by Klaus Rohrich
June 8, 2004
Before I get to the meat of the matter I would like to declare that I do not smoke cigarettes, nor am I in favour of a free-wheeling smoking policy that allows anyone to smoke anywhere at any time. Having said this, I find the anti-smoking law that has gone into effect in Toronto this month to be over the top in terms of its oppressiveness.
There are a number of reasons that this latest infringement on peoples’ freedom bothers me. For starters, Toronto City Council some years ago passed a tough "new" by-law that restricted smoking in restaurants to certain areas provided they were closed off and vented separately. Many of Toronto’s restaurateurs and club owners went through tremendous expense to create these separately vented rooms in order to comply with the by-laws. Now it turns out they have spent all this money in vain.
The law is bad for businesses in that many people will choose to stay at home, particularly during the winter months, when standing outside in the cold smoking isn’t the most fun thing to do. The concern that subjecting waiting staff to second-hand smoke is specious. Smoking rooms that are properly ventilated have air quality that on average is substantially better than non-smoking rooms that are not ventilated.
also, it is my opinion that laws of this nature are hypocritical, to be kind. On the one hand, the government imposes a punitive tax on the purchase of cigarettes and laughs all the way to the bank; on the other they want us to buy them, but not to smoke them.
The new bylaw was created as a result of research that "proved" second-hand smoke is deadly. What no one in government, and least of all, the UN where the report originated, will acknowledge is that the report is flawed and based on junk science. There are numerous other reports, also commissioned by the UN that contradict the second-hand smoke report. But if you are inclined to govern closely, then you will only believe things that support your desires and grasp at any straw to pass an additional law "for our own good".
Recently, Dr. Sydney Smith, a U.S. physician who is no fan of smoking recounted how these so-called studies draw their conclusions. a recent study published in the British Medical Journal stated that second hand smoke was a primary cause of heart attacks. The evidence was pretty straightforward. a hospital in Helena, Mont. (pop. 68,000) regularly had on average between 34-50 heart attacks over the six-month period from June to November. after a six-month smoking ban the number of heart attacks reported at the Helena hospital dropped down to 24. all because of the smoking ban right? Well, not necessarily. What the study did not state was that the hospital had changed its method of diagnosing heart attacks to a much more accurate system during this period and it is fairly likely that the reduced number of heart attacks were as a result of this new diagnostic method. But the anti-smoking Nazis wouldn’t go so far as to admit that because this does not suit their agenda.
The idea that more and more of our choices are being curtailed to protect us from ourselves rankles me to distraction. It is clear that the motivation for passing these laws has nothing to do with health or wellness issues, it’s more left-lib fascism rooting in our social structure.
Some years ago the Ontario government (under Bob Rae’s NDP) passed a law requiring anyone riding a bicycle to wear a helmet. Thank God the socialists were bounced out of office, as the law was amended under Mike Harris to apply only to children, which to me seems to make a little more sense.
Currently there is a movement afoot to require parents to provide booster seats for children up to 10 years old under a certain height and weight. Does this mean that all police cruisers will now have weigh scales and tape measures as part of their standard equipment? How would this law apply to midgets and dwarves?
What other intrusive legislation that will save us from ourselves does the social braintrust have in store for us? Will they pass a law requiring everyone to floss daily or a law to force us all to wear sensible shoes?
We have entered an age where not much that originates with any government is for the benefit of its people. The historian Francis Fukuyama proclaimed "the end of history" following the cold war. More correctly, he should have proclaimed the end of responsible governance, as more and more governments enact laws that are intrusive at best and repressive at worst.