How far should the smoking ban go?
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 2:05 PM
To: Carstairs Courier
Cc:  health.ministerATgov.ab.ca
Subject: How far should the smoking ban go?
Re: the above editorial-Carstairs Courier Tues. Jan. 13/08 by Dan Singleton.
Unfortunately, once you reward a 'Mob Mentality' with a bit of success (such as we have done with the anti-tobacco lobby), there's no stopping it until it's too late.
We saw this during the 'Rodney King' riots in Los Angeles, Germany & Italy in the 1930s-40s etc. and now with the anti-tobacco lobby.
Anti tobacco legislation is based on a lot of false information and a 'Power through Popularity' mentality, much like the Global Warming issue.
People tend to believe whatever the Government tells them as it's easier than going to the trouble of finding out the truth for themselves.
Anti-tobacco is very well funded-usually with the huge amount of taxes collected from tobacco sales.
Tobacco Companies help fund a lot of post-secondary education facilities.  Which is the more constructive use of funds?
After starting down a slippery slope, it's almost impossible to stop until you've reached the bottom.
The Tobacco prize fighter is down for the count. The anti-tobacco lobby wants to kick him while he's down.
Doug Watt, Carstairs, AB
________________________________________
How far should the smoking ban go?
January 13, 2009 Volume 27, Number 2
Dan Singleton, For the Carstairs Courier Editorial
The tightening of restrictions on where Alberta smokers can and cannot practise their habit continues with the ban on all tobacco sales in pharmacies and stores containing pharmacies starting this month.
Sales are also now prohibited in all health-care facilities and post-secondary institutions.
The latest bans are all part of the province’s Tobacco Reduction Action Act, which has already banned smoking in worksites, public indoor places, and within five metres of any doorway, window or air intake of any public place or workplace.
The province says making smoking more and more difficult for people will achieve a number of things, including reducing the number of young people starting to use tobacco, encourage and help tobacco users to quit, and reduce non-smokers' exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
"The Tobacco Reduction Act is one of the key elements of our strategy to reduce tobacco use and the harmful effects of second-hand smoke," said Dr. Raj Sherman, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health and Wellness.
"The majority of Albertans support legislation to restrict tobacco sales and reduce tobacco consumption, especially among young people."
Now that smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in most public places, the next battlefield in the smoking vs. anti-smoking war will certainly be in the area of private property.
Anti-smoking advocates, who have so far applauded the province’s move to restrict public smoking, are now pushing the government to impose a ban on smoking in private homes and vehicles.
In particular, calls are increasing for the province to follow Nova Scotia’s lead and ban smoking in cars with children. Proponents say no one, including parents, has the right to endanger youngsters with second-hand smoke.
Opponents say the government should stay out of people’s private business.
At this point the Stelmach government has several options, none of which will please everyone.
It could say that the latest bans are the end of the road and that it has no intention of restricting tobacco use when it comes to smoking on private property.
Or it could continue with the overall anti-smoking trend, imposing more and more restrictions until smoking is banned outright in Alberta.
Or it could do nothing – which, of course, would do nothing to silence or even slow the powerful anti-smoking lobby.
"We must take aggressive action to promote health and reduce the harm associated with tobacco use," says Dr. Sherman.
Only time will tell whether that "aggressive action" will include new restrictions on private smoking.
And while it is hard to say exactly where the smoking debate will go from here, what is certain is that the war over tobacco use in Alberta is far from over.
Read

---

Councillor proposes tobacco ban -BC

Aug, 25 2006

WHITE ROCK/CKNW(AM980) - A White Rock City Councillor doesn't expect a ban on tobacco sales in his City, but his proposal is sparking debate.

Matt Todd says his proposal to ban tobacco sales in White Rock is not likely to pass, but at least it's got people talking, "What's come out of the woodwork is a whole bunch of other options, other ideas, and other ways of addressing the problem that wouldn't have come out if we hadn't started this conversation in the first place."

Todd says options may include limiting tobacco sales to businesses where minors are probhited, and banning smoking on patios and in parks.

