Red Tory/ Blue Tory?

[August1991]

How did this thread get over here? These critters move around, don't they.

I see a similarity between the way we treat cigarette smokers now and the way blacks were treated 50 years ago in the US. The fact that one can choose to smoke or not but one cannot choose one's skin colour is beside the point.

We have decided that non-smokers "own" all public spaces now just as whites "owned" certain public spaces in the US. Furthermore, this is an all-or-nothing type onwnership. Blacks couldn't "buy" their way into a white-only space just as smokers cannot "buy" their way into a non-smoking zone.

It strikes as fundamentally unfair that whites "owned" more more public space than blacks in the US 50 years ago but for some reason, we don't see it as unfair that non-smokers own all the public space now. Worse however, smokers have no way of "buyng" a space.

Just because an act is legal does not make it moral. There is an element of Christian, missionary zeal to these anti-smoking laws. They are too PC to my senses and smell of social engineering. I also feel it's a majority ganging up on a minority.

[Black Dog]

I see a similarity between the way we treat cigarette smokers now and the way blacks were treated 50 years ago in the US. The fact that one can choose to smoke or not but one cannot choose one's skin colour is beside the point.

Why stop there? I enjoy a pint from time to time, but can't drink a beer in the street. OMIGOD I'M A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!

Sorry, but inconvenience is not a form of oppression. And yes, the choice factor does matter.

[newbie]

Just because an act is legal does not make it moral. There is an element of Christian, missionary zeal to these anti-smoking laws. They are too PC to my senses and smell of social engineering. I also feel it's a majority ganging up on a minority.

Again, the right to smoke ENDS WHERE I BREATHE. Why is that a trampling of human rights. It is a public health issue, but I suppose you think those are immoral organizations. Smokers cost taxpayers huge with their cancers and other related illnesses due to their self-indulgent behavioiur. Remember, you smokers used to be in the majority.

[Argus]

I see a similarity between the way we treat cigarette smokers now and the way blacks were treated 50 years ago in the US. The fact that one can choose to smoke or not but one cannot choose one's skin colour is beside the point.

Why stop there? I enjoy a pint from time to time, but can't drink a beer in the street. OMIGOD I'M A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!

Sorry, but inconvenience is not a form of oppression. And yes, the choice factor does matter.

You miss the point. You can put out a lot of money to open a bar in which you can drink, you and your buddies. But bar owners, or restaurant owners, or whatever, cannot decide their bar/restaurantt/club will be for smokers only. They can't open a place and say "This is for smokers only". The government won't allow it.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Answer the question: what civil rights are being violated?

Yours is a trick question. Apparently abortion is about to become a "human right" if Amnesty International gets their way. And don't they always?

I'll go with ... the pursuit of happiness. If that's not a human right here in Canada ... it should be.

Or let's just boil it down to a total annoyance. I'll bet if they banned cars because of all of the asthmatics & the ozone layer etc etc etc (ie the WAY more harm done to everyone than the fag smokers) ... a lot of non-smokers would get the point. A human right to drive? Maybe not ... but a pain in the butt to many people if it were banned.

But not to non-drivers. Like non smokers they would be happy to get rid of the pollution. You do realize that there ARE non drivers? Have they no right to clean air?

[August1991]

Smokers cost taxpayers huge with their cancers and other related illnesses due to their self-indulgent behavioiur. Remember, you smokers used to be in the majority.

Sorry, the last time I checked using data for Ontario, cigarette smokers paid through tobacco taxes for all the additional costs to the public health system of their habit. In fact, they paid more and subsidized the non-smokers.

Again, the right to smoke ENDS WHERE I BREATHE. Why is that a trampling of human rights.

Newbie, one could just as easily say that your right to smokeless air ENDS WHERE A SMOKER SMOKES. That is how we defined the world 50 years ago. And incidentally, it is how we define the world now for car drivers. Car drivers can pollute the air with fumes and noise at will. They own the atmosphere.

