N.S. bylaw will ban smoking in cars with kids

[ClintonHammond]

Now this is progress!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/18/wolfville-smoking.html

[bRian]

I'd like to see all the municipalities in our province come up with similar regulations. I realize that not all parents smoke in the presence of their children but there are many who still do. Children have to be protected from those who are too ignorant to care for their health. It pisses me off to see a car pull up in a mall parking lot to see 2 adults with a cigarettes lit with kids in the back seat.

If this is what it takes to get those parents to begin to realize that cigarette smoke is extremely harmful to their kids, then so be it. Have you ever been to someone's home to see 4 to 5 adults having a smoke with toddlers crawling around the floor, with noses running and coughing.:mad: Enough rant.

[Mooh]

There ought to be a law with stiff penalties in every province.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I believe that smoking needs to be banned everywhere, and that's what is actually happening, gradually. It might not be evident from the smoking areas outside of highschools and offices, but fewer folks are indulging. Maybe in a generation or two it will be history.

Peace, Mooh.

[ClintonHammond]

If people want to find a place they can go where they are the ONLY ones affected by their smoking, then I say power to 'em....

But keep it the hell away from MY face (And I'm an occasional smoker myself)
and keep it the FK away from ANY kids.

[david henman]

...now that we know the risks, there is simply no excuse for smoking in the presence of children. it really should be classified as child abuse, and prosecuted as such. and, while i agree that our privacy must be respected, child abuse is a very serious issue.

-dh

[ClintonHammond]

"Wild Bill's going to be up in arms"
That right there aughta tell you this is probably a good idea to implement.

[Robboman]

This ban is a no brainer good idea. When I was a kid my sister and I rode back seat long hours on the highway, both parents chain smoking up front in a small car. The air was grey, we'd be coughing.. "Daaaadd... can we open a window?" "NO, it's too cold.. stop your complaining!"

My parents guilt-trip about that to this day

[ClintonHammond]

One cannot be faulted for what you didn't know.... Only for your actions, after you did know!

[RIFF WRATH]

Hey
I'm a heavy smoker, and yes it's a trick to smoke with gloves on..but this is one regulation that I thoroughly support, as well as driving while holding a cell phone, however...
I shudder to think what would happen if they decided that taking a puff while driving is outlawed..total ban....need both hands on the wheel..
kids should not be in an environment with secondary smoke..period.
cheers
Gerry

[ClintonHammond]

"as well as driving while holding a cell phone"
Studies have been shown that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting....

Zero cellphones for the driver of a moving vehicle....

[Milkman]

Good to hear NS is leading the way.

In spite of the protestations of some smokers (not all) if they don't have the character and common sense to avoid activities that are obviously harmful to their kids, laws need to be created to protect their children from them.


:food-smiley-004:

[Canman]

Now this is progress!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/18/wolfville-smoking.html

Thats progress alright- Hopefully Pretty soon they'll have mandatory monthly bloodtesting to see if pregnant women are eating correctly and drinkin' and drugg'n. And if they refuse...tazer'm.


Right on Clinton!

[ClintonHammond]

Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence.

[Paul]

Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence.

And your smugness betrays........????????

Well, there's no point in lowering ourselves to your level now, is there?

I'm pretty sure Will Rogers never met you.

[david henman]

I'm pretty sure Will Rogers never met you.


...nor dale carnegie:smile:!

-dh

[ClintonHammond]

WTF does any of this have to do with Will Rogers???

What you see as smug, isn't, because it's warranted.

(But only when compared to some...)

If you don't want people being 'better' than you, stop making it so easy for them to be...

[Paul]

WTF does any of this have to do with Will Rogers???

What you see as smug, isn't, because it's warranted.

(But only when compared to some...)

If you don't want people being 'better' than you, stop making it so easy for them to be...

What do you have to do with Will Rogers? You're better than us, you'll figure it out.

[ClintonHammond]

"You're better than us"
I never said that...

[ronmac]

so.... how about that football game?

Just to bring this back on topic, it's important to note that this by-law is for one community (Wolfville, home to Acadia University) only, not all of NS.

Wolfville was also the first municipality in NS to adopt a bylaw banning smoking inside a public place, back in 2001.

[ClintonHammond]

"this by-law is for one community"
Every idea has to start somewhere... I'm hopeful this will spread like wild-fire!

[allthumbs56]

I'm a light-to-moderate-smoker myself. To the best of my knowledge, I was pretty careful to avoid smoking in the proximity of my, or anyone elses children - be it in a car, a home, whatever.

Having said that, I do wonder where this type of legislation will eventually lead us. If, given the amount of medical evidence available today, these people insist on this behavior, then what else are they doing to their kids (for which we need further laws)?

Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?

[Canman]

Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence.


But not my abundance of ignorance.

[ClintonHammond]

"Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?"
If not, then the human race wouldn't last long....

[auger]

hey all....
I think its high time that the powers who be.....put cigarettes back into the pharmacy....and take them off the shelves in all other stores completely....

and for those who are addicted.... they must go to the doctor to get a prescription to get their smokes.....

there is no longer any reason for cigarettes to be sold to the public in general....and no reason for kids to be able to start smoking......and become addicted...

lets face it.....smoking should be dealt with once and for all....
time to make the cigarette extinct......

Auger

[Canman]

After ciggarettes are banned and no one has used them for a generation, what then will we blame the illness on and who then can we attack?

