Control Freaks at it again

I don't smoke, but this is complete BS. It's also one of the many reasons I hate Labour with a vengeance. How the hell can a government presume to tell people what they can do on private property?! And since this would effectively make all cars state property, can we all look forward to free motoring after the state is forced to pay road tax, insurance, MOT and fuel costs for us?
"Smoking will be banned in cars carrying children under Labour plans to be debated in Parliament today.
Ed Miliband wants to force the Government to make it a criminal offence for drivers of private vehicles to fail to prevent smoking when a child is present.
But if the move is defeated by the Tories and Lib Dems today, a future Labour government would make it law.+3

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK. Every year around 100,000 people die from smoking, and it is linked to a string of other potentially fatal illnesses including heart disease and strokes.

Under the Labour plan drivers caught allowing smoking in front of children would be fined £60.
The opposition has tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill, which will be debated in the House of Lords today.
Opponents warn it would be the first step towards banning smoking in all cars, and then in any private space.
Shadow public health minister Luciana Berger said that almost 500,000 children in England were exposed to potentially toxic levels of second-hand smoke in family cars every week."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547934/Ban-smoking-cars-carrying-children-Labour-forces-vote-new-law-fine-offenders-60.html#ixzz2rns2LKek

 

God help us.

 

Here in Houston, about a hour south of me, the Houston City Council is now enforcing a no smoking ban in public housing run by the city. Residents must not smoke within 25 feet of their entrance except in designated "smoking areas". Not a smoker myself, so I have mixed feelings on the issue. I can see a prohibition inside the building, but also on their front or back porch/balcony? That seems too restrictive.

Had to laugh though as one resident interview said "it ain't fair cause we pays our money", well not entirely deary.

 

Public housing is kind of a special case. For me anyway it would depend in part if the state is also picking up the bill for some or all the health effects.
Are the balconies considered entrances? If not this may not be as restrictive as it sounds. Here at work they first banned smoking in the buildings. That meant that one had to walk through a fairly large dense cloud of smoke to get into the buildings and as there were double doors and some started smoking before they cleared them you had to get a ways in before it was safe to breath. Now there's no smoking within 50' of the building unless there's a designated area within that distance.

 

If I recall the report correctly it was within 25 feet of a entrance and unlike the "projects" in major northern cities most Apartments in Texas tend to be open faced (your front/back door leads directly outside rather than to a hall way.

 

Many states in my region have been pushing for similar regulations regarding smoking with a minor in the vehicle. Now, I loathe cigarette smoke, but I don't discriminate upon those who do smoke. I get the point of all this, but there needs to be limits. When you are infringing upon peoples' private property, thats stepping over the line.

 

Two sides to this, One they are infringing on a persons private property, The other they are looking out for the well-being of the children.

While I respect private property I would put the health of the child above the rights of the smoker any day.

Now if only the cigarette companies could stop chucking a ninny because of Australia's plain packaging laws....

 

Ok, but what else will they decide the law has the power to tell you to do on your own property?
It's on the same level as presumed consent for organ donations after death. This became law in Wales last July, so officially your body belongs to state between birth death, and the usual retards in Scotland are desperate to jump aboard the bandwagon too.

 

What I'd like to see is a ban on smoking on public beaches.

Those damn cigarette butts take an eternity to degrade into the sand, and the effing smokers seem to think it's ok to stub the fag out in the sand, and leave it there.

I go to the beach to lie on the sand, and swim in the sea, not to lie on a bed of cigarette butts, and wallow in refuse.

Take your ALL your effing garbage with you.

 

There's one in place in Bournemouth, England, and even the council which passed it admits that it's unenforceable.

 

Yeah, sorry about the rant.

Sometimes, when I see people doing that, I get sorely tempted to pick a bucket load of cigarette butts, and dump it on their doorstep or in their garden. Sad to say, I haven't yet.

 

The kind of people who think nothing of smoking in the car with children present would without a doubt smoke in their home. As it is, the police cannot cope with people using their mobiles in the car nor enforce seatbelt use. I see instances of this almost every day.

