THE PERLEY VETERAN SMOKING ROOM

An update on the Perley Veteran smoking room (for background see THE PERLEY VETERANS SAGA CONTINUES and ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?).

While they finally got their room, at least one journalist – Earl McRae – is starting to understand how over the top the fear of second hand smoke has become. Actually, although we know that the propaganda does feed the hype of a number of hypochondriacs, we don’t believe that most people are afraid of second hand smoke. Many non-smokers simply don’t speak out because 1) They don’t care since it’s not affecting their lives 2) Go along with it because they don’t like the smell of burning tobacco. It is too bad that many people only care and get involved in an issue when it affects them directly and by then it’s already too late because the precedent has been established. Many of the modern day campaigns against this and that, take their model from the anti-smoking campaign. For those who are apathetic to the smoking issue, may we remind them that ‘’first they came for the jews…’’.

Room to improve

Veterans finally have their smoking lounge, some of the time ...

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

The aged war vet was angry. I encountered him in the corridor leaving the smoking room at the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre where he'd just had his third cigarette of the day.
Yes. Believe it. The renovated room is finally open. After months of opening promises and letdowns that confused and frustrated the smokers who had to go outside to indulge their pleasure -- their frail health vulnerable to rotten weather -- the room that the benevolent you, the public, made possible with some $80,000 in donations opened last Thursday.

I went over yesterday to check it out, not expecting anymore glitches, (surely no more glitches), and saw the sign: Hours Of Operation 9:15-17:00 Daily.

Hold it. The room is open only between 9:15 in the morning and 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

"No one told us this," said the vet bitterly. "It's saying 'We don't like you smoking, so we're only going to let you smoke up to 5 o'clock.' They're treating us like children. Bloody ridiculous."

Ridiculous, indeed. Does the Perley and Rideau think smokers automatically stop smoking at 5 p.m. each day only to automatically start again at 9:15 a.m.? What is the room -- a retail shop with closing and opening hours, including for holidays?

Does the Perley and Rideau believe bad weather only happens between 9:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. after which lovely weather automatically sets in making it a delight for the smokers to once again go outside between 5 p.m. and 9:15 a.m. the next day?

"I had to go outside last night to smoke," said the vet. "Why in blazes can't that room be open 24 hours? I'm telling you, they're trying to discourage us from smoking. Sure I'm addicted, but it's what I enjoy. At my goddamn age in life, I don't need do-gooders trying to get me to stop."

The room for the smokers is off a smaller non-smoking room that connects to the main corridor. The smoking room is windowless, not large. Maximum Occupancy -- 6 Persons, says its sign. Six? It's big enough to comfortably seat more. It has two green, hard plastic chairs. A round table with two ashtrays. Thirty-eight butts are in the ashtrays.

Another sign on the smoking room door: You Have To Live Here To Smoke Here. And Due To The Grave Health Effects Of Second-Hand Smoke, Employees Are Not Required To Enter. Grave health effects from second-hand smoke? From the smoke that is being provincially-standard, state-of-the-art ventilated to the outside? Give me a colossal break. You'd think "employees" would be stepping into the screaming hell of a thousand, torturous, diseases.

FIRE-RETARDANT APRONS

And in the outer-room, what were those six plastic, beige aprons hanging on hooks, aprons with the printed words Smoking Lounge?

Fire-retardant aprons? The smokers so careless they have to put on these aprons, kind of like an apron being put on a child in a highchair? Aprons to be worn voluntarily? Or enforced?

I phoned Paul Finn. He's managing director of the Perley and Rideau Foundation that co-ordinated the fund-raising. A non-smoker, Finn has been a huge supporter of the room for the smokers. A hero, no villain. The delays, the glitches, were outside his control.

The closing and opening hours sign. "The room doesn't shut down at 5 p.m. until the next morning. By law, it has to close each day for cleaning, but only for two hours and 15 minutes after 5 p.m. Except for that, it's open 24 hours." The sign is wrong, he says, needs to be clarified, and will be.

The aprons? He was puzzled. "I don't know about that. I didn't see them. I'll find out and let you know on Monday."

Finn said there will be more furnishings for the room to make it pleasant, including wall ceramics, and a large, flat-screen, high definition TV. "We want to thank all those who made the room possible. Since it opened, we've received calls from people saying thank you."

On the wall outside the entrance off the corridor, are two gold plaques: One crediting the "individuals and businesses" who "generously supported" the room; the other a dedication of the room on behalf of District G, Ontario Command, the Royal Canadian Legion.

The words on those two got it right.

ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?

In the following article, Mr. Dave Brown from the Ottawa Citizen, describes to us how he was thrown out of the Carlingview Manor, a long-term facility when he attempted to interview a perfectly lucid 60 year old smoker who took the leadership to fight for a smoking room for the 40 smokers in the facility.

Kudos to Mr. Brown for bringing yet another horror story to the public’s attention and shame on the legislators of the Smoke Free Ontario Act for having created such a barbaric situation for the elderly who are not only put in danger when left unattended in the cold to smoke, but whose constitutional basic rights are also violated by tyrannical house rules in these homes.

