Fact: children of parents who smoke in the same vehicle as them have no better choice than to breathe that second-hand smoke.
Fact: lungs of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke regularly grow less (relative to lungs of children that are not regularly exposed to second-hand smoke) and therefore are at greater risk of bronchitis and pneumonia.
Fact: wheezing and coughing are more common in children exposed to second-hand smoke regularly.
Fact: second-hand smoke is the cause of increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease.
Fact: children exposed to second-hand smoke may get more ear infections.
The point is that the children have no choice but to breathe that second-hand smoke. Even if they don’t want to, as long as it’s legal, they can’t do anything about it. Thus, they have no control over preserving their health practically. It seems quite unethical that the children are at higher risk for diseases, cancer, and other health problems from being exposed to second-hand smoke, but cannot do anything to avoid it.
So should smoking parents in the same car as their children be subject to citations similar to the ones for speeding, cellphone usage while driving, drunk driving, etc?
I prefer education on this one (it’s not quite like speeding or texting while driving, as smoking is probably much less likely to result in harm to others).
On the other hand, I find it reasonable to have substantial penalties for parents who allow smoking in any enclosed setting (including the home) that results in demonstrable adverse health effects (i.e. asthma) - up to and including having children removed from the home in the most severe cases.
It’s hard for me to make a case against such a law. We would’t allow parent to inject trace amount of arsenic into their children while driving, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to forbid them from exposing their children to 2nd hand smoke. Might be a bit of bitch to enforce, though, but lots of laws are like that.
Well, libertarians think government’s main (or only) function is to prevent coercion. So, kidnapping is illegal in Liberteria and so is child abuse. I’m not a climate change denier or a creationist or someone who thinks 2nd hand smoke is “harmless”, so I see a a kid in a car with an adult who is smoking, and I see a form of coercion. If it’s two adults, then not so much.
A more difficult question would be smoking in a home. Same principle, but not so confined a space.
And if it makes you feel any better, I’m not in favor of banning smoking in bars (although I don’t go to bars that do allow smoking).
It’s been punishable by a fine here in NSW since 2009. The factsheet issued is from NSW Health as the fine is counted as an “envirinmental matter.” I think at least 2 other states already had legislation like it before we did.
False dilemma. It is possible to cite parents for harming their children with secondhand smoke and also enforce other laws.
The idea that sitting in traffic is as dangerous as being trapped in a cloud of secondhand smoke is risible unless you happen to live an an area full of 2-strokes running leaded gas.
I did a little quick searching. It looks to me like secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, and automobile accidents of all kinds combined also kill about 50,000 Americans per year. I don’t know how to find out how much of the secondhand smoke harm occurs specifically in cars to children. Nevertheless, it’s a pretty big problem.
I could get behind this. When I student taught, a decade ago, a little girl (high school freshman), spent two weeks in the hospital because of her asthma. Her parents continued to smoke in the home, and kept multiple pets. It was appalling.
I don’t think it should be, unless we also want to outlaw every other thing
Will smoking in a car with kids harm them more than feeding them fast food? Will it harm them more than driving around in the first place (cars are dangerous). Or living in a house with a swimming pool. Swimming pools cause more children to die than smoking does by far.
I think we should continue the social campaign of making it clear that cigarettes are a disgusting, wasteful, and harmful habit, provide resources to help people quit, and intervene in very seriously damaging cases. In Manda JO’s example, if the child has asthma and the parents continue to smoke around her, then that’s a much more clear-cut case of neglect/abuse.
But simply smoking a cigarette in a car with kids is not sufficiently damaging that it needs a specific law against it.
I am tried of the false comparison between fast food/childhood obesity and smoking. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, we should cite adults for smoking in cars with children in them. This is a separate issue from fast food. Period. Misdirection will not assuage the harm of smoking around children.
Suggesting that reason and consistency be applied to the creation of laws is not misdirection.
If the reason for prohibiting smoking around children is that it harms them, then that same reasoning should lead us to prohibit other activities that harm children, such as feeding them fast food or letting them be around swimming pools.
If we’re not willing to do so, then there must be something other than the harm to children involved in the decision. So what is it that makes banning smoking a good idea, but banning fast food and swimming pools a bad one?
The thread is about smoking and outlawing smoking around children in cars. Bringing other things into it is muddying the waters just for the sake of causing confusion. It’s a red herring. Like any law, there are also ancillary laws that could or should be made for consistency sake, but sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn’t. You make laws one at a time. I would say “duh” but I have a strong suspicion you already know this and anyone else who is bringing this up in this thread.
the reason the comparison is made is so that you’ll understand there is no limit to such legislation. Look at the Lord Mayor of NYC and his obsession with saving us from ourselves.
But lets talk about this particular law. It’s based on the idea that 2nd hand smoke kills. My mother smoked when I was a kid as did many parents. All my friends are alive and well and it’s been 50+ years. So that begs the question, what is the law actually based on? Why cars? When I drive with a cigar the smoke is pulled out the window. If anything cars have less smoke than a house which traps it all. Was the law made based on any scientific criteria such as parts per million of dangerous chemicals. No. The law was made by a politician who thought we needed protection from ourselves.