Last August, Ontario passed a feel good law to ban smoking in cars carrying passengers under the age of 16. The intent, of course, was to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke while being transported in the family car.
Some anti-smoker cultist determined that secondhand smoke in a car contained 23 times the toxins found in a private home, if you kept the air vents and windows tightly closed. This, of course, made it imperative that the government step in to protect the kids.
The law became effective in January, 2009 and police have already issued several tickets.
But, on the more humorous side, the Globe and Mail reported recently that a twenty-year old was stopped and issued a ticket for smoking in a car with a minor passenger. While the cop was writing out the ticket, the passenger, a 15 year old girl, got out of the car and lit up a cigarette.
Lou Rinaldi, MLA (Member of the Legislature Assembly) says this may represent a glitch in the law and wants it examined by Ontario’s Ministry of Health Promotion. Rinaldi has suggested changing the age limit on how young the passenger has to be for the smoking ban to kick in.
Showing that he is every bit as adept with statistics as his anti-smoker colleagues, Rinaldi said: “In 99.9 per cent of cases, the legislation is doing the job.”
Since the law only became effective January, 21 of this year, and a mere handful of tickets have been handed out, one must assume he plucked that statistic from his posterior like so many of the statistics we hear from the anti-smoker crowd. OK, OK, I’m being facetious; it was probably just a figure of speech.
But, obviously, there is something of a glitch in the legislation.
What if it had been the 15 year old who had been smoking in the car? Would the driver have still gotten the ticket for failing to protect the girl from her own secondhand smoke?
Meanwhile, down at city hall, Toronto has approved a by-law prohibiting smoking within 9 metres (roughly 30 feet) of a city playground, splash pad or wading pool. The ban is intended “to protect children who may not be able to move away from second-hand smoke.” The by-law will become effective when the province sets the amount of the fine, which the city is hoping will be around $300.
One councilman suggested the $16,000 cost of erecting signs wasn't the best way to spend scarce tax dollars. “We can't fix our playgrounds, but we'll find the money for these signs.” Uh-huh. Gotta get those signs up, never mind the kids coming home with splinters in their ass from playground equipment in a state of disrepair.
And, there may be a few glitches with this particular by-law as well.
Yesterday was a holiday in Canada; the kids weren’t in school. And the small city park across the street was full of young people. Some were playing basketball, some were kicking a soccer ball around and still another group had congregated in the tot lot, perched on the swings and playground equipment and . . . smoking.
The new “No Smoking” signs haven’t gone up yet, so, technically, no one was breaking the law. The question, however, is whether minors found smoking within 30 feet of the playground can be fined under the terms of the new by-law and if the parents could be held responsible and made to pony up the $300 fine? Or, will they be exempted from prosecution under the Young Offenders Act?
But, these are minor glitches and one group is already proposing a solution. The Canadian Convenience Stores Association (CCSA) is calling on provincial governments to pass a law banning possession and use of tobacco.
Current laws prohibit the sale or distribution of tobacco products to minors. But, it’s quite legal for kids under 19 to possess tobacco and smoke openly.
The CCSA conducted a “study” last year, collecting and examining cigarette butts from schoolyards in Quebec and Ontario. They found that 26% of the butts found in Ontario, and 36% of the butts found in Quebec, were contraband. (Does anyone do any real scientific research these days?)
According to the CCSA: “the fast-growing trade in contraband cigarettes means that young people are getting widespread access to cheap, unregulated and untaxed cigarettes. In 2008 surveys showed nearly 50% of cigarettes in Ontario were illegal.” Who woulda thunk it?
At any rate, they want to make tobacco possession and use illegal for young people.
And, of course, they have a study that shows the combination of tobacco purchase, use and possession laws, combined with existing tobacco control measures can reduce youth smoking. They even have a catchy little acronym for the proposed laws. They’re called purchase, use and possession (PUP) laws.
Says Steve Tennant, CCSA spokesperson: “More and more jurisdictions are turning to bans including Alberta and Nova Scotia and many U.S. states have adopted these kinds of laws including Ohio, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Colorado.”
I wonder if “banning” possession and use by those under 19 is the same as “criminalizing” possession and use.
Naw. It’s probably just my imagination.