Will Mr. Delahunt, have the same fate as the other four known Canadians who, dare we say, were murdered by such an irresponsible, inhuman legislation? Is this the type of society the rest of us want for our retirement years? Where is the outrage from the relatives of these seniors? Where is the outrage from the public? Incidentally, with a little bit of luck, the Perley Veterans will get their room in February 2008 as you can read here. Let’s remember that this 80 000 $ room will be dismantled in five years as we reported here. The public's generosity is a clear sign that the citizenry does not want to punish smokers, however as generous as their gesture was, it is not the public’s responsibility or duty to finance these rooms. Anti-tobacco has created this situation, anti-tobacco should be held accountable for the suffering, deaths and dilapidation of public funds they have caused! If you are outraged and disgusted by this situation, you can tell us, but more importantly please call, write or visit your MP’s and MPP’s and let them know exactly how you feel.

Facility curbs right to meet
Order to end interview raises question: Are people residents or inmates?

Dave Brown, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Monday, January 14, 2008

The war against smoking has fallout as the vanquished discover they've lost not only the right to smoke, but in some cases, basic Charter rights -- like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

One week ago, I was ordered out of the lobby of Carlingview Manor, a long-term care facility on Carling Avenue. Apparently, the resident who invited me had not first sought management approval for the visit. The order came from the home's director, Bruce Peterkin.

I didn't leave quietly and, in a later telephone conversation, apologized to Mr. Peterkin for the temporary loss of my volume control. Volume doesn't show in print, but I'm still screaming.

An interview with resident Don Delahunt about his efforts to get a smoking room at Carlingview Manor took a darker turn when the long-term care facility's director intervened, and said the reporter needed permission to speak to Mr. Delahunt -- who is not of diminished capacity and has the paperwork to prove it. Don Delahunt is 60 years old, a smoker, and he's sane. He has the paperwork to prove it. It was part of his medical package when he moved in after months in hospital. He had a stroke July 27. It left him blind and in a wheelchair. He's one of 40 smokers in the place, and they want a smoking room. He took on a leadership role in the fight.

It was my use of a notebook that triggered the alarm that an interview was in progress, and Mr. Peterkin appeared. When his order to leave was refused, he said police would be called. Fine. I'll wait. But Mr. Peterkin stayed, and it became clear an interview would be impossible.

The only way it would happen, he said, would be if I left, called him, and had my acceptance of Mr. Delahunt's invitation approved. The story suddenly moved from smoking to basic rights. Perhaps if Mr. Delahunt invited me to his private quarters upstairs?

I was told to leave, call, and talk about it. My volume increased. He said he would make himself available for our talk later, but meanwhile, had more pressing matters.

On the edge of losing my temper, I left. Mr. Peterkin called later to tell me I had been approved, and gave his view on the smoking issue. He said government regulations shut down the manor's smoking room more than a year ago, and new regulations make upgrading costs prohibitive. It's the same for 630 similar long-term care homes in Ontario.

But the issue now was the right of the institution to control residents' rights to speak to whomever they want -- or to use the lobby for such conversations.

Are they residents or inmates? Is there a fear of whistleblowing or complaining?

The need to protect a person of diminished capacity is understandable, but should not equal care be taken to protect the rights of the able?

Mr. Peterkin referred the issue to head office. That's Central Care Corporation in Mississauga, with 90 seniors facilities in Canada, and the spokeswoman is Mary Nestor.

It's a confusing issue, she said, pointing to just some of the legislation that governs such homes -- The Residential Tenancies Act (2006), Landlord and Tenants Act, Nursing Homes Act, Charitable Homes Act, Municipal Homes Act and the list goes on. The Smoke Free Ontario Act is in there, too.

She supported Mr. Peterkin's handling of the situation.

Ann Dobbins didn't. A registered nurse and long-time seniors advocate, she is now a researcher and liaison officer with Alavida Lifestyles, a new player in Ottawa's retirement residence field. She called the approach "ridiculous" and a "violation of rights. They (residents) have a right to talk to anybody they want to."

It's a situation that is growing more complex as legislators grind out more legislation.

My suggestion: If management is concerned about a resident conferring, its first question should be to itself. Is there a power of attorney on file for that patient? If there is, step in immediately. If there isn't and you step in, you're out of line and don't be surprised if somebody raises a voice of objection.

I think I just withdrew my apology.

With Mr. Delahunt and myself at the lobby meeting was Howard King, 87, another resident/inmate proudly born and raised in Sydney, N.S. He said he's been smoking for 80 years. He offered something to think about: If they (anti-smoking campaigners) are worried about polluting the air, they should think again about a room with exhaust. He said he's pretty sure not every resident is, like smokers, stepping outside to pass gas. Ask him if he always does that, and he'll give you a look of great piety.

Society declared war on smoking. We won. What's happening now is the mopping-up phase, and we're giving no quarter. We've become mean. It's tantamount to shooting the wounded.