By now, I’m sure most everyone on social media has seen or shared the article on the newest form of a smoking ban which includes the illegalization of smoking while there is a minor in the same vehicle. I’ve seen it numerous times in the past week. However, many who shared it seemed to believe this is a law being passed in the United States of America. This is incorrect. The law only affects England and Wales starting Oct. 1.

The law was designed to help protect those under the age of 18 from the dangers of secondhand smoke, which I can completely understand. As a person who grew up with a father that smoked, I often dealt with being around the smoke and the effects it had on my health. However, this is not a valid point, because I grew up during a time when people could also smoke in bars and restaurants with any aged minors around them. These situations have changed throughout my lifetime. Yes, my dad smoked and most of his friends smoked. Anywhere I went when I was younger had smokers involved. And while I’m glad that legislation is starting to consider the helplessness of minors in these situations, I don’t fully see how this law can be regulated.

According to AWD News, “The law does not apply if the driver is 17 years old and is on their own in the car.” However, it was mentioned that minors were considered younger than 18, and in the previous sentence the article stated that it included “those aged 17 and those with a provisional driving licence.” I think that the definition of a minor needs to be concrete and clearly defined. To have someone listed as 17 that is considered a minor if an older person is driving, but to also be considered legal to smoke on their own doesn’t seem to match for me. I think that for legal purposes, the age needs to be strictly defined and not given any gray areas. This allows for people to try working their way around the law, which always causes issues.

Another gray area appears for me when the definition of the vehicle is described. The article again states: “It still applies if people have the windows or sunroof open, have the air conditioning on, or if they sit in the open doorway of the vehicle.” Basically, any vehicle that is enclosed wholly or partly by a roof will have the law applied to them. Convertibles are not going to be held under the same law. I can completely understand this logic because there isn’t a roof to trap the smoke inside. However, to have the law apply to someone sitting in the open doorway with the smoke going straight up completely outside of the vehicle would follow the same logic to me. And maybe this would be legal and the authorities wouldn’t enforce it, but what if they do? What if it’s just another way to fine a civilian because the officer believed them to be inside the vehicle? Then it’s the commoner’s word versus the authority.

Obviously, that situation was exaggerated a little bit, but I hope you can see my point. It’s all a matter of perspective and it all depends on the situation. I believe that if you make a law that is based on the age of a minor, then the legislation should stick to it, not provide loopholes for those considered “minors” to make their own decisions. To consider the 17-year-old a minor with others, but yet adult enough to smoke on their own seems wishy-washy solely based on situational circumstances. At least lower the minor age to something that everyone can agree on without including clauses.

But all of this ultimately doesn’t matter to me because this is happening across the Atlantic. I also happen to live in a state that doesn’t have a restriction on smoking with minors in the car. According to Local 8 Now, the U.S. has 7 states, including Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont, along with Puerto Rico that have such restrictions. So, I can see that the ban is starting to make its way into our legislature. However, I still have my questions and concerns.

Now, I’m not a smoker, and I am completely supportive of the idea of not forcing minors to be around secondhand smoke, especially in confined places. I love the fact that Western Michigan University became a tobacco-free campus. So, it’s not that I’m against a ban like this becoming a reality here in the states; I just don’t see it happening, at least not in the way that supporters would be hoping for. I just don’t see how police would regulate the law. Would they pull over every single car that they see smoke coming out of? And can you tell that it’s smoke? What if it’s vapor from e-cigarettes, which are not included in such a ban? How can you make the distinction enough to take the time to pull over someone who could be completely innocent?

Also, how can you tell if people in the car are indeed minors? If we look solely at the age range of under 18 years old, can an officer correctly tell if someone is 18 or 19 when the vehicle is driving past them? How much time, resources, and tax dollars would be spent on searching for someone to pull over and actually go through the effort of fining them the specified amount for their crime?

I see a similarity to the law of everyone having to wear their seatbelt. I know that that is the law, but I also know that there are plenty of people who break it every day, and even those who probably break it while driving through those random seatbelt checkpoints that are held every once in a while. The media has placed such an emphasis on buckling up, but yet the crime still happens every single day by hundreds of people. I see the same thing happening with smoking if the law ever became nationwide.

Smokers are going to smoke. It’s their thing. WMU may be a tobacco-free campus, but I used to sit in the office I worked in and look out the window and see groups of students huddle under the stairway of Knauss Hall and smoke to their heart's (or lung's) content. What punishment is there to give them that will actually make them stop? It’s a habit. It’s an addiction. Making it illegal in one area doesn’t stop it from occurring completely. Sure, they can’t smoke in the car with their child, but they are still smoking at home, in the very same room with them later that day.

What can legislation honestly do when the box of cigarettes blatantly tells them that smoking is harmful? Trust me, they know. And they still do it. Some do quit, and I give them extreme props because I know it was hard. But there are those that like smoking and nothing will ever change that. It also will never change the fact that their smoking harms those around them.

Yes, I grew up in a vehicle with secondhand smoke. And a house. And a skybox at the racetrack. And yes, I dealt with some health issues, such as bronchitis, that would have been awesome to avoid. But here I am. I know what smoking does to a person just being around them and I know I will never smoke a day in my life. It’s not for me, and it won’t be around my kids.

And as much as I wish that minors could go throughout their whole life without dealing with it until they were “adult” enough to make their own decision, I also know that that will never happen. At least, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, especially not in a country where the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars each year. According to The Tobacco Atlas, estimates of revenues from the global tobacco industry likely approach a half trillion U.S. dollars annually. In 2010, the combined profits of the six leading tobacco companies was U.S. $35.1 billion, equal to the combined profits of Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonald's in the same year. Again, in that same fiscal year, the federal excise tax on cigarettes brought in $15.5 billion in revenue. And that was five years ago with cigarettes being a lot cheaper. Imagine the revenue now with a pack costing around $7 each?

Now, do you honestly think they are going to put that out?