I’m no friend of fags. But this proposed ban on smoking in cars is perilous

29 January 2014

As a child, I was not a good traveller. The mere scent of a car interior – possibly the plastic seats, maybe the closed atmosphere, probably the whiff of petrol – would be enough to bring on the tell-tale flow of odd saliva that heralded a really impressive bout of vomiting. If the smell of fag smoke had been added to the mix it would have happened even sooner. So when I say that the that Labour peers’ attempt today (supporters of the amendment include Tony Blair’s old friend, Charlie Faulkner) to introduce a ban on smoking in cars with children is bossy, oppressive and expressive of the demeanour of Yvette Cooper (who has, in fact, nothing to do with it), it’s not from any childish nostalgia for passive smoking so much as a sense of unease.

A car is an extension of private space. I mean, I don’t drive but when you get into someone’s car it’s like getting inside their living room. And I can’t think of anything I’d like less than telling people how to behave in their own home. As a matter of fact, most people are astonishingly forbearing about smoking when children are present – though my own, I may say, are fascinated by cigarettes – but that’s up to them. If the state tells a smoker that he is barred from smoking when there are children in the car, it’s an infringement of the liberty to do what he likes on his own premises. Which is rather a different matter than public space, no?

As it happens, I don’t care for really foul language in front of children, and I’m not above saying so on a train, but I should hesitate to legislate against people using bad words in private, in front of the young. It may be that children whose parents smoke in the car do make them sharers in their fags but once we accept the principle that this must be stopped, we’ll end up getting all Scandinavian about it, and banning them from smoking in their homes. Which would put some people off having children at all. There are some liberties that we really do infringe at our peril; telling people what to do in their own space is one of them.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • lauralouise90

    I wholeheartedly believe that children should not be put in these situations when they have no control over them. An adult can ask a smoker to stop but a young child can’t. Using the excuse of turning the air conditioning on doesn’t work either, it just pushes the smoke around. However I don’t believe that a law should be put in place as this opens a can of worms.

  • Camilla Byk

    Teenagers have strong opinions on this proposed ban too, listen to their response today at or link

  • Jabez Foodbotham

    ‘possibly the plastic seats’ My God, the smell of hot leather in a confined space gave me the collywobbles. But plastic…..!

    • Fergus Pickering

      I do remember the leather seats making me car sick. Never bothered by tobacco smoke though..

  • Alex_Cheshire

    How far does the nanny state want to go? There are many things which children are allowed to do which involves risk. Every time they cross the road they take a risk, take a look at the statistics for horse riding and skiing, would they stop children doing those activities?

  • mightymark

    One problem with this is that it is almost certainly unenforceable. Unenforceable laws are bad for respect for the law generally. As people see them being ignored they assume (all too often correctly) that they can break other laws as suits them.

    Like the ban on mobile phones while driving. Anyone remember that one? No? – nor do many drivers!

    • Swanky

      Happy to be in the U. S. A. and still using a mobile while driving when it suits me. And when it’s safe. Otherwise, I wouldn’t dream of answering hte phone.

      • mightymark

        To make an obvious point there is no problem with the non driver in a car using the phone (the situation you described) – the law here forbids only the diver from doing so. Balancing off legal rights and responsibilities, that seems reasonable to me. As it does with the inevitable conflict between those who only use it when safe and those who would use it when it isn’t. A blanket ban doesn’t seem such a hardship considering the danger of irresponsibly used phones. Anyone urgently needing to use a phone can easily pull in switch their engine off and do so – particularly I imagine, on the “endless freeways” of the US.

        Since you ask we have I believe, record touristry in the UK at present.

        • Swanky

          Don’t agree: lots of people drive alone, especially people driving as part of their living. The idea that you can easily get off an urban freeway or pull over in a complex urban environment is just not the case in the USA. The real problem is not phone use as such but texting — which should never be done.

  • andy_gill

    The trouble with the nanny state is that it never stops. Allow it to ban smoking in your own car, and next it’ll want to ban smoking in your own home, and then in your own garden.

    These nosey interfering bien-pensant busybodies should be confined behind their net curtains and prevented from bothering normal people.

  • haywardsward

    Most of the contributors to this discussion would not like it here DownUnder.

    The Commonwealth of Australia has led the way in anti smoking campaigns. First up graphic pictures of smoking induced disieases on the packet, now plain packaging.
    Graphic advertisements on big and small screens.

