Brave new world busts cabbies

Brian Jones
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

We now live in a society in which agents of the government spy on private citizens and dish out fines for behaviour that harms no one but the supposed lawbreaker.

A front-page headline in The Telegram last week read, “Smoking charges laid against taxi drivers.”

This being 2011 — a full decade into the “ban this, ban that” 21st century — it seemed impossible, or highly unlikely, that any taxi driver would light a smoke while he or she had passengers.

Charges were laid against an unspecified number of cabbies after members of the public made complaints. Environmental health officers investigated, and gathered evidence by putting the suspect cabbies under surveillance.

This, too, seemed unlikely. The anti-smoking movement has succeeded in getting some highly onerous decrees passed into law, but spying on cabbies would be a preposterous new low, even for the ban-the-butt crowd.

After The Telegram’s story appeared, I called the newly minted Service N.L. department for clarification. The next day, a department spokesman released some numbers.

Number of charges laid against taxi drivers under the Smoke-free Environment Act: nine.

Number of charges arising from taxi drivers smoking while passengers were in the cab: none.

“In the spring of 2011, we received a number of complaints in the Avalon region, from the public regarding smoking in taxis,” the department spokesman wrote in an email. “These complaints were related to smoking by taxi drivers in their vehicles, when they were parked with no clients inside.”


Bad break

It is easy to visualize this illegal behaviour.

A taxi driver is waiting for a call from the dispatcher, and he — or she — lights one up. Under the law, he or she must step out of the car, even if it’s raining or snowing and there’s no one in the back seat to face the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Nor will rolling down windows negate the illegal activity. That would be like a bank robber pleading innocence because the gun

wasn’t loaded.

Back when citizens were still more interested in personal liberty than blanket bans, the question would have been asked: where is the harm?

Certainly, the cab driver is risking his or her health. But there is no harm — either immediate or potential — to anyone else.

The worst that could happen is the next passenger might enter the cab and be disgusted by the smell of rank tobacco. But putrid tobacco odours are not a health threat.


Choice denied

Quaint, old-fashioned ideas of personal liberty used to hold that the state had no right to interfere in a person’s behaviour if those actions caused no harm to anyone else. (See: free speech, former.)

The young 21st century has trashed many of those notions. Previous generations fought revolutions and wars over them, but today’s boisterous banners know better.

Smoking is indeed a vile and nasty habit, but giving the state a broad right to reach over and grab a butt from someone’s fingers is even more vile and nasty.

The law of unintended consequences hovers over this issue like smoke in a 1980s bar. Banning something for someone’s own good also chisels away some of their personal choice and personal responsibility, and there are other consequences.

A Postmedia News story last week was headlined, “Smoking bans backfiring at some hospitals.”

Apparently, some patients who are addicted to nicotine have been going out in the cold for a puff, causing their IV lines to freeze. Others have attempted to get off hospital property so they can legally have a smoke. People in wheelchairs have been inadvertently locked out.

The downside of smoking bans is clearly foreseeable, even through the haze of the banners’ self-

righteous proclamations.


Brian Jones is a desk editor at

The Telegram. He can be reached by email at

Organizations: The Telegram, Service N.L. department, Postmedia News

Geographic location: Avalon

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • mary
    November 15, 2011 - 14:46

    This has nothing to do with cabbies smoking. It has everything to do with arrogant busybodies who have to put those lowly, bad, uneducated, not good enough.... taxi drivers in their place.

  • Skeptical Cynic
    November 13, 2011 - 09:50

    The smoking ban issue seems rather trivial considering that, smoking bans notwithstanding, governments continue to "legally" supplement revnues by levying tax on a lethally carcinogenic, strongly addictive substance; meanwhile, they'll put dope dealers and tobacco smugglers in jail for essentially doing the same. Figure that one out.

  • F Wilson
    November 13, 2011 - 09:08

    Brian Jones comments are Spot-on, we have to ask, what has the smoking ban achieved, it has achieved nothing on the Health front but has made a massive impact on Business in the country, there is no doubt that the smoking ban in our Pubs and Clubs is the main reason for closures since 2007, this Government has promised Reforms, where are they ? every week we see more closures and more unemployment in the Pub industry and still the ban it lobby say it's for the best. Time for the Public to say enough is enough, lets have some common sense shown, lets have our Freedom 2 Choose back. We cannot justify the ban in health terms but we can blame the ban for loss of Business and Jobs.

  • CyZane
    November 13, 2011 - 00:07

    Tsk, tsk, tsk, Brian didn't you ever hear of third hand smoke? That's the smoke that gets trapped in the upholstery and carpet of the cab and just waits for a non-smoker to enter the cab and then offgases dangerous particles that lodge in the non-smokers' lungs and eventually cause them harm oh I guess in about a billion years or so! But one can never be too cautious with their health, right? These anti-tobacco/Big Pharma stooges have become real clowns. But our politicians that believe all this garbage are no better.

  • Willy
    November 12, 2011 - 04:53

    We are all still having a smoke in our Cabs, if you don't like it too bad call another company .lol

  • Robbie
    November 11, 2011 - 20:45

    I drove a taxi for 2 years, with 2 different companies. Passengers could request a smoking or smoke-free unit when calling, and the dispatcher would only send what the customer desired. This worked perfectly fine, no need to fine. Some people enjoy a cigarette along the ride, others prefer a smoke free driver. I even had one non-smoker request a smoking car all the time cause she found drivers who smoke more pleasant (her personal opinion based on her experience in taking a cab daily). Point is, freedom of choice should prevail, not restrictions on those who chose to smoke. Now, because of this law, those who wish to smoke are denied such a request due to the consequences that may occur. To me, that is unfair. Also, I am a smoker, and i've puffed away in front of many RNC officers who never looked twice at me.