Years back most smoked and the stats were made up. Now that there is less smokers the stats are the same so it must be the second hand smoke.

What once was the territory of the smoker has become that of the non-smoker due to second hand smoke. It is fallacy and deceit of the highest order.
The reason lung cancer was prevalent in 60's people was from some smoking sure-but what about all the dust from asbestos laden brake shoes?

The establishment is misleading us. The truth is...

Auto exhaust pollution(now with additives creating highly complex toxins)

Personal products containing chemicals such as make-ups and deoderants

household cleaning products-those weird things they want you to put in the dryer too...feebreeze and crazy soaps and shampoos and toothpastes with new this and that-

food additives including candy with manmade sweeteners and dyes

Over the counter medications
It goes on and on...

and the smoker is baring the hate of the many people in fear...

I think its a rather healthy thing compared to the above-all of which I only partake in little if at all by choice.

Should those who dont drive have to breath all that crap everyday-

Maybe we should fine people who give kids candy and cheap hamburgers for lunch-

This is more evasion of govt on people and families-another errosion of freedoms...chip...chipp away until one day oops?
What happened...they didnt give me the key today...I guess they dont want me anymore...I guess we should have...but...I didnt smo...I did everything they said I should...I...

Government at any level should just mind there own business something they're no good at.

Maybe next, start fining people who play that loud boombox stuff with kids in the car...or those parents who let their under 18 kids drive around playing it, damaging they're ears...

[Milkman]

After ciggarettes are banned and no one has used them for a generation, what then will we blame the illness on and who then can we attack?

Years back most smoked and the stats were made up. Now that there is less smokers the stats are the same so it must be the second hand smoke.

What once was the territory of the smoker has become that of the non-smoker due to second hand smoke. It is fallacy and deceit of the highest order.
The reason lung cancer was prevalent in 60's people was from some smoking sure-but what about all the dust from asbestos laden brake shoes?

The establishment is misleading us. The truth is...

Auto exhaust pollution(now with additives creating highly complex toxins)

Personal products containing chemicals such as make-ups and deoderants

household cleaning products-those weird things they want you to put in the dryer too...feebreeze and crazy soaps and shampoos and toothpastes with new this and that-

food additives including candy with manmade sweeteners and dyes

Over the counter medications
It goes on and on...

and the smoker is baring the hate of the many people in fear...

I think its a rather healthy thing compared to the above-all of which I only partake in little if at all by choice.

Should those who dont drive have to breath all that crap everyday-

Maybe we should fine people who give kids candy and cheap hamburgers for lunch-

This is more evasion of govt on people and families-another errosion of freedoms...chip...chipp away until one day oops?
What happened...they didnt give me the key today...I guess they dont want me anymore...I guess we should have...but...I didnt smo...I did everything they said I should...I...

Government at any level should just mind there own business something they're no good at.

Maybe next, start fining people who play that loud boombox stuff with kids in the car...or those parents who let their under 18 kids drive around playing it, damaging they're ears...


We are, whether some people want to not, evolving.

The following used to be considered normal and acceptable:

Husbands laying beatings on their wives and children when they "needed" it.
Driving around with a beer between your legs.
Not wearing seatbelts.
Racism
Homophobia
Mysoginism
Smoking in enclosed spaces with children.


This is not an invasion of our privacy by an intrusive government. It's protecting children from abuse.

[david henman]

This is not an invasion of our privacy by an intrusive government. It's protecting children from abuse.


...hear! hear!

-dh

[ronmac]

It is an uncomfortable truth that government intervention is sometimes required to help modify the behavior of society, for the benefit of all.

At some point government had to step in to place restrictions on/create laws to:

1) how fast you can drive in certain zones

2) what waste can be discarded and what should be recycled

3) insure children of a certain age received basic education

4) what activity is acceptable in a watershed area

5) where industry should locate

etc.

Over burdening our society with needless laws is one thing, but allowing everyone to "do their own thing", without regards to others, is the reason a lot of civilizations have failed. (you can watch Mel Brook's "The History of the World" for proof of that concept :eek:)

[GuitarsCanada]

Here are a few interesting quotes.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" —pg 32

"Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children." —pg 24

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face… was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…" —pg 54

[laristotle]

Brave New World?

[Milkman]

Brave New World?

1984 I think.


But comparing Orwels vision of government gone horribly wrong to a law preventing people from exposing their kids to carcinogens is a bit hard to swallow for me.

[laristotle]

Yup. 1984. http://www.giveupalready.com/images/smilies/seehearspeak.gif

[Canman]

1984 I think.


But comparing Orwels vision of government gone horribly wrong to a law preventing people from exposing their kids to carcinogens is a bit hard to swallow for me.


I know we are evolving, and I think the idea has some merit- Not a misanthrope, Im merely trying to play the devil's advocate.
A little bit of healthy cynicism never hurts.
It just keeps things moving on an even keel.:smile:

[Milkman]

I know we are evolving, and I think the idea has some merit- Not a misanthrope, Im merely trying to play the devil's advocate.
A little bit of healthy cynicism never hurts.
It just keeps things moving on an even keel.:smile:

Agreed.

There's much to be said for balance.

(biggest reason I don't own an SG)

[allthumbs56]

While it seems like a common sense kind of a thing to me, I would never want to see a law passed in support of it. It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced.

Not to mention the next logical extension, which will be enforcing a similar law in homes where children are present. Will inspections be carried out? Will teachers need to sniff the children's clothing? Will the children be encouraged to tell?