    Depending on the state/territory/ local government smoking restricted in many public areas, within advertised distances of buildings, playgrounds, swimming pools etc. and when children under 16 are in a car.

    In spite of the efforts of Big Tobacco most public places in Commonwealth of Australia are now smoke free as is any location near to children.

    The last time I looked at a packet, which I had picked up as rubbish to put in a bin near my workplace was when packaging had graphic pictures.

    Mortality figures for the Commonwealth of Australia which were on the back had as top of the table smoking with nearly 20,000 dead from causes related to smoking.

    The figures for the total of all the other causes, alcohol, heart attacks,
    car accidents, drugs licit/illicit etc. & work accidents amounted to
    much less than half of this figure.

    • Fergus Pickering

      ‘Related to smoking’? Huh! How to lie with statistics.

  • ReefKnot

    It is a short step from banning smoking in cars with children to banning smoking in houses with children. It is then another short step to giving Council jobsworths authority to enter your home to check whether you are smoking ( or have at some time in the past ) with children present.

    ASH would love this.

    I speak as a non smoker but a lover of freedom.

    • John

      Erm no it isn’t. Drink driving is banned, has been for some time, but noone has been banned from drinking in their home afaik, even though they might get really wasted and decide to have a shower in the dark with the door locked and noone else in the house.

      Regardless, we need to take every issue on its merits. I am pro this policy but would be anti banning smoking in the house as I believe that really would be unenforceable and cross the line from liberality.

  • CharlietheChump

    Hate smoking. Hate incursions into personal liberty much, much more. I support your right to die a disgusting, clot coughing death

    • John

      And what about your children’s right not to be harmed?

  • Blazeaway

    If you doubt that these ‘fake charities’ are bullies, consider this:

    I attempted to pursue a Freedom of Information request against one of them. It was funded by public money – councils and the NHS.

    As a Community Interest Company they pleaded that they were exempt from the legislation and no-one was allowed to know what they did.

    They did, however, track down where I worked and contacted my boss to ask him if I had a ‘problem’ with alcohol. Clearly an attempt at intimidation.

    The media still wrongly present them as ‘campaign groups’ when they are a front for the govt. I am sure that ITV news at 6.30pm tonight will do the same. They are nothing more than multi-million-pound public relations exercises which subvert democracy.

  • Blazeaway

    An appalling infringement on the rights of the individual and of his/her rights to property.

    What you have to remember is that these bullies can’t tell us what to do as individuals. They have to find an innocent third party – hence the promotion of ‘secondhand smoke’.

    With the ‘secondhand smoke’ thing, it is a short step until they ban smoking in cars containing other adults.

    Some govt-funded ‘fake charities’ are working on the notion of ‘thirdhand smoke’ – that which allegedly remains days/weeks/months after the cigarette has been stubbed out – but which can allegedly damage innocent parties who may yet be carried in the car.

    The govt is behind this. It funds ‘pressure groups’ – really fake charities – so that they can politically campaign for something the govt wants but is too cowardly to state. These ‘charities’ denormalise smoking and prepare the political ground for the govt to then act upon.

    These fake charities have been established as ‘Community Interest Companies’ which are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation.

    It is deeply corrupting to the relationship between the state and citizen.

    • ProfJohnCrown

      There is no human, civil or social right to subject a helpless child to high doses of a carcinogen in an enclosed space.

      • Blazeaway

        You miss the point which was about the corruption involved in the process.

        This tax-funded political proselytising has grown as the political parties have weakened. Once the political parties would have campaigned for a change in the law by leafleting us and knocking on our doors. Other parties would have argued back and the voters would decide.

        Now they can’t get volunteers so they use taxpayers’ money to mimic the effect of ‘grassroots’ campaigns.

        Not all political parties – UKIP for instance – are in favour of this nannying. Why shouild they be flattened by millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money? It is the very definition of the corporate state.

        That was my point. Perhaps you might address the point.

        • John

          The process might be corrupt but the intended outcome is surely one everyone can agree with. I think we’re all fairly on board with the idea that causing physical harm to children is unacceptable, why should inflicting harm through smoke be any different? I’m all for individual liberty but what about the individual and in this case violated rights of the individual child?

          • Blazeaway

            John, you’re only partly right.

            But surely Prof Crown, if he wants political action, should join a political party. That’s what citizens do in a democracy.

