Smoking in cars update
Two motorists charged for smoking in vehicle with kids
By PAMELA COWAN
REGINA — A few Saskatchewan motorists caught smoking in a vehicle with children present saw a bundle of their cash go up in a puff of smoke.
Ontario trucker fined for smoking in rig
By Trevor Wilhelm, Windsor Star
No fines issued to smoking drivers in Okotoks
Bylaw aimed at protecting children
By Tamara Gignac, Calgary Herald
A Law That May Kill… -MB
Nov. 28, 2008
Ref: Bruce Owen, “Smoking with kids in the car will soon be illegal”; Nov. 28th
Dear Editor, A Law That May Kill…
Banning smoking in cars with kids sounds like a good idea at first , but once you actually look at the studies it’s based on the idea gets a lot weaker.? Yes, there are studies that show that some kids exposed to smoke for 24 hours a day at home get more earaches and asthma.? No, there are no studies showing that short term exposures are harmful at all unless a child already has asthma that gets triggered by smoke exposure.
Despite the lurid pictures from antismoking lobbyists, virtually no one drives around with their car windows closed and babies strapped in bassinets.? And driving kids around in a car to begin with will expose them to far more deadly chemicals from the exhaust of other cars on the road than a few minutes of smoking would.
Car smoking bans carry an additional risk.? There are some people out there who feel they’re part of a holy “Antismoking Crusade” and who will engage in unsafe driving behavior to get license numbers while calling on a cell phone to report an illegally smoking driver. Some, feeling emboldened by the law, may even drive up next to smokers in an attempt to yell “You’re breaking the law!” thereby setting the stage for road rage or simple high-speed accidents.? While it’s pretty doubtful a car-ban law would actually save any lives, it could very easily set the stage for accidents that will kill.
Smoking bans in general are bad laws based on lies, and this law, despite its superficial appeal and innocence, may be among the worst in its immediate effects on loss of life.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers’ Action Network (PASAN) http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
________________________________________
Smoking with kids in the car will soon be illegal -MB
Nov. 28, 2008
By: Bruce Owen
IF you smoke and drive with kids or grandkids as passengers, you might not be able to do so much longer.
In the not-too-distant future, you could be pulled over by police and nailed with a $220 fine.
The Doer government introduced legislation Thursday that will make it an offence to smoke in a vehicle with a passenger who’s under age 16. The bill also makes it a crime for youths younger than 16 to smoke in a vehicle — a move to keep teens from picking up the habit.
It won’t matter if you drive with the windows open or if it’s a top-down convertible or a car with an open sunroof — the smoking ban would still apply.
Healthy Living Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross said the bill aims to protect young children from second-hand smoke.
Some studies say young children exposed to cigarette smoke are more prone to developing asthma and earaches than children who grow up in smoke-free homes.
“There is excellent support for this,” Murray Gibson of the Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance said of the bill. “We all know it’s (smoking) not good for you.”
Gibson said he’d prefer to see the passenger age raised to 18 under the bill in order to prevent more young people from exposure to second-hand smoke or even picking up the habit.
“We need to put pressure on each other to say this is not an accepted norm,” he said.
How soon the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act becomes law remains to be seen.
Irvin-Ross said the province wants to launch a public education campaign first so as many people as possible know about it before police start enforcement.
It’s expected the bill will pass into law this spring with little opposition. Tory Leader Hugh McFadyen said his party supports the initiative, as do the Liberals under Dr. Jon Gerrard. Earlier this year, the Liberals introduced their own bill to ban smoking in cars with children under the age of 12.
The ban brings Manitoba into line with other provinces, states and countries that have similar restrictions. Ontario drivers caught smoking in a car with children will soon face a fine of up to $250 once a widely supported government-backed ban is passed in that province.
Wolfville, N.S., was the first Canadian jurisdiction to prohibit tobacco use in vehicles carrying children. The town council passed the bylaw in November 2007.
Nova Scotia followed that December with a provincewide ban.
bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca
Okotoks launches ad campaign
Updated: Mon Aug. 18 2008 16:46:36
ctvcalgary.ca
The town of Okotoks is poised to bring in a bylaw that will be a first in Alberta.