I remember years ago, my young teenaged stepson came home with a card from school with a "Help Line" number on it that they were giving out . He waved it in my face and said that I'd better be careful (or something to that effect) or he'd cause me trouble.

Tie this in with the other post about 1977-2007. Extremes perhaps - but there are truths as well. Common sense, decency, compassion, respect - these things cannot be legislated. And God help us when they try.

Very George Orwellian indeed.

[Milkman]

While it seems like a common sense kind of a thing to me, I would never want to see a law passed in support of it. It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced.

Not to mention the next logical extension, which will be enforcing a similar law in homes where children are present. Will inspections be carried out? Will teachers need to sniff the children's clothing? Will the children be encouraged to tell?

I remember years ago, my young teenaged stepson came home with a card from school with a "Help Line" number on it that they were giving out . He waved it in my face and said that I'd better be careful (or something to that effect) or he'd cause me trouble.

Tie this in with the other post about 1977-2007. Extremes perhaps - but there are truths as well. Common sense, decency, compassion, respect - these things cannot be legislated. And God help us when they try.

Very George Orwellian indeed.

What about a law ensuring that children are not left unattended in cars during hot summer months?

A quick death from heat stroke or a slow painful one from cancer.

I understand the concerns about privacy but children need protection.

[david henman]

I understand the concerns about privacy but children need protection.


...raising the spector of 1984 every time a new law is proposed just seems silly.

it seems especially silly when the issue is that of child abuse.

should parents be free to abuse their children out of respect for their privacy?

-dh

[ClintonHammond]

"It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced."
Ya... but people said the same thing about enforcing drinking and driving laws... We've implemented and enforced them pretty well (Not to say we couldn't do better)

That you can't imagine how to do it, doesn't mean that nobody else has good ideas....

"enforcing a similar law in homes"
Well, for one, that's called a slippery slope logical fallacy.... But I for one hope that one day, they DO 'outlaw' smoking in homes where there are children.

"Common sense, decency, compassion, respect - these things cannot be legislated."
They also don't even actually exist.... They are totally subjective.... and so, pretty must worthless.

"God help us"
There's no "God" either.

[Michelle]

...........
There's no "God" either.

There is, I met her.

[ClintonHammond]

I'm willing to accept that you THINK you met her..... Or even that you BELIEVE you met her....

But people are capable of thinking, of believing a lot of nonsense....

But that's got nothing to do with this thread.

N.S. is also banning hand-held cellphones behind the wheel (And making other improvements)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/23/road-safety.html

[Michelle]

I'm willing to accept that you THINK you met her.....

Just kidding Clinton, I have no way of knowing one way or the other, for sure.

[GuitarsCanada]

...raising the spector of 1984 every time a new law is proposed just seems silly.

it seems especially silly when the issue is that of child abuse.

should parents be free to abuse their children out of respect for their privacy?

-dh

Your not seriously calling smoking in a car with kids "child abuse" are you? If so, than who is being silly?

[Starbuck]

I dunno, I would agree with dh on this one. Second hand smoke is no joke. And I partake occasionally..

[GuitarsCanada]

I dunno, I would agree with dh on this one. Second hand smoke is no joke. And I partake occasionally..

Are you calling it child abuse? Be careful with that term. People get locked up for that offense. Are we now suggesting that we lock up smokers? If so, than we have passed over into the absurd.

[Starbuck]

I don't necessarily call it child abuse, but what would you call it? Colossal stupidity? I would have no problem passing a law to make it illegal to smoke with a child in the car.

[GuitarsCanada]

I don't necessarily call it child abuse, but what would you call it? Colossal stupidity? I would have no problem passing a law to make it illegal to smoke with a child in the car.

You can call it anything you want... I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse.

[ClintonHammond]

"I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse."
Locking children into a small box and polluting the air with high levels of dangerous toxins....

Sounds exactly like child abuse to me.

[GuitarsCanada]

"I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse."
Locking children into a small box and polluting the air with high levels of dangerous toxins....

Sounds exactly like child abuse to me.

Like I said, slipping into absurd

[Milkman]

Are you calling it child abuse? Be careful with that term. People get locked up for that offense. Are we now suggesting that we lock up smokers? If so, than we have passed over into the absurd.

Calling it abuse is a bit of a stretch but locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting. Forcing a child to inhale known carcinogens is a little different than having a smoke yourself.

Why not give them a little Jack Daniels as well?

Smoke if you must, but never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others, particularly children under your supervision.

[ClintonHammond]

We protect our children from lead paint.... from asbestos.... from being left alone... from abuse, physical, mental and sexual....

But 2nd hand smoke is o.k.? Remember, if the toxins coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in a mine shaft or a foundry, in the same levels, no one would be allowed to work there, no matter what 'safety equipment' they were issued....

So whose point of view is the absurd one?

Or do you maybe think it's o.k. to lock children into a small box and pollute the air with high levels of dangerous toxins....

"locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting"
Locking someone up, or fining them, or similar is EXACTLY what this proposed law is about....

"never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others"
Hear FN hear!

[GuitarsCanada]

Calling it abuse is a bit of a stretch but locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting. Forcing a child to inhale known carcinogens is a little different than having a smoke yourself.

Why not give them a little Jack Daniels as well?

Smoke if you must, but never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others, particularly children under your supervision.


