I hate to say I told you so, but it really wasn’t very long ago that I was making predictions on how long it would be before our super-nanny-state started making noises about banning smoking in private cars, and here we are, already writes Emma Suddaby.
You didn’t really think I would let this pass without getting stuck in, did you? Regular readers will know me better than that and, despite the certain knowledge that any comment in support of maintaining the freedom to smoke in my own vehicle will bring the anti-smoking brigade down on my head like a tonne of bricks, when have I ever let that stop me?!
Because if anyone out there can give me a good reason why I, as a single, childless driver, should not be allowed to do exactly as I please in my own car that I have paid for myself, insured myself and maintained myself . . .
As long as it harms neither my driving, nor other road-users, perhaps I’d understand what all the fuss is about. But as it stands there is no good reason. I’ve listened to them all and none of them warrant a blanket ban on smoking in the car.
Of course it would be an unbelievably bad call to spark up when there are kids in the car, when there’s anyone else in the car, in fact, you don’t have to have a very big brain to understand that.
You know it and I know it, but it’s exactly the sort of people who don’t seem to know it and who are already smoking with kids aboard now that will continue to smoke with kids aboard . . . whether it’s banned or not.
A legal ban will just punish drivers like me who are harming nobody but ourselves, and that’s nobody’s business but our own, is it?
And if we’re going to start worrying about whether a driver can concentrate properly while smoking a cigarette, then perhaps we should be worrying about parents’ ability to drive safely with a car-full of cantankerous kids; or eating and drinking, another possible violation of the ‘complete concentration’ school of driving.
Not only would an in-car smoking ban be morally wrong, it would also be totally unenforceable which leads me to believe it’s yet another attempt to bully smokers. And if we haven’t worked out for ourselves that smoking is bad for us by now, banning it in the car is not going to force us into doing so, so how’s about picking on someone else for a change!
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
You really are missing the point here. The main point is… Its DANGEROUS to smoke while driving. You and I know, sparks drop, and you don’t concentrate as well when you’re not smoking in a vehicle. ITS A DISTRACTION. Simple. Get that fact through your thick skull.
Report abuse
Distraction, eh?
What about; “And if we’re going to start worrying about whether a driver can concentrate properly while smoking a cigarette, then perhaps we should be worrying about parents’ ability to drive safely with a car-full of cantankerous kids; or eating and drinking, another possible violation of the ‘complete concentration’ school of driving.”
In my humble yet many, many years of experience, kids are far worse for distraction than any cigarette ash burn, yet somehow the health nazi’s aren’t bothered about banning passengers.
Maybe the ‘apparent powers that be’ should be sorting out how to *deal properly* with drivers who use their mobile phones at the wheel first before once again picking on the smokers, because let’s face it, you see a lot more cases of accidents caused by that than you do of ciggie ash…
Report abuse
Smoking while driving a car is the easiest thing in the world… Having a car full of other people who are talking/changing the radio or CD are far more distracting… Unless the cigarette is talking to you or playing a bad song, I fail to see how exactly it is distracting…
Report abuse
Yes! I’m so glad someone is saying this. It is mind boggling that a group of people have the audacity to claim a right to micromanage society in this way. We are informed adults, and as such have the right to choose for ourselves (you would think). Yet this self righteous band are intent on bullying and demonising smokers at every juncture, under the delusion that they are the voice of morality. Have they questioned the morality of those TV ads where children beg their parents to stop smoking? It seems, from listening to children, young children, talk about the fear of losing their parents as a result of being bombarded with messages about the dangers of smoking, that perhaps these campaigns are harmful in themselves. No child should be forced to confront the potential loss of a parent at that age. These tactics have gone too far, and it’s about time these so-called do-gooders realised that they are not a force that is wanted, needed, or been elected to act as the voice of reason. They are not.
Report abuse
This. Absolutely this, with a ‘plus on’ on top.
I hope this nation’s herd of pointless, pencil necked, wheatgrass-munching Health nazi’s eventually realise that they don’t actually own our bodies or our cars.
I will continue to smoke the cigarettes that I’ve paid for with my own money, with my tax unbegrudgingly going towards the NHS, with the window down in my own car, with the ash going into my own ash tray (but of course never with kids in the car, that would be very inconsiderate of anyone).
