Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Editorial: Smoking stupid but not a crime

If the proposal is to make smoking a crime, then make it so. Until then, we should stop treating smokers as if they were criminals. Smoking is an odious habit, and the whole world would be better off if no one smoked.

If the proposal is to make smoking a crime, then make it so. Until then, we should stop treating smokers as if they were criminals. Smoking is an odious habit, and the whole world would be better off if no one smoked. But the reality is that it’s still legal and people still smoke. Proposals to expand the Capital Regional District’s limits on public smoking infringe on the right to indulge in an activity that is sanctioned and taxed by government.

Public-health officials are proposing amendments to the CRD’s Clean Air Bylaw that would ban smoking in parks and public squares, and would expand the buffer zone around doorways and windows to seven metres.

The ban on smoking in parks has merit, though even there places should be designated for people to smoke. Why should some old smoker, already told he can’t indulge his habit in his cheap apartment, not be able to sit in a park he paid for and enjoy a legal vice?

Squares are public spaces and should accommodate everyone. In this region, they are windswept much of the time, so second-hand smoke isn’t a real problem. If it is, people can deal with the issue with polite requests and co-operation. At the least, there should be a substantial smoking area.

But it’s the seven-metre ban around doors and windows that is nuts. That’s effectively a public-smoking ban in much of downtown, without a real debate. And it will inevitably have bad unintended consequences, such as clustering smokers in small pockets.

Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin suggests the law would be OK, because it would be enforced only sometimes, but the concept of occasional enforcement raises questions. When will it be enforced? Who will be targeted, and who will be allowed to break the law? How will bylaw officers decide? Where will homeless people go to smoke?

This is not to defend smoking. Second-hand smoke is bad, and exposure should be minimized, whether it presents health problems or just discomfort for those who prefer their fresh air not be tainted with tobacco fumes. Smoking is a choice, but it is trumped by the choice not to smoke.

Anti-smoking measures have brought us a long way in a generation, from a time when almost any gathering or meeting took place in clouds of noxious smoke to this era of smoke-free restaurants and workplaces. We applaud the evolution of clean-air laws and celebrate being freed from the tyranny of smokers.

But let’s not replace it with another kind of tyranny, with laws of doubtful effectiveness. Let’s enforce the good laws we have, and let social pressure do the rest.

After all, it is more social pressure than laws that has resulted in B.C. having the lowest rate of smoking in Canada — only 14.5 per cent of British Columbians over the age of 12 are smokers, according to Statistic Canada’s 2012 data.

That’s down from 18.6 per cent in 2008, and it’s substantially lower than the national rate of 20.3 per cent.

It’s clear that most British Columbians regard smoking as socially unacceptable and not in keeping with a healthy lifestyle. Let’s keep up that pressure.

Fortin unhelpfully compares smokers to other addicts, such as kleptomaniacs and users of illegal drugs, and yet we show compassion to drug addicts and look for ways to help. Can we reserve some of that compassion for smokers without condoning smoking?

A credible argument in favour of reforming marijuana laws is that current laws make criminals of people who shouldn’t be criminals, that the consequences prescribed by law are out of proportion to the offence.

Let’s apply the same reasoning to tobacco. Reasonable regulations are in place to protect the rights of non-smokers. We don’t need to turn smokers into criminals.