Red Tory/ Blue Tory?

[Leader Circle]

I don't buy the bs propaganda that many will spew about it. I think there are many more risks that people choose everyday that are much worse for them.

There's the rub: people can choose whatever risks they want. But I don't choose to inhale second hand smoke. Again: no one is saying you can't smoke, only that you can't do it in a place where others are exposed (just like no one is saying you can't drink yourself to death, but if you put others at risk, say, by getting behind the wheel, that's a no-no).

The funny thing is not one of you will tackle my alcohol question.

Am I to assume that you people find it okay to kill people with drunk drivers, but not blow second hand smoke in their face?

If we are taking on the evils of smoking, lets restrict drinkers too. Both are killing hundreds or thousands of people every year...apparently, right Geoff?

That's just ridiculous. Last I checked, drunk driving was illegal.

It is the moralism implicit in all this that I find deplorable.

All laws have a moralist basis. Are you also against drug laws?

When I ask which of the 100s of tobacco's carginogens are the cancer causing culprits the answer always is ..."we don't know". Even Jean Chretien told me that (through a newspaper).

They've been feeding it to rats for 50 years plus and they still don't know?

If you ask me I'd say .... The answer my friend is blowing in Toronto's air, the answer is blowing in the air .... and THAT is why they won't say. They won't say because they know that there are as many of those pesky carcinogens in the air as there are in our dear dear cigarettes.

I'm still trying to find a study where they compare the lungs of urbanites versus those living in clean air.

If there are any, they sure as hell are well hidden, because I haven't found one yet.

And yet a cigarette smoking urbanite is at a much higher risk of lung cancer than his non smoking neighbour. Why do you figure that is?

How can you tell me that second hand smoke is worse than air pollution?? Any stats to back that up?

As far as it goes, does anyone have stats on the number of deaths directly related to second hand smoke?

I didn't say second hand smoke was worse than air pollution overall. I said 2nd hand smoke is more likely to cause cancer.

Stats (USA)

Canada

Anti-smoking laws are oppression in every sense of the word.

Anti-smoking laws are not arbitrary. Nor are they excessive. They are no more oppressive than speed limits.

If people don't want to breath it, stay away from places that allow it.... very simple(should be), but it is not that simple because the lefty world of protesters have found their cause of the day and smokers represent the evil in this world. I will continue to smoke in public, where I choose and they will have to fine me if need be.

Trouble is, the reverse logic applies: if you want to smoke, stay home where you won't expose others to it.

Now, I'm in favour of leaving smoking to the discretion of individual business owners. That said, I enjoy my nights out much more now that the bars here have gone smoke free.

From BD's link above.

A non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke has a 25% increased chance of lung cancer. Increased chances of cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and lymphoma are also noted. Health Canada estimates that more than 300 non-smokers die from lung cancer each year because of exposure to second-hand smoke.

So, right there we have stats(thank you BD) and I bet drinking and driving kills MANY more people than that.

Why can't we bring back prohibition? I vote to ban all drinking in public and maybe a future ban of the sale of ALL alcohol products in Canada.

It is also funny to read that these 300 people are estimations, not hard facts because in reality, what other factors were involved in these same 300 deaths? So, Canada's response is to completely ban smoking in public?(not completely, but soon) for all of less than 0.000909% of the Canadian population who MAY have died as a result of second hand smoke. Does this sound screwed up or what?

This is what communism will get you, bullshit laws based on NOTHING!

I am not sure how we went from Red tory/blue tory to this, but this thread has really enlightened me to the bogusness of second hand smoke laws.

[August1991]

It is the moralism implicit in all this that I find deplorable.

All laws have a moralist basis. Are you also against drug laws?

No, I wouldn't say all laws have a moralist basis but you get to my main objection. If the purpose is to treat tobacco like heroin, then get on with it, make the case and ban all smoking. This backdoor morality is unbecoming.

How can you tell me that second hand smoke is worse than air pollution?? Any stats to back that up?

As far as it goes, does anyone have stats on the number of deaths directly related to second hand smoke?

I didn't say second hand smoke was worse than air pollution overall. I said 2nd hand smoke is more likely to cause cancer.

Stats (USA)

Canada

From what I can gather, the Canadian link above projects data from the US and the US data is nicely enclosed in the US link:

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. Source: California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.

Now if I understand properly, the California study was conducted in 1993. And if I understand properly too, all the various reports of the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke stem from that single 1993 California study, including Health Canada's reported statistics which are mere extrapolations.

Compare this:

Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's den covered with catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection. And then, rather than being politically correct and hiding your data in a vast warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical journals.

That's what research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook did in May 2003: They reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality." (They also noted "a small effect" can't be ruled out.)

Some Website

Or this:

We are delighted that bars, restaurants, and offices in New York City are soon to be smoke-free — although we do question the means (municipal legislation) used to achieve this end. But what we are not delighted with is hyperbole about the alleged health benefits of such a ban.

