Smoking in cars?

peterh said :

AngryHenry said :

We all know it’s bad, if you still do it you’re a jerk and if you don’t know why you’re a jerk you’re also an ignoramous. So perhaps you should keep smoking in front of your kids further increasing the chance that your bloodline will be discontinued and we will no longer have to endure your stupidity in the future.

thanks angryhenry. I am an addict. i recognise that i am addicted to nicotine. therefore i must be an ignoramus. (who can actually spell the word) and i don’t smoke in front of my kids.

I am actually sympathetic to people struggling with addiction to an extent and I understand how my words could be misconstrued.

I was actually referring to smoking in cars (the topic we’re discussing) or around children as opposed to smoking itself, hence the comment about the bloodline being discontinued.

I’m glad you don’t smoke in front of your kids, it shows you’re considerate and giving them a fair go, that makes you the opposite of what I said in my previous post.

Ignoramus! Now there’s a word you don’t want to mis-spell huh? Boy do I feel stupid!!!

Good luck kicking the habit mate.

HC, please.

Go to Civic on Friday nights for the drunken show and anywhere in Civic for the druggies matinee.

nyssa76 said :

The amount of negativity towards smokers is ridiculous and some of it should be directed towards druggies and violent drunks.

It probably would be if they were shooting, throwing or punching up while I was trying to eat my dinner.

Historically it’s certainly not the smokers that get carted off when a society descends into totalitarianism.

When do you ever hear that they carted off smokers?

AngryHenry said :

We all know it’s bad, if you still do it you’re a jerk and if you don’t know why you’re a jerk you’re also an ignoramous. So perhaps you should keep smoking in front of your kids further increasing the chance that your bloodline will be discontinued and we will no longer have to endure your stupidity in the future.

thanks angryhenry. I am an addict. i recognise that i am addicted to nicotine. therefore i must be an ignoramus. (who can actually spell the word) and i don’t smoke in front of my kids.

johnboy said :

Also violent drunks and drug users get sent to prison, smokers don’t (yet).

make tobacco illegal. i won’t be going to jail for a smoke.

I’m against smoking cigarettes in cars, but anything else, roll those windows on up. It keeps the kids quiet and makes you giggle, but on the downside you get stuck on roundabouts.

I was of couse referring to salmon, pork, kippers and other smokeable meats.

On a more serious note, do we really need them to hold our hands on this subject? I hate it when the Government tries to mollycoddle the populous.

We all know it’s bad, if you still do it you’re a jerk and if you don’t know why you’re a jerk you’re also an ignoramous. So perhaps you should keep smoking in front of your kids further increasing the chance that your bloodline will be discontinued and we will no longer have to endure your stupidity in the future.

Also violent drunks and drug users get sent to prison, smokers don’t (yet).

nyssa76 said :

The amount of negativity towards smokers is ridiculous and some of it should be directed towards druggies and violent drunks.

Perhaps it’s because some smokers show less consideration for others than most druggies! Avoiding druggies is a cinch because they are deliberately inconspicuous and covert most of the time. Avoiding violent drunks is a doddle as they tend to congregate in known places.

However, try as I might, I cannot go hardly a single day without copping a face full of cigarette smoke. Waiting at a red light, stepping out of a shopping centre, walking across a car park, waiting for a bus, sitting outside at a cafe, heck, even sitting at my desk I cop cigarette smoke.

I’m willing to put money on this, I suspect that if such a law as “no smoking in a car with minors/littlies/kids/young-uns” was brought in, the only peeps that would be breaking that law are those that would be uncaring (of their offspring) enough to be doing it now anyhow (and I’d also put money on them not being ‘reached’ by any “education” program too).

I was recently very miffed to hear wife’s cousin whining about how difficult it was to afford the groceries each week on their govie payments, whilst the pair of them chain-smoked a packet off Winnie Blues with their coloured alcho-pop soda drinks at the family Christmas do… (they’d be the type I’m talking about).

Offtopic:
A family-friend at the same do used to work with the maternity ward for druggie-mums, and used to tell stories of all the druggy-mums who used to talk about things like feeding baby-to-be only organic food, etc… just a slight flaw there mum…

Oh really? Which ones?

Granny said :

All laws are a fine balance between individual liberty and social responsibility.

On the contrary, a lot of laws seem to be an excuse for revenue raising.

Totally with you Thumper@133 and Aurelius@138.

Peterh@137’s observations suggest that maybe the plebs DO want this level of government interference in their lives. At least it saves them thinking for themselves.

Granny said :

All laws are a fine balance between individual liberty and social responsibility.

There were people who were upset when they lost the ‘right’ to beat their wives with any stick thinner than their finger, but that’s just tough.

I’m not sorry for people who want to drive their kids around without seatbelts. I’m not sorry for people who want to do 200k on the parkway. I’m not sorry for people who want to scalp possums or torture ferrets. I don’t care that their individual liberties to do these things are compromised.

And I frankly don’t care if people can’t pollute the air of children in cars. One day no-one else will either.

Beautifully put Granny. And adding to your list, I’m not sorry that people can no longer drive whilst pissed either.

The amount of negativity towards smokers is ridiculous and some of it should be directed towards druggies and violent drunks.

Every time you get in your car you conform with many regulations imposed by the government, but mostly also reflecting community opinion.

Nearly all of these requirements pertain to the safety and welfare of the driver, any passengers other road users and pedestrians and public and private property.

This legislation is an OH&S type safeguard for the health and welfare of children and I do not see any difference with this rule and the others we all follow every day and pay out other people for not following.

Granny said :

All laws are a fine balance between individual liberty and social responsibility.

There were people who were upset when they lost the ‘right’ to beat their wives with any stick thinner than their finger, but that’s just tough.

I’m not sorry for people who want to drive their kids around without seatbelts. I’m not sorry for people who want to do 200k on the parkway. I’m not sorry for people who want to scalp possums or torture ferrets. I don’t care that their individual liberties to do these things are compromised.

And I frankly don’t care if people can’t pollute the air of children in cars. One day no-one else will either.

granny, i think the fear that we should have, though, is when the government decides what is best for us. Like we cannot manage to do so ourselves. I am against the internet filter system. I am against the government making choices for me in my home. It is up to me, as an individual, to make those choices.

in regards to smoking in the car, i have already chosen not to. perhaps the proposed law needs to be extended to cover morons who drop their butts out of the car as well? good way to stop them if they cop a fine for it.

All laws are a fine balance between individual liberty and social responsibility.

There were people who were upset when they lost the ‘right’ to beat their wives with any stick thinner than their finger, but that’s just tough.

I’m not sorry for people who want to drive their kids around without seatbelts. I’m not sorry for people who want to do 200k on the parkway. I’m not sorry for people who want to scalp possums or torture ferrets. I don’t care that their individual liberties to do these things are compromised.

And I frankly don’t care if people can’t pollute the air of children in cars. One day no-one else will either.

