|
Letter from "mychoice.ca" in regards to the smoking ban that starts today
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Yes it may be from an interest group, but that doesnt take away the validity of the points they are making in this letter. I agree with them 100% and im a non smoker.
| quote: | May 31 smoking bans - the real battle starts now
Dear Mychoice.ca members,
Today’s implementation of draconian province-wide smoking bans in Ontario and Quebec is far from being the end of the story – it is merely the start of a new chapter.
Within 18 months both provincial governments go to the polls. In Ontario, which now has fixed four-year government terms, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty will be going to the polls in October 2007. In Quebec, Conservative Premier Jean Charest is expected to call an election around the same time – or earlier.
This means Ontario’s 1.8 million adult smokers and Quebec’s 1.3 million adult smokers will have the opportunity to hold the governments responsible for the unfair measures accountable for their actions.
There will be a number of close riding battles in these coming elections, and while the provincial smoking bans will be among any number of issues up for debate, the way smokers vote could – and we believe will – be a factor in some electoral outcomes.
Every voice counts
We already have some evidence of this. In the Whitby-Ajax provincial byelection in Ontario this past March 30, the Liberal government candidate had name recognition and was expected to win. However, this candidate did not respond to requests from smokers to state her position. When the dust settled, the Tory candidate won in a close fight by 1,300 votes.
Mychoice.ca ran newspaper ads in the riding urging smokers to find out where all the candidates stood on the issue of fair treatment for smokers. We also contacted our members in the riding asking them to write to the candidates, and we posted the responses we got from those candidates to our own survey on our web site.
When we surveyed our members in this riding after the election, more than two thirds (67.6%) said our issues helped them decide to vote for a candidate other than the Liberal and almost 50% said this was also true for their friends and colleagues.
We cannot prove beyond doubt that smokers were the deciding factor in this byelection, but it is safe to say they were an important factor in such a close contest.
Meanwhile, the politicians have many other reasons to start wondering if they have been mislead by the anti-smoking lobby groups who have consistently assured them that they have no reason to worry about smokers taking a stand against unfair treatment.
Reasons for governments to be nervous
In Ontario for example, our members have sent more than 16,000 letters to the Premier, Health Minister and other government members. All these letters were signed, and included the sender’s full name and address to show that they were genuine letters from genuine people. These are just the ones we know about. Many more may have been sent that we have not been informed about.
We have had Rock n’ Rallies in Ontario and other concert protests in Quebec where members have turned out to speak out against bans that would deny them anywhere to go – including private clubs and separately enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms. In Montreal, a recent protest at a club attracted 1,200 people.
Letters-to-the-editor pages have seen a sharp increase in the number of people opposing total bans that remove all choice. A growing number of media have begun to raise our issues.
One group of bar owners in Quebec has hired renowned constitutional rights lawyer Julius Gray and is fighting that province’s ban. The courts have so far twice rejected the Quebec government’s claim that this lawsuit raised no valid issues and should not be allowed to proceed and the case is therefore continuing.
What next?
The Ontario and Quebec governments insist that mychoice.ca members’ concerns will fade away now that the bans are in force. They wish! We would have preferred that they had listened to requests for reasonable compromises before forging ahead with these bans – it is far better to avoid problems than to later have to fix them. But now that the laws are in effect, those problems will become apparent and ensure that this issue does not fade away.
What can we do to keep up the pressure until the next elections? We have many tools at our disposal, and with a membership that stands at more than 32,000 individuals and is growing every day, we have the people power to use them.
First, we can keep those letters pouring into the politicians – to the premiers and their ministers and to your local provincial representatives. For Ontario, template letters that you can use and modify – either as email texts or snail-mail letters - can be downloaded from our website – go to the “Resources” section and click on to “Free Resources – Print and Use.” Also under “Resources” there is a tool “Find Your Politician” to help you track down your local member’s contact information.
Also keep the letters pouring in to your local newspaper’s editor. Samples of some of the many letters that have been written to various papers are posted in our Newsroom to give you an idea of the kinds of things being said by our members and others with concerns about the way the governments are acting.
If you would like to join local volunteer groups, send us an email to [email protected]
Increasing the pressure
But there is much more that needs to be done now that the laws are in effect. We need to keep track of all the problems that arise: The bars and bingos that close; The veterans clubs that are hard hit; The long-term care facilities where, despite exemptions; The provincial bylaws that are being interpreted so strictly that all smoking is banned; Unfair treatment of workers; And examples of local councils and unelected hospital boards using their powers to go far beyond even the tough measures in these provincial laws.
The governments are hoping that these problems will get brushed under the carpet. That will only happen if we let it happen. The media can only report these problems if they know they exist and are given proof. That is our job.
We already know there are going to be major repercussions from the bans. In Ontario, the provincial government tried to hide, but was finally forced to release its own studies showing the province-wide smoking ban could cost taxpayers up to $500 million a year in lost gaming revenues.
Those documents (viewable on our website under ”Mychoice.ca News Releases” in the news room section) revealed that existing municipal bans have already cost $180 million a year because of their impact on casinos in their jurisdictions. Why? Because smokers stayed away. Our news room has plenty of news reports of charity bingos closing when forced to go totally smoke free, forcing charities to fold or drastically reduce services.
Extreme measures against smokers
We also have official cases of health authorities arbitrarily decreeing no one shall smoke anywhere on their grounds, even inside a private vehicle, forcing patients to walk often long distances to public streets.
We recently have learned of cases where long-term care facilities have told their elderly residents that as of May 31 they will have to quit smoking because it will not be allowed in special smoking rooms or anywhere outside.
