This was an letter to the editor of The Orgeonian that I wrote in response to this opinion piece by Jack Roberts. You can find it published here.
…
Like many Americans, Jack Roberts fears the “nanny state.” (“Driving bills distract legislature from the big issues,” March 21) That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but when that fear trumps the health and well being of children, it’s time to re-examine our priorities.
Like Roberts, I’m a “survivor of smoking parents and a lifelong nonsmoker.” My father loved to smoke in the car. It’s what people did in the ’70s, when no one worried about the adverse health effects of cigarettes (or secondhand smoke). For years, I was forced to vicariously smoke Dad’s cigarettes. Growing up in northern Minnesota, one couldn’t just roll down a window during the dead of winter. I had no choice in the matter; he smoked and therefore so did I.
Roberts opposes the proposed ban on smoking in cars when children are present. Enforcing such a law may be problematic, but that shouldn’t justify doing nothing. We have laws designed to protect children from physical and sexual abuse. Why should protecting them from exposure to secondhand smoke be considered beyond the pale?
I have no idea what impact those years of vicarious smoking did to my health. There’s no use in worrying; what’s done is done. There’s no changing what tobacco-addicted parents subjected children of my generation to. What we CAN do is acknowledge the risk posed by secondhand smoke and create legislation designed to protect children.
Smoking is a matter of choice and free will…for adults. For the children of smokers, there is no choice. No child should have to endure what Roberts and I did.
I resented my father for forcing me to share the byproducts of his tobacco addiction. His need to feed that addiction, while not malicious, was more important than the health of his son. The result of that forcible exposure is that I can’t tolerate tobacco smoke in any form. That resentment is why I’m profoundly anti-tobacco.
From a cost/benefit viewpoint, we have a collective responsibility to protect children from secondhand smoke. If parents can’t get past their addiction, then it falls on government to take responsibility. It’s the right thing to do…and it will undoubtedly result in lower health care costs.
Enforcing a ban on smoking in a car when children are present presents a challenge. It’s not a perfect solution, and more needs to be done to ensure that no child is ever forced to smoke vicariously. We should remain vigilant against government overreach, but there are times when protecting children requires the involvement of government. This is one of those times…and a “ban on smoking in homes where children live” might just be another idea worth examining.