Finally.... a man with a little common sense. It goes a long way folks. Don't do things to your children that you know to be harmful. That goes for everything in life, not just smokes. I guess though, since we "must" have a huge percentage of ignorant, half retarded mutants in this country that we need the government to create a law to make sure we do it. What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?

[Starbuck]

Finally.... a man with a little common sense. It goes a long way folks. Don't do things to your children that you know to be harmful. That goes for everything in life, not just smokes. I guess though, since we "must" have a huge percentage of ignorant, half retarded mutants in this country that we need the government to create a law to make sure we do it. What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?

Well, the shocking lack of common sense in people is exactly why crazy laws come to pass. I mean really, who could EVER think it's ok to smoke in an enclosed space with children or ANY non smoker for that matter? Like Milkman said, might as well pass them the JD.

[ClintonHammond]

"What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?"
When has the human race EVER done that??????

We -had- to make laws against drinking and driving.... against beating our wives.... against owning other people.... We had to make wearing seatbelts a LAW....

I'm astounded that you're surprised we apparently have to make a LAW about this too....

"common sense"
No such thing.... It's as useless a term as 'Classic" (When used to describe something that someone somewhere might have liked at one point....)

[allthumbs56]

Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?

[GuitarsCanada]

Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?

I guess we need a law against eating now too

[Starbuck]

Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?

Yeah and that's the fault of McDonalds etc.. Gord forbid anyone should know that imbibing in your total allowed caloric intake in one meal on a regular basis might contribute! Yeah, I'll have a Double Big Mac, Fries and a Large DIET COKE!!! Morons!

[Paul]

Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?

If not yet, it's #2 to smoking related illnesses. While we cannot prevent death, we can do a lot to reduce the complications and illnesses associated with smoking and obesity.

(I typed that whilst sitting on my BMI of 30 sized, but non-smoking buttocks.)

[GuitarsCanada]

"What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?"
When has the human race EVER done that??????

We -had- to make laws against drinking and driving.... against beating our wives.... against owning other people.... We had to make wearing seatbelts a LAW....

I'm astounded that you're surprised we apparently have to make a LAW about this too....

"common sense"
No such thing.... It's as useless a term as 'Classic" (When used to describe something that someone somewhere might have liked at one point....)


CH, those laws have been in place for eternity... everyday I pick up the paper and another one is killed by a drunk, or no seatbelt being worn. Just because there is a law does not ensure that some halfwit is going to follow it. Thats why the jails are full. So it's not the answer man.

[GuitarsCanada]

I have to go and pick up my pizza, empty the ashtrays in my sons room and then take the draw for snapjack cables. Let the smoking debate continue.... sdsre

[Paul]

I guess we need a law against eating now too


No but there should be better information provided to the consumer. Portion sizes have gone up, and the Big Mac and fries of today has a significantly larger calorie hit over the meal of 1970.

(Typed by the guy who used to singlehandedly put down a family fun gulp at the 7-11)

[Paul]

CH, those laws have been in place for eternity... everyday I pick up the paper and another one is killed by a drunk, or no seatbelt being worn. Just because there is a law does not ensure that some halfwit is going to follow it. Thats why the jails are full. So it's not the answer man.

Seat belt use went up dramatically when the laws were enacted. Impaired driving has gone down as a result of RIDE checkpoint enforcement, and toughened laws like the negligent homicide laws.

We are much better at reporting the crime we do commit, however. Per capita, crime is going down, but our awareness of it is so heightend that we tend to over compensate.

No society will have 100% compliance. Our laws are meant to provide a detterent to, and a remedy for, crimes and misdemeanors.

Any laws that are put in place and enforced in order to protect the weakest members of society who may not be able to protect or speak for themselves is probably a good thing.

We already have laws that require parents to provide the basic neccessties of life. I would argue that clean air is on that list.

Couldn't we solve this by requiring cars to have the same smoke detectors that are in airplane bathrooms?

[ClintonHammond]

"another one is killed by a drunk, or no seatbelt being worn"
Yer never going to STOP it (d'uh) but having laws against such things sure cuts down on them....

"So it's not the answer man."
Funny how it seems like the people who seem to be asking for anarchy the loudest are the ones least likely to be able to really cope with it...

So, what -is- the answer?

*cross post edit*
"I would argue that clean air is on that list"
Abso-FN-lootly.... and to extend that, clean air... clean water.... healthfull food.... in short, next I guess will be "Environmental" laws.... They can't come quick enough, AFAIC....

[GuitarsCanada]

No but there should be better information provided to the consumer. Portion sizes have gone up, and the Big Mac and fries of today has a significantly larger calorie hit over the meal of 1970.

(Typed by the guy who used to singlehandedly put down a family fun gulp at the 7-11)

I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.

[allthumbs56]

I guess I'll reiterate:

Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.

And for those of you that don't believe these things even exist, then I guess you should have met my parents. God rest their cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf souls.

[GuitarsCanada]

I guess I'll reiterate:

Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.

And for those of you that don't believe these things even exist, then I guess you should have met my parents. God rest their cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf souls.

Here's some wisdom. Amen :smilie_flagge17:

[Wild Bill]

I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.

Ah, but GC! Are you not placing an enormous amount of blind faith in government to be a COMPETENT "Big Brother"?

Those who liked tainted blood and the Kreever Commission I guess would have faith. Or Walkerton. Or the Air India Inquiry. On and on and on...

