Whitehorse Daily Star

Contravening smoking law can cost you $150

With the campaign to inform Yukoners of their obligations under the Smoke Free Places Act in full swing,

By Jason Unrau on September 11, 2009

With the campaign to inform Yukoners of their obligations under the Smoke Free Places Act in full swing, the Star contacted the territorial government seeking clarification on several regulations; contravention of any could result in $150 fine.

Speaking to the regulations was Lauren Muir, a former smoker and policy analyst with the Department of Health and Social Services. Muir was in on the ground floor during crafting of the Smoke Free Places Act, attending public consultations and eventually sitting at the table during the formulation of the regulations.

The Star:

One regulation simply states: ashtrays.

So what about that boss who has a vintage ashtray in the office overflowing with mints? Is that a no-no?

Muir:

Am I going to send an enforcement person out there? No, hahaha. If somebody has mints in the ashtray, good on them.

The Star:

It's sort of picking up on the government's ‘chewing gum, saving lives' campaign.

Muir:

Exactly. As for the regulation, no employer shall put any ashtrays in any place at any time where smoking in that place is prohibited. If they are mounted on an outside wall, they need to be five metres away from doorways or windows that can be opened.

The Star:

What about this regulation that says thou shalt not permit a person to smoke in a smoking room? That sounds strange.

Muir:

Basically, that refers to designated smoking rooms in continuing care facilities, and not allowing someone to smoke in that room who is not a resident of that facility – for example, a staff member. The person has to be a resident of the nursing home to smoke in the smoking room.

The Star:

So what about a son or daughter, who wants to sit and have a smoke with their dear old dad or mom? That's a bit harsh.

Muir:

Not even family members (would be allowed), they would be asked to smoke outside and comply with the the five-metre distance away from doors.

Ultimately, we're wanting to provide for the residents, but we're not wanting to encourage smoking, especially for those people who are physically able to go outside. Often, we've found that when families visit (continuing care homes), underage kids are sitting (in the smoking room) with grandma and grandpa and second hand smoke is a lot more harmful for adolescents.

The Star:

How about this regulation – failing to request a person to stop smoking – does this mean citizens risk a $150 fine for not browbeating smokers into butting out?

Muir:

No, no. If someone does light up in a public space, like a bar, for example, the bar owner or manager would need to instruct that smoker to put out the cigarette, that's all.

The Star:

Can you explain the ‘taking adverse action against an employee' regulation? Does that mean an employee can break the smoking ban and be immune from punishment?

Muir:

No, no. It's to protect an employee who might tell a superior about other employees not following the rules, for example an employee who is tired of walking through a cloud of smoke to come in or go outside. The employer can't take adverse action against that person who makes the complaint.

The Star:

I guess the same goes for the ‘harassing informant' regulation?

Muir:

Yes. And no person shall interfere with a person enforcing the act.

The Star:

We've talked about exceptions, for example allowing residents of nursing homes to smoke in a designated smoking room. Are there any other exceptions, places where people can smoke indoors in a ‘public place'?

Muir:

Hotels and bed and breakfasts can offer smoking rooms. The other scenario that we've come across is a business that's also a residence; the law says where the public is allowed in you can't smoke there, but in private areas it's permitted. Schools are also exempted from the five-metre rule because the law stipulates no smoking anywhere on school property. Standing five metres away from the door of a school, in most situations, would not be off school property.

The Star:

How about ‘failing to display a no-smoking sign'? Does that mean businesses have to post a sign anywhere they think somebody might sneak a puff?

This could become somewhat onerous.

Muir:

Businesses have to post a little three-by-three (inch) no-smoking sticker at every door, unless ... it's say a really small shop and they don't allow smoking in there anyways, then one little three by three sign does it.

Businesses can give Benton Foster, Tobacco Education and Enforcement Officer a call to get free no-smoking signs. 667-8321 or e-mail benton.foster@gov.yk.ca

We're also asking businesses to call him if they want to build a smoking shelter he can assist with ensuring it complies with the regulations.

The Star:

How do you plan to enforce these regulations?

Muir:

The enforcement will be progressive, starting with education but there will be some routine inspections so businesses may be inspected. It's also complaint-driven so people can call up and talk with Benton. That can be done anonymously.

Comments (8)

Up 0 Down 0

Arn Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Smoke a big fatty at that meeting!

Up 0 Down 0

francis pillman on Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 am

Hi heather. The point is not about if people should smoke, its an issue of enacting useless laws that do absolutely nothing but take peoples rights away. First you couldn't smoke inside, now you have to be a block away. If you don't see this for what it is, well, please go back to sleep. Where's the laws that protect me on the road with all the dumbed down drivers in town with on a constant bias put mine and your life at risk. But I guess the stink off a cigarette is more of a credible threat. *rolls eyes*

Up 0 Down 0

Heather on Sep 16, 2009 at 7:58 am

Nobody should be smoking in the first place

Up 0 Down 0

Francias Pillman on Sep 14, 2009 at 5:13 am

And who will enforce these ridiculous laws? Stop wasting tax payers money with this useless garbage. If I was in power who ever came up with this waste of money idea would pay it themselves, from their own pocket

Up 0 Down 0

Al Fedoriak on Sep 13, 2009 at 7:09 am

A waste of time energy and resources this is an occupational health and safety issue. All regulations governing this should fall under Occupational Health and Safety who already employ inspectors and have enforecement mechanisims at their disposal.

Up 0 Down 0

billmacinnes on Sep 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm

used to love the Yukon certainly not anymore

Up 0 Down 0

Vlad Petrlak on Sep 11, 2009 at 10:50 am

Incredible, so idiotic, it leaves you speechles - V.

Up 0 Down 0

Joseph Campbell on Sep 11, 2009 at 9:06 am

Just watch some weenie judge over rule this new law. After all, Human Rights is the law now in Canada, and we have learned that Human Rights only pertain to the crap heads of society.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.