Good news, now to just spread it around to other populated areas.

People don't even respect the No Dogs "Bylaw" at the various parks and our bylaw enforcement officers never seem to be around to ticket the individual. I doubt anyone will respect a sign that has no consequence.

Note to Bylaw Officers. Come down to Ft. George park just about any Saturday / Sunday during the summer and start enforcing the bylaws about dogs. This applies to the cute little ones as well given they seem to bite more often than the big dogs.

I can just picture it. Lineups under the signs wondering when the guy who gives out the free tobacco will be showing up.

;-)

You know, it took me a long time to realize that they were not handing out free gasoline in the idle free zones. I still have to pay to idle my car to this day!

"Good news, now to just spread it around to other populated areas."

Yes, like the entrance to PGR Hospital: Sunday night, about 7:00 pm two people standing under the "No Smoking in this area..." smoking and hundreds of cigarette butts on the ground.

One fellow sitting in the designated enclosure, though.

Big, nauseating cloud to walk through.

BTW ... I posted here a few days ago on the toxic playground equipment article the fact that they have known about that for some time and they still have not fenced them off. They are simply waiting to remove the equipment when they have the money to do that and replace them.

So we could have the situation of the parent who smokes, taking their child out of a smoke-filled house to get some relatively "fresh air" at the playground if the pollution that day is not too bad, and picking up chromated copper arsenate based wood preservatives while playing.

From the initial children's risk assessment report of 2003:
"Children’s exposures may occur through touching CCA-treated wood and CCA-contaminated soil near treated wood structures, mouthing hands after touching
CCA-treated wood, and eating CCA-contaminated soil."

This type of woode preservative is no longer used for palyground and residential building purposes such as wood decks. Tobbaco is still used and is not banned. CCA treated wood is no longer manufactured while cigarettes are. If we cannot get the palyground equipment taken down in a timely fashion, and we cannot put fences around it if we cannot remove it, why are there no signs up at playgrounds identifying the hazard? Why are we getting signs cautioning against smoking? A bit hypocritical I think.

BTW, I am not a smoker, never have been, so am not even one of those evangelical recovering smoker.

I detest having to smell the stuff when leaving a building and winding my way through the typical smokers in front of restaurants and other assembly businesses. There is no need for that.

I also do not like trying to enjoy the few outdoor eating spots we have and having to sit downwind of smokers.

Hey Owl: Do you want to join the group of parents who are doing all the organizing to replace all the playgrounds seeing as how the school district / provincial government isn't ? I like your slant on things !

Nothing worse than watching a nine year old chew tobacco. Or even smoke. But if you're an old guy watching a nine year old do anything you will likely be arrested fer being a potential perv. Every one always on the lookout fer others. Mind yer own business.

I am fed up with people making laws/rules that are not inforced.
We do not have the people to inforce them,
so why even bother.
I am totally fed up with stupid people making stupid laws/rules and they add we will not be inforcing this law/rule.
These people only like to hear themselves
talk or see their name in print.

Any chance of a "tax-paying free zone?" Would be nice. Since Vancouver installed them "nuclear free zone signs" a while back, I notice they haven't had any problems with nuclear power plants or hydrogen bombs. Signs must work. Right?

Cost of law enforcement (protective services) in PG ... not the bylaw kind but the RCMP kind ...

In 2005, the cost was $28.89 million in the City. Based on a population of 75,000, that would be $385 per resident. Let's say we had 80,000 residents, that would be $361 per person.

In the City of Vancouver that is $108 per person. In the city of Surrey, that is $29 per person.

The PG figure is gotten from the 2006 annual report. The other two figures are from the Vancouver Sun today which has an article about the rising cost of property taxes in Vancouver and holding Surrey up as an example to follow. (if I recall correctly, Surrey is the crime capital of BC, if not Canada)

I too noticed that since the sign has been up there, no US Navy ships have been entering the harbour. They pretty much keep to the Strait when conducting their torpedo exercises.

I think the "girls" get sent out on a helicopter.

;-)

Maybe that "protective services" includes fire as well.

Lunarguy ...

Don't know about "joining" since I am quite busy, but could sit down with you so we can both see whether and how I may be able to provide you with additional help.