Thumper,
The plebs will tolerate the removal of their liberties while ever the liberties being removed were those they weren’t busy using anyway.
A non-smoker therefore will tolerate the removal of liberties from a smoker.

“And when they came for me, there was noone left to speak up”

Regardless of the arguments above, do people really want this level of government interference in their lives?

And if the answer is yes, then how much further are you prepared to let go of your liberties?

thumper, we may not have a choice. remember, this is the govt we (apparently) wanted back in power. bring on the lack of choice, liberty and justice for all.

Thumper – hell no !!! Our lives are already way too much politically correct and controlled too much.

I have always suspected that a total ban on smoking in cars will happen. I used to smoke in my car and I am sure it is as distracting as using a mobile phone.

Sorry for the bad spelling, etc. above. I’m getting the dreaded three second delay between the keyboard and the screen. It throws me right out.

I’m not the only one !! woo hoo !!

Peterh – good on you being a responsible smoker ! Staying away from your kids etc. But all I meant it that OLDER children can nag and annoy and go outside if need be (ignoring the whole car mention and comparing being at home or in a car) but the younger children wouldn’t understand, and that it should be the PARENT going outside.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that not all smokers are going to die from smoking related causes, and for some that do it will not necessarily be a premature death … like they might be 87 or something when the emphysema finally polishes them off.

However, your daughter is obviously concerned about her daddy’s safety, and would be relieved if you could quit the habit.

I think that you are very considerate and responsible in the way you approach your smoking, peterh, and I do think that’s very commendable.

as i mentioned before, I smoke. My daughter has started on me, so i think i will soon have to stop. never had this sort of motivation before. she won’t leave it alone. I blame my caring wife.

Sorry for the bad spelling, etc. above. I’m getting the dreaded three second delay between the keyboard and the screen. It throws me right out.

peterh said :

justbands said :

Agreed Genie. I have to say that “Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside” is perhaps the dumbest statement I’ve ever seen posted on RiotACT.

what I was making a comment about is that a child can go outside, or ask the parent to stop smoking inside and go outside. a child in a car has no such option. If my parents hadn’t smoked in the car, i may never had taken an interest in smoking. i may have. who knows?

I don’t smoke in my house. It is my addiction, not my children’s.

it is up to the parent to understand that they have the power to prevent harm coming from their actions towards their children.

possibly, the way i express myself sometimes is incorrect.

an infant cannot tell a parent that they want you to stop. it is up to you to ensure that you don’t smoke around or over them.

my parents don’t smoke in my house, if they ever did, they would be asked to leave.

BUT, you cannot enforce this in a law. would the police have to go around and randomly break the door down to catch you?

Peterh, again I appreciate wand agree with what you written. Nobody is allowed t smoke in my car or house. Unfortunlty this causes friction with my mother who actually states that she can do what she wants and nobody can stop her. I do.

Unfortuatly for her, my kids have already developed an anti-smoking stance and have asked her why she smells like smoke etc. Unfortunatly, they also don’t yet have that little switch in their heads that turns on the discretion mechanism, so my wife and I have to apoligise when we walk past other people smoking a BBQ’s etc and my kids tell them they are going to die from smoking:)

justbands said :

cool, gotcha peterh.

& yeah, a ban on smoking in a house would be quite difficult to enforce. I guess they’d rely on people dobbing others in.

lets not open that can of worms.

how many people would take that particular line for a bit of neighbor payback?

cool, gotcha peterh.

& yeah, a ban on smoking in a house would be quite difficult to enforce. I guess they’d rely on people dobbing others in.

justbands said :

Agreed Genie. I have to say that “Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside” is perhaps the dumbest statement I’ve ever seen posted on RiotACT.

what I was making a comment about is that a child can go outside, or ask the parent to stop smoking inside and go outside. a child in a car has no such option. If my parents hadn’t smoked in the car, i may never had taken an interest in smoking. i may have. who knows?

I don’t smoke in my house. It is my addiction, not my children’s.

it is up to the parent to understand that they have the power to prevent harm coming from their actions towards their children.

possibly, the way i express myself sometimes is incorrect.

an infant cannot tell a parent that they want you to stop. it is up to you to ensure that you don’t smoke around or over them.

my parents don’t smoke in my house, if they ever did, they would be asked to leave.

BUT, you cannot enforce this in a law. would the police have to go around and randomly break the door down to catch you?

You police it the same as with seatbelt wearing, mobile phone use, not using indicators, speeding etc. They have to catch you, but if they do it hurts. That’s the way we do it for everything else.

When I grew up we often stood on the back bench seat while our parents were driving or rode around in the back of the station wagon if there weren’t enough seats. We didn’t even have seatbelts!

Then they changed the law. Nowadays it would be unthinkable. And that is the way it works.

How are you going to police it?

Exactly. This is a government that cant even punish murderers and rapists accordingly.
Maybe ‘random smoke tests’.

Agreed Genie. I have to say that “Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside” is perhaps the dumbest statement I’ve ever seen posted on RiotACT.

If you care about your kid’s health, then you shouldn’t be smoking around them, full stop. I don’t care if you drive around in a convertible and have a physics degree and did your thesis on the flow of smoke out a car window. On the other hand, I think introducing a law is a bit rediculous. How are you going to police it? More fixed cameras?

Ok, I was pissed off and probably should have made myself more clear.
I was referring to the ‘Total ban on smoking while driving’ part.
No kids in the car, just me and maybe other smokers.

Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside

Not all children do. Are you telling me that an infant has the brain power to understand smoking is bad and that they should be outside in the fresh air ??

Pretty sure a child doesn’t think “Oh mummy and daddy are smoking… its yucky and possibly damaging my health. I might just go outside for 5 mins until they finish. Oh crap.. Mummy had a smoke 30mins ago, why does she need ANOTHER one.. I’m so sick of going outside while she has her smoke”

rikochet… As someone said something similar earlier, its YOUR decision to smoke, and MY decision not to ! However when smoking was allowed in pubs and clubs, restaurants even the shopping centres back in the day – our decision to NOT smoke was taken away. All around us was second hand smoke.

My parents smoked for the first 15 yrs of my life, in the house in the car etc.. I was used to the smell and thought it was the norm that when I grew up I had to smoke too. As a child who would be around someone who smokes all the time – they are used to the smell so it doesn’t bother them. Took me about a good 2 yrs to get it out of my system and I started noticing the stink that lingered. Hell I still even have half the ceiling in my house yellow from the smoking. I sometimes feel physically sick when I have to sit next to someone who just stinks of cigarette smoke. My sister smokes and has no regard for anyone around her, my nieces always come over and everything smells like smoke. You get in the car with her and she lights up straight away. Doesn’t care that she’s in the car with other non-smokers. I’ve had mates yell at me because I wont let them smoke in MY car, however my best mate will always walk away when she is having a smoke and sprays herself with perfume when she’s done.

