Introduction
Parents should not smoke when driving around with their children. The health effects of smoking have been much documented. The health implications of children being exposed to secondhand smoke by their parents become even more apparent in enclosed places like inside vehicles. Thus, children should be saved the indignity and unfairness of being exposed to the harmful effects of a habit they themselves are not partaking. This essay is meant to support the contention that smoking in cars should be banned by giving the reasons why; even though there are others who are opposed to the ban.
Discussion
Smoking in cars with children has been one activity that has brought about a lot of debate among various stakeholders. Although smoking as a habit has been tolerated some people, majority of the citizenry, including both smokers and non-smokers agree and support the protection of children from harmful secondhand smoke from their parents and other members of the public. Out of this need, several regulations have been put in place to ensure children’s safety in vehicles is guaranteed; thus, protection from second-hand smoke is an obvious measure that is directed towards the overall safety of the children in vehicles.
The effects of smoking in cars with have kids are very much apparent. Generally, smoking has been associated with many ailments among children. Children may suffer from asthma, respiratory infections like colds and ear infections. Furthermore, research has shown that exposure to secondhand smoke is a contributing factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)(Kathleen, et al 2007). The research also linked Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) cases in children and their mothers who smoke (63). Smoking in cars just serves to exacerbate the effects of this habit. Studies done by the Adult Health Advisor show that there can never be enough ventilation in cars to do away with the effects of the smoke on kids (65). They argue that “opening a window can cause the air to flow back into the vehicle, hence leading to smoke being blown back directly at the non-smokers” (67). It is therefore unfair to take advantage of the vulnerability of children and their inability to make decisions by poisoning them through secondhand smoke.
The number of children being exposed to this habit is very high. Of the 126 million non-smokers in the united states still exposed to secondhand smoke, more than a quarter are children (Von Sternberg 2009). This should therefore serve as a source of concern among all the stakeholders. A further study in 2005 by California Environmental Protection Agency, CEPA showed that SIDS caused the deaths of approximately 432 infants as a result of being exposed to secondhand smoke (33). The report also showed that the toxic level of secondhand smoke in a car is up to twenty fives higher than the effect in a house (42). Efforts to effects these bans have received enormous support from both the smokers and non-smokers. 85% of residents of Ontario, Canada, supported this ban in 2006 (CEPA 48). All these statistics serve to indicate the grave concerns expressed by people as a result of the exposure of youngsters to second hand smoke.
With all these statistics however, there are still those who are against the banning of smoking in cars. Those who are against the ban argue that smokers have a right to smoke in their vehicles and therefore regulating them is like invading their privacy (Kathleen, et al 74). Furthermore, there have been arguments regarding the enforcement of the ban. It will be extremely difficult for police, for example, to know the ages of teenaged children who are in cars. Additionally, they argue that what is needed is effective campaigns and public education, especially among parents (78). Thus, bringing in laws without considering this fact is an exercise in futility as long as parents do not have the information and awareness regarding the dangers they put their children in by exposing them to secondhand smoke. All in all, ensuring parental responsibility is the most important approach to this problem. Focusing on one environmental strategy, which is the car, is unrealistic. Long term educational strategies and not piecemeal legislation are the most appropriate means of ensuring that the rate of exposure to secondhand smoke is reduced.
Conclusion
Banning smoking in cars that have children is one habit that requires the concerted efforts of all people and government agencies to ensure the future health safety of young children. It is therefore encouraging that even though there has been lack of enough coordination in campaigns stop the habit, the opinions among majority of the public is one that supports the legislation to ban it. The health of children is of great importance and cannot be negotiated by various interests and legislation to this effect is just one way of ensuring that this remains so.
Works Cited
Von Sternberg, Bob. “Want to smoke? Bill says kids can’t be in the car: The measure to be introduced at the Legislative Friday would make it a crime to smoke in a car if children are present.” Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN.) 2009. Web.
Kathleen et al. “Environmental Health Perspectives. Developing Asthma in Childhood from Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Insights from a Meta-Regression 115 (2007) 1394-1400. Web.
“Second Hand Smoke” CRS- Adult Health Advisor. 2009: Web.
United States. California Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Audit of Smoking Related Pollution. San Diego: California, 2006.