Banning Smoking in Public Parks?

[Boges]

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10357583

Toronto did lead the pack in the ban on smoking in public areas at one point, but according to the chair of Toronto's Board of Health, we have fallen behind and things need to change.

Councillor John Fillion thinks the city should expand on it's outdoor smoking ban.

While he wouldn't go as far as to say where, he did tell the Star that several people had complained to him about smoking in Mel Lastman Square.

He adds that council might consider a ban where large numbers of people congregate and where the smoking could impact their health.

On Thursday, it was reported that the community of Georgina will have tougher smoking bylaws, essentially banning smoking at the beach, at parks or on trails.

In April, Ottawa will ban smoking in all outdoor restaurants, bar patios, city owned parks, playgrounds, beaches, sports fields and food markets. Hamilton will be doing the same in May.

Toronto's smoking ban is already in place in workplaces, restaurants and bars and within 9 metres of city playgrounds, and pools.

I'm not a cigarette smoker but I do enjoy the occasional cigar. I don't smoke it in my house but on nice days I take my dog for a walk and have a cigar or walk a few clicks to a cafe nearby and smoke a cigar along the way.

Or walk by a baseball diamond and watch a baseball game while walking my dog and smoking a cigar.

Or I have a tumbler of scotch and cigar in my back patio.

Can anyone really provide convincing evidence that any of those smoking activities really harm people that come within, say 10 feet of me. Or people that pass me on the sidewalk?

If governments go that far perhaps they should just ban smoking and give up the tax revenue.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Boges

[Wild Bill]

Can anyone really provide convincing evidence that any of those smoking activities really harm people that come within, say 10 feet of me. Or people that pass me on the sidewalk?

It never was about protecting anyone from harm, Boges. It's always been about making people do what OTHERS think is good for them!

I'm not a smoker myself but as a classic Liberal type of guy I have been following the issue for years and to me that conclusion seems obvious.

Why is it that in most cities when workplace smokers "take it outside" the company is not allowed to give them even a tarp as a roof over their heads to keep off the snow or rain?

Initially the talk was about the protection of non-smokers but that has long since evolved into simply trying to making smoking as difficult an act to perform as possible. The strategy has been to keep gradually reducing the places where one can smoke, supposedly to arrive at some mythical "tipping point" where smokers will just decide to give up their habit.

The most ridiculous thing about this approach is that it takes for granted smokers will not figure it out! In reality, they figured it out long ago and have been harbouring a festering resentment of those practicing such manipulation.

I have firmly believed for years that there is nothing more popular than forcing your neighbour to do do what YOU think is good for him!

Except maybe forcing him to pay for YOUR pet idea!

[Michael Hardner]

It never was about protecting anyone from harm, Boges. It's always been about making people do what OTHERS think is good for them!

Are they wrong in saying that smoking causes harm ?

Do you not think it's easier to quit smoking without smoking being everywhere - in bars, restaurants, on patios and so on ?

[GostHacked]

Are they wrong in saying that smoking causes harm ?

Do you not think it's easier to quit smoking without smoking being everywhere - in bars, restaurants, on patios and so on ?

The choice of smoking or non smoking should be up the establishment owner. I am not a smoker, I am not for banning, but I am for giving them a slap and a fine for littering their butts all over the place.

The government is getting more intrusive into people's daily lives more and more. These are the same guys that got lobby money from the cigarette manufacturers.

[fellowtraveller]

The next Revolution will be smokers rising up and smashing The Man.

Who has not seen these poor wretches huddled outside together in the cold and rain- bitter, angry, shunned as unclean by society? In little groups everywhere they are conspiring to violently overthrow their oppressors.

You read it here first.

[Michael Hardner]

The government is getting more intrusive into people's daily lives more and more. These are the same guys that got lobby money from the cigarette manufacturers.

In Canada, it makes more sense because we have more collective responsibility than individual responsibility. I'm all for government making it more difficult, and more cumbersome to engage in bad health practices.

[Michael Hardner]

In little groups everywhere they are conspiring to violently overthrow their oppressors.

You read it here first.

No. Even smokers know that they shouldn't be doing it. I don't think enough of them are so proud of their bad habits that they would defend them with violence.