Yes perhaps Katy can go out and preach about other stuff, probably finding solutions to helping obesty in kids would be better. When I was in primary school I did sports maybe once a month IF we were lucky, only to go to high school and have to do it 4 lessons a week. Maybe mandatory 30mins a day sports starting from primary school would be a better way for Katy G to spend her time preaching to the public.

> Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside

Well, no..they can’t actually. If someone smokes in the house a child lives in, then that child breathes in smoke….going outside or not. Smoke lingers…it gets into clothes, furniture, curtains, carpets, etc.

On the contrary, Rikochet.

There is no difference with what James Hardie did in exposing innocent people to harmful asbestos resulting in them contracting mesothelioma to the innocent people who have suffered and died in similarly horrible pain and indignity just because other people felt they had a right to smoke in their workplace, at their restaurants and on their public transport.

People do contract cancers and die from passive smoking. Grow up.

NO F’king Way!
As a smoker I say good luck enforcing that one. We accepted no smoking in public buildings, restaurants, public transport and even no smoking in pubs and clubs.
What the hell is this? You sell us the overpriced goods and then preach where we can smoke them. I think smokers have been very accommodating to your demands so far, but no smoking in our own car? Not this time.
And as for the non-smokers out there who are backing this deal, well my warning to you is Be careful! Because when the last smoker finally puts out his/her ciggies for good, who do you think will be next?
Perhaps the obese? No being obese in public, restaurants, public transport.. why? because it causes others to be sick at the sight of your obesity.
Or maybe the drinkers? or the maybe the unemployed, or the blind,or Public servants, etc etc..
What a bunch of hypocrites!
And you Katy Gallagher, whats your addiction? EVERYBODY has one, so c’mon, lets have a long deep look into yours!

and for the record, i was never an abusive drunk. I drank, and then passed out. never hit anyone. I have seen far worse behavior by drug addicts.

the way to break the link regarding alcohol and domestic violence is through education of the youth. The new drinkers coming into the clubs and pubs have a chance not to follow their elders, but it is a moral decision. To say that all alcohol should be banned from the home, or all smokers must smoke outside, is never going to be enforced. Children have the opportunity to get away from a smoker – by going outside. you cannot do that in a car, without harming the child.

> Justbands would you support a ban on drinking alcohol in a home with children present?

The difference is that alcohol can be consumed without any adverse affects on childrens health…but you can’t smoke in a house without that smoke getting into the lungs of others in the house. Sure, alcohol CAN be really, really bad in a home…but it doesn’t mean it always is. Smoking always is.

And the government would be reprehensible in not intervening in any situation where the abuse of alcohol is endangering the child.

Justbands would you support a ban on drinking alcohol in a home with children present? Maybe legislation regarding permissible blood alcohol level in a home with children present? The connection between alcohol and domestic violence is well-established.

justbands said :

> When restaurants in Canberra can still offer smoking tables

They can? I’ve not seen that at all.

Gus’s Cafe, Milk & Honey and some of the eateries on the other side of Bunda Street are just some I can think of off the top of my head.

Yeah, I see it all the time.

> When restaurants in Canberra can still offer smoking tables

They can? I’ve not seen that at all.

When restaurants in Canberra can still offer smoking tables, I’d rather Katy focused on ending that loophole, then she can do what she likes with smoking in cars.

> What next? Ban smoking in the home where children are present?

Yeah…sure, I’d support that too actually.

someoneincanb said :

But why limit it to what occurs in the family car? Yes Katy, ban smoking in homes with children. Ban smoking in *all* homes – who knows when a child may visit and maybe a family will purchase the home of an ex(dead)-smoker and the children could be poisoned by 3rd hand smoke. And surely there is a role for the guvmint in vetting the weekly family menu. We have to protect the children.

If I want to put in a pond I’m supposed to comply with all sorts of safety rules including rehanging the back door and side gate so they open in the correct direction, just in case some verminous rugrat decides to break into the back yard and drown itself. Them’s the rules, despite the fact I don’t intend to let rugrats on my property ever.

Why is there such an obsession with regulating every single aspect of our lives these days??? Does the government not believe that anyone is capable of making decisions for themselves? Surely it’s up to the individual to decide what non-criminal acts they do in private – like smoking in their car! What next? Ban smoking in the home where children are present? When pets are present? If the neighbour has asthma? Where does this sort of regulation end? And for the record, I agree that kids are important and they shouldn’t have to breathe in smoke, but where has the private/public divide gone and the freedoms we all hold so dear? Surely the government has better things to do than attempt to control yet another part of private life. Oh, and I’m not a smoker and never have been. It’s the principle.

Why is there such an obsession with regulating every single aspect of our lives these days??? Does the government not believe that anyone is capable of making decisions for themselves? And even if those are decisions considered ‘wrong’ by government standards, surely it’s up to the individual to decide what they do in private – like smoking in their car! What next? Ban smoking in the home where children are present? When pets are present? If the neighbour has asthma? Where does this sort of regulation end? And for the record, I agree, kids are important and they shouldn’t have to breathe in smoke, but where has the private/public divide gone? Surely the government has better things to do than attempt to control yet another part of life. Oh, and I’m not a smoker and never have been. It’s the principle.

As long as smoking is legal and the government is making a kililng from the selling of cigarettes, they have no right to go banning it.

I’m with deezagood. Those obese kids are going to fight with fat all their lives. The amount of fat a kid carries as a kid dictates their future. This also applies to muscle: the more you build while in the early childhood years, the more you’ll have to play with as an adult.

Have a look round you in the supermarket, all those fat women piling their trolleys with RUBBISH, with kids all around them. Those kids are doomed, as is our health system.

Not always – I do know some kids who have have genetic issues, diseases and/or medical treatments that cause them to be overweight…. and should also note that there are many, many kids/adults with Type 2 diabetes where lifestyle is utterly unrelated to them getting this horrible disease.

> Surely inflicting a life-threatening disease on your kids is tantamount to child abuse

I agree with that. I know several obese parents who’s kids are equally overweight. It’s got nothing to do with genetics either…it’s that fact that they eat crap, all day, every day…& never, ever do anything you could consider exercise. If you have an 8-10 year old that’s obese, it’s your fault.

Also – check out the rapidly increasing rate of Type 2 Diabetes in Australian kids – and how many of these cases (not all) can be prevented/cured through an improved diet/lifestyle. Surely inflicting a life-threatening disease on your kids is tantamount to child abuse, and isn’t the prevention of child abuse a joint family/community/government responsibility?

You can be as sarcastic as you like someoneincanb, but at least if we educate the kids and show them a healthier way to live, maybe, just maybe, they will form decent habits that might also benefit them as adults. Australia has the most overweight/obese kids in the world, and these kids, unless we take drastic measures, will grow up to be obese adults, who, in turn, raise more obese kids. Obviously, something has to change. Yes – I completely agree that our government certainly shouldn’t have to intervene on community health issues like diet and smoking in cars etc… but if they don’t, then please tell me who else will?