....

There are some 60,000 deaths annually in the city of New York. Public health officials estimate that one-fifth of these deaths — l2,000 — can be specifically and causally linked to cigarette smoking. Will Mayor Bloomberg's prohibition of smoking in bars and restaurants cause more smoking New Yorkers to kick the habit? Possibly. But even if the Mayor's estimate of 1,000 lives saved referred to deaths prevented among smokers who quit, the number is enormously inflated.

The majority of New Yorkers will welcome a smoking ban primarily for aesthetic reasons, not for health reasons.

ACSH

I don't know how far down this road I want go. Second-hand smoke may or may not cause illness or death. That's for each person to decide, and to decide whether to accept the risk. If you feel it's a risk, there's an easy solution. Don't go to places where you might be exposed to second-hand smoke.

Compare that to ambient air pollution:

The air in many European cities is still so polluted that thousands of people are dying premature deaths, scientists say.

They describe the damage done by poor air quality as "a significant threat to public health".

...

Pollution levels vary widely across Europe, with the annual average levels in the Apheis cities ranging from 14 to 73 mg/m3 for PM10, and from 8 to 66 mg/m3 for black smoke.

Levels as high as these have been shown to be a health risk.

The report says 2,653 premature deaths could be prevented every year if long-term exposure to annual average PM10 levels were cut to 40 mg/m3 in the 19 cities that measured these larger particles.

BBC

Here's my point. Short of leaving a city and moving to a rural area, it is not possible to avoid breathing air polluted by cars and trucks and other emitters. This kind of pollution is unavoidable.

Anti-smoking laws are oppression in every sense of the word.

Anti-smoking laws are not arbitrary. Nor are they excessive. They are no more oppressive than speed limits.

Precisely. Speed limits are one obvious way to allow both cars and pedestrians to all share roadspace. At issue here is how different people can be accomodated at least cost.

If people don't want to breath it, stay away from places that allow it.... very simple(should be), but it is not that simple because the lefty world of protesters have found their cause of the day and smokers represent the evil in this world. I will continue to smoke in public, where I choose and they will have to fine me if need be.

Trouble is, the reverse logic applies: if you want to smoke, stay home where you won't expose others to it.

Now, I'm in favour of leaving smoking to the discretion of individual business owners. That said, I enjoy my nights out much more now that the bars here have gone smoke free.

Fine. Go to bars/clubs that advertise themselves as smoke-free - and leave the others for smoky denizens.

In the grand scheme of things, making it illegal for smokers to puff in bars or restos is hardly a crime against humanity. But it also shows how arbitrary centralized authority can be.

[Riverwind]

Fine. Go to bars/clubs that advertise themselves as smoke-free - and leave the others for smoky denizens.

The marketplace did not provide the solution that many non-smokers wanted. Before anti-smoking laws people simply did have to choice of going to restaurants and bars that offered a smoke free environment. We can argue about why the free market failed miserably failed in this case, however, the free market did fail.

[August1991]

Fine. Go to bars/clubs that advertise themselves as smoke-free - and leave the others for smoky denizens.

The marketplace did not provide the solution that many non-smokers wanted. Before anti-smoking laws people simply did have to choice of going to restaurants and bars that offered a smoke free environment. We can argue about why the free market failed miserably failed in this case, however, the free market did fail.

Riverwind, I can't speak for BC. In Quebec, Tim Hortons has been smoke-free for several years and St-Huberts (a chicken place) has been smoke-free for over a year. I believe in Ontario, many place installed special smoking areas.

I think you'll agree that the resto/bar market is very competitive. If it is profitable, owners will do it.

You may be correct in a small town where there simply are not many places and it's difficult to accomodate every taste.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, I can't speak for BC. In Quebec, Tim Hortons has been smoke-free for several years and St-Huberts (a chicken place) has been smoke-free for over a year. I believe in Ontario, many place installed special smoking areas.

Smoking has been banned everywhere for a number of years in BC so it is hard to compare. Before the ban there were a few 'family' restaurants that were non-smoking only, however, the vast majority of restaurants had poorly seperated smoking and non-smoking sections. If you wanted anything more than donuts and chicken you had no choice but to put up with smoke.

Bars and nightclubs were also no-go zones for non-smokers.

I think you'll agree that the resto/bar market is very competitive. If it is profitable, owners will do it.

This is a example of the imperfect market. A bar owner may be able to make money from a non-smoking bar but would never provide such as service if he could make more money from a smoking bar. The net result is non-smokers had no choice but to go to smoking bars.

[Charles Anthony]

Before anti-smoking laws people simply did have to choice of going to restaurants and bars that offered a smoke free environment. We can argue about why the free market failed miserably failed in this case, however, the free market did fail.

How and what did it fail????

You can not just say that "the free market did fail" without saying what it failed otherwise nobody can dispute you and nobody can trully understand what you are stating. I am not just playing semantics.