[GostHacked]

In Canada, it makes more sense because we have more collective responsibility than individual responsibility. I'm all for government making it more difficult, and more cumbersome to engage in bad health practices.

If people want to engage in bad health practices, that should be up to the individual and they should understand the consequences. Personal choice and personal responsibility. But the nanny state should not dictate how we live our lives. It's we the people (or at least it should be, and perhaps was at some point) should be telling government what to do.

It's the live and let live type of view I have.

We have corporations raping and spewing toxic substances into our environment making the smoke ban a complete joke. You will get a fine, they get away with it.

[Wild Bill]

In Canada, it makes more sense because we have more collective responsibility than individual responsibility. I'm all for government making it more difficult, and more cumbersome to engage in bad health practices.

You may be right that those who ascribe to "collective responsibility" have become the majority in Canada, Michael. Myself, I certainly hope not but as I said, you might be right that it has gone that far.

You see, to those who believe in individual responsibility, a term like "collective responsibility" comes across as simple marxism! The very LAST thing such people want is to have the right to make their own choices taken away from them, even if it is for their own good!

A citizen is either an adult or a child. A child cannot make many decisions for himself. Supposedly, that is the major part of being an adult.

And adult chooses for himself and more than that, has the right to be wrong!

When you have a society where one group has decided that they know better as to what is right or wrong AND believes that they have the right to make those decisions for others then we are headed for a confrontation! I doubt if smokers are going to arm themselves but already I've seen signs where a smoker refuses to support some social initiative in his community, taking the attitude of "no one gives a damn for my choices so why should I care about some else's?"

It may be petty but sadly, it is only human nature.

You really are talking about the "nanny state". Those who support such often have great difficulty understanding why someone would rebel so vehemently against the very idea but nonetheless, they absolutely, positively DO!

[Michael Hardner]

If people want to engage in bad health practices, that should be up to the individual and they should understand the consequences. Personal choice and personal responsibility. But the nanny state should not dictate how we live our lives. It's we the people (or at least it should be, and perhaps was at some point) should be telling government what to do.

I thought you lived in Canada ? This is the nanny state, so live with it. Should it be a nanny state ?

It's annoying, I'll grant you that, but if I have to pay for your stupidity then your stupidity needs penalties and disincentives.

We have corporations raping and spewing toxic substances into our environment making the smoke ban a complete joke. You will get a fine, they get away with it.

Cynical... they don't always get away with it and what kind of logic is that anyway ? If bad behavior goes unpunished then we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever... that's the end state of your logic there.

[fellowtraveller]

No. Even smokers know that they shouldn't be doing it. I don't think enough of them are so proud of their bad habits that they would defend them with violence.

Your denial only confirms your leadership role in The Conspiracy.

You may have lulled others into complacency, but I'm watching you now.

[Michael Hardner]

You see, to those who believe in individual responsibility, a term like "collective responsibility" comes across as simple marxism! The very LAST thing such people want is to have the right to make their own choices taken away from them, even if it is for their own good!

These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. You're responsible for yourself in life, and nobody has taken that away.

A citizen is either an adult or a child. A child cannot make many decisions for himself. Supposedly, that is the major part of being an adult.

And adult chooses for himself and more than that, has the right to be wrong!

There's a limit to stupid choices, though, and pretty much everybody agrees that these limits exist. Hard drugs is an example that comes to mind.

You really are talking about the "nanny state". Those who support such often have great difficulty understanding why someone would rebel so vehemently against the very idea but nonetheless, they absolutely, positively DO!

And there are good philosophical bases for those ideas, but in a practical sense it's hard to get behind them. No laws requiring motorcycle helmets ? Great idea guys.... Face it - people make stupid choices and it's just more practical to stop them from doing it than for us to pay for their actions in all kinds of ways...

[Michael Hardner]

Your denial only confirms your leadership role in The Conspiracy.

You may have lulled others into complacency, but I'm watching you now.

Watch for me to become a shrill anti-smoker within the next few hours... I quit smoking 3 days ago !