It is no more fair to give the right entirely to one group (smokers) or to another (non-smokers). Instead, we should seek ways to accomodate two groups at the same time at least cost. Blanket bans don't do that.

You want unpolluted air to breathe and peace and quiet. Others want to drive their cars. At present, the drivers can do whatever they want and you suffer. We could impose a blanket ban on cars and you'd be happy. But at what cost to car drivers?

The whole idea of co-operation, and the reason it makes the world a better place, is that it allows two people to make a deal and both gain from the interaction. A simplistic bureaucratic rule is the antithesis of co-operation and it should only be used as a last resort.

There are gay bars and jazz bars. I don't see why there can't be smoking bars. In Quebec, there are still cigar bars. I understand that in Ontario, people are in the curious situation where it's illegal to drink outside and illegal to smoke inside. People must leave their glass inside to go outside for a smoke and leave their cigarette outside to go inside for a drink.

[Biblio Bibuli]

You can put out a lot of money to open a bar in which you can drink, you and your buddies. But bar owners, or restaurant owners, or whatever, cannot decide their bar/restaurantt/club will be for smokers only. They can't open a place and say "This is for smokers only". The government won't allow it.

It's not the government that's doing it, it's the people. Like any mob, once the anti-smokers got their right to tobacco free air they want it all. They don't care that they never plan to put a foot in your bar/restaurant/club ..... they demand that you don't smoke there all the same.

You know, I think that most people are Nazis at heart and that that's where the problem lies. The bigger the mob, the more insane people always get.

That our provincial governments cater to them .... THAT'S what scares me.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I understand that in Ontario, people are in the curious situation where it's illegal to drink outside and illegal to smoke inside. People must leave their glass inside to go outside for a smoke and leave their cigarette outside to go inside for a drink.

I understand that in parts of Alberta it's illegal to smoke outside but legal to smoke inside. People have to leave their cigarette inside when they go on the patio.

I LOVE Ralph!

[newbie]

Smokers cost taxpayers huge with their cancers and other related illnesses due to their self-indulgent behavioiur. Remember, you smokers used to be in the majority.

Sorry, the last time I checked using data for Ontario, cigarette smokers paid through tobacco taxes for all the additional costs to the public health system of their habit. In fact, they paid more and subsidized the non-smokers.

Not in every part of Canada.

[newbie]

Again, the right to smoke ENDS WHERE I BREATHE. Why is that a trampling of human rights.

Newbie, one could just as easily say that your right to smokeless air ENDS WHERE A SMOKER SMOKES. That is how we defined the world 50 years ago. And incidentally, it is how we define the world now for car drivers. Car drivers can pollute the air with fumes and noise at will. They own the atmosphere.

This is such a useless thread. I agree with you tho about the invisible line, and it blurs sometimes like peeing in the pool. But it is a medical and scientific fact that smoking will harm you and potentially those around you. Why not err on the side of health? And the car thing, yeah, it's bad. But any reduction in air pollution is a good thing. We all benefit. This can't be good for anyone:

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...6lr%3D%26sa%3DN

[geoffrey]

I understand that in Ontario, people are in the curious situation where it's illegal to drink outside and illegal to smoke inside. People must leave their glass inside to go outside for a smoke and leave their cigarette outside to go inside for a drink.

I understand that in parts of Alberta it's illegal to smoke outside but legal to smoke inside. People have to leave their cigarette inside when they go on the patio.

I LOVE Ralph!

That's true, I think its a Calgary by-law though and not a provincial law. You can't smoke on a patio (not even fine cigars) but you can smoke inside the pub. You can, however, smoke on the other side of the patio fence, I wonder if you lean over the rail...

[Black Dog]

Yours is a trick question. Apparently abortion is about to become a "human right" if Amnesty International gets their way. And don't they always?

I'll go with ... the pursuit of happiness. If that's not a human right here in Canada ... it should be.

Or let's just boil it down to a total annoyance. I'll bet if they banned cars because of all of the asthmatics & the ozone layer etc etc etc (ie the WAY more harm done to everyone than the fag smokers) ... a lot of non-smokers would get the point. A human right to drive? Maybe not ... but a pain in the butt to many people if it were banned.

