Article content continued

Bill 44 also proposes to extend the prohibition on smoking in bars to outdoor terrasses. And since vaping is now as serious as inhaling conventional tobacco, vapers will be limited to inhaling the fumes from passing motor vehicles, without having the right to inhale peaches-and-cream or toffee-and-hazelnut e-liquid.

The hospitality industry is currently conducting studies on the potential economic impact of the smoking and vaping ban on terrasses. But beyond the economics, a society that respects the rights of individuals to consume legal products should allow them to smoke and vape outdoors within the confines of a property belonging to a merchant.

This freedom need not imply that every bar permit smoking and vaping at all times on their terrasses. Some bars could allow smoking and vaping, subject to a permit, and some could not. Merchants could make their choices and advertise accordingly. Customers could then gravitate to bars with terrasses polluted only by automobiles, or bars with terrasses where they could also produce and inhale smoke or vapour. This would allow Quebec sellers and buyers the right of association without forcing non-smokers and non-vapers to inhale second-hand smoke or vapour.

In fact, such a flexible system might provide us with a model for further modifying tobacco control in such a way that the rights of all individuals in society are respected. In contrast, Bill 44, with its misguided definition of what constitutes tobacco, combined with ruinous penalties, models a paternalistic lack of respect for individual rights.

Ian Irvine is a professor of economics at Concordia University and an associate researcher with the Montreal Economic Institute.