            They can give money to a party. They can join a party. They can go knocking on doors. They can write letters to the paper.

            They should not grab the organs of the state – and our money – to try to manage the electorate. That is the opposite of what should happen. The citizens should be managing the state, not vice versa.

            So no, the ends do not justify the means if the means involve corrupting our democracy.

            Prof Crown – dig into your own pocket. Keep your hands out of mine. While you are at it, I hope you turn off your central heating and sell your car.

            A deal?

            • John

              Agreed in principle, but I imagine more than 50% of the electorate would be pro this policy so where is the problem?

              In other, more marginal, cases I agree that the government certainly shouldn’t be lobbying itself though.

              • Blazeaway

                No, it doesn’t make any difference that 50% of the population agrees with the policy – all that shows is that all the millions of taxpayers’ money put into marketing campaigns has been effective.
                It is still a corruption of the political process for txpayers’ money to be spent on propagandising the public. It is wrong at a fundamental level, regardless of the issue at hand.

                • John

                  That’s as maybe, but how much blame you lay on the government’s propagandising or how much responsibility you give to the wider understanding of the harms of smoking, regardless of propaganda is the real divider here. I find it hard to believe, though of course I don’t actually know, that more than half of people would be in favour of this policy regardless of any government stories they have been told.

                • Blazeaway

                  John – then why does the govt pump hundreds of millions of pounds into publicity campaigns on the issue?

                  They are manufacturing public consent. That consent wasn’t there previously – that’s why they have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on fake charities.

                  If it wasn’t for the tax-funded propaganda campaigns this issue would not even be on the political agenda/radar.

                  And now we have the Labour Party saying this will be in their manifesto – and the tax-funded campaigns will, in effect, be backing a party political position.

                  And what of UKIP which, I believe, opposes the measure? They will face a tax-funded campaign against their position.

                  You may be in favour of a smoking ban in cars – but surely you can see how the process is corrupting the democratic process?

                  Surely this must be stopped.

              • AndrewS

                John Blazeaway • 6 hours ago −
                ‘Agreed in principle, but I imagine more than 50% of the electorate would be pro this policy so where is the problem?’

                If you can’t see the problem in 51% of the electorate tyranising the other 49% then I guess you see racism, sexism, homophobia and any other ism or phobia that has ever been invented as just the natural order of things. The point is that the State, even in a democracy, should have reasonable boundaries and I would argue that they have been overstepped for many years now.

                • John

                  I was answering the point that it was an undemocratic move that isn’t supported by a majority of people, but it clearly is supported so isn’t undemocratic.

                  Tyrannies of the majority are an unfortunate and unavoidable feature of a democracy. Every time we have an election is results in a 49/51 situation and there is simply no way to avoid that.

                  In fact your point is completely irrelevant because in this case we have the majority speaking for a minority – the wider population speaking for children who are subjected to smoke in a car. I agree about reasonable boundaries, I am not asking for 24/7 state surveillance of all parenting. However in this case the right thing to do is to protect children from harm and it is necessary to legislate to do so.

          • anncalba

            Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the argument (and I personally, though a life long smoker, never smoke in my car) who on earth is going to enforce this law? Every day, without fail, I see other drivers using their mobile phones. 3 or 4 days ago I saw in my rear window a 20 something lad about a yard away from my rear bumper, steering with one hand, the other hand busily texting. I was doing 30, so could not accelerate to get away from the idiot. It was pretty frightening, had he been smoking but watching the road it would have been less traumatic.

            So, pass all the laws you like, but if they are unenforceable, it just brings the law further into disrespect, even by law abiding people like myself.

            • John

              Enforcement might be difficult but it sends a message. Societal change takes a long time but if we do not legislate for this then it is sending a message that the government doesn’t care and that it isn’t a problem. It also gives right minded people the power to insist on not smoking with legal backing. Without it you are just being a nag.

              • anncalba

                It took loads of prosecutions to persuade people that drink driving is unacceptable ( and there are stil some cretins who don’t seem to get the message). So far, driving while texting and chatting on your mobile seems the norm for a good percentage of the population. Just as with drinking and driving, it will take years and a lot of prosecutions for causing serious accidents and deaths for the idea to get through to some thick skulls that this is not on.
                I really don’t want the government to “send me a message that they care” – how sweetly charming of you to believe this.

