Smoking in cars - by smokers
Thursday, June 17, 2010 In an earlier thread Forest is criticised for not defending smoking in cars where children are present. We won't defend it because we think it's inconsiderate, if nothing else, and I stick to our line that, where small children are concerned, parents should err on the side of caution.
(Peter Thurgood comments, bizarrely, that "If the great explorers, scientists, artists, writers, doctors and inventors down through the ages, had all decided to 'err of the side of caution' we would not have the great advances in art, science, and technology that we have today." I'm sorry, Peter, but what has that got to do with smoking in cars?! If I put forward that argument in defence of smoking in cars, especially those with children on board, I would be ridiculed, and rightly so.)
Another reason we won't defend smoking in cars where children are present is that Forest tries to represent the majority of smokers who are moderate in most things. If this sometimes leads to disagreement with those who want us to take an even more robust approach to every smoking-related issue, so be it.
As it happens, I have in my hands the results of a recently commissioned survey of over 1000 smokers and I can reveal that in answer to the question "If there were children in the car/vehicle you use, would you: (1) smoke as normal, (2) ask if you could smoke before doing so, (3) not smoke at all because there are children present, the result was as follows:
8.2% would smoke as normal
6.5% would ask (!) if they can can smoke, and
85.3% do not smoke at all when there are children present
In answer to another question, 75% of smokers either don't smoke or will ask even when adults (and no children) are in the car.
Clearly these figures indicate that the overwhelming majority of adult smokers are already considering their passengers, so why legislate for what seems to be a practise limited to a very small minority, especially when the risks are open to question?
That said, while I am sceptical about the impact of passive smoking, I also believe that in a very small confined space such as a car smokers should err on the side of caution if young children are present. That's normal behaviour, isn't it? At the very least smokers should consider the comfort of their passengers, young or old, and behave accordingly.
I feel as strongly as most readers of this blog that a ban on smoking in cars is unnecessary and excessive. That is why Forest will continue to oppose proposals to ban it, regardless of whether children are present.
(Personally I believe this campaign has little to do with the health of children and everything to do with the denormalisation of smoking.)
But Forest has to reflect the views of adult smokers and according to the latest research the overwhelming majority choose to put their passengers first when driving.
I think that shows smokers in rather a good light. Don't you?
Reader Comments (42)
It's because they want to use the children in cars thing as the first domino to ban smoking in cars completely.
The tried that in Australia ,and the police refused to police it as they said they did not have the resources to do so.
Other problem is it could be one step more towards the state intervening where the parents smoke et al.
That would be not good at all.
As the evidence generally shows children taken into the care of the state very often end up damaged goods.
Smoking in cars,
It probably would not be enforcable anyhow, AKA the ban on mobile phones in cars certainly does not seem to work at all.
I dont agree to smoking in a car with children either but as Simon stated it should be left to common sense.
State intervention usually just makes a mess out of everything anyhow.
Simon, please can you always, when discussing this, carefully distinguish between "smoking in cars where children are present" and "smoking in cars". By not doing so you are playing into the hands of these people. They pretend they are using the latter as a convenient abbreviation for the former.
Simon, this subject politically is a complete banana skin and it is impossible to strike the right balance. When I was interviewed by the BBC World Service on this subject I just attacked it from the courtesy angle, in the sense that I did not drink or get amorous with my partner in front of my children. But I did make the point medically there was very little evidence that if you did that it caused ill health. I made the point hat smoking reached its peak in 1950 when 66% of the adult population smoked, comparing it to 2010 when 23% smoke but asthma has risen 3 fold and studies conclusively indicate that exposure to SHS as a child reduced asthma by up to 80%.
To answer your question it does show that smokers are considerate and no new laws need to be passed.
I do not smoke in the car when there are children present or when there are other adults there who do not like the smell of smoke. It is nothing to do with health but showing consideration. I have friends who do not smoke but who do not mind me smoking in their car as smoking does not bother them. They show consideration to me as they appreciate that a car is often the only place where I am actually permitted to smoke.
