City of New Westminster eyes smoking ban in outdoor public areas

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The City of New Westminster is looking into whether to ban smoking in parks, playgrounds, fields, and other outdoor areas.

      In an effort to limit exposure to second-hand smoke, the proposed new rules would see smoking prohibited in many public gathering areas as well as on restaurant and pub patios.

      The regulations would also see a 7.5-metre smoke-free zone established around the doors, windows and air intakes of public buildings and workplaces.

      Under the city’s existing smoking control bylaw, anyone convicted of violating the rules can face a fine of up to $2,000.

      In a letter dated December 2011, the Fraser Health Authority recommended the city introduce the tougher restrictions. Other municipalities including Vancouver, Surrey, and White Rock have already introduced more strict rules on smoking in outdoor places.

      Council is scheduled to consider the potential bylaw changes during a meeting on Monday (March 4).




      Mar 1, 2013 at 2:48pm

      Among those with functioning brains, this is called an "odour bylaw". It appeals to those who view the simple odour of cigarette smoke as a cancerous threat.

      Sadly, the same people have no trouble at all with vehicle exhaust fumes (which they inhale in huge quantities daily, often while sitting comfortably on a pub patio) or industrial emissions (which many of them work within).

      Nope, it's just about the odour. Axe cologne and Walmart perfume is okay though. Duh.


      Mar 1, 2013 at 10:06pm

      This is great news. Anyone who has ever had to put up with the repellent discharge from sneering smokers will welcome this. Not surprising the BS car exhaust canard makes an instant appearance?

      Tough Love for Smokers addresses smoking in apartments, in public places and numerous other topics:


      Mar 2, 2013 at 9:14am

      People can control smoking,but driving is still needed,and ind. still have to build.Besides most of the air comes from China ,Japan, the globe rotates the air stays,so you would have a real problem keeping the polutants out.Big dome anyone?

      Stuart Haden

      Mar 2, 2013 at 10:05pm

      It is unnecessary to create pollution either from vehicles, industry or personal habits. There are alternative forms of non polluting energy.
      All pollution contributes towards cancer and other chronic diseases.
      Free energy is a real solution which is prevented from being rolled out because shareholders and owners of the petrol chemical industries believe money is more important than the health of humans and the planet. As a non smoker I have cancer of the bladder and the base of the tongue.The only thing stopping pollutant free energy and the closing of tobacco manufacture is money. Personally I care more about people than money. The benefits to the national economy, health and welfare by banning pollutants far outweigh any pro petroleum and tobacco lobby. Only those countries who ban tobacco and petroleum products will prosper. The question is which country values people more than money? Canada lead the way please. You have my support for justice. By banning tobacco and petroleum pollution you will increase your production, raise your standard of living and reduce your health and welfare programme. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. Either you want to be controlled by a few wealthy, greedy,selfish minority who think nothing of peddling their poison to the masses or you want to see the sensible, healthy option of caring for the majority. It really is a question of whether you like people or not. Obviously those who knowingly peddle, produce, or sell tobacco products and gasoline and diesel are only interested in money and making money at the expense of people's health. Every time you pass a smoker ask yourself this question: Does that smoker care about the air that you breathe? Of course they don't. They are selfish addicts after all. They really believe it is their right to pollute the air. When they ask for a drink of water ask them if you can put a drop of gasoline in it? They might say "No thanks" Explain to them polluting the air is the same as polluting the water. Both water and air are essential for the production of a healthy life. Are they stupid or just intent on killing people. Personally I seen every restaurant where the catering staff are outside the kitchen smoking. Why would I want to eat there? They no doubt prepare the food with nicotine stained hands. And then people wonder why non smokers get cancer!!! Wake up people or are you dumb?


      Mar 3, 2013 at 10:26am

      Stuart H. Love your coments.IF we could stop pollution we would still be inuendated with the stuff from other countries,the air above us dose not stay there,the word spins and it stays,so we could breath Chinese air,japanese,indian,etc.Then how are you going to get to your job get groceries when trucks cant deliver due to lack of diesl.Clean energy is eons away,if ever.And if you do away with petrolium co. Canada would be a third world country,and unemloyment would soar past depresstion times.Dont blame your problems on polutants shit happends to all of us.

      2 cents

      Mar 3, 2013 at 1:55pm

      I'm a recently quit smoker. Actually, I made the switch to e-cigs and am weaning myself off nicotine successfully, but that is another story. Very happy to be done with tobacco at last. Yes, it smells. But yes, I was as respectful as possible to others when I did smoke (never near children or non-smokers, never indoors, never around my pets, I always washed my hands afterwards and used a smoking jacket to keep my "scent at a minimum"). I respected areas where smoking was not permitted. I don't want to infringe on others (and I would hope they might respect me enough to do the same).

      My question is this. When everyone finally quits and the government is lacking in the billions of tobacco tax revenues, who is going to make up the lost tax revenue? This is going to affect non smokers too, since what will there be to tax the way cigarettes were taxed? Alcohol? Potato chips? Fast food?

      The government keeps smoking legal only because it's profitable to do so. Think about it. Smokers have higher risk of fatal illness. They work and smoke and pay into the system, but can potentially kick off before collecting on benefits.

      Don't get me wrong, I am all for preventing young people from smoking. I wish I had never started. Banning smoking for the smell, I get. But like someone else mentioned, why not ban cheap perfumes, stinky foods and other things that may offend. The potential risks from 2nd hand smoke can all be found in motor vehicle exhaust, yet that is acceptable because it is deemed necessary. Then there is the particulate matter from vehicles. There are studies done, showing that non exhaust particulate matter from vehicles, does indeed hospitalize people, and can even kill them. Car tires lose on average, 1 - 1.5kg of rubber in the form of particulate matter over their lifetime (3 years or so). This is one reason why folks with asthma tend to have it exacerbated when they live near busy streets with heavy traffic.


      Mar 4, 2013 at 9:45am

      2 cents;Good on you to quit,taxing alcohol and junk food is already in effect.Bad smells do not effect your lungs like 2nd hand smoke,people are still going to smoke elswere,they are all not going to quit,so taxes will still come in.Beside people still use drugs even though it is illeagle so would they smoke.