I’ll say it right up front; I don’t smoke. But many do, and I wonder how far a municipal unit can go to prevent people from lighting up.

I read with interest the reaction to a story last week on our website about a possible smoking ban in Wolfville. It mirrors a similar prohibition passed last month in Bangor, Maine, where people face a $50 fine if they smoke in a car with anyone under 18 present. Three American states have also looked at the issue and Wolfville town council has been asked to consider something similar.

In Wolfville’s case, the proposed ban would apply if anyone under the age of 16 were in the vehicle. In other words, if you smoke and have a kid in the car, butt out or pay up.

We all know that smokers are in the crosshairs, and have been for some time. Various legislative edicts have disallowed lighting up in restaurants, public places and now perhaps the last bastion of smoking pleasure left outside the home, your car.

On one hand, it’s a no-brainer. Second-hand smoke is deadly. Myriad studies have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and this underpins the proposal.

But does a municipal unit have the authority to deny smokers in their own cars? Sure, the vehicle traverses roadways in town and the town is responsible for maintenance, care and upkeep of those avenues, but a car is personal property.

Does the town’s reach extend so far? It can, for instance, if you don’t pay your property taxes or utilities. It can shut off your water, put a lien on your property, cut your power or seek legal remedy should circumstances permit.

But to my mind it has no such jurisdiction over the inside of a vehicle. Permits and registration are issued at the provincial level through the Department of Transportation and legislative authority is enacted under the provincial Motor Vehicles Act. Municipal police or RCMP patrol town streets, and any offences are heard in provincial court.

As well, should the bylaw be constituted, can the court system afford to be clogged with people challenging the legality of the bylaw? Believe me, it’ll be challenged.

Smokers feel persecuted already and the proposed bylaw has done nothing to minimize their angst.

Here’s the thing. I believe smoking cessation is good. The more people who quit the better: for them; an overburdened health care system; and those who may be affected by second-hand smoke, particularly infants and young children.

However, I have a problem with the proposed ban because I suspect it borders on the infringement of civil rights. I can’t imagine, also, how any town or municipal unit will police such a prohibition.

Cops have enough to do without going around ticketing people for smoking in their own cars if an underage person is present. There’s a bigger picture, and we need to go there.

Good old common sense would dictate to anyone that second-hand smoke in such a constrained environment is potentially harmful, so why not push that envelope if you want a hobby horse to ride?

Initiate a hard-hitting education program with incentives for success reason rather than a bylaw that could divide communities, has little chance of enforcement and taxes policing resources that are already stretched to the limit.