Todd adds, he's been in contact with the Canadian Cancer Society, and says they're supportive of his idea.

Opponents of the proposal, such as local retailers, say a tobacco sales ban would greatly hurt their businesses.
Read

---

To: lettertoed@thestar.ca ; bob@aaron.ca
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor - Take Smoking Ban Inside the Home - Editorial
The Star.com
Letter to the Editor:
cc: Bob Aaron

RE: Take smoking ban inside the home

The referenced editorial reminds me of when we were little children and tried pouring water into our telephone receiver to see if we could make the person on the phone at the other end wet. By all means, blow smoke into your phone jacks in your residence to force smoke into your neighbor's apartment or home....I double dare you!!! What a great way to persecute your neighbors...exhale that cigarette smoke into your electrical outlets or around the grout of your sinks, but don't let anyone see you doing it or they will "Come to take you away to the funny farm!"

There are limits, even to the supposedly magical properties of tobacco smoke. I find it difficult to believe Bob Aaron has a degree in anything, let alone a law degree. If he indeed does have respected credentials, he should apply them and not waste them by insulting the intelligence of his readers.

Referencing the US Surgeon General's much publicized media interpretation and judgment of unfounded conclusions (in conflict with the published findings of his report) about dangers from SHS just prior to retiring from office, ultimately provides a predictable "validating touch". Is this the best nonsense the Tobacco Control Industry can currently provide to promote further life style intrusions from smoking bans?

Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn
The Smoker's Club, Inc.
Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Queen's Park consumed with its smoking ban -ON

August 01, 2006

Re: Your July 22 story by Dave Battagello, in which local MPP Dwight Duncan predicts a rebound for Casino Windsor following the recent announcement of 300 layoffs.

I hope that Mr. Duncan is right about the rebound, but I take exception to his claim that his government always said there would be a decline as the result of the smoking ban.

Mr. Duncan's government did everything it could to hide the fact that the ban would have an impact on the casino. It kept secret its own reports showing that there would be serious impacts on gaming revenues -- up to $500 million a year in losses for the first two years -- and that Windsor would be particularly hard hit.

These reports were only released under pressure through the Freedom of Information Act after many months of pressure from mychoice.ca. The reports, with many parts blacked out, were only released after the new smoking ban law was passed last year, when it was too late for the information to be included in the public debate about whether such a total ban should be enacted.

As for Mr. Duncan's comments that the smoking ban is only part of the problem, the reality is that the government knew that high-dollar and border-security issues had already severely impacted on tourism in Windsor and the success of its casino and chose to add a third strike against the city by making it unattractive to American visitors who smoke.

It did so knowing full well from its own then-secret reports that smokers make up a large portion of revenue-generating visitors to casinos and bingos and stay away when bans are introduced.

Spending $400 million to upgrade the casino will not change the fact that in already tough times, the venue will not be a welcoming one for smokers.

The problem is not that the law requires smoke-free environments to protect non-smokers, but rather that the law does not permit facilities that cater to smokers -- venues where they can go without bothering others.

The law does not even permit separately enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms, a fact that sends a message to visiting smokers -- "go outside, go home, or go elsewhere."

But why should anyone be surprised by this blinkered attitude and revisionist account of past events?

This is the same government that said it would provide exemption to allow seniors to have smoking facilities in their retirement homes, then made the exemptions so restrictive that homes are finding it too costly to provide smoking facilities, causing great distress to those residents who do smoke.

If a government is so consumed with an ideology that it can find no room for compassion, why should anyone expect it to find room for any common sense?

Nancy Daigneault President, mychoice.ca Aurora, Ont.
Read

---

By MARGARET WENTE
June 3, 2006

I couldn't have known it at the time, but I was blessed to be a youth during those fleeting years when nothing was forbidden and all things were permitted. We smoked. We drank. We had unprotected sex with strangers. We ingested illicit substances, and when we got the munchies, we gorged ourselves on jelly doughnuts. We even seduced our professors, and vice versa. The dark cloud of AIDS was not yet on the horizon. We never gave a thought to secondhand smoke, sexual harassment, or our cholesterol.

