Smoking ban leaves some residents fuming
Residents in a Whitehorse seniors' complex fear eviction after the Yukon Housing Corp.'s (YHC's) new smoke-free rules recently took effect.
By Nadine Sander-Green on January 6, 2012
Residents in a Whitehorse seniors' complex fear eviction after the Yukon Housing Corp.'s (YHC's) new smoke-free rules recently took effect.
Barb Legault, 60, lives in an apartment in the seniors' residence at 600 College Dr. She has been smoking since she was 15 years old, and now goes through about a pack a day.
For Legault, it's not a question of smoking inside or outside. It's a question of kicking the habit or potential eviction.
She has multiple sclerosis, is in a wheelchair, and only goes outside once a month in the winter for grocery shopping.
"I can't go out in winter; every time I do, it feels like my bones are growing right out of my skin,” she told the Star this week while at her kitchen table. "It's extremely painful.”
Legault was joined by three other residents who also fear eviction.
The new rule, which came into effect Jan. 1, bans residents from smoking inside their units, but allows them to light up on their porches/patios or five metres from any shared entrances.
The YHC made the announcement last May, asking all tenants in their social housing units to sign a contract promising they wouldn't smoke cigarettes, cigars or anything that "generates smoke” inside.
Legault does not want to quit smoking.
"It's the only thing I do. I have my puzzles and I have my cigarettes.”
The smoke-free issue seems to have divided residents at 600 College Dr. into two camps: those in support of the new rule and those who think it's bogus.
Legault said she's not about to go outside in her wheelchair in the middle of the night. She will sit up and smoke in bed.
"In the wintertime? At minus 40? I'm not going out. I can't.”
She doesn't think quitting is even an option. She tried to use a low-dose nicotine patch, she said, but it paralyzed her for 24 hours.
Lynne Martin is 73 and has been smoking for 58 years. She tried quitting with Champix, but it resulted in kidney failure.
Second-hand smoke and other health issues around cigarette smoking don't seem to bother this group of women.
"I'm living with a smoker, 24/7,” said Melva Smith, a 68-year-old resident who quit smoking years ago. Her husband hasn't.
"There's nobody in this building getting more second-hand smoke than I'm getting. I've got no side effects. He's smoking all day long and I'm still kicking.”
All four women said they would not have moved into the building five years ago if they'd known the YHC would impose the new smoke-free rule.
"You can't ask us now to change something in our life,” said Legault. "We're too set.”
Martin agrees that younger people shouldn't be around second-hand smoke, and never smokes when her grandson is visiting.
She has been on edge since the new rules took effect.
"When I light up my cigarette, now I look outside to see if there are certain cars out there,” she said, explaining that she knows there are a few, select residents who will complain to the YHC.
The women think a fair compromise is to enforce the smoke-free rule on residents who move into the building from this point onwards.
When the YHC first announced the rule eight months ago, the corporation's director of housing operations, Shona Mostyn, told the Star the decision was made due to the enhanced risk of fire, higher maintenance costs and the known health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke.
She said the YHC was not exactly "on the cutting edge” with its new initiative, noting many building owners and landlords in Whitehorse already maintain smoke-free residences.
Mostyn emphasized the YHC doesn't intend to discriminate against residents based on personal habits and won't "police” residents. Rather, officials will view smoking as a violation of the lease and will respond to complaints.
Offending residents will receive two warning letters and then a letter notifying them their lease has been terminated.
YHC spokesperson Nathalie Ouellet said this week the corporation didn't study the new smoke-free rule with separate groups of the population in mind, which is why they apply to all of the YHC's social housing units. There are 206 seniors units throughout the territory.
Ouellet said there will be no special considerations for people who have trouble getting outside. All YHC social housing units are independent living, meaning residents are mobile, whether they're in a wheelchair or not, Ouellet continued.
"If a tenant is having difficulty, we can help them with that, whether that means putting in a ramp or something else.”
Dr. Brendan Hanley, the Yukon's medical officer of health, was not available for comment this week.
In May 2011, he told the Star the planned new rule recognizes that one of the primary concerns of smoking indoors is exposing neighbours to second-hand smoke. He said it can be dispersed throughout the building via the ventilation system.
"I think this is a great way to support people in quitting smoking,” Hanley said. The Yukon's smoking rate is considerably higher than the national average, he noted.
Concerns about people being forced outside during the winter don't bother Hanley.
"People know what to do up here,” he said.
Nora Merkel, another resident at 600 College Dr., is all for the new rule. She said she knows a lot of residents who are extremely bothered by the smoke in the building.
"The smell in some places is really bad,” she said.
"I think it's a fantastic idea, and I do realize it's a problem for some people. I feel sorry for the people who are addicted.”
Merkel said she was a smoker for most of her life but has managed to quit without much fuss.
"I think for their own health they should quit. Shouldn't they at least try?”
That's not something Legault is going to do. She will keep smoking and keep spraying Febreze everytime she opens her front door.
