Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant before Parliament | Main | Welcome To Canada, Your Check is in the Mail »

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

New smoking ban is absurd

It started with the ban on smoking in bars and taverns, followed by the ban on smoking within 10 meters of buildings. Now you're not even allowed to smoke in open spaces. I highlighted the important parts of this article and they really do speak for themselves - no commentary is necessary.

Halifax Regional Council voted to ban smoking in hundreds of new outdoor areas across the Halifax Regional Municipality last night.

It was done to protect children from second-hand smoke, though kids don’t need to be present at the time.

Council chose to enact the new ban through a policy rather than a bylaw. That means it is implemented immediately without public consultation.

Many councillors said they’d like to go even further, with Debbie Hum (Rockingham-Wentworth) saying she’d like to ban smoking altogether.

Staff admitted rigorous enforcement of the new policy wouldn’t be possible and it would instead depend on public education.

A TV report on the ban today showed a parent at a park with her child, saying that she doesn't like people at the park "blowing smoke in their children's face", and that before she couldn't do anything about it. She then exlaims "But now I can!". The amount of things wrong with this astounds me.

First of all, unless there is absolutely no breeze, your child is not going to be breathing in smoke. Besides the fact that smoke rises, an adult is much taller than a child. Is the smoke going to drift downward somehow?

Secondly, she's clearly depending on the government to do the parenting for her. You don't need a new policy to speak your mind to people around you: if you don't like smokers in the area so much, ask them to smoke elsewhere. In any case, if someone was purposely blowing smoke in my child's face - well, let's just say they wouldn't be smoking near children again any time soon. People need to learn some personal responsibility.

For more smoking absurdities, check out my previous posts on the subject:

September 1, 2009: Some laws just don’t make sense

September 2, 2009: Smoke up, Johnny! Signed, the government.

September 3, 2009: Maclean’s mentions the cover up

[Cross-posted at The Right Coast]

Posted by Dane Richard on October 7, 2009 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink


In any case, if someone was purposely blowing smoke in my child's face - well, let's just say they wouldn't be smoking near children again any time soon.

Ahhh, but don't you see? That's the genius of it all: the first step they took was to make it illegal to take almost any "aggressive" action without a "more severe" initial action.

Once most of the tools at your disposal are taken away and societal problems start creeping up, the same people who created the problems ride to your rescue with a chance to solve them.

Posted by: FACLC | 2009-10-07 10:36:09 PM

The nuts are definately on a roll but the novelty of this subject is starting to wear a bit thin and soon these anti anything nazies will shop for new targets to ban. A few that are already on their radar are, perfume, salt, alcohol,hamburgers, spanking, coal, oil, plastic bags, and seemingly,anything you may enjoy.There is no end to the things that others feel the need to eliminate to maintain their power trip.Considering that there is no proof whatsoever that a moderate amount of second hand smoke is harmfull to anyone,it shows that people are truly sheep in need of a life. Since this country now seems to be run by activists out of control, we can only wonder where this will all end. Global warming is a perfect example of how easily people are brainwashed.

Posted by: peterj | 2009-10-07 11:11:27 PM

Reasons for smoking bans:

1. Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
2. Denormalise smoking.
2. Big Pharm to sell their nicotine inhalers, etc.
Incidently,health has nothing to do with the issue.
Unfortunatly, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.


Posted by: Thomas Laprade | 2009-10-08 9:31:38 AM

I've had plenty of disagreements with co-workers who smoke. They make travel a hassle. They have a habit of lighting up, just as you want them to do something that requires both hands. They are an extreme fire risk. Two former co-workers started million dollar fires, costing their employer $25,000 insurance deductable, and increased liability rates.

There are a couple of situations where a smoker can come in handy. When the mosquitos are really bad, everyone wants to sit by the smoker. When it's -30, and you realize nobody has any matches, you might wish there was a smoker on the crew.

Posted by: dp | 2009-10-08 9:43:30 AM

Ultimately smoking is about property rights. My body is my property. If I own a bar, or restaurant (or any other business) it is my property. I am a co-owner of the public spaces in my community.

The LAW is supposed to protect from "the tyranny of the majority".

The reason virtually everyone who is not a "native canadian" ever came to Canada was the rule of law based on the anglo saxon notions of personal sovereignty and property rights.

Every time I read of more outrages like this I curse the education system for utterly failing to root out the morons and useful idiots who have preached from on high about the public good while utterly failing to educate our children about the price in blood paid by our fathers and grandfathers to fight this fascist mind set.

Freedom is a messy business. Bureaubots hate freedom because it makes them work. Citizens who respond to and vote for fools like the ones referenced here deserve what they get. We who hate it do have the law and our rights protected by silly old pieces of paper like the Bill of Rights and our bogus Charter and all the legacy documents from the UK incorporated into the BNA.

I would suggest that the local government policy is clearly Ultra Vires their mandate under law. can you imagine the roar if the same local government "legalized " pot by policy?

The nerds at DOJ would be on them like white on rice. Where are they now? Why can't the careerists at DOJ apply the law equally? How can we ever overcome the staggering wall of lies our country is becoming?

We used to feel it was better to let 99 guilty men go free rather than incarcerate one innocent, now we are preparing to lock up people based on suspicion.

I think the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism is and has always been "public health policy"

Posted by: peter | 2009-10-08 10:14:40 AM

This is really about consideration. Smokers should be free to smoke anywhere they wish so long as their smoke does not annoy, bother or harm anyone else. Indoor smoking bans make sense because the air is shared. To go any further than this is absurd. To me, it is akin to the government passing regulations stating where and where you cannot fart.

Like a lot of people, I hate breathing in someone else's smoke. But at the same time, I enjoy a cigarette from time to time as well. Common courtesy should prevail.


Posted by: snowgirl | 2009-10-08 12:29:14 PM

An on-going war is happening between two different types of mentalities that I would call mentality A and mentality B in order to avoid confusing and misleading political labels.

A decides not to smoke or to quite smoking for whatever reason and does so.

B decides the same and decides to impose the same on everyone else.

A decides not to consume alcohol and follows through. B decides the same and seeks to stop everyone from drinking.

A becomes a vegetarian for whatever reason and is content. B is converted to vegetarianism for whatever reason and is determined that everyone cease eating meat.

A becomes religious and joins a religious group. B becomes religious and feels everyone must do the same.

A ceases to believe in religion and stops attending religious services. B ceases to believe and wants to stamp out all religion.

And it goes on and on as long as the B mentality group is allowed to win, the A mentality group becomes only useful for contributing financially to society.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-10-08 12:44:03 PM

I left out a third group, group C, without whom group B could not succeed. Group C belongs to neither group A nor group B. C is complacent and goes along as long as he is not personally affected. After all what is the big deal?

Posted by: Alain | 2009-10-08 1:07:07 PM

This is horseshit. If the driver had been smoking weed or something that would affect his driving, then that would make it state business. If there were an employee or someone else in the vehicle who had no choice but to be there, then that would make it state business. What a person does, alone, within a closed vehicle that he owns, that does not affect his driving, is nobody's damned business.

You know what's really ironic? The meatheads who passed this legislation may screw their faces up at the sight of a tobacco smoker, but would probably tip a conspiratorial wink to a marijuana smoker. That is how disconnected from reality these nutters are.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 8:32:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.