that I would rather smell cigarette smoke.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#984870 12-Feb-2014 10:38

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

but your smoke is not kept just to you, it is inhaled by those that are not interested in or want to smoke or those who cannot avoid it. The residue of poisons are left to come in contact with those who don't want it. As for food unless you are an extremely messy eater the food you eat will not be ingested
by others unless they choose t.

I have the same problem when I sit next to somebody in the train for example. I'm not interested in their body odors. I can't avoid it and in some cases its so bad that I would rather smell cigarette smoke.

ummm change seat ?

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