Kids’ health trumps smokers’ rights

ImageOttawa smokers haven’t been able to light up in public places for nearly seven years after the city passed a controversial bylaw banning smoking in work and public places in 2001.

Despite protests from smokers’ rights groups and restaurants that feared devastating losses from smoking patrons, not lighting a cigarette in public quickly became as natural as buckling up a seatbelt.

But now a motion will be put before city council that affects private vehicles, one of the few remaining places in which a person can smoke.

Earlier this month, the city’s community and protective services committee unanimously recommended that city council support a Queen’s Park private member’s bill to ban smoking in cars containing children under the age of 16.

Liberal MPP David Orazietti introduced the bill last December, which Premier Dalton McGuinty theoretically supported but called “too intrusive.”

The proposed Ontario bill is, unsurprisingly, popular among non-smokers and health-care professionals. Ottawa’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. David Salisbury, has indicated support.

And why not? Kids, especially young ones who don’t know any better, probably wouldn’t tell mom or dad that a smoky car is bad for their lungs.

Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at higher risk for asthma, sudden infant death syndrome, bronchitis, and heart disease later in life. Coupled with all the side effects, secondhand smoke is 23 times more toxic in the confined space of a car than in a home, according to the Canadian Lung Association.        

If passed, the ban would allow police to hand out fines from $200 to $1,000, depending on the number of previous convictions.

But here’s a reality check. How can authorities enforce something like smoking in a car?

They might not have to if people recognize the danger of lighting up with a child in their private vehicle. An Ipsos Reid poll conducted last December suggests eight in 10 Ontarians, smokers or not, would support this ban.

And as for those smokers’ rights groups claiming that at the heart of this debate lies a civil rights issue? On the most basic level, yes, the ban might be an infringement of rights. But a child’s health should be – and likely is – the top priority for any adult. That alone should trump any need to smoke in the car.

In fact, it should trump any need to smoke indoors with children.

While the effects of smoking seem to be an increasing burden on our health care system, chances are the cancer sticks will never be banned altogether. But if banning smoking in cars is one step closer to banning smoking in homes with children, so be it.

If a person wishes to smoke, that’s their prerogative. But it is simply not a parent’s prerogative to force that habit upon their children who are powerless to speak for themselves.

When the safety and health of children are involved, smoking belongs in one place only. Outside.