[Wild Bill]

And there are good philosophical bases for those ideas, but in a practical sense it's hard to get behind them. No laws requiring motorcycle helmets ? Great idea guys.... Face it - people make stupid choices and it's just more practical to stop them from doing it than for us to pay for their actions in all kinds of ways...

Why do we pay for them? I assume you are talking about publicly funded healthcare. I've always found this to be a bit smarmy, considering that we have removed any other choice! Paying for your own care is illegal! So is simply not getting any care at all.

So we remove the choice to be responsible for any health care consequences of our own life style and then use it as an excuse to dictate OUR lifestyle choices upon the individual!

Sorry Michael but a classic Liberal like me can never support such a scheme! To me, it's just rigging the game to enable that aforementioned nanny state!

[Guest Manny]

I'm all for the idea that people should be able to do what they want with themselves, as long as it doesn't harm/ negatively affect others. In the case of smoking, it does negatively affect others. Second hand smoke makes me feel sick. I hate the smell, even on my clothes after being in a smoke filled environment. I find it gross even when talking to someone who has just had a smoke, I can smell it on them and on their breath but that's not really a big problem. Being directly in someone else's toxic smoke cloud is a problem.

So I think smoking should still be allowed, but not in public places. Just like drinking... there should be designated areas, and ventilation equipment would be a good idea, where appropriate.

I've even heard the anti-smoking brigade wants to ban it in people's private cars and homes, if small children are being exposed. That goes too far I think. But it's a tough call.

Public parks? Yeah. No smoking in public at all. Like with alcohol.

[eyeball]

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10357583

I'm not a cigarette smoker but I do enjoy the occasional cigar. I don't smoke it in my house but on nice days I take my dog for a walk and have a cigar or walk a few clicks to a cafe nearby and smoke a cigar along the way.

Or walk by a baseball diamond and watch a baseball game while walking my dog and smoking a cigar.

Or I have a tumbler of scotch and cigar in my back patio.

Can anyone really provide convincing evidence that any of those smoking activities really harm people that come within, say 10 feet of me. Or people that pass me on the sidewalk?

If governments go that far perhaps they should just ban smoking and give up the tax revenue.

Well, letting people just wander around while ingesting mind-altering substances in public does send a poor message.

By the way, is your back patio within two blocks of a public school or otherwise visible to children?

[Bonam]

If people want to engage in bad health practices, that should be up to the individual and they should understand the consequences. Personal choice and personal responsibility.

I'd agree, but that's not an option in Canada. In Canada, I get to pay taxes so all the idiot smokers can have their lung cancer treatments paid for. No thanks.

As for public parks, there is nothing worse than having these parks covered in piles and piles of discarded cigarette butts. Smokers throw these on the ground without a care in the world. It's disgusting.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do we pay for them? I assume you are talking about publicly funded healthcare.

Healthcare is one way we pay, there are other social services that can have increased costs as well.

So we remove the choice to be responsible for any health care consequences of our own life style and then use it as an excuse to dictate OUR lifestyle choices upon the individual!

That's a mischaracterization. I already pointed out that you're responsible and you will have consequences.

Sorry Michael but a classic Liberal like me can never support such a scheme! To me, it's just rigging the game to enable that aforementioned nanny state!

Liberals have supported healthcare for a long time, but not [classical] liberals.

[Wild Bill]

I'm all for the idea that people should be able to do what they want with themselves, as long as it doesn't harm/ negatively affect others. In the case of smoking, it does negatively affect others. Second hand smoke makes me feel sick. I hate the smell, even on my clothes after being in a smoke filled environment. I find it gross even when talking to someone who has just had a smoke, I can smell it on them and on their breath but that's not really a big problem. Being directly in someone else's toxic smoke cloud is a problem.

So I think smoking should still be allowed, but not in public places. Just like drinking... there should be designated areas, and ventilation equipment would be a good idea, where appropriate.

I've even heard the anti-smoking brigade wants to ban it in people's private cars and homes, if small children are being exposed. That goes too far I think. But it's a tough call.

Public parks? Yeah. No smoking in public at all. Like with alcohol.

How about if I own a club or restaurant and I post a large sign at the door stating that this is a smoking establishment? People who don't like it would be free to go somewhere else!