One thing is perfectly clear above all, we might be shortening our own lives by smoking, but even *Nannies* die of old age eventually.
Report abuse
Exactly. No one is going to tell me what to do in my own car if it is not harming others. I paid for it, its my property and I can do what I like with it. If the government want to make smoking in the car illegal, they may as well make smoking on your home illegal and in that case if they think they can start dictating what people can do in their own property they can start paying the associated bills like everyone else in the household with a say.
Report abuse
Well said everyone so far!! I would love to see the NANNIES pay my household bills in exchange for dictating that i NOT smoke in my own house.
What on earth has happened to this nation of ours that faceless do gooders can get laws like this passed? I never smoke with my young one in the car, but just me and others??
DAMN RIGHT!! Unless of course they would also like to pay my car expenses too??
Report abuse
As a non- smoker, I agree with you all, I’m fed up with people telling me what to do and what not to do, you earn your money so spend it on what you like, life is to short, so just do what you enjoy, Stalin would be very impressed with these kill-joy nannies.
Report abuse
Emma, Emma, Emma,
Firstly eating and drinking while driving is against the law already…
Secondly, I still remember you rear ending someone and coming on your blog to claim it was THEIR fault…
I do hope you werent trying to spark up when you ran into the back of that “dangerous driver” as you labelled him at the time!
Report abuse
‘Firstly eating and drinking while driving is against the law already…’
No its not
Report abuse
It’s not a specific offence to eat and drink but revised rule number 148 in the HC advises you to avoid such distractions. Depending on which cop stops you they could have you for driving without due care (CD10).
Report abuse
You can not be ‘done’ for driving without due care, just for eating and drinking.
There has to be something careless about your driving. If you can eat/drink while maintaining the standards of a reasonable driver you have nothing to fear.
If you drive carlessly, you may be ‘done’ for that – the cause is irrelavant.
The next thing we will be told is we can’t pick our noses while driving – especially if we eat it!
Report abuse
I didn’t use the word “Done” so why the inverted commas. Also, don’t you think it a little irresponsible telling people they can eat and drink behind the wheel without fear of the law, when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Report abuse
So Telford Steve, I should have used ‘have you’ instead of ‘done’, is there any difference? What is my penance for this typographical sin? honestly *tut*
So are you telling me that if I maintain the standards of a reasonable driver, I will be convicted of a driving offence merely because I popped a wine gum in my mouth?
hmmm? You sound like yet another half-wit policeman. Still think I don’t know what I am talking about or did you not read my comment properly?
Report abuse
As has already been pointed out s148 of the highway code instructs drivers to avoid the distraction of eating and drinking.
For further evidence how about this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/helicopter-scrambled-for-appleeating-driver-6154068.html
I suppose that was a miscarriage of justice after 10 court appearances?
Report abuse
Feel free to give yourself lung cancer and heart disease, that’s none of my concern (apart from the bit where my taxes pay for your self-inflicted health problems in later life, but you probably don’t care about that either) but don’t do it while you’re on the same stretch of road as me please. I don’t want to be put at risk because you’re not giving the road your full attention.
Report abuse
I never realised you were a medical expert Jake.
Who said smoking gave you lung cancer and heart disease?
Report abuse
Erm, pretty much every medical professional going.
Report abuse
Interesting Dave.
That opinion is pure scaremongering. I am 71, and have smoked since I was 13. IF smoking gave you these ailments, then I would be a dead cert for having them.
Prior to an operation last year, I had X-rays, USC’s, ECG’s—the works.
Heart and lungs fine, apart from emphysema which was brought on by a variety of things, smoking include, but NO cancer.
Smoking MAY stimulate it, but no-one will say it causes it.
Report abuse
@Colin.D.
My father in law died in the early hours of yesterday morning. The recorded cause of death was heart failure, with a past smoking habit cited as a major contributory factor. He quit over 20 years ago. He was 79.
Should I give the coroner a call and ask him to revise his record because you’re a living, breathing example that somehow proves that scientific research and medical statistics are bunkum?
