Smokefree Cars Legislation, 1 October 2015 (UK)

[BeTheChange]

Brief overview


From 1 October 2015, private vehicles in England and Wales must be smokefree if they are enclosed, there is more than one person present and one of them is under 18.


It will be an offence:


 for a person of any age to smoke in a private vehicle carrying someone under 18
 for a driver (including a provisional driver) not to stop someone smoking in these circumstances
Penalties

The fixed penalty notice fine for both offences is £50. Somebody who commits both offences could get two fines. Private vehicles must be carrying more than one person to be smokefree so somebody who is 17 and smoking alone in a private vehicle won’t be committing an offence.

What is ‘an enclosed vehicle’?

The legislation covers any private vehicle enclosed wholly or partly by a roof. A convertible car, or coupe, with the roof completely down and stowed is not enclosed and so isn’t covered by the legislation. But a vehicle with a sunroof open is still enclosed and so is covered by the legislation. Sitting in the open doorway of an enclosed vehicle is covered by the legislation. The rules apply to motorhomes, campervans and caravans when they are being used as a vehicle but don’t apply when they are being used as accommodation.

The rules don’t apply to:

 boats, ships and aircraft as they have their own rules
 work vehicles and public transport already which are covered by smokefree legislation

Definition


The definition of smoking is set out in Section 1(2) of the Health Act 2006:


(a) “smoking” refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking
any other substance

It follows therefore that smoking includes the use of cigarettes, cigars and pipes, including waterpipes (shisha) as well as the use of herbal substances.


Enforcement


Enforcement of the new law will largely be by police officers who already monitor for a number of other offences committed in moving vehicles, such as the wearing of seat belts, and use of child safety seats and mobile phones. Officers will use their discretion to decide whether to issue a warning or a fixed penalty notice, or whether to refer an offence to court. Local authority enforcement officers will also support securing compliance with the legislation.



Why are the regulations needed?

Children are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke; they have smaller lungs, faster breathing and less developed immune systems, which make them more susceptible to respiratory and ear infections triggered by passive smoking.v This new law is not designed to turn smokers into criminals, but it is about protecting children from the avoidable dangers that tobacco smoke presents to their health and well-being.

Smoking near children can cause a range of respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and reduced lung function. Passive smoking results in more than 165,000 new episodes of disease of all types among children, 300,000 primary care consultations, 9,500 hospital admissions and around 40 sudden infant deaths each year.

[strivingobserver98]

Alhamdulilah for this :thumbs_up.

Been in a car many times with the secondhand smoke everywhere. Some people even do it with little babies subhan Allah, this law is a first step for better health for children.

[sister herb]

It´s a good idea but also it´s sad how some people don´t understand to protect their kids from the smoke. I wonder how well they are able to monitor that people comply the law. Education is always preferable than coercion. When it goes to coercion, some people surely will broke the law just because there is kind of law what force them to leave smoking.

[ardianto]

When I read the title I thought it's about electric car. But then I knew, it's about smoking in car, and I was surprised because I thought UK already ban smoking in private car. But, yeah, better late than never.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Karl]

The West is more Marxist than China. What can I say the Reds have won. Even the "Muslims" have turned Red.

[ardianto]

The West is more Marxist than China. What can I say the Reds have won. Even the "Muslims" have turned Red.

But Karl Marx never said that people should not smoke in the car.

[sister herb]

Karl; is it Marxism to ban smoking in the car while perched have children? Would it be better or more Islamic to force children to breath smoke and exposes them to diseases? ^o)

I have heard that also in Finland is coming similar law and our current majority of parliament's is not Marxist at all. I know that similar laws are coming into force in many countries of the EU shortly.

[ardianto]

It´s a good idea but also it´s sad how some people don´t understand to protect their kids from the smoke. I wonder how well they are able to monitor that people comply the law. Education is always preferable than coercion. When it goes to coercion, some people surely will broke the law just because there is kind of law what force them to leave smoking.

My dad was educated person, but he often smoked in the car in inter-city travel and in that time I saw it as something normal. But nowadays kids are different. They do not hesitate to warn their parents to not smoke in the car. This is the result of anti-smoking campaign in schools and public. Educate smoker parents to not smoke in the car actually not really effective, and more effective if government educate the children.

Smoke free cars policy actually supported by car producers too. It can be seen in some models of cars nowadays that do not provide ashtray although people still can buy portable car ashtray in shops.

[Karl]

But Karl Marx never said that people should not smoke in the car.

Yes, to the best of my knowledge Marx himself never actually said that, true, but this is nonetheless the very type of thing that modern Marxists (being the busybody control freaks they are) try and enforce. I will always IGNORE them of course because I will do whatever I want on my own property (which includes inside my car). I will simply never allow any collectivist busybody to stop me.