Nope! A non-smoker trumps EVERYTHING! I saw this in the 90's as the new laws banned smoking in clubs. When the smoke cleared out, you could see all the empty tables!

It seemed the non-smokers didn't go to clubs much anyway! However, in case they ever did they wanted them to be smoke-free! They got their way but they didn't pick up the slack.

Many clubs went under during that time. Naturally, civic politicians didn't like to talk about it because the official line was that smoking bans would only help and not hurt business. Boarding up the windows tending to refute that. They did toss clubs a bone by allowing them to stay open an extra hour, until 2:00 am. Of course, that only meant the club was still empty for an extra hour, increasing the overhead!

After about 10 years or so the situation gradually corrected itself but clubs are not what they were and a lot of owners lost a LOT of money!

I know from personal experience there was a time in the early 70's when cover bands would tour all over the province doing 3 and 6 nighters at clubs, getting paid enough to make a living. People could afford to go out drinking and dancing 6 nights a week if they chose.

Those days are long gone. A single local Friday or Saturday night gig is the norm, for MUCH less money! Remember that when someone tries to tell you that we are just as rich today, after adjusting for inflation!

[Michael Hardner]

Those days are long gone. A single local Friday or Saturday night gig is the norm, for MUCH less money! Remember that when someone tries to tell you that we are just as rich today, after adjusting for inflation!

And think of all the business we're going to lose when the chemo centres start shutting down...

[Boges]

I'm all for the idea that people should be able to do what they want with themselves, as long as it doesn't harm/ negatively affect others. In the case of smoking, it does negatively affect others. Second hand smoke makes me feel sick. I hate the smell, even on my clothes after being in a smoke filled environment. I find it gross even when talking to someone who has just had a smoke, I can smell it on them and on their breath but that's not really a big problem. Being directly in someone else's toxic smoke cloud is a problem.

So I think smoking should still be allowed, but not in public places. Just like drinking... there should be designated areas, and ventilation equipment would be a good idea, where appropriate.

I've even heard the anti-smoking brigade wants to ban it in people's private cars and homes, if small children are being exposed. That goes too far I think. But it's a tough call.

Public parks? Yeah. No smoking in public at all. Like with alcohol.

If you can't smoke inside a house and you can't smoke outside? Where would you be able to smoke?

Smelling smoke doesn't mean you're getting second hand smoke. If you're in a crowded public space that's one thing but a park? That's taking the public safety aspect and merging it with just trying to keep smokers out of site.

What about a public sidewalk? Or a home owner's private patio that's close to other people's homes?

[Wild Bill]

If you can't smoke inside a house and you can't smoke outside? Where would you be able to smoke?

Smelling smoke doesn't mean you're getting second hand smoke. If you're in a crowded public space that's one thing but a park? That's taking the public safety aspect and merging it with just trying to keep smokers out of site.

What about a public sidewalk? Or a home owner's private patio that's close to other people's homes?

Exactly, Boges. It's just a jihad against smokers and any rationalization will do. No matter how you cut it, it is making another citizen's choices for him. Someone might get the power to do such a thing but if he is surprised that he get resentment instead of a thank you then he's a fool!

Reminds me of that old Richard Dreyfuss movie, "Who's life is it anyway?" about the quadraplegic who wanted to die when the "system" refused to let him, "for his own good".

If I were ever in that position and someone denied me my own choice, quoting me his platitudes, I swear I'd spit in his face! I can't think of anything more disgustingly immoral than to deny another human being his own choices over his life!

[dre]

I think some of these bans are not so much about air quality but about the gross non-biodegradable mess smokers leave behind them. You can walk six feet in most cities without seeing a smokers trash lying around.

[olpfan1]

Smoking anywhere outside should be illegal. Smoking around children should be child abuse. Those are my thoughts on it.

[olpfan1]

The next Revolution will be smokers rising up and smashing The Man.

Who has not seen these poor wretches huddled outside together in the cold and rain- bitter, angry, shunned as unclean by society? In little groups everywhere they are conspiring to violently overthrow their oppressors.

You read it here first.

Yeah right, smokers are unhealthy, they would run out of breath just running 5 minutes