Report abuse
There is plenty of research suggesting that the inhalation of small quantities of cigarette smoke may actually inhibit the development of malignant tumours of the lung and bronchial tract.
Professor Richard Doll, the fellow who first proposed a link between smoking and lung cancer, subsequently admitted that much of his research was incorrect.
Others have claimed that Bird’s research was deliberately falsified to serve a pre-existing Government agenda: to portray tobacco as greatly harmful as a pretext for imposing ever higher taxes.
As for our understanding today of the etiology of lung cancer development, it remains largely unknown.
For example, there is plenty of research confirming that many cancers are caused by microbial infections.
Furthermore, the prevalence of smoking varies much around the world. In the countries of southern Europe and north Africa, where smoking is the norm, rather than the exception, the incidence of lung cancer remains dramatically lower than in the United Kingdom.
And yet the cigarettes smoked in those regions are typically made from the stronger Oriental or Turkish cultivars. Those cigarettes have a much higher tar and nicotine content than the “milder” Virginia blends used in British cigarettes. And yet we find that their smokers are not dropping like flies! How so?
A parallel could be drawn here with the apparently therapeutic benefits of low-dose exposure to radiation.
Here too, we find plentiful research to debunk the orthodox dogma held since the mid-40s that any exposure to non-ionic radiation is harmful.
Known as the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) hypothesis, this theory, like the smoking-cancer claim, is purportedly pushed for political purposes.
A recent follow-up study on the health of the population around Chernobyl, the scene of the “world’s worst nuclear disaster”, found no elevated incidence of cancer whatsoever.
The radiation hysteria turned out to be much ado about nothing.
As is often the case, a little bit of something may very well be good for you!
P.S. For the record, I have a financial interest to declare: I am a non-smoker, but am happy to see others light up, in the comforting knowledge that they are lightening my tax burden!
Report abuse
Colin, Mme Giselle Gitanes, smoking doesn’t cause lung disease!? radioactive isotopes are not harmful!???? Are you two still bitter about not being Raptured by any chance.
Report abuse
Jake, my condolences for your loss.
I did say smoking MAY stimulate cancer, and this seems to be what happened to your father in law.
My first GP was a lady doctor from Clive, Dr. Burnett. She rode a Velocette LE and chain smoked Senior Service. She died at 80 years of age, natural causes.
Roy Castle NEVER smoked but was a victim of passive smoking.
So, yes, smoking may, in some cases increase your chances of getting cancer, but no way does it mean that if you smoke you WILL get cancer.
Report abuse
Actually it’s not scaremongering. Smoking is the largest cause of lung cancer and heart disease going. Mme Gitanes – please post the links to the peer reviewed evidence to what you are saying as most of that is – I fear not medical fact.
Incidentally rather than coming on here and spouting what you “reckon” I can speak with a little authority as I am an epidemiologist. As with any disease, smoking related lung cancer is not a simple “you smoke and you die” conundrum despite mainly what the Daily Mail will tell you. Richard Doll also never refuted his evidence.
The biological and genetic make up of people influences whether or not they get lung cancer. It is feasible for 100 people to smoke and only 98 to get lung cancer. Your dilemma if you smoke is – how do you work out whether you are going to be in the 98 or the 2?? I’ll tell you how I know I won’t be in the 98 – I don’t smoke.
Report abuse
‘(apart from the bit where my taxes pay for your self-inflicted health problems in later life, but you probably don’t care about that either)’
What about all the tax smokers pay themselves in the form of duty added to tobacco products.
Imagine if everybody suddenly gave up smoking, the government will have to recoup the hundreds of millions of pounds of lost tobacco duty from higher taxes.
Report abuse
….excise duty raised by tobacco sales 2009-2010 : 8.8 billion pounds. VAT revenue raised by tobacco sales : 1.7 billion pounds. Source : HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) / TMA.
I don’t think that any Government will seriously be looking to outlaw tobacco sales in the near future
Report abuse
So anything that has a net economic gain is good? Let’s sell nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda then. We’ll be knackered, but it’ll bring in money so what the heck.
Report abuse
Julian. HMG already have this stance. BAE profits end of year 2010 2.21 Billion pounds. If Al Qaeda actually existed as a physical embodiment rather than an ideology then our dearly beloved Government would jump through hoops to fulfill such a sales opportunity.
