Smoking in cars (with children) ban comes into force

goggles13 said :

bearlikesbeer said :

buzz819 said :

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes, so legality isn’t an issue.

I recently contacted Westfield Centre manager Kate Holsgrove and asked if Westfield had any policies relating to the use of e-cigs within their shopping centres. I got a call back from Woden Westfield manager Isaac Tait, who informed me that I was free to use my e-cig within Westfield Woden, and that Westfield is in the process of drafting a national policy relating to the use of e-cigs in their shopping centres. 

interesting that they are making a policy about something that is illegal in Australia.

do they have policies about other illegal things that may be consumed in their centres?

You think nicotine-free e-cigs are illegal in the ACT? Illegal to sell, illegal to use, or both?

puggy said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes…

This really is a polite question: To what end do you smoke nicotine-free e-cigarettes?

I enjoy the action of smoking. It relaxes me. I find smoking very calming as it helps me to regulate my breathing. Nicotine free e-cigs are ideal for me as I don’t particularly enjoy the rush from a “real” cigarette. I want the smoke/vapour, not the drug.

I-filed said :

Next step: slap a fine on any pregnant woman who has half a glass of win?

I’d like half a glass of win. 😛

Sandman said :

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

+1 from me. Smokers are annoying, unhealthy and stink.

LSWCHP said :

, the right to be free from cruelty or neglect etc.
.

I think you contradicted yourself dramatically there. Smoking with a child in an enclosed area is nothing less than child cruelty. There is a direct, measurable physical impact on the child/ren by smoking in the car.

@ breda As callous as it sounds, shooting up or online gambling don’t have the same “measurable” result.

God people post a lot of rot in regards to anti-smoking legislation. Do you not understand the impact on children’s health from passive smoking? Its not about it being an unpleasant sensation (despite the fact that it clearly is) or about saving the smoker from themselves (last I looked cigarettes were still oddly enough still legally for sale in Australia) its about the impact on the health of those who are at greatest risk because of (i) their physical immaturity and (ii) the fact that they are under the care and protection of the adult and in the car and cannot chose to be in a smoke free environment.

So get over your bloody bus smoke rant, perfume in nightclubs etc etc – its all getting rather stale. Why not actually let some facts enter the debate:

http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/113/Supplement_3/1007.full (admittedly relating to exposure of newborns but this legislation is probably more to protect infants)

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-clinical-research/the-effects-of-passive-smoking-on-adult-and-child-health/199313.article

Maybe when someone actually sues their parents for exposure to second-hand smoke will people actually think these laws (which are totally analagous to seat-belt legislation and child-car-seat restraint laws) are useful.

Then there is the furphy of “waste of police resources to enforce” – well the law is as much about recognising that most of the time most people choose to obey the law. Of course there will be morons who continue this practice – just like their are fools who abuse kids despite laws – but thats not a reason to not have these laws.

Watson said :

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

In the square outside Dickson Library.
Outside the main doors at the Airport. (old terminal anyway, haven’t used the new terminal yet)
Footpath outside various clubs/pubs/restaurants.
Lots of access paths at various sporting and social events.

It’s not always “blown” in your face with the holier than thou attitude some smokers seem to have but it’s there and it’s in your face.

Go the ban!

I’ve always viewed rights as far more fundamental things, such as those rights espoused in the UN declaration of human rights or the rights of the child

And yet you couldn’t get to number two on the list, apparently.

2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

I don’t think smoking is a good idea anywhere, but I also think it’s absurd to claim that children have a “right” to not be in a car with smokers. It’s desirable, yes, but I don’t think it could possibly be claimed as a right.

I’ve always viewed rights as far more fundamental things, such as those rights espoused in the UN declaration of human rights or the rights of the child. These are rights such as the right to a name, the right to education, the right to be free from cruelty or neglect etc.

I’ve no doubt that this measure is well intentioned, but the wanky spin supplied by Katy just makes her look trivial and silly.

I don’t agree with exposing children to smoke, but surely this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Next step: slap a fine on any pregnant woman who has half a glass of win? Fine parents who let their children eat junk food? (obesity is lethal, according to the government).

Come to think of it – a car is a lethal instrument of itself. Why are children being allowed in them in the first place?

Watson said :

I don’t know why you would smoke if you don’t think it’s fun though? Don’t come up with the addiction argument. If you would hate doing it, you’d quit. It’s not heroin or smack.

