This will allow for any criminal acts to be noticed and even prevented. With the same justification, can state propose to install cameras in the individuals' homes and monitor the activity there?
Obviously not, and the main argumentation that refutes this is the fact that the individual's home is a private place and, additionally, a place where the individual likes to enjoy his privacy. Continuing with analogies in this area, it would be similar to the state imposing a ban on smoking inside the individual's own home. If we consider the case of smoking in a car with the child, it isn't so far off in fact. Something like this can lead to a dangerous trend that can encourage the state to increase and continue its involvement in regulating the individual lives.
Can we afford this type of intervention? In my opinion, we cannot and the argumentation against such a legislative act is based, as mentioned, not necessarily only on this particular case that the legislation is attempting to regulate, but also on a bigger perspective, a wider framework, which does not encourage state interference in private individual matters.
There is also an ethical perspective we can look into. No doubt that this constant support towards protecting non-smokers and potential passive smokers is a positive trend that has been going on for the past decade or more. However, we may have the feeling, at some point, that this crusade has already crossed some barriers and that we are almost dealing with a witch hunt against smokers, a concentrated campaign to decrease the sale of cigarettes and simply deter people from smoking.
While this might be an excellent thing for health related...
Forcing people into giving up their habit is not the right answer: they will have to realize themselves that smoking is bad for them and for the people around them and the campaigns should rather be targeted in that sense rather in reducing to almost none the places where smoking is still allowed.
In my opinion, this type of campaigning will usually just turn smokers the other way, encouraging them to find ways by which these regulations and laws can be avoided. Enforcing a regulation that is very limitative in this case is probably not the appropriate solution.
As we have seen, the argumentation for or against the passing of a
law that forbids smoking in cars with
children smaller than 5 years or weighing less than 40 pounds is based on several pillars. First of all, we have the interest of the child, but, on the same pillar, the necessity for the state to intervene in the educational relationship between
parent and son. Second, we have referred to the private vs. public pillar and have discussed the degree to which state is entitled to intervene in individual and private lives in order to enforce its rules and regulations. Third, we have also briefly referred to the
morality of such an action, suggesting that the concerted campaign against smokers can be more informational rather than continuously restrictive as it is at this point.
From all these perspectives, we can only argue against a law that would regulate smoking in the individual's own car, as an infringement against
privacy and as a way in which state can dangerously intervene and impose in a private individual space. In my opinion, there are other ways to ensure that the child is protected against smoking and I think that it would not be a good sign if such a law was passed.