On September 1, 2008, the town will ban smoking in cars if there are children in them.
This week town council will launch an ad campaign to create awareness about the bylaw.
A similar ban is already in effect throughout Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia.
In Okotoks, anyone caught smoking in a vehicle with kids could face a 2-hundred dollar fine.
Bylaw officers and the RCMP will be responsible for enforcing the rule.
But even town officials admit it will be tough by law to enforce.
Town official, Elyssa Berry, says they’re hoping a series of radio and print ads will help make parents more aware of the dangers of smoking in the car.
“When they are little and in their car seats in the back seats they don’t have the voice to say, ‘Mommy, daddy, can you stop.’ So it’ just letting parents know that it is dangerous.”
Information about the bylaw will be mailed to Okotoks residents with their utility bill.
Manitoba is considering a similar province-wide ban.
Tuesday July 22, 2008
Sarah Bjurstrom
A large town in Alberta has officially broken the ice over the rest of the provinces urban centres by banning smoking in cars while children are present in the vehicles.
Okotoks’ made this controversial move earlier this month, making it the first of Alberta’s to risk taking the initiative by responding to this problem with a new town bylaw.
This action is something that Hanna’s Mayor Mary Collins has said will not be likely here in town on the municipal level.
“Why are we taking peoples rights to make their own decisions away from them?” Collins said.
According to the new bylaw, anybody caught smoking in a car with children in it will face a $200 fine on the first offense.
Collins said she understands it’s about health reasons, but feels that it’s almost a violation of their rights and freedoms to dictate what goes on in someone’s private property, and doesn’t think it would be enforceable in Hanna.
Hanna’s Bylaw Officer, Adrian Mohl, also questioned the practicality of such a move on the municipal level.
“How on earth would I enforce that?” he asked.
Though he isn’t necessarily against the idea of it, he said that it would be hard to implement because he is not a first-level peace officer, and thus does not have the authority to stop a car or impede traffic if he sees a bylaw being violated.
“When does it end?” he asked “When do people actually get to take care of their own wellness? For most diehard smokers, a fine is not going to stop them anyways.” said Collins.
She said she sees it as being beneficial as far as potentially making less litter on the side of the road, and decreasing the chances of prairie fires, but at the same time, she said that this kind of bylaw is a slippery one because it clashes with so many other laws, rights, and freedoms.
“If you have kids, you shouldn’t be smoking in your car. We don’t even smoke in our truck,” Greg Wiebe said, an operator with Cornwood Wire Lines.
He said he was surprised to find out Okotoks had made it a bylaw, and that despite his personal convictions, he also said he doesn’t agree with the bylaw: “That is such a fine line. If you try to enforce it, how do you do it?”
Doug Webster, an operator and safety hand who works with Wiebe said that he also feels the message of the bylaw is on the right track, though feels that it should be common sense instead of a law.
“Morally, it’s wrong to smoke in the car with kids in it, but fining people in their own property shouldn’t be happening.”
“As far as I’m concerned, I don’t care about any of it until I’m not allowed to smoke in front of my own home.”
Edward Hoare, a sales clerk at Brandy’s Gas Bar said he knew that this would be happening, and that he’s disgusted with it.
“I think it’s a violation of our human rights,” said Hoare, and said that he understood that things like second hand smoke and smoke-related health concerns were not really big issues until about 10 years ago.
“I thought it was a free country, where do they stop?” He questioned. “Pretty soon it’s going to be illegal to smoke.”
From: Healthy Living, Minister
To: ‘Thomas Laprade’
Cc: Premier
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Mr. Thomas Laprade email
Dear Mr. Laprade:
Your email addressed to Premier Gary Doer regarding possible legislation to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children has been forwarded to me for reply.? I apologize for the delay in responding to you and appreciate this opportunity to clarify our government?s position on this important issue.
Manitoba?s overall goal is to reduce tobacco use in the province through a comprehensive strategy that:
•???????? prevents youth from starting to smoke;
•???????? protects non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke;
•???????? helps smokers quit; and,
•???????? denormalizes tobacco use.
As part of this strategy, the Province of Manitoba supports efforts by organizations such as the Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance, www.mantrainc.ca, to inform and encourage parents not to expose their children to second-hand smoke.