There are many people, scientists and laymen alike, who believe that tobacco control has become a cult-like movement, driven by ideology rather than science; a faith-based organization unwilling to tolerate dissenting opinion.
In 2003, a study conducted by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, declared no association could be found between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or chronic heart disease mortality among non-smokers in California, although it did not rule out a small effect. The study was published in the prestigious British Medical Journal.
The findings of the Enstrom/Kabat study were highly controversial because they were not consistent with commonly held views; they contradicted the existing consensus that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer and chronic heart disease (CHD).
In fact, the study was greeted as heresy by anti-smoker crusaders. The rapid response section of the British Medical Journal was flooded with letters from anti-smoker activists criticizing the BMJ for having the impudence to publish a study which was contrary to the prevailing notion that secondhand smoke was the cause of lung cancer and CHD.
Enstrom and Kabat were attacked for accepting funding from a source funded by the tobacco industry. Because they were viewed as traitors to the cause, the avalanche of criticism tended to discredit Enstrom and Kabat on a personal, rather than a scientific, level. The relative merits of the scientific evidence presented by these two reputable and respected researchers were barely discussed.
The criticism was seen by many as an attempt to suppress legitimate science simply because it didn’t fit the “facts” as established by anti-smoker activists in public health. The opposing viewpoint of Enstrom and Kabat had to be subverted or otherwise publicly compromised to maintain the status of existing consensus.
The criticism was so vehement that it prompted two researchers, Sheldon Unger and Dennis Bray, to write a paper entitled “Silencing the Science”. Their paper contends that scientific debate is being stifled for motives (politics, for example) other than the advancement of science.
And, they’re right.
This is especially true in the area of tobacco control. What was once a legitimate public health initiative, to inform and educate the public about the potential health hazards of smoking, has been turned into a search and destroy mission by anti-smoker radicals. Those who choose to smoke are being subjected to increasingly blatant discrimination in employment and housing.
A public “de-normalization” campaign has been launched to demean and denigrate smokers as nicotine addicted misfits, child abusers and worse; to make them the objects of scorn and ridicule.
But, for their campaign to be successful, the anti-smoker fanatics can’t afford to have any dissenting views, most of all scientific views, obstruct their goal of eradicating smokers from the face of the planet.
Honest researchers who dispute the claims of the anti-smokers are dismissed as cranks or tobacco industry shills. Their reputation and integrity are jeopardized; their sources of funding made vulnerable.
Many scientists and researchers are apprehensive about producing results which conflict with existing doctrine; they perceive their careers are at considerable risk should they buck the dogma of the cultists in the anti-smoker movement formerly known as public health.
And, Enstrom and Kabat, among others, are still under fire from the cultists.
Recently, Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee published an article in the European Journal of Public Health. The article accuses those who do not accept the causal relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer/heart disease of being “denialists”. It goes on to equate those guilty of such scientific heresy to those who deny the Holocaust.
Dr. Michael Siegel, himself an anti-smoking activist, has been taking issue with much of the exaggerated and fraudulent science emerging from the anti-smoker cultists. His most recent article discusses the article and his response to the Diethelm and McKee article was published in the European Journal of Public Health.
Dr. Siegel is quite familiar with the dangers of opposing the extremist views supported by some of his colleagues in tobacco control. His integrity has also been questioned, his character maligned and his access to some professional services curtailed because he refuses to toe the line and has chosen to speak out against the lies and deception of the cultists.
In his response to Diethelm and McKee, Dr. Siegel notes: “While I personally believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer, there are a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions. While I believe those scientists are wrong, I would never argue that they are denialists, nor would I ever compare their dissent with Holocaust denial.”
To equate reputable, respected scientists with those who deny the Holocaust is to compare them to Neo-Nazi thugs who would deny one of the greatest affronts to human dignity in the history of mankind. It is a scurrilous, ad hominem attack which contributes nothing to the scientific debate.
It is, in fact, little more than an emotional appeal to dismiss the legitimate hypothesis of people like Enstrom and Kabat based not on science, but on some implied flaw in their character. It tends to stifle scientific debate rather than encourage it.
The anti-smoker zealots are looking to win by default. They’ve chosen to silence the science by silencing the scientists and researchers who create it. If respectable scientists can be cowered into submission, anti-smokers fanatics will be free to foist off such incredible concepts as third hand smoke on an unwitting public with absolutely no opposition.
