Coming Soon to Vancouver: Smoke-free Parks, Beaches

I know, Vancouver isn’t in the U.S., but seeing that it’s a major Canadian city, it’s close enough to showcase an example of a proactive smoke-free initiative. Plus, it’s absolutely gorgeous in the summertime; I highly recommend that you visit there, preferably after September 1—when all of Vancouver’s parks and beaches will officially be smoke-free.

It’s hard for me to imagine that such a beautiful city tolerates the same public nuisances that we all do. However, the Vancouver Park Board has made a bold decision to mitigate secondhand smoke by instituting a public smoking ban within its more than 200 parks and along 11 miles of beaches. From my perspective, this is a much bigger deal than most smoking bans for one reason: smoking will be prohibited outdoors.

Many people, smokers and non-smokers, are outraged by this measure because the toxins in secondhand smoke dissipate much faster outdoors than indoors, leaving the health hazard negligible for surrounding people. Though it may indeed be negligible, the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded, “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” So why do we subject people to even the smallest health risk?

Because, to some extent, every activity is risky. Those who oppose Vancouver’s new smoking ban may argue that people who drive cars next to the parks and along the beaches pose a secondhand health risk to visitors. In this regard, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are not distinct from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Personally, I don’t see how the two are equivalent. CO emissions, as dangerous as they are, are necessary in today’s world. Yes, more eco-friendly transportation alternatives are available, but not everyone has access to them or is able to integrate them into their lifestyles. ETS, on the other hand, is a product of a preventable habit. Hypothetically, if CO emissions were prohibited, we would be hard-pressed to get to the places where we need to be. But if ETS were prohibited, smokers would have to resort to other forms of nicotine to satisfy their addictions…not as big of a deal. Clearly, ETS is comparatively unnecessary.

Nevertheless, the Vancouver Park Board justifies the smoking ban on different grounds. By eliminating what the Vancouver Coastal Health Agency recognizes as the “leading cause of death” in British Columbia, the ban is intended to be educational. The board commissioner insists that, “it’s our duty to promote and maintain a healthy lifestyle for the visitors to our parks.” Furthermore, a survey showed that 49% of people would use the city’s parks more often if smoking were banned.

Given the combination of public opinion and perception of the health risk, to claim that people who support the smoking ban are “demonizing” smokers is unfair. After all, alcoholic beverages—not alcoholics—are prohibited on many beaches and in state parks, and alcohol doesn’t even impose secondhand health effects. In short, the Vancouver Park Board is condemning the habit of smoking, not the smokers themselves.