“..I see nothing wrong with the government helping those who seem quite unable/unwilling to help themselves. Tax payers ultimately benefit too…”

I agree. The government should help all people with all things they find unable/unwilling to do for themselves. Especially if it involves a fine, because that ultimately benefits the tax payers.

“…introduce a mandatory daily ‘fruit/vegetable break…”

Excellent. But why stop with the children? I can see all big business stopping at 10am for a fruit break. In fact, why not legislate to make fruit/vegetable consumption linked to salary? That will make sure everyone gets their 5 fruit and veg a day.

“…expand the scope of annual school health screens to include nutrition surveys and BMI indexing…”

Sure, but why stop at BMI indexing? There is much more compulsory screening we could do annually to ensure the children are protected. And as “…parents are obviously too lazy/stupid to apply the programs to their own situation..” these annual health screenings would be appropriate for the entire community. I’m sure that would benefit the tax payer.

“…increase the education programs..”

Agree. Lots of education is necessary for the children to understand the inadequacy of parents and the State’s role in protecting all aspects of their lives. (except knowing where they are and who they are with – the guvmint did recently admit that this is still a parental role).

deezagood said :

That said, even with the peer group pressure and school’s emphasis on ‘fresh’, some poor kids bring in fruit roll-ups and prepackaged fruit in jars and jelly cups etc… I find this so depressing, and I just can’t fathom that parents find it too hard to chuck an apple or banana in their kid’s bag each day.

and let their kids escape constant taunting for eating “bad” foods? no way. much easier to avoid the F&V section all together. wasn’t it on the simpsons – which most parents watch, that we learned about broccoli?

Yeah – our school does that too (although the canteen’s idea of ‘healthy’ is a tad different to my own…). Most kids seem to love the fruit/vegie break and they actually get competative/inventive about who has the most interesting produce; ‘Mum, can I please take in capsicum strips … Jessica had capsicum strips today …’.

That said, even with the peer group pressure and school’s emphasis on ‘fresh’, some poor kids bring in fruit roll-ups and prepackaged fruit in jars and jelly cups etc… I find this so depressing, and I just can’t fathom that parents find it too hard to chuck an apple or banana in their kid’s bag each day.

They do a couple of those things at my sons school…certainly the fruit/veg break & the canteen only stocking (mostly) healthy options.

someoneincanb said :

Isn’t it great that Katy wants more legislation to protect the kids.

I look forward to her proposals for legislation on use of fast food drive-thrus when kids are in the car – exposing them to cardiovascular disease and diabetes is a disgrace. And didn’t the guvmint drill into us that speed kills? With the children being so small and vulnerable I think Katy should look towards imposing stricter limits on drivers with children on-board.

And surely there is a role for the guvmint in vetting the weekly family menu. We have to protect the children.

I see nothing wrong with the government helping those who seem quite unable/unwilling to help themselves. Tax payers ultimately benefit too. Obviously legislating against filling your child’s head full of crap every day is not possible, but it is possible to:

– introduce a mandatory daily ‘fruit/vegetable break’ (where the kids have to bring a piece of fruit to eat etc…)and teach the kids about why it is important to eat fruit and vegies
– ban/limit the selling of crap at school canteens, except perhaps on special occasions
– increase the education programs pertaining to childhood obesity; target the kids themselves as their parents are obviously too lazy/stupid to apply the programs to their own situation (if you need proof of how effectivly targeted school education programs can work, ask any 6 year old about their stance on the environment!)
– expand the scope of annual school health screens to include nutrition surveys and BMI indexing (I vaguely recall this being done when I was at primary school in Queensland…)

BerraBoy68 said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I think the worst thing about smoking in cars is the way many (if not most) smokers seem to think it’s their god given right to ash out the window and then throw the butt out when they’re done. And it isn’t just a minority, it’s lots of smokers doing this!

A few years ago I was in the carpark of Tuggernaong pool about to crosss the road with my kids. A dopey bogan chick drives past and drops her lit butt out the window at our feet prior to parking her car. I sat the kids down on the grass, picked up her still lit butt, walked over to her car and flicked it in her open car door while she was getting her stuff out. I told her she had dropped something. As I walked back to my car a heard a barrage of abuse about the butt burning her seat cover. Better then burning my kids or a suburb or two I thought. Silly Cow.

it seems strange to me that the memory of the fires seems to dim with these types of people. maybe they didn’t live here then. I, for one, remember all too well. I am never going to just drop my butt on the ground, i have a personal ashtray that I carry in the car, and on my person, when there aren’t any bins. (I also make sure the ciggie is out before I put it in the ashtray)

As someone who tried to quit last year (and is planning on trying again this year) I have no problems with smoking in your own car. I will freely admit that I used to be a really heavy smoker but never smoked around non-smokers. I normally walked 10-20 meters away from non smokers whenever I felt like one. Now the wife hates smoking and I rarely do it around her, and it seems to work, although I do need to wash thoroughly and reapply deoderant when finished. Which is really wierd as she likes the smell of a lit cigarette.

All people need to realise it that it is a persons choice to smoke or not, and if you do decide to, do not take that choice away from others.

My 2 cents.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I think the worst thing about smoking in cars is the way many (if not most) smokers seem to think it’s their god given right to ash out the window and then throw the butt out when they’re done. And it isn’t just a minority, it’s lots of smokers doing this!

A few years ago I was in the carpark of Tuggernaong pool about to crosss the road with my kids. A dopey bogan chick drives past and drops her lit butt out the window at our feet prior to parking her car. I sat the kids down on the grass, picked up her still lit butt, walked over to her car and flicked it in her open car door while she was getting her stuff out. I told her she had dropped something. As I walked back to my car a heard a barrage of abuse about the butt burning her seat cover. Better then burning my kids or a suburb or two I thought. Silly Cow.

“….there are plenty of kids getting no physical activity at all…”

Quick, let Katy know and she can legislate. We have to protect the children.

justbands said :

Yes, like I said… “of course it would be better for kids to get on an actual bike & ride up & down actual streets/paths”. It’s not a perfect world though, there are plenty of kids getting no physical activity at all, maybe now they will at least move in front of their console.

maybe i should have spent rudd’s economic recovery money on a plasma, a smartcycle and a nintendo wii?

too late now.

Yes, like I said… “of course it would be better for kids to get on an actual bike & ride up & down actual streets/paths”. It’s not a perfect world though, there are plenty of kids getting no physical activity at all, maybe now they will at least move in front of their console.

Yes but they don’t get the natural sunlight or fresh air (which they need) to grow up healthily. It’s almost a moot point.

I know what you meant. 🙂

It’s an interesting one….on the one hand, of course it would be better for kids to get on an actual bike & ride up & down actual streets/paths….but on the other hand, there’s a heap of kids not getting enough activity ’cause they’re sitting in front of their gaming consoles all day. To turn the gaming console into an excercise device is pretty clever I reckon.