Dr. Siegel says: “Tobacco control is becoming a religious-like movement which is guided by ideology and not science. Hopefully, this trend will not spread to other areas of public health.”
I feel his admonition may already be too late. The tactics of the anti-smoker radicals are already being used against other “unacceptable” behaviours, such as obesity and alcohol consumption.
To this old rambler, if there are “a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions”, then the debate on the hazards of secondhand smoke is not over; the evidence is, by definition, inconclusive.
But, more scientists, researchers and the mainstream press have to speak out against the dishonesty in the new anti-smoker cult.
Else scientific “integrity” will go the way of tyrannosaurus rex.
For more information on James Enstrom, his controversial study and some insight into some of the unscrupulous attacks on both he and his co-author Geoffrey Kabat, visit his website. Like Dr. Siegel, he is anti-smoking, but has the courage to stand by his convictions.
Linda Fox moved out of her Toronto apartment after allegedly being exposed to secondhand smoke which she claims caused headaches, dizziness and shortness of breath.
But, I suspect it’s something of an exaggeration when Ms. Fox claims: "One of my neighbours said it was like being in a stale bar after people were in there smoking all night.” If she was getting that much smoke from a neighbouring unit, there's obviously something wrong with the building’s ventilation system and it has little to do with a neighbour’s smoking.
Managers of the subsidized housing complex where Fox lived, say they did their best to seal her unit, but Fox was unsatisfied. She is now suing for moving expenses and the cost of furniture she claims was damaged by secondhand smoke.
And, the Toronto Star was there to take a few pictures and record for posterity Fox’s flight from the fearsome secondhand smoke. It was a great opportunity to do a little smoker bashing.
It’s not that I don’t have any sympathy for Ms. Fox, who apparently suffers from scleroderma, an auto-immune disease. And, if she was as uncomfortable with secondhand smoke as she claims, she was right to seek out and move into a smoke-free building.
But she’s being unrealistic when she demands a “guarantee” that she won’t be exposed to the nuisance of secondhand smoke. Says Fox: "It's really hard to find somewhere they can really guarantee it."
Anti-smoking activists, of course, are using her case and similar cases across the country, to pressure governments and landlords into passing no smoking policies in private homes when those homes are part of a multi-unit building.
Apparently, they intend to concentrate on social housing which is subsidized by the province or the municipality, because they perceive that government will be sympathetic to their cause, and willing to blatantly discriminate against smokers. Besides, the threats and intimidation will work best against the more vulnerable members of society who are dependent on this type of housing.
Ontario Housing Minister Jim Watson acknowledges that it is questionable how far landlords can go to stop people smoking in their own home. "I have asked my staff for some clarification on what is allowable under the law."
But, Margarett Best, Minister of Health Promotion, says whatever is done, it will not include a law banning people from smoking in their own homes. The McGuinty Liberals, however, have reneged on similar assurances in the past.
Currently, even in buildings designated as smoke-free there is limited action a landlord can take against tenants who light up in the privacy of their own home. Evicting people for smoking in the privacy of their own home can be a costly proposition.
A simple straight-forward eviction proceeding for non-payment of rent can result in lawyers fees of $1,000 or more. In addition, there are expenses incurred to refurbish the unit, to make it ready for the next tenant. Painting, cleaning or replacing carpet, refinishing floors, etc, all add to the cost. Then, there’s the cost of vacancy loss while the unit is being refurbished and the landlord searches for a suitable tenant.
Evictions adversely impact the bottom line. And, evictions based on nuisance factors can be far more protracted and costly that simple non-payment of rent. If a tenant chooses to fight, there has to be an eviction proceeding. And no matter what the landlord says, the ultimate decision will be made by a judge in a court of law.
A judge will be more likely to demand verifiable evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke is a health hazard. Landlords won’t be able to talk their way around the well-known toxicological principle that the poison is in the dose. “No safe level” just won’t cut it.
A judge will want to know what other efforts the landlord has taken to resolve the alleged problem. Did they try to seal apartments, or modify the ventilation system to equalize air pressure and keep second-hand smoke out?
That’s why the anti-smoker fanatics are pressuring government to amend provincial tenancy law and make it easier to evict tenants who refuse to quit despite the presence of no smoking clauses in the lease.
