smoke-free Ontario ?

[Charles Anthony]

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present?

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed car if your children are present?

[Shakeyhands]

No and No... no reason to even answer that one, its too obvious.

This message brought to you by an ex Smoker... and you know how we are.

[August1991]

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present?

Only if you are on fire.

[Leafless]

Charles Anthony

You wrote:

"Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present?

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed car if your children are present?"

Of course it's legal to smoke in your car if your children are present.

Your car is not a 'public place' and my children are part of my family.

But if the government does not think my car is not my private automobile and my children are in fact part of the state then hopefully the government will start sending me huge monthly cheques to subsidize me in order for me to live the lifestyle recommended by government.

Dumb government must think cigarettes are the root of all evil and if they do I will glady debate that subject with them anytime and anyplace they choose.

[scribblet]

Actually, I heard something on the radio this morning about not smoking in your home and vehicle if children are present, so maybe someone else can verify it or not. It is illegal to smoke in your own home if there is a healthcare worker present.

Also, what about truck drivers - their cab is their workplace, are they out of luck now?

[crazymf]

If you are hunting in northern Ontario, on Crown land, can you smoke there?

[sahara]

It is illegal to smoke in your own home if there is a healthcare worker present.

My elderly father lives with us and he has a healthcare worker come to our home. She asks that we not smoke in the house when she is here. She can ask all she wants......Its my house. But we dont smoke in the same room she is in. Even though my dad would like to LOL

[BHS]

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present?

Is it legal to smoke inside your closed car if your children are present?

Here's a link to the Act:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statute...ish/94t10_e.htm

There's nothing in there regulating smoking in a private home or car where children are present. Whether or not a court would still see such smoking as child endangerment is another matter.

Sahara: your healthcare worker can refuse to come to your home under the new law, regardless of the government's responsibility to provide you with health care. Something to consider next time she asks you not to smoke.

crazymf: you can still smoke out on the street, so I imagine you can smoke out in some scrubby tract of Crown land. I believe the prohibition is limited to any enclosed public space.

scriblett: good question about the truck driver. The question boils down to: is the truck his workplace or his residence? If he doesn't own the truck that he's driving he's out of luck. If he owns the truck, the law might still apply, depending on whether he's driving or resting in the sleeper. But of course, an unlawful act that is too difficult prove in court to is more or less unenforceable, so as long as he doesn't admit to smoking while driving he's pretty much bulletproof.

[Charles Anthony]

"There's nothing in there regulating smoking in a private home or car where children are present. Whether or not a court would still see such smoking as child endangerment is another matter."

Bingo! You win the prize!

The point towards which I wanted to lead was this:

compare the severity of

1) a parent smoking in a car (or house) with the children enclosed

to

2) a group of adults all consenting to work together in a smoking environment.

The new law says nothing about 1) but outlaws 2) so, where are our priorities???? This glaring injustice is so severe that I can not believe that 1) was omitted by mistake. I can not believe it. I can not believe that tons of bureaucrats and politicians with tons of our money overlook the most obvious injustice when it comes to second hand smoke. I can not believe it.

The scenario of the children in a house or car truly is the first place where I will give the legal authority the right to intervene. Everything else is just disgraceful selfishness in comparison.

[Drea]

"There's nothing in there regulating smoking in a private home or car where children are present. Whether or not a court would still see such smoking as child endangerment is another matter."

Bingo! You win the prize!

The point towards which I wanted to lead was this:

compare the severity of

1) a parent smoking in a car (or house) with the children enclosed

to

2) a group of adults all consenting to work together in a smoking environment.

The new law says nothing about 1) but outlaws 2) so, where are our priorities????

What level of "protection" are we willing to give our children?

I know this woman who's son is extremely obese -- she doesn't smoke but has none-the-less endangered her son's health.

Are you advocating that we monitor what parents feed their children too?

PS. I smoke and daily lament to my son the awfulness of it. We don't sit there and blow smoke in his face, but yes, we do smoke in our house.

As an aside:

Why is it now that less than 25% of people smoke -- the incidences of childhood asthma is on the increase? Surely if parent's secondhand smoke was the cause we would be seeing less asthma?

[Charles Anthony]

"What level of "protection" are we willing to give our children?"

At the very least, the same level of protection that is afforded everybody who is "protected" by this law.

My whole point is that between the two scenarios, I have sympathy for the children more so than for the adults.

"Are you advocating that we monitor what parents feed their children too?"

No. I am pointing out a glaring omission and bizarre set of priorities where the health and welfare of children is completely disregarded.

"PS. I smoke and daily lament to my son the awfulness of it. We don't sit there and blow smoke in his face, but yes, we do smoke in our house."

I grew up in a similar household. I do not have respect for my offending parent over this precise issue.

"Why is it now that less than 25% of people smoke -- the incidences of childhood asthma is on the increase?"

A lot of obese children are diagnosed with asthma and given ventilators. Their poor respiration is largely (pardon the pun) due to the obesity that nobody wants to admit or address. The puffers are a band-aid that can be claimed on insurance.

