No Smoking in car with Children.

[tommy.irene]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smoking-in-vehicles .From 1 October 2015 it will be illegal to smoke in a car (or other vehicles) with anyone under 18 present. The law is changing to protect children and young people from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

ps walking up a hill doesn't do asthma sufferers much good either...should the law come down on areas with hills...err maybe next week .

---

No, but an adult forcing a child with asthma to walk up a hill damaging their health would be in trouble - especially if it wasn't their child!

[joamur_gosof]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

The thing is though creeky ,do you need telling by law ,I get the impression you have your head screwed on and in such a case I don't really understand how you think its good the law and government need involving.Thousands of children die a week due to irrisponsible smoking....is this what your seeing in todays world ?

---

Laws restricting certain behaviour, (e.g. sale of cigarettes and alcohol to children), are not there to restrict the behaviour of the responsible but rather to ensure the compliance of the irresponsible.

I would never smoke in a car when children were present so it doesn't effect me.  The only reason I can see for arguing against the law is if you want to be able to smoke in a car with child passengers!

---

now that's nonsense ,I am arguing that laws that are backing up a basic fairy tale is being introduced because ??  and it certainly isn't the well being of children as I know first hand the effort they allocate to that in reality.

Are  guns being sold ok by your government  that children carry about or is it ok as it's not here ? Context is my point and if you only think I have an issue as I want my children smoke filled ,then not much point continuing as you think very little of folk who are beyond fed up of priorities and A up

[joamur_gosof]

I will say ,that I do not believe laws on behaviour restrictions are todays upmost emergency ,but if it leads the world to utopia ,who am I to care 🙂

[upthecreekyetagain]

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make ???

The only reason I can see for objecting to any law is that in general terms they restrict individual 'freedoms'.  I can't personally find any reason to object to the removal of the freedom to smoke in a car with a child passenger.   However I can only logically surmise that those who do object to such a law is that they see nothing wrong with that behaviour - if that is not the case and there is another reason then perhaps you can explain.

As for arms sales, I don't approve of them, full stop.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

I will say ,that I do not believe laws on behaviour restrictions are todays upmost emergency ,but if it leads the world to utopia ,who am I to care 🙂

---

There really are only two kinds of laws - ones that stop you doing something and others that make you do something.

[joamur_gosof]

The point I have made and its why are the governments dealing with this ...I actually believe very very few people do smoke in cars with children in them...so that's my issue..I would like to hear a law passed that actually achieved something ...this is like saying 5 million people in need ...lets make hats out of paper...see ...The official waste of time and money,grinds me ..if it were in the middle of an epidemic of asthma attacks in children and everyone was getting out of smoke filled cars ...but that isnt what I am seeing ...are you ?

Now I am not arguing for the right to smoke on a kid and how many are campaigning for that right.  so again,if my point as to what my problem is, is missed,I can only assume I speak (write) in alien  ...Laws are needed indeed to stop  ...soooo  where shall we start as a  priority.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I certainly agree that banning smoking in a car with child passengers didn't figure very high in my list of priorities! 

I also tend to agree that most people and certainly responsible individuals do not smoke in such a situation.

So it may be a low priority law and to some extent an unnecessary one, but that doesn't make it a bad one.

Most arguments that I've seen against the law however, on this and other forums, are not based on either of above premises but rather that it is a restriction of personal freedom and that there is no definitive proof that secondary smoke inhalation is a health hazard - which suggests to me that those arguing on that basis either want to smoke in a car when carrying a child and/or would not object to their children being put in such a position.

[joamur_gosof]

Well not me ,I don't think a law is needed I think a bit of education might come in handy if parents or adults smoke over children...the fact that it might cause is enough for me...even though I have yet to see any proof it is actually any more harmful than as harry said.

In a way it is another restriction of freedom ,but it isn't a bad thing as I said earlier, it just annoying that their priorities are always aimed at restrictions in behaviour of people ,which they seem to feel justifies the need for them...on big issues ...well ..

[upthecreekyetagain]

There is another potential law being discussed at the moment regarding banning the appearance of wild animals in circuses which would affect even fewer people.  Again a law that's not high on my list of priorities and as there appears to be only two circuses that use animals even less necessary than the ban on smoking - despite all that, if and when such a law is enacted I will say, "good".

[fallen-archie]

Ok slightly off topic but another example of common sense V the nanny state. Recently had the mother of all chest infections, I saw no reason to see the GP and get yet more antibiotics so instead I called in to the Chemist. It's a nightmare of a place and takes ages to get served but due to legislation if you want certain items then it's the chemist or multiple trips to the supermarket. There are three adults in the household and each wanted an item. I take all three to the counter and wait, eventually along comes an assistant who looks at each item, are you taking this with this? No I said one is for me and the others for two other family members. There then ensued further questions taking no account whatsoever of what I had said. In the end I was not allowed to take three items but reluctantly I was sold two of them. It appears all three items contained paracetamol? But as it was not my intention to take them why as a reasonably intelligent adult did they refuse to sell me the goods.

