Up in smoke?
CAPITAL PRIDE 2012 / Capital Pride worries outdoor smoking ban will hurt festival attendance
Xtra staff / Ottawa / Friday, January 27, 2012
Share |

Organizers of Capital Pride are worried the City of Ottawa’s proposed expanded smoking ban will hurt attendance at this summer's Pride festival.
 
The proposed bylaw, which city council plans to implement by spring, will effectively prohibit smoking in all outdoor areas under the city's jurisdiction, including Marion Dewar Plaza, the venue for Capital Pride celebrations.
 
“If the proposed bylaw goes through, we hope that this year's festival season will have a grace period and [provide] education from Public Health for all festival attendees," says Loresa Novy, chair of Capital Pride.
 
Alluding to health studies that have been published in recent years, Capital Pride committee members say that smoking rates are approximately twice as high in the gay community as the general population. They worry that the proposed ban could discourage a significant portion of the community from attending the festival site.
 
They say they are aware of the negative impacts of smoking and stress they are not opposed to an eventual expansion of the existing smoking ban. They would, however, like to see a graduated approach to the implementation of the bylaw.
 
“As a volunteer-based, not-for-profit organization, we are concerned about being responsible for enforcement of the proposed bylaw. If we were to be fined, there would be serious financial repercussions for our festival," Novy says.
 
She says having a designated smoking area on the festival grounds would allow Pride attendees time to adjust to the ban while the committee raises awareness.
 
 