'Twas bliss to be alive back then, and I pity all of you who weren't. My favourite line in poetry came from Blake: "Damn braces, bless relaxes."

It's all braces now. The list of prohibitions on correct behaviour stretches further than the distance that those wretched smokers are now obliged by law in Ontario to separate themselves from our office buildings, lest any wayward curl of deadly tobacco fumes contaminates the rest of us. No more sheltering from the icy blasts for them! Smokers have been banished from outdoor patios, too, even those that are well ventilated by the prevailing winds. If a patio has a roof, non-smokers are in danger. You can't be too careful about the definition of a roof. One umbrella on a patio is not a roof, but two umbrellas shoved together are a roof.

In case anyone has trouble keeping these new rules straight, a memo from our Human Resources Department assured us that the company will be monitoring the premises. The fines for non-compliance range from $1,000 to $100,000.

Personally, I detest cigarette smoke. I believe that everyone has an inalienable right not to be exposed to it against their will. The arrival of the smoke-free workplace was a triumph for human rights and simple common sense. But our creeping prohibitionism has long since crossed a line. Smoking bans are no longer about protecting non-smokers from the (highly exaggerated) dangers of secondhand smoke, although that is what we're told. They are really about punishing smokers. Instead of doing the honest thing, and just banning smoking altogether, the state will simply harass and marginalize the deviants until they quit.

This strategy is thought to be cruel and unacceptable when applied to, say, panhandlers or heroin addicts. But we don't think panhandlers and heroin addicts are a menace to society. We think smokers are. And so we are happy to deprive our wrinkled vets of the simple pleasure of sharing a smoke with their buddies in the Legion hall. Some people call that progress. I call it insufferable sanctimony.

Something has gone wrong when the busybody state can make an outlaw of Christopher Hitchens, the most entertaining public intellectual of our age. Mr. Hitchens was in Toronto a while ago, and packed a restaurant with his fans. He illicitly puffed his way through several dozen Rothmans Blues. I doubt anyone minded, but people worried we might get busted.

Mr. Hitchens has a theory about the progressive intrusion of the busybody state. "I think it's a mingling of the Puritan and in some ways the Catholic traditions. One is not allowed to let someone go to hell in their own way, so it is a religious duty in effect to intervene for their own good," he says. "It is overlaid now by the very sanctimonious idea that, if you can mention health and especially if you can get the word 'kid' into the same sentence, you are entitled to do anything. There is no privacy you can't invade."

Can the busybodies go any further? Of course they can, and they will. One town in California (the cradle of the non-smoking movement) has banned smoking altogether, except in the privacy of one's own home. Nobody complained. We are increasingly approving of the state's efforts to regulate our behaviour, even if it harms no one but ourselves. Besides, we like obeying rules. We're a nation of compliers. Have you tried crossing against the light lately? People shoot you glances that let you know you're doing something terribly thrilling and naughty, even when there are no cars in sight. That's exactly how Mr. Hitchens must have felt.

By the way, there's one big exception to this official demonizing of tobacco. And that's native tobacco. "Commercial tobacco is a KILLER! Traditional tobacco is a HEALER," announces the website of the Aboriginal Tobacco Strategy (http://www.tobaccowise.com), which is sponsored by Health Canada. The difference between commercial tobacco and traditional tobacco is that traditional tobacco is sacred. It can be used to communicate with the Spirit World. You can also use it to offer prayers and treat illnesses.

I, too, used to use tobacco to communicate with the Spirit World, especially on deadline. But I guess that didn't count, because my tobacco wasn't sacred.

Perhaps the problem is that in a society that suffers from record health, lifespan, and citizen compliance, the authorities are simply running out of useful things to do. But doing useful things is their raison d'être. And so they busy themselves whipping up panics over increasingly marginal or non-existent threats to public safety. They harass smokers, ban bad dog breeds, banish Roundup, and wage campaigns against pop vending machines in schools. They mount awareness campaigns against the hazards of wearing scented deodorant in public. "Everyone should have safe and healthy places in which to live and work," concludes a City of Ottawa committee that wants to abolish -- well, in this case it's scented deodorant, but it could be any or all of the above.

