To the editor:

One of the problems these days害羞草研究所攜ou could say it害羞草研究所檚 an excuse if you want害羞草研究所攙ehicles are no longer fitted with ashtrays. I害羞草研究所檓 sure pretty much everybody smoked in decades gone by, and when you purchased a car you got the central ashtray, some had ashtrays on the driver害羞草研究所檚 side door, and there was another for the backseat passengers. Flick your ash, put the butt out, all done 害羞草研究所渋n-car.害羞草研究所�

As more and more of us gave up the habit (for me the added tax by the provincial government in 2002, for some the potential serious health problems) it seems the automobile manufacturers have decided it is an 害羞草研究所渁ccessory害羞草研究所� no longer needed, and I害羞草研究所檓 sure it saves money not to have to design car interiors and then fit them with ashtrays.

And so we get automobiles without an ashtray, and as any 害羞草研究所渂onehead害羞草研究所� will tell you, his (or her) cigarette has to go somewhere because there害羞草研究所檚 no ashtray, so the roadside is the obvious choice.

So maybe politicians such as our premier, or maybe local governments, need to put some statutes in place that vehicles once again be supplied with ashtrays. They don害羞草研究所檛 necessarily have to be incorporated into the vehicle害羞草研究所檚 dash, but they could be supplied (like the child-seat fitting) as an 害羞草研究所渆xtra害羞草研究所� and can be placed into any one of the cup-holders available; an inexpensive accessory which 害羞草研究所渂oneheads害羞草研究所� won害羞草研究所檛 go out and buy, but if it was supplied free they just might make use of it.

As an alternative, maybe provincial governments could sue the auto-manufacturers for the costs of fires where the fire was started by a cigarette thrown out of an automobile. Obviously it would be nice to sue the actual person responsible for all the fire-fighting costs, the loss of properties and the loss of timber, but invariably the result would be minimal, whereas suing a manufacturer could result in millions towards the cost taxpayers are funding.

Malcolm Roberts, Kelowna