OHTA.ca

New Ontario law proposition will outlaw smoking in cars when any children under the age of 16 are present.

Do you agree with this ban?

Disagree?

How do you think this will affect smokers?

Give your comments and answer the Poll.

yeah that is iffy. i smoke, but dont entirely know my position. then again, if windows are down, smoke basically leaves the car. they can make that mandatory.

not sure....on the one hand i dont like the government having more rules and regulations on our personal lives..

but on the other hand smoking with your new born baby in the car with the windows down is stupid, but i think that if you do that the kid probablly already has bad genes from you and is going to turn out stupid and messed whether you smoke in front of it or not....

Yes, in fact it should be illegal to smoke around anyone who doesn't smoke.

While I appreciate the desire to shield children from secondhand smoke exposure in cars, I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one's own decisions about what risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.

Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.

If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.

On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.

This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.

If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.

We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.

And more:

Allowing their infants to play with walkers;

Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;

Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;

Owning a wood-burning stove;

Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;

Not boiling their babies' bottles before serving them milk;

Not breastfeeding their infants;

Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;

Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;

Serving alcohol at a party;

Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and

Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.

One could easily argue that 'If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.

The question I find interesting is why a child advocate would single out smoking around one's children as the sole example of a situation in which the government interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions regarding the exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about smoking that, among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents often expose their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be regulated?

I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma attached to smoking as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And I also fear that it is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to this moral stigma. What it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the anti-smoking movement is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to dictate societal morals, rather than to stick to legitimate public health protection.

It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that line is crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately protected.

Thomas Laprade

Thunder Bay, Ont.

Check out what Dr. James Enstrom has to say, just this October 2007, about Second Hand Smoke.

Check out what U.S. Senator Tom Neuville has to say in Feb. 2007

where you will find links to many other researchers and scientists who do NOT agree with the anti-smoking claims about Second Hand Tobacco Smoke.

The entire global news industry is aware many disagree with the claims about SHS, and they are deliberately refusing to inform the public that there are many researchers, scientists, even doctors and politicians, and millions of tax paying voters who do NOT believe the anti-smoking claims about second hand tobacco smoke.

The News Industry is guilty of violating it's Fiduciary Duty to the Public by suppressing the information.

I grew up in a cloud of Second Hand Tobacco Smoke, including during car rides. We didn't open the windows in Winter. I am 57, my smoking mother is 80. There are millions of Baby Boomers who grew up in that era the same, and we are still the largest population sector today, totally contradicting the Junk Science claims by anti-smokers about SHS.

Today, respect the right of those who choose not to be exposed, but, otherwise - Stop apologizing for Second Hand Tobacco Smoke.

We are kangaroo-court accused, tried, and convicted mass murderers by the anti-smokers, and thereby denied our right to due process of law.

We are NOT guilty.

Second Hand Tobacco Smoke is NOT a Statistically Significant Health Risk to others, and that includes kids.

I voted NO in the poll.

Steve Hartwell

Toronto, Canada

Perhaps (and I think that it will make more sense for health reasons) we should ban parents from taking their kids to MacDonalds, as the health-benefiting results of such decision will greatly outweigh any second-hand smoke risks they suffer in the car. On the other hand, If I am a smoker and I am travelling on a highway with my kids, the only logical place for me to smoke during a long drive is.... the gas station. Anyone see the risks invoved in that?