Report abuse
“Imagine if everybody suddenly gave up smoking, the government will have to recoup the hundreds of millions of pounds of lost tobacco duty from higher taxes.”
Imagine if people didn’t inflict on themselves a long and agonising death which caused themselves and their families severe distress and heartache. This long and lingering death is probably one of the nastiest ways to die you can imagine. And yet I am staggered that people think this is acceptable because the taxes on this drug pay for the (admittedly hopeless) treatment.
I really hope that people putting these arguments forward are in the minority – if this is what humanity is really like we have no hope…
Report abuse
Jake, if you do your homework, the tax that is paid on cigaettes and tobacco per year, covers the cost of running the NHS and police force for a year. Why can you bring back ‘duty free’ at half the price??? Because that other half goes straight into the chancellors pot. ITSO FACTO!!!!
Report abuse
Maybe, just maybe, if the general populous had a greater sense of social responsibility and made sensible decisions, we wouldn’t need nannies to make new laws to prevent people doing things that are stupid.
I agree that some of you good people above would not consider smoking in a car with small children but lots of people do……and, unfortunately, it increases children’s risk of cancer. Which family you are born into is chance – it isn’t a small child’s fault if they have an inconsiderate nut-case for a parent or, in fact, a poorly educated one….. and if we can prevent these children from getting cancer shouldn’t we be pleased?
Report abuse
Ah! traffic police with smoke detectors – the mind boggles!
Before pressing such intrusions of privacy how about making that other non-enforcable law work – mobile telephoning whilst driving.
Report abuse
They’re called eyes Dave, oh and a set of nostrils.
Report abuse
As Matty has pointed out, the main point is that it is DANGEROUS to smoke while driving.
At a lower level there is the other antisocial behaviours of discarding cigarette butts out of windows, or putting pedestrians in a haze of toxic smoke when sitting in their cars inflicting their habit on innocent passers-by by having the window open or opening the door to get out, lovely!
Report abuse
‘As Matty has pointed out, the main point is that it is DANGEROUS to smoke while driving’
Wrong again on two levels. Its not dangerous to smoke whilst driving, and that is not the main point, the main reason some are calling for this ban is for health reasons
Report abuse
“Wrong again on two levels. Its not dangerous to smoke whilst driving,”
Yes it is….
Report abuse
Lighting a ciggie distracts your attention away from the road, concentrating on flicking the ash through the tiniest of gaps because it’s cold or wet does the same and throwing the ciggie out the window can also be distracting, this I think any reasonable person would agree with BUT so do small children, so does changing the radio station/cd/ipod as does having a business conversation whilst driving (handsfree of course)or trying to find somewhere you’ve never been before, the point I’m trying to make is if they start by banning smoking in a car then they should also look at banning everything else that can distract you when driving.
Report abuse
Hmmmm, not dangerous to smoke while driving…..let me consider the possibilities…..
Scenario one – driving along the motorway at 70+ mph, spark off before mentioned fag drops on groin…….
Scenario two – one hand on wheel, other on fag, emergency stop required…….what to do, drop fag and set oneself alight or crash……
You’re right, what’s all the fuss, how could it possibly be dangerous…..
Report abuse
I drive an auto so safer for me!!
Report abuse
its also danerous to turn ur stereo on change gear open windows etc its just a few distractions i can think of so none smokers get a god damn life
Report abuse
to be fair, if you are twiddling with your stereo and you suddenly need both hands to drive, you can let go….
Report abuse
Hey, bob, you’re making an excellent point. They are both dangerous so let’s allow them both to continue…..the more the merrier…..let’s also allow driving with no hands because that is also dangerous so should be allowed.
Report abuse
I was going to say Matty is right – but then they tell me that smokers get all restless and nervous when they have to do without, thus possibly making them drive worse.
Meanwhile, I’m a liberal on many issues but I would definitely bring back public flogging for using a phone while driving, followed by public hanging for a second offence.
Report abuse
james,
If you’re the liberal of the family, I would hate to run into your right wing brother! :)
Report abuse
Yes, he’s disowned me for being soft and woolly. He’s for stretching on the rack even for first-time offenders.