Just a thought, maybe a bit out there, but one could get a bike and, well, ride it around outside?

Work with me here… 😉

no, you need the tv to keep em inside, away from the nasty outdoors. no scrapes and bruises. My kids watch tv for about an hour a week, they have more fun dismantling the safety barriers or leaping off the couch.

Thumper, because the blantantly obvious is irrational?

> Someone bought a bike that plugs into a TV?

I use one from time to time, a “Computrainer”. Quite a useful training tool.

nyssa76 said :

Obesity in children is a more pressing concern. Why doesn’t Katy regulate the fast food industry in Canberra instead?

Then again, lets be like ‘1984’ and have no thought at all. Let the Govt control everything we do.

I have a colleague who bought their kids a “smartcycle”, apparently, you plug it into the TV and the kids ride an exercise bike with fun interactive games on the TV. I bought my kids a couple of scooters – pedal powered and a see saw.

and what do they say about it, when you ask them why the bl**dy hell they are doing it? oh, it will go out, it won’t do any damage, etc, etc. seen fires started by a ciggie out the window, many years ago on a road that had no houses around. luckily, we had a CB radio, and called it in – and called in the license plate of the moron who did it.

I’m a larger than average male in my early thirties, so whenever I verbally challenge someone about this kind of behaviour it is usually interpreted as me being aggressive, despite the fact that I’ve never picked a fight in my life. I still do challenge people about poor behaviours, however, but need to be very careful.

I realise it’s not all smokers that do this, but it certainly isn’t a small minority either.

Obesity in children is a more pressing concern. Why doesn’t Katy regulate the fast food industry in Canberra instead?

Then again, lets be like ‘1984’ and have no thought at all. Let the Govt control everything we do.

someoneincanb said :

Isn’t it great that Katy wants more legislation to protect the kids.

I look forward to her proposals for legislation on use of fast food drive-thrus when kids are in the car – exposing them to cardiovascular disease and diabetes is a disgrace. And didn’t the guvmint drill into us that speed kills? With the children being so small and vulnerable I think Katy should look towards imposing stricter limits on drivers with children on-board.

But why limit it to what occurs in the family car? Yes Katy, ban smoking in homes with children. Ban smoking in *all* homes – who knows when a child may visit and maybe a family will purchase the home of an ex(dead)-smoker and the children could be poisoned by 3rd hand smoke. And surely there is a role for the guvmint in vetting the weekly family menu. We have to protect the children.

maybe, if they want the smoking to stop, they will finally ban tobacco. I can quit easily then…

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I think the worst thing about smoking in cars is the way many (if not most) smokers seem to think it’s their god given right to ash out the window and then throw the butt out when they’re done. And it isn’t just a minority, it’s lots of smokers doing this!

and what do they say about it, when you ask them why the bl**dy hell they are doing it? oh, it will go out, it won’t do any damage, etc, etc. seen fires started by a ciggie out the window, many years ago on a road that had no houses around. luckily, we had a CB radio, and called it in – and called in the license plate of the moron who did it.

Isn’t it great that Katy wants more legislation to protect the kids.

I look forward to her proposals for legislation on use of fast food drive-thrus when kids are in the car – exposing them to cardiovascular disease and diabetes is a disgrace. And didn’t the guvmint drill into us that speed kills? With the children being so small and vulnerable I think Katy should look towards imposing stricter limits on drivers with children on-board.

But why limit it to what occurs in the family car? Yes Katy, ban smoking in homes with children. Ban smoking in *all* homes – who knows when a child may visit and maybe a family will purchase the home of an ex(dead)-smoker and the children could be poisoned by 3rd hand smoke. And surely there is a role for the guvmint in vetting the weekly family menu. We have to protect the children.

I think the worst thing about smoking in cars is the way many (if not most) smokers seem to think it’s their god given right to ash out the window and then throw the butt out when they’re done. And it isn’t just a minority, it’s lots of smokers doing this!

wishuwell said :

So Katy you would like to ban me smoking in my own car. OK then I’ll agree to that. When will you be available to discuss taking over the lease payments.

wishuwell, we are a dying breed. I would rather smoke at the end of a trip, and enjoy it, rather than during the trip.
I have been conditioned to smoke outside, away from cafe tables, in the rain and the cold and the heat.

If you are leasing your car, don’t you want a better return for your investment when you sell it? smoke free cars smell a lot better.

> People should be up in arms about this.

People should be up in arms about anyone smoking in cars that kids travel in, even if the kids aren’t in the car at the time…smoke lingers.

> It is quite easy to smoke in the car in such a way as to almost eliminate exposure by passengers

That’s a complete load of rubbish. If you smoke in the car (yes, I know you don’t anymore), then your kids are breathing in smoke, no question.

So Katy you would like to ban me smoking in my own car. OK then I’ll agree to that. When will you be available to discuss taking over the lease payments.

When Mr Poptop and I gave up the evil weed, we painted the inside of the house. The change to the ceiling colour was salutory.

if you want to see foul, check out the inside of a computer that has been operated in a home of smokers.

urrgh!

the yellow dust bunnies are the worst…

deezagood said :

Yes – I agree with those points, but the aim is to discourage people from smoking in cars with kids; at very least, the law might make people think twice before lighting up, or perhaps decide to just wait until they arrive at their destination.

Bogons still smoke on their rugrats, whether adjusting something on the stroller they’re strapped to, or just waving the lit fag around their heads. Some smokers are so blind to what they’re doing you get scenes like the guy who corrected his rugrat for throwing litter on the ground and made it put it in the bin, but dropped his fag end onto the ground.

I’m in favour of the ban just because it might reduce the smoke I’m exposed to while driving and as a pedestrian.

Gerry-Built said :

The stench of (very obviously) smokers ex-cars in car yards disagrees with ricketyclik’s “sweet-spot” theory… I ignored several cars on the lot based solely on ‘that’ stench when I recently purchased… (just add that to peter@home’s list @ #46) like I need a car with an *additional* 4000 toxins…

I used to detail cars for cash when I was at High School, and I can state, with absolute authority, that the smoke doesn’t ‘disappear out the window’. The smell lingers, even after rigorous detailing (scrubbing, wet/dry vacuuming, spraying with odor-killers etc…) for many, many months after the last ciggy has been smoked. And don’t get me started on trying to get the yellow stains out of a fabric roof …

When I was going through my ‘give it up/take it up’ cycles about 20 years ago, my way of symbolically giving up would be to fling the packet of (typically) Winnie Blues under the wheels of my moving car. Once I actually contemplated driving back to see how they fared because I was gagging for a fag.

In these enlightened times I’d like to go back and tell the young Overheard he was being a tosser (in most, not all) senses of the word.

I wonder how much money it cost to produce the discussion paper.

Whoops! That should have been ‘too lung’ … *boom boom*

Where there’s smoke there’s fire, I say. The whole thing reeks! Things have been going Dunhill for too long and no butts about it ….