She is confident residents will send letters of complaints to the YHC, adding she will deal with the threat of eviction once it comes.
"You know what I'm going to do? Put a tent up in tent city!” Legault joked.
"Where else am I going to go?”
Comments (12)
Up 2 Down 1
Max Mack on Jan 13, 2012 at 8:00 am
Anti-smoking policies and laws are nothing more than a modern-day incarnation of prohibitionism. The negative health implications of smoking are exaggerated, and wildly so in the case of passive smoking.
However, the social marketers have done their job -- all too well -- by convincing us that smokers are fundamentally evil. Society has ostracised smokers, made smoking grossly expensive and difficult to do (YHC's policy is a case in point).
Next on the agenda -- unhealthy eaters, and unhealthy people. You know it's coming . . .
Up 2 Down 1
Michael J. McFadden on Jan 12, 2012 at 12:42 am
Lisa, your prejudice seems to show through your comment despite your statement of "sympathy."
You say, "Keep one building for existing smokers and those who don't mind the smoke, with the remaining ones for everyone else."
Why "one building"? The story indicates there are 206 "senior units throughout the territory" (It's not clear if these are apartment units or buildings.) If 25% of current lessees smoke, and 35% of tenants overall indicate they'd like to live in a smoking or smoking allowed buiding, shouldn't 35% of the buildings be smoking-allowed? And that's simply "fair" -- even without the "sympathy."
You also say, "Phase out smoking entirely as the smokers move or die."
Why? Why has your sympathy seemed to disappear for other older smokers who might need a place to live? Should they simply be sent to live in cardboard boxes on the street?
And you say, "If a negligent smoker burns down the building, make the new one completely smoke-free."
That seems reasonable, as long as it's applied in other areas as well. Cooking is responsible for almost as many fires as smoking I believe. If a negligent cook burns down a building would you also demand that new buildings be completely cooking-free? Or perhaps allow microwaving-only?
And finally you say, "And there should also be restrictions on smoking in any location from which smoke may enter a building by door, window, or air intake vent."
That's fair enough as long as you can provide some specific citations to actual published and freely available scientific research showing a real health threat from the levels and durations of smoke exposure one would get from such locations. However, I believe if you look around, you will find that despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year on "Tobacco Control" research and activities that there are *NO* such studies. Look around. See what you can find. NOTE: Don't offer generalized reports, comments from "authorities," advocacy web sites or press releases or "fact sheets" -- just a few actual scientific studies. As noted, I think you'll find there aren't any.
Thank you.
- MJM
Up 2 Down 0
anonymous on Jan 10, 2012 at 8:19 am
Only people who are pre-disposed die of lung cancer and with all the toxins in our lives it is funny that you complain about cigarette smoke. I, too, do not smoke.
Up 1 Down 2
Lisa Thill on Jan 10, 2012 at 4:10 am
No one should ever have to choose between their health and having a home. Being able to protect one's health and safety in one's own home should be a basic human right. The smokers have all my sympathy for their addiction; however, that does not entitle them to make others sick or put them at risk.
I find it encouraging that instead of asking "where are the smokers going to go," people are FINALLY starting to ask "where are people who need to protect their health going to go?" If someone is going to be inconvenienced or forced to move, it should be the ones creating the problem, not the ones victimized by it.
Keep one building for existing smokers and those who don't mind the smoke, with the remaining ones for everyone else. Phase out smoking entirely as the smokers move or die. If a negligent smoker burns down the building, make the new one completely smoke-free. And there should also be restrictions on smoking in any location from which smoke may enter a building by door, window, or air intake vent.
Up 2 Down 1
Michael J. McFadden on Jan 10, 2012 at 2:14 am
So the Director, Shona Mostyn, "told the Star the decision was made due to the enhanced risk of fire, higher maintenance costs and the known health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke."
Let's see just how valid those arguments are for throwing elderly and infirm residents out of their homes and into the snow, OK?
(1) Risk of fire: The risk of fires, and the risk of serious injuries/deaths from those fires, may very well go *UP* after a smoking ban. Why? Because smoking residents are likely to resort to "hidden smoking." Hidden smoking is often done without the incriminating presence of telltale ashtrays, and it also results in the hasty and improper disposal of "evidence" if there is a knock at the door or the sight of a known Antismoker walking in the front entrance.
Additionally, some residents will worry that they'll suddenly set smoke alarms off (doesn't happen, but it's a tool/warning that management will use for control purposes) and will then disable those alarms. Result? Fires that spread out of control and end up killing people before they have any warning.
Finally, if a small fire DOES start, say in a wastecan with one of those hastily disposed of butts without an ashtray, residents may try to put it out themselves rather than risk eviction for being discovered. Same result as above. Something like this happened in a senior residence several blocks away from me about five years ago and I believe two needless deaths resulted.