The challenge facing our government is to ensure it respects individual rights, while responding appropriately to protect the health of Manitobans.? Smoking in cars carrying children exposes a vulnerable population to a known health hazard, and often children do not have a choice about being exposed or not.
After much consideration, the government has decided to introduce legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying children, after a period of education.? Further details have yet to be finalized, as we continue to work with our partners to develop the education and legislation plan.? For further information, please contact Mr. Andrew Loughead, Tobacco Control Coordinator, Manitoba Health and Healthy Living, at 204-788-6731 in Winnipeg.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Best in health,
?original signed by,
Kerri Irvin-Ross
Minister of Healthy Living
c????????? The Honourable Gary Doer
??????????? Mr. Andrew Loughead
————————————————–
From: Premier
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM
To: ‘Thomas Laprade’
Cc: Healthy Living, Minister
Subject: RE: SMOKING IN CARS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT
April 15, 2008
Thomas Laprade email
Dear Mr. Laprade:
On behalf of The Honourable Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba, I would like to thank you for your recent e-mail.
Your comments will be brought to the attention of the Premier. We have also taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to the Honourable Kerri Irvin-Ross, Minister of Healthy Living, for her consideration and response.? Minister Irvin-Ross will continue to advise the Premier on this issue.
Once again, thank you for sharing your concerns with Premier Doer.
Sincerely,
Judith Baldwin
Coordinator of the Premier?s Secretariat
————————————————————–
From: Thomas Laprade
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:28 PM
To: Premier
Subject: SMOKING IN CARS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT
Dear Mr. Doer,????????????????????????????????????????????????? Mar. 27/08
I’m afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to make one’s own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.? Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.
?
Let me explain what I mean by substantial threat of severe harm and minor risk.
If an infant is riding in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial threat of severe harm should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if the car is in any major accident, severe harm to the child is almost certain. Death is likely if the accident is severe. The connection between not being in the child restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an accident is direct, immediate, and definitive.
On the other hand, exposure to secondhand smoke in a car in most cases merely poses an increased risk of upper respiratory or middle ear infection. The likelihood, more often than not, is that the child will not suffer any harm. What is involved is only an elevation of risk for an ailment. There is no certainty of harm, nor is there any substantial threat of severe harm. The harm, if any occurs, is removed in time from the exposure and in most cases it is impossible to directly connect the exposure with the ailment. Thus, the connection is neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.
This difference is not subtle. In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the basis for deciding when society should interfere with parental autonomy regarding exposure of their own children to health risks. Generally, causing harm to children or putting them at substantial risk of severe, direct, immediate, and definitive harm is viewed as something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply placing children at an increased risk of more minor health effects is not something for which there is a legitimate government interest in interfering with parental autonomy.
If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed legislation, then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide range of parental activity that takes place in the private home which places children at increased risk of adverse health effects.
We would have to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban parents from drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We would have to ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun without sunscreen. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to ride giant roller coasters. We would have to ban parents from serving their children foods that contain trans-fats. We would have to ban parents from serving their children peanuts before age 3. We would have to ban parents from allowing their children to drink soda that contains sodium benzoate and citric acid.
And more:
•?Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
•?Allowing their children to watch more than four hours of television every day;
•?Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
•?Owning a wood-burning stove;
•?Failing to filter water that contains trihalomethanes;
•?Not boiling their babies’? bottles before serving them milk;
•?Not breastfeeding their infants;
•?Allowing their children to watch violent television programs;
•?Allowing their children to watch R-rated movies;
•?Serving alcohol at a party;
•?Allowing their children to drink alcohol; and
•?Failing to keep vitamins out of the reach of children.
One could easily argue that ‘If you love your children, [these are all things] you should learn not to do.’ That may or may not be true, but what is clear is that we should not interfere with parental autonomy by banning all of these things.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ontario passes ban on smoking in cars with kids under 16 -ON
June 16, 2008
TORONTO — Ontario became the latest Canadian province to ban smoking in a vehicle with a child present Monday after a government-backed private member’s bill passed in the legislature with the support of all three parties.
Smoking in Ontario workplaces and public areas, such as bars and restaurants, is already illegal in Ontario, but the new ban will provide an additional level of protection to children under the age of 16 , said Health Promotion Minister Margarett Best.
“This is about protection of our most vulnerable citizens – children who do not have a voice,” Best told the legislature.
Drivers and passengers in Ontario who don’t butt out in cars carrying children won’t be fined more than $250 for each offence, a much lighter fine than originally envisioned by Liberal backbencher David Orazietti’s bill, which set penalties up to $1,000.
Nova Scotia and British Columbia have already outlawed the practice, which critics liken to child abuse. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are also considering a similar ban.
Health care groups who lobbied hard for a ban praised the province for taking the right steps to protect children’s health.
“Doctors have been calling for a ban since 2004 and raising awareness about the serious impacts on children of second-hand smoke in cars,” Ontario Medical Association president Dr. Ken Arnold said in a statement.
“The amount of support it has received publicly and from MPPs of all stripes is an indication that more people are becoming educated about the negative health impacts of smoking.”
Premier Dalton McGuinty once dismissed a province-wide ban as a slippery slope that infringed too much on people’s rights, but changed his tune in March and threw his government’s support behind the private members’ bill.
Mychoice.ca, a smokers’ rights group financed in part by the tobacco industry, has raised concerns that the ban will eventually extend to private homes, but McGuinty said that’s not under consideration.
Government officials cite studies which show that kids are exposed to up to 27 times the toxins when they’re in enclosed spaces like a car, which can worsen asthma and lead to other respiratory illnesses.
The province will launch a campaign to better educate the public about the dangers of smoking in vehicles with children, but hasn’t yet determined how much it will spend, Best said.
“We expect the budget will not be a big budget because we expect that there’s going to be a very high percentage of compliance with this piece of legislation,” she said.
But police will be expected to enforce the law once it takes effect, which will only make their jobs more onerous, said Opposition Leader Bob Runciman.
“There will probably be very little enforcement of this, in terms of checking cars and that sort of thing,” he said. “So I think education would be a critical part of this. It has to be.”
Ontario Provincial Police have said the ban won’t be difficult to enforce, as it already inspects for seatbelts and child car seats.
The ban should have also extended protection to teens until they’re 19, when they’re legally allowed to buy cigarettes, said NDP health critic France Gelinas.
“You send this message that, ‘We know there are a lot of kids between the ages of 16 and 19 that smoke. It’s a problem we’re not ready to tackle, therefore we’re going to put the cutoff at 16 years old,”‘ she said.
“That’s the wrong message to send.”
Tue, May 27, 2008
By Paul Rutherford
Amid choruses of “protect our children” the NDP are about to put another nail in the coffin of Manitoba’s smokers.
Premier Gary Doer announced last week that his government will introduce legislation-possibly next month — that will make it illegal to smoke inside a vehicle where children are present.
Officials are trying to figure out the details of the bill and an educational campaign to go along with it. The Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance can’t contain their excitement.
“It can be a helpful step and it reinforces the importance of the second-hand smoke issue,” said Murray Gibson, executive director of the Alliance.
In March Gibson told the Sun “it will take some foresight and progressive thinking on the part of the government” to legislate something like this.
It’s hardly foresight to talk about a bill that so far has no age limit set or no enforcement mechanism. And it isn’t very progressive to lean on smokers once again for political gains. Second-hand smoke can kill you.
And banning smoking in public buildings, bars and restaurants is something Manitoba can be proud of.
It’s also a good idea to encourage smokers to butt out everywhere else.
But does the government have a right to stick their noses into the way people raise their children?
This is clearly an elaborate public relations exercise tugging on the heartstrings of people by pretending to do something to better the lives of children.
Let’s face it, it’s political opportunism at its best.
Think about how many minutes children actually ride in vehicles these days when the windows can’t be opened, even slightly?
So let’s give smokers credit for once. Many have been forced to quit since the provincial ban was passed in 2004. Many others have voluntarily butted out and many more are not smoking in the presence of their children.
They have become educated about the effects their habit has on everyone.
For a decade, anti-smoking lobby groups have for the most part bullied smokers and hounded governments to get their way.
If the NDP really wants to stop parents from smoking in the faces of their children, they would make it illegal to sell any tobacco products in Manitoba.
They should leave it up to parents to be responsible about smoking.
Smokers are more capable than the politically correct NDP and arrogant anti-smoking lobby give them credit for.
Updated: May 24, 2008 at 07:39 AM CDT
It is hard to know if there is a pressing problem with adults smoking in their vehicles while young kids ride along, fogged in a smog causally related to asthma attacks and lung infections. Can anyone be so ignorant of the health implications for children in their smoky midst?
The answer to the last question, of course, is yes, but are their numbers large enough that they demand the sledgehammer of law as a response? The Doer administration, notwithstanding the absence of Manitoba data, plans to ban smoking in a car when children are present.
The closest Statistics Canada gets to describing the issue is in a 2005 survey that showed that among non-smoking Canadians older than 11, almost 19 per cent had been exposed in the last month to second-hand smoke in vehicles or public places. Manitoba’s rate was significantly lower than 19 per cent. Manitoba reported results close to the nine per cent of non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke in their homes. StatsCan did not have data on how many young kids were subjected to bad air.
But banning smoking in cars carrying kids is a public relations winner — who would want to become the social pariah defending the rights of the boors who puff into the faces of the most vulnerable? Children breathe at a faster rate than adults, and their growing lungs are especially susceptible to the effects of tobacco smoke.
Premier Gary Doer, having hijacked a bill presented in the legislature first by Liberal MLA Kevin Lamoureux, says an education campaign will precede a ban. Mr. Doer concedes that enforcing such a ban may create an enforcement problem — what does a cop do, having stopped a driver for a seatbelt infraction, when he smells smoke in a car filled with little soccer players? Cigarette butts seized from the ash tray support a circumstantial case, and conjures images of cops demanding a breathalyser test to detect nicotine in the blood.
The government should launch a sustained media campaign to turn up the heat on smokers who light up around kids in any confined space. It is the more reasoned reach of state authority. The logical extension of a ban on smoking in the car is a ban on smoking in the home. That would be not just a nightmare for enforcement. It would imply that parents who are repeatedly fined are unfit and should lose their children to the care of the state. It is doubtful even Mr. Doer would go there.
Michelle Lang, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008
An Okotoks city councillor wants the Calgary bedroom community to be the first in Alberta to outlaw smoking in cars carrying children, saying he hopes the move will spur a provincewide ban.
As a growing number of jurisdictions move to stop the practice, Okotoks council is expected to vote at an upcoming meeting on a bylaw that would fine drivers who smoke with anyone under 16 in the vehicle.
“We’re a young community and I think this is appropriate,” said Coun. Stephen Clark, who has proposed the bylaw. “If you think back to seatbelt laws and helmet laws, they were first brought forward by municipalities and then became provincial legislation.”
The bylaw follows Ontario’s move to ban smoking in cars with children. The Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, if passed, would fine drivers a maximum $250 if they smoke in a vehicle where anyone under 16 is present.
Nova Scotia was the first province to prohibit the practice, passing legislation in December. It applies to people under 19.
In Alberta, MLAs are expected to debate a private member’s bill this fall that would prohibit smoking in cars carrying children, but the proposed ban does not appear to be a priority.
The proposal didn’t make the list of top Conservative private member’s bills this year, and Premier Ed Stelmach has said he isn’t sure whether he supports the move, saying there could be problems enforcing such a ban.
Some members of Okotoks council seem to share that concern.
Mayor Bill McAlpine said the ban isn’t realistic because there are too many people who drive through Okotoks.
“I fully support doing everything you can to keep children from being exposed to cigarettes, but I just don’t see how this is enforceable,” he said.
Anti-tobacco advocates praised Clark’s efforts and agreed the provincial government should ultimately ban the practice.
“There’s still a fairly large percentage of people who are smoking in cars and exposing children to second-hand smoke,” said Robyn Hauck, spokeswoman for Action on Smoking and Health in Calgary.
“It would be nice for this (bylaw) to carry over to the provincial level.”
Okotoks council is expected to vote on the bylaw later this month. Clark said the fines have yet to be determined, but they would likely be about $100 for a first offence and $200 for a second offence.