I agree that smokers have to be shown in a good light and the demonisation has to stop. For this reason it is right to rubbish these proposals and the survey that Simon quotes does show smokers as considerate irrespective of their views on second hand smoke. Otherwise, ASH and their ilk will try and say that Forest is trying to protect the rights of smokers to chainsmoke in a sealed car with a newborn baby in the back seat.
I can see their headlines and drawings already.
There is nothing "bizarre" Simon, about the great explorers, scientists, artists, writers, doctors and inventors down through the ages, all not deciding not to 'err of the side of caution'
Do you think Mount Everest would ever have been climbed if Sir Edmund Hillary had erred on the side of caution? Or that man would have abandoned his horse and dared to climb into a mechanical machine were it not for Gottlieb Daimler inventing the motor car? Or even the way the French Impressionists threw caution to the wind and gave us a whole new style of art.
We have had 13 years of being told to 'err of the side of caution' by our crazy Labour Government. Children are made to wear goggles before they can play a game of conkers, grown ups are made to strap themselves in cars before they are allowed to drive, and more to everyone on this site's own discomfort, we are not allowed to smoke inside any building, deemed to be 'public' for the sole reason that we 'could' or 'might' injure someone near us with our second-hand smoke. And now, they are levelling this new extreme measure at us, trying to tell us yet once again, we should 'err of the side of caution' regarding smoking when children are present in cars.
And you say you cannot understand what my argument regarding 'erring of the side of caution' has to do with smoking in cars? It has everything to do with smoking in cars. You either believe the myth the anti-smoke movement uses regarding second-hand smoke or you don't.
If you do not believe it, then there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever in saying that you prefer to 'err of the side of caution'. And I can assure you that far from ridiculing you, your views would be taken much more seriously for stating a 'fact' that the vast majority of smokers (at least on this site) know to be true.
Interesting that such a high percentage wouldn't smoke at all. I wonder how many lied in fear of expectation of the charge of child abuse.. If they are being truthful, why would they not conisider just opening a window?
I never smoke in my car Joyce, for the simple reason that I like to completely relax when I smoke, but even if I did smoke in my car, I definitely wouldn't when young children were present, not because I thought in any way that it would harm them, because I know it wouldn't. The reason I wouldn't smoke in any small space near young children is because they do not have a choice, or maybe I should say a voice to say if they do not like it or not.
As for so called grown-ups, unless they were suffering from some sort of breathing problems like the woman Simon met, I would certainly smoke near them if I wanted to. If they didn't like it, they could easily have the same option as we all have, and that is to go outside.
It is exactly the same in my home, when children are present, I never smoke, but everyone else is warned before they come that I smoke. If they don't like it, they do not have to come. I have never had anyone decline yet, just the opposite in fact, we have more people asking to visit than we can accommodate.
Ho the hell is thinking that adults are walking around like some sort of dragon blowing smoke in infants faces? "Oh what a lovely child you have there, do you mind if i make him choke?" idiots
Smoking in cars is horrible with or without children. But thats my personal opinion and we are all different. Not brushing your teeth, another health issue is also horrible in my opinion...but some folk dont. State gonna go into their bathroom and nanny them?
Make sure people wash their hands after using the toilets? Ban the bowls of peanuts left out at buffets?....Oh we cud be here forever. Ridiculous!
I think everyone should do whatever they wanted if they're the owners of the cars. Of course I'd not smoke if children were in my car, but I won't be asking for permission from adults unless I'm on their car -I don't think I'd smoke if the car belonged to a non-smoker. If someone wants to get in my car and they're an adult, I'll open the windows, but it's my car. I don't smoke in their houses when they don't smoke or don't let me to. Applying the smoking ban on private properties it's ridiculous. What else? Am I going to be banned from smoking in my own house?
If I'm on a long drive and my kids are in the car I will have the odd smoke. The fact is if my window is open a couple of inches as long as we're moving the smoke is drawn out of the car. I don't think that a car full of smoke is pleasant any way so my window is always open. I don't believe that a whiff of SHS is going to harm anyone unless they have a particular condition or allergy etc. I grew up and was exposed to smoke constantly. Family gatherings, bus and train travel, social events were all occupied by smokers and to be frank It never bothered me.