          • Penny

            I certainly agree that causing physical harm to children is unacceptable, which is why I support the current legislation against female genital mutilation – against which not a single case has been brought.

            I think FGM is a notch up from smoking in a car. It is painful, traumatic, permanent and often life-threatening. I’d like to see government actually tackle this one before dodging onto easier targets.

            • John

              I agree with you but the government can actually do more than one thing at a time. As I have said elsewhere this measure also sends a message which can be heard by everyone about an activity which is very obvious and in plain sight. Unfortunately FGM is generally performed behind very closed doors so enforcement will always be difficult.

              • Penny

                The thing is, John, that legislation against FGM is already in place – it just isn’t used and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been not a single prosecution. Just because something is performed out of sight (and quite a few criminal activities are!) doesn’t make it so difficult that it is unenforceable. I don’t believe the detection of FGM is particularly difficult – but I do believe those able to report such a case are too wary to do so. Prosecutions can’t be cherry-picked on the grounds that the authorities are nervous of offending one group but emboldened about another.

                I’m not a smoker myself, so have no stake in the outcome of Burnham’s proposal but lately there have been several reports about second-hand smoke that say it is not the danger it was thought to be. If this is correct then Burnham’s proposal will amount to a rather dodgy law based on social censure.

        • hasbara

          “but surely you can see how the process is corrupting the democratic process?”

          You appear to be arguing on the sole grounds of politics, totally avoiding safety issues, particularly to third parties. So I assume that you drive in excess of the legal speed limits whilst smoking with a drink in one hand, or maybe a mobile telephone, not wearing a seat belt? Come to think of it, why drive on the left, democratically you ought to be able to choose which side of the road you want?

          • Blazeaway

            Hasbara – do you drive a car? Do you have central heating which, presumably, requires the production of CO2?
            I presume you don’t. Is that so?

            • hasbara

              No and no.

              • Blazeaway

                Hasbara – I presume, now that there is research on the impact of exhaust fumes on lung disease, that you will now call for a ban on cars.
                Is that so? If not, why not?

          • anncalba

            Ah, right, you ARE trying to be witty. Try a lighter touch, rather than the sledge hammer approach.

      • Tom M

        Quite correct but I do not like the idea at all that it needs legislation to emphasise the point.
        After all why not use the same logic for obese children and their indulgent parents attitudes to their children’s eating habits? I can think of many other disagreeable habits that parents subject their children to all waiting for someone to decide to make it illegal.
        Once the precedent has been set just watch how it will multiply.

        • John

          Well if not legislation then what do you propose? Clearly most people think it is wrong to smoke in a car with a child but that doesn’t stop others doing it anyway.

          Of course there are other things which parents do which harm their children, but few which has as strong a causal link as this one. I think we need to draw a line somewhere and at the moment that line is drawn on the wrong side of this particular issue.

          • Sarka

            Parents who smoke in the car when there children are inside it, or permit some other adult to do so, almost certainly smoke in their homes when their children are there. It’s also very rare for children to spend more than a very small proportion of their time in cars, as compared to time spent indoors at home..

            So whatever the risk to them from passive smoking, just trying to prevent parents smoking in the car when they are in it will hardly cut that risk at all. How could the invasion of what is at least conventionally seen as private-ish space by the law and all the extra hassle of an extra offense of this kind for police possibly be worth it?

            Ah, people say, “it sends a signal!” Honestly, that is not a good argument in this context. The anti-smoking signal to people is massively sent in many ways already by the law and a lot of social disapproval – and while sure, one function of laws is sending a signal, laws which are pretty well purely directed to “signalling”, with no other real purpose or enforcement rationality, are very dodgy.

            Anti-smoking legislation in the UK is already quite draconic and has now reached the limit of the justifiable and enforceable within the context of cigarettes remaining a legal item. Beyond this limit there are only two rational options for the anti-smoking campaigners: 1) to go – honestly – for total prohibition, or 2) to admit that they have succeeded as far as it is possible to succeed using regulation of a still legal consumption article – and simply concentrate on education etc…smoking has been, after all, a habit in decline since before the legislation..and is continuing to decline in European countries that do not have such strict regulation.

            • John

              Yes people do smoke at home, but most houses are not nearly as confined a space as a car, nor are they generally sealed as tightly. What evidence do you have that the increased harm to children is “insignificant”? We also know that the more you smoke, the worse it is for you, so any reduction in exposure is surely welcome?