But not to non-drivers. Like non smokers they would be happy to get rid of the pollution. You do realize that there ARE non drivers? Have they no right to clean air?

Hey, if you put up a petition to ban cars, I'd sign it in a heartbeat. But the issue is this: are the legal restrictions on smoking comparable to historical restrictions imposed on minotities? I suppose one could argue that the principle is the same (though I would even disagree with that: anti-smoking laws control individual behaviours, not the individuals themselves), but to make any comparison in terms of degrees of oppression is ludicrous.

[August1991]

Hey, if you put up a petition to ban cars, I'd sign it in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't want to ban cars but I think car drivers have had a free ride for far too long.

But the issue is this: are the legal restrictions on smoking comparable to historical restrictions imposed on minotities?

Well, yes. But the order of magnitude is such that the comparison becomes ludicrous.

I suppose one could argue that the principle is the same (though I would even disagree with that: anti-smoking laws control individual behaviours, not the individuals themselves), but to make any comparison in terms of degrees of oppression is ludicrous.

Sorry, I just can't get into this "Stop Smoking" propaganda anymore than if the government started an "Eat Broccoli" campaign.

The issue here is the difference between stark either/or black & white and then degrees of grey.

A single car compartment is an either/or situation - it's either smoking or not. When there's a motorcade however, it's a different story.

Here's another way of looking at this, in the context of race. If a white person wants to be a racist, and live in an entirely white environment without black people, then the cost of this choice should be borne by the white person and not the black people. I'll bet that the racist white would tolerate the occasional black because the cost of perfect whitedom would just be too high.

[Biblio Bibuli]

anti-smoking laws control individual behaviours, not the individuals themselves), but to make any comparison in terms of degrees of oppression is ludicrous.

Sorry, I just can't get into this "Stop Smoking" propaganda anymore than if the government started an "Eat Broccoli" campaign.

Well, there are no anti-farting laws yet so how about if we smokers start eating lots of cabbage, onions, beans and all the other gas producing stuff.

Letting it then rip in places where non smokers are basking in their smokefree enviroments, even the rabidest anti-smokers, given the choice, will let us smoke if we promise to stop farting.

Or will the government enact anti-farting laws?

[Leader Circle]

anti-smoking laws control individual behaviours, not the individuals themselves), but to make any comparison in terms of degrees of oppression is ludicrous.

Sorry, I just can't get into this "Stop Smoking" propaganda anymore than if the government started an "Eat Broccoli" campaign.

Well, there are no anti-farting laws yet so how about if we smokers start eating lots of cabbage, onions, beans and all the other gas producing stuff.

Letting it then rip in places where non smokers are basking in their smokefree enviroments, even the rabidest anti-smokers, given the choice, will let us smoke if we promise to stop farting.

Or will the government enact anti-farting laws?

Too funny Bib!! I am having beans tonight for supper for sure and then going to a non-smoking establishment and farting like a wildman!

I wonder how hard on your health 24 hours of second hand smoke is versus, 24 hours of breathing Toronto air? I bet the results would be staggering. It just goes to show you propaganda is powerful shit for something so trivial as second hand smoke.

All you fresh air freaks, head for KFC for 16.5 grams of saturated fat(triple the recommended daily dose) and clog the shit out of your arteries! I'll breath in my tobacco laden air and you fat bastards will still die first!!! LOL

[Black Dog]

I wonder how hard on your health 24 hours of second hand smoke is versus, 24 hours of breathing Toronto air? I bet the results would be staggering. It just goes to show you propaganda is powerful shit for something so trivial as second hand smoke.

All you fresh air freaks, head for KFC for 16.5 grams of saturated fat(triple the recommended daily dose) and clog the shit out of your arteries! I'll breath in my tobacco laden air and you fat bastards will still die first!!! LOL

What I don't understand (never have, even when I smoked) is this sense of entitlement smokers have. I can see no other reason for their petulance over anti-smoking policies.