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Embrace the change
Capital Pride should stop waffling and embrace the change and use this as an opportunity to reach out to our community. Cigarette smoking kills 50% of all users when this product is used as intended. The "graduated approach" is BS. and will only offend those who believe in the integrity of the law and drive off non smokers who would expect Capital Pride to be just as smoke free as any other community event under the new laws. Most people are already use to smoking restrictions, and other cities around the world have similar laws. So stop dragging your high heels Capital Pride and get with the times.
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
01/27/12 2:01 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
no way
There's simply no way I would respect an outdoor smoking ban, smoking bans indoors I have no problem with, I'll even tolerate smoking bans in places such as patios where the umbrellas are close enough together to touch, but banning smoking out in the middle of a park or plaza? No way, that's going much too far. Maybe have a small no smoking section on the upwind side of the park/plaza for those with disabilities that leave them extremely sensitize to any chemicals at all, though how anyone that sensitize could survive outdoors in any city is beyond me, but making an entire park/plaza no smoking is just going too far, outdoors smoke is so quickly dispersed in the air that at most someone would get a slight smell of smoke that would present no health risk at all, at least not any more of a health risk than just being outdoors in a city. If even just the slightest smell of smoke bothers someone they are free to move upwind of the smoker(s), or depending on circumstances politely ask the smokers to switch spots with them. But banning smoking in an entire area outside is going far too far. The faint smell of smoke is no health risk at all, just walking down a sidewalk in any city exposes you to far more chemicals than the faint smell of smoke from someone having a smoke outdoors. Enough is enough. Some people act as if even the sight of someone having a smoke is very dangerous to them. Probably the same people who believe that everyone but themselves are responsible for keeping them HIV- in spite of their own refusal to wear a condom or to insist their partner wears one. I would either ignore an outdoor smoking ban or just avoid venues where its enforced. The anti-smoking movement has reached hysterical levels.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
01/28/12 1:11 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Lawmakers banned
Perhaps the media and the political class, who will suffer no loss of revenue from this might like to explain why the fact the bar owners in Michigan have banned lawmakers from their establishments to fight for their property rights http://www.wnem.com/story/15308606/lawmakers-banned-from-michigan-bars yet here in Canada nothing is mentioned. Or that in Europe the bans are being repealed more and more http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/a-majority-of-dutch-bars-return-the-ashtrays/ as they have hurt small business. This nonsense based on junk science will not end until private property rights are protected and the hysteria over nothing is shown to be just that hysteria
Andrew Phillips, Ottawa Ontario
01/28/12 11:34 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Slow and steady wins the race
What many smoking addicts fail to understand is that smoking restrictions are not put in place to just protect non smokers. But, also for the benefit of smokers. Restrictions are part of a deliberate long term strategic plan to eliminate smoking from our society. By reducing where one can smoke and fostering an environment that smoking is a not just a very serious health hazard, but also a socially unacceptable behaviour. It is a plan that is working in Canada and outside of Canada as well. The addicted won't like hearing this they will trumpet all sorts arguments about rights and freedom etc. All the while still a slave to their addiction. They will also trumpet the "then why don't they just ban it argument" Real politic in a democracy doesn't allow for such a thing to be practical or necessarily desirable. That is why our lawmakers are taking an approach such as we have now. Slow and steady wins the race through education, treatment and legislation. There will always be those that resist,however the battle to save lives and reduce smoking is working through policies and laws just like this.
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
01/28/12 2:59 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Tolerance Bill
Can I first point out I live in London, UK but the form required I give a Canadian Province. Well Bill, you really did let your intolerance hang out. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Also who gives you the right to decide what is socially acceptable or unacceptable? I always find it encouraging that in western liberal democracies that having a gay lifestyle is acceptable after years of the most repulsive repression. I am sure now there are groups, sects and some religious groups who would love to turn the clock back and homosexuality not only goes back into the closet but among the darker elements is re-criminalised. In the UK formal gay marriage legislation is being talked about, it has my unequivocal support. We need like these issues to move forward not backwards. Shame on you Bill.
Dave Atherton, London Ontario
01/29/12 5:22 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
I hope Bill is nice and slim
Let's change the word ''smoking'' to read ''obesity'' in Bill's post. Restrictions are part of a deliberate long term strategic plan to eliminate OBESITY from our society. By reducing where one can eat and fostering an environment that OBESITY is a not just a very serious health hazard, but also a socially unacceptable behaviour. It is a plan that is working in Canada and outside of Canada as well. The OBESE won't like hearing this they will trumpet all sorts arguments about rights and freedom etc. All the while still a slave to FOOD. Too far fetched? Consider that it is already in the works in the USA. Bill 282 failed this time, but how long before people with Bill’s mindset bring it back again? billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/pdf/HB/0200-0299/HB0282IN.pdf HOUSE BILL NO. 282 An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health (...) They have even invented Second Hand Fat: news.discovery.com/human/fatty-foods-cooking-health.html Fatty Food Fumes Could Be Dangerous I hope Bill is nice and slim because ''zey have vays'' to slim him down that others of his mindset would approve of ''for his own good'' of course.
Iro Cyr, Montreal Quebec
01/29/12 9:04 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Entitlement Entitlement
You don't have a human right to smoke. Suck it up!
Mike, Brandon MB
01/29/12 8:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Just to be tolerated
“I'm not willing just to be tolerated. That wounds my love of love and of liberty.” ? Jean Cocteau, Being merely tolerated may be enough for my “Gay lifestyle”, (whatever that may mean), but when it comes to genuine rights I expect more than that. I expect equality before the law for starters. To suggest that a “smoking lifestyle addiction” is the same as a human right is absurd and, an insult to those who have gone before us, and brought about the genuine progress that has been made to date in some corners of our world. Our society has a social contract in which our behaviours are restricted by means of both convention and legislation. They provide reasonable restrictions on our behavior, freedom, activities, call it what you will, for the purpose of a safe and civilised society. We agree to this for the welfare of both the individual and society as a whole. Some common examples would be helmet laws in sports or biking. Another would be seat belt laws and a third would be vaccination programs. It is in this group that smoking restrictions belong. Just as down the road I am sure there will be programs to combat the obesity problems that have become epidemic in our mainly western societies. However to compare the obesity problems in our society to the scourge of smoking is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison and for very obvious reasons, we need to eat we don’t need to smoke. Have there been mistakes made in smoking cessation laws? Yes. Will there be mistakes made in programs to combat obesity? Apparently. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.”- Winston Churchill. Eventually, a democratic society will prevail and come up with a solution that balances rights with the welfare of society as a whole. I am fortunate that I live in one such country- Canada. BTW: Iro, you will be disappointed to learn that I am a very fit, ex smoker, that maintains a healthy diet, and I look a good ten years under my age. Not that