Wow. Did you actually write that with a straight face? Maybe I’m not understanding your logic correctly, but from where I’m standing you seem to be suggesting that smoking isn’t addictive? As though addiction only applies to chemicals that can end up killing you via an overdose?

So if an otherwise sane person continues to smoke cigarettes, despite the mountains of medical evidence that says that activity will end up almost certainly reducing their lifespan, and will make their health worse for the time they are alive, your argument is that person isn’t doing it because they’re addicted, but because it’s fun?

I’d have thought that that was pretty much the definition of addiction.

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

And do you tell people stinking of perfume or sweat to go stand in a paddock as you go about town too? People talking too loudly on their phone or with an irritating laugh? People who have no dress sense too maybe. And they should ban motorbikes because of the noise.

Stop overreacting and lighten up.

My kids get to breathe in lots of smoke while waiting at bus stops. The interchange at Belconnen is always full of people smoking. Yes you do get a faceful and lungful of smoke. They really hate it and I don’t see why they should have to be subjected to it.

bearlikesbeer said :

buzz819 said :

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes, so legality isn’t an issue.

I recently contacted Westfield Centre manager Kate Holsgrove and asked if Westfield had any policies relating to the use of e-cigs within their shopping centres. I got a call back from Woden Westfield manager Isaac Tait, who informed me that I was free to use my e-cig within Westfield Woden, and that Westfield is in the process of drafting a national policy relating to the use of e-cigs in their shopping centres. 

interesting that they are making a policy about something that is illegal in Australia.

do they have policies about other illegal things that may be consumed in their centres?

There is no law against shooting up in a car with people under 16 in it (shooting up is not illegal), nor is there a law against gambling online in your car with people under 16. These loopholes need to be fixed! After all, a person in a car is automatically subject to every law and by-law that our all-knowing legislators choose to pass.

Funny how none of the laws they pass ever decrease control over us as individuals. It seems to be all one way.

Living in the modern world seems to be more and more like trying to get from A to B via Hopscotch.

puggy said :

This really is a polite question: To what end do you smoke nicotine-free e-cigarettes?

Cachet.

bearlikesbeer said :

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes…

This really is a polite question: To what end do you smoke nicotine-free e-cigarettes?

buzz819 said :

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

It’s much easier going to the horse’s mouth:

6 Meaning of smoke and smoking product

(1) For this Act, smoke means smoke from an ignited smoking product.

(2) For this Act, a person smokes if the person—

(a) directly puffs smoke, whether or not the person uses a device for the inhalation of smoke by a smoker; or

(b) holds or has control over a smoking product while it is ignited.

Examples—devices—par (a)

1 a cigarette holder

2 a pipe (including a hookah, water pipe or bong)

Note An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132).

(3) For this Act, each of the following is a smoking product:

(a) a tobacco product;

(b) a herbal product;

(c) any other product that is designed for smoking.

This is pretty cut and dry, there is no ignition or combustion in an e-cigarette so people cannot be fined under these laws without further amendment.

Watson said :

Jim Jones said :

Lolz. I smoke, d***head. And I also end to agree that smoking should be allowed in certain public areas.

But the label ‘fun police’ deserves all the mockery it gets. Not even the most fervent addict would ever call smoking ‘fun’. There’s nothing ‘fun’ about it.

It’s just another ‘nanny state’ non-argument. “rah rah rah, I don’t like this piece of public policy so I’m gonna say ‘nanny-state’/’fun police’. Doesn’t mean s***.

Yeah, point taken about it being an empty phrase. Not sure about calling me a d***head over it though, but maybe that’s just me…

I don’t know why you would smoke if you don’t think it’s fun though? Don’t come up with the addiction argument. If you would hate doing it, you’d quit. It’s not heroin or smack.

Heh – the d***head was a (semi)affectionate thing, like ‘mate’. No offense intended.

There’s enjoyment to be had in many different forms of smoking, but ‘fun’? I wouldn’t call a cigar ‘fun’, but I love the damn things. A quiet scotch or two is also wonderful, but ‘fun’ ain’t the right term for it.