Pollution (such as car emissions) is indeed nasty stuff. But that's the price, I suppose, of progress. Again, i'm all for policies that would ease or reduce traffic, pollution and car use overall. But I don't see how that's an argument against smoking restrictions. Lats I checked, public health issues are not a zero-sum equation.

As for the KFC comparison, there's a world of difference between choosing to indulge in behaviours that harm yourself and engaging in behaviours that harm others. IOW, you can smoke your brains out at home, but once you start putting other people at risk, then that behaviour becomes fair game for legal sanction.

[Leader Circle]

I wonder how hard on your health 24 hours of second hand smoke is versus, 24 hours of breathing Toronto air? I bet the results would be staggering. It just goes to show you propaganda is powerful shit for something so trivial as second hand smoke.

All you fresh air freaks, head for KFC for 16.5 grams of saturated fat(triple the recommended daily dose) and clog the shit out of your arteries! I'll breath in my tobacco laden air and you fat bastards will still die first!!! LOL

What I don't understand (never have, even when I smoked) is this sense of entitlement smokers have. I can see no other reason for their petulance over anti-smoking policies.

Pollution (such as car emissions) is indeed nasty stuff. But that's the price, I suppose, of progress. Again, i'm all for policies that would ease or reduce traffic, pollution and car use overall. But I don't see how that's an argument against smoking restrictions. Lats I checked, public health issues are not a zero-sum equation.

As for the KFC comparison, there's a world of difference between choosing to indulge in behaviours that harm yourself and engaging in behaviours that harm others. IOW, you can smoke your brains out at home, but once you start putting other people at risk, then that behaviour becomes fair game for legal sanction.

Black dog, my point is....is the second hand smoke propaganda worth as much as people say it is?? Is it not more harmful to breath the poluted Toronto air than to inhale second hand smoke? Is the lady that just died(the famous waitress...forget her name?) a direct result of JUST second hand smoke? Were there other factors involved? (not that the media would report it to us anyway!!)

I wouldn't call my beef with anti-smoking laws as a sense of entitlement, I just think the BS behind this "nasty habit" is severely overrated. I am NOT saying it is not bad for you, but what other factors could we avoid, that cause us just as much harm, have not been mentioned or considered. Nobody enjoys being oppressed, regardless of what thing the "big brother" would tell you not to do. If smoking was that bad, why does the government still allow the sale of tobacco and take in so many tax dollars because of the sale of it??? Lets ban it all, along with prohibition on alcohol too, because I have had so many friends killed by drunk drivers, but don't know one person who has died from "second hand smoke".

As newbie says, my right to smoke stops where he/she/it breaths. Well newbie, the same should go, your right to drink should be restricted too, so me & my family are safe on our roads!!!! Don't tell me the fines and suspended licenses stop people from drinking & driving, it still happens everyday. Should we not ban it? If we are banning public smoking, because it kills at least 3 second hand smokers every few years, then drinking should be banned too!

[geoffrey]

Second hand smoke is an unreasonable influence on other people's well being. On private property, I believe a bar should be able to choose what they wish to do. But otherwise, I want smoking completely banned. No one has a right to enjoy in a habit that harms others. Hundreds if not thousands die in Canada yearly because of second hand smoke exposure. It should also be illegal to smoke in a house with children present.

[Black Dog]

Black dog, my point is....is the second hand smoke propaganda worth as much as people say it is?? Is it not more harmful to breath the poluted Toronto air than to inhale second hand smoke? Is the lady that just died(the famous waitress...forget her name?) a direct result of JUST second hand smoke? Were there other factors involved? (not that the media would report it to us anyway!!)

What do you mean by harmful? As far as cancer goes, cigarette smoke is far more dangerous than air pollution. I'm not sure how it stacks up against asthma or othe rafflictions. But again, cutting out one does not mean you can't reduce the other. Plus it's a lot easier to reduce smoking than air pollution.

