The “Smoking in Cars with Children Present” Thing

Sometimes it is hard to know what exactly propositions in Bills brought before Parliament actually mean. For example, as I recall (without going into the detail), Parliament gave the Government permission to ‘draw up regulations for the introduction of a law banning smoking in cars with children present’.

I was surprised about the ease with which ‘Children and Families Bill’ (or whatever it was called), was subsumed by the Tobacco Control Zealots. That Bill had nothing to do with tobacco, but was intended to protect children in care. That was what it was really about. How did tobacco smoke come into it?

OK. The Government has indeed produced regulations, but the original Act did not permit the activation of those regulations (I think!). I must admit to a certain amount of mental confusion, since I thought that the amendment to the ‘Children and Families etc’ actually granted the Government PERMISSION to introduce Smoking in Cars bans and PP.

Such uncertainties are normal in the public mind. I must admit that I thought that the vote about car bans and PP meant that the Gov could just bring in regulations at any time, merely by publishing the regulations in the Commons Library. But it seems that I was wrong about that. The Government was permitted to draw up regulations, but not to enact them. The Government was not required to draw up such regulations, but was permitted to.

In that interpretation, the votes in the Lords and in Parliament were superfluous, since the Government can always draw up regulations at any time. The difference is, I suspect, that such a regulation needs to be passed by Parliament only once. There is no need for three readings.


I have no doubt whatsoever that our pathetic legislators will fall in line, on a so-called ‘free vote’, and increase the persecution of people who enjoy tobacco. I fully expect a last minute amendment to ban smoking in ALL cars, for that is what happened in the General Smoking Ban when an amendment was passed which cancelled the proposed exceptions for wet-led pubs and private clubs. It was all pre-arranged.


That is all very well, but the same discussion also gave permission for the Government to introduce Plain Packaging. Where are the regulations? Why has that aspect not been addressed? The two things go together. Both are supposed to be defending children (up to 18 year old). Both ‘permissions’ were given at the same time. Where are the PP regulations? Where in the Children etc Act was the Government given permission to split the two?

I do not mean that the split was not possible, I mean that such a split, in the moral sense of an Act of Parliament, ought to be frowned upon. The Children Act was amended to ‘demand’ regulations of smoking in cars AND PP. There is something intrinsically wrong about separating the two. Both or none. There is something very dishonest about separating the two.

But it seems that we have to expect such dishonesty. And it will go on and on until the shit hits the fan. A major pubco bankruptcy would be only the start. A major collapse in Tobacco Tax Revenue would hasten events.

I get my cigs from Spain at half-price. I have been to the Chech Republic (Prague) and got them at a third of the price (although I prefer Spain in March!).

I fail to understand the British public. Given a credit card with a suitable credit limit, it would be greatly advantageous take a three day trip to Spain or Prague, and buy, say, thirty sleeves. For some people, that would be a year’s supply. 30 sleeves = 6000 cigs = 20 per day for 300 days. The cost of visiting Prague or Benidorm in March is as minimal as is possible. My trip to Benidorm last year, for five days, cost me about £250 in total, if that. My trip to Prague, the year before, was only marred by the weather, which was wet and cold. Nevertheless, I had some fun (nothing sexual other than innuendo) with a Polish girl in the same hotel and in the pub across the way.


The collapse of the OFFICIAL tobacco market is inevitable, given the similarities between the present anti-tobacco zealotary and prohibition. Much has been made by the Zealots of the ‘second preference’ of smokers to stop; but the first preference is to continue. Everyone has the first preference to not get up early to go to work, but everyone has the second preference to make a living. And it is the second preference which rules.

It is only because of the constant propaganda that the conflicting choices have arisen (along with sin taxes).


The more that I read about ‘tobacco studies’, the more that I realise that the ‘Doctors Study’ was just too ‘convenient’ and too obvious. There is something terribly wrong about isolating one factor which might have caused death from a variety of causes, LC or heart attacks, while disregarding all other factors. You can’t blame tobacco companies for keeping their heads down since they have been legally silenced. Even so, they have been massively remiss in not backing up individuals who have fought against bans. Funding the defence of such people might have changed everything.


But what is really, really important is that The People should stop judging others. How long has it been the case that the MSM has, in collusion with others, demanded persecution?

We must demand the end of persecution in every form.


%d bloggers like this: