smoke-free Ontario ?

[BHS]

Charles Anthony:

You're missing (or ignoring) the biggest piece of the puzzle as regards protecting children from second hand smoke in private homes: they're private homes.

The government is loathe to start telling people that they can't persue a perfectly legal activity within the confines of their own homes. Taking away rights is not generally a vote-getter. It's much easier to pass legislation that grants rights to workers, which is exactly what this legislation does.

Even that portion of the legislation that effects private homes doesn't prevent smoking therein. It merely states that healthcare workers can refuse to work if they don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke.

The real issue here is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous. There have been some studies that have concluded so, but they've been disputed. There is anecdotal evidence that a danger exists, but in nowhere near the quantity that exists for first hand smoking. You're assuming that smoking around your children is a form of child abuse, and the general public sentiment is heading in that direction over time. But the science isn't there to support that position, and personally I doubt that there ever will be.

Perhaps in time smoking around children will be viewed as nothing else but child abuse, and the legislation will be updated to protect children. Until then, it's easier to pass legislation that works on assumptions of a public good that only effects public places than it is to pass legislation that works toward the same public good that negatively effects people's privacy.

I think the better solution is to outlaw smoking altogether, and I'll bet that that happens before the secondhand smoke as child abuse legislation happens.

[Charles Anthony]

"You're missing (or ignoring) the biggest piece of the puzzle as regards protecting children from second hand smoke in private homes: they're private homes."

Correct. I am exposing the hypocrisy of this law.

Either second hand smoke IS HARMFUL and smoking in front of children at home is abuse,

or second hand smoke IS NOT HARMFUL and we do not outlaw it at home with children.

Our new law wants us to have it both ways. This new law makes no sense regardless of which side of the fence you sit. Whether you support smoking in public or not and whether you believe second-hand smoke is dangerous or not, this law is illogical.

"The real issue here is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous."

Correct. However, our "society" has removed that option from us. Our democratically elected Ontario provincial government has decreed that it is dangerous. Therefore, arguing whether it is dangerous or not is now moot in Ontario.

Onward:

Now that "society" has forced us to assume that second hand smoke is dangerous, it is odd that we are completely unconcerned about the welfare of our children and more concerned about changing the behavior of consenting adults. That is my point. I am pointing out the hypocrisy and the contradictions with this law. I do not trust the motives of our law-makers. This law makes too little sense.

Why would we force a behavior change between consenting adults but not consider child abuse?

PLEASE UNDERSTAND this question assumes second-hand smoke is dangerous because our government says so.

[BHS]

Why would we force a behavior change between consenting adults but not consider child abuse?

PLEASE UNDERSTAND this question assumes second-hand smoke is dangerous because our government says so.

Your conclusion is correct. As is my conjecture that outlawing smoking altogether is the best way to proceed. You can't argue that secondhand smoke is harmful only when exposure occurs as a result of work - it has to be the case that all secondhand exposure is equally harmful, and should be equally prohibited. The only way to ensure this is to ban smoking.

UPDATE: as I think about it, the only logical way for the governments of Ontario and Quebec to proceed at this point is to outlaw smoking as the next step. This legislation makes that conclusion completely unavoidable. Here's hoping they do it sooner rather than later.

[August1991]

You can't argue that secondhand smoke is harmful only when exposure occurs as a result of work - it has to be the case that all secondhand exposure is equally harmful, and should be equally prohibited. The only way to ensure this is to ban smoking.

UPDATE: as I think about it, the only logical way for the governments of Ontario and Quebec to proceed at this point is to outlaw smoking as the next step. This legislation makes that conclusion completely unavoidable. Here's hoping they do it sooner rather than later.

Huh?

If the argument to ban cigarettes is based on the danger posed by second-hand smoke, particularly for children, then logically we should pass a law forbidding families with children living in the centres of large cities where smog is at its worst.

Charles' point was that this law is arbitrary and hypocritical. And it is. If we were to follow the law's logic, we would quickly find ourselves with absurd and contradictory regulations.

This is hardly the first time a legislature has passed an arbitrary law, and it's surely not the last time either. I noticed signs at the entrance to public buildings in Montreal today stating that smoking is not permitted within 9 meters of the door. (Why 9?) There's something almost quaint about how Canadian governments create these rules and how Canadians dutifully follow them.

[BHS]

Huh?

If the argument to ban cigarettes is based on the danger posed by second-hand smoke, particularly for children, then logically we should pass a law forbidding families with children living in the centres of large cities where smog is at its worst.

Charles' point was that this law is arbitrary and hypocritical. And it is. If we were to follow the law's logic, we would quickly find ourselves with absurd and contradictory regulations.

This is hardly the first time a legislature has passed an arbitrary law, and it's surely not the last time either. I noticed signs at the entrance to public buildings in Montreal today stating that smoking is not permitted within 9 meters of the door. (Why 9?) There's something almost quaint about how Canadian governments create these rules and how Canadians dutifully follow them.

Huh? (I can play this game too.)

The law at issue makes it clear that second hand smoking is unquestionably dangerous. Which law is it again that declares smog to be dangerous? Dangerous enough that it needs to be eliminated from the workplace?

I don't think Charles used the word "arbitrary". In any case this law isn't arbitrary, it's specific. It's intent is to address the danger of second hand smoke in the workplace. As I pointed out, it's easier to grant rights to workers than it is to take away rights from homeowners, and that is why the distinction has been made at this time. If the law were extended to protect all private non-smoking individuals (including children, obviously) from the dangers of secondhand smoke, only smokers who lived alone or with other smokers would be allowed to smoke in their own homes. Which is more of an affront to the concept of equal protection than is differentiating between workers and private citizens.

But even at that, you're just proving my conclusion by declaring it arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, it's clearly deficient and requiring a broader effectiveness. The only equitable solution is to ban smoking everywhere.

[August1991]

The law at issue makes it clear that second hand smoking is unquestionably dangerous. Which law is it again that declares smog to be dangerous? Dangerous enough that it needs to be eliminated from the workplace?

I don't think Charles used the word "arbitrary". In any case this law isn't arbitrary, it's specific. It's intent is to address the danger of second hand smoke in the workplace. As I pointed out, it's easier to grant rights to workers than it is to take away rights from homeowners, and that is why the distinction has been made at this time. If the law were extended to protect all private non-smoking individuals (including children, obviously) from the dangers of secondhand smoke, only smokers who lived alone or with other smokers would be allowed to smoke in their own homes. Which is more of an affront to the concept of equal protection than is differentiating between workers and private citizens.

But even at that, you're just proving my conclusion by declaring it arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, it's clearly deficient and requiring a broader effectiveness. The only equitable solution is to ban smoking everywhere.

Charles didn't use the word arbitrary. I did. But he noted how the law is hypocritical.

This legislation and all the various anti-smoking laws and taxes of the past 20 or so years are designed to make stop smoking. The anti-smoker activists are on a mission. They are going to save the world. They are like the temperance movement in the last century and have a similar evagelical fervour.

The argument about second-hand smoke is recent and the activists have latched on to it to make their case seem more legitimate.

Many people work in environments with exposure to toxic substances. They continue to work while taking precautions such as extra ventilation. If people don't want to be so exposed, they don't accept the job. I don't know if you've ever been in a barn with pigs or chickens but the smell is atrocious. The smell goes with the job and if you don't like it, you don't stay on the farm.

This legislation has nothing to do with exposure to noxious substances in the air. If that were the legislators' intent, they would have done something about cars and smog - a far more serious problem and threat to people's health. But they can't do that because the majority of voters drive cars. No, this is all about stopping tobacco use. And it happens that cigarette smokers are a minority.

In short, this legislation is hypocritical (it pretends to be moral when it's not) and arbitrary (it forbids in one place but not another).

[Riverwind]

This legislation and all the various anti-smoking laws and taxes of the past 20 or so years are designed to make stop smoking. The anti-smoker activists are on a mission. They are going to save the world. They are like the temperance movement in the last century and have a similar evangelical fervour.

I agree with you that the health issues used to justify smoking bans are a smoke screen for a desire to eliminate smoking from society. However, I think it is a mistake to characterize the anti-smoking movement as simply a moralistic crusade. I think revenge is a big part of the motivation. Many people alive today remember what it was like to live under the tyranny of smokers who not only demanded the right to smoke any where they pleased they even had the nerve to look down on people who dared to complain. In the 1970s, someone who could not stand tobacco smoke had to become a hermit because every social situation was considered the domain of smokers. In other words, if smokers feel that they are unfairly targeted today they should take the time to think about how the attitudes of smokers in the past set the stage for the pogroms of today.

[BHS]

Charles didn't use the word arbitrary. I did. But he noted how the law is hypocritical.

This legislation and all the various anti-smoking laws and taxes of the past 20 or so years are designed to make stop smoking. The anti-smoker activists are on a mission. They are going to save the world. They are like the temperance movement in the last century and have a similar evagelical fervour.

The argument about second-hand smoke is recent and the activists have latched on to it to make their case seem more legitimate.

No arguments here. I personally don't buy that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as it is being made out to be. That doesn't change the fact that, as Charles has pointed out, the new legislation specifically designates it as harmful.

Many people work in environments with exposure to toxic substances. They continue to work while taking precautions such as extra ventilation. If people don't want to be so exposed, they don't accept the job. I don't know if you've ever been in a barn with pigs or chickens but the smell is atrocious. The smell goes with the job and if you don't like it, you don't stay on the farm.

Worker safety regulations have changed enough in the past century that one now has to know what dangers are present on a worksite in order for him to work there legally. WHMIS training is manditory on unsafe worksites. But the point of such training is to prevent exposure to hazards. No one takes a job knowing they're going to be physically exposed to hazardous chemicals, and in any case the law forbids intentional exposure and severly penalizes accidental exposure. So, how is it again that this legislation is different from all of that?

Further, a smell may indicate the presense of a noxious substance such as pig feces but the smell of pig feces doesn't hurt you. Belief that smell causes harm died out after the discovery of bacteria. I'm sure you already know this, but I bring it up because it reminds me of people who claim they are "allergic" to perfume and suffer symptoms of their "allergy" whenever perfume is present, regardless of the chemical makeup of the perfume. It's not possible to be allergic to perfume in general unless you are allergic to many different chemicals found in perfumes. Which is almost never the case with people who claim this allergy. It's all in their heads. But I'm going way off topic.

This legislation has nothing to do with exposure to noxious substances in the air. If that were the legislators' intent, they would have done something about cars and smog - a far more serious problem and threat to people's health. But they can't do that because the majority of voters drive cars. No, this is all about stopping tobacco use. And it happens that cigarette smokers are a minority.

I don't believe that I've ever said that the legislation was to prevent airborn hazards generally. And your conclusion fits hand in glove with mine - this legislation is intended to prevent tobacco use, ergo we should outlaw tobacco use.

In short, this legislation is hypocritical (it pretends to be moral when it's not) and arbitrary (it forbids in one place but not another).

How is a law aimed at improving workplace safety not moral?

If a law were passed to prevent children from bringing peanut butter to school, would that be arbitrary?

[Kindred]

If the stop smoking campaign was dropped there would be a whole lot of people out of a job - there is a very strong financial interest in keeping it going -

There appears to be no conclusive research or evidence to link any illness with second hand smoke, I would beg to differ on the issue of asthma - however this is why WCB is able to deny benefits to workers who claim to have developed illnesses due to working in environments that allow or allowed smoking .........

As someone posted less than 25% of the population smoke and asthma is on the rise and so is cancer ...

That said I dont think we should subject others, especially our children to smoking - I am surprised animal activists havent gotten on board this issue demanding that smoking not be allowed in homes containing pets, or on farms, or anywhere there are animals ........

smoking isnt pretty, it smells, you smell, it costs a ton of money in Canada, and its really stupid, you cough and hack and go to great lengths to have a smoke, stand outside freezing your ass off in -50C just to fill your lungs with smoke - but to pass legislation restricting freedom of choice and to suggest the Govt should legislate what we do in our own homes is a bit over the top ......

[Live From China]

For the record: I think smoking is simply a bad idea!

That said, I am wondering where this kind of anti-smoking campaign will stop. I mean I have heard that some people have proposed legislation preventing smoking in homes or in your yard. If this is true, they need to get real!

[gc1765]

That said, I am wondering where this kind of anti-smoking campaign will stop. I mean I have heard that some people have proposed legislation preventing smoking in homes or in your yard. If this is true, they need to get real!

I agree that that people shouldn't be prevented from smoking in homes or in their yard, but it's funny how smoking pot in your own home IS illegal! And pot has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke (especially since not many people smoke a pack of joints a day), so it's less of a drain on health care and even more of an outrage.

[Kindred]

I could never figure that out, alcohol causes more deaths and violence - domestic, workplace, vehicular, bar fights, street fighting, stupid street racing, you name it and medical costs for people suffering from alcohol related illness and malfunctions - and yet its ok to be a drunken violent jerk but not ok to smoke a joint and enjoy the sunset ..........

Where is the logic????????????

[cybercoma]

If the government feels cigarettes are such a horrible product, they should stop collecting revenues from their sales. They should also make it illegal to buy, sell and produce cigarettes.

If they're not willing to do that, then they're merely pandering to crybabies.

Oh...and I'm a non-smoker.

[Kindred]

I am a smoker and I am filled with self disgust - the cost alone --- the smell ----- yuk

[PocketRocket]

Several years ago there were some restaraunts and coffee shops that had smoking rooms set aside. Likewise some bingo halls.

I don't see why this compromise is unacceptable.

I have a good friend who is the owner of a local bar. The building has a small, unused banquet hall upstairs.

He wanted to turn this into a dedicated smoking room for his patrons, which would prevent any non-smokers from being fumigated by smoke. He even equipped the room with a VERY powerful exhaust fan, which virtually guaranteed no smoke leakage to the main floor.

The powers that be told him quite firmly, "NO". If his patron wanted to smoke, they would be forced outdoors.

Now, we've gone beyond even that. It's okay for a smoker to go outside on a patio, but if the patio has any semblance of a roof to protect against rain, it is considered an "enclosed" space, and so smoking there is illegal.

So, what they are saying is for smoking purposes, a roof with no walls, is an enclosed room.

The spirit of the legislation seems to be, on the surface, to accomodate non-smokers, so they are not subject to a smoke-filled environment.

Unfortunately, it goes far beyond that, and is actively persecuting those who are engaging in an activity which is not only legal, but taxed beyond belief.

For the goverment to step up to the plate and say "Smoking is bad", well, it's tantamount to a pimp coming out and decrying prostitution as evil.

The hypocrisy in this matter is beyond belief.

[Wilber]

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?

Perhaps it's a similar thing to the idea now being expressed that todays children have more allergies because they live in too sanitary an environment. They need to eat more dirt when they are little.

I quit smoking in the house and car when my kids were little. The amount of grief they gave me whenever they saw me smoking was a big factor when it came to quiting for good. Neither of them has asthma.