Poor old Blake. These days, everything is forbidden and nothing is permitted. It all makes me very sad. I think I'll go outside and have a joint. I wouldn't have a cigarette. Too risky. You're a lot less likely to get busted for a joint.
Read

May 17, 2006
Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen

Watson supports prohibition around children in private cars

Ontario Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson says he would personally support a planned private member's bill to ban smoking in private vehicles when children are present.

Mr. Watson told the Citizen's editorial board that he would like provincial legislation to go beyond the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which takes effect on May 31. He said changes in public opinion could eventually permit more restrictions on smoking around children.

Sault Ste Marie Liberal MPP David Orazietti had planned a private member's bill this month to ban smoking in private vehicles where children are passengers, but he will not be able to do so until October. A spokeswoman for Mr. Orazietti said he is considering several options because of the delay and hasn't decided to submit the bill.

Under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, smoking will be banned in all workplaces and enclosed spaces that are open to the public. The goal, according to the provincial government, is not to regulate smoking outdoors, but to help smokers quit, discourage youth from starting and protect non-smokers.

Mr. Watson said some people want the province to do more, like ban smoking in condominiums, but the province doesn't plan to go into people's homes.

"I have had some people ask whether it could be made illegal to have an adult smoke in a car with a child," Mr. Watson said. "One of our caucus colleagues is going to bring forward a private member's bill on that.

"I tend to be more draconian, in that I would like to see greater limitations (on smoking), but that is not the government's view. We made a commitment that the ban would be in public places. I don't think it would be accepted, and certainly our government is not going to go down the route of imposing these kinds of laws on individuals' homes."

Mr. Watson said he gets angry at irresponsible parents when he sees children subjected to smoking in the home. He said a recent study showed that smoking byproducts in the urine of young children comes from mothers smoking during pregnancy.

He said ultimately, the government can't legislate good behaviour and common sense and has to rely on good parenting. The province hopes the message will get through to people by advertising and the work it does with public health units that will enforce the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

When asked whether the province might some day restrict smoking in front of children, Mr. Watson said such action is possible.

"Ten years ago, people wouldn't have thought that people wouldn't be allowed to smoke in an airplane. Five years ago in Ottawa, people would never have imagined that you wouldn't be able to smoke in a restaurant.

"Ultimately, public opinion and public pressure will come to bear. I think that during the next 20 or 30 years, there will be more movement for further restrictions. But will the public accept the government going in and inspecting homes?"

Mr. Watson said there will be more debate on bar patios which have become the new smoking lounges, and there is some pressure from non-smokers to ban smoking in apartment buildings.

He said smokers should be made aware that their habit is hurting the health care system because of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases.

The Ontario government would come out ahead if everybody would stop smoking, Mr. Watson said. He said Ontario's revenue from tobacco tax was about $1.5 billion, but the direct costs to the province's health care system was $1.7 billion and there was a $2.1-billion loss in productivity because of smoking-related diseases.
Read

---

Ministry of Health Promotion, smoking
"Ban it!" -- the Liberals way of promoting health

By Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,
April 11, 2006

In June of last year, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty created a new ministry. Under the mantra that big government and the nanny state is best, McGuinty created the Ministry of Health Promotion. The addition of this ministry, bound to make Ontarians all warm and fuzzy inside will, according to its website "help Ontarians lead healthier lives by delivering programs that promote healthy choices and healthy lifestyles". And to do this, the new ministry will of course "work closely with partners, stakeholders and all levels of government"(that is, be a pawn to the various special interest groups that hopefully will vote Liberal in 2007).