[August1991]

I don't understand why the State is involved in this issue. If individual bars or restaurants want to go smoke-free, they can. Without any regulations, Tim Hortons or St-Huberts forbid smoking. Other places allow it. The market should decide this issue.

It is estimated that about 20-30% of adult Canadians smoke. So, it is hard not to see that this is a case of the majority imposing its tyranny on the minority. Why can it? I dunno but it seems to me that this is part of political correctness: the modern version of prohibitionism and the WCTU.

Like all insufferable moralists, the ban smoking crowd is arbitrary and hypocritical. You can happily pollute by driving a huge SUV, plugging in an air-conditioner or having a fire in a fireplace but you can't exhale cigarette smoke.

BTW, I don't smoke.

[lost&outofcontrol]

It is estimated that about 20-30% of adult Canadians smoke. So, it is hard not to see that this is a case of the majority imposing its tyranny on the minority. Why can it?

BTW, I don't smoke.

Should that minority (20%) be allowed to have a direct health impact on the others? Isn't this the case of the minority imposing tyranny on the majority?

[August1991]

Should that minority (20%) be allowed to have a direct health impact on the others? Isn't this the case of the minority imposing tyranny on the majority?

You mean like, gay marriage?

If you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, don't go to a place where you might smell it.

It is the same logic that says if you don't like seeing gays dance, don't go to a gay bar.

I am surprised that the people stridently in favour of gay marriage are not also stridently objecting to this legislation.

Gay marriage poses as much a threat to society as cigarette smoke does.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Should that minority (20%) be allowed to have a direct health impact on the others? Isn't this the case of the minority imposing tyranny on the majority?

You mean like, gay marriage?

If you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, don't go to a place where you might smell it.

It is the same logic that says if you don't like seeing gays dance, don't go to a gay bar.

I am surprised that the people stridently in favour of gay marriage are not also stridently objecting to this legislation.

Gay marriage poses as much a threat to society as cigarette smoke does.

Please don't tell me you think gays and 2nd hand smoke is the same. Being gay is not a disease you'll catch because you happen to frequent a cafe which many gays frequent themselves.

[August1991]

Please don't tell me you think gays and 2nd hand smoke is the same. Being gay is not a disease you'll catch because you happen to frequent a cafe which many gays frequent themselves.

Some people don't like watching gays dance, and some people don't like cigarette smoke. There is an easy solution in either case. Don't go to places where you will come into contact with one or the other.

If a bar in east-end Montreal happens to allow smoking, or lets gays dance, how does that affect my homophobic, non-smoking neighbour in any way whatsoever? If he never goes there, he'll never see it or smell it.

It's called live and let live.

On the other hand, as I type this, there are vehicles driving by outside making noise and polluting the air and I cannot avoid that - except to leave the city, and even then.

Between cigarette smoke, gay marriage and car pollution, it shouldn't seem hard to decide what to do.

[Charles Anthony]

"I don't understand why the State is involved in this issue."

If I owned a coffee shop that was next door to a bar (that allowed smoking) and saw all of the business going to the bar and none of the business going to me, my jealousy and selfishness would lead me to lobby my government officials with all of the guilt-trips possible to put my neighbor out of business so that everybody can enjoy green-tea in my smoke-free environment.

I can not believe that the omission of children in cars (or homes) was a mistake. I can not believe it.

[Riverwind]

If a bar in east-end Montreal happens to allow smoking, or lets gays dance, how does that affect my homophobic, non-smoking neighbour in any way whatsoever? If he never goes there, he'll never see it or smell it.

People did not have the choice of going to non-smoking establishments before the anti-smoking pogroms. In fact you had a vicious circle going on: people who disliked smoking would not go to pubs. This made pub owners think that their business depended on smokers and made them think that they had to allow smoking. However, once the gov't outlawed smoking many pub owners discovered that their non-smoking patrons came back.

This is one example where the free market system does not work as efficiently as you would expect. A single pub owner could not make money catering to non-smoking clientele because non-smokers had simply stopped considering pubs as one of their entertainment options. It took a radical change such as a non-smoking bylaw to get these patrons to reconsider pubs.

[August1991]

People did not have the choice of going to non-smoking establishments before the anti-smoking pogroms. In fact you had a vicious circle going on: people who disliked smoking would not go to pubs. This made pub owners think that their business depended on smokers and made them think that they had to allow smoking.

That's an exceptionally weak argument and flies in the face of all evidence.

By your logic, there would never have been gay bars because no one would have thought to open one. Or no country & western bars. Or jazz clubs, and so on. Until yesterday, smokers could smoke in coffee shops but Tim Hortons, under no government pressure, chose to go smoke-free.

Nature abhors a vacuum and humans seek a profitable niche. (Linking to the ideas in that other thread, we seek not to waste.)

Riverview, your argument makes sense if we are discussing, for example, what side of the road cars should drive on. In this case, it's either left or right. We couldn't have different streets following different rules.

As opposed to the rest of continental Europe, Sweden happened to choose left and so in the 1960s, the Swedish government picked a day and time and told everyone to switch sides. Since then, Swedes drive on the right.

