The ‘Smoking in Cars with Children Present’ Proposed Ban

I wonder if all the fuss about PP is not intended to distract attention from the really insidious proposal of banning smoking in cars with persons up to the age of 18 present? Few people are discussing that proposal.

I wonder why not.

Let us think about it. Who is by far and away most likely to be smoking in a car with a child/youth present? Is it a local MP? A doctor? The bin man? The postman?

Of course, in 99% or so of cases it will be the parents, or possibly grandparents. So, if this law is passed, those who will be criminalised are going to be THE PARENTS.

—–

It is a matter of fact that, if a parent smacks his/her child for being naughty, without causing significant damage, the Courts have found that the parent commits no crime. Physical chastisement has already been approved, within limits. That question has been placed before the courts and been answered.

Let us imagine a scenario.

Dad is driving his two children to school. Son (aged 7) hits daughter (aged 5) and makes her cry. Dad says, “Right, you little bugger! I’ll light a cigarette to punish you, sonny, for hitting your sister and making her cry”

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the above was witnessed somehow and reported to the police, and if the ‘crime’ of ‘unduly severe’ punishment went to court. We would have to think how the prosecution of the parent might proceed.

“Your honour. We have a witness who saw the events and overheard the conversation. The parent deliberately and malicious inflicted severe harm on child A, his son, by lighting a cigarette in the car to punish him for hitting his sister and making her cry. (The fact that the sister nipped the brother twice is not relevant to the matter in hand, not does the fact that the sister was also severely harmed by the tobacco smoke) Your honour, after you have heard the witnesses, I am sure that you will be convinced and send this offender to jail for ten years, without the possibility of parole, and that you will put the children into care, where they will be looked after by kindly, middle-aged, loving paedophiles”

But the defendant fights back. He demands his rights under the EU Human Rights Directive as concerns the right to ‘family life’. He claims that the State has no right to interfere with his Family Life. For the State to claim that he inflicted unduly harsh punishment by lighting a cigarette in the car, then serious harm thereby must be demonstrated. Failing that, then no crime has been committed, and the Human Rights Directive as regards ‘family life’ protects him.

====

I really, really wish that I was a millionaire. I really, really do. If I was, I would make a point of demonstrating the nonsense of the ‘Smoking in Cars etc’ law. I would arrest myself for the historic crime of smoking in my car as a punishment for my girls arguing, when I was driving!

====

But I am serious. The courts have said that it is OK to physically chastise a child, within reason. That means that slight, physical harm is tolerable. But the whole argument in favour of a car smoking ban depends upon harm to children inflicted upon them by their parents (99% of the time). Where is the proof of actual physical harm?

Further, the judgement that physical chastisement is OK (and therefore the putative lack of long-lasting harm) supports the argument that banning smoking in cars by parents in the presence of their own children militates against the right to unhampered family life (unless significant, long-lasting damage is proven to accrue).

====

I think that I have the right word for the attitude of Parliamentarians (both Commons and Lords) to the creation of laws. That word is ‘FLIPPANT‘. For example, the passing of the law which banned smoking in pubs, clubs, restaurants, and other places of pleasure, ASSUMED that there was nothing wrong with the idea that citizens could be coerced into enforcing laws, whether they agreed with them or not, and even if those laws caused them damage.

—–

The FLIPPANCY of Parliament should be a serious cause of concern, especially to the main party leaders, like Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Rather, it is the FLIPPANCY  of  the proposals of the government departments which are most to be questioned.

It is clear from the ill-considered new intentions to inflict punishments upon parents for smoking in their cars in the presence of their own offspring, have not considered the sanctity of family life.

In comparison, Plain Packaging is insignificant.

 

 

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The ‘Smoking in Cars with Children Present’ Proposed Ban”

  1. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    The original push to ban smoking in cars was simply based upon a supposed increase in accidents. That got shot down once some actual studies were done and it was discovered that tuning the radio caused five times as many accidents and talking to someone else in the car caused ten times as many. The Antis were chagrined! But… then they remembered: The Magic Words!

    “SAVE THE CHILDREN!”

    And they dragged out The Children, impaled them upon their flagpoles, and waved them in the air!

    Antismokers routinely abuse our love for our children. It’s almost as evil as abusing the children themselves.

    They don’t actually care about The Children in the cars. If they did, then their experiments and studies would reflect that care by using realistically expected scenarios in order to better understand what harm might be caused. Instead, although they may include something vaguely realistic along the way, they almost always set up scenarios for car smoking that are deliberately designed to be unrealistic and portray situations that would almost never occur — e.g. sitting in a parking lot with your children smoking cigarettes with the window barely cracked open on a breezeless day. The numbers/concentrations of particulates etc that they get in THOSE scenarios are obviously astronomical. BUT… once you move to a 60 kph scenario with two windows open even just a few inches, those levels go far below anything considered to be hazardous for short exposures.

    Remember: the EPA (in the US) levels for PM2.5 and such things are based ONLY on constant exposures over 24 hours or even 365 days of time. The EPA’s own printed guidelines EXPLICITLY forbid taking short readings and extrapolating from them without a 24 hour corrective averaging!

    So…. they don’t care about The Children in this case any more than they care about The Children “seeing smokers having fun” when they’re thrown out of the pub to stand on the sidewalks for all the passing-by schoolkids to envy. They simply use, and abuse, those Children for their own benefit as a bludgeon of social control. They deserve to be looked at in the same way we looked at Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi war when he went on TV and smilingly ruffled the hair of one of his cute little American hostages.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      The same sort of tricks were used in pre-prohibition days in the USA, weren’t they?
      An interesting point is: what were the conditions which overturned prohibition and rendered the abuse of our love for our children no longer sufficient to maintain prohibition? Why did all the anti-alcohol propaganda fairly suddenly become politically poisonous? And the anti-tobacco propaganda, around the same time?
      What changed everything?

  2. The Blocked Dwarf Says:

    When the car Rauchverbot comes in, I shall upset Granddaughter by nicking one of her life size baby dollies (the eats-shits-cries one) and placing it in the car seat….on occasions with an e-cig in it’s mouth.

    I’m hoping some ingenious soul will start marketing car window transfers which give the illusion of a child seating in the back.

    • junican Says:

      “DRIVER PROSECUTED FOR DEFYING CAR SMOKING BAN!!!”
      “Today, in the High Court, Mr B Dwarf pleaded guilty to ‘smoking in his car with a child present’. His council asked the court to be merciful, since Mr Dwarf was unaware of the provision in the law which defines ‘a child’ as ‘a child or any substance which has the form and appearance of a child, including childlike scarecrows, blow-up dolls and so on’. He was fined £5 and told to sign the child sex abuse register”

  3. richard john Says:

    brilliant post richard

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: