A leading doctor has called for a ban on smoking in private cars when children are present as the concentration of smoke in a closed vehicle is much worse than it might be at home or anywhere else.

Professor Terence Stephenson, head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said that as we have already banned smoking in front of collegues at work he sees no reason why we cannot do this for children too as second hand smoke has been found to be strongly connected to children's chest infections, asthma, ear problems and even cot deaths.

I wonder if even if this is a good idea, how are we going to enforce it when we seem unable to even enforce the use of mobile phones in cars ?

Well, I guess that because I supported the ban in all public places I should support this one too.

The ones that might be against such a ban would start off by shouting "nanny state" but I think that any parent that is so callous as to smoke in a closed car with a baby present should get hammered for doing such a thing.

I too nevertheless, wonder if the cops would be able to enforce such a ban if it was brought in.

I quit smoking when I was pregs with both kids and didn't start up again til they were around 18 months. Maine has already implemented the no smoking in cars with children in them. I don't actually have a problem with it except they've gone a bit overboard with it. They list a child as anyone under 16. Under 10 I could understand but 16 is a bit much. When I smoke in the car the windows are either open all the way or crcked and I use the window hand to smoke with. 90% of the smoke goes into the slipstream. Knowing that most people pretty much seal the vehicle and smoke like fiends in there with the kiddle strapped down it's difficult to not agree with it.
My question is tho-where is the line to be drawn? right now maine has decreed that you can't smoke in parks or in public areas. When are they going to say you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home? it's a matter of loss of private freedoms that most people are missing. What's next?
Tuppence

I guess the authorities will become less draconian when people can learn to do the right thing all by themselves..... Slim chance !

I am shocked Tuppence that you managed to stop through two pregnancies and yet you felt that you had to start up again.

The thing about smoking is, ( and I am an ex-smoker too BTW ), that so long as it is only your own lungs that you are poisoning then the authorities should keep out of your business. As that is in fact NOT the case and anywhere you are smoking - even in a car with the window cracked - everybody that is in the car with you - or anywhere else for that matter - is going to suffer from your smoking habit.

Passive smoking is a well-documented hazard and anyone that tries to rationalise away this hazard is someone that is trying to hide from the truth in order to keep feeding their addiction.

I would couch such smoking habits in cars with children - of any age - as child neglect/abuse and punish the offenders to suit this crime !

typical kneejerk rabid exsmoker reaction. Expected nothing less.
Tuppence

I don't know abour "rabid" but I have already put my hands up to being one of the "found religion"-types as far as smoking is concerned. For that I DO NOT apologise !

I think that you WILL find that the ones - in the main - who take your stance of head-burying about this subject are the ones that seem unable to stop. Once they find themselves in that situation they are forced to try to support - by any means or argument or rational - their own addiction to the nicotine and tar and the many hundreds more toxins and carcinogens that are to be found in first-hand or passive smoking.

It is only AFTER they have beat it and eventually managed to chuck that monkey off their back that their eyes suddenly become clear and they KNOW that they did the right thing.

I know one thing...I would much rather be one than the other !

And remember them days when people used to smoke in trains and my teachers smoked, I mean no one survived to tell the tale!

And that exception just proves the rule !

While we were allowed to smoke in all public places like cinemas and pubs and trains and other closed venues, the incidences of lung and heart disease were off the scale and cost the NHS many millions of pounds every year to service. ( Since smoking in public places has been banned there is ALREADY a marked improvement in heart and lung disorders and this is saving the taxpayers like you and me a lot of money ).

It is BECAUSE we now know that passive smoking kills millions of innocents every year that this law is being applied and accepted in just about every civilised country of the first world.

It is the third world and what is left of the second world that still upholds the sales of tobacco and tobacco products and without these backward countries the tobacco manufacturers would go bust just like the rest of the companies have gone bust under the global slowdown.

Oh yes, tobacco is a narcotic just as dangerous as cocaine or heroin but it has one really evil side-effect that these drugs don't have and that is that it kills the passers-by almost as effectively as it kills the mugs that are taking it first hand.

Maril...any comments please ?

Should all smoking be banned in cars carrying kids ?

Of course it should as there are far to many ignorant and selfish parents that do not seem to realise just how bad this is.

I saw a wumman last week passing by in a van and she had a kid standing behind her holding on to the seat. She also was smoking a fag and using a mobile phone at the same time. I felt like chucking a brick at the side of the van. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !