Vancouver bans smoking in parks, beaches

[Bloodtoes]

http://vancouver.ca/parks/info/smokefreeparks_faq.htm

The Vancouver Park Board's smoke-free bylaw prohibits smoking in all parks, sports fields, playgrounds, beaches and public golf courses within the City of Vancouver.

This seems completely arbitrary and pointless to me. I don't smoke, never have smoked (well, tobacco anyway), and find it displeasing when someone around me is smoking. But seriously, wtf? The smoke passes in seconds and nobody is harmed. Is it going to be like Disneyland with special little zones where all the evil, disgusting smokers can gather and blow cancer into each others faces while the smug masses drink their organic tea and lift their noses in condescension? It seems this was decided solely on popular opinion. There's a lame cop-out excuse about cigarette butts on the ground, but I believe that's already covered by the no littering bylaw.

I don't know, does anyone have good info on if there's any actual threat from incidental tobacco smoke inhalation outdoors? I'm thinking probably not.. I have a vague memory of Brian Dunning addressing this on skeptoid at some point. I'll have to try and find it. It just leaves a foul taste in my mouth to be passing bylaws for what amounts to a minor annoyance. And in public parks too? What about BBQ smoke, or smoke from camp fires? :-/ Maybe I can get a bylaw passed saying obese people can't wear bathing suits at the beach because I don't want to see it and am incapable of averting my eyes. Or maybe we can ban farting in public too.

The cynical part of me wonders how long until we invade Poland. Go Godwin's Law!

 

[George 152]

It doesn't bode well for any industry of any sort in Vancouver that emits smoke of any sort

 

[Bloodtoes]

The less cynical part of me thinks this will probably be difficult to enforce and will result more in increasing the stress and anxiety in the snooty yuppies as they get all uppity about those who brazenly ignore it.

 

[SOdhner]

There's a lame cop-out excuse about cigarette butts on the ground, but I believe that's already covered by the no littering bylaw.

I'm not going to comment on the rest right now, but just for the record as someone who has worked for a janitorial company and had to do inspections of buildings... you would not believe how bad the cigarette butts are. It's insane, and so many smokers somehow don't count it as littering. They are tiny but still visible, and in places with lots of smokers they get EVERYWHERE. Trying to pick them up is hard if there is gravel or grass. The whole thing is a disgusting nightmare.

 

[Sledge]

I wish smoking was banned outdoors. The stuff bloody stinks. Why not insist that smoking can only be done indoors, then people can just avoid those places?

 

[Fnord]

The smoke itself is only part of the problem. Smoking is an inherently rude and self-centered practice, and smokers have a complete disregard for the health, safety and comfort of others. After all, you never see any non-smokers blowing smoke in other people's faces just to be mean, or flicking their ashes onto the floor or burning holes in other people's clothing and furniture, do you? You never see a non-smoker having to step outside every 30 minutes to smoke for ten minutes during work, forcing his or her co-workers to take up the slack, either. And how often have you seen non-smokers dumping their ashtrays onto the road, the beach or a school playground?

No ... smoking itself should be banned everywhere, and all of the time forever. It's filthy and disgusting, as are the people who partake of it.

 

[Bloodtoes]

That's not the issue though.

Smoking is an inherently rude and self-centered practice, with a complet disregard for the health, safety and comfort of others.

So what, we should ban being rude and self-centered? What safety and health disregard? Show me the data which shows incidental exposure to second-hand smoke in an outdoor environment has meaningful negative health effects and I'll switch my stance immediately. This, I believe, has been shown in the cases of living with a chain smoker, or working in an enclosed environment where smoking is permitted. In those cases it makes sense to do something about it, and why I think the bans on smoking in bars & restaurants is good.

After all, you never see any non-smokers blowing smoke in other people's faces just to be mean, or flicking their ashes onto the floor or burning holes in other people's clothing and furniture, do you?

What does this have to do with smoking outdoors, in parks, on the beach? There are plenty of ways to be mean without blowing smoke in someones face. Like, say, spitting in their face instead. Or pissing on their carpet. What does smoking have to do with such behaviour?

And how often have you seen non-smokers dumping their ashtrays onto the road, the beach or a school playground?