*tee hee*

I used to drive for Dominos – my car always smelt of “Pizza sweat”. Perhaps only someone who has delivered pizza knows that smell (it isn’t nice like pizza smell)… thankfully that smell passed with age, but you can always tell a car that has belonged to a smoker – those toxins are hangin’ around dude!

Gerry-Built said :

The stench of (very obviously) smokers ex-cars in car yards disagrees with ricketyclik’s “sweet-spot” theory… I ignored several cars on the lot based solely on ‘that’ stench when I recently purchased… (just add that to peter@home’s list @ #46) like I need a car with an *additional* 4000 toxins…

…that said, I wouldn’t support a ban. Whilst I’m against smoking in cars (and even more against Katy, fullstop), especially if passengers include littlies, I don’t think Katy has any right to impose this legislation, and dare I say it, I believe it is a smokescreen… (oh com’n, you knew someone was gunna do it!) 😛

That offal thread is not full yet, and you can still be sent there if you keep that up, Gerry!!

I’m by no means a rabid ex-smoker. Really.

But I know what’s off and I will live a very long time before I forget the experience of borrowing a colleague’s car to pick up some late night takeaway so we could keep working and being almost physically ill from the ingrained and overpowering stench of nicotine, tar and whatever else was worked into every single square nano-millimetre of that car. And these people had two kids. What lining must these kids already have on their lungs or whatever else gets affected by those chemicals? To get from the City to Dickson or Lyneham or wherever I was going, I had to hang my head out the car window like a dog.

Can/should a government institute a ban to stop the consequences of thousands of similar circumstances? I’ll put in a vote for ‘yes’.

*cough cough*

; )

The stench of (very obviously) smokers ex-cars in car yards disagrees with ricketyclik’s “sweet-spot” theory… I ignored several cars on the lot based solely on ‘that’ stench when I recently purchased… (just add that to peter@home’s list @ #46) like I need a car with an *additional* 4000 toxins…

…that said, I wouldn’t support a ban. Whilst I’m against smoking in cars (and even more against Katy, fullstop), especially if passengers include littlies, I don’t think Katy has any right to impose this legislation, and dare I say it, I believe it is a smokescreen… (oh com’n, you knew someone was gunna do it!) 😛

It’s already banned when kids are in the car in Queensland. At the very minimum it should be here too, but of course it should be banned in homes where kids are as well… but as if that’s going to happen.

imhotep said :

(peter@home)”…wrote off a fairly reliable Datsun 180B…”

No, that was me, not peterh. And no larfing; after I fixed some stuff after buying it, it was reliable as all get out, extremely economical and ran like a well boiled-icicle right up to the time I slammed it into a tree on Karinga Drive (1985).

Overheard said :

(peter@home)”…wrote off a fairly reliable Datsun 180B…”

Hey, I had one of those things. Fairly reliable? Yer havin’ a laff!

nyssa76 said :

(nyssa76) Peter, I’d kill for silence.

I’m with you there. Those little portable DVD players: God’s gift to traveling parents.

.

Peter, I’d kill for silence :P~

nyssa76 said :

You know what? Ban passengers. They only distract the driver….

absolutely. or buy a motorbike. you can’t have ciggies on a bike, no need for passengers, no cd player…

Yes, 100% of smokers throw smouldering buts out the window. It’s a proven scientific fact.

Putting a CD on is more dangerous then lighting a cigarette. Better ban CD players and radios as well.

Agreed, and I’m a serial offender with the CD changing thing.

I once wrote off a fairly reliably Datsun 180B by reaching over to wind up the passenger side window or something similarly trivial and non-urgent. (Nearly wrote myself off into the bargain.)

You know what? Ban passengers. They only distract the driver….

If it’s dangerous to fiddle with a phone while driving, how is it not dangerous to find the cigarette box, extract a cigarette, find lighter, and light cigarette?

Banning smoking while driving would just have it join the other bans on doing stuff while driving, like eating, using the phone etc.

And, think of the fires that wouldn’t be lit by people flinging their butts out of the window, not to mention the litter that would no longer be strewn around the roadsides.

I am a smoker. I don’t smoke in my car, either the one that the kids travel in or the one that my wife considers a “death trap”. I have smoked in cars before, but, I have learned the hard way doing it. I don’t anymore for the following reasons:

1. all windows down = ash and spark goes in back window and sets back seat alight.
2. dropping the smoke on to your lap at high speed causes you to pay attention to the fire in your lap. not the road.
3. ashtrays have to be emptied.
4. non smokers are put on god’s green earth to complain about smokers. imagine being trapped with one in a confined space. (and then lighting up)
5. My kids don’t choose to smoke, I do. I should let them make up their own minds. (later, many years later)
6. I enjoy telling off smokers that lob their butts out the window. How can I do that, if I am enjoying a smoke at the same time?

If the Liberals and Greens are so incensed by the minor inconvenience to a handful of well-to-do voters who suffer a non-existant discomfort associated with the possible development of a data centre and associated power supply at Hume, then they should have a field day of love on this one.

Irrespective of anything, anyone is capqable of coming up with to try and ‘rationalise’ this one away, it’s a fact that it would be logically inconsistent for the opposition parties to oppose the data centre at it’s preferred original site and support any continuation of allowable smoking in private cars …

It’ll be hilarious to watch as they’ll be torn appart trying to pick which politically expedient band-wagon to jump on!

A lot of posters here seem to think smoking in cars automatically means the smoker smokes in their house. Rest assured, as soon as my wife fell pregnant with our first, I ceased smoking indoors. Most smokers I know are similar.

My experience as a child was two smoking parents who smoked indoors, and it used to make me feel ill. (It was when my step-father, a normally gentle man, threatened violence if I took up smoking that I began – a red rag to a teenager.)

Anyway, despite being continually around smokers I could always smell the smoke, as can my children. I repeat my assertion: it is quite easy to smoke in a car and not subject the passengers to passive smoking.

I agree with the nanny-state sentiments – people should be allowed to be responsible for their own actions. Treat people like children and they will act like them.

I also agree with the idea that smokers are the modern-day pariahs. It’s a free country – people should be allowed to make their own choices – as long, of course as they aren’t threatening the welfare of others, which I guess is the point of contention here.

Which takes me back to my point about the windows being down…

As soon as Katy legislates against parents purchasing cigarettes for their children to smoke at school, I’ll buy into her ‘no smoking’ in cars.

Smokers are the most hated people in society. Druggies are treated better.

Why doesn’t she focus on our hospitals and get off the smoking round-about?

This nanny state is really starting to piss me off.

When I smoked, in China no less, people thought it odd that I would go outside to smoke.

I come back to Australia and go outside for a smoke – well away from others – and get abused because a non-smoker, seeing I was smoking, still chose to sit near me and demand that I finish up because she was there.

Well, talking on phones is a bit more straightforward to police, as phone logs will give proof of activity.

