It has been scientifically proven that passive smoking is harmful to your health. Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach therefore wants to ban smoking in vehicles when minors or pregnant women are on board. “Children and pregnant women need better protection in society,” passive smoking could cause them “permanent damage,” a spokesman for the Ministry of Health quoted the SPD politician as saying on Friday.
Lauterbach is taking up a state initiative with its project, which is to be anchored in the non-smoker protection law. For years, several federal states have been calling for the smoking ban, which already applies in local public transport, for example, to be extended to all closed vehicles if minors or pregnant women are present.
“Berliner Morgenpost”: Health Minister Karl Lauterbach wants to ban smoking in private cars if minors or pregnant women are traveling. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser recently proposed a knife ban on buses and trains. Only: Lauterbach and Faeser do not say how they want to control that. Bans that cannot be enforced are mostly ineffective. They are symbolic politics. When people notice this, they tend to smile at politicians rather than credit them with problem-solving skills. A ban can posit values in a society (you shouldn’t smoke when your child is sitting next to you!). All sensible parents should know that by now. Even without the threat of punishment.
“Badische Zeitung” (Freiburg): “(…) Karl Lauterbach (…) wants (..) a smoking ban in the car to protect minors and the unborn. In principle, there is nothing to be said against it – not at all the indication that the car is a private space. (…) But where does it say that you can harm third parties in your private environment – be it the car or the apartment? And passive smoking is now clearly and proven a risk to health. (. ..) But it’s tricky when the state issues new rules – while at the same time the police don’t have enough people to enforce them.(…) There is a way out of this dilemma for Lauterbach: He should ban smoking in the car , so always and no matter who is traveling with you. (…)”
“Westfälische Nachrichten” (Münster): “Anyone who smokes in the presence of non-smokers not only behaves extremely inconsiderately, they damage the health of others – especially pregnant women and children. (…) But: Does the legislature really have to ban everything that Didn’t you hear? Is the state allowed to intervene so deeply in private life? After all, for quite a few Germans, the car is something like the second living room – a quasi-private space. And what would happen if the state stopped smoking in your own four walls forbid?”
“Schwäbische Zeitung” (Ravensburg): One may not believe it: But there are still people who indulge their nicotine addiction while children or pregnant women are in the car. And we’re not talking about earlier times, when no place from the office to the pub remained untouched by the blue haze. We are talking about the year 2023 and the long-established knowledge of the serious consequences of smoke, also for passive smokers and primarily for adolescents and the unborn. Now everyone may be free to smoke or not, that’s part of our liberal society and it should stay that way. But this freedom also includes protecting bystanders from negative consequences. The best way to get there is usually good arguments and persuasiveness, especially in a world full of regulations and laws. However, if the butt is lit in the car in the presence of children or a pregnant woman, a limit has been crossed. With so much idiocy only the heavy hand of punishment helps.
“Südkurier” (Kostanz): It is a legitimate medical requirement that vehicles in which children ride are smoke-free. Because many adults ignore their responsibilities. The problem: A ban would be just as difficult to control as the use of mobile phones while driving, which has already been sanctioned with a fine. Of course you can still introduce it, because every educational tool is helpful. But you will only really get ahead with an intensive information campaign. This would also explain to smokers why the health of children and unborn children who smoke passively is suffering. A ban alone cannot do that.
“The Glocke” (Oelde): Anyone who goes through life with clear common sense – in this specific case: drives – leaves the fags in the box. Anyone who takes their role model function seriously does not need a ban. Punishing tobacco use at the wheel will get you nowhere. Rather even annoyance. Not another ban, think those who are only too happy to chafe at the government’s frenzy of regulation. The very term draft bill makes some people shudder. Again nothing matched, again nothing spelled out. Protecting minors and the unborn from passive smoking: praiseworthy. Well meant, however, is often the opposite of well done. How, please, should the ban be controlled? Do police officers not only have to collect fines for speed offenders and mobile phone users, but also for tobacco users accompanied by expectant mothers and adolescents? How can a pregnancy be recognized in the first few months? No, a ban cannot be implemented in practice. What helps is a sense of responsibility. and mind.
“Mitteldeutsche Zeitung” (Halle): One of the main arguments against a smoking ban in cars was and is that it is a private space in which the state cannot simply intervene. That’s true. But third parties are harmed by the smoker, and then the situation is very different. Killing someone in their own apartment is also not allowed – private space or not. The further argument that a ban is useless because it cannot be controlled at all is easy to refute. The police are used to observing the interior through their experience with drivers using the phone. There is even much to be said for a general ban on smoking in cars because it distracts the driver. Lauterbach should therefore go a little further.
“Darmstädter Echo”: Ultimately, it’s about weighing up what weighs more heavily: the personal freedom of the smoker in the car or the physical integrity of the co-drivers who were steamed. Many European countries have decided this long ago – smoking bans apply there as soon as a child or young person is on board. In addition, the ban idea is not from Lauterbach. Rather, the Minister of Health has taken up a demand from the federal states. Now the objection can be raised: is a ban really needed to protect children and pregnant women? Consideration should be a matter of course. But unfortunately she isn’t. In any case, the whole thing lends itself perfectly to a dispute. There are actually more important issues at the moment.
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”: Passive smoking is a real danger. Heart disease, lung, larynx and pharynx cancer, even breast cancer in women can be the result of unintentionally smoking at an early age. (…) So it is only too understandable that a draft law by the Ministry of Health provides for a ban on smoking in cars when underage or pregnant people are driving. With a draft bill for cannabis legalization, the non-smoker protection law is to be changed accordingly. (…) All right. But if you take a step back, the situation looks different. Many people feel that the state is increasingly interfering in their private lives. (…) In addition, the question of enforceability in the car remains, and the less you can enforce a law, the more ridiculous it seems. (…)
“Lausitzer Rundschau” (Cottbus): In view of the timing, one can assume that this could also be about making good weather for the states. On Monday there will be the last round of negotiations on hospital reform. So far, the countries have opposed each other on several points. But Lauterbach wants success. And now goes to the countries on the forbidden field. Because they had called for a ban on smoking in the car several times, most recently a good year ago. At that time, the ministry had declared that it had constitutional concerns – after all, the car is considered a private space, so a ban could be an invasion of privacy, just as if the state were to ban smoking in your own home. Lauterbach suddenly no longer has these concerns. This reinforces the suspicion that this is more about headlines than about children’s health.