[Karl]

Karl; is it Marxism to ban smoking in the car while perched have children? Would it be better or more Islamic to force children to breath smoke and exposes them to diseases? ^o)

Yes, BECAUSE it is Marxist mentality to violate parental sovereignty. The satanic United Nations wishes to also overthrow the ancient tradition of parental sovereignty too because the United Nations itself since its creation has been a secret communist plot to take over the entire world and enforce a totalitarian one world government, which I might also remind you wishes to eventually ban all religion too. The United Nations seeks to usurp traditional parental authority and be the dictators of how I raise my own offspring, but I of course will NEVER tolerate them ever having the delight of doing that. This is because MY offspring of course are NONE of their business to begin with, and they never ever will be their business either.

Look, I am not against anyone wanting to warn of the potential risks of smoking. I have no problem with that, BUT it should NOT come with government COERCED MEASURES! What I am FIERCELY opposed to is any external entity including GOVERNMENT dictating what I can or can't do on my OWN property and with my OWN offspring! As far as I'm concerned all such domestic matters are entirely MY prerogative, NOT any outsiders! Do you see my point?

I have heard that also in Finland is coming similar law and our current majority of parliament's is not Marxist at all. I know that similar laws are coming into force in many countries of the EU shortly.

That is because the Scandinavian region is now a Zionist Occupied territory, hence why cultural Marxism now infests the place. Most of Europe has been overrun by totalitarian Jewish control since after WWII. As for the EU, that is nothing more than a Marxist creation too. It is Europe's version of the former Soviet Union. You might say that "the majority of parliament's is not Marxists" but do note well that most Marxists don't actually call themselves Marxists. They are notorious for infiltration. They might call themselves something else but that doesn't change the fact that their collectivist attitudes and intrusive totalitarian behaviours render them crypto-Marxists. I am saying that all such policies that arrogantly and self-righteously intrude into domestic life and violate property rights and parental sovereignty ARE Marxist by nature.

[ardianto]

No, no, kids!. You don't need to wear gas mask. Your school bus driver today is not Mr Karl!.

[Karl]

No, no, kids!. You don't need to wear gas mask. Your school bus driver today is not Mr Karl!.

What you're talking about THERE is quite a different thing. It is a different matter when we are talking about public domain. It I only fair that on any state owned property all public on it must behave in accordance with certain standards. A "No smoking" rule could fairly be said to be one of them. So on a state-owned bus I wouldn't have any real objection for smoking to be prohibited. In contrast though, in a PRIVATELY owned bus all such standards and rules should be entirely down the prerogative of the private bus company itself, NOT government legislation. Any passenger looking for a ride who doesn't happen to like smoking should simply not get on any bus whose private owners permit smoking.

[sister herb]

Zionists and Marxists everywhere? Wow!

Is trying to save children from inhale tobacco smoke a Marxism? This must to be then Marxist coercion when parents themselves don´t understand to avoid smoking while they drive with their own kids. Yes, your car is your private-owned property and you still have the right to risk your own health but you never have rights to risk health of other people, like your children or any other child who might drive in your car.

I see this as a public health issue. No need to blame that everyone are now under the rule of Zionists and Marxists if they want to promote healthy lifestyles, such as to protect children from tobacco smoke. Health education should certainly be better than the law but all people do not care about it.

[ardianto]

I don't know if you are smoker or nonsmoker, Karl.

If you were smoker, ...... as Muslim you perform fasting in Ramadan, don't you?. It spend long hours, more than 13 hours. Then why couldn't you stop smoking for one or few hours when you were in car?.

And if you were nonsmoker, then what's your problem if government bans smoking in car?.

[sister herb]

I see that here are two different matters in this thread: caring of the public health of the citizens and that the state limits the individual's freedom. I don´t think that its only a Marxism if state tries to limits people´s freedoms. Are not most of the laws limit it in any way?

