The State, Private Freedoms And Health

I think Nova Scotia was the first province to enter the private domain and ban smoking in cars where children were present. Naturally, other provinces followed and Quebec is next in line to consider the ban.

Just another case of state hypocrisy interfering in the lives of private citizens. The issue of passive smoking having negative long-term effects is only part of the equation.  

The American Cancer Society:

Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

Fair enough. But it is the interference of the nanny-state into the private lives of individuals.The new philosophical rationale for permitting the expansion and role of the state in our lives revolves around the notion that since we all pay into a universal health care plan, people who exhibit poor health choices significantly pose a health risk and therefore end up costing taxpayers more money.

If that's the case, so much for the belief ours is a compassionate system. I didn't realize we employed such a rigid cost-analysis angle to the welfare state. Well, selectively anyway.

When you think of it, the case for more private alternatives becomes stronger if it means preserving the sanctity of personal choice and freedoms. Let me explain. If there were private options, the argument "people pose a health risk and therefore increase costs for the pool of taxpayers" would be irrelevant since private entities don't rely on public funds to survive. So: More government control, less choice. The debate is, how balanced, if accepted, is this equation?

The question is: when do they overstep their boundaries? Ok, so you stop smoking in the car. But what if that family eats McDonald's four times a week? Or a child eats ice cream everyday? That's gotta hit the liver or pancreas hard I reckon.

My father smoke two packs a day for all the time I lived at home. One of the places he smoked was the car. The last time this was the case was probably 20 years ago. In the last 20 years, my family has been through many check ups (general and detailed) and so far nothing has shown up. If that's the case, and something develops in the next 20 years, how can we really link it to passive smoking with any degree of certainty? By then, we could pin it on almost anything. A strong suspicion is not enough.

I liked this comment at the University of Toronto's The Strand by one Thomas Laprade I pulled from the internet (where else?) It certainly makes the case for the slippery slope regarding this issue:

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 decision about 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

We've already seen this development in cases where a judge over rules a punishment levied by a parent on their own child. Look, smoking is a terrible habit. Parents shouldn't smoke in a car where kids are present. Most of us are rational enough to know this. However, is it the state's role to govern our private lives?

Let me take it a step farther. Why passive smoke and not gambling? The utter immoral hypocrisy of the state running a casion. The Casino de Montreal operates exactly like any private casino found in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. That is, they prey on gamblers and lure them into the casino to spend money. They perpetuate the disease. In a cynical ploy to pretend they care, they then turn around and pay for those seeking to rid themselves of their gambling addiction. They take the gamblers money and then they use taxpayer money to cure a disease they help to maintain!

What a scandalous racket. And now they want to enter our private spaces, be it in a car or home?

I wish the war on drunk driving was as vigilant as the one we're witnessing on smoking - which remains, curiously enough, a legal vice.

At some point, we just have to say, 'enough.' This is the line and don't cross it. 

***

All this talk reminds me of the theory of revoking a person's drivers license or passport for committing a social foul like not paying alimony. On some level, I'm sure it must deter some people from breaking the law but does it cure the ill?

The power of revoking is only as strong as the willingness of the person to help him or herself. If they don't, social ills and evils remain. The government can't do squat to save us. Only we can. And by "we" I mean by ourselves - when we look in the mirror.

Everything else is an illusion of progress.