Did the free market fail to provide every single non-smoker a place to eat in a smoke-free restaurant?

Did the free market fail to provide every single non-smoker a place to eat in a smoke-free restaurant at an affordable dinner price?

Did the free market fail to provide every single non-smoker a place to eat in a smoke-free restaurant at a convenient dinner time?

Did the free market fail to provide every single non-smoker every single thing that they could ever have wanted???

Did the free market fail to provide every single non-smoker every single thing that they could ever have wanted and more without having to pay for any of it???

Did the free market fail to provide every restaurant owner a sufficient demand of non-smokers to continue to make a living at the previous levels when smoking was permitted?

The driver failed to pass.

Pass what?

The test?? The other driver? The finish line??

[Black Dog]

LC:

From BD's link above.

A non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke has a 25% increased chance of lung cancer. Increased chances of cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and lymphoma are also noted. Health Canada estimates that more than 300 non-smokers die from lung cancer each year because of exposure to second-hand smoke.

So, right there we have stats(thank you BD) and I bet drinking and driving kills MANY more people than that.

I don't see why you keep trotting out drunk driving, unless you're arguing that smoking should be criminalized. Drunk driving is illegal.

Why can't we bring back prohibition? I vote to ban all drinking in public and maybe a future ban of the sale of ALL alcohol products in Canada.

Because we already have restrictions on who can drink and where. The restrictions on drinking are even more rigorous than those against smoking.

It is also funny to read that these 300 people are estimations, not hard facts because in reality, what other factors were involved in these same 300 deaths? So, Canada's response is to completely ban smoking in public?(not completely, but soon) for all of less than 0.000909% of the Canadian population who MAY have died as a result of second hand smoke. Does this sound screwed up or what?

Not really. If inconvienencing smokers means saving 300, 30 or 3 lives, I think that's excellent calculus.

This is what communism will get you, bullshit laws based on NOTHING!

Goodnight everybody!

August:

No, I wouldn't say all laws have a moralist basis but you get to my main objection. If the purpose is to treat tobacco like heroin, then get on with it, make the case and ban all smoking. This backdoor morality is unbecoming.

Meh. I don't see why that's necessary.

Some Website

Dude: the Heartland Institute?

Roy E. Marden, a member of Heartland's board of directors, is the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris tobacco company, where his responsibilities include lobbying and "managing company responses to key public policy issues," which he accomplishes by "directing corporate involvement with industry, business, trade, and public policy organizations and determining philanthropic support thereto." In a May 1991 document prepared for Philip Morris, Marden listed Heartland's "rapid response network" as a "potential spokesperson" among the "portfolio of organizations" that the company had cultivated to support its interests.

More.

I don't know how far down this road I want go. Second-hand smoke may or may not cause illness or death. That's for each person to decide, and to decide whether to accept the risk. If you feel it's a risk, there's an easy solution. Don't go to places where you might be exposed to second-hand smoke

Sod that. Again: it's a matter of one group's convieneince versus another's health. Best to err on the side of caution.

Here's my point. Short of leaving a city and moving to a rural area, it is not possible to avoid breathing air polluted by cars and trucks and other emitters. This kind of pollution is unavoidable.

Right. So why compund the danger with smoking?

[August1991]

Why can't we bring back prohibition? I vote to ban all drinking in public and maybe a future ban of the sale of ALL alcohol products in Canada.

Because we already have restrictions on who can drink and where. The restrictions on drinking are even more rigorous than those against smoking.

Booze & cigarettes. Right. I am willing to admit that it is not possible to accomodate drunk drivers on roads and other cars and pedestrians at the same time. We strictly ban drinking and driving.

But BD, the arbitrariness of all this should be the sign that something is afoot. We don't have laws forbidding parents from smoking around their kids, or forbidding smoking and driving. This is not really about public health at all. This is Dogooders Gone Wild.

It is also funny to read that these 300 people are estimations, not hard facts because in reality, what other factors were involved in these same 300 deaths? So, Canada's response is to completely ban smoking in public?(not completely, but soon) for all of less than 0.000909% of the Canadian population who MAY have died as a result of second hand smoke. Does this sound screwed up or what?

Not really. If inconvienencing smokers means saving 300, 30 or 3 lives, I think that's excellent calculus.

So, you'd be willing to impose inconvenience and stop people having any fun at all just to save 3 lives? Black Dog, that must mean you are against all forms of sex since MTS are always a risk.

August:

No, I wouldn't say all laws have a moralist basis but you get to my main objection. If the purpose is to treat tobacco like heroin, then get on with it, make the case and ban all smoking. This backdoor morality is unbecoming.

Meh. I don't see why that's necessary.

Fer gawdsakes....

Some Website

Dude: the Heartland Institute?

