NHK wrote It won't help them quit. People are going to do what they want and it's not up to us to stop them from smoking if they choose to.
Yes, we should protect the kids and we should protect non-smokers.
No, we should not stop people from doing what they like to their own bodies.

Exactly what I was thinking

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

I was raised with people who smoked in the car with me. It was disgusting. Of course they should be fined. Second hand smoke is dangerous. People doing it are basically endangering the welfare of a child. If people want to smoke, then so be it. Kids shouldn't have to sit through it though.

NHK wrote

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

There's nothing wrong with second hand smoke. Most of my family used to smoke in cars when I was growing up and I turned out fine. Also I smoke now and if I had a kid I would smoke in the car. The government want you to beleive all this shlt so they can take your money. Soon they will fine you for eating a cake infront of a fat person because it's cruel.

I'm a smoker myself. I smoke more when I'm around other smokers and if I'm around non-smokers, I always ask first, if they don't mind me smoking around them. I should be allowed to smoke if I want to, the government shouldn't be able to decide for me. I know it's just a placebo effect butt when I smoke, I feel like it's calming me down and I become less aggressive. I think you should HAVE to have a window rolled down if smoking in a car but if it's your own child, the government should have no say in whether you're allowed to smoke around them. What about all these people who smoke in their houses without windows open? The smoke lingers around the house and you can smell cigarettes as soon as you walk into their house. Some parents do this and their children have to live in that environment so why has smoking in cars been mentioned but not smoking in houses? The way I see it is, your children, your car, your cigarettes=your choice.

NHK wrote

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

It's literally nothing like that. You're comparing child abuse to second hand smoke? Not a fair comparison considering not a lot of the smoke actually enters the child's lungs and a very little amount of that is harmful.

I think that people can do what they want to their own bodies and It really won't help them quit people decide whether they want to or not and besides it's really hard to quit it's not something that police can enforce more and it will make people stop.

Sanctorum wrote

NHK wrote

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

It's literally nothing like that. You're comparing child abuse to second hand smoke? Not a fair comparison considering not a lot of the smoke actually enters the child's lungs and a very little amount of that is harmful.

Are you daft? Second hand smoke is harmful, especially to child's lungs, which are still developing. Harming a child is harming a child whether by striking them physically or giving them lower respiratory problems.

Learn 2 medical science

NHK wrote

Sanctorum wrote

NHK wrote

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

It's literally nothing like that. You're comparing child abuse to second hand smoke? Not a fair comparison considering not a lot of the smoke actually enters the child's lungs and a very little amount of that is harmful.

Are you daft? Second hand smoke is harmful, especially to child's lungs, which are still developing. Harming a child is harming a child whether by striking them physically or giving them lower respiratory problems.

Learn 2 medical science

It is nothing like 'beating their kids up', this is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time lol. I too had smokers around me when growing up, it doesn't seem to have done me any harm except i now smoke too. I don't agree with smoking around children but comparing it to 'beating a child' is ridiculous!

NHK wrote

Sanctorum wrote

NHK wrote

7UP wrote If someone wants to smoke in a car with a child in it that is completely upto them. I think the government are just looking for more ways to rinse people of there own money.

That's like saying if someone wants to beat their kids it's up to them. The child is helpless to protect it's best interests and if the parents or any other adults intentionally put them in harms way, they should face consequences.

It's literally nothing like that. You're comparing child abuse to second hand smoke? Not a fair comparison considering not a lot of the smoke actually enters the child's lungs and a very little amount of that is harmful.

Are you daft? Second hand smoke is harmful, especially to child's lungs, which are still developing. Harming a child is harming a child whether by striking them physically or giving them lower respiratory problems.

Learn 2 medical science

Did I see second hand smoke wasn't harmful? No, I said it wasn't as harmful as first hand smoke. If someone decides to smoke in their own car, around their own child, that's their decision, NOT the Government's.

Lrn2English.