The council has passed a motion to ask the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association to consider similar action.
mlang@theherald.canwest.com
Read More
Cars, not smokers, the bigger threat
The Edmonton Journal
January 22, 2008
Re: “Time to ban smoking in cars,” by Irena Buka, Letters, Jan. 21.
I’m disappointed that Irena Buka has chosen to join the moral panic over smoking in private vehicles. There is no data on how often, if ever, preteens are exposed to second-hand smoke in a vehicle.
This could be a phantom problem, a perception based on anecdote and rumour, and Buka offers no data to demonstrate that it’s not.
I’m a lifelong bicycle commuter; I’ve never owned or driven a gas-powered vehicle. Vehicle exhaust contains many toxic substances as well as fine particulate matter, and exposure to even moderate levels of vehicle exhaust on a regular basis has been linked to heart disease, respiratory ailments including childhood asthma and leukemia, and central nervous system cancer tumours.
Drivers have exposed me and my children to their toxic vehicle fumes every day. People who smoke make easy targets. They are being scapegoated for our collective sins against the environmental health of children.
Roy Harrold, Edmonton
December 16, 2007
By Peter Duffy
THE DEED IS DONE. Nova Scotia becomes the first province to outlaw smoking in vehicles where children are present.
On the surface, how could anyone have a problem with that? Or with any of the other smoking bans that have come into force since this province introduced its tobacco control strategy in 2001? After all, even smokers admit the habit is bad for every living thing.
And yet, whatʼs happening here disturbs me, and not just because Iʼm an ex-smoker who has great sympathy for those whoʼre still addicted.
To me, all this legislation, and more doubtlessly still to come, targets them as if theyʼre criminals and has turned them into social pariahs. It bothers me to witness how relentlessly smokers are being driven underground.
Bit by bit, weʼre taking away rights one in four Canadians once enjoyed and welcoming the nanny state into our midst.
And all this time, all those people were doing was using a substance thatʼs still perfectly legal and, in fact, a major source of revenue for those same governments that are hounding them out of town.
In the financial year 2005-2006, for example, federal and provincial revenues from tobacco products amounted to more than $7 billion. And that eye-popping figure doesnʼt even include goods and service taxes! The grab for Nova Scotia alone amounted to almost $164 million, double the haul of six years ago.
If youʼve ever wondered why government doesnʼt just come out and ban smoking, now you know. It’s all that lovely revenue, plus the political reality that such a huge number of voters still smoke.
And so it becomes death by a thousand cuts. Slowly but surely, the smoker has been driven up against the wall, buried by a blizzard of statistics, pummelled by the medical profession in partnership with zealots, do-gooders and politicians.
Puffers have lost their rights in their offices; been confined to small rooms; beaten from public places and private establishments alike; and now even their own vehicles are out of bounds.
Oh how we love to pass laws. Letʼs not educate, letʼs legislate!
So, where will the overprotective nanny state go next?
My bet is, sheʼll be coming after them in their own homes, starting with those whoʼre parents. After all, if the nannyʼs so concerned about the health of kids in cars, whatʼs so different in principle when it comes to youngsters exposed to second-hand smoke in the home?
A spokesman for the provincial Health Promotion and Protection Department assured me Friday that kind of ultra-intrusive legislation isn’t going to be introduced. Itʼs not even on the governmentʼs radar, he said.
Unconvinced, I called the Halifax office of the Canadian Cancer Society to ask what’s next on its smoking hit list.
It didnʼt let me down. I was told the national organization has targeted outdoor sports and recreational facilities not already covered by no-smoking legislation. Enjoy those last few puffs while you can, all you fans of baseball, football and soccer games.
As well, the cancer society has joined the push to make all multi-unit dwellings like apartments and condos smoke-free.
See, I warned you; itʼs c-o-m-i-n-g!
Eventually, there wonʼt be a bolt or lock strong enough to keep the nanny at bay, even from your own home.
Take heed, all those of you whoʼre overweight, or sedentary, or allow your kids to watch a lot of TV, or . . .