However, the smell of diesel fumes at bus stations and in traffic jams still makes me feel sick. If I wished to end my life I'd sit in my car in a closed garage with the engine running. The killer fumes that worry me as a father are not tobacco smoke fumes.
If there is to be a law it is that people are responsible and considerate and that they engage with their brain before they swallow every mouthful of government and media generated spiel.
I certainly would not smoke with a small child in the car, even with window open wide, as the small child would not be mine - the parent would be certain to object. If the child were mine, I would smoke, with the car on the move and the driver's window generously open, but would also blow the exhaled smoke towards the window - a somewhat awkward exercise... so, in sum, one would keep the fag count down.
This procedure would have been followed long before these smoking prohibitions were invented, by the way. In restaurants, one also always asked neighbours for permission to smoke (seldom denied, but when it was one obeyed).
In fact, have the smoking laws arisen as a result of of the decline in good manners?
It really is no surprise that so many people would say they wouldn't smoke in their cars, etc. They've had so much garbage thrown at them, the truth is that they are frightened. It's the Mandy/Campbell school of the past 13 years, repeat something enough and it becomes the truth. We, sometimes, overestimate the great British 'electorate' when it's a simple issue.
At the moment, these antis have their hands on the levers and will continue to spew out more and more garbage, resultantly, continuing to frighten people. They've seen it work, they won't stop. My eldest daughter was, like myself, brought up in a household of smokers and smokes herself. But, now she's had a child she's become frightened by this repetition and won't let anybody smoke around the child. It's nonsense but its worked and she, like many others, can't see the join.
The only way to handle this is to go full pelt at these people, to refute blatantly and noisily, the garbage spilled out about smoking and its effects and like the antis, to continually and loudly, repeat it. To refuse to be emotionally blackmailed by incidents such as Simon experienced on Radio Cornwall, not to accept that smoking caused anything unless it can be proved. I see no need for concession or consideration with these people, they bloody well don't have it for me as a smoker, so why should I?
Go for them hard at every opportunity.
Smoking is not forbidden by God. My father smoked whenever and whenever he wanted. As a true father, or any man with commonsense and a pair of balls, he didn't seek permission from anyone before lighting up in the car or anywhere else. In healthier, happier times, folks smoked wherevever they wanted, even in hospitals. Doctors even used to prescribe smoking to their patients. There's too much pandering to modern pc stupidity. The same anti smoking airheads who rail against smoking might also drive a car; thereby poisoning passers by on the pavement, including mothers pushing babies with children, with carbon monoxide fumes, and they don;t give a sxxx about them. Picture being in a house where the rules are non smoking, yet the householder has cat litters in the kitchen, or the pathetic sight of a man smoking outside his own house or apartment because 'er indoors does'nt like it. Smoking is part of our culture and we should not be begging crumbs from our "masters" table, but demanding our God given right just get on with we've always done, and not grovel to communists.
I do think this issue is a banana skin, as Dave A points out, and I'm glad I'm not the one having to field the questions. But if I were being interviewed on this subject, I think I would try to steer clear of talking about "erring on the side of caution" and keep repeating the message of erring on the side of courtesy and consideration, as the survey makes clear most smoker-drivers do. I agree with Michael that smokers should put their best foot forward when it comes to good manners and consideration, whatever bad manners and lack of consideration we ourselves are shown. I guess I'm just a "do as you would be done by" kind of gal.
As a child & teenager, I suffered horrible travel sickness ... indeed, I often still do if I'm not driving. Adding smoke into the mix (like any other strong smell) ... well, I feel queasy just thinking about it. As Peter says, children don't have the same voice or choice as adults, and therefore I do think they need special consideration - not for any safety reason, but simply for their comfort. As a child, I would certainly have been too polite to say smoke was making me feel worse.
I don't have children in my car.let them walk everywhere like I had to!!!. I don't think Forest has a loud enough voice I only know about it because I 'm on Facebook I never see any mention anywhere else The people standing outside my local pubs, in East London,usually outnumber the ones inside but very few have computers let alone facebook.
i wont stop smoking in my own car i bought it,i will use union lawyers if i ever get done,im sick of the goverment taking liberties with peoples rights, they need to work on real criminals not make me one for having a cig which is legal to buy in a shop,but smoke with a kid in my car nope and i cant smoke in my hoose when my boys in coz he moans,my choice is i choose not to reek folk out like most of us.
