Smoking By-Law

At the last Coquit­lam coun­cil meet­ing, Coun­cil­lor Robin­son motioned to con­sider a smok­ing by-law for the City of Coquit­lam.  Here is the full text of the motion from Jan­u­ary 18, 2010:

Whereas 82% of Cana­di­ans do not smoke;

And whereas it has long been rec­og­nized that sec­ond hand smoke con­tains over 4000 chem­i­cals includ­ing 50 known chem­i­cals to cause cancer;

And whereas senior lev­els of gov­ern­ment have taken actions under their respec­tive juris­dic­tions to pro­tect cit­i­zens from sec­ond hand smoke such as the Fed­eral gov­ern­ments Non-Smokers Health Act passed in 1988 and recently strength­ened in 2007 ban­ning smok­ing and more recently smok­ing rooms from their work­places and the Provin­cial gov­ern­ment recently amended the Motor Vehi­cle Act to ban smok­ing in vehi­cles where a minor (under 16 years of age) is present;

And whereas the Fraser Health Author­ity sup­ports lim­it­ing expo­sure to sec­ond hand smoke;

And whereas smok­ing restric­tions increase the moti­va­tion for smok­ers to quit or cut­back, decreases neg­a­tive role mod­el­ing for chil­dren, pro­tects the envi­ron­ment and reduces litter;

And whereas direct enforce­ment from the munic­i­pal­ity may not be nec­es­sary as expe­ri­ence with out­door and indoor smoke-free laws has shown that the by-law itself is enough to deter most peo­ple from smok­ing. In addi­tion, peer pres­sure aris­ing from the com­mon under­stand­ing that the space is smoke-free also deters peo­ple from smoking:

There­fore be it resolved that the City of Coquit­lam develop a ban on smok­ing on pub­lic patios and spaces where minors (under 16 years of age) might be present;

And that the City of Coquit­lam invite munic­i­pal­i­ties in Metro Van­cou­ver that have yet to develop smok­ing bans to con­sider such a ban;

And that the City of Coquit­lam ask the Province to con­sider a ban on smok­ing in all pub­lic spaces.

As much as I do not like peo­ple who smoke in pub­lic places, I believe that this by-law will (a) drive con­sumers away; and (b) limit the rights and free­doms that are guar­an­teed under the con­sti­tu­tion.  I believe that instead of ban­ning smok­ing from our city, our city coun­cil should get the pub­lic aware that smok­ing is bad and try to dis­cour­age it.

Although it is going to be dis­cussed today at the Coquit­lam Coun­cil meet­ing, please com­ment what you think about this by-law.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Twitter
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvibes
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • email

Related posts:

  1. Busi­ness Votes in BC Munic­i­pal Elections

6 Responses to “Smoking By-Law”


  • I hate the smell of cig­a­rette smoke, but I agree that a bylaw such as this would be exces­sive and would go against our human rights.

    Instead of ban­ning all smok­ing in pub­lic places, how about just ban smok­ing within 10m of doors and air intakes, as is the case at BC universities?

  • The provin­cial gov­ern­ment already has such law in place that restricts smok­ing in pub­lic space. The provin­cial law restricts smok­ers from being within 3 metres of a door and air intake. The same with post sec­ondary insti­tu­tions except its 10 metres.

  • The last bit is just silly — mean­ing­less and unen­force­able any­way. I find the rest of it a bit odd, really. How will the city deter­mine which patios and pub­lic spaces under-16s are likely to be present at? Deter­mined by the owner, by council?

  • Andy, I’m not sure I can agree with your argu­ment that a smok­ing ban in some pub­lic places, such as patios, qual­i­fies as a breach of the fun­da­men­tal rights and free­doms of the Char­ter. While lim­it­ing people’s abil­ity to do an action, such as smok­ing, does entail a restric­tion of lib­erty, this is clearly cov­ered by Sec­tion 1 of the Char­ter, in which lim­its are allowed if they are “rea­son­able lim­its pre­scribed by law as can be demon­stra­bly jus­ti­fied in a free and demo­c­ra­tic society.”

    Ban­ning an action found to detract from pub­lic health cer­tainly sounds like a rea­son­able limit that is jus­ti­fi­able in our soci­ety, so I’m not sure that this ban would qual­ify as a Char­ter violation.

    On your point about dri­ving con­sumers away, I must admit I fail to see the logic. There will always be, weather per­mit­ting, a demand for out­door din­ing facil­i­ties and a city-wide smok­ing ban will not change that, merely guran­tee that pub­lic health is safe­guarded at all patios in the city (qual­ity of the food aside!). Fur­ther­more, those who wish to smoke at restau­rants are always able to go out­side and do so, I doubt many peo­ple actu­ally pick the patio because they wish to smoke there.

    Though I am gen­er­ally unsup­port­ive of bans, I do feel that a law like this would be ben­e­fi­tial for the sake of pub­lic health and cer­tainly within the purview of a gov­ern­ment con­cerned for the wel­fare of its cit­i­zenry. I would never sup­port a total ban on smok­ing, but in instances like this, I feel the spirit of the motion is in the right place and think it can do some good.

  • The City of Coquit­lam Coun­cil deferred the vote to pass the motion as the city staff are cur­rently gen­er­at­ing a report. I will try to get a copy and post it on my website.

  • I was a smoker for 20 years, it has seri­ously effected my health, I couldnt run at all, I strug­gled to walk up the stairs. I decided I had to give up, at the age of 36 I felt like I was an old man and ready for the scrap­yard. I tried var­i­ous ways to give up and really strug­gled. Then I actu­ally tried self hyp­no­sis and that actu­ally did the trick for me. Yes I out on a few pounds in weight for a cou­ple of months, but I soon stopped the over eat­ing and things went back to nor­mal. Its taken me over a year now but I do feel so much bet­ter, I can actu­ally jog up the stairs and my kids are so pleased to see me being active.

Leave a Reply