Again, that is a littering issue, not a smoking issue. How often do you see people throwing their mcdonald's drive-thru bags out the window? It's irrelevant.

No ... smoking itself should be banned everywhere, and all of the time forever. It's filth and disgusting, as are the people who partake of it.

See, I would support a ban on the sale of cigarettes entirely before I would support this sort of bylaw. And I don't particularly support a ban on the sale of cigarettes, but at least that could be somewhat justified on medical grounds.

Perhaps this sort of thing could be classed in with a noise bylaws such as no boomboxes on the beach, or other things like no skateboarding in public common areas. Maybe?

Maybe not. Loud music creates an unpleasant atmosphere that reaches much further than a puff of smoke ever will, particularly when some nitwit is listening to drum&bass on a tinny, poor-quality stereo. I mean, really. Even if you're a fan of drum&bass, that's offensive. Skateboarding in public common areas poses a real risk of physical harm to passers-by should the skater or his board lose control. The same is not true of smoking.

Are there any other similar situations out there to this?

 

[majamin]

I don't know, does anyone have good info on if there's any actual threat from incidental tobacco smoke inhalation outdoors? I'm thinking probably not..

I haven't found any research outlining the toxicity of ETS in open spaces vs. closed spaces, but nonetheless:

From Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers (from cancer.gov):

4. Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

I'm not going to comment on the rest right now, but just for the record as someone who has worked for a janitorial company and had to do inspections of buildings... you would not believe how bad the cigarette butts are.

I've never been a janitor, but do you find that trying to clean up gum is worse than cigarette butts? (this is not rhetorical, I'm honestly wanting to know)

Good point about the litter, although, the bylaw will probably not convince people to do the right thing (i.e. use receptacles / garbages for disposal). The main argument is that ETS significantly contributes to the development of cancer.

 

[Bloodtoes]

I found the relevant skeptoid, from a student question:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4142

Hey Brian. This is Adrienne Myers from Stetson University. Is there legitimate research showing that secondhand smoke is harmful?

This is a really interesting question. On the one hand you do have a rock-solid consensus of every major health organization in the world, including the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the Surgeon General's office, and the National Cancer Institute; that consensus being that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. On the other hand you have an at least equal amount of research disputing this finding; research usually funded by the tobacco industry but also by consumer groups or think tanks like the Cato Institute. In addition, there is growing sentiment in the skeptical community along the lines of "No safe level? Come on..."

Usually when we have the scientists on one side and the interest groups on the other side of a science question, it's pretty easy to guess which side probably has the science right. And the scientists probably do in this case too. The ideal level of secondhand smoke is zero, just as the ideal amount of trans-fats you should eat is zero, and the ideal amount of alcohol to consume is zero. Nearly everyone consumes a non-zero amount of all three, and most people who don't overdo any of them will never encounter any ill effects. There's a big difference between living in a house with a chain smoker and the level of exposure from occasionally walking down the street and passing through someone's cigarette smoke.

The best conclusion is that the scientists are right that zero is probably ideal, but that a realistic low level of occasional exposure is probably harmless.

Not the strongest conclusion. Probablies, maybies.. *shrug* I don't think it helps much in this case.

 

[Pup]

Are there any other similar situations out there to this?

How about beaches where dogs are banned? It's usually stated because of the littering problem, which theoretically could be controlled with existing littering laws, but it's easier to catch somebody walking a dog than to catch them at the exact moment they don't pick up what it left behind.

 

[godless dave]

The smoke itself is only part of the problem. Smoking is an inherently rude and self-centered practice, and smokers have a complete disregard for the health, safety and comfort of others. After all, you never see any non-smokers blowing smoke in other people's faces just to be mean, or flicking their ashes onto the floor or burning holes in other people's clothing and furniture, do you? You never see a non-smoker having to step outside every 30 minutes to smoke for ten minutes during work, forcing his or her co-workers to take up the slack, either. And how often have you seen non-smokers dumping their ashtrays onto the road, the beach or a school playground?

No ... smoking itself should be banned everywhere, and all of the time forever. It's filthy and disgusting, as are the people who partake of it.

Wow. Generalize much?