Heartland is merely the host of the article. The research is purely independent and was published in the peer reviewed in the British Medical Journal. I also gave another source from the ACSH which is no Big Tobacco shill (to use Left wing terminology).

But the dangers of second-hand smoke are neither here nor there in this debate. If you don't want to go sky-diving, despite what all the authorities say about how safe it is, don't go sky-diving.

I don't know how far down this road I want go. Second-hand smoke may or may not cause illness or death. That's for each person to decide, and to decide whether to accept the risk. If you feel it's a risk, there's an easy solution. Don't go to places where you might be exposed to second-hand smoke

Sod that. Again: it's a matter of one group's convieneince versus another's health. Best to err on the side of caution.

No, it's not a matter of Group A's health against Group B's licentious behaviour. Both groups can easily be accomodated. Group A just doesn't like to see Group B having fun and wants to stop it.

Here's my point. Short of leaving a city and moving to a rural area, it is not possible to avoid breathing air polluted by cars and trucks and other emitters. This kind of pollution is unavoidable.

Right. So why compund the danger with smoking?

WTF? By the same logic, I could argue that you'll get cancer from truck fumes anyway, might as well take up tobacco too.

Look, I think smokers would be willing to pay non-smokers to have the right to smoke in bars and restos. Everybody would gain. This legislation forbids this possibility.

Leafless is right to compare this to Sovietism. It's restrictive for the simple perversity of it.

[Black Dog]

Booze & cigarettes. Right. I am willing to admit that it is not possible to accomodate drunk drivers on roads and other cars and pedestrians at the same time. We strictly ban drinking and driving.

But BD, the arbitrariness of all this should be the sign that something is afoot. We don't have laws forbidding parents from smoking around their kids, or forbidding smoking and driving. This is not really about public health at all. This is Dogooders Gone Wild.

We don't have laws saying parents can't supply heir kids with booze. The reason is teh separation of the puibic and private sphere. Is that arbitrary? Sure. But then, so is life.

So, you'd be willing to impose inconvenience and stop people having any fun at all just to save 3 lives? Black Dog, that must mean you are against all forms of sex since MTS are always a risk.

I'm not in favour stopping anybody from smoking, just controlling where they can do it. The sex analogy is weak. Sex involves consent and the inherent acceptance of risk. There's no consent in second hand smoke.

No, it's not a matter of Group A's health against Group B's licentious behaviour. Both groups can easily be accomodated. Group A just doesn't like to see Group B having fun and wants to stop it.

You're right, they can be accomodated. For example smokers can smoke in the comfort of their own home while the rest of us are feree to enjoy, say, eating a meal in a smoke free environment.

[Riverwind]

Before anti-smoking laws people simply did have to choice of going to restaurants and bars that offered a smoke free environment. We can argue about why the free market failed miserably failed in this case, however, the free market did fail.

How and what did it fail????

The free market failed to provide non-smokers with a reasonable set of choices when it came to choosing a restaurant or a bar. If the free market had given non-smokers a choice then there likely would have never been a demand for anti-smoking bylaws.

[Black Dog]

The free market failed to provide non-smokers with a reasonable set of choices when it came to choosing a restaurant or a bar. If the free market had given non-smokers a choice then there likely would have never been a demand for anti-smoking bylaws.

And that's because the free-market was operating on the flawed assumptions that cutting out smoking would be bad for business. For instance, there was a great hue and cry in Edmonton recently when the city baned smoking in bars as many businesses felt the ban would drive away their clientele. Turns out, though, many bars are actually doing better now because people are inclined to linger longer and drink more in a smoke-free environment. All this to show how the free market isn't always the miracle cure some say it is.

[August1991]

The free market failed to provide non-smokers with a reasonable set of choices when it came to choosing a restaurant or a bar. If the free market had given non-smokers a choice then there likely would have never been a demand for anti-smoking bylaws.

Reasonable set of choices? Riverview, I have given you on several occasions examples of restaurants that chose to go smoke-free because it was more profitable. McDonalds is another example.

How about hotels and smoke-free floors?

The bar & resto market is such that an owner must look for any edge possible, up to and including tax evasion. It is just not credible that an owner would forgo the potential extra profits of a smoke-free policy. Riverview, you assume that bar owners are not greedy and that's simply unbelievable.

And that's because the free-market was operating on the flawed assumptions that cutting out smoking would be bad for business. For instance, there was a great hue and cry in Edmonton recently when the city baned smoking in bars as many businesses felt the ban would drive away their clientele. Turns out, though, many bars are actually doing better now because people are inclined to linger longer and drink more in a smoke-free environment. All this to show how the free market isn't always the miracle cure some say it is.

You've got the same logic. Are you suggesting that the bar owners needed this law to discover that they could make more money? Do you mean that bar owners are stupid when it comes to making a buck?

That flies in the face of all my rigorous barstool research but is also logically inconsistent. If someone can't make a buck in a business, that person doesn't stay in business for long.