I can understand the smoking rules but I do not accept the need to creep further legislation that denies personal responsibility. I would not smoke in front of children as I believe that to be irresponsible.

[upthecreekyetagain]

As far as I am aware there is no legislation regarding the quantity of paracetamol you can be sold - indeed go down the cash and carry and you can buy them 50 boxes at a time. 

The restriction you faced came about due to the personal decision of a responsible individual - exactly what you are calling for but illustrates the difficulties that can arise when one person's opinion differs from another's.

[fallen-archie]

To reduce the incidence of paracetamol overdose, legislation was passed in the UK in 1998 to limit the number of tablets that could be bought in one purchase: 16 tablets at present (up to 32 tablets in pharmacies). Furthermore, paracetamol was supplied in blister packs making obtaining the actual tablets take longer.

The he pharmacist could just as easily advised me of her concerns to ensure that. I was aware of the risk, unless of course that would be classed as irresponsible.

[tommy.irene]

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

To reduce the incidence of paracetamol overdose, legislation was passed in the UK in 1998 to limit the number of tablets that could be bought in one purchase: 16 tablets at present (up to 32 tablets in pharmacies). Furthermore, paracetamol was supplied in blister packs making obtaining the actual tablets take longer.

The he pharmacist could just as easily advised me of her concerns to ensure that. I was aware of the risk, unless of course that would be classed as irresponsible.

---

This 'legislation' is very elusive!  There are plenty of mentions many of which are contradictory.  For instance some say the legislation limited the size of the packets, i.e. 16 tablets per packet for general sale, 32 to the pack in pharmacies.  Others that the 'legislation' limited the number of tablets either type of outlet could sell, some that it didn't.

No mention regarding legislation of products that contain paracetamol as an ingredient mixed with other drugs.

What I find the most worrying is that I have been unable to find the text of any legislation or even the title of the Regulation, SI or Act.  All I can find is muddled hearsay claims.

[fallen-archie]

To my knowledge none of the major retailers will allow more than 16 per customer to be served. You are able to obtain more by prescription. It is possible of course that items like Expectorant or Night Nurse are being volutarily controlled by pharmacists concerned about the potential of negligence claims after all they do seem to drive so much of the ridiculous risk analysis which seems to be applied to all human activity these days.

[fallen-archie]

It's not just Paracetamol causing problems as the following link shows.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-man-took-35-viagra-195150835.html#AT8WmoB

[Anonymous]

Last year my whole family had coughs and colds around the same time. I bought three items containing paracetamol. A cough drink, some tablets and some flu tablets.

I wasn't allowed to buy them all. Just one item.

I stood there with a red nose, obviously not feeling well, told the spotty guy at the till that my whole family was in the same state therefore needing those meds, but still he said he wasn't allowed to sell them to me.

I got very annoyed and asked that if I would pay for one and then later come back for the other if that would be allowed. Yes he said...

so I paid, walked away, then back in the shop and went back to his till with the other item. Did it twice. Just to show how ridiculous it all was.

This was at Tesco.

So where is the logic in all that. If I had wanted to kill myself I could that quite easily without the help of paracetamol.

[Anonymous]

Most people do not know the dangers of aspartame and all the other sweeteners; a bit like our parents didn't know about the dangers of smoking.

The difference is that you can avoid inhaling smoke, but as aspartame (and all the disguises it comes in) is much harder to avoid it poses much more of a threat to people's health and that of our children. It is all the time promoted as the solution to sugar and seen as a healthier option.................It's NOT. It's detrimental to everyone's health.

Asthma is one of the problems that can be caused by aspartame...............................

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

To my knowledge none of the major retailers will allow more than 16 per customer to be served. You are able to obtain more by prescription. It is possible of course that items like Expectorant or Night Nurse are being volutarily controlled by pharmacists concerned about the potential of negligence claims after all they do seem to drive so much of the ridiculous risk analysis which seems to be applied to all human activity these days.

---

Yet as I said earlier you can got to a Cash and Carry and buy as many shrink wrapped packs of 50 boxes of paracetamol as you like.  The same with other over the counter medicines containing paracetamol.

[joamur_gosof]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

There is another potential law being discussed at the moment regarding banning the appearance of wild animals in circuses which would affect even fewer people.  Again a law that's not high on my list of priorities and as there appears to be only two circuses that use animals even less necessary than the ban on smoking - despite all that, if and when such a law is enacted I will say, "good".

---

Ok fair enough

..Animals in circus are not needed and public awareness and not going to circus with animal use is usually enough to end the practise,again not really a need for Laws. 

.Still  this is their concern (at the moment) I accept there may be a couple of hundred people who see this as the B all for utopia,but if we need laws to restrict this and not just a reminder not to do it ,then laws against a  killer like sneezing outside should swiftly follow with a good approval ...and we can go on for a while but when are we getting to....

As  Harry  points out , hidden ill makers that are swept under carpet ( few quid wink).. , Laws ban please... Gun making ...Laws  ban please. etc