Last week Jim Watson, the Minister of Health Promotion opined that he would like to see cigarettes "banned" in Canada. Presumably this one of the healthy "choices" that Ministry talks about--choose not to smoke or go to jail. The Smoke Free Ontario Act that will come into force at the end of May that prohibits smoking from all public spaces in the province just isn’t enough--smoking must now be banned. Watson would like to see those who continue to smoke be put into the same category as heroin junkies and crack heads.

The Minister, of course realized that Ontario does not have the jurisdiction to legislate a complete ban on tobacco so Watson expressed the hope that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would impose a ban.

Okay let’s not get carried away here. After years of decisions being made in Ottawa that depended on which way the wind and the United Nations blows, we now have a prime minister who is not afraid to lead. In a Canada that has become an international follower, Harper took the lead in banning monies sent to the terrorist group Hamas who now form the government in the Palestinian Authority. But while Watson might be holding his breath to keep out that awful second-hand smoke, he shouldn’t be waiting for Harper to ban smoking.

In fairness to Watson, he was no doubt simply "musing" about a total ban on tobacco in Canada and knows that it will not be passed by the current federal government. If he was simply trying to play politics by throwing the issue over to Harper, Watson’s political skills and judgment are in doubt. Watson no doubt knows that a total tobacco ban is not realistic, but they are totally consistent with the simplistic way his government would like to operate if they could get away with it. Smoking causes health problems-- ban tobacco. Obesity is becoming a major problem--ban junk food. Just feel like banning something--ban sushi. He probably didn’t impress too many people with his statement but he would have impressed Dalton and that’s what counts.

Watson’s wish to totally ban cigarettes is indicative of the paternalistic attitude that the Liberal government has towards the citizens of Ontario. People should not be free to make their own choices because they might make bad ones. The unwashed masses are unable to function and conduct their affairs without stringent rules being forced upon them by a big brother government. They are simply too stupid.

What’s worse is that despite the creation of a ministry of "health promotion", the McGuinty Liberals have no real concern about the health of Ontarians. While they were in deficit, they’ll gladly spend millions to buy back MRI machines so that instead of Ontarians using their health cards to receive a scan by a machine that was privately owned, they could use that same card to receive a scan on an MRI machine that is now owned by the government. And for all the whining about the health of Ontarians, there is nothing in the Smoke Free Ontario Act that provides money to smokers so that they can receive treatment to stop smoking. And this same government couldn’t care less that people now have to pay for (or go without) the services of optometrists, physiotherapists and chiropractors since those services have been de-listed. It’s all about paternalistic ideology and not about the health of those who live in the province.

We would be much better off if cigarettes remained legal and Liberals were banned.

April 9, 2006
By JORGE BARRERA, OTTAWA SUN

"If I had my druthers I would not want to see tobacco anywhere in Canada," the Ottawa-West Nepean MPP said yesterday while attending the launch of new anti-smoking television and radio ads. "We know it kills people. If I had the ultimate authority to ban tobacco from the province or the country, of course I would."

Watson said it would be up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ban cigarettes, but the province could regulate cigarettes like alcohol and sell them only through licensed vendors.

"If that is brought forward ... we (the Ontario government) would look at it," he said.

The province's $3.1-million anti-smoking media campaign is intended to prepare the public for tough regulations that come into effect May 31. The new laws include a ban on smoking in all public places and on patios with a covering. Counter displays and so-called "power walls" of cigarette and tobacco products are to be phased out by 2008.

The province along with the Heart and Stroke Foundation unveiled the TV spots at the Elisabeth Bruyere Health Centre, where anti-smoking advocate Heather Crowe spends her dying days. The TV ads features Crowe and Moe Atallah, her former boss.

'GREAT VICTORY'

Crowe, who appeared with her head shaved and in a wheelchair, is dying from cancer caused by second-hand smoke she inhaled while working as a waitress for 40 years.

"People shouldn't go to work to die," Crowe says in the ad.

Crowe said when the ban comes into effect, it will validate her crusading work.

"It will be a great victory for me," said Crowe, who doubts smokes can be banned.

JORGE.BARRERA@OTT.SUNPUB.COM
Read