How about some random evidence:

Fifty-six restaurants, bars and strip clubs have seen their sales decrease by as much as 50 percent since the statewide smoking ban took effect April 15, according to a New Jersey Restaurant Association survey released yesterday.

Some Newspaper

Iannuzzi, 46, began smoking almost three decades ago. She said her restaurant complied with the Florida law for about 21/2 weeks but was forced to revert to former policies when bar receipts fell at least 68 percent and restaurant revenue fell 17 percent.

Another paper

Killup continued: ``I think it's about time legislators examined what's happening to real people who run real bars and actually are forced to deal with this law. We cannot continue to rely on academics' projections such as those by Stanton Glantz which have no foundation in reality. If Glantz was doing real research, he would be visiting our bars. We can show him what's really happening in California.''

``And if every member of the Legislature took the time to find out what bar owners in their districts have to say about the smoking ban they would quickly realize what this ban is doing to the bar and tavern business,'' said Vicki Wright, owner of the Red Rooster in Oceanside.

Yahoo

Most of the arguments in favour of bans rely on data from New York City - it banned cigarettes in bars in 30 March 2003. Since then, bar receipts have apparently improved. (Duh. What ahppened in Spetember 2001 in NYC?)

Mr. Bookman did not dispute most of the good-news numbers the city presented in relation to the smoking ban, though he disagrees with the conclusion that the ban has not had an adverse impact on restaurants and bars.

"Clearly employment is up in New York City going into 2005 or the end of 2004 compared with the year before the smoking ban went into effect," he said. "The year before was 2002; 2002 was almost a depression in New York City. It was the recession plus the 9/11 economic impact. Everybody's doing better in New York compared with 2002."

Mr. Bookman said that the nightlife industries would be doing better still without the ban. But he conceded during an interview that his group had all but given up any lingering hope of overturning the city's provision. It is instead focusing in part on what he said were unfair enforcement issues, like ticketing bar owners for the misbehavior of smoking patrons or for an increase in noise complaints drawn by customers smoking outside.

NYT

I frankly think, as the NYT article suggests, that this will turn into a compliance issue. In Quebec, bars are supposed to close at 3 am. They often don't. And many will allow smoking too. Word will get around, and then the next thing you know, an inspector will have a new source of revenue.

At that point, like the softwood lumber deal, the issue will disappear from the newspapers and ordinary people will believe the government took the right decision.

I wouldn't belabour this point except that I fear that we are about to embark on a similar crusade to protect the environment. While I would be the first to argue that government must protect the environment and that I suspect that this protection is becoming ever more critical (you can put me in the al-Gore jihad), these blanket bans are entirely the wrong way to go about this. They cost too much, and they don't even work well.

We can afford to be Soviet about cigarettes in bars because it really doesn't matter. We must not be Soviet about environmental protection. The stakes are too high.

[Riverwind]

Reasonable set of choices? Riverview, I have given you on several occasions examples of restaurants that chose to go smoke-free because it was more profitable. McDonalds is another example.

A selection of family/fast food restaurants is not a reasonable set of choices as far as many people are concerned. In anycase, I don't think we need to define what reasonable means. My point was that many non-smokers support smoking bans because they feel the free market has failed to provide them with services they want. If the free market had provided those services there would not be as much support for smoking bans.

The bar & resto market is such that an owner must look for any edge possible, up to and including tax evasion. It is just not credible that an owner would forgo the potential extra profits of a smoke-free policy.

IOW you agree that the free market could not provide a reasonable selection of non-smoking resturants because restaurant owners seek to maximize their profits.

[August1991]

The bar & resto market is such that an owner must look for any edge possible, up to and including tax evasion. It is just not credible that an owner would forgo the potential extra profits of a smoke-free policy.

IOW you agree that the free market could not provide a reasonable selection of non-smoking resturants because restaurant owners seek to maximize their profits.

I had to read that twice, too many negatives. But I think I avoided your error.

I am saying that if it were profitable to open a smoke-free bar, a bar owner would do so. If the government passes a law making all bars smoke-free, then to make a profit, they will.

If it were profitable for bar owners to wear Groucho Mark glasses, they would. If the government passes a law forcing all bar owners to wear Groucho Marx glasses, they will.

Now then, I'm sure that a bar owner somewhere has worn Groucho Marx glasses, and probably made better sales that night for the effort.

It seems to me that bar owners are greedy bastards without any scruples, selling a terrible drug to addicts. (Like Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, they are the kind of people who would sell their grandmother for the chance at a nickel.) And you would have me believe that these greedy bastard bar owners refuse to go smoke-free even though non-smoking bars are more profitable (BD's point). Huh?

Sorry, I won't buy an argument where Big Tobacco is greedy but the local bar owner is not.

----

Let me repeat again that this discussion seems arcane and irrelevant (we're only talking about smoking in bars), but in fact the stakes are higher. I fear that we will soon be talking about "smoking in the environment" and then this nonsensical solution becomes, well, so costly that we lose the planet.