… and a car full of smoke and sufficient evidence to issue a ticket.

deezagood said :

(deezagood)”the aim is to discourage people from smoking in cars with kids; at very least, the law might make people think twice before lighting up,”

Yep, I agree with that. Although you can’t legislate good parenting, every bit helps I suppose. Please excuse my political cynicism.

deezagood said :

“Talking on mobile phones is just as difficult to police and yes, many (many) people still ‘break the law’ in this regard “

Well, talking on phones is a bit more straightforward to police, as phone logs will give proof of activity.

imhotep said :

Impractical.If a parent is dumb enough to smoke in a car with their kids, then they most likely do so as at home as well. I’d be more convinced of Ms. Gallagher’s concern for the community’s health if our hospital (under her watch) hadn’t become one of the worst in the country under several benchmarks.

Uneforceable. The law would have to ban smoking while driving rather than smoking within a car per se. (You could, presumably, be smoking while parked in your driveway.) Very difficult to prove anyway, and I doubt our already overstretched police and prosecutor’s could be bothered.

Why do our ‘leader’s’ waste their time on meaningless utopian fantasies like this while they are unable to properly manage the basics like health, education and infrastructure?

Yes – I agree with those points, but the aim is to discourage people from smoking in cars with kids; at very least, the law might make people think twice before lighting up, or perhaps decide to just wait until they arrive at their destination. Talking on mobile phones is just as difficult to police and yes, many (many) people still ‘break the law’ in this regard …. BUT I know at least one person who doesn’t talk on the phone while driving, even when sorely tempted, for fear of being caught!

Well, it is good that we all have the opportunity to express our diverse opinions to the powers that be.

I, for one, support the first option proposed by the Minister and have already emailed my eight line submission.

Impractical.If a parent is dumb enough to smoke in a car with their kids, then they most likely do so as at home as well. I’d be more convinced of Ms. Gallagher’s concern for the community’s health if our hospital (under her watch) hadn’t become one of the worst in the country under several benchmarks.

Uneforceable. The law would have to ban smoking while driving rather than smoking within a car per se. (You could, presumably, be smoking while parked in your driveway.) Very difficult to prove anyway, and I doubt our already overstretched police and prosecutor’s could be bothered.

Why do our ‘leader’s’ waste their time on meaningless utopian fantasies like this while they are unable to properly manage the basics like health, education and infrastructure?

ricketyclik said :

Ex-smoker and parent here.

It is quite easy to smoke in the car in such a way as to almost eliminate exposure by passengers. If the driver’s window, and only the driver’s window, is open, even a crack, and the car is moving, there is a sweet spot, usually reachable from the right hand while it is on the top-right of the wheel, from where the smoke is sucked directly out of the vehicle.

I’ve had my kids request the window be wound up and me tell them “I’m smoking” – they didn’t even know.

So, while I am absolutely against exposing anyone, particularly children, to cigarette smoke against their will, I think in the Canberra driving context – ie, usually moving – one can drive with children in the car and smoke and have their exposure at next to nothing.

I agree that closing the windows and smoking with others in the car is tantamount to abuse.

So, to ban or not? I’d say not, but add it to the list of warnings on the packets – eg, “smoking in the car whilst it is unventilated is the equivalent of forcing your passengers to smoke X cigarettes” or some such.

Sorry Ricketyclick, I don’t buy it. Both my parents were very heavy smokers. My Dads habit eventually killed him and my mum’s well on her way down the same path. I think the reason kids aren’t bothered by their parents smoking is that they have just grown so used to the smell. I could never smell my parents cigarette smoke either but when I got to school I was always getting in trouble as the teachers thought I’d been smoking – my clothes smelt of their smoke. Now, I always call me mother before I come over there with my kids. The whole house reeks of cigarette smoke and it really irritates me and my wife. We try to give her enough notice that she can open all her windows and doors so it doesn’t effect the kids.

If you weren’t being so sarcastic Thumper, I’d say ‘what a fab idea’, because the childhood obesity warnings and parent education programs regarding suitable lunch-box contents are obviously not working. Maybe we do need to hit the stupid/lazy/greedy parents in their hip pockets.

Frankly, I rate sending your kids to school with a lunch box full of pre-packaged crap (chips, chocolate, soft-drinks, sweet biscuits) as stupid and potentially dangerous (and draining on our stretched health system) as exposing your kids to intense daily bouts of cigarette smoke.

I do weekly reading at my daughter’s primary school and I can actually smell the cigarette smoke on one poor little girl’s reading folder before I pick it up – the smoke smell is that strong. The little girl herself reeks of smoke too (and she’s 5, so I very much doubt that she has developed her own smoking habit as yet).

I actually like the very occasional ciggy (usually when drinking in the company of smokers) and I don’t care if other people choose to smoke – BUT, how much smoke is in this little girl’s home/car environment that her plastic reading folder reeks of smoke? Obviously some parents make extremely poor choices, and if a car smoking ban discourages car smoking and helps even one little girl from being trapped in a confined space with toxic smoke, then frankly, I’m all for it. Smoke before you go, smoke when you get there – how many people in Canberra have a commute longer than 40 minutes? Can they seriously not go for 40 minutes without a ciggy for the sake of their passenger’s health???

Except, of course, if you’re a powerless little kid, and your parent decides they want to put something harmful into your body on your behalf.

Felix the Cat said :

If the govt was fair dinkum they would ban smoking altogether, anywhere, anytime.

Yeah, that’s worked really well with heroin, ecstacy, ice and so on, hasn’t it?

Besides, shouldn’t what a person puts into their own body be their own decision? (Oh wow, that works on so many levels ;~) )

Granny said :

I find it difficult to believe that shutting a child into a confined space containing known carcinogenic agents and heavy metals such as lead and arsenic is less abusive than the spankings I once received from my parents.

Obviously I was not around when you copped spankings from your parents but to compare to passive smoke is like comparing chalk and cheese.

If the govt was fair dinkum they would ban smoking altogether, anywhere, anytime. But (bad pun I know) they will never ban smoking completely because they make to much money from it.

GnT said :

ricketyclik, I can’t believe your argument that having the window open a crack causes the smoke to go out. What about the smoke you exhale?

Blow it at the crack.

And hanging your ciggie out the window implies you clearly don’t have two hands on the wheel.

Only need to do that while stopped. See the original post.

Did you put your butts in the ashtray or flick them out the window? (Another argumant for a ban).

I actually kept a lidded ashtray in the cupholder.

Game set and match. Pay up GnT. Ker-ching!

I voted for a total ban because I hate smoking and the less of it the better, but I definitley agree with a ban while children are in the car. As for it being unenforceable, that is not enough of a reason not to introduce legislation that is right. It might go some way to influencing cultural norms and making it socially unacceptable to smoke with kids in the car.

ricketyclik, I can’t believe your argument that having the window open a crack causes the smoke to go out. What about the smoke you exhale? And hanging your ciggie out the window implies you clearly don’t have two hands on the wheel. Did you put your butts in the ashtray or flick them out the window? (Another argumant for a ban).