That was a smooth effort by former prime minister Brian Mulroney this week at the Commons ethics committee. It was in sharp contrast to the folksy, confusing contribution we got the previous week from his nemesis, Karlheinz Schreiber.
Now admittedly, neither man got what youʼd call a really good grilling, at least to the point their answers overshadowed their personas; however, I suspect their performances donʼt bode well for any future public inquiry.
Frankly, I wouldnʼt be at all surprised to hear Prime Minister Stephen Harper announce heʼs changed his mind and decided against holding one. He’ll justify the cancellation by reminding us of the millions that would be spent and the likelihood we’ll all be little or none the wiser afterwards, if this first little go-round is anything to judge by. And heʼd be right.
And finally, dear old Santaʼs coming under fire for his size. No, seriously. Critics in the U.K. and U.S. claim his belly is a bad role model for youngsters in this increasingly obese world of ours.
Well, letʼs hope Santa pays them no heed. Part of the magic is the very fact someone of his girth canʼt possibly get down a chimney. What a load of nonsense.
All this fuss makes you wonder just how impressionable are kids these days, compared to those in the past.
In fact, if Santa poses this kind of threat, I’d say this generation has more to worry about than the possibility of getting fat!
Dec. 15 2007
An anti-smoking movement that started in a tiny Nova Scotia town appears to be spreading across the country.
Last month, Wolfville became the first jurisdiction to ban smoking in cars when kids are riding along.
The province then followed the town’s lead. Starting next month, it will be illegal for smokers in Nova Scotia to light up in a car when anyone under 18 is on board.
Now, New Brunswick has similar plans. Michael Murphy, the province’s health minister, told CTV Halifax that he’s concerned that the tobacco industry is targeting kids. He also said that New Brunswick residents may want to consider the possibility of a smoking ban in cars with kids.
British Columbia and the Yukon are considering similar legislation. Ontario politicians have also started to debate vehicle smoking bans.
Studies show that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled car is 23 times greater than a smoky bar. Yet, one in five children are exposed to smoke in a car on a regular basis.
Such smoking bans couldn’t come soon enough for the Canadian Cancer Society. It has long lobbied for laws to control second-hand smoke in the presence of kids.
“(Children have) higher respiratory (disease) rates, so, yes, they’re more vulnerable to second-hand smoke, particularly in a small enclosed area,” Rosemary Boyle of the New Brunswick Canadian Cancer Society told CTV Halifax.
“You have to remember that second-hand smoke actually contains 4,000 chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic.”
While some residents in Nova Scotia have complained that banning smoking in cars with kids violates personal freedom, the Cancer Society says most people don’t mind laws curbing the practice.
Some New Brunswick residents say they’re for any law that helps protects children’s health.
“If I had kids in the car, I wouldn’t smoke,” said one resident.
“It’s not a big deal to wait until you get out.”
December 14, 2007
By: News 88-9’s Andrea Cyr
SAINT JOHN, NB -? A spokesman for the Canadian Smokers Club is not happy it’s about to become illegal to smoke in a vehicle with children in Nova Scotia.
Thomas Laprade says the law is ridiculous.
“It’s just a big farce ya know.? It’s against the law to use a legal product on private property.? That doesn’t make sense.? I mean if smoking or second hand (smoke) was so bad, obviously the government would make it illegal period, but the government is addicted to to taxes.”
Laprade says second hand smoke is not a significant health risk and it’s up to groups like his to educate the public and ensure such laws are not adopted in other provinces.???
Published: Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Pamela Cowan, Leader-Post
No one is hazy about the threat second-hand smoke poses to young lungs, but not all Saskatchewan agencies agree with the Canadian Medical Association’s proposal for a nationwide ban on smoking in all vehicles carrying children.
The Lung Association of Saskatchewan doesn’t think legislation is the answer to getting parents to butt out in vehicles.
“While people might take smoking inside a vehicle more seriously if it’s illegal, it’d be far more useful to mount stronger public education campaigns to increase awareness of the hazards,” said Paul Van Loon, the association’s vice-president of health education.
For example, parents who don’t smoke while driving their children to an event but light up inside the car while waiting for them are putting their kids at risk.
“The car is still going to be full of smoke — it’s going to be in the seats and everywhere,” Van Loon said.