:food-smiley-004:

[ClintonHammond]

"We need big brother"
There's no Big Brother.... If there ever was is up for debate, but there certainly isn't one now.... It's my theory that he probably died from apathy....

The term "Common Sense" keeps popping up here.... Define it.... and then get people to agree on that definition.... Then maybe, just maybe it will exist.... Until then, it's too subjective a concept to be even remotely useful

Allow me to paraphrase.... "you should have met my... cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf parents" Seems to me I'd be glad not to....

[GuitarsCanada]

Ah, but GC! Are you not placing an enormous amount of blind faith in government to be a COMPETENT "Big Brother"?

Those who liked tainted blood and the Kreever Commission I guess would have faith. Or Walkerton. Or the Air India Inquiry. On and on and on...

:food-smiley-004:


Good Gosh... what was I thinking? Then there is nobody to protect us from evil. Or our own stupidity

[RIFF WRATH]

clint
you mentioned foundry and smoking...now there is definitly something really absurd...I work in one..lots of stuff in the air...but I have to go outside to smoke.....go figure

for the record...my grandkids are coming down for a visit...guess who smokes outside of his own house......going to be chilly...LOL

anyone with any inteligence does not smoke around children, but lately I've been thinking about the critters too.
cheers
RIFF

[ClintonHammond]

" you mentioned foundry and smoking..."
I will endeavour to source the study I'm quoting.... Unfortunately, I might be quoting a conversation I had with a relative who is an international labour lawyer....

"guess who smokes outside of his own house"
I don't smoke in my house... I don't smoke in my car.... When I'm at the pub, I'm HAPPY to step outside to smoke.... Especially in winter. Cigarette smokers are some of the few remaining naked-eye astronomers... ,-)

[allthumbs56]

Allow me to paraphrase.... "you should have met my... cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf parents" Seems to me I'd be glad not to....

Aim a little higher please

[ClintonHammond]

I wouldn't want to be above your reach....

[allthumbs56]

I wouldn't want to be above your reach....

Nice, decent response CH.

I asked nicely....perhaps we do need more laws after all

[CocoTone]

"You're better than us"
I never said that...

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/CocoTone/toss-off_smiley.gif



nuff said.

CT.

[CocoTone]

http://www.mulletjunky.com/webimages/child1.jpg

Now THIS is child abuse!!

CT.

[ClintonHammond]

"Nice" is a foul, belittling, under-reaching concept....

it lacks any verve... any fire... any exuberance....

[Wild Bill]

Good Gosh... what was I thinking? Then there is nobody to protect us from evil. Or our own stupidity

Actually, there never was! A mature mind protects itself from evil and strives not to be stupid.

After all, in the final analysis it is ourselves that suffer, not "the government".

Although if you always take the easy way out and do what others tell you then you always have the excuse that someone ELSE was wrong! Assuming you survived to lay the blame.

I've never been one to have blind faith in authority. I've known too many bosses that were incompetent and politicians for whom a stop sign was a week's good reading. I've had to submit in the face of rank and power of course but I've never been able to feel blindly confident in someone's rank or title. It takes me a while to see if their decisions warrant trusting in them.

But that's just me!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:

[Paul]

A mature mind protects itself from evil and strives not to be stupid.

Yes, but the no smoking in cars law in NS is meant to protect children, who have no say in choosing their parents. The children, by definition have a markedly immature mind, and are completely dependant on parents for protection. Without mandatory child restraint laws, the auotmakers would not be mounting tether points in vehicles, and some parents would still be wrapping the child in an extra layer of clothes for padding, and letting them sleep on the dashboard.

I am convinced that there are children alive today because we have standards and laws for approved child restraints. I've heard of hospitals refusing to release children because the car that came to pick them up was ill equipped to transport an infant.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, but the no smoking in cars law in NS is meant to protect children, who have no say in choosing their parents. The children, by definition have a markedly immature mind, and are completely dependant on parents for protection. Without mandatory child restraint laws, the auotmakers would not be mounting tether points in vehicles, and some parents would still be wrapping the child in an extra layer of clothes for padding, and letting them sleep on the dashboard.

I am convinced that there are children alive today because we have standards and laws for approved child restraints. I've heard of hospitals refusing to release children because the car that came to pick them up was ill equipped to transport an infant.

Well, this is a grey issue. You seem to take the perils of passive smoke as an absolute given. Not everyone agrees that smoking in a car is such a deadly peril to children in the back seat. Particularly if the windows are open. The law of course just flat out says "Don't". It doesn't care if you're driving a convertible with the top down!

Many smokers might see this law as not an attempt to protect children at all! It's simply meant to use unfounded science as a lever to deny smokers one more place to light up. If you don't agree with the danger then you don't agree with the aim of the law and you don't believe you're putting kids in danger.

It would seem to many to be yet another example of what's called "gradualism", where you take tiny steps one at a time to achieve your real goal, which in this case is to prevent smoking not by an outright ban but by slowly removing any place where a smoker CAN smoke!

I mean, there's no smoking in workplaces. There's a movement to ban it in your own home. Many apartments have been declared non-smoking, often with an arbitrary sudden decision that has caught seniors by surprise, with no ability to move.

Now they've banned it in your car. Some cities talk of bans in the open air on a sidewalk. In Hamilton you're not allowed to have a roof or enclose any smoking area. Smoking on patios in clubs has been gone for a couple of years. So are most of the patrons, it would also seem. What's the point of banning just a simple roof to keep off the rain? The answer seems obvious - you WANT smokers to get wet or cold!

