A letter to the editor published in the Windsor Star, January 28, 2013:

Re: Just leave smokers alone, opinion column by Chris Vander Doelen, Jan. 23.

Wow, so much misdirected anger.

Regarding tobacco control, I’m no fan of government, especially the current federal one (contact me for some “juicy” info about Stephen Harper).

Chris is also angry toward anyone who “nags” or “nagged” him and his (former) fellow smokers, unaware of the distinction between loving, gentle persuasion and nagging.

So much anger but in the column, Chris blissfully ignores what should be every smokers’ primary target — big tobacco, which thrives primarily on its ability to hook and addict generation after generation of illegal/underage kids. Most tragically now, in developing nations, where big tobacco freely goes about its raping and pillaging, unfettered by pesky tobacco control laws.

Chris tells us that “government bureaucrats” and, presumably, anti-tobacco activists, are “addicted to a drug as insidious as nicotine: the self-satisfaction of telling others how to live.”

Tobacco is a public health issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with “telling others how to live” any more than drunk driving laws do.

It’s ironic and hilarious that after all of Chris’s whining about government, he says, “It was my resentment at the taxes that finally spurred me to quit.”

Higher prices are a huge factor in smokers quitting. Health care costs directly attributable to tobacco far outweigh tobacco tax revenues, so it’s a lose-lose proposition no matter how you look at it. The only ones getting rich are tobacco companies.

Finally, something Chris and I can agree on. He says, “You cannot defeat a chemical addiction simply by changing the delivery method” and that you’ve got to “starve the nicotine monster.”

Absolutely correct. But besides all addictive and deadly tobacco products, the real “nicotine monster” is big tobacco.

So, Chris supports my ultimate goal of putting big tobacco out of business, right?

ERROL E. POVAH, President
Airspace Action on Smoking and Health

A letter to the editor published (with some editing) in the National Post on January 25, 2013:

I wish I could honestly say that Jesse Kline makes a powerful argument on behalf of his puppet masters at Big Tobacco, but I can't:  Invalid and illegitimate as any and all arguments condoning public smoking are, Kline's (in, B.C. crusade seeks more restrictions on outdoor smokers [Jan. 23]) definitely rank among the lamest, least eloquent and  most laughable.

Take, "Three decades ago, when smoking was commonplace in airports, bars and offices, it was almost inconceivable that these areas would one day be smoke free." for example.  Not so many decades ago, slavery was commonplace... and it was almost inconceivable that slavery would ever be eradicated too!

And then there's, "First it was elevators, then classrooms and workplaces..." (emphasis mine).  Can you imagine?  The nerve of "the tireless anti-smoking crusader" (or "anti-tobacco Nazi", as Bruce Allen calls us), wanting to breathe something other than the toxic, carcinogenic residue of somebody else's habit in an elevator!

That said, whether it's Kline's opinion or that of more eloquent and, presumably, better-paid puppets of Big Tobacco, like the Michael Siegel Kline quoted, they all conveniently overlook one minor detail:  Smoking is NOT addictive!

Nicotine is the most addictive drug on the planet, but smoking is nothing more than an albeit powerful habit.  With literally dozens of nicotine replacement therapies now available, there is no justification whatsoever for continuing to allow smoking in any public place, workplace or MUD (multi-unit dwelling, including apartments, condos, townhomes, etc.)... indoors or outdoors.

Errol E. Povah
President, Airspace Action on Smoking and Health

With the utmost of respect for all victims of bullying...
 
I will wear a pink shirt (on Pink Shirt Day [Feb 27, 13] and every other day of the week) the day that the most high-profile cheer-leader of the anti-bullying movement -- B.C.'s very own premier, Christy Clark -- publicly acknowledges that her good friends at Big Tobacco are the biggest, meanest and nastiest corporate bullies on the planet.
 
What's the connection between Big Tobacco and the largest single group of bullying victims:  Teens and pre-teens?  So glad you asked.
 