The CMA maintains that exposure to second-hand smoke affects infants and children more severely because they’re smaller, have immature immune systems and breathe faster. The association also notes that levels of smoke in vehicles can be far higher than those found in bars.
Van Loon acknowledges a vehicle can have significantly high levels of second-hand smoke.
“I don’t want to suggest that the idea doesn’t have merit because it certainly does but if we’re going to (ban smoking) in cars, are we going to do it in homes?” he said. “You can’t argue that one is private space and the other one isn’t and you’re in the home much longer than you are in the car … We just want people to stop smoking around other people and to be very cautious and cognizant about where they’re doing it.”
When the Canadian Cancer Society in Saskatchewan meets with the province’s new health minister, it will voice its support of the ban, said Donna Pasiechnik, the society’s tobacco control co-ordinator.
“This will be on our list of initiatives that we believe will protect kids from second-hand smoke,” she said.
Pasiechnik expects Saskatchewan residents would support the initiative after a national study conducted by Environics for the Canadian Cancer Society last year found 80 per cent of Canadians supported a provincial law that would prohibit smoking in cars that carry children younger than 13.
“There was 74 per cent support in Saskatchewan so people certainly understand this issue. We have seatbelt laws and laws around carseats — those laws are in place to protect the health and well-being of passengers and smoking in cars carrying children is no different.”
December 11, 2007
By TOM BRODBECK
State control I can back
It looks like momentum is building in Canada’s largest province to ban smoking in cars when kids are present.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday he hasn’t ruled out supporting one of his MPP’s private members’ bills that would force motorists to butt out in their vehicles when children are in the back seat.
Could Manitoba be next?
I asked Premier Gary Doer last week if he would consider a similar ban for Manitoba.
He said he has no plans to do it.
But he hasn’t ruled it out, either.
“We’re watching it,” said Doer.
What people may not know is Doer didn’t support Manitoba’s province-wide, indoor smoking ban at first, either.
Nor did I.
I thought government was overstepping its bounds by telling private bar owners they couldn’t allow smoking in their establishments.
If people didn’t like the smoke, I argued, they didn’t have to frequent the place. Let the market work it out, I thought.
But I was eventually convinced otherwise when supporters of the ban argued — quite rightly — that bar staff don’t have that luxury.
So was Doer, who says he was moved by the story of non-smoker Heather Crowe, then 57, who was dying of lung cancer after working 40 years in smoke-filled restaurants.
She went on a cross-country crusade urging governments to ban smoking indoors.
It’s the same with kids trapped in smoke-filled cars.
Which is why health groups are rallying around the private members’ bill of Sault Ste. Marie MPP David Orazietti.
Orazietti tabled his bill last week. It would allow police to fine anyone smoking in a vehicle with kids under 16 present.
“To one extent, it’s pretty invasive,” Premier McGuinty said yesterday. “The car is a kind of personal space. On the other hand, as a parent, I think the idea of smoking inside a car is reprehensible. Kids have no choice in the matter at all so I think it’s an important debate to have.”
Wolfville, N.S., became the first jurisdiction in Canada last month to bring in such a ban.
Opposition MPs in B.C. and Nova Scotia have already tabled similar private members’ bills.
McGuinty wasn’t always as open-minded about the smoke ban as he is today. A few months ago he dismissed the proposed law as a “slippery slope.” But now he says he’s willing to consider it.
Meanwhile, groups like the Ontario Lung Association and the Ontario Medical Association are supporting Orazietti’s bill.
They point to the volumes of studies that show the dangers of second-hand smoke to children.
I wish their counterparts in Manitoba would do some similar government lobbying.
Maybe someone can table a private members’ bill here to get the debate going.
Dr. Jon Gerrard, who is not only a medical doctor but also a pediatrician, perhaps?
Seems like a good fit. Look what he did with phosphates.
Smoking in cars with kids is already outlawed in some parts of the U.S. and Australia.
It’s pretty much a no-brainer given the overwhelming evidence that tobacco smoke harms children.
Doer says he sees far fewer people smoking in cars these days with kids present. And he’s right.
But what about those who are still getting gassed against their will?
I think they need the protection of the law.