Also, I’ve heard that argument put many times that cigarettes are harder to quit than “heroin or smack’ (footnote: heroin *is* smack, and both of them are probably very fun). Having never been a junky, I can’t comment on it. But can certainly attest to how difficult quitting smoking is.

buzz819 said :

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

I use nicotine-free electronic cigarettes, so legality isn’t an issue.

I recently contacted Westfield Centre manager Kate Holsgrove and asked if Westfield had any policies relating to the use of e-cigs within their shopping centres. I got a call back from Woden Westfield manager Isaac Tait, who informed me that I was free to use my e-cig within Westfield Woden, and that Westfield is in the process of drafting a national policy relating to the use of e-cigs in their shopping centres. 

Jim Jones said :

Lolz. I smoke, d***head. And I also end to agree that smoking should be allowed in certain public areas.

But the label ‘fun police’ deserves all the mockery it gets. Not even the most fervent addict would ever call smoking ‘fun’. There’s nothing ‘fun’ about it.

It’s just another ‘nanny state’ non-argument. “rah rah rah, I don’t like this piece of public policy so I’m gonna say ‘nanny-state’/’fun police’. Doesn’t mean s***.

Yeah, point taken about it being an empty phrase. Not sure about calling me a d***head over it though, but maybe that’s just me…

I don’t know why you would smoke if you don’t think it’s fun though? Don’t come up with the addiction argument. If you would hate doing it, you’d quit. It’s not heroin or smack.

People should not be allowed to smoke anywhere.

Excuse me while I go walk around Civic where there will be no noxious fumes at all, no siree.

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Is resorting to the wowser tag the modern day equivalent of labelling someone a nazi? I.e. you immediately lose the argument.

No.

A wowser is a wowser. A nazi is a person who aligns himself with the anti-semitic movement that originated under Hitler’s reign.

“The term wowser – surely one of the most impressive and expressive of Australian coinages – is used to express healthy contempt for those who attempt to force their own morality on everyone. The person who abstains from alcohol (for whatever reason) is not thereby a wowser: s/he’s just probably very fit. But when s/he tries to force everyone else to do as s/he does, then s/he is a wowser. Or as C.J. Dennis defines the term: ‘Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder’.”
From: http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/meanings-origins?field_alphabet_value=281

Inspector Gadget may just have something to say about the origins of that word.

Lolz. I smoke, d***head. And I also end to agree that smoking should be allowed in certain public areas.

But the label ‘fun police’ deserves all the mockery it gets. Not even the most fervent addict would ever call smoking ‘fun’. There’s nothing ‘fun’ about it.

It’s just another ‘nanny state’ non-argument. “rah rah rah, I don’t like this piece of public policy so I’m gonna say ‘nanny-state’/’fun police’. Doesn’t mean s***.

Alderney said :

Is resorting to the wowser tag the modern day equivalent of labelling someone a nazi? I.e. you immediately lose the argument.

No.

A wowser is a wowser. A nazi is a person who aligns himself with the anti-semitic movement that originated under Hitler’s reign.

“The term wowser – surely one of the most impressive and expressive of Australian coinages – is used to express healthy contempt for those who attempt to force their own morality on everyone. The person who abstains from alcohol (for whatever reason) is not thereby a wowser: s/he’s just probably very fit. But when s/he tries to force everyone else to do as s/he does, then s/he is a wowser. Or as C.J. Dennis defines the term: ‘Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder’.”
From: http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/meanings-origins?field_alphabet_value=281

I have wondered sometimes about “wowser” being used simply when one disagrees. Mostly, I’d suggest my opinions are libertarian, but based on a realisation that existence in civilised society has duties and constraints as well as privileges and rights.
But equally with “fun police” because, once someone has seen someone die slowly of cancer, any association between it and fun becomes inoperative.

Alderney said :

Is resorting to the wowser tag the modern day equivalent of labelling someone a nazi? I.e. you immediately lose the argument.

No.

the 10 metres around building entrances should be expanded to high pedestrian areas too. such as main walkways to shopping centres and pedestrian crossing. I really don’t want to have smoke blowing in my face while I’m waiting to cross the road safely or walking in the only route from a carpark to the shopping centre entrance.