(2) Higher maintenance costs? What? Repainting the apartment after the resident dies? Aren't they going to do that anyway? And if it costs MORE to repaint because of the past smoking, wouldn't that cost ALREADY be in place for those residents already there who've been smoking in their homes for years? This is an excuse, not a reason, for the mistreatment of these people.
(3) Health risks? From the levels of smoke infiltrating from other apartments? If there's that much infiltration it indicates the buildings do not meet the fire codes: the smoking may actually alert residents of that and save their lives. Plus, there has never yet been a study showing any real harm from the low levels of smoke that would be experienced in such situations. No, I am not kidding: the studies done in this area all involve MUCH greater intensities of exposure. Look around: you'll see I'm right.
Google "V.Gen5H" and read "The Health Arguments" (aka 'The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans') for more on how these bans are being pushed and why.
Treating our seniors in this way is nothing less than a crime.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Up 1 Down 2
Without a Mother on Jan 9, 2012 at 7:48 am
"Legault does not want to quit smoking”
Fail Ms.Legault - there are some people that DO NOT WANT to increase their odds of getting cancer, etc. I'm sure her neighbors will sleep easier knowing she isn't drifting off to sleep in the middle of the night smoking in bed putting everyone at risk of her burning the place down.
What a crock these individuals are actually claiming they didn't know this was coming. They can be evicted as far as I am concerned. Since when does being a senior give you the right to put others at risk? My mother died of lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life. She did however live with someone who selfishly smoked like a chimney. I have no sympathy for these women and hope YHC stands their ground on this.
Up 2 Down 1
Denise G on Jan 9, 2012 at 6:51 am
This is ridiculous and unfair and it is harassment. YHC could have made this building smoke free right from the beginning. These people moved into a building where smoking was permitted. If the rules have changed then the tenants should be "grandfathered". It is unfair to disrupt the lives of these people. Those who are there now should be allowed to continue to live there and smoke but new tenants should be made aware of the non-smoking rule.
By the way I am a non-smoker, always have been and I don't like smoking but since it is not illegal I will not persecute someone for doing it.
Up 2 Down 1
Yukon Sally on Jan 9, 2012 at 5:26 am
I think everyone needs to show a little compassion for the elderly that smoke. Most of them are unable to go outside in the cold weather due to medical conditions such as MS. They have been smoking their entire lives and quitting is a huge shock to their system and some of the options available to help do more harm than good when they are older long term smokers.
My grandmother is 84 years old, in a home in Alberta, and they have designated heated areas for elderly smokers. Why not look into something like this. Everyone is so biased towards smokers these days it is ridiculous, they are people just like the rest of you and should be shown a little respect.
Over the years smokers are shunned everywhere, it's almost viewed as a worse habit than drinking which is disgusting in my opinion given the problems we have with alcohol addiction in the North.
Up 1 Down 2
get with it on Jan 9, 2012 at 1:41 am
You cannot smoke at Copper Ridge. You cannot smoke at McCauley Lodge. You cannot smoke if you are bound to a hospital bed.
Why on earth should you be allowed to smoke in a government owned apartment building? It causes damage to the building, and threatens the health of everyone there - through shared hallways and ventilation systems.
These women have admitted to willfully breaking their lease - throw them out and send them the bill for the new paint and carpets that will have to be installed.
Up 1 Down 0
susie rogan on Jan 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm
There was an article last week in the National Post about e-cigarettes. They are nicotine vaporizers. Nicotine itself while extremely addictive, is not particularly dangerous to health. The other substances in tobacco smoke contain many carcinogens and other poisons. E-cigarettes are shaped like cigarettes, produce smoke (propolyne glycol vapor laced with nicotine - p.g. is already used in our food as a preservative and is in air fresheners), and can come flavoured like cigarettes, including in menthol. Apparently there is no smell and no 'second hand smoke' health hazards. They mimic the smoking experience. I shared this on my FB a/c and had people write to say that they had tried them, or friends had, and they work at killing cravings and at replacing the physical hand to mouth habit of smoking. Two said they quickly quit smoking altogether, ie, first tobacco cigarettes, and then the e-cigarettes. There is a risk of people ingesting even more nicotine and getting even more addicted, but it seems to be an excellent alternative for those who are already addicted, and millions in the USA are already using them.
Up 0 Down 1
north of 60 on Jan 6, 2012 at 10:34 am
Make only one of the other senior's residences available for smokers. Move the smokers there. Make all the other residences non-smoking.
Up 1 Down 0
June Jackson on Jan 6, 2012 at 10:30 am
I think the smoking ban is a good idea. I don't visit non-smoking friends up there because sometimes, the air is thick with smoke, even some of the walls are yellow.
That being said.. Dr. Hanley has rocks in his head. Calling an agreement that forces some people out of their home "I think this is a great way in supporting people to quit smoking" is NOT support..I'm just saying.. call it like it is.. intimidation and force.
Ms. Legault, Ms. Smith do not have the right to make other people sick. Ms. Legault should not be using her wheelchair condition as an excuse to do it. The government is going to use intimidation and force to make them stop.