[Abz2000]

i can perceive that Karl is indignant and disagrees with the idea criminal kafir governments trying to manipulate or tell people how to act.
we must at the same time keep in mind that children are a trust from Allah and that we must bring them up according to the guidance of Allah, and if a piece of legislatiin fits within the guidance of Allah and pleases Him, we should embrace it wholeheartedly because we are obeying the Creator and ruler of the heavens and the earth.

there are many instances where the messenger of God pbuh legislated regarding the duties of parents to children and we must pay heed to such commands if we are to be successful.
be merciful to them,
start them praying casually at seven years and discipline them until they pray at ten years.
he pbuh also admonished a mother who used to regularly beat the crap out of her son because she feared that the kid might otherwise become soft, he didn't say: do what you like at home, he told us to do what Allah likes.
he pbuh would also give good examples by holding them in his lap whilst praying and even shortening the prayer when he heard children crying.
surely you would have a duty to intervene and protect if you saw a child about to be ritually sacrificed, remember the fact that Allah miraculously sent a ram to Prophet Ibrahim pbuh and made zamzam gush forth?

let us accept the sincere, truthful and good advice of each other in a good manner, remember, Abu Hurairah was told to recite ayat al kursi by shaytaan :p

This blog post is a part of a series of articles : “How to Deal with Present Day Rulers and Systems”, which is an academic effort to understand the sayings of Allah’s Messenger on the topic.

http://islamandpsychology.blogspot.c...nd_28.html?m=1

HADITH # 22خبرنا أحمد بن علي بن المثنى قال : حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم المروزي قال : أخبرنا جرير بن عبد الحميد عن رقبة بن مصقلة عن جعفر بن إياس عن عبد الرحمن بن مسعود عن أبي سعيد و أبي هريرة قالا : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : ( ليأتين عليكم أمراء يقربون شرار الناس ويؤخرون الصلاة عن مواقيتها فمن أدرك ذلك منكم فلا يكونن عريفا ولا شرطيا و لا جابيا ولا خازنا

Narrated Abu Saeed and Abu Hurairah:
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: "Mentally deficient rulers will come to you, and make the most evil, worst people near to them, and delay the prayer (not pray it at the fixed time).
Every one of you, who realizes that, must not be policemen, not a corporal, not a collector and not a treasurer with them."

Reference:*Ibn Hibban (Hadith # 4586), Sh’uaib Arnaoot classified it to be weak, because he said Abdur Rahman bin Mas’ud is ‘majhul’, other scholars like Ibn Hajr Asqalani have classified him to be trsutworthy. Abu Ya’la (Hadith # 1115), Authenticated by Hasan Saleem, and he said Abdur Rahman bin Mas’ud is trsuthworthy. Tabarani Majma Sagheer (Hadith # 9498). Majma Zawaid (Hadith # 9225), Haythami said narrators are sahih and trustworthy.**Classified as Sahih by al-Albani in Silsilah As-Sahiha (Hadith # 360) and he deemed the narrator to be Abdur Rahman bin ‘Abdullah. Al-Albani said that it had other chains too. In Saheeh at-Targheeb al-Albani classified it to be ‘Hasan lighairihi’. Haakim has also quoted the hadith (Hadith # 4777), and he authenticated it.**The same wording is also quoted in a ‘mawquf’ hadith from ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud in M’ujam al-Kabeer and Masnaf Abdur Razzaq.

LESSONS FROM THIS*HADITH

Rulers will come who will not rule according to the religion of Allah (delaying prayers is equivalent to not implementing Islam as it is), and will be pleased with evil, he who realizes this corruption, should not support these leaders. He should not be a policeman and help him implement the false laws. He should not be a treasurer and collector and manage the finances of his rule. So, no one should directly help him in his evil.

[BeTheChange]

I understand everyone's position and yes, it is worrying how much autonomy an individual really has.

Am not sure how effective this legislation will be on children's health because the parents/family members/carers etc will continue to smoke within the homes where children may be present.

The discussion can also lead to obesity as well, as over-feeding a child can be equally as dangerous as secondhand smoking.

On one hand the legislation saves everyone from consuming secondhand toxic chemicals and on the other, it removes the autonomy of the individual.

[ardianto]

Am not sure how effective this legislation will be on children's health because the parents/family members/carers etc will continue to smoke within the homes where children may be present.

Not really effective. But at least it's better than UK govt let children still in risk when they ride car.

[Abz2000]

On one hand the legislation saves everyone from consuming secondhand toxic chemicals and on the other, it removes the autonomy of the individual.

i believe that the legislation saves children from being forced by other people to consume tobacco and marijuana smoke, and that it is a God given right of children within the word and spirit of Quran and Sunnah of Allah's final Messenger pbuh and cannot remove the lawful God given rights of a parent since there's no ambiguity in the legislation whatsoever.
criminalizing murder of children within the wombs or drowning them in a bathtub has nothing do with removing the autonomy of the individual, we must check to ensure that it falls within the guidance and pleasure of Allah and that it doesn't contradict Allah's guidance or bring on His wrath.

certain medicines also have "keep out of the reach of children" written on the label, such an act doesn't contradict the Quran and Sunnah but rather enforces them.