The multi-billion dollar global tobacco industry survives and thrives based almost exclusively on its ability to hook and addict generation after generation of illegal/under-aged kids.  And child slavery continues to be a huge issue on tobacco plantations in many developing nations of the world.  Until Clark acknowledges those facts and turns her back on her old pals, her integrity and her sincerity -- whenever she speaks about anti-bullying and/or Pink Shirt Day -- must be questioned.

You can listen to the discussion by going to the CKNW Podcasts and selecting December 30, 2012. Time stamps for highlights can be found at the bottom of this article.

Here is the feedback to this program from Airspace:

Good Morning, Ian and Steve!

MUDs, in case you're not familiar with it, is the acronym for Multi-Unit Dwellings...and, as far as I know, the term/acronym was developed as a result of the smoking problem, as it applies to the problem you outlined at the beginning of your program.  The most common examples of MUDs are apartments and condos, but duplexes and basement suites are MUDs as well.  And, as far as I'm concerned, town homes should be included as MUDs as well.  Even though they're not physically joined:  They are sufficiently close that, for all intents and purposes, in terms of tobacco smoke, they are joined.

I'm not aware of any "laws" on this issue, only "policies".

That said, many similar cases have been heard at the Human Rights Commission.  As far as I know, most/all of those cases have been resolved 'out of court', as it were.
 
A couple of very old, worn-out and, with all due respect, useless suggestions have been made:  Plug all the holes...and/or install some sort of a ventilation/fan system.  Besides the FACE (my typo [and of course spell check didn't catch it]...and a few seconds after he read it that way, on the air, he said something like, "I think that's supposed to be 'fact'.") that those things simply do not work, nobody should have to do that.

A story from Global TV's News Hour, November 30, 2012:

Link to Global TV page

A transcript appears below Airspace's commentary.

So often, when we see people smoking on TV, we don't see the entire face of the smoker...we see the lips (we see just enough of their faces to see the smouldering butt coming and going from their lips, often with a "Honest, I'm not really all that stupid!" smirk on their faces) and maybe part of the nose and chin. What I found rather unique and interesting about much of the video in this segment was that it featured so many smokers (2 women together [one of whom looked like staff], a man, then 2 individual women, one of whom, yet again, was smoking just a metre or two from a BC Cancer Agency [this time, the Fraser Valley Centre], then a man and a woman), at VGH...who seemed to be quite well aware that they were being filmed, but didn't give a damn.

The video portion also shows a big (roughly one square metre) 'sticker' on the ground, which repeats the highlighted part of the audio message, above...and features a roughtly one square foot No Smoking sign.  And there are sandwich boards that convey a similar message.
 
All in all, I'm only slightly impressed.  The stickers on the sidewalk will be trashed in no time...by people walking/cycling/rollerblading on them, the weather and, I'm predicting, a few ignorant smokers, who will, no doubt, put cigarette/bic/match burns into them, spit on them, draw swastikas on them, etc. (and Bruce Allen will no doubt be cheering them on).  In many smokers' minds, an inch or two of snow and ice, covering that sign, will automatically mean that the policy no longer applies.

A Daily Show story from December 18, 2003, before Colbert got his own show.

Blogger Norman Farrell: "While one arm of the BC's Liberal government is paying favourite law firms to plan legal action against the tobacco industry, in fiscal 2012, bcIMC, another arm of government, increased investment holdings in the merchants of death." Here's his article: Money speaks louder than words

Article by Kevin Diakiw in the Surrey North Delta Leader: Smokers cloud Surrey cancer centre

Excerpt: "Mayor Dianne Watts was bothered by the lack of the smokers’ sensitivity and unimpressed with the reaction the centre received from the Surrey bylaw department.

"'I’m very disappointed with the enforcement not taking place, especially in and around a cancer facility,' Watts said Thursday. 'We need to be taking this up with our bylaw officers, and if there’s an issue around staffing, we need to be dealing with that.'

"The City of Surrey has 24 full-time bylaw officers.

"Watts added the smokers should have more common sense.

