11
Banning smoking in motor vehicles in which children are passengers is one of those well-intentioned, superficially appealing ideas that set us on a slippery slope to persecuting smokers, especially the poor, for what they do in their own homes. The in-car ban has traction in Canada because no one loves a smoker and no one today wishes to be seen to defend smokers' rights; the very phrase has been deservedly kicked into the ashcan. But the more pertinent issue is parental rights to be free from state coercion.
There is no question that second-hand smoke puts children at risk of respiratory illnesses such as a persistent cough, wheeze or asthma. But why cars and not homes? Because cars are small and homes are large? What about people who live in small apartments? Some big-city apartments have three immigrant families living cheek by jowl. And what about people who smoke near babies, who can't get up and walk away? There is no good argument for stopping at cars. In fact, the logic of the car-smoking ban applies even more strongly to a ban in homes.
More children are exposed to second-hand smoke in homes than in cars. Smoke Free Kings, the advocacy group in Wolfville, N.S., that persuaded the local council to adopt Canada's first smoking ban in cars with children (a ban soon to spread to the rest of Nova Scotia, and being considered by several other provinces), says that 35 to 45 per cent of children are exposed to second-hand smoke "in homes and cars." But its source, the Harvard School of Public Health, doesn't actually say that. Harvard cites a 2002 article that 35 to 43 per cent of children are exposed in homes, but offers no percentages for the exposure of children in cars.
In fact, we know little about how people smoke in cars, let alone how many. Do they do so with windows wide open, and fans blowing? Smoke Free Kings, again citing Harvard, says that even with windows open, second-hand smoke is dangerous. But the Harvard study was far less definitive. "Further research is required to understand whether drivers manipulate ventilation to reduce SHS, either by use of open windows or internal vehicle ventilation systems."
Banning cigarette smoking in cars with children in them sounds appealing because it seems so manifestly selfish to smoke in that situation. But is a ban necessary? Most smokers have voluntary bans on smoking in the home or car, at least according to a California study. Who would suffer from a legislated ban? According to Harvard, "a vast number of children in the United States continue to be exposed to SHS, especially among low-income families, which are less likely to impose domestic bans on smoking."
Would Canadians be comfortable jumping on the poor for smoking in their homes? Of course not. As if the lives of the poor were not difficult enough, they would suddenly have to contend with snoopy neighbours looking over their shoulders and uniformed enforcement officials at their door. Is making the lives of the poor more difficult going to help the children of the poor?
For sure, a ban on smoking in
cars with children would send a message to smokers. But before the state enters into private parental spaces, it should try less coercive measures such as public education campaigns. For an uncertain benefit, this ban might lead to a greater invasion of privacy down the road.
