|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 6, 2014 0:20:56 GMT 1
What the hell is this? I was under the impression this was a forum for discussion and voicing your opinion.
Next time we're discussing an issue on here I'll be sure to write a little report weighing up the pros and cons.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 6, 2014 0:20:59 GMT 1
Maybe the driver would receive 3 points on their licence, that would ensure no one smoked. If that means more policemen, that's not a bad thing. Assuming you remember that it might be a passenger smoking rather than the driver, then remember that the driver may be driving with an adult and a child in the car. The adult passenger might light up against the driver's will. Then it would be terrible if the driver was docked points. The adult passenger must be the one punished, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 6, 2014 0:23:55 GMT 1
I was under the impression this forum was for voicing and discussing your opinions. Obviously I was wrong. Next time I'll be a good little student and write a long report weighing up the pros and cons instead of voicing my opinion.
And I'm sure Nickkie will mark it and be sure it's up to his brilliant standard of intellect and logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 6, 2014 0:23:55 GMT 1
What the hell is this? I was under the impression this was a forum for discussion and voicing your opinion. Next time we're discussing an issue on here I'll be sure to write a little report weighing up the pros and cons. In my opinion, the above post is whingey.
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 6, 2014 0:26:30 GMT 1
Maybe the driver would receive 3 points on their licence, that would ensure no one smoked. If that means more policemen, that's not a bad thing. Assuming you remember that it might be a passenger smoking rather than the driver, then remember that the driver may be driving with an adult and a child in the car. The adult passenger might light up against the driver's will. Then it would be terrible if the driver was docked points. The adult passenger must be the one punished, of course. Oh of course! I think it would be a great idea if we rounded up all the smokers and hung them. That way nobody would smoke and the little children's lungs would be as fresh as a summer daisy! |
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 6, 2014 0:28:27 GMT 1
What the hell is this? I was under the impression this was a forum for discussion and voicing your opinion. Next time we're discussing an issue on here I'll be sure to write a little report weighing up the pros and cons. In my opinion, the above post is whingey.
"In my opinion" ... Why bother writing that statement? Your opinion is fact, don't you know? I am such a whingey little girl, maybe I should be punished with 3 points on my driving license because I might whinge behind the wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 6, 2014 0:40:06 GMT 1
Can you imagine if some desperado who was had been convicted for murder was to escape from prison, and run into a car that was waiting at the traffic lights. In the car was an elderly lady with her grandchild in the back seat. The desperado forces the old lady, at gun-point to drive on, and then he lights a cigarette. Then the old lady will, in addition to the trauma she is experiencing, end up with docked points - no, it has to be the smoker who is punished, and not the driver, if this law is implemented.
Unless of course she could, under the circumstances, receive a royal pardon instead of point docking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 10:28:33 GMT 1
Assuming you remember that it might be a passenger smoking rather than the driver, then remember that the driver may be driving with an adult and a child in the car. The adult passenger might light up against the driver's will. Then it would be terrible if the driver was docked points. The adult passenger must be the one punished, of course. Oh of course! I think it would be a great idea if we rounded up all the smokers and hung them. That way nobody would smoke and the little children's lungs would be as fresh as a summer daisy! It's against E.U. human rights charter to hang anyone...But, not exposing children to any cigarette smoke must improve the health of all children...And that's the point. |
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Feb 6, 2014 18:26:19 GMT 1
i am very much against smoking with your children in the car.
you should have a tab in the house with them where no one will bother you or whinge about them being too young to smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 19:55:36 GMT 1
That's a little strange...Smoke in the house is less harmful in the house...I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ann1 on Feb 7, 2014 19:57:51 GMT 1
I have a sneaking suspicion that he was being sarcastic Milky!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 20:02:40 GMT 1
You could be right  |
|
|
|
Post by Banshee on Feb 11, 2014 14:17:23 GMT 1
I agree with Anne, I for one would hate to live in a dictatorship. What in the hell happened to parents taking responsibility? This country is just getting ridiculous. Why not have cameras inside all cars because an adult might SMOKE in the presence of a child. It's pathetic. Carbon Monoxide is found in exhaust fumes. Yeah, the same Carbon Monoxide that if you breathe in too much you die. Yet car fumes are widely regarded as safe. Surely breathing in Carbon Monoxide everyday is doing more damage than smoking. But surely it is to protect the kids from the parents who don't take responsibility. It would be nice if we didn't need to tell parents not to smoke in the car with their kids in it, but clearly we do . I think we would get used to the law in time. We have got used to not smoking indoors in public areas and we now accept this. I am a smoker, but I would never smoke in someone else's car who didn't smoke, just out of respect for them. I can choose to smoke, but i shouldn't make others inhale my smoke in a confined space. So its the same for kids. Obviously the police wouldn't be on the lookout for smokers in cars, no more than they are for mobile phone users in cars, but if they see someone, they can stop them and issue the fine. it wouldn't stop everyone from doing it, but we would all be aware that if we are caught then we have taken that risk to be fined. Just like burglary or shoplifting is against the law, but some still do it. They do it with the full knowledge that it is against the law and they may get caught. |
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 11, 2014 17:01:17 GMT 1
I agree with Anne, I for one would hate to live in a dictatorship. What in the hell happened to parents taking responsibility? This country is just getting ridiculous. Why not have cameras inside all cars because an adult might SMOKE in the presence of a child. It's pathetic. Carbon Monoxide is found in exhaust fumes. Yeah, the same Carbon Monoxide that if you breathe in too much you die. Yet car fumes are widely regarded as safe. Surely breathing in Carbon Monoxide everyday is doing more damage than smoking. But surely it is to protect the kids from the parents who don't take responsibility. It would be nice if we didn't need to tell parents not to smoke in the car with their kids in it, but clearly we do . I think we would get used to the law in time. We have got used to not smoking indoors in public areas and we now accept this. I am a smoker, but I would never smoke in someone else's car who didn't smoke, just out of respect for them. I can choose to smoke, but i shouldn't make others inhale my smoke in a confined space. So its the same for kids. Obviously the police wouldn't be on the lookout for smokers in cars, no more than they are for mobile phone users in cars, but if they see someone, they can stop them and issue the fine. it wouldn't stop everyone from doing it, but we would all be aware that if we are caught then we have taken that risk to be fined. Just like burglary or shoplifting is against the law, but some still do it. They do it with the full knowledge that it is against the law and they may get caught. I must say, I am surprised to see that you are in favor of the nanny state. |
|
|
|
Post by Banshee on Feb 11, 2014 17:13:41 GMT 1
Being in favour of safeguarding children, does not make me in favour of the nanny state. They are 2 very different issues. If I was against physical abuse of children, would that make me in favour of the nanny state? Or just in favour of protecting children?
|
|