Try me at owl_pg@yahoo.ca

I like discouraging smokers as much as the rest of the nonsmoking public does. I dont think though that such a law is enforceable. Not that it is a bad idea, just not enforceable. Actually i would hope it wouldnt be as i really do thin money could be better spent than handing out tickets to people who cant or wont pay anyway.
As for protecting people from second hand smoke i am even more skeptiacal. I doubt very much there is much impact on kids health from people smoking outdoors. If so i am a dead man, as my dad smoked for years. I think we are getting a little, dare i say weak when we start holding our breath and running through the smoking areas outside of businesses. Come on guys, its not mustard gas!

Hear hear, you said it, caranmacil, sheesh!
I think things have gotten out of control with all the laws about tobacco smoke. It is good that you can go have a drink or a meal without breathing secondhand smoke, and the same goes for airline flights (remember when you could smoke on a commercial airliner ?) and bus rides and movie theatres. The anti smoking nazis have gone too far in my opinion, it should be up to our own free will if we smoke or not. By the way, I quit smoking over 25 years ago. I just think we are losing too many rights. So to all you smokers:
illegitimus carborundum.
metalman.

Sorry lunarguy, I just noticed that the addy is pg_owl@yahoo.ca

:-(

I believe second hand smoke is said to be a cause of death in 800 cases per year in Canada. It would stand to reason that those cases deal with people working 8 hour shifts in smoke fileld rooms, such as the smoking section of a bingo hall, a home with some smokers while others do nto smoke; a buddy riding along with a trucker who smokes; etc. etc.

A child who plays in an open air playground with a neighbour with his child sittting on a bench smoking while the children play, is hardly going to get the same effect. The child with a smoking mom is not going to be affected as much form smoke outside as the child will be when it gets back home and the mom lights up in the house.

So, if the latter is the case, should we be removing the child from the parent for endangering the child's life? I am suspect that it will come down to that one of these days.

I think it is quite reasonable to feel that smoke free designation of playgrounds is rather an extreme position.

Yell fire once too often whern there is none, then people will no longer believe you when there is a real fire.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs_e.html

from the above site:

"When you see second-hand smoke in the air, what may not be so obvious is that there are 4,000 chemicals in the smoke. More than 50 of these chemicals are carcinogens. This means they cause cancer. The chemicals also contribute directly to other diseases, such as asthma, heart disease and emphysema."

Change the words "when you see second hand smoke" to "when you see the haze over the city" and the rest can stay virtually the same. So, we are doing what about that? Could we possibly put "emission free zone" signs around all our industrial developments?

I really do not think that people understand what they are saying. They simply do not connect the obvious. All that it is about is the path of least resistance. I fail to understand why it takes so long for that to sink in with so many people in positions of responsibility with respect to public health.

Here is a study for California which relates deaths from an above suggested level of PM, second hand smoke, homicides, and automobiles.

http://www.californialung.org/downloads/hn/Research_HealthEffects_ParticulateMatter.pdf

It says: Attaining the California PM standards would annually prevent about 6,500 premature deaths, or 3% of all deaths. These premature deaths shorten lives by an average of 14 years. This is roughly equivalent to the same number of deaths (4,200 – 7,400) linked to second-hand smoke in the year 2000. In comparison, motor vehicle crashes caused 3,200 premature deaths and homicides were responsible for 2,000 premature deaths.

Keep in mind that reducing the level of PM to a standard is not the same as reducing it entirely as in the case of second hand smoke. On top of that, it deals only with particulates and not with ozone, VOC and the many other pollutants released from industrial and other human activities.

It is not what you know, it is who you are and who you know that is important in our society.

"the zones will protect the public from second-hand smoke exposure and role-model a smoke-free lifestyle to our children and youth."

I think the promotion of a smoke free lifestyle is the bigger issue here.

Smooth

You said it Smooth - example is the best teacher when it comes to our children. Anywhere there are children - there should be "no smoking". It won't stop all the kids from lighting up at some point, but I do believe it will make a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. So a few smokers are inconvenienced, if they feel they are doing it for the sake of the children it might not be so bad.

Furthermore, and I have stated this in the past - if the tobacco companies were forced to stop using all the chemicals they have added to their recipe in the past 25 or 30 years and went back to the old fashioned way of making cigarettes, health risks would decrease so dramatically that of course a lot of people would be out of pocket....good thing the rich and famous who are in control have so many guinea pigs to keep them that way.

"example is the best teacher when it comes to our children"

Ah... that explains why my kids turned out so perfectly .....

;-)

Right on Owl, good for you...LOL. I love my pretty decent kids too!!!