Over-protected to death

Well, perhaps I exaggerate, but only very slightly. It has long been against the law here to drink publicly in any place that isn’t licensed – in parks, for example, or on beaches; or on the sidewalk; or in cars, even if you’re not the driver. Basically, you’re expected to do your boozing in bars. Period. This is something no true Trini understands; but the law’s the law. We comply (for the most part).

So far so good. In the old days a smoker could belly up to the bar, light up a fag, take a deep drag and chase it with a beer (or whiskey, as the case might be). That little bit of heaven was severely curtailed some years ago, when concern about “second-hand smoke” appeared on the scene, and anti-smoking laws banned smoking in most closed areas. Bar owners spent many thousands of dollars to create special “smoking rooms” so their patrons could enjoy mutual apartheid; those without the space (or the money) resorted wherever possible to open terraces and patios. So far so good. The beat went on.

But recently, the screws got turned some more. Not only were “smoking rooms” declared obsolete, but even open patios have been declared no-smoking zones, if they dare to have an awning or canopy, or even if their umbrellas are too close together. The fear being that all that lethal smoke will be trapped under the awning, and kill innocent non-smokers. This, mind you, in a city where air pollution (from cars and heavy industry) is way out of control; and where pollution warnings are issued daily during the summer, to alert asthma sufferers that it might be dangerous to go outside.

All this probably sounds as if I am an avid, and pissed-off, smoker; but I’m not. I’ve never smoked a day in my life, have no desire to, and am not particularly fond of bars, with or without smoke. I’m quite happy to be able to eat in a smoke-free restaurant, sit in a smoke-free concert hall, and travel on a smoke-free airplane.

But I do think there is such a thing as overkill, and outlawing smoking on an open patio comes pretty damned close to defining it. Aren’t smokers citizens too? Don’t they have the right to choose their method of relaxation? Are they to be denied all social contact unless they “behave?” Ironically, the people (smokers and non-) sitting on these patios are invariably inhaling deeply of auto fumes; yet no-one has yet suggested banning cars.

To me, the new law just smacks of this country’s overweening need to control every possible aspect of its citizens’ lives. I’m all in favour of laws, in general: they allow societies to function in a civilised manner. But lifestyle laws – the ones that try to dictate every minor detail of how people live –well, I think Canadians accept those a little too placidly, like a bunch of well-fed sheep (I suppose if you’re well-fed, there’s no reason to rebel).

This is the exact opposite of Trinidadians, who assume that the main purpose of any law is to be broken, the more times the better. I’m not in favour of that attitude either, as it can lead to needless misery, if not all-out anarchy. But surely, somewhere, there must be a middle ground, where everyone can be free to live as they like, subject to a moderate amount of common-sense and respect for others?

The Canadian tendency to meet every possible action with an equal and opposite legal reaction can be seen everywhere one turns. Recently, a city by-law was passed limiting the number of times a person could hold a garage sale during the year. A suburban municipality is currently considering a by-law to limit the size of front-yard driveways.

There is talk of forcing all cyclists to wear a helmet. (Children must already do so, and I am all in favour of that; but surely an adult should be allowed freedom of choice.) Dogs being walked in parks are due to come under scrutiny.

And on and on. The fact is that, in the city of Toronto alone, there are about 183,000 by-laws. These range from removing sidewalk snow in front of your house (a good idea!) to licensing your dog or cat (a municipal cash-grab that is also a way of pressuring pet-owners to spay their animals, since the license costs a lot less if they are “fixed”).

It’s also illegal to let your car idle for more than three minutes; to pour paint, solvents or motor oil down the drain; to keep more than six pets; to let your grass grow more than 20 cm, and to use profane or abusive language in a city park. That’s only seven examples; try to imagine the other 182,993 regulations that city-dwellers are somehow supposed to abide by!

It’s not that I object to guidelines designed to smooth frictions within a crowded city; but I wonder how often all these rules and regulations might not achieve the exact opposite, turning neighbour against neighbour in a frenzy of rule-following.

After all, it will be up to a street’s residents to turn in the inveterate garage-salesman, or the lax grass-cutter. That will hardly encourage neighbourly good-will.

In the case of the smoking by-law, the issue, of course, is health: the government believes that these laws will save lives, as well as health-care money.

It apparently hasn’t occurred to them that if you don’t die from lung cancer, you’ll definitely die from something else — maybe an even more expensive ailment. Nor has anyone mentioned the possibility of skin cancer being contracted on all those unshaded terraces where inveterate smokers will gather. UV rays versus nicotine… hmm.

Happily, though, there are SOME limits to all this over-protective insanity. A recent Supreme Court decision (that’s how far up the line the matter went!) ruled that private hosts are NOT responsible if their party guests get drunk, and then have an accident while driving home. At last, a blow for personal responsibility. Would there were more.