The Written Word
for February 16, 2000

The issue of smoking in public places has largely been one by the forces against evil. But the issue that lingers on is the question of civil rights. Those who, in what is now a lost cause, claim that their rights have been violated deserve an answer.

As I predicted publicly some years before – I always advertise my successful predictions because there are so many of the other kind – the issue would be settled as a matter of Workers’ Compensation. It was unthinkable that the WCB would not step in to curtail the very dangerous practice of forcing people to work in dangerous surroundings.

But the issue to me is a broader one for I not only support the smoking ban but also the ban against advertising and go so far as to support a ban on all alcohol advertising.

Let me pursue the last point for a moment. In 1976 I became BC’s Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and was responsible for the licencing and distribution of alcohol. At that time no advertising of any alcohol products was permitted, by BC law, to be on radio and TV. Until I left government in 1981 that remained the law in spite of constant lobbying of me and my colleagues not, you might be interested to know, by alcohol interests but by advertising firms and electronic media companies. I might add that after I left the ministry in deference to my views and those of Bob McLelland, a prominent member of the Bill Bennett cabinet, this ban continued although shortly after I left government it was lifted.

How could I, a democrat and a liberal, oppose the advertising of a perfectly legal product?

It was simple. There were competing rights – the right of the advertiser to make money and the right of the public to have both their health and pocketbook protected by their government. In making the decision, my ministry didn’t proceed on a whim or a cabinet minister’s personal prejudice – we did research. Lots of it. And to varying degrees it demonstrated two things – advertising of beer and wind increased its consumption and that it clearly was geared to young people to make sure that the demand for alcohol moved from the older generation to the younger. In fact any fair-minded person, looking at the advertising proposed then and a reality now, would agree that it’s "lifestyle." It’s all fun … good looking young people skiing, or snowboarding or racing down a river or some such attractive young pursuit. There was never a mention whatever of the dangers of alcohol or even the option for a young person wanting to be "in" not to drink at all. We were being asked, therefore, to put the advertiser’s right to advertise in a selective way what is potentially a very dangerous drug. And that point must be stressed. There is no question but that alcohol is the most abused drug and that the abuse of alcohol is our number one social problem.

I say that government not only has the right but the duty to control the advertising of such a dangerous substance. And the same goes for tobacco.

Now back to the smoking ban. Since my first argument has already been made – namely that the government has a duty to control harmful substances – let me give you my second. With smoking in a public place there is a competition of rights – your right to smoke and my right to be in a public place free of the discomfort but even more importsnt the dangers of tobacco smoke. I do not deny you your right to smoke, only your right to force me to share it with you.

There are, forgive the pun, smokescreen arguments galore. Why not have better ventilation and let pub owners make their own rules? Why not let license holders hire only smokers as staff? If you’re going to go after tobacco smoke, why not get those trucks that spew all those noxious fumes into the atmosphere? And what about the person who smokes and the plumber who comes into his house to fix some pipes? And on they go.

For one thing, it is no argument against eliminating an evil to say that there is a similar or worse evil somewhere else. You do what is possible. And you cannot restrict employment only to those who smoke.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the right to restrain rights if to do so is consistent with a free country. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruling certainly complies with that. But essentially it gets down to this – your right to swing your fist ends when my nose is in the way. The right to smoke cannot overrule the right of a citizen in a public place to breath air free from nicotine smoke.

The argument is all but moot in this country. Other countries are slow to follow but they are and will be following, perhaps at a slower pace but following nevertheless.

Perhaps I can coin an axiom to cover the situation . when rights compete, the right of the potential victim must always prevail.