We have had a case of a worker being suspended for defying what proved to be false interpretations of bylaws – simply because she drank a tea while having a cigarette in an outdoor smoking area. In another case we have a memo from a company that has informed workers not only can they not smoke anywhere inside or on company grounds, but also that they will be suspended if they are caught possessing smoking products.
These provincial bans are unfair to begin with and will be unfairly enforced. And they will have negative impacts.
We also need to keep showing how the draconian treatment of smokers is setting precedents for other forms of extreme government intrusion – and not only regarding the oft-mentioned problem with obesity in society. In Ottawa, for example, the local council is considering a ban on the wearing of all scented products - colognes, perfumes, scented soaps and deodorants and lotions – in public.
Reasonable proposals
As the problems created by these laws become more apparent, our positions will become more evidently reasonable. We agree non-smokers have rights and should be given smoke-free environments, but by the same token, smokers have rights too and should have places where they can choose to go to smoke without bothering others.
These laws try to impose non-smoking on smokers, even though their choice is a legal adult one, and a heavily taxed one at that. This has nothing to do with protecting non-smokers: It is all about imposing an ideology on a minority.
So yes – the bans have now been passed, but the elections lie ahead, and we have many means at out disposal to make sure that in the intervening months, the real story about these laws is told.
Can we make a difference? Darned right we can. Now let’s start writing the next chapter on our terms.
Thanks, as always for your support.
All the best
Nancy
|
|
|
|
| MarkT |
I'd love to see independent evidence to suggest that this issue, particularly mychoice's efforts, will have even what would be considered a statistically significant impact in any upcoming elections.
I just don't see that happening...regardless of how ty this new law is removing DSR (and I do think it's ty).
but good luck to them...if this is as important an issue as some people claim it to be (particularly business owners and patrons), then let's see them pressure their MPs, MPPs, councillors, etc. and do something about it come election time. |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I agree with them 100% and im a non smoker. |
this bans are ridiculous.. i dont smoke cigarretes but im not happy with the govt banning smoking rooms..
wtf is wrong with this government..?
this might not compare.. but pot heads have been in this situation forever.. i dont really know if i want them to legalize marijuana.. but the rules they have against us are ing retarded :whip: |
|
|
| shanny |
Even just reading this thread makes me think about my own way of thinking...
...usually I am very open minded, I like to think of myself as open to all possibilities. I often look at issues like censorship and throw the "slipperly slope" arguement at it saying its wrong because of what could happen in the future.
But when I look at smoking I am in favour of the ban.
I think its a ty habit, that makes me smell bad when I go out, so I don't have a problem...
...but when I really look at what I'm saying that sounds a bit hypocritical. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mushyflowa
this bans are ridiculous.. i dont smoke cigarretes but im not happy with the govt banning smoking rooms..
wtf is wrong with this government..?
this might not compare.. but pot heads have been in this situation forever.. i dont really know if i want them to legalize marijuana.. but the rules they have against us are ing retarded :whip: |
this is why i did NOT vote for the mcguinty liberals. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shanny
...but when I really look at what I'm saying that sounds a bit hypocritical. |
at least you admit it ;) |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by shanny
But when I look at smoking I am in favour of the ban.
I think its a ty habit, that makes me smell bad when I go out, so I don't have a problem...
...but when I really look at what I'm saying that sounds a bit hypocritical. |
i admit im in favour of banning smoking inside..
not like everysingle person in toronto respects that.. specially in our scene..
but banning smoking rooms?
wow.. thats extreme! |
|
|
| shanny |
I agree, banning smoking rooms sounds incredibly silly when you stop to think about it.
I think what is also going on here is a little "thats not my problem".
What I mean is that for someone who doesn't smoke everyday, banning smoking rooms is like banning hitting people with your cars...
...its not even a relevant issue.
They don't care about smokers because the concerns of smokers don't effect them.
I admit, I feel this way myself, I personally am losing no sleep over the fact that smoking rooms are banned.
However the conspiracy theorist part of me could predict a time when they start banning something that does mean something to me...
...and then I would certainly care, at least as much as I care about the no hitting people with your car ban! |
|
|
| The Wiz |
| quote: | Originally posted by shanny
I agree, banning smoking rooms sounds incredibly silly when you stop to think about it.
I think what is also going on here is a little "thats not my problem".
What I mean is that for someone who doesn't smoke everyday, banning smoking rooms is like banning hitting people with your cars...
...its not even a relevant issue.
They don't care about smokers because the concerns of smokers don't effect them.
I admit, I feel this way myself, I personally am losing no sleep over the fact that smoking rooms are banned.
However the conspiracy theorist part of me could predict a time when they start banning something that does mean something to me...
...and then I would certainly care, at least as much as I care about the no hitting people with your car ban! |
Agreed. I dont care now but im worried about the day that the issue does hit home. |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | However the conspiracy theorist part of me could predict a time when they start banning something that does mean something to me...
...and then I would certainly care, at least as much as I care about the no hitting people with your car ban! |
whats bugs me a bit is the fact that
1. i work in a public bar..
2. i have friends who smoke and i wuld hate it to see them getting fines because of that
THEY WILL GET U.. once they ban something u enjoy.. u'll overreact..
IM ANNOYED BY SOME BANS.. not like im losing sleep over this.. but u cant really walk around and be happy with all this pointless rules knowing that something u might do is illegal.. |
|
|
| geroin |
“A stand-alone umbrella covering a single table would not be considered a roof. However if umbrellas are used in such a way so as to serve as a roof, an inspector may view it as such and act accordingly,” the law states.
ing s |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
the law states. |
thats why my boss took the freaking cover on the patio
:whip:
ing law.. |
|
|
|
|