              No a car is not a private space, this is possibly the most ridiculous thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Cars have been legislated for since the early C20th with speedlimits (affect the outside but regulate activities inside) drink driving bans (same thing) and enforced seat belt wearing (mostly inside). Yes it will be more enforcement, but if so few people are currently smoking in their cars with their children, as the detractors seem to be arguing, then it won’t take much time and in any case…

              It does send an important message. How does it lack “enforcement rationality”? I haven’t seen the police saying they won’t enforce it (as they have with 20mph speed limits). Yes it will take more time and probably not many people will get caught, but how much of that is due to people not wanting to break the law by doing it, and actually being dissuaded by the law? Surely any traction in that area can only be a good thing?

              Your last paragraph is all assertion and assumption so I don’t see the point in arguing about it.

              • Penny

                John – re this proposal ‘sends an important message’ : on this blog and others carrying the story,the message being received is not confined to the rights and wrongs of smoking / smoking in a car / smoking around children. It seems to be more the case that people are seeing more incursions made into personal privacy and more evidence of nanny-state handling.

                As mentioned in another response to you, I am not a smoker but I am both weary and wary of the trajectory ahead. “Harm” is a fluid concept and while today a proposal may be in line with some ideals who knows where this will go next?

              • hasbara

                You forgot to include the ban on the use of mobile telephones whilst driving or, even stationary, with the engine running. It is interesting that the antis are not arguing that it is perfectly healthy and safe to smoke in cars carrying children, but only how it invades their right to do so. How sad is that?

                • Blazeaway

                  It’s not sad at all.

                  It would be an easy step – using the same arguments – to ban smoking in cars carrying other adults.

                  You could use the same arguments to ban smoking in homes – as has already happened in one town in America.

                  The fake charities are even exagerrating the damage that smoking does in the open. You could use the smoking in cars argument to ban all smoking in the open air.

                  The fake charities are trying to develop arguments about ‘thirdhand’ smoke. If you accept the ‘harm to third paties’ argument, you could use the thirdhand smoke argument against all indoor smoking.

                  It is a slippery and dangerous slope, damaging to liberty and democracy.

                  You could develop the ‘damage to third parties’ argument against alcohol or even tea – after all, how many children are damaged by a parent losing a job because of alcoholism or high blood pressure?

                  These public health tyrants have to be resisted.

                • hasbara

                  “fake charities”

                  Are you some kind of nutcase? This is about smoking in cars. Personally I will not stay in the same area as a smoker or even stand next to a smoker sans cigarette – they smell like ashtrays.

                  “how many children are damaged by a parent losing a job because of alcoholism or high blood pressure?”

                  Personally, I have never worked or left my home, just in case I got run down by a train or car and left my children fatherless. And I don’t drink tea, only coffee. Is that OK by you?

                • Blazeaway

                  Hasbara – why the abuse? Why not research the issue? Why not think about the implications of this ban? I suppose you find abuse comes easier than thinking.

                  Why not research fake charities? Do you really believe that there are spontaneous formations of ‘campaigners’? That they are not funded from your tax?

                  Drink what you like, you don’t need anyone’s permission – although you will if the anti-alcohol and anti-fizzy drinks fake charities have their way.

                • hasbara

                  “Why not research the issue?”

                  What issue? Smoking in cars? That’s what this blog is all about. You are perfectly entitled to ingest nicotine and carcinogens into your own body but I resent you receiving free NHS treatment for the consequences of such folly. And I resent other people, especially children, having to ingest these toxic substances courtesy of you without being consulted.

                  What this has to do with “fake charities” I do not know or care. Nor is it funny as the next posting suggests.

                • Blazeaway

                  I’m not talking about nicotine. You gave out some abuse about what I had said about fake charities. You need to research the issue, rather than responding with abuse.

                  You do not know if I am a smoker or not – and that wasn’t the point. The point was about corruption of democracy – can you grasp that?

                • anncalba

                  Sorry, I guess this is meant to be funny? At least, I hope so. Or perhaps you are an American trying to do irony. Sleep well.

                • hasbara

                  “Or perhaps you are an American”

                  Not unless Denbighshire is in the USA now.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Smokers do not smell like ashtrays any more than vegetarians smell like boiled cabbage. Unwashed people certainly smell of sweat. Lets bring in a law to make it a criminal offence not to bath daily. I know you were being ironic, by the way, but this smokers/ashtrays thing always annoys me.