 

Gosh, where should I get in on this one.........just going to remind us all that in a couple states now.......marijuana is just another form of tobacco highly valued for its tax generating capabilities. I will just say I know people personally that have indulged and some who were artists and still think of themselves in that way but, cannot equal their early artwork capabilities today and used only marijuanna in its various strengths over the years. Yes in my measure they went backwards instead of forward in their mental growth and I mourn what is lost that "could have been". I know very few "moderate" users but maybe there are some. Where do you draw the limits for private property if we are all going to have to "pay" for the indiscretions of the private user in one way or another, if what he costs for himself in privacy will one day cost all of us in his probable inability to someday care for himself? We need to take care of the youth around us and protect them in any way we can.....just my often ill accepted sentiments. When you are witness to the loss of creative arts over a lifetime it is sad to face up to what was lost and often goes ignored and unmeasured by the vast majority of people since the loss is over such a large portion of time.

 

It's recently started being touted here that in an independent Scotland, there would be presumed consent where organ donations are concerned.
In other words, your body would belong to the state from birth to death. How long would it be until smokers, drinkers etc were prosecuted for damaging "state property"?
Our so-called "justice secretary" wants to abolish the right to corroboration of evidence, because he's under pressure from wimmin's group to improve rape convictions. So if he succeeds, and someone is falsely accused of rape/child sex etc, how exactly does the poor bastard clear his name?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/458212/MSPs-warn-Kenny-MacAskill-in-row-over-law-reform

 

In Australia at least, all costs are well and truly covered by the smoker...I remember a 2010 report from Victoria that said smokers were now costing the health system 1 billion...then went on to say the government made 10 billion in smoking revenue...So WHATEVER problems smokers cause they pay..if the government want to spend the money elsewhere, then blame them...
The smoking ban in cars is a farce...of ALL the problems facing young children today, second hand smoke is near the bottom of the list...Both my parents smoked and i thought nothing of it, and whilst i smoke, my brother never has, so the link there is .mute. There are many moves a government could take to ensure child safety, but will never do it...SO the whole thing becomes hypocritical...(If they were genuine, they would simply ban the product)...

 

Actually second hand smoke may be more dangerous to the elderly than it is to kids. The St. Helena "experiment" kind of pointed in that direction.

 

To be honest having your organs up for donation from the get go unless you opt out is a logical step. Most people are not against it but few actually set it up as they don't know how to or have the time. To claim that it is making your body state property from birth till after death and theories of states prosecuting you for damaging 'state property' is just going into the absurd. They have merely improved upon an area that should see the waiting lists for organs almost bottom out from all new ones available. If people don't want to help save another's life after your death then opt out, Simple thing to do and your choice but let's stick to actual facts then far off fantasies just because you dont like a particular political group.

 

Direct health costs are just shy of $2 billion, However when lost work days are taken into account the taxes and lost revenue/health costs tends to balance its self out, So their is neither much of a gain or loss.

Ban the product, The same product a few other nations have tried to ban but have almost been made broke from legal actions by the cigarette companies. Yes Australia financially could take them on (we arent a 3rd world nation they can bully) however we have international trade agreements that prevent us as doing as much. We cant ban the product outright so they take the next best step, Make it as hard as possible for said product to be used.

By your argument I get the picture if it cant be solved completely then it shouldn't be tackled at all.

 

The arguement is that the government is being disengenuous by the tactics it takes...they could legislate the ciggerettes to be prohibitively expensive $100 a packet...reduce the nicotine..reduce and cancer causing agents...sell them themselves...instead they raise the price by increments to see what the tipping point is...They havent reached the tipping point (the point at which few can afford it) so the price will go up again...its a lets see how much we can make in the name of public safety tactic. If you cannot see this...then ask yourself how and why other products are banned in Australia...(Because the price to the government vs the revenue they get from it isnt cost effective). If you think for a second the government cares about your health (above and beyond the cost to them) then you are naive...