As a smoker, I was quite offended by your recent article about anti-smoking bylaws ["Smoking bylaw changes to come," December 13].
I find that our society is becoming increasingly draconian and oppressive toward smokers.
I certainly don't wish to deny anybody their right to a smoke-free environment. However, if [south-of-town resident] Jo Thomas wants to ban smoking in public (careful what you ask for) due to the health risks posed by her asthma, I might counter that, as a non-drug user, I don't wish to be exposed to the second-hand exhalations of the medications in her asthma inhaler.
Has there been any research on this? Negative impact of amphetamine inhalants on persons with high blood pressure or heart conditions?
I'm sure the holier-than-thous screeching about the health impacts of our life choices would relish the thought of us poor smokers indulging our addictions in the wind and rain, huddled under a street lamp in the parking lot on a cold day, desperately puffing on our soggy cigarette butts.
Meanwhile, [Vancouver Coastal Health tobacco reduction coordinator for Powell River] Nathan Jantz and his cronies are dreaming up all the evil genius ways to make our lives difficult and hiring jackbooted thugs to tell us where we can and can't smoke, or face fines and prosecution.
Perhaps City of Powell River council would consider the possibility of issuing a licence for a private club, run for and by smokers, to be able to sit and enjoy ourselves in peace and quiet.
City of Powell River claims rural electoral areas are “not paying their fair share” toward the $4-million Powell River Recreation Complex operating budget, a municipal service that provides more than just the pool and ice arenas [“Governance options considered for complex,” December 6].
Other services provided by the recreation complex, such as community meeting rooms, are already provided in the rural areas, such as Lang Bay Hall or Lund Community Centre.
According to the 2016 municipal budget, the ice arena, pool and fitness services had a combined expense of $1.05 million, but generated just more than $1.01 million in revenue.
Subsidizing these two services based on population works out to a contribution of roughly $10,000 for the rural residents, but the municipality is asking for more than a $540,000 annual contribution.\
While on the subject of paying “our fair share,” a recent article [“Council rejects solid waste bylaw,” December 13] pointed out that while the city has 70 per cent of the population, it only pays 50 per cent of the costs, while the rural electoral areas are left to foot the rest of the bill.
Furthermore, Powell River Regional District studies done in the ‘90s showed the municipality produced 90 per cent of the waste being dealt with by this service.
Perhaps if the city wanted to pay its fair share for solid-waste management, Powell River Regional Cemetery, regional parks and other services it only contributes 50 per cent of the funding toward, then its request for more financial contributions from the rural electoral areas would be fair.
Electoral Area B