You really have to wonder exactly what some of today's politicians are smoking, hint: it isn't tobacco.
The provincial government refuses ( for now) to ban smoking within private automobiles.
The question is why?
The medical community there fully supports a complete ban in cars where any young person under 18 years old is a passenger or driver.
What gives here?
The anti-smoking lobby has made bogus claims that passive smoke inside an automobile is at least 20 times more dangerous than the smoke that a non-smoker would encouter within the confines of a private home.
If that were true, why then has a government that based it's smoking ban on this premise:
"Ontario's province-wide smoking ban was enacted to protect all Ontario residents from unwanted second-hand tobacco smoke exposure.No person living in Ontaruo shall ever have to be forced to breathe in unwanted second-hand tobacco smoke."-George Smitherman-Health Minister of Ontario
Mr. Smitherman was not telling the truth, by any means.
Of course when Ontario banned smoking in all hospitality industry establishments...Non smokers are now exposed to more in-home second-hand tobacco smoke now, than in times before the ban.
So the intent of the governments banned is very flawed and the bans true basis of the denormalization of smokers and smoking in public view is exposed as the real basis behind Ontario's provincial ban.
This same Ontario government actually made a complete provincial government mandated workplace smoking ban in indoor spaces part of their election platform.
When elected the Pntario Liberals also added outdoor patio sections with a roof to the ban, without any hospitality industry consultation whatsoever.
Any idiot with a even the most basic scientific knowledge can grasp the folly of the government's patio roof, smoking ban "Ghost clause."
When Ontario's smoking ban was first introduced some hardcore antis asked Smitherman when the government was going to extend the new provincial smoking ban to private homes and cars when non-smokers are present?
Smitherman said," We aren't ready to go that far with the ban just yet."
The keyword here is "YET."
That's part of the next-future smoking ban wave phase.
For a minute here let's pretend the antis are correct.
Second-hand smoke is proven, with solid science to be a serious health risk to humans.There is no known safe exposure for humans.
If that were true...It would make a hell of a lot more sense to ban smoking in all automobiles, than it would to ban smoking within the private hospitality sector within the confines of indoor areas and outdoor areas with roofed patios.Or inside private homes where non-smokers a present for that matter.
Not many smokers would smoke inside an automobile with all the windows rolled up, of course there are some exceptions to that rule...
But the vast majority of courteous smokers with manners would never subject their non-smoking family or friends to massive clouds of ETS within a completey confined space within an automobile.
So is the antis ETS is 20 times more dangerous in a car than in an indoor dwelling carry any credible weight?
If all the automobile's windows are rolled dow is that health risk decreased and by what amount percentage-wise?
If smoking in an automobile is far more dangerous than in a hospitality venue...Or a within a private dwelling...Why didn't the antis seek automobile and in-home smoking bans, first...Before they sought out to ban smoking within workplaces and within the private hospitality sector?
They have been doing things ass backwards, if that is... you believe their fraudulent latest ETS propaganda.
Now the Ontario govenment who has banned smoking on any roofed, outdoor patio is backing off on banning in car and in-home smoking, claiming that private property rights are suddenly important to them...
The very same smoke-Nazi hypocrites who have stripped all choice from any private business that wishes to permit smoking within indoor spaces or outdoor areas with a roof?
Now they believe in private property rights and freedom of choice?
But for how long, that is the question.
If these governments are so keen to ban all tobacco smoking within indoor spaces as a means to protect workers, children and the general public...
They should also mandate stricter air quality-safety standards for all workplaces and public spaces.We are not just talking about second-hand tobacco smioke.There are a host of toxic airborne chemicals and toxins found in virtually all buildings.
Why haven't these supposedly health-conscious governments set out to ban or regulate these other pressing health concerns?
Banning automobile and in-home smoking should have been the top priority of the anti-smoking agenda, if that is protecting the health of non-smokers was or is the true basis for government imoposed smoking bans.
It stands to reason, that if second-hand smoke really is a pressing health concern, it would be even more dangerous within a small, poorly ventilated and enlosed space.
The whole second-hand smoke agenda is a complete sham.
It's easier to see the antis true motivations for government mandated smoking bans in all so-called public places and workplaces.
To force and guilt smokers into quitting their smoking habits for the sake of non-smoking others.
By controlling when and where smokers can enjoy a smoke, the governments hope that eventually and gradually smokers will give up smoking die to inconvience.