The Soviet system failed for a reason. God help us if we use a Soviet approach to deal with a critical social problem. "Comrade, stop smoke... "

[Biblio Bibuli]

And yet a cigarette smoking urbanite is at a much higher risk of lung cancer than his non smoking neighbour. Why do you figure that is?

Because there is already easily a pack of cigarette's worth of cancer causing carcinogens in the air you breathe today. By smoking a pack on top of that, you're asking for trouble.

"Moderation in all things" is the saying I live by, and that's why I quit when I found out about the carcinogens in the air.

Now if smokers were told the truth, that the air is much worse today than it was in their father's and grandfather's day, they wouldn't be falsely thinking that since smoking didn't get them, it must be in their genes and that it won't get them too.

I wonder how many smokers and ex-smokers are devastated today because they feel that they are responsible for their friend's death?

When my best friend, Teddy, died his doctor's diagnosis was that second hand smoke killed him. Knowing I was the only one smoking around Teddy, I was devastated. But after I found out the truth, that it's the air we breathe that is the major major culprit, I got myself another pooch and quit feeling guilty about Teddy.

[Charles Anthony]

A selection of family/fast food restaurants is not a reasonable set of choices as far as many people are concerned. In anycase, I don't think we need to define what reasonable means.

That is a convenient argument.

Of course not -- because you CAN NOT define reasonable. Thus, nobody can understand your first statement, nor refute it and you will forever be right.

My point was that many non-smokers support smoking bans because they feel the free market has failed to provide them with services they want. If the free market had provided those services there would not be as much support for smoking bans.

Similarly, they could lobby the government to legislate "reasonable" menu prices for non-smokers or "reasonable" red carpet service or "reasonable" anything that the market does not provide for them.

[Riverwind]

Similarly, they could lobby the government to legislate "reasonable" menu prices for non-smokers or "reasonable" red carpet service or "reasonable" anything that the market does not provide for them.

You have to put smoking into the proper context. Smokers have been social bullies for several generations. In the 1970s it was impossible to participate in any social activity without be subjected to second hand smoke. Since the 1980s the non-smoking majority have been fighting back against the smoking bullies and has largely succeeded. Restaurants and bars were the last public place where smokers were free to impose thier habit on others. I think the anti-smoking campaign would left restaurants alone if non-smokers had choices. Unfortunately, restaurant owners did not give non-smokers enough choices. As a result, non-smokers felt like it was 1970s all over again where they were being denied access to publically available services by the smoking bullies. The health aspects of smoking are simply a convenient excuse.

You could argue that two wrongs don't make right and I would be inclined to agree. However, you must remember that the arrogant attitude of smokers in generations past is directly linked to the hostile attitude of non-smokers today.

[Black Dog]

You've got the same logic. Are you suggesting that the bar owners needed this law to discover that they could make more money? Do you mean that bar owners are stupid when it comes to making a buck?

I'm not suggessting anything about the intellect or business acumen of bar owners. I'm saying, outright, that they were operating on a flawed assumption.

That flies in the face of all my rigorous barstool research but is also logically inconsistent. If someone can't make a buck in a business, that person doesn't stay in business for long.

Uh, they weren't losing money by allowing smoking. So I'm not sure what you're on about.

That flies in the face of all my rigorous barstool research but is also logically inconsistent. If someone can't make a buck in a business, that person doesn't stay in business for long.

If you don't get my point, don't misrepresent it. What I'm saying is this: bars didn't cater to non-smokers before they were forced to go smoke free because, for whatever reason, they underestimated the non smoker market or felt the status quo (smoking) would be the less risky course of action. IOW, if they're making a buck catering to one market, no businessman worth his salt is going to take the risk of alienating the tried-and-true clientele by trying something new. Dig?

[Leader Circle]

Similarly, they could lobby the government to legislate "reasonable" menu prices for non-smokers or "reasonable" red carpet service or "reasonable" anything that the market does not provide for them.

You have to put smoking into the proper context. Smokers have been social bullies for several generations. In the 1970s it was impossible to participate in any social activity without be subjected to second hand smoke. Since the 1980s the non-smoking majority have been fighting back against the smoking bullies and has largely succeeded. Restaurants and bars were the last public place where smokers were free to impose thier habit on others. I think the anti-smoking campaign would left restaurants alone if non-smokers had choices. Unfortunately, restaurant owners did not give non-smokers enough choices. As a result, non-smokers felt like it was 1970s all over again where they were being denied access to publically available services by the smoking bullies. The health aspects of smoking are simply a convenient excuse.

You could argue that two wrongs don't make right and I would be inclined to agree. However, you must remember that the arrogant attitude of smokers in generations past is directly linked to the hostile attitude of non-smokers today.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding attitudes towards smokers now. We are paying for the sins of our ancestors.

Why do we now have to suffer because of what happened 20 or 30 years ago? Is it our fault? NO!

You just can't tell that to people now, because they don't care. To hell with the rights of straight white english speaking males, they are the cause of all the grief for every minority or oppressed people. If they smoke, they are just one step worse than the rest.

[Black Dog]

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding attitudes towards smokers now. We are paying for the sins of our ancestors.

Why do we now have to suffer because of what happened 20 or 30 years ago? Is it our fault? NO!

If having to go outside to have a cigarette is your idea of suffering, well sir, you are a lucky man.

You just can't tell that to people now, because they don't care. To hell with the rights of straight white english speaking males, they are the cause of all the grief for every minority or oppressed people. If they smoke, they are just one step worse than the rest.

Playing just for you.

White males are not oppressed. Get over yourself.

[MightyAC]

I hate it when Red Tories try to pass themselves off as Conservatives. But we see it everyday. Their are too many so-called "Red Tories" in the Conservative party of Canada. And their are just as many "Blue Liberals" in the Liberal Party. I don't respect that. I think all so called "Red Tories" should join the Liberal Party, and all so called "Blue Liberals" should join the Conserevatives. it's really dishonest pretending to be something ur not. In my riding of Brampton-Springdale, Conservative Candidate Sam Hundal lost to Liberal Ruby Dhalla because in the local debate he condemmed the Liberals for supporting abortion. Now thats a real Tory!! But now lets look at the 124 Conservatives that were elected, now how many of them Support Abortion!? Including the Prime minsiter!!?? I have so much respect for Stephen Harper by the way (refer to all my "I Love Harper" posts ) but... Tory's SHOULDall be Social Neo Conservatives. No to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to drugs, yes to punishment for crimes ect. Those are Tory values.

So heres my question to you all. Do you feel the present Conservative Party are true Tory's and Social Conservatives, or too Red?

Everyday social conservatives like SamStrange and conservative Christians make me regret the fact that the PC party was gobbled up by the reformers. At one point I really thought that the ends would justify the means and MacKay’s dishonesty would turn out to benefit the country. Now the shear number of socially regressive Conservatives and pushers of theocracy have made me realize that the latest incarnation of the Reform party will have very little time in the sun. So many people voted anti-Liberal not pro-Conservative last election so, in time the scary agenda that isn’t hidden anymore will scare off them off. I wish we had the socially progressive, fiscally conservative PC party of the past. Sadly the Progressive Conservatives have been turned into the Regressive Conservatives. Maybe that should have been the name of the new party.

[Oddman]

Well, I won't bother quoting the wors from Samstranger or whatever his/her name is...hate speech should never be posted more than once.

But he/she claims that pro-life, anti-gay themes in the Blue Tory manifesto are core Tory values.

When do we talk about human rights. Oh, because the Tories couldn't care less about human rights. What about the environment (yes, yes...we know about the 13 years of liberal neglect...but spending the first 5 months in office pointing fingers at the former government still does nothing to clean our air). What about the fact that Tories DO NOT OWN GOD!!!! I mean, they want to privatize almost everything, but to try and stake claim on what Christianity should mean to people (i.e - anti-gay marriage)...it's these kind of policies that can really hurt a nation.

Just one question though - why would anyone be concerned over whether a gay couple marry? Does it mean you will have to begin having anal sex with your wife or, god forbid, go down on her once in a while?

Blue Tories diguise "hate" as "values" making me wonder why anyone would want to be in that camp.

[Leader Circle]

Well, I won't bother quoting the wors from Samstranger or whatever his/her name is...hate speech should never be posted more than once.

But he/she claims that pro-life, anti-gay themes in the Blue Tory manifesto are core Tory values.

When do we talk about human rights. Oh, because the Tories couldn't care less about human rights. What about the environment (yes, yes...we know about the 13 years of liberal neglect...but spending the first 5 months in office pointing fingers at the former government still does nothing to clean our air). What about the fact that Tories DO NOT OWN GOD!!!! I mean, they want to privatize almost everything, but to try and stake claim on what Christianity should mean to people (i.e - anti-gay marriage)...it's these kind of policies that can really hurt a nation.

Just one question though - why would anyone be concerned over whether a gay couple marry? Does it mean you will have to begin having anal sex with your wife or, god forbid, go down on her once in a while?

Blue Tories diguise "hate" as "values" making me wonder why anyone would want to be in that camp.

The beauty of free speech is to allow opinions like sam's. If you call yourself a human rights activist, you need to learn that his opinion is just as valuable as yours. How dare you accuse him of hate speeches?

If he is against "gay rights"(laff), that is his choice, it may not be yours, but who cares?

It is idiots like you that try to infect people with the notion that you pro gay world is the only way it should be, well, many of us disagree. Just because you see it as hate, does not make it so.

[Oddman]

Well, I won't bother quoting the wors from Samstranger or whatever his/her name is...hate speech should never be posted more than once.