"'You can’t legislate intelligence and you can’t ticket your way out of a situation,' Watts said. 'People should have enough compassion within themselves to get it.'

"Thiele said he has nothing against smokers, he just wants to be able to access his cancer treatment without running the gauntlet of cigarette smoke."

Supporting editorial: Help wanted

Bev Oda, former Federal MP and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women, and Minister for International Cooperation in the Harper government, and the tobacco industry's poster girl in Canada, has sent yet another bill to Canadian taxpayers. In 2010, a $250 penalty was added to a hotel bill in Washington, DC for violating the hotel's policy against smoking in room, and the charge was expensed to the Federal government. Here's the story from MacLean's: Bev Oda: Penalty for smoking in a hotel room among expenses MP charged to taxpayers

We can be thankful that she managed to not burn the hotel down.

For some unknown reason, the June 15, 2012 issue of the Globe and Mail contained way more than the average number of pictures of gratuitous smoking/cigarette advertising.

On pages L1 and L3, there are two virtually identical pictures (taken by one of his sons, while the article is written by his other son) of retired high school phys ed teacher Wojtek Bielski (WB) smoking! (The article, without these pictures, is here.) Same bathrobe, same chair, same table and, presumably, the same cigarette.  The only difference is the pose...and the captions:  The first one reads, "[WB] used to be anti-texting.  Now, he's 'having fun.'", while the second one says, "[WB] finds texting less intrusive than phoning."  Perhaps one day, if/when Wojtek realizes how "intrusive" smoking is (not only to his lungs, heart, etc., but to everybody else's too), he will become "anti-smoking."  Anyway, the article (which does not provide WB's age) -- the two parts, combined, represent almost half a page! -- is nothing more than a bunch of drivel about a computer/techologically illiterate Neanderthal who suddenly enters the 21st century when, as his son the wannabe journalist says, "My dad sent his first text on April 10, 2012, at 7:23 p.m.  It shook me to the core."  And it goes downhill from there!  Next time the G&M has half a page to spare, perhaps they could give it to Airspace!
 
Speaking of half a page...   Then, on page R3, there's a half-page movie review of "The Woman in the Fifth", not to be confused with "The Woman in the Filth", even though one of the lead actors (Kristen Scott Thomas) is shown smoking in the picture, which occupies about half of the article.  The headline says, "What you see is not what you get."  Very appropriate, given the fact that "what you see" is a (supposedly) sexy, glamourous, happy, confident, successful woman -- with "seductive charms and her sophisticated mien" -- smoking, while "what you get" (and, hopefully, 'what she gets' too) is the complete opposite:  Gross, ugly, disgusting lung cancer, heart disease, etc.  I can only guess that there's no discussion about smoking in the movie; Ethan Hawke looks too in love/lust with the nicoholic to say, "Put that cigarette out...and give me a call a few months after you've quit smoking."
 
And finally, as is quite common in the G&M and a few other papers, there's a full page obituary for Henry Hill, the principal character of the film Goodfellas.  He was a gangster-turned-FBI informant.  And, while he had spent much of his life in hiding (first from the FBI, then from his old criminal 'colleagues'), he eventually began to lead a more public life.  He survived the very dangerous criminal life, being an informant (probably with lots of threats to -- and/or attempts on -- his/his families safety/lives), severe alcoholism and drug abuse ("I've been on every drug humanly possible, and I can't get a handle on alcohol").  He survived all of that, but little ol' tobacco got him ("Hill had open heart surgery last year and died of complications from long-time heart problems related to smoking," his long-time girlfriend said), at the ripe old age of 69. If you've seen Goodfellas, you should recall a scene where he's discussing turning informant with FBI agents, and smoking away while discussing his need to live in a warm climate "because of his health". Yeah, right.
 
On a slightly different note...
 
With all due respect to all victims of Indian Residential Schools, every time I come across an article about the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", I find myself wondering if/when there will ever be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission regarding Big Tobacco.

Errol Povah