Report abuse
What a ridiculous article. Smoking in the car is dangerous, FACT! If eating and drinking whilst driving are illegal then it makes sense that smoking is too!
We’ve all seen drivers leaning over their steering wheels sparking up! Properly in control? I think not!
Report abuse
Why would anyone need to lean over their steering wheel to light a cigarette? I can sit perfectly well back in my seat to light one – with the dashboard supplied cigarette lighter!
Report abuse
Driving without the use of indicators is dangerous but that law never seems to be enforced so how the hell can the police enforce a law against smoking in your car..
Report abuse
They are incapable of effectively policing anything. Despite all the hype,the West Mercia Police do not have a dedicated’traffic’
division.
They will merely do as they already do when any offence is committed. They will issue a plea for witnesses and information,for printing in the Shropshire Star.
Report abuse
I don’t think the police are dedicated full stop!
Report abuse
Hasn’t the arguement gone a bit off track here? The debate on banning it in cars is about the effect of smoke on other people in confined spaces. Nothing to do with concentration levels.
Report abuse
Screw them, I will smoke in my own car, I will lie and hide it, I will make the anti smokers lives a living hell as long as I can.
Report abuse
So woo, by lieing & hiding ‘it’ in your own car you are going to make anti-smokers lives hell!
I’m sorry but I can’t see quite how that works if I’m honest.
No really terrorist stuff, hiding it in your own car, is it!
Good luck anyway.
Buskerman
Report abuse
That is a great reply Buskerman, hahaha!!! You are right though. I wont be losing much sleep thinking about Woo smoking in his car. I will try not to let it affect my everyday life.
Report abuse
This is more about keeping people from smoking than it is keeping people safe. Do as you please and totally ignore this law, I know I plan on doing so.
Report abuse
Smoking with children in a car should be banned, as soon as said child hits 16 they’re responsible for their own actions and can choose not to get in the car. I’m a smoker but I remember as a kid hating being in smoky rooms, it gave me a chronic headache. No one should be forced to be in an environment they dont want to be in or that could be damaging against their will. All in all though the health department should stay out of peoples private lives. It’s our choice to continue this unhealthy habit, and the billions we generate yearly in tax more than makes up for the defecit we create.
Report abuse
Smoke all you want in your car – the more the better! Keeps tax off other luxury goods such as heating fuel!
I just pity the young that are forced to suffer the cancerous vile chemical stench.
Report abuse
I thought you gave up smoking three years ago so what is this all about? It’s all to do with prodding the public, not for a real issue but purely to tell people that they should not be told what to do!
Well clearly they have to be told otherwise people would drive very fast and smoke tobacco, take drugs, even though it is not appropriate and in some circumstances, life threatening.
Report abuse
In my experience smokers are generally risk takers to some degree (they would not choose to smoke if this were not the case) smoking whilst driving is risk taking behaviour, you are increasing the risk by doing so, although the smoker will not see it because addicts are blinded by their addiction (although most addicts will deny this too). To say smoking in the car is not as dangerous as making phone calls whilst driving or eating or drinking, is rubbish. If someone states smoking is not as dangerous as these other activities whilst driving they will almost inevitably be a smoker (we all know addicts make excuses to themselves to justify their personal choices). Emma’s statement regarding the arguments to introduce a ban “I’ve listened to them all and none of them warrant a blanket ban on smoking in the car” as well as some of the above comments, seem to support me here, as these claims offer no proof that isn’t anecdotal or subjective.
I agree that people should have free choice in their homes and cars, however there is a difference, individuals don’t usually increase the risk to others in their own house (other than through subjecting others to second hand smoke) but people can increase the risk to others when they are on the road, and regardless of what some feel their rights are, they do not have the right to increase the risk to me or my family by indulging in their addictions whilst driving.
Oh, and Colin.D. considering your comments regarding how relatively healthy you are for someone who has been smoking for nearly sixty years, am I to assume you are also partial to the odd game of Russian Roulette?
Report abuse
Until these death sticks are outlawed, I applaud the idea for smokers to kill themselves slowly, painfully and expensively within the confined space of their vehicles.