Watson said :

VicePope said :

Along with some others of the Fun Police, or reasonable people (as I prefer to see them), I am perplexed that smoking in public places has not been made an offence yet. Spitting is banned, and so is littering, but for no logical reason it is ok for one group of addicts to blow stinking carcinogens into other people’s space.
It’s a filthy and fatal addiction, sustained by lies told by its shills, that is already dying out in much of society, It seems to me that the social indicia for bogans – D/E socio-economic group, lack of education, poor overall health, participation in anti-social behaviour, irresponsible or unsustainable consumption, preference for hysterical media if any – seem to be much the same as for smokers. And who wants to be identified as a bogan?
Social shunning will do the job, along with enlightened laws and the increasing cost of the habit.

Yep, because my parents and their peers disapproving strongly of some habits was always what made me avoid them when I was young.

I am suppressing the urge to add more poorly phrased sarcasm, but wowsers really annoy me….

Is resorting to the wowser tag the modern day equivalent of labelling someone a nazi? I.e. you immediately lose the argument.

Alderney said :

It’s pretty bloody selfish to think I too would want to partake in your habit.
The line is drawn when what you do impacts on others; smelling your smoke impacts on others.
Go and stand in a paddock if you want to light up.

1. If you see me light up walk around me
2. If I am standing in a secluded area and out of the way of foot traffic smoking and you see me smoking walk around me
3. If I light up mistakenly in front of an entrance to a mall, or near out door diners, please feel free to approach me to ask me to move
4. Define smelling your smoke – you may have actually wanted to write INHALING your smoke. There is a difference.

I try my hardest to make sure that my smoking a cigarette in a public place has little impact on other people. I don’tsmoke in your face on purpose…ever heard of something called wind?
The ban calls for smoking in cars because the smoke is more concentrated and children’s lungs are still developing, I can understand and fully support the ban. I fully support the ban of not smoking in clubs and pubs and out the front of entrances to malls etc.
Who exactly is going to go around issuing fines for smoking in a public place away from entrances/exits/eateries. That’s a great use of Police resources.
Seriously if it’s such an issue to you, stop whining on here and go do something about it – contact your local MP and complain…see how far that goes.

Deref said :

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

And don’t forget the laffs of emphysema! What a hoot!

Again, will you stop exaggerating just because you don’t like the smell of smoke. If you are inhaling enough passive smoke to contract emphysema, you should stop going to illegal liquor dens or brothels or where ever you hang out where people smoke inside without your permission.

VicePope said :

Along with some others of the Fun Police, or reasonable people (as I prefer to see them), I am perplexed that smoking in public places has not been made an offence yet. Spitting is banned, and so is littering, but for no logical reason it is ok for one group of addicts to blow stinking carcinogens into other people’s space.
It’s a filthy and fatal addiction, sustained by lies told by its shills, that is already dying out in much of society, It seems to me that the social indicia for bogans – D/E socio-economic group, lack of education, poor overall health, participation in anti-social behaviour, irresponsible or unsustainable consumption, preference for hysterical media if any – seem to be much the same as for smokers. And who wants to be identified as a bogan?
Social shunning will do the job, along with enlightened laws and the increasing cost of the habit.

Yep, because my parents and their peers disapproving strongly of some habits was always what made me avoid them when I was young.

I am suppressing the urge to add more poorly phrased sarcasm, but wowsers really annoy me….

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

And don’t forget the laffs of emphysema! What a hoot!

After all, mother knows best…

Along with some others of the Fun Police, or reasonable people (as I prefer to see them), I am perplexed that smoking in public places has not been made an offence yet. Spitting is banned, and so is littering, but for no logical reason it is ok for one group of addicts to blow stinking carcinogens into other people’s space.
It’s a filthy and fatal addiction, sustained by lies told by its shills, that is already dying out in much of society, It seems to me that the social indicia for bogans – D/E socio-economic group, lack of education, poor overall health, participation in anti-social behaviour, irresponsible or unsustainable consumption, preference for hysterical media if any – seem to be much the same as for smokers. And who wants to be identified as a bogan?
Social shunning will do the job, along with enlightened laws and the increasing cost of the habit.

Alderney is probably just ‘allergic’

Alderney said :

Watson said :

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

I call BS and extreme whingeing on that. Where on earth do you get smoke blown in your face with the current restrictions on smoking? And even if you do get a whiff of smoke, it’s not as if it’s going to land you in hospital, so what is the difference with having to sit next to someone who spilled a bottle of cheap perfume on themselves or has terrible BO.

It’s pretty bloody selfish to think I too would want to partake in your habit.