                • hasbara

                  “Lets bring in a law to make it a criminal offence not to bath daily”

                  This merely offends rather than affects my health. My aunt died of lung cancer never having smoked in her life. Her husband, however, did. As she said before her death, “its just not fair”.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Lung cancer is not only caused by smoking. I gather car exhausts are bad, so don’t live near a road. I am sorry about your aunt.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Not sad at all. What is asad is your craven acceptance of government’s right to interfere wherever it likes.

                • hasbara

                  But they are interfering already. You cannot drive at any speed you want; you have to drive on the left; you have to wear a seat belt; you cannot use a cellphone; you have to pay for a driving licence; you have to pay a car tax; you have to pay the government large sums of petrol tax etc etc etc. Your argument is not valid particularly as the proposed law is to protect others, not yourself.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Are you sure about the causal link. I thought the causal link was to smoking.

          • AndrewMelville

            Let’s draw the line at not telling adults how to live their lives. The nanny state is intrusive, expensive, inefficient as well as being ineffective. Moreover, its record of providing actual protection or nurturing to the unfortunate kids in its maw is very poor.

            • John

              So we just subject children to harm and turn a blind eye? How is that not infringing the rights of the child? Fairly sure banning beating children, note I didn’t say smacking, is very nanny state – ish but I think we can both agree this is just.

              Also yes there are mistakes made in child protection but to say none of the thousands ofchildren who are prevented from harm is ineffective and not worthwhile is naive at best and plain blind sighted at worst.

              • AndrewMelville

                It’s a question of proportion. There will always be bad parents and yet the overwhelming majority of parents will be good. Interference with the rights of all parents to “improve” the small minority would be an unwarranted intrusion – even if it worked. Which it won’t.

                I didn’t say that there should be no child protection. I did or will however say that the agencies who deliver it are expensive, inefficient and incompetent. Like all bureaucracies they seek constantly to enlarge their scope and size – usually by focusing on problems that are unimportant but easy, rather than continued management of the difficult and chronic.

                I loathe smoking and despise smokers. But I would not cede one inch to agencies that want to bully parents. This is a non issue but even if it were important, it would be trumped by the importance of upholding parental rights and privacy.

                • John

                  But this measure doesn’t penalise the good parents, it only hits the bad parents who do harm their own children. I am in favour of this, clearly, however more extreme measures I wouldn’t agree with. So yes it’s a case of proportion but I believe this is proportional,. I struggle to see how people are having such a problem with our given their understanding of the harms of smoking. If it is as baa add as everyone believes, why allow or to take place?

                  We’re well off topic worth cp but although I agree that the bureaucracies are inefficient, you need to propose an alternative. To fail to you are condemning children to everlasting abuse. Social stigma and education clearly isn’t enough and hasn’t been in the past so we need something more of course cp could be more efficient but it necessarily has a degree of inefficiemy due to the nature of the people it targets.

                • AndrewMelville

                  My solution is to recognize that smoking in cars – although foul – is not very important – and not worth interfering with parental rights by extending the mandates of CP agencies that need to improve their delivery of their core mandates.

                  While I know that CP agencies are inefficient my larger concern with them is that that are incompetent. They fail over and over again to deliver on their core mandate – the protection of children from gross abuses. Inhaling a little second hand smoke in Mummy’s car, no matter how unpleasant, no matter how deleterious to one’s future health, is not really a big deal.

              • Blazeaway

                Just fund your own political campaign, you tax-sponger.

                Try and raise funds for your anti-smoking campaign. Then write and publish leaflets. Deliver them. Run a campaign.

                Don’t expect to steal money for your campaign from my pocket – as your fake charities do. Say whatever you like, but don’t steal from me to do so.

              • Jenny Archer

                “So we just subject children to harm and turn a blind eye? How is that not infringing the rights of the child?”….

                ..Why not the Catholic church have been doing it for years!

      • Fergus Pickering

        Yes there is. Helpless children are subjected to education by the state. Why not other poisons?

      • Dr Damien Teller

        No there us not. However I am in perfect health. Both my parents smoke in the car like troopers when I was a child for many years… explain that…. This legislation is being made by NON smokers for Non smokers…. its utter bollox. I dont smoke either but I might after this ban just to prove a point!

Can't find your Web ID? Click here