When I am in my own house/car/garden etc. I will smoke whenever I wish.
If people bring their children to my house and don't like smoke they can take them out in the street or not come at all.
If people want to put their children in my car then that's their problem if they don't like smoke.
I smoke and will continue to do so.
My parents must have been child abusers as they were both heavy smokers and must be responsible for me (at 79) getting out of breath when I run or mow my 250 foot lawn twice a week.
These children that are 'protected' from smoke are the asthma sufferers of tomorrow.
Lungs need to be exposed to minor irritants like smoke to be able to cope with the pollution all around us today.
That's why we have children vaccinated isn't it ?.
Maybe we could leave it to the local authorities to issue smoking plates for your own vehicle, like taxis.
Just sign a pledge never to allow anyone say, under the age of 40 as a passenger, who must also sign a discalimer in case they die of something 40 or 50 years down the line as a result of your selfish SHS.
No, sod it, easier just to ban it in everybodies cars isn't it?
What we need is a limosine with a sealed glass partition between you in the back and your chauffeur - ideal! the brats can sit up front with him/her and you can have a brandy and cigar in the back - sorted!
When my kids were young I didn't smoke if they were in the car for short trips, unless it was warm enough to have the window well open. On long trips I might wait for the services or make shure it was held near the window opening. I also remember in 1980 when I gave a lift to a non smoker. I asked if she minded me smoking, her asnswer was that it was my car, a polite answer which I respected by not smoking.
You see, most of us smokers have always been like this. It is the 8.2% though. Come on, let's face it, from the class detention to the binge drinking, you only need one person for everyone to be punsished.
I like to think that my car is my car - I bought it - it is mine. If I want to smoke in my car, I will do, children or no children. I am old enough to decide in what circumstances I ought not to smoke in or around my car. I DO NOT NEED A NANNY OF ANY SORT. I do not have any opinion about whether or not other people should smoke in their cars. It is for them to decide. If another person enters my car and don't like my smoking, he has every right to ask me to stop and let him out. Likewise, I am under no obligation to travel in a car where the owner does not want me to smoke. He has every right to refuse and I have every right not to get in his car. As someone above said, an open window (just sufficiently open) draws the smoke out very rapidly. If my car is stationary, I open the window fully and blow the smoke outside. There is, and never has been, any problem.
The point once again is that we do not need any such laws at all, any more than we needed the smoking ban in the first place. Adults can decide for themselves, and that is what the whole subject is about. Can I remind people once again that the ban was passed only to protect workers, not to please non-smokers. Are children in cars workers? Do they spend all the working day every working day in smoky places? No they don't - the vast majority of car journeys are short, and even long journeys will not expose children in any significant way. The whole thing is another 'frightener' red herring put up by the mad, zealot medics.
I can understand Simon's predicament. When so many so-called intelligent people have very little conception of what danger really is, it would not be in our general interest for him to try to take these people on. They simply do not understand. Better to say that people who are worried about smoking in the presence of children should obey their consciences.
On the other hand, a little part of me is saying, "Well, go on then, ban smoking in cars, and lets see what sort of reaction all the none pub goers (of which there are vast numbers) have". Ban smoking within 15 meters of a pub entrance, and lets see how many more pubs close. The more people who are affected by the ban, the sooner it will be amended.
On your logic, Simon, children riding in cars should be banned altogether - purely as a precautionary matter, you know:-
*****
The air pollution accumulating in the interiorof automobiles consists almost exclusively of gasoline and diesel exhaust. This toxic soup of gases, aerosols, and microscopic particles includes benzene (a known carcinogen), carbon monoxide (which interferes with the blood's ability to transport oxygen), particulate matter (which studies have associated with increased death rates), and a host of other hazardous chemicals.
Public health officials frequently issue warnings reported in local weather broadcasts when concentrations of auto pollutants exceed healthful levels iin the ambient air. The air quality inside of cars is typically much worse. In-car benzene concentrations sometimes exceed concentrations in the roadside air by up to four fold. Carbon monoxide concentrations may be more than 10 times higher iinside of cars than at the side of the road. Elevated in-car pollution concentrations particularly
endanger children, the elderly, and people with asthma and other respiratory conditions.