I wouldn't call my beef with anti-smoking laws as a sense of entitlement, I just think the BS behind this "nasty habit" is severely overrated. I am NOT saying it is not bad for you, but what other factors could we avoid, that cause us just as much harm, have not been mentioned or considered. Nobody enjoys being oppressed, regardless of what thing the "big brother" would tell you not to do.

I maintain that anti-smoking measures are not tantamount to oppression. To describe it as such demeans the word.

If smoking was that bad, why does the government still allow the sale of tobacco and take in so many tax dollars because of the sale of it??? Lets ban it all, along with prohibition on alcohol too, because I have had so many friends killed by drunk drivers, but don't know one person who has died from "second hand smoke".

Well, you hit the first part right: it's big business. However, I don't have a problem with selling boze or smokes because if people choose to consume them, that's their right to do so. Restrictions on where those products can be used strikes the balance between alowing inividual choice and safeguarding the common good.

[Leader Circle]

Second hand smoke is an unreasonable influence on other people's well being. On private property, I believe a bar should be able to choose what they wish to do. But otherwise, I want smoking completely banned. No one has a right to enjoy in a habit that harms others. Hundreds if not thousands die in Canada yearly because of second hand smoke exposure. It should also be illegal to smoke in a house with children present.

What about drinking and how many people are killed by that?

I agree with not smoking around children and I don't smoke anywhere near my daughter, but I call into question the actual number of people dying because of second hand smoke. 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.

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?

[August1991]

Second hand smoke is an unreasonable influence on other people's well being. On private property, I believe a bar should be able to choose what they wish to do. But otherwise, I want smoking completely banned. No one has a right to enjoy in a habit that harms others. Hundreds if not thousands die in Canada yearly because of second hand smoke exposure. It should also be illegal to smoke in a house with children present.

Geoffrey, the curious thing is that it's not illegal to smoke in front of children - the one thing that should arguably be forbidden.

We once had designated smoking areas with proper ventilation. This would have been sufficient accomodation but slowly such compromises have been removed.

The anti-smoking activists want nothing less than to abolish this habit and make Canada an entirely smoke free zone. The next legislation will likely forbid smoking while driving.

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

[Biblio Bibuli]

I wonder how hard on your health 24 hours of second hand smoke is versus, 24 hours of breathing Toronto air? I bet the results would be staggering. It just goes to show you propaganda is powerful shit for something so trivial as second hand smoke.

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.

[Leader Circle]

What do you mean by harmful? As far as cancer goes, cigarette smoke is far more dangerous than air pollution. I'm not sure how it stacks up against asthma or othe rafflictions. But again, cutting out one does not mean you can't reduce the other. Plus it's a lot easier to reduce smoking than air pollution.

I maintain that anti-smoking measures are not tantamount to oppression. To describe it as such demeans the word.

Well, you hit the first part right: it's big business. However, I don't have a problem with selling boze or smokes because if people choose to consume them, that's their right to do so. Restrictions on where those products can be used strikes the balance between alowing inividual choice and safeguarding the common good.

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?

Anti-smoking laws are oppression in every sense of the word. What is wrong with smoking rooms, specifically for JUST smokers.(Of course some non smoker would feel his rights were violated because we are allowed such a room!) We don't need a waitress in that room, we just need a place to replace all that nasty fresh air in our lungs. 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.

[Black Dog]

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.

[geoffrey]

One of the few times we agree BD.

I just can't quite get my head around these smokers that profess that they believe it their inherent right to impact other's health. They are talking like the big Tobacco companies did in the 60's, that smoking isn't actually harmful, that second hand smoke is a big myth compiled by those that want to see smoking banned.

Like I said, smoke in your home (if no children are present) or your car. As soon as your in public, you are a risk to others and this risk needs to be controlled.

EDIT:

Also, why not have smokers pay their own health care (costs related to smoking, say lung cancer and heart disease) for engaging in a behavior with absolutely no benefit and major costs to the system? I shouldn't pay for their ignorance of reality. Same with alcoholics that have liver damage, it shouldn't come out of my pocket. Or fat people. Ect. Ect.

Responsibility for consequences would be a very good step in the right direction.