Comments Off

By rebecca, December 5, 2007 6:50 am

I put Colum to sleep tonight and tried not to look around at all. Even though my attention was firmly affixed to the new episode of Gossip Girl (such a guilty pleasure), it still felt like my home had been hit by a freakishly localized tornado. And then come under attack by robbers and vandals.

Last week I wrote about the importance of routine, and this week I can testify to the chaos brought about by ditching your routine for five days straight. Colum is fine, of course. Better than ever, in fact. It’s the state of my apartment and my own mental equilibrium that are the main victims here. It was a fever that kept us inside all day Friday. It then kept Colum and Dad home on Saturday (while I was at work). By Sunday the fever had given way to diarrhea (yay!) and a rash-covered back. On Monday morning, Colum’s spirits were returning (if not his appetite), but the rash had spread to his stomach and chest. Our doctor couldn’t squeeze him in for a couple days, but my internet research suggests this is probably a mild case of roseola and nothing to worry about. Still, it’s cold and snowy and he could be contagious, so we stay in. By today I am completely stir crazy. We head over to my parent’s home where I know my brother is recovering from last week’s U of T essay madness. We eat lunch and loll about and nap and snack and then come home and read and eat dinner and pull many, many books off many, many shelves. Looking up from Graham Greene’s The Power And The Glory, Colum says, “No pic-ers.” He then puts that one book neatly back on the shelf and we get ready for bed.

I need my days broken into bite-sized pieces, it seems. If we are doing something in between breakfast and lunch, then tidying up is part of the breakfast routine. When we just hang around, so do the dishes. And so does the laundry and the rest of the mess. A sick boy needs extra attention, though, and that’s excuse enough for me.

Comments (1)

By rebecca, December 3, 2007 9:21 am

It turns out that it is illegal – a criminal offense – to smoke in a vehicle carrying a child in the town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia. City councilors in Ontario’s York region and in London, Ontario are proposing similar laws in their respective municipalities. And now the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) is pushing for a province-wide ban on smoking in cars with kids.

Let me first go on record as being against exposing children to toxic fumes of any stripe. That includes cigarette smoke, especially in vehicles. I think we should do our utmost to raise our children in the safest and healthiest environment possible. It is irresponsible not to. But why, oh why, is the first line of attack here an outright prohibition?

The last I checked, a person’s car is part of their personal property. It is a private space where the government cannot impinge on personal freedoms with undue cause. (This is a basic value of our western liberal democracy. I am not prepared to make a detailed legal argument here.) There is ample evidence directly linking alcohol consumption with impaired driving, and car seats with lower mortality rates in collisions. There is good reason, then, for drinking and driving and car seat laws. The evidence surrounding second-hand smoke is still murky, I’m afraid. Yes, life-long exposure to high levels of second-hand smoke has been linked to respiratory ailments, but just how much exposure puts one at just how much risk is unclear. We can certainly acknowledge that exposure to cigarette smoke may contribute to the future ill health of a child. We can even aggressively disapprove of the act of smoking in a car with a child without making the act criminal. Individual freedoms are the cornerstone of our society, and should only be subject to limits in light of clear evidence of direct harm.

Why not push for a public service campaign, then? In their press release, the OMA claims that “levels of second-hand smoke(SHS) in vehicles can be 23 times more toxic than in a house.” That is actually a good bit of information most people are not aware of. It would probably not go unheeded by the majority of people who do smoke in vehicles with children. Who are these people anyway? Is there some sort of an epidemic of people with children lighting up in their cars? Has the problem gotten so far out of hand that we must pass legislation against it? Or, perhaps, it is more plausible to assume there has been a steady decline in the number of people smoking in their cars with or without children. And if the elevated toxin levels were advertised in a campaign that urged people to refrain from smoking on road trips with the family – even suggest pulling over and letting the kids stretch their legs while you get you nic fix if need be – then I’m sure most people would listen. You see, most people (even dirty smokers) want to do what’s best for their children.

Will there be 100 per cent compliance? No. But no law is completely effective either. The potential for harm here simply does not warrant any infringement on personal freedom. Should we make it illegal to not properly childproof one’s bathroom? (Oh yes, I know you mean to lock that medicine cabinet. And are those razors in that drawer?) How about a ban on that second cookie? Or the first, for that matter? Our freedoms should not be subject to the prevailing trends and morality of the day – no matter how much we believe in them. And, I’m sorry, but exposure to second-hand smoke is not child abuse.

On a related note … While researching this piece for Spacing, I interviewed Geoffery Harris, director of the Centre for Atmospheric Chemistry at York University. He mentioned an experiment that measured the levels of carbon monoxide present in a vehicle traveling Toronto area freeways and compared them to the levels pedestrians are normally exposed to. He said, “It was quite an illuminating little study. Just to drive along the 401 at varying times of the day with the windows open, just to see what was in the air that drivers are breathing. And it actually made very little difference whether the windows were open or not. And the levels were surprisingly high … They were much higher than I would have expected, and I should know these things.” Despite being pretty good at keeping cigarette smoke in, cars are apparently not very good at keeping other toxins out. Maybe children shouldn’t be allowed in cars at all? Of course not. But maybe if more people knew about these air quality concerns they would choose local daycare over workplace care, and real neighbourhoods over subdivisions.

(Photo courtesty of Benetton Talk)