 

[majamin]

No ... smoking itself should be banned everywhere, and all of the time forever. It's filthy and disgusting, as are the people who partake of it.

Quite the dramatic and overbearing opinion. You are sure everyone who smokes is filthy and disgusting? She doth protest ...

NSFW - Hot chick smoking

http://www.picfor.me/en/viewimg/35499

 

[Bloodtoes]

How about beaches where dogs are banned? It's usually stated because of the littering problem, which theoretically could be controlled with existing littering laws, but it's easier to catch somebody walking a dog than to catch them at the exact moment they don't pick up what it left behind.

I was thinking about that actually, and I think a better reason for banning dogs from beaches is the potential for harm from any untrained, unleashed, or poorly controlled dogs, rather than the doo-doo.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't found any research outlining the toxicity of ETS in open spaces vs. closed spaces, but nonetheless:

From Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers (from cancer.gov):

4. Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

So does Sunlight... let's ban it.

 

[Pup]

I was thinking about that actually, and I think a better reason for banning dogs from beaches is the potential for harm from any untrained, unleashed, or poorly controlled dogs, rather than the doo-doo.

Some places do actually mention the litter problem as one of the main reasons, in addition to the danger, and that reminded me, there are also bans on glass bottles on beaches in some places, for the same reason, though of course the potential litter from them is more dangerous.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ban everything... that'll teach us...

We could even ban banning stuff... that'd help.

 

[Southwind17]

The smoke itself is only part of the problem. Smoking is an inherently rude and self-centered practice, and smokers have a complete disregard for the health, safety and comfort of others.

I think you're still alluding to the smoke itself, in which case I agree.

After all, you never see any non-smokers blowing smoke in other people's faces just to be mean, or flicking their ashes onto the floor or burning holes in other people's clothing and furniture, do you? You never see a non-smoker having to step outside every 30 minutes to smoke for ten minutes during work, forcing his or her co-workers to take up the slack, either. And how often have you seen non-smokers dumping their ashtrays onto the road, the beach or a school playground?

Er ... not surprising, being non-smokers! I've witnessed non-smokers fart in public, though. Is that aceptable?! Smokers, farters ... all the same, in principle!

Show me the data which shows incidental exposure to second-hand smoke in an outdoor environment has meaningful negative health effects and I'll switch my stance immediately.

Irrelevant. Nobody should be involuntarily subjected to secondary tobacco smoke anywhere, any time - period.

Again, that is a littering issue, not a smoking issue. How often do you see people throwing their mcdonald's drive-thru bags out the window? It's irrelevant.

Not really. There's a general mindset amongst smokers that dropping butts is acceptable behaviour. personally, I think it's largely rebellious these days.

Perhaps this sort of thing could be classed in with a noise bylaws such as no boomboxes on the beach, or other things like no skateboarding in public common areas. Maybe?

I agree. I think public nuisance laws should extend to smoking and be strictly enforced.

Wow. Generalize much?

Of course. Smoking in public places (including, for the avoidance of doubt, urban parks, parkland, national parks, beaches, fields, city streets, suburban streets, rural roads and walks) is generally unacceptable and unjustifiable in the extreme. Only if the more generally unpopulated of public place are blatantly absent of other members of the public should smoking be allowed.

 

[Stray Cat]

Let's ban farting in public toilets.

Let's ban non smokers...

Wow this is a good game.

 

[Furcifer]

The less cynical part of me thinks this will probably be difficult to enforce and will result more in increasing the stress and anxiety in the snooty yuppies as they get all uppity about those who brazenly ignore it.

Oh you haven't been to Vancouver then, it's the junkies that are going to freak out. The cops are already scared to approach them, wait till they are having nicotine withdrawals.

My guess is they will only enforce this down on the beaches during the summer. The beaches do get crowded, and the lack of indoor places to smoke means even more butts (hehe) wind up on the beach. Plus there are a lot of kids. If it's used as a deterrent it might be a good thing.

I wonder if it's to help cut down the number of people smoking pot? That's pretty prevalent in the parks and on the beaches.

 

[Southwind17]

Let's ban farting in public toilets.

Why?

Let's ban non smokers...

Why?

Wow this is a good game.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the rules!