The line is drawn when what you do impacts on others; smelling your smoke impacts on others.

Go and stand in a paddock if you want to light up.

I call BS and extreme whingeing on that. Where on earth do you get smoke blown in your face with the current restrictions on smoking? And even if you do get a whiff of smoke, it’s not as if it’s going to land you in hospital, so what is the difference with having to sit next to someone who spilled a bottle of cheap perfume on themselves or has terrible BO.

It’s pretty bloody selfish to think I too would want to partake in your habit.

The line is drawn when what you do impacts on others; smelling your smoke impacts on others.

Go and stand in a paddock if you want to light up.

Waaaah, boo hoo! I can smell smoke.

Alderney said :

I call BS and extreme whingeing on that. Where on earth do you get smoke blown in your face with the current restrictions on smoking? And even if you do get a whiff of smoke, it’s not as if it’s going to land you in hospital, so what is the difference with having to sit next to someone who spilled a bottle of cheap perfume on themselves or has terrible BO.

It’s pretty bloody selfish to think I too would want to partake in your habit.

The line is drawn when what you do impacts on others; smelling your smoke impacts on others.

Go and stand in a paddock if you want to light up.

I repeat, where do you get smoke blown in your face?

And do you tell people stinking of perfume or sweat to go stand in a paddock as you go about town too? People talking too loudly on their phone or with an irritating laugh? People who have no dress sense too maybe. And they should ban motorbikes because of the noise.

Stop overreacting and lighten up.

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

E-Cigarettes aren’t actually legal in Canberra, but their use does come under anti-smoking legislation – ie they allow nicotine to be inhaled.

Watson said :

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

I call BS and extreme whingeing on that. Where on earth do you get smoke blown in your face with the current restrictions on smoking? And even if you do get a whiff of smoke, it’s not as if it’s going to land you in hospital, so what is the difference with having to sit next to someone who spilled a bottle of cheap perfume on themselves or has terrible BO.

It’s pretty bloody selfish to think I too would want to partake in your habit.

The line is drawn when what you do impacts on others; smelling your smoke impacts on others.

Go and stand in a paddock if you want to light up.

Jim Jones said :

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

I call BS and extreme whingeing on that. Where on earth do you get smoke blown in your face with the current restrictions on smoking? And even if you do get a whiff of smoke, it’s not as if it’s going to land you in hospital, so what is the difference with having to sit next to someone who spilled a bottle of cheap perfume on themselves or has terrible BO.

Alderney said :

+1 for the ban.

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

Wow, do your friends call you Buzz Killington? Do you still wrap yourself in cotton wool? My god you would be no fun at the pub at all. This is just another way of the ACT government making money, pure and simple. I would love to see the proof that children need protection from second hand vehicular smoke.

By the logic that she (Frau Gallagher) is spewing, the entire bus system in canberra should be overhauled and we should get pedal buses because buses produce more harmful smoke and gasses than a ciggy….go ahead, prove that wrong.

But what should you expect, she went to the John stanhope school of “dont listen to but tell the redneck philistine public what they want”.

Watson said :

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

So much fun having smoke blown in your face by strangers!!!

Dante said :

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

Does anyone actually use those things?

Alderney said :

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

All hail the fun police.

I wonder how e-cigarettes come into the equation? They give off no smoke (only a vapour) and only contain compounds that are regularly used in food and medicine.

If this ban applies to e-cigs then it needs to apply to perfumes, and smoke machines will need to be subsequently banned in nightclubs (same compounds).

pptvb said :

What if a 15yr old is smoking in the car, but the parent isn’t?

By law a 15 year old should not be smoking, I don’t know what the punishment is… Poke in the eye with the lit cigarette I guess?

Now all they need to do is double the fines and points for anyone breaking a road rule with a person under the age of 16 in the car.

If your mother or father sped, talked on the mobile phone while driving, didn’t buckle up and drove aggressively while road raging others all through your childhood, how do you think you’re going to drive when you get the chance?

Back on topic though, children can’t make the choice for themselves but the state has to pick up the tab when they get sick because of their parents selfishness.

+1 for the ban.

Now all they gotta do is ban smoking in public spaces.

What if a 15yr old is smoking in the car, but the parent isn’t?

Half the kids I knew in school were smoking by 16 anyway….