[MK Chris]

I agree with you their yuds.

Its fine if you want to smoke in your own home, but I don't think it should be allowed if you have kids. As soon as you know you are pregnant, you should have to stop and there shouldnt be any smoking allowed in the house untill the kids are old enough to know what you are doing is wrong blah blah.

Agreed, but how the hell would you police that? It'd be virtually impossible.

On a similar note, I nearly knocked a wee girl down the other day coz she went running across the road at a crossing when the lights were at green. Luckily I had seen her coming and she wasnt looking, she just kept going. The thing that amazed me was when another four kids (one pushing a buggy) came flying out behind her, all desperate to get to the play park.

Not one of them noticed me till they were in front of me (I had stopped by this point). I looked round to see the woman who i presume was their mother wander up to the lights (which turned to red as she got there), the green man came on and across she went as though nothing had happened! She was probably wondering why I had been sitting still on a green light!

I was livid, I couldn't believe that she had just let her five kids (poss six if there was one in the buggy) tear across a busy main road in rush hour when there was no way they could see if the road was clear, and she was doing sod all about it!

But like you say, you presume it was their mum - might not have been I guess.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

yudster, that's pretty much my stance. luckily, i live in a place that's stupid enough to actually ban smoking in your own home too (if you have kids).

They way I see it if tobacco was discovered now with the evidence of lung cancer etc it would probably be banned anyway. Its only due to history (and tax) that it is seen as acceptable.

[foot-loose]

Agreed, but how the hell would you police that? It'd be virtually impossible.

I don't know. All I would say is that I think we (as a country) are too soft on certain people for certain things. Some people take the piss because of that.

Children should not be forced to breath their parents smoke. Any parent who is letting their kids breath their smoke is potentially causing them unnecessary harm.

But like you say, you presume it was their mum - might not have been I guess.

Without making any generalisations, I have reason to believe that the children and the woman may have been related.

Plus, she was carrying a rattle.

[MK Chris]

Agreed, but how the hell would you police that? It'd be virtually impossible.

I don't know. All I would say is that I think we (as a country) are too soft on certain people for certain things. Some people take the piss because of that.

Children should not be forced to breath their parents smoke. Any parent who is letting their kids breath their smoke is potentially causing them unnecessary harm.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you (and you can omit the word 'potentially' from your last sentence) but I think it would be impossible to police a law that stops you smoking, but only if you have kids, for the very reason that you can do it in the privacy of your own home and no one will know.

[foot-loose]

True.

But child abuse can be very hard to police as well. I don't think that is an excuse.

I do think that most folk would just appreciate the rules and abide by them, but I have no idea how you would enforce them.

[Sidders]

In my opinion, and it's probably a naive one, if it was banned completely most people would just give up. I certainly would and it wouldn't bother me too much because a) it's illegal and b) I wouldn't be able to get any cigarettes even if I wanted one. I realise there would still be a blackmarket for cigarettes, but there is for drugs and the majority of people don't do drugs, at least not regularly. The only reason I smoke is because it's a stupid thing that I started doing a few years back and nobody (apart from myself) is stopping me doing it. I can smoke so I will.

[Walter Sobchak]

In my opinion, and it's probably a naive one, if it was banned completely most people would just give up. I certainly would and it wouldn't bother me too much because a) it's illegal and b) I wouldn't be able to get any cigarettes even if I wanted one. I realise there would still be a blackmarket for cigarettes, but there is for drugs and the majority of people don't do drugs, at least not regularly. The only reason I smoke is because it's a stupid thing that I started doing a few years back and nobody (apart from myself) is stopping me doing it. I can smoke so I will.

Sidders is right. if it was done in a controlled way.

but thats a lot of revenue for the govenment to lose.

[Sidders]

They'll just make it back somewhere else though.

[DemonHorse]

Yeah higher tax on booze, or legalise some other drug when they find a way to tax it... i swear thats the ONLY reason some drugs don't get legalised, the Government can't find a way to control and tax it.

[MK Chris]

I actually think the opposite Sidders - if you ban it, it drives it underground (like with drugs) and can't control it. I think it'd be a good idea to legalise most, if not all drugs for the same reason - much easier to control and gets rid of all the dealers who make a mint on selling to people.

[Sidders]

Yeah, but I think less people would start smoking if it wasn't legal. Especially since you can get bigger kicks off harder drugs.