Letter: Parks smoking ban is heavy-handed
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Columbian editorialized July 26 ("Still deadly, still illegal") supporting the recently enacted smoking ban in Vancouver city parks, propagating the myth that this ban is "not a debate about personal liberty. It's a matter of public health." If true, why does this ban include e-cigarettes, which don't release any carcinogens into the atmosphere?
Instead of banning smoking in parks, why not enact a reasonable ordinance creating designated smoking areas in most parks? Admittedly, some parks are too small to make this work and a total ban in those parks is realistic. I am an ex-smoker who believes that most smokers will support a reasonable attempt to regulate smoking with a designated smoking area.
This heavy-handed ordinance is another step in the direction of the nanny state, regardless of what The Columbian says. Sooner or later, the state will come after your freedoms; witness the recent attempt by the city of San Francisco to ban male circumcision, the current attempt by the mayor of New York City to ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks, and attempts elsewhere to ban flying the U.S. flag. How many freedoms must we give up before we wake up?
Larry Froberg
Vancouver
More like this
Commissioners ban sale of e-cigarettes to minors
E-cigarette users say devices are vastly safer than traditional smoking
