Zach LarkinsSMOKER'S RIGHTS
I just posted an article about a letter I had sent to the editor of the local paper about something our Health Minister is contemplating. This article is a follow up to let you know a bit about the background that prompted the letter.
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, said recently that because of growing pressure to curb the deadly effects of second-hand smoke in high-rises, it is time to debate whether smoking should be banned in apartment buildings. He never says where the ‘pressure' is coming from, but it is safe to say it is coming from the smoking Nazis. He says that while he would rather see market forces drive landlords to declare their buildings smoke-free, he acknowledges it would be worth having the discussion about whether legislation would be necessary to back up any ban."We've got to look at it from a regulatory standpoint," he said. "We sure will do that. There will be a good discussion. But there is a lot of power in the hands of the people." Pretty words, but Smitherman has already been outed as a two-faced dictator.
His anti-smoking law was all inclusive. No smoking anywhere, except outside or in the confines of your own home, and no one could put up a shelter to keep off the rain and snow from smokers who did go outside to indulge. We had smoking shelters torn down where I work to comply with this stupid law. But someone woke Smitherman up. It seems the local casino was losing tons of money because the American tourists were staying away in droves, choosing instead to spend their hard earned dollars in the State, where they could still light up. Smitherman okayed a $2 million smoking shelter, heated and with comfy chairs and ashtrays, for the casino, and yet fined a bar owner for putting up a piece of plywood that smokers might stand under to escape the elements. He has sent his smoke Nazis into businesses that do nothing but deal in tobacco and told them they can no longer advertise. Outdoor signs had to be covered or removed as if they might by themselves cause cancer and in one case, ordered the removal of some carpeting advertising one companies products. The man is a lunatic.
His idea of ‘discussions' is more than a bit wanting. He held ‘discussions' before he passed his law. Where? In Oshawa, Peterborough and Sarnia. None of these places produces any tobacco. He has held ‘discussions' where people advocating the right of choice to smoke were barred. He did consent to listen to the concerns of Windsor, Ont. in regard to what this law would do to their tourism, but told them beforehand that it was a lost cause. The law was going through. He refuse to acknowledge that the government collects 9 billion dollars a year in tobacco taxes, which is 5 billion more than is required for our health care system to treat all patients, according to Health Canada.
Lawyers and politicians aren't always necessary to bring about social change, Smitherman said, citing the example of hotels that have gone entirely smoke-free. He fails to say how many have gone bankrupt because of his law. He fails to say how many charities are now on the ropes for funding since smoking in bingo halls is banned. Smoking is currently prohibited in elevators, hallways and other common areas in Ontario, but not in apartment residences. Whether Ontario wants to change that is "open for debate," Smitherman said. We can read this to mean that he will listen with a deaf ear to those who want choice before he marches into the living rooms of Ontarians and tells them his version of just what is allowed.
Irene Gallagher would welcome some debate on this subject. Speaking for the Ontario Tobacco- Free Network, she said two polls conducted last year for the network suggest people want the choice of living in a smoke-free building. Some 64 per cent of respondents to the poll said they would prefer a smoke-free building over one where smoking was permitted, while 46 per cent of apartment dwellers said smoke from their neighbours had seeped into their units. If that is a fact, then why not ban cooking in oil? The odour could nauseate some people. Why not ban pets? Their dander could upset some people. Why not ban perfume? Some people find it offensive. Why not ban peanuts? That odour could kill someone. And all of them are as airborne as cigarette smoke. Why not ban them as well? Because Smitherman has no agenda against any of these things. He does against smokers and come hell or high water, he will, by God, dictate to them. Those crummy, low-life non-believers. How dare they demand a choice?
Even Gallagher seems to be leaving her options open. "It would get people talking. We need the industry to respond to market demand by offering some choice," she said. Vince Brescia, president and CEO of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, seems to be distancing himself from Smitherman too. He said, "We agree with the concept of choice . . . but we're prevented from providing that choice by Ontario law." And that's all anyone ever wanted. A choice.
The title of this article is misleading. No where in the Constitution is it written that you have a right to smoke. But our vets died to ensure our freedom of choice. If you want to have a smoke free building, fine, go for it. But what about a building for smokers only? Wouldn't that give you a choice and level the playing field? Smitherman doesn't want it that way. He wants it his way, or you can hit the highway.
With an election due this October, hopefully Smitherman won't have time to put his plan into action. Besides all the broken promises (par for the course for Liberals) of this government, this plan to denigrate smokers even further is way over the top. I know who I'm not voting for.