Me, I haven't smoked in years but I'm still struck by the hypocrisy of the situation. If the government were to simply make nicotine illegal I might not agree but I would at least consider that an open and honest approach. What's happening today looks to me like using a fascist streak of human nature that wants to tell their neighbour how he should live his life as a very effective instrument in a jihad against smoking.

I've always been more afraid of my daughters acquiring this very prevalent attitude! I've tried to teach them some of the old "hippy" sense of tolerance. All these phony smoking laws do is teach them that if it's politically correct you can force your neighbour to have to do almost anything.

Kinda ugly, from my POV.

BTW, given the words of your post signatures I'm surprised at your support. The anti-smoking movement is a religion by it's practice, if ever I saw one.

:food-smiley-004:

[Paul]

BTW, given the words of your post signatures I'm surprised at your support. The anti-smoking movement is a religion by it's practice, if ever I saw one.

:food-smiley-004:


I support protecting the rights and needs of those who do not have a voice for themselves. Period. Parents are not always the best defender of their own children. The ability to reproduce does not imply the ability to effectively parent. Children have no input into the social or economic situation into which they are born. Public health and education for children is more than a good idea, it's a necessity for our youngest citizens to have the best chance at success in life. I don't believe that we have an inherent right to a great life, but I believe that we as a nation have an obilgation to give our children the best chance at success. Public health is part of that.

My wife is a grade one teacher. By the 3rd week of September she can accurately pick out the kids who have smoking parents or caregivers. It shows up in their abilities in gym, how they choose to play at recess, how they breathe in class, who has more active asthma symptoms, etc. This is completely unscientific, but over 20 years of teaching, she's figured out what to look for. To be clear, the kids she picks out as children in a smoking environment are lagging, not excelling.

It'd be nice if we could rely on the good intentions of each other to get through life, but that's just not a reality. There is no evidence whatsoever that second hand smoke is good for children. There is quite a bit that shows that smoking while pregnant is bad for fetal development. If the toxins from cigarettes are bad when they pass to the fetus through the blood stream, I think it is safe to assume that those same toxins are bad for children when inhaled. Less bas is still bad.

The anti-smoking lobby may have the zeal of religious extremists, but unlike religion they can base their position on scientific and reasonable anecdotal evidence as opposed to "faith" in an invisible man.

For me, second hand smoke and the smell of smoke/nicotine is a migraine trigger, I cannot enter most shopping malls in December without running the gauntlet of smokers. Nine times out of ten that will trigger a migraine for me, which means hours of crushing agony and intense, almost violent nausea. I resent that their perceived "right" to smoke supercedes my perceive "right" to walk in a public place.

Our gov't, (any gov't) does many questionable things. The effort to educate people about the catastrophic health consequences of smoking, and to create an enviroment where smoking just isn't worth the effort is not one of them. There is a mixed message, in that the gov't does generate a significant piece of coin from tobacco taxes. Unlike alcohol, I am unaware of any credible studies that show smoking in moderation can have measurable health benefits.

[ClintonHammond]

"Not everyone agrees that smoking in a car is such a deadly peril"
Not everyone agrees that NASA landed on the moon in the late 60's...

The people who don't are called crackpots and in some cases, idiots... because they are.

Find a reputable scientist who will say that 2nd hand smoke isn't very dangerous.... You will have found, at the very least, another crackpot.

[fingers]

If the government was serious about stopping smokers from harming others,costing the public millions and protecting children then why dont they raise the cost of smokes to say......250$ a pack?
I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.
I havent smoked a cigg inside my house for 10 years,or in my car(s) for about the same amount of time.
I dont really know what I am trying to say except I hate the stinkin things and fully support ANY law that makes there use less tollerable and that forces smokers far away from children.
End rant
Aaron

[Paul]

If the government was serious about stopping smokers from harming others,costing the public millions and protecting children then why dont they raise the cost of smokes to say......250$ a pack?
I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.
I havent smoked a cigg inside my house for 10 years,or in my car(s) for about the same amount of time.
I dont really know what I am trying to say except I hate the stinkin things and fully support ANY law that makes there use less tollerable and that forces smokers far away from children.
End rant
Aaron

Four words: Six Nations Smoke Huts. If you price legitimate product out of reality, the black market will fill the need almost instantly.

[ClintonHammond]

"I hate every one I smoke"
Then quit... because yer not too weak to do it...

It's a simple as stop buying them. Simply DO NOT buy them.

If you need to, chew the gum, or go on the patch.

[david henman]

If the government was serious about stopping smokers from harming others,costing the public millions and protecting children then why dont they raise the cost of smokes to say......250$ a pack?
I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.
I havent smoked a cigg inside my house for 10 years,or in my car(s) for about the same amount of time.
I dont really know what I am trying to say except I hate the stinkin things and fully support ANY law that makes there use less tollerable and that forces smokers far away from children.
End rant
Aaron

...wow! that just begs the question: why smoke?

personally, i smoke an average of 1/3 of a pack a day. even after over forty-five years, i have never become physically addicted. i could quit this minute. but, i don't. why? because, i actually enjoy it...

aside from that, i enjoy a very healthy lifestyle. i don't sweat the smoking because its just one of a long list of things that will eventually kill me, not the least of which is old age...

-dh

[Starbuck]

I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.