It means that I won’t have to breathe in their noxious fumes. Can all smokers please buy a minibus and collectively commit slow suicide within it?
Anyway, such a ban would be completely unenforceable and I’d rather see our Police out catching burglars and other ne’er-do-wells.
Report abuse
As a non smokers i and i am sure many are sick of this nanny bla bla bla bla crap, its dangerous to smoke and drive figures? to prove this .
Most people would not smoke in a car with children, where do the nanny lot wish to go with this “house police” ? to see what you get up to in your house and tell you what you can and cant do?. The uk is going bonkers smoking is down to education not banning.
We have banned mobile phones in cars i see it flouted every day with out fail, we have banned smoking in works vehicles, now that’s just a big laugh as i see this every day, plod have enough to do for goodness sake with out policing this fantasy clap trap.
A friend of mine recently went to rent an unfurnished house all went well until the small print,
No children,
no dss which did not apply to them,
No smoking in the house,
No smoking in the grounds of the house large garden and orchard,
No hanging pictures without asking ,
NO pets
and so on rental £1,350 pm his answer just before signing sling your hook, i pay that rent i will do as i please with in reason, and how does the landlord propose to check on me with regards smoking?? which was more of a concern ie was he keeping spare keys and going through drawers when the family was not in? .
My point how do the police officer/landlord enforce such smoking rules with out massive intrusion , as you would have to adopt that to ensure it does not take place.
Report abuse
I suspect the landlord was more concerned with the fire risk from cigarettes and the vile smell, which would deter future tenants.
I recall when househunting that several properties were non starters because the current owners were smokers. The death sticks addicts have no idea how dreadful they smell.
Report abuse
I doubt smell was an issue as for fire risk rather laughable .
Having a connection with the property business pre rental -after sales etc with regards landlords most if not all require redecoration before return of deposits always has been a scam on the tenant and is still now even with deposit protection.
As for not buying a property due to owners smoking a poor financial decision if you ask me i see it as an extra bargaining chip .As a non smoker i accept most people have faults, you may not smoke but you still may have bad bo or bad breath.
Report abuse
As a Landlord, I stipulate no smoking and no pets, but will consider DSS as there is such a thing as the deserving poor.
The reason for no smoking and no pets is it can be difficult to find new tennants.
The clause is enforced my Landlord inspections.
This may sound draconian to you but I suggest that when you entrust an asset worth around £200,000 to someone else, you will want them to take care of it and you will want to keep an eye on it, to protect your interest.
Report abuse
Deserving poor? oh such a kind person you are..
Landlord inspections are amusing, most carried out by the estate agent who couldn’t careless to be honest as long as the place is not wrecked and he gets his cut.
Well i have an associate who owns 39 properties all valued between 190k-250k each and he never feels the need to be so draconian, and has never had an issue.
However being in the business which is managing peoples holiday lets i must say the state some are left in by some people who should know better as i assume the majority are home owners, does beg the question forget the deposit i wouldn’t let them use my dog kennel .
All in all it must be pretty awful to be a private tenant in the uk loads of money paid in rent for some mediocre property that is rented out by a landlord dictating how you can live all very british anything for a power trip by the unimportant .
Report abuse
Just as Emma Studdaby said “I told you so”, I always said once the Nanny State banned fox hunting, it would be the last bastion of free society.
You are all reaping what you have sown.
Report abuse
Dead right. Bring it back. Aristocratic twits in silly hats tramping down the countryside and swaggering around as if they own the place would restore freedom to Britain at a stroke.
Report abuse
Oh stop stereo typing, as for owning the place in most cases they do so keep off.
Report abuse
Even if they own some of the fields, do they also own the roads (some of which they used to require to be closed) footpaths (impossible to use with horses and hounds everywhere) and other public spaces?
As for stereotyping, all right, hunting people might not all be ‘aristocratic twits’ but they’re certainly all deserving of Oscar Wilde’s famous description – ‘the unspeakable’.
Report abuse
Yeah lets bring back dog fighting,Import some bears so we can bait them along with Badgers, Cock fighting too is good “sport” How about Bull Fighting, you know the one where the Bull always loses usually in a Blood stained way Great Sport !!