Allah's Apostle said, "A woman was tortured and was put in Hell because of a cat which she had kept locked till it died of hunger."
Allah's Apostle further said, "(Allah knows better) Allah said (to the woman),
'You neither fed it nor watered when you locked it up, nor did you set it free to eat the insects of the earth.' "
Hadith - Bukhari 3:553,*

[Karl]

Zionists and Marxists everywhere? Wow!

Is trying to save children from inhale tobacco smoke a Marxism? This must to be then Marxist coercion when parents themselves don´t understand to avoid smoking while they drive with their own kids. Yes, your car is your private-owned property and you still have the right to risk your own health but you never have rights to risk health of other people, like your children or any other child who might drive in your car.

I see this as a public health issue. No need to blame that everyone are now under the rule of Zionists and Marxists if they want to promote healthy lifestyles, such as to protect children from tobacco smoke. Health education should certainly be better than the law but all people do not care about it.

Well I believe that Allah is my lord but you believe the government is your lord and master to regulate all your private and domestic affairs. That is the point not the smoking issue. "Muslims" are becoming a part of the collective that is the antithesis of Islam, they are becoming the sycophants of the Beast. It is written that would happen.

And FYI, I DO have the right to "risk the health" of my OWN offspring, by virtue of the fact that MY offspring are of MY seed, NOT of your seed. They are NOTHING to do with you, they are entirely MY concern, NOT yours. THEREFORE you and your collectivistic nanny state that you admire so much have absolutely NO right to dictate to me what I can or can't do with my offspring. And remember I have said before that I will defend my private property against trespassers (who I might add like to refer to themselves as "interveners" and other euphemistic descriptions) to the DEATH if I have to. I have no time at all for them and DON'T tolerate that type of behaviour. It is no wonder why I choose to be armed! the more I see the powers of nanny statism grow the more guns I wish to possess to protect myself.

[Karl]

i believe that the legislation saves children from being forced by other people to consume tobacco and marijuana smoke, and that it is a God given right of children within the word and spirit of Quran and Sunnah of Allah's final Messenger pbuh and cannot remove the lawful God given rights of a parent since there's no ambiguity in the legislation whatsoever.
criminalizing murder of children within the wombs or drowning them in a bathtub has nothing do with removing the autonomy of the individual, we must check to ensure that it falls within the guidance and pleasure of Allah and that it doesn't contradict Allah's guidance or bring on His wrath.

certain medicines also have "keep out of the reach of children" written on the label, such an act doesn't contradict the Quran and Sunnah but rather enforces them.

i can perceive that Karl is indignant and disagrees with the idea criminal kafir governments trying to manipulate or tell people how to act.
we must at the same time keep in mind that children are a trust from Allah and that we must bring them up according to the guidance of Allah, and if a piece of legislatiin fits within the guidance of Allah and pleases Him, we should embrace it wholeheartedly because we are obeying the Creator and ruler of the heavens and the earth.

there are many instances where the messenger of God pbuh legislated regarding the duties of parents to children and we must pay heed to such commands if we are to be successful.
be merciful to them,
start them praying casually at seven years and discipline them until they pray at ten years.
he pbuh also admonished a mother who used to regularly beat the crap out of her son because she feared that the kid might otherwise become soft, he didn't say: do what you like at home, he told us to do what Allah likes.
he pbuh would also give good examples by holding them in his lap whilst praying and even shortening the prayer when he heard children crying.
surely you would have a duty to intervene and protect if you saw a child about to be ritually sacrificed, remember the fact that Allah miraculously sent a ram to Prophet Ibrahim pbuh and made zamzam gush forth?

let us accept the sincere, truthful and good advice of each other in a good manner, remember, Abu Hurairah was told to recite ayat al kursi by shaytaan :p

Under 18 is not a child, a child is a pre pubescent. And riding in a car is more dangerous than some tobacco smoke, also the UK is polluted with umpteen vehicles and factories. This "what about the children law" is designed to undermine more parental rights and to get them used to further oppression. In time people under the age of 18 will be institutionalized and "educated" as the State will say it is for the protection of "children". Will you support that? Of course anyone going against this will be labelled an "extremist" and enemy of the State. If you have any intelligence you will see the signs and connect the dots and I believe you do. Others that go along with these malicious laws I can only assume that they are shills of the Anti Christ State.

[Karl]

I don't know if you are smoker or nonsmoker, Karl.

If you were smoker, ...... as Muslim you perform fasting in Ramadan, don't you?. It spend long hours, more than 13 hours. Then why couldn't you stop smoking for one or few hours when you were in car?.

And if you were nonsmoker, then what's your problem if government bans smoking in car?.

No I don't smoke. I hate the government interfering into peoples private lives. Would you have a problem with the government banning people over six feet tall? Or would you say "that's fine as I am shorter"?