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
01/29/12 11:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
cont. from above
..any of that has the slightest validity on the debate.
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
01/29/12 11:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Of human rights, harms and annoyances
Smoking is indeed not a human right. Eating is essential to life, but overeating or eating junk food is not. What is a human right however is to live one’s life as one feels best and if one makes mistakes on the way one has to live with the consequences providing it does not harm others. Neither overeating nor smoking in the great outdoors harms others. Heck the debate is not even settled for indoor smoking! Annoyance is not harm. There are many annoyances according to our dislikes and what offends us. Some find perfume annoying, some find kids annoying, others find the site of gay people demonstrating affection in public annoying. I don’t find any of this annoying, but I do find busy bodies that jump on bandwagons just because….well just because they can, extremely annoying, intolerant and selfish. But you do have the blessing and even the encouragement of the government, so go ahead and jump on the anti-smoking band-wagon, the sooner it becomes totally absurd, the sooner it will blow up like it should. By the way, I am against helmet laws, seat belts and anything that can hurt noone but the individual himself.
Iro Cyr, Montreal Quebec
01/30/12 1:27 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The joke of SHS
We’ve been told for years secondhand smoke is deadly dangerous but we are here alive and there are no deaths from it, not even close. It’s an exaggerated, created science all its own. It’s propaganda - fallacies created to have justifications for a new round of tobacco prohibition. I am for freedom, freedom for all people to have their own place in this world, including the smokers! Tobacco smoke maybe an irritant to some, but that’s about it. Its chemical makeup has been so exaggerated by tobacco control pundits, it’s insanity. Only 6 percent of tobacco smoke constitutes those 7,000 theorized and identified components of the smoke. Theorized is the word, since the claimed chemicals are themselves so small they can barely be detected. Nanograms, femtograms are the sizes of what can be detected so they theorize the rest. Four percent is carbon monoxide, while nearly 90 percent constitutes ordinary atmospheric air! These figures come from the surgeon general’s report in 1989. Oh the pundits may bring up benzene in tobacco smoke. The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 report of the surgeon general. p.130) 0.3 micrograms - 300 nanograms. Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year. Thus, the “safe” exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours.
Harleyrider1978, nashville tn
01/30/12 12:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Entitlement some more.
Eatting is a need. Smokeing is not a need. You don't have charter or the human right to smoke. If you don't smoke it's not like your heart will stop and your brain will shut down. So to bad so sad.
Mike, Brandon MB
01/30/12 1:02 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Smokers ARE a barrier!
No barriers for festival-goers? Reality check, Loresa, what do you think being in a crowded, fenced-in place full of cigarette smoke is??? Do you know how much of a barrier that is to people who care about their health, and even more so to those sensitive to smoke? Don't tell me that I can walk away in an open space - it is fenced in, and gets very crowded around the stage, beer service areas, etc. Basically anywhere popular is inaccessible thanks to the ignorant and inconsiderate smokers. You owe us an apology for that comment... or a resignation.
Pat Croteau, Ottawa ON
01/30/12 2:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@Pat Croteau
For what comment does Loresa owe you (not us - speak for yourself) an apology? The one where she requests a grace period or the one where she worries for the financial well-being of the organization she chairs? With all due respect, I think perhaps you could afford to be a little more moderate. These comments hardly seem grounds to call for someone's resignation.
Martin, Ottawa ON
01/30/12 6:18 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Defending the indefensible
No matter how willfully ignorant or selfish you choose to be, no amount of reductive opinion will change the fact that smoking is dangerous to life, as are the effects from exposure to second hand smoke. The harms are not just confined to the individual as some would claim and do not become suddenly nonexistent outdoors either. Harm reduction benefits all of society in many ways. Shoot the messenger all you want, the message remains the same. Some, astonishingly, and not uncommonly, would rather hide behind long since discredited data from the last century and put it forward as truth, rather than face the cold reality of the real proven dangers that smoking addiction causes to health and society at large. Sound public policy such as this legislation works, even for the unwilling, who are so blind to their addiction they cannot see the self harms let alone the harms to others. So far those here against the legislation have advocated, out right refusal to accept any law if passed, a gratuitous link to gay rights, dissemination of false or outdated information and the ever popular shoot the messenger and ignore the facts argument. Only Capital Pride has come up with a “legitimate” argument, loss of revenue. Pretty despicable, all round.
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
01/30/12 7:24 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@Martin
Hmm, I could have sworn that this article contained the same quote as in Metro, where Novy called this by-law a "barrier". In fact someone I just checked with felt the same certainty. Perhaps we confused the two (very similar) stories. Nevertheless yes I do feel "we" are owed an apology for the barrier comment. And, if such a comment was not in fact made, we are still owed an apology by Pride and anyone else who blocks attempts to protect us from irresponsible smokers.
Pat Croteau, Ottawa ON
01/31/12 4:08 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
@Pat Croteau
In the Metro article to which you refer, Loresa suggests having a designated smoking area on the festival grounds as a compromise. Assuming the by-law would be a barrier to smokers attending the festival, and assuming all smokers are a nuisance to all non-smokers, would this proposal not solve the problem by removing the barriers for both smokers and non-smokers alike?
Martin, Ottawa ON
01/31/12 7:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Ottawa issue
@ Bill Talbot -- How many Capital Pride events have you attended in the past?
Tom, Ottawa On
02/01/12 6:50 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
We Should Ban Cars To
Well we are at it. We should ban all cars from the streets as the way i remember it if you try to kill your self you do not go in the garage and light up cigarettes it will not work?. do some thing constructive like ban hate crimes or give trans right or stop hate in the schools priorities Ottawa
Brittany, Ottawa on
02/14/12 8:15 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Bill Talbot, Niagara-on-the-Lake Ontario
Who are you to tell any one what thy can and can not do.
brittany, Ottawaon on
02/14/12 9:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.