While it receives little attention, in-car air pollution may pose one of the greatest modern threats to human health.
In-car Pollution Report
*******
You are treading a very slippery slope. A sitting room is typically a small, enclosed space.
You are right about cars already being a "health hazard" - those anti's are such hypocrits.
"Toxic at Any Speed: Indoor Air Pollution Inside Your Car
Heat and Light Trigger Toxic Indoor Air Pollution Inside Automobiles:
In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
“Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
I'm not a smoker. But I really don't care about smoking in cars with children or without. I suspect as a child I was more endangered by my father's habit of filling and lighting his pipe at the wheel than his smoking it. But the right thing to do is to ask. It is only polite.
Children are commonly used as an excuse for all sorts of constrictions on adult behaviour, consciously or unconsciously because many people are emotionally aroused by the mere suggestion of harm to children, regardless of the plausibility of the threat, and being so aroused are then rendered less capable of reason generlly. It is right to be cautious of this effect, but it is vital to counter it, or you are dealing with the virtual child, too - one who isn't there but might be, in almost any situation. Virtual risks are more powerful in the irrational rhetoric of precaution than real ones, because in imaginary situations the focus is wholly on danger and no feeling for the practical obtrudes.
The only approach likely to work is calmly to insist that children and adults should be treated with the same consideration, of course, but when discussing 'children' in this or that context it is necessary to know who counts as 'a child' and how (if at all) they differ from an adult in relevant ways. Focussing on detail may sometimes reveal an opponent's empty emotionalism as they flounder and bluster
Loads of comments - I'll just say, Simon I totally agree with you.
my grandfather smoked in the car and it never bothered me when i was little.
Jo (above) is right about children's lungs needing minor irritants to develop resistance. There was a study conducted where children who were exposed to small amounts of SHS had fewer lung conditions than those who did not (maybe Dave A or someone knows the study I'm referring to?) So much for those ridiculous pictures of smoke being blown into a child's face on fag packets. Then again, the anti-scientists at anti-tobacco don't need to add references to their "Health Warnings", do they, so they can say what they like?
"it never bothered me when i was little."
Yes it DID, Geronimo - and you're just in denial about it - like all selfish smokers and so-called 'tolerant' non-smokers.
(I read it in a book once, so it's true).
And your grandfather was a Very, Very Wicked Person.
If you don't make it to 120, we'll know whom to blame.
In fact, a recent study has shown..............................
Household sprays and cleaners are the worst irritants for asthma. Should these be banned in the home, which is also a confined place.?
New goverment. Nothings changed has it ? All they done so far is lick Obamas backide. Thought the control freakery would stop at least. But am afraid not.,we certainly got it now. As previously mentioned the agenda has been set in concrete years ago, nothing will change.
Peter James, we had 13 bloody years of labour and things got progressively worse every sodding day, the new government has been in for a few weeks and you really expect everything to change overnight?
You are either a very angry labour supporter, or you are mad! (maybe the two go hand in hand?)
I would add to 'Smoker' Genisis Chapter 1 Verse 27. God made man in his own image. If we were to be perfect then we would all look alike and have the same ideas. That would make us all miserable. As it is, God made us indivuals. This should be accepted by anyone who claims to believe in God or Allah.
Most deaths are caused by climate change or wars. Why then should we not allow children under 18 years of age to protect then from the effects caused by plane or petrol fuelled vehicles.
Susie my dear, no disrespect to your opinion of myself, but believe me i am no labour supporter. I knew my comments would ruffle feathers, but unfortunately it is true.Although having read about Lord Young about the stupid health and saftey regulations maybe...just maybe commonsense may prevail. One other point, the trouble is we are following the EU adenda, now do you understand.
"we are following the EU adenda..................."
And will carry on doing so.
Until..........................
There is NO Middle Way here, I'm afraid.
I have read every single comment on this thread, and I have come to the conclusion that everyone of us commenters are being lead by the nose along a specific path. The path is that it is to be understood that tobacco smoke is harmful to children.