Current tenants, for example, can’t be forced to comply with a new smoking ban in buildings. Tenants, whether living in a private building or social housing, are not required to sign a new lease or occupancy agreement; they can remain in their unit on a month to month basis under the terms of the old lease, and continue to smoke.
So, to further their agenda of eliminating smokers and advancing their cause, the anti-smoker fanatics need legislation that will enable landlords, both private and public, to openly discriminate against smokers. And, there are a lot of politicians out there who are willing to give it to them.
The last I heard, there were 5 million smokers in Canada. That’s 5 million voters. They’d better start fighting back.
The anti-smokers crowd is pressuring landlords and governments to adopt no smoking policies in multi-unit dwellings. They want to control the smoker’s behaviour even in the privacy of their own home.
The fact is, no smoking policies subject over 5 million Canadians who choose to smoke, 20% of the adult population, to a form of discrimination that would not be tolerated against any other minority.
Anti-smoker crusaders are determined to eradicate smokers from the face of the earth. That’s not a wild exaggeration or a paranoid allegation. The anti-smokers have publicly declared their intention. And, they are prepared to use any form of punitive coercion to further that end. And, that includes threatening the housing of low income wage earners, seniors, and others on fixed incomes if they refuse to quit smoking.
Non-smokers appear quite content to allow this kind of rampant discrimination; after all, it’s for the smoker’s own good, isn’t it? Besides, don’t smokers kill their babies, their spouses and the family pet with their secondhand smoke? Doesn’t the very sight of a smoker corrupt our young people, forcing them into a life of degeneracy and degradation?
The government has approved an anti-smoker campaign to “de-normalize” those who choose to smoke, to paint them as something abnormal and sub-human. In so doing, they have contributed significantly to an escalating, open hostility directed at smokers. They contribute to the active discrimination of smokers in all aspects of life: housing, employment, adoption, etc. And, they appear unwilling to take any action to stop it.
But, there’s another group contributing greatly to the open warfare being waged against those who choose to smoke.
Smokers themselves play a key role in efforts by anti-smoker crusaders to relegate smokers to the role of second-class citizens. Too many guilt-tripping smokers have allowed themselves to be shamed into embracing the bullshit and bafflegab of their persecutors.
They’ve done nothing wrong; they have nothing to feel guilty about. It’s their home; they are free to engage in any legal activity they choose. And, if they choose to smoke in their home, that is their decision, not their neighbour’s.
The intention of no-smoking policies is to deprive smokers of the respect and dignity to which they are entitled as human beings, simply because they smoke. So why do some smokers whimper and whine about the discriminatory policies while bending to the will of those who bully and harass them?
These bigots are judging 20% of the adult population, not by their accomplishments, contributions to community, or character, but by that one factor which separates them from the majority; whether or not they smoke. That’s prejudice. And no one should have to tolerate it.
Secondhand smoke is little more than a controllable nuisance.
But, the fact is, the anti-smoker element in society doesn’t want secondhand smoke controlled; they want smokers controlled. They are offended by the very sight of someone smoking. And, when it comes to multi-unit apartment buildings, they’re offended by the very thought of someone smoking, whether they can be seen or not
No smoking policies designed to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own home have to be self-enforcing. Unless the government is prepared to give police the authority to break down doors with a battering ram and raid private homes on suspicion of smoking, such policies are practically unenforceable.
Their efforts to force smokers to quit can work only if smokers accept these intrusions on their privacy and personal liberties; only if they willingly participate in their own persecution.
I know what you’re thinking; you can’t fight city hall. The anti-smoker fanatics have money and power, and they have government on their side. That’s defeatist bullshit. Free men have been fighting oppression and tyranny since the dawn of time; and winning.
Anti-smoker crusaders, and the misinformed politicians who support them, are conducting an experiment in behavioural control. Their propaganda techniques and tactics of fear are those of other would be dictators throughout history.
Smokers have a right, some might even say, an obligation, to resist.
If you want to quit; do it. If you need help; get it. But make it your choice, not theirs.
I have a few remaining thoughts on this topic and the anti-smoker brigade’s concept of “self-policing” no smoking by-laws in my next post.
Last August, Ontario passed a feel good law to ban smoking in cars carrying passengers under the age of 16. The intent, of course, was to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke while being transported in the family car.