The law won’t stop me lighting up in your office if I choose to, either.

But these OH&S laws have changed the culture and prevented passive smoking related deaths.

So how is it not a good thing to make environments safer for people to live and work and especially grow in.

You could smoke on public transport when I was a kid. It only changed because laws were passed making it illegal. It doesn’t stop everybody, but it does stop most people.

You can legislate to keep people from smoking in cars with kids but if they’re the kind of people who would do it in the first place, do you really think they’re not going to do it in their own house?

The safe driving thing has merit but the protection of the child? Please. What a pathetic effort.

So, it’s too dangerous for adults to be exposed to in a confined building, but not for chidren in a confined car?

…So by that logic, because we live in a world that is beset with inherent dangers at all sides, we shouldn’t worry about adding a few more into the mix?

Granny, I think the point is that just about everything in the world is harmful to some degree. Is it “abuse” to let your kids go near a window with skin exposed to deadly solar radiation?

It’s probably more dangerous for parents to take their kids to KFC than to smoke in the car on the way there, the risks associated with poor diet and obesity being what they are.

Granny said :

All I know is that many people have suffered and died while tobacco companies knew it was dangerous and kept on lying, johnboy.

If you want to prove that it’s a safe environment for children, go ahead.

And if you want to get a sense of perspective and realise we spend our days surrounded by scary sounding chemicals then that would be good too.

All I know is that many people have suffered and died while tobacco companies knew it was dangerous and kept on lying, johnboy.

If you want to prove that it’s a safe environment for children, go ahead.

Sometimes I still dream that I am smoking, and wake up in confusion as to whether I’m a smoker or not … fifteen years later!

*chuckle*

I dunno granny, had a look at the chemical exposures for such things as sleeping on an electric blanket, being in a new car, or being next to a BBQ?

trevar said :

I don’t think human rights are that relevant to this argument. A human doesn’t need to inhale smoke, ergo a smoker is not a human. If they want representation, they can go to the RSPCA.

Heheheh. A human doesn’t need to watch TV, drink alcohol, , etc. That’s a it rough trevar.

Also, congratulations on kicking the habit. From personal experience I know it is a really big thing to do.

Thanks! 3 months and counting, not out of the woods yet.

Also, congratulations on kicking the habit. From personal experience I know it is a really big thing to do.

I agree to some extent with ricketyclik; but I have never been in a car with a smoking person without enduring hours of coughing afterwards. His/her children, even if s/he was careful, would be used to the smell of smoke, and would not detect it or be as sensitive to it.

I think they should prohibit smoking in cars with children, AND prohibit smokers from having the windows open while they smoke. It’s not an issue when they’re moving, but if you’re stuck at the lights next to a smoker, you shouldn’t have to inhale the stink. Even if you put up your windows, by the time you know you’ve pulled up next to a chimney, it’s too late.

I don’t think human rights are that relevant to this argument. A human doesn’t need to inhale smoke, ergo a smoker is not a human. If they want representation, they can go to the RSPCA.

I know you love your children and want the best for them. I can’t agree that this method is adequate protection from the kind of dangers these substances present, but I do hope you are right.

I should have said “smoked”.

Granny said :

So you can prove that there is not a build-up of arsenic in your car? Or lead?

No, just going by the fact that the kids don’t smell any smoke when I smoke in the car.

So you can prove that there is not a build-up of arsenic in your car? Or lead?

Ex-smoker and parent here.

It is quite easy to smoke in the car in such a way as to almost eliminate exposure by passengers. If the driver’s window, and only the driver’s window, is open, even a crack, and the car is moving, there is a sweet spot, usually reachable from the right hand while it is on the top-right of the wheel, from where the smoke is sucked directly out of the vehicle.

I’ve had my kids request the window be wound up and me tell them “I’m smoking” – they didn’t even know.

In a stopped car this doesn’t work – one needs to wind the window down and hang the cigarette out of the car, and in that situation some smoke will get in. This can be minimised by holding the cigarette in front of the windscreen (outside). It – the smoke – is immediately evacuated once the car is moving again.

So, while I am absolutely against exposing anyone, particularly children, to cigarette smoke against their will, I think in the Canberra driving context – ie, usually moving – one can drive with children in the car and smoke and have their exposure at next to nothing.

I agree that closing the windows and smoking with others in the car is tantamount to abuse.

So, to ban or not? I’d say not, but add it to the list of warnings on the packets – eg, “smoking in the car whilst it is unventilated is the equivalent of forcing your passengers to smoke X cigarettes” or some such.

On the point about distractions to driving, I always found smoking while driving far, far easier than eating, drinking, talking on the phone or even holding a complex conversation with a passenger while driving.

I think there are at least 3 grounds for banning smoking in cars. (1) it is surely as much a distraction as using a mobile phone (2) it subjects any passengers, especially children, to a cocktail of poisons in a confined space (3) dickhead smokers throw butts out the window and present environmental and fire hazards. I actually think people smoking with children in the car are simply abusing those children, and ought not to require law enforcement to refrain from doing it – but many people who manage to produce children are not fit to maintain them, so I guess the law needs to try to make them act responsibly (sigh, wouldn’t it be so much simpler if we had fitness for parenting tests and licenses?).

Problem is I think smoking bans in cars would be basically unenforceable.

Sorry, meant to include the link.

According to Wendy Crocker, ‘Heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium and lead have been detected in sidestream cigarette smoke, demonstrating that these toxic elements can travel different distances in air flow.’

‘Smoking cigarettes produces upwards of 4000 chemicals; many are toxic and around 40 cause cancer.’

I find it difficult to believe that shutting a child into a confined space containing known carcinogenic agents and heavy metals such as lead and arsenic is less abusive than the spankings I once received from my parents.

Society is responsible for protecting the most vulnerable from abuse, and I cannot see how this behaviour is not abusive.

I hate smoke, and love smoke free restaurants and pubs, but as far as cars go I think IF its only adults in the car they should be left to work it out. Where there are kids in the car though there should be a smoking ban..although most of the bogans won’t take any notice (as they don’t regarding child restraints, car registration, etc etc). But would this lead to cases of young Kayleen and Tod spending a bit of time in the boot? (Frank Gallagher made me think of that!)

What about THIRD hand smoke from today’s NY Times article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?_r=2

Take up the challenge, Katy!

farnarkler said :

If any sort of ban does come in, human rights lawyers will have a field day.

We already have un-warranted searches on our roads and bans on mobile phone use, I doubt the lawyers would have much to go with.

This isn’t Europe or the US.

If any sort of ban does come in, human rights lawyers will have a field day.

I have never smoked and I enjoy the smoke free bars now however a total ban on smoking in cars is pretty silly.

The driver is in their own private smoke contained bubble. I would have thought that is a good thing. 🙂