Hey I totally hear you. I was in the same boat. I had even quit for extended periods of time, like 3 years (twice) then having a couple of drinks.. (Oh I can have one when I have a drink) We all know where that goes. At any rate I finally quite for good when I got pregnant. I have had absolutly zero desire to go back. I even tried one (Outside) when my daughter was 6 months old and it made me physically ill. I knew I was through for good. My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up.

[david henman]

hey all....
I think its high time that the powers who be.....put cigarettes back into the pharmacy....and take them off the shelves in all other stores completely....

and for those who are addicted.... they must go to the doctor to get a prescription to get their smokes.....

there is no longer any reason for cigarettes to be sold to the public in general....and no reason for kids to be able to start smoking......and become addicted...

lets face it.....smoking should be dealt with once and for all....
time to make the cigarette extinct......

Auger


...if we are going to start banning things that are bad for us, i'd start with most of the poison we call "food".

-dh

[david henman]

There is, I met her.


...does she have a sister?

:smile:

-dh

[david henman]

Your not seriously calling smoking in a car with kids "child abuse" are you? If so, than who is being silly?

...you tell me.

willfully committing an act that is harmful to your children would appear to be the very definition of child abuse, no?

do you seriously think that's absurd?

how so?

-dh

[david henman]

I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.

...baloney! complete and utter baloney. we don't make laws based on the actions of intelligent, law-abiding citizens who DO comprehend the consequences of their own actions.

duh!

-dh

[david henman]

I guess I'll reiterate:
Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.


...perhaps not. however, through a combination of social change backed by solid legistation, we have come a long way from the days of men physically and sexually abusing thier own familes with impunity, not to mention other social ills like slavery, racism, sexism, drunk driving, homophobia, public lynchings, xenophobia etc etc etc etc etc etc

-dh

[ClintonHammond]

"I knew I was through for good."
Good for you! Bravo!!!!

"My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up."
Everything worth doing IS difficult.... Difficult it might be, but it's only impossible if one LETS it be impossible.

[david henman]

[QUOTE=Wild Bill;77440]The anti-smoking movement is a religion by it's practice, if ever I saw one.QUOTE]

..that may, or may not, be true. and al gore and david suzuki and michael moore may very well be hypocrites.

no matter. its the mesasage that is important, is it not?

can i be a smoker, and still part of the anti-smoking movement, without being called a hypocrite?

i defend my right to smoke in my own dwelling, while at the same time upholding the right of others to be protected from my second hand smoke.

-dh

[Paul]

Everything worth doing IS difficult.... Difficult it might be, but it's only impossible if one LETS it be impossible.

I believe the Henry Ford quote is something like "If you think you can do something, or you think you cannot, you are right."

And from CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2007/11/26/cohen.secondhand.smoke.cnn

Which lungs would YOU want?

[NB-SK]

I'm a light-to-moderate-smoker myself. To the best of my knowledge, I was pretty careful to avoid smoking in the proximity of my, or anyone elses children - be it in a car, a home, whatever.

Having said that, I do wonder where this type of legislation will eventually lead us. If, given the amount of medical evidence available today, these people insist on this behavior, then what else are they doing to their kids (for which we need further laws)?

Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?

We've already gone that road before. It wasn't a pretty one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Canada

[NB-SK]

"I knew I was through for good."
Good for you! Bravo!!!!

"My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up."
Everything worth doing IS difficult.... Difficult it might be, but it's only impossible if one LETS it be impossible.

Gee, I don't know. Breathing seems to come pretty effortlessly to me.

At least I'll give you that your sophistry is entertaining.

[ClintonHammond]

Waste of electrons

[NB-SK]

You can kneel and suck my sophistry...

Oh, I get it. Fallacy, phallus, phallacy. Gee, did you come up with that one on your own?

And to think that I wasted all that time reading Shakespeare.

PS. Phallacy is not a word...but you knew that, didn't you?

[ClintonHammond]

Not worth it....

[david henman]

You can kneel and suck my sophistry...


...well, at least i have the rest of the day to try and erase THAT mental imagery.

-dh

[ClintonHammond]

"If you think you can do something, or you think you cannot, you are right."

One of the current 'quitting plans' advises that, you call yourself a Quitter.... say "I'm quitting smoking" over and over to yourself, in your head or out loud if you have to... when you're on the phone and doodleing, write it over and over....

Even, and here's the tricky bit, even when you fall OFF the wagon (cause you WILL fall off... It took you years and years to become the smoker you are... It's going to take years to become the non-smoker you want to be) continue to call yourself a Quitter! When you fall off the wagon and are standing outside having a smoke and someone says "I thought you quit" respond by saying "I am quitting, but it's a difficult change to make."

That's part of the bigger plan, but an important part nonetheless...

You said "I hate every one I smoke", well, if it's quitting you want to do, then quit.... I wish you the very best in that endeavour!

[violation]

Long thread... too lazy to read... I'll just say smoking is ****in' disgusting.

See those 'NY Quits' or someshit commericials with the messed up foot, then the other one with the brain, etc? Barf. After seeing that shit how can someone not want to quit? :eek:

Both my mom and step dad smoke... I layed down the law, I says to both them I says "Buy air purifiers or GTFO". True story.

[Starbuck]

Long thread... too lazy to read... I'll just say smoking is ****in' disgusting.

Both my mom and step dad smoke... I layed down the law, I says to both them I says "Buy air purifiers or GTFO". True story.

