Quoting from the Pediatrics article "Beliefs About the Health Effects of 'Thirdhand' Smoke and Home Smoking Bans" by
Knowing this, the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom has called for a smoking ban in vehicles. The goal is to protect children, who are unable to advocate for themselves when riding in cars in which adults choose to smoke. I couldn't agree more! As parents and physicians, we have a responsibility to advocate for the health of all children, who don't have a say in whether they are exposed to the damaging effects of ETS. They are completely dependent upon the decisions we make, and permit others to make.
Without an outright ban on smoking, we cannot legislate what happens within the home. However, there are municipalities within the U.S. that have proposed classifying smoking in a vehicle carrying minors as a secondary offense, meaning that although a police officer cannot stop you for smoking, they can cite you for smoking if you are pulled over for another reason. It's a start, but this only addresses the risks of second-hand, and not third-hand smoke. (Anyone who's stepped into a taxi where the cabbie had been recently smoking knows where I'm coming from.)
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I view ETS as a child-endangerment issue. Given the documented risks of third-hand smoke and the exquisite susceptibility of young children to it, why should we tolerate anything less than a ban on smoking in vehicles altogether? Of course, there are those who argue that such a ban would be an affront to personal liberty.
My argument: why should your "right" to smoke trump your child's right to breathe clean air?
What do you think? In the United States, could a ban on smoking in vehicles ever be enforecable?