But he/she claims that pro-life, anti-gay themes in the Blue Tory manifesto are core Tory values.

When do we talk about human rights. Oh, because the Tories couldn't care less about human rights. What about the environment (yes, yes...we know about the 13 years of liberal neglect...but spending the first 5 months in office pointing fingers at the former government still does nothing to clean our air). What about the fact that Tories DO NOT OWN GOD!!!! I mean, they want to privatize almost everything, but to try and stake claim on what Christianity should mean to people (i.e - anti-gay marriage)...it's these kind of policies that can really hurt a nation.

Just one question though - why would anyone be concerned over whether a gay couple marry? Does it mean you will have to begin having anal sex with your wife or, god forbid, go down on her once in a while?

Blue Tories diguise "hate" as "values" making me wonder why anyone would want to be in that camp.

The beauty of free speech is to allow opinions like sam's. If you call yourself a human rights activist, you need to learn that his opinion is just as valuable as yours. How dare you accuse him of hate speeches?

If he is against "gay rights"(laff), that is his choice, it may not be yours, but who cares?

It is idiots like you that try to infect people with the notion that you pro gay world is the only way it should be, well, many of us disagree. Just because you see it as hate, does not make it so.

Alright, let's discuss then.

If I don't feel that right-wingers should have the same rights as the rest of us, would you say "Hey, that's great...way to support free speech."...?

I didn't call myself a human rights activist.

I feel, and I am well within my rights, that if someone (Sam for example) feels certain humans are not as worthy to have cartain rights it is a message of intolerance and hate.

We could go on and on with the conondrum of free speech and rights - but I still would like to know why gays and lesbians are considered to be such a threat to anyone's PRIVATE religious beliefs.

Do tell....

[Leader Circle]

Well, I won't bother quoting the wors from Samstranger or whatever his/her name is...hate speech should never be posted more than once.

But he/she claims that pro-life, anti-gay themes in the Blue Tory manifesto are core Tory values.

When do we talk about human rights. Oh, because the Tories couldn't care less about human rights. What about the environment (yes, yes...we know about the 13 years of liberal neglect...but spending the first 5 months in office pointing fingers at the former government still does nothing to clean our air). What about the fact that Tories DO NOT OWN GOD!!!! I mean, they want to privatize almost everything, but to try and stake claim on what Christianity should mean to people (i.e - anti-gay marriage)...it's these kind of policies that can really hurt a nation.

Just one question though - why would anyone be concerned over whether a gay couple marry? Does it mean you will have to begin having anal sex with your wife or, god forbid, go down on her once in a while?

Blue Tories diguise "hate" as "values" making me wonder why anyone would want to be in that camp.

The beauty of free speech is to allow opinions like sam's. If you call yourself a human rights activist, you need to learn that his opinion is just as valuable as yours. How dare you accuse him of hate speeches?

If he is against "gay rights"(laff), that is his choice, it may not be yours, but who cares?

It is idiots like you that try to infect people with the notion that you pro gay world is the only way it should be, well, many of us disagree. Just because you see it as hate, does not make it so.

Alright, let's discuss then.

If I don't feel that right-wingers should have the same rights as the rest of us, would you say "Hey, that's great...way to support free speech."...?

I didn't call myself a human rights activist.

I feel, and I am well within my rights, that if someone (Sam for example) feels certain humans are not as worthy to have cartain rights it is a message of intolerance and hate.

We could go on and on with the conondrum of free speech and rights - but I still would like to know why gays and lesbians are considered to be such a threat to anyone's PRIVATE religious beliefs.

Do tell....

It has nothing to do with having the "right" to gay marriage, I was talking about his right to disagree with it. You seem to want to take that right away from him. You are a bunch of hypocrits, claiming to want human rights granted for everything from screwing a dog to wearing a turbin, because these people claim to be oppressed, yet you would tell sam to shut up and take away his right to free speech because he is against gay marriage.

SO WHAT if you think it is hate & intolerance? Let him say how he feels! If more people would say what they think, regardless of how people feel about it, maybe we'd have less of this politically correct BS.

If you feel the Canadian rules make you oppressed, then leave! If the Canadian government decides to overturn the gay marriage law and you don't like it, well... too bad, but I will not tell you not to talk about it, like you tried to do with Sam. If it does not get overturned, big deal, it is still okay to dislike gay marriage and talk about it until the cows come home. I give a rat's ass what these human rights pussies will call intolerance & hate speech, because nothing EVER pleases these useless (bad word)! Someone needs to,like sam says, stand up and say what they truly feel, if not, it will not stop until the whole white english straight male population is put in jail for hate crimes(for calling them fags or some shit). The only problem with putting all these people in jail is: who will be left in the work force who isn't unionized?

If you ask me(not that you would), I say much of this human rights talk is causing more racism towards minorities and it will eventually explode into a nasty situation that could have been avoided.