When was it proved beyond reasonable doubt that tobacco smoke is harmful to children,in normal, family circumstances? There is no such proof - none at all. All the discussions above are just pointless waffle. This pointless waffle is promoted by the health zealots. The simple response to these people is to say: PROVE IT!
@Junican - I totally agree with you.
If SHS poses no harm or so little that it should be dismissed then there is no need to err on the side of caution and we shouldn't even be talking of doing so. This isn't an extremist position but a pefectly reasonable one. The issue of smoking in cars then becomes the same as smoking in any other enclosed place and boils down to comfort and consideration. I think it extreme to believe that the comfort of non-smokers, be they children or adults, can only ever be met by not smoking at all given that open sun roofs and windows serve as chimneys when cars are travelling.
I don't particularly agree with Simon (Clark) that the 85% shows smokers in rather a good light. I suspect that many are lying, while others have either been brainwashed by the SHS myth or, if not, are afraid of castigation. It doesn't, however, really matter because the tobacco control lobby will demand that others are protected from the 15% who don't refrain from smoking. The 85% will be cited as providing "overhwhelming support" for a ban despite the stat showing no such thing.
Apologies correction of spelling mistake my comments should read ' agenda' not adenda. No! 'passive' smoking does dot do any harm to children whatsover, in fact it builds up their resistance to infections. Thats what big pharma does not like. My father ued to smoke in the car when we where on hols i was nine i am not dead am i?? Stupid Antis. But they only following the control agenda....sorreeee.
With regards to the whole 'err of the side of caution' arguments, how many of these great explorers or scientists undertook those actions with a child present at all times?
When it comes smoking in cars with children it is probably best not to smoke if there is just a chance (no matter how small) we are harming them . If we shouldn't beat children we probably shouldn't be harming them in any other way, including by second-hand smoke. It is clearly unacceptable.
The whole point of this particular argument Kate, is not whether you should purposefully put children in a position where they could possibly be harmed. Of course no one should do that.
The argument is about what you believe in. If you believe, as the majority seem to on here, that passive smoking, i.e. second-hand smoke, is completely harmless, then in my view, and I must say it also seems to be the majority's view, "caution" doesn't come into it.
The analogy I used regarding "explorers and scientists etc" was nothing to do with "children". I used it as a metaphor for these great men and women using their brains and their inventiveness to go forward and succeed, whilst casting caution to the wind, which of course didn't involve young children.
But to say you would err on the side of caution regarding letting a child near a smoker, is to say that you are not quite sure if passive smoking causes harm or not. If you are "sure" then letting a child near a smoker is as harmless as letting the child near a person who eats chips (for instance).
If, on the other hand, you are not sure of this fact, then by all means take precautions. Personally I never smoke near children for the simple fact that they do not have a choice to say if they do not like it, not because I think it will harm them, because I know from personal facts that it does not!
It is the use of language that I find so offensive, Simon, from one of our own reps.
"Err on the side of caution" - there is no danger to worry about. What smokers do in their cars is consider other passengers. They do not light up in front of children because they fear they would harm them, but because it is simply good manners especially where there are children so young they can't speak out for themselves. Perhaps you should say that smokers are happy to "err on the side of good manners". I still think your language scores an own goal when we are on the back foot already. We need you to be more on our side on this issue.
If you take this stance then it is no wonder that we WILL get a car ban, then we WILL get a home ban, and then tobacco will be made illegal and the last of us who refuse to quit WILL be criminalised.
This fight has never been so important than now because we smokers really are fighting for our own survival and we have no friends - including those we thought we had.
I am surprised that people have focussed on the children and on the smoking without considering how smoking may make the driver calmer and less stressed, thus contributing to the safety of all their passengers. Whatever negative consequences smoke may have for passive smokers, it seems a lot less than the possibility of death due to a stressed person driving them!
Giving people a lift is doing them a favour, and if they don't like smoke they needn't avail themselves of it. These fussy children can do as we did when young, and *walk* thus having additional healthy exercise! Many journeys are quite short enough for kids to walk! Or they can catch a bus or train, both smoke-free venues now.
With the exception of children and other passengers - I pay, I drive, I smoke.
End of. Push off Nanny and go paint a fence or something useful. Leave the rest of us alone.