[Riverwind]

Riverview, your argument makes sense if we are discussing, for example, what side of the road cars should drive on. In this case, it's either left or right. We couldn't have different streets following different rules.

You cannot ignore the fact that there were no smoking establishments until the law required them to be non smoking. This meant non-smokers had no choice and the market system was not functioning properly. You cannot compare this issue to gay bars or other kinds niche markets since consumers have choices when it comes to these things.

The gov't is right to step in whenever the free market fails to provide services that people want. We could debate why the free market failed in the case of non-smoking establishments.

[Leafless]

Riverwind

You wrote:

"The gov't is right to step in whenever the free market fails to provide services that people want. We could debate why the free market failed in the case of non-smoking establishments."

Your wrong as this issue has nothing to do with rights (unless you can supply proof) and is supposedly a health issue.

In fact I would go so far as to describe the no smolking issue as a 'legacy issue' concerning the original perpetrators Ottawa cousellor Alex Munter and Ottawa's Chief Medical Officer Dr. Robert Cushman resulting in a smolking ban in Ottawa's public places (a municiple ban).

I suspect this was related to high cost treatment of various cancers caused by smolking and was one way to address the issue.

Of course we all know the government of this land lacks the real courage simply to ban tobacco products and usage and instead resulted in another social engineering caper spearheaded by Mr. Munter and Dr. Cushman in the same way 'Official Bilingualism' and 'Multiculturalism was imposed on Canadian citizen's remenicent of totally undemocratic police state tactics.

[August1991]

You cannot ignore the fact that there were no smoking establishments until the law required them to be non smoking.

That is simply false, Riverview. Many private places decided to forbid smoking without the need for government regulation. I gave two examples: Tim Hortons and St-Huberts.

I suspect this was related to high cost treatment of various cancers caused by smolking and was one way to address the issue.

The last time I checked using stats from Ontario, the taxes on cigarettes paid for all the additional medical costs to the public health system associated with tobacco use. Cigarette smokers pay their way, and then some.

----

Look, you have over 70% of the population that stands to gain from this decision. So of course the decision is going to appear popular. The smoking minority has been cowed into silence.

Personally, I have a sense of revulsion when I see a majority impose its views on a minority for no reason whatsoever. This isn't an environmental issue. The urban smog due to cigarette smoke is microscopic. This isn't a public health issue. Smokers assume all the risks and costs of their habit. (A possible justification of this ban would be that smokers want to quit but lack the discipline. Maybe.)

The politically correct, ban-tobacco priesthood wants to eliminate all tobacco use. I have suspicion they will be no more likely to succeed than the Catholic Church was in eliminating adultery or any other sin. I have a further suspicion that statistics about tobacco usage are now meaningless, just like survey data about adultery. People no longer tell the truth about this.

In a similar vein, I suspect some bars will function like speak-easies in the 1920s and continue to allow clandestine smoking.

Tobacco is an American invention and Europeans have only known about it for several centuries. Greeks and Romans managed without tobacco. Maybe like absinthe, duelling and spitting in public, tobacco use will disappear. But somehow, I doubt it. I'm more inclined to view cigarettes like bad spelling and adultery. They'll always be with us even if the self-righteous will look askance.

Incidentally, the same lawyer who took the kirpan-in-schools case to the Supreme Court is now making a Charter challenge to this legislation. If this Supreme Court has any coherence, it will strike down this legislation. I won't hold my breathe. The Chaoulli decision sneaked through in a split 4-3 Court.

On a final, related if bizarre note, perhaps too influenced by reading Mark Steyn, I have begun to wonder how well our (Canadian) institutions, supposedly designed to protect individual freedom, would stand up to Islamofascism. This kind of legislation creates a horrific precedent. As a minimum, I hope the Supreme Court says that this is a municipal issue.

[Riverwind]

In a similar vein, I suspect some bars will function like speak-easies in the 1920s and continue to allow clandestine smoking.

Smoking has been banned in bars in Vancouver for years. People got over it.

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote:

"The politically correct, ban-tobacco priesthood wants to eliminate all tobacco use."

And that's why I said it could be a 'legacy issue' ( concerning especially Mr. Munter) but at the time Mr. Munter and Dr. Cushman focused on different items concerning health issue's including expensive cancer treatment and even up to now regarding the 'second hand smoke issue".

You suggested smokers pay for themselves but maybe certain people (lefties) would like to see those funds directed into other areas.

But the smoking issue initially could be very well as you suggested a socialistic lefty attempt to get smokers out of public places for no other reason simply because certain lefties don't like cigarette smoke.

This is the same bunch that hail 'Official Bilingulism', 'Official Multiculturalism', 'the imposed Charter of Rights ans Freedoms', 'gay marriage', and now smoking legislation as well as a multitude of other socialistic initiatives.

[August1991]

In a similar vein, I suspect some bars will function like speak-easies in the 1920s and continue to allow clandestine smoking.

Smoking has been banned in bars in Vancouver for years. People got over it.

As if people don't smoke up in Vancouver. Right.