Damn Wildlife it gets away with too much.
Report abuse
Society is broken! Rise up! Revolution! Power to the People! We are the Angry Mob!
What do we want? Fox hunting! In cars! While making phone calls! And smoking! When do we want it? Now!
People in Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are probably in total agreement with you, Lucy. Forget freedom of expression and all that silly nonsense, the fox hunting ban undoubtedly crushed the last bastion of free society.
Report abuse
Death from lung cancer or other respiratory illness, death from coronary artery disease…
Hate to say we told you so!
Report abuse
When we stop paying the EU £50 million per day, part of which helps to subsidize Greek farmers growing tobacco, then I think the nanny state might have a little more moral rectitude when it tells us not to smoke in our cars. I don’t smoke, but I can understand the ire of those who do. Of course, the insurance companies will be on this like a rash – anything to find another excuse for not paying out. Good topic, Emma.
Report abuse
When knocking the ashes off a cigarette out the car window – can everyone say they keep their eyes on the road? Don’t think so.
Report abuse
Nonsense. Every time you change gear, check your speed, check your mirrors, etc. your eyes are off the road. I’m fairly sure that driving instructors wouldn’t peach people how to do all of the above if it was such a major gamble with your life.
The bottom line is that the moment you get in a car and start the engine you become a risk to yourself and others.
To be blatantly honest I’m in favour of all of us tax-paying smokers mowing down one or two clipboard wielding, anally retentive, nannying health nazis on the way to work every day, just so we can all set back their efforts in removing every entertaining aspect of our existence. If there was ever going to be any notices on the back of my cigarette packet, it would be instructions on how to do that efficiently.
Oh, and @R Suppards; just so you know, if they actually called them ‘Death Sticks’, even stuffed them in black boxes with little skulls & crossbones on the front and call them ‘Tumours’ we’ll be queueing round the block to buy those suckers.
Also, we can’t smell any worse than a sweaty jogger who lives on nothing but vegetables. I know who I’d rather be stuck in a lift with; give me ‘Marlboro Man’ over ‘Methane-powered Dullard’ every time.
Report abuse
Well said, that man!
Report abuse
Yeah, well said Denis Leary!
Report abuse
I must admit it takes some practise but when you can keep your eyes on the road and 1 hand on the steering wheel whilst picking up the cigarette packet, then taking it out of the packet, put it in your mouth then spark up, its irritating when people say its a distraction. As for flicking it out the window without taking your eyes off the road, unless you are blind its easy. Same with doing an emergency stop, why do you need to move the cigarette from you hand? Surely if you can drive with it in your hand whilst holding the steering wheel you can do an emergency stop. So some people can’t manage to do that, half the drivers on todays roads are absolutely terrible anyway so what difference does it make.
Report abuse
OK lets go further ban kids in cars they can distract the driver, ban whinging wives in cars they can also distract, ban people who wear glasses as they clearly have poor eye sight in the first place , ban fat people as they cant move properly in the car ,ban people who wear sunglasses in cars especially those idiots who leave them on the top of the head as they are clearly weirdos as they have eyes in the top of their bonce as well as on the face.oh and ban radios a cd players in cars as they can distract infact take the blasted bus but then you could be sat by some oik with bo.
Report abuse
I wish they’d ban smoking in the street! I’m sick of getting a lungful of someone’s cancer stick as they have one final drag before work.
Report abuse
Oh my god, you people need to get a life, or shall we ban that option too, enjoyment, entertainment, self indulgence…….its the devils work. Perhaps you puritans should look into your own souls before telling others what they should not be doing.
Now i’m off to take up smoking and buy a car, just to be annoying…..Public transport, so over rated.
Report abuse
If people want to ruin their health and stink of tobacco in their own car, then leave them be. As long as they dont subject non smokers to passive smoke. I have to visit relatives that are heavy smokers and find my clothes stink after I leave the house. Thanks….!!
One pet hate I have is when the person in the car in front flicks his/her still lit cigarette end out and it hits your car. inconsiderate, littering fools!!
Report abuse
I wouldn’t worry about it Andy. Your car is probably made of metal and as such, unlikely to be damaged in any way by a tiny, dying ember.
Report abuse