RESPONSES 10 SKOKING RESTRICTION BYLAW, BY SUBJECT MATTER ,.. Cont'd:

Page 2.

Attitudes:

It is realized attitudes towards smoking have changed (2), Mon-saokers are now in the
sajerity (5, 26, 26a, 33, 36) and they are no longer willing to have forced inhalation
(3,33). The natter of non-smokers’ rights were important to twelve (8,11,22, 48,59, 66,70, 71,72,~
98,103,106), and rights of both smokers and Aon-smokers eust be clearly defined. It is
Targely a satter of courtesy (86). One (96 felt the considerations Suckers would be expected
to give could be compared to the consideration given to the handicapped for packing, or for
Seats on the bus, but, with some persons, legislation is neccessary if disliked (64), as
thare seens to be no alternative. One (60) felt C.R.0. had lost its perspective and charter
in proposing this bylaw, while to another (45) it¢ was offensive to his logic, proportion or
fair play and ve eust accept the bad habits of others, One (321) felt it was Jeportant to
differentiate places we aust go to from those we elect to go to. In all, fortynone had
Sosething to say about attitudes (1,2,3,5,8,11, 16,22,26,263,27,30,31,33,34, 45, 48,49,59,60,56,-
$6,70,71, 72, 86,92, 93,96, 98, 102, 103,106, 106,110,117, 122,128,129, 131,138,160)

Enforceaent;

Five (1,2,263,66,96) felt that the right laws and well defined regulations were needed. Two
(2,11) felt the laws vould t. One (26a) felt the bylaw would be
enforceable, i ith enforcing it (low public prior-
ity, ete. ’ be ensured. One (82) felt the
fines should be higher. to the bylaw, there should be
Sandatory no sacking are 62) felt "smoking allowed! areas should be

Id be "no sacking". One (116) felt it would not be necessary to
police it. It would take care of itself,

Swokers:

One (77) hoped the bylaw would help saokers plus nonesackers alike. Twelve (1,6,10,12,17,25,
262,29,36,51,.75,78) even Suggested smokers aight velcoue the guidalines as tu where they
could smoke unaclested. Tuo (69,85) felt suckers would not be too greatly inconvenienced (one
pointed out there is no saoking In the new Yancouver Stadius), one other (98) felt saokers
would be inconvenienced to sose degree. Five (3,26a,26,67,49) don't aind people suoking in
other places.

Probleas:

Saae problees vere of course identified, but not by too anny people. Three (26,80,81) felt it
was fot enforceable, and one each felt it would not be respected (8C), would have enly low
police priority (81), there would be expense and difficulties in segregation (7) and
ventilation systess tended to be draughty (72), and ventilation exclusion (14¢) should be
recoved (62,72,92). One (110) vondered what the definition of 3 Governaent Office was,

Welcoue:

On the other hand, some felt that small businesses vould welcome the bylaw (263, 82) and so
eight also restaurants (53,73) and bankruptcy not usual because of it (28). Even saokers
sight welcowe it (1,6,10,22,17,25, 268,29, 36,51, 75, 28) .

Assorted:
Sets

Nine (36, 50,$6,$7, 58,62, 86, 89,121} stated if was long overdue, and twe (26,52) pointed out
other cities are ahead of us. Five (5,26, 48,73, 853 ebjected to paying health costs for
seokers: and one each felt Non-seokers should get tax and Insurance breaks (48), that the
definition of smoking should be broadened (62,92) and that aybe a copy of the bylaw be sent
to the non-saokers rights group (58). One (102) felt Drivate operations could alloy it. so
should be banned in putlic areas.

No Special Coanents:
eee S

Teenty-three, (15,16,20,21,41,42,63,64,$6, 56,59, 63,87, 88, 89,101,109, 120, 123,124,125, 134,198),
wake a0 special additional Comeents except to state they favoured a bylaw.

42