1
A tempest in an ashtray
03 June 2011
Last week, Councillor Keith Hull gave a notice of motion that read, "THAT Council of the Town of Collingwood herein petitions the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to change legislation to permit municipalities across the Province the ability to prohibit smoking in public places that includes sidewalks/streets within a Business Improvement Area and sidewalks/streets within a heritage district."
It didn't take long for that to spark some flames, not least among some BIA board members, but also among local (and some not local) residents.
Counc. Hull's motion does not suggest we ban smoking downtown at this point. What he asks council for is to petition the province to allow municipalities to designate specific areas on municipal downtown property as non smoking.
Collingwood already bans smoking within several meters of municipal office doors (including the arena, although from the number of cigarette butts there you wouldn't know it). We also already ban smoking in patios located on municipal property (i.e. the downtown sidewalks).
One BIA board member worried that, "...it is clearly intended as the first step toward making the BIA/Historic District non smoking. I believe that this is a good direction for healthy living but unfortunately the possibility that it could further reduce traffic in the downtown is not a tenable position for the Board. We have had several business closings in the past year and rumours of more to come. The streets of the downtown are not busy and we are hearing from business owners that their customer counts are down."
The board has not, however, discussed this matter, nor formulated an official position. This was just a personal opinion - but the concerns about discouraging customers and pedestrians have been raised by others in this issue, and issues in the past. It's a serious issue. We need our downtown to be vital and strong.
It's a good point: what we don't want to do is further make the downtown a place where people don't to come and shop. But will it?
Maybe it will be MORE attractive. If you've ever had to pass through the cloud of smokers standing on the sidewalk near the Arlington building, or further south near the MOT plaza, you'll know how annoying it can be. And for many seniors, it can be intimidating.
What's the message hockey parents are sending their kids when they stand outside the arena puffing away while the kids are ostensibly working out indoors? (I have asked for a report from staff about the missing signs that are supposed to identify this area as non-smoking, as well as on the level of enforcement since the bylaw was amended). All studies I've ever read say that if you want your kids to smoke, then smoke yourself. is that the message this municipality should support?
Ever sit on a bench downtown to have a smoker sit beside you and light up? So much for your comfort and enjoyment. You are driven away by the noxious fumes.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that fewer than 20% of Canadians smoke. Do we cater to the 20 percent or to the 80-plus percent? When we passed non-smoking bylaws that prohibited smoking in bars and restaurants a few years ago, we were warned about the collapse of the hospitality industry and lawsuits over loss of business. What happened? Bars and restaurants got MORE business and the province followed our lead with similar province-wide bans.
Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that smoking is stupid. As a culture we do a lot of stupid things but few are as self-destructive as smoking. There isn't a smoker who doesn't recognize this, who doesn't recognize that smoking is unhealthy, dangerous, smelly, dirty and seriously addictive.
And not only is it a stupid act, smoking makes you stupid. That's right: smokers in a national survey had a lower IQ than non-smokers. "There are 250 poisonous toxins found in cigarette smoke. One such substance is lead. Very good studies show that tiny levels of exposure are associated with diminished IQ," notes this article. but it doesn't just lower the IQ of the smoker - it can affect anyone who gets second- or third-hand smoke.
And finally, smoking is the great gender neutralizer: it makes women look butch and men look feminine. But maybe that's how smokers want to look: androgynous. And lest we forget the wrinkles and aging that smoking causes to the skin - or that kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.
Don't we, as guardians of the community's best interests, have an obligation to protect non-smokers - the majority - from tobacco smoke from the minority? If that smoke is deleterious to their wellbeing or to their health, I believe we do. I believe we have an obligation to protect people from second- and third-hand smoke on municipal property.
The World Health Organization just released its new stats on smoking: six million people will die this year, worldwide, as a result of tobacco use. In the USA, more than 450,000 people will die from it this year, and about 45,000 will die in Canada.
The cost to our health care system is staggering. No other single illness causes such a holocaust of deaths. And yet it's all self-inflicted.
I wrote about smoking in Simcoe County previously - noting that is is actually higher in this area than the national average. Sad, but true.
A non-resident wrote an email to all of council, saying, "In a democratic country with personal rights and freedoms it is truly alarming that there are people like Hull in a position on your council.
I do not smoke , but believe have the right to smoke or drink etc...so long as they don’t hurt anyone else...Smoking outside cannot possibly hurt anyone.
It is truly appalling to have someone that wants to control people on your council.
People like HULL are a danger to democracy."
Well, obviously I disagree. That's just hyperbole. There are laws prohibiting public consumption of alcohol, public consumption of illicit drugs - why is tobacco so special that we should disregard its danger or its addictiveness? We have laws about pesticides, about toxic chemicals, about disposal of oils and paints. We don't allow graffiti vandals to paint public spaces, why should we allow smokers to pollute it in another, but far more dangerous, manner?
The writer makes two significant errors: First, "so long as they don’t hurt anyone else..." All evidence and research shows second- and third-hand tobacco smoke DOES hurt people. It kills them,and in a nasty manner. Plus it lowers their enjoyment of the downtown. Tobacco stink is very unpleasant to non-smokers, worse than anything from any industrial plant.
Second, "Smoking outside cannot possibly hurt anyone." When any non-smoker has to pass within close distance it certainly does hurt them. Third-hand smoke - contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished - is deadly, too.
The other error is that what Counc. Hull is suggesting is non-democratic. We were elected to make decision, we all have the right to vote for against a motion. Simply suggesting it is not undemocratic. And passing laws that affect any and every segment of society is both democratic and what we were elected to do.
Collingwood has been on the leading edge of several pieces of health and lifestyle-related legislation in the past. I think this is another and I will support the motion, Monday.
It didn't take long for that to spark some flames, not least among some BIA board members, but also among local (and some not local) residents.
Counc. Hull's motion does not suggest we ban smoking downtown at this point. What he asks council for is to petition the province to allow municipalities to designate specific areas on municipal downtown property as non smoking.
One BIA board member worried that, "...it is clearly intended as the first step toward making the BIA/Historic District non smoking. I believe that this is a good direction for healthy living but unfortunately the possibility that it could further reduce traffic in the downtown is not a tenable position for the Board. We have had several business closings in the past year and rumours of more to come. The streets of the downtown are not busy and we are hearing from business owners that their customer counts are down."
The board has not, however, discussed this matter, nor formulated an official position. This was just a personal opinion - but the concerns about discouraging customers and pedestrians have been raised by others in this issue, and issues in the past. It's a serious issue. We need our downtown to be vital and strong.
It's a good point: what we don't want to do is further make the downtown a place where people don't to come and shop. But will it?
Maybe it will be MORE attractive. If you've ever had to pass through the cloud of smokers standing on the sidewalk near the Arlington building, or further south near the MOT plaza, you'll know how annoying it can be. And for many seniors, it can be intimidating.
What's the message hockey parents are sending their kids when they stand outside the arena puffing away while the kids are ostensibly working out indoors? (I have asked for a report from staff about the missing signs that are supposed to identify this area as non-smoking, as well as on the level of enforcement since the bylaw was amended). All studies I've ever read say that if you want your kids to smoke, then smoke yourself. is that the message this municipality should support?
Ever sit on a bench downtown to have a smoker sit beside you and light up? So much for your comfort and enjoyment. You are driven away by the noxious fumes.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that fewer than 20% of Canadians smoke. Do we cater to the 20 percent or to the 80-plus percent? When we passed non-smoking bylaws that prohibited smoking in bars and restaurants a few years ago, we were warned about the collapse of the hospitality industry and lawsuits over loss of business. What happened? Bars and restaurants got MORE business and the province followed our lead with similar province-wide bans.
Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that smoking is stupid. As a culture we do a lot of stupid things but few are as self-destructive as smoking. There isn't a smoker who doesn't recognize this, who doesn't recognize that smoking is unhealthy, dangerous, smelly, dirty and seriously addictive.
And not only is it a stupid act, smoking makes you stupid. That's right: smokers in a national survey had a lower IQ than non-smokers. "There are 250 poisonous toxins found in cigarette smoke. One such substance is lead. Very good studies show that tiny levels of exposure are associated with diminished IQ," notes this article. but it doesn't just lower the IQ of the smoker - it can affect anyone who gets second- or third-hand smoke.
And finally, smoking is the great gender neutralizer: it makes women look butch and men look feminine. But maybe that's how smokers want to look: androgynous. And lest we forget the wrinkles and aging that smoking causes to the skin - or that kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.
Don't we, as guardians of the community's best interests, have an obligation to protect non-smokers - the majority - from tobacco smoke from the minority? If that smoke is deleterious to their wellbeing or to their health, I believe we do. I believe we have an obligation to protect people from second- and third-hand smoke on municipal property.
The World Health Organization just released its new stats on smoking: six million people will die this year, worldwide, as a result of tobacco use. In the USA, more than 450,000 people will die from it this year, and about 45,000 will die in Canada.
The cost to our health care system is staggering. No other single illness causes such a holocaust of deaths. And yet it's all self-inflicted.
I wrote about smoking in Simcoe County previously - noting that is is actually higher in this area than the national average. Sad, but true.
A non-resident wrote an email to all of council, saying, "In a democratic country with personal rights and freedoms it is truly alarming that there are people like Hull in a position on your council.
I do not smoke , but believe have the right to smoke or drink etc...so long as they don’t hurt anyone else...Smoking outside cannot possibly hurt anyone.
It is truly appalling to have someone that wants to control people on your council.
People like HULL are a danger to democracy."
Well, obviously I disagree. That's just hyperbole. There are laws prohibiting public consumption of alcohol, public consumption of illicit drugs - why is tobacco so special that we should disregard its danger or its addictiveness? We have laws about pesticides, about toxic chemicals, about disposal of oils and paints. We don't allow graffiti vandals to paint public spaces, why should we allow smokers to pollute it in another, but far more dangerous, manner?
The writer makes two significant errors: First, "so long as they don’t hurt anyone else..." All evidence and research shows second- and third-hand tobacco smoke DOES hurt people. It kills them,and in a nasty manner. Plus it lowers their enjoyment of the downtown. Tobacco stink is very unpleasant to non-smokers, worse than anything from any industrial plant.
Second, "Smoking outside cannot possibly hurt anyone." When any non-smoker has to pass within close distance it certainly does hurt them. Third-hand smoke - contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished - is deadly, too.
The other error is that what Counc. Hull is suggesting is non-democratic. We were elected to make decision, we all have the right to vote for against a motion. Simply suggesting it is not undemocratic. And passing laws that affect any and every segment of society is both democratic and what we were elected to do.
Collingwood has been on the leading edge of several pieces of health and lifestyle-related legislation in the past. I think this is another and I will support the motion, Monday.