Well, I looked at your profile and you're 18. Which makes me happy that we are evolving & that your generation is growing up with the thought that smoking is nasty. Education and public service announcements do work.

MY generation is in between & I can actually remember smoking AT MY DESK AT WORK!!! I shudder to think about it. I also remember being out to lunch with co-workers who smoked while they ate! These things are thankfully not acceptable these days and I have the hopes that one day it will no longer be an issue....

[Milkman]

Well, I looked at your profile and you're 18. Which makes me happy that we are evolving & that your generation is growing up with the thought that smoking is nasty. Education and public service announcements do work.

MY generation is in between & I can actually remember smoking AT MY DESK AT WORK!!! I shudder to think about it. I also remember being out to lunch with co-workers who smoked while they ate! These things are thankfully not acceptable these days and I have the hopes that one day it will no longer be an issue....

LOL, We're showing our age.

I can remember people smoking on planes.

The most vile recollection I have on the subject is watching people take drags from a smoke in between mouthfuls of food during a meal.

Yikes.


Meetings used to be a real drag as well (sic). I work for a Japanese company and up until a few years ago almost all of the Japanese associates smoked.

Now, none of them do.

Evolution. Gotta love it.

[Wild Bill]

You know, I wonder if I'm ever going to get the chance to tell all my fellow citizens what to do? At least, before I die!:smile:

I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!

I can't abide the taste of garlic. Often I get a mouthful of something laced with garlic by accident. The damn stuff is everywhere and you just can't always avoid it. Begone!

I happen to believe that if you don't learn math and science skills when you are young you will be unable to think logically enough to vote on scientific issues like emissions and climate change. Or nuclear power versus wind and solar.

So if you didn't take enough math and hard sciences like physics and chemistry (no "girly man" sciences like botany or biology) then you don't get to vote!

Since I have an Irish/Scottish heritage, bagpipes will be mandatory for all school music classes.

Who gets to pick who's the Kaiser of the country, anyway? I don't recall ever getting a chance to vote on anti-lifestyle laws, smoking or whatever. They just started being imposed. When I did go to vote in any particular election ALL the candidates were on the same side of such issues! Where was my choice for my vote? This is democracy?

Tyranny of an anal-retentive, kinda fascist bossy minority, I call it!

:food-smiley-004:

[Starbuck]

LOL, We're showing our age.

I can remember people smoking on planes.




Yeah we are showing our age...I had the double edge sword of good luck and misfortune to sit next to Guy Lafleur on a flight from Halifax to Toronto. The man was a smoking feind!! VERY nice but ick! AND I was a smoker then. His fingers were yellow. Man, I had forgotten all about that!

[Milkman]

You know, I wonder if I'm ever going to get the chance to tell all my fellow citizens what to do? At least, before I die!:smile:

I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!

I can't abide the taste of garlic. Often I get a mouthful of something laced with garlic by accident. The damn stuff is everywhere and you just can't always avoid it. Begone!

I happen to believe that if you don't learn math and science skills when you are young you will be unable to think logically enough to vote on scientific issues like emissions and climate change. Or nuclear power versus wind and solar.

So if you didn't take enough math and hard sciences like physics and chemistry (no "girly man" sciences like botany or biology) then you don't get to vote!

Since I have an Irish/Scottish heritage, bagpipes will be mandatory for all school music classes.

Who gets to pick who's the Kaiser of the country, anyway? I don't recall ever getting a chance to vote on anti-lifestyle laws, smoking or whatever. They just started being imposed. When I did go to vote in any particular election ALL the candidates were on the same side of such issues! Where was my choice for my vote? This is democracy?

Tyranny of an anal-retentive, kinda fascist bossy minority, I call it!

:food-smiley-004:


Are you an anarchist?

[ClintonHammond]

"I don't like gin, so ban it!"
Liking smoking or not has NOTHING to do with banning it... d'uh....

"Are you an anarchist?"
Most of the people who THINK they are, are exactly the kind of people who'd be LEAST suited to surviving it....

[david henman]

...i clearly remember when you could literally smoke anywhere. hospitals, buses, airplanes, movie theatres...ashrays were "standard equipment", no matter where you were.

okay, explosive factories and areas where hay was stacked were off limits, but that was about it.

i also get a kick out of watching old movies, where both men and, especially, women, lit up in every scene.

personally, i do hope they eventually develop an alternative or a (relatively) safe method of smoking, or something similar to it.

but, that is because i am a hedonist - a pleasure seeker. i needs me vices!

-dh

[violation]

I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!
You have a choice not to drink gin and listen to those kinds of music. Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed. Why should smokers be given the choice of affecting non-smokers health? They're the ones who have the nasty habit.

[NB-SK]

Not worth it....

See what I was saying about sophistry. First you make a vulgar comment, then you erase it an feign disinterest.

[bRian]

Bridgewater considering ban on
smoking on sidewalks, in cars

BRIDGEWATER, N.S. — Bridgewater is
considering a law that would make it
illegal to smoke in any public place in
town except for on the two bridges.
That’s because the bridges are
owned by the province and the bylaw
would apply only to town-owned property.
If the bylaw is approved, people
won’t be allowed to smoke while walking
on the sidewalk or driving in a car.

[Wild Bill]

You have a choice not to drink gin and listen to those kinds of music. Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed. Why should smokers be given the choice of affecting non-smokers health? They're the ones who have the nasty habit.

We covered this in