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, said recently that because of growing pressure to curb the deadly effects of second-hand smoke in high-rises, it is time to debate whether smoking should be banned in apartment buildings. He never says where the ‘pressure' is coming from, but it is safe to say it is coming from the smoking Nazis. He says that while he would rather see market forces drive landlords to declare their buildings smoke-free, he acknowledges it would be worth having the discussion about whether legislation would be necessary to back up any ban."We've got to look at it from a regulatory standpoint," he said. "We sure will do that. There will be a good discussion. But there is a lot of power in the hands of the people." Pretty words, but Smitherman has already been outed as a two-faced dictator.
His anti-smoking law was all inclusive. No smoking anywhere, except outside or in the confines of your own home, and no one could put up a shelter to keep off the rain and snow from smokers who did go outside to indulge. We had smoking shelters torn down where I work to comply with this stupid law. But someone woke Smitherman up. It seems the local casino was losing tons of money because the American tourists were staying away in droves, choosing instead to spend their hard earned dollars in the State, where they could still light up. Smitherman okayed a $2 million smoking shelter, heated and with comfy chairs and ashtrays, for the casino, and yet fined a bar owner for putting up a piece of plywood that smokers might stand under to escape the elements. He has sent his smoke Nazis into businesses that do nothing but deal in tobacco and told them they can no longer advertise. Outdoor signs had to be covered or removed as if they might by themselves cause cancer and in one case, ordered the removal of some carpeting advertising one companies products. The man is a lunatic.
His idea of ‘discussions' is more than a bit wanting. He held ‘discussions' before he passed his law. Where? In Oshawa, Peterborough and Sarnia. None of these places produces any tobacco. He has held ‘discussions' where people advocating the right of choice to smoke were barred. He did consent to listen to the concerns of Windsor, Ont. in regard to what this law would do to their tourism, but told them beforehand that it was a lost cause. The law was going through. He refuse to acknowledge that the government collects 9 billion dollars a year in tobacco taxes, which is 5 billion more than is required for our health care system to treat all patients, according to Health Canada.
Lawyers and politicians aren't always necessary to bring about social change, Smitherman said, citing the example of hotels that have gone entirely smoke-free. He fails to say how many have gone bankrupt because of his law. He fails to say how many charities are now on the ropes for funding since smoking in bingo halls is banned. Smoking is currently prohibited in elevators, hallways and other common areas in Ontario, but not in apartment residences. Whether Ontario wants to change that is "open for debate," Smitherman said. We can read this to mean that he will listen with a deaf ear to those who want choice before he marches into the living rooms of Ontarians and tells them his version of just what is allowed.
Irene Gallagher would welcome some debate on this subject. Speaking for the Ontario Tobacco- Free Network, she said two polls conducted last year for the network suggest people want the choice of living in a smoke-free building. Some 64 per cent of respondents to the poll said they would prefer a smoke-free building over one where smoking was permitted, while 46 per cent of apartment dwellers said smoke from their neighbours had seeped into their units. If that is a fact, then why not ban cooking in oil? The odour could nauseate some people. Why not ban pets? Their dander could upset some people. Why not ban perfume? Some people find it offensive. Why not ban peanuts? That odour could kill someone. And all of them are as airborne as cigarette smoke. Why not ban them as well? Because Smitherman has no agenda against any of these things. He does against smokers and come hell or high water, he will, by God, dictate to them. Those crummy, low-life non-believers. How dare they demand a choice?
Even Gallagher seems to be leaving her options open. "It would get people talking. We need the industry to respond to market demand by offering some choice," she said. Vince Brescia, president and CEO of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, seems to be distancing himself from Smitherman too. He said, "We agree with the concept of choice . . . but we're prevented from providing that choice by Ontario law." And that's all anyone ever wanted. A choice.
The title of this article is misleading. No where in the Constitution is it written that you have a right to smoke. But our vets died to ensure our freedom of choice. If you want to have a smoke free building, fine, go for it. But what about a building for smokers only? Wouldn't that give you a choice and level the playing field? Smitherman doesn't want it that way. He wants it his way, or you can hit the highway.
With an election due this October, hopefully Smitherman won't have time to put his plan into action. Besides all the broken promises (par for the course for Liberals) of this government, this plan to denigrate smokers even further is way over the top. I know who I'm not voting for.
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco companies themselves were behind the smoking nazis. Nothing better to drive up the cost even more.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Over here, over 60% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax. The gov't wants you to buy the product, they just don't want you to use it. Figure that one out. The second hand smoke scam is right up there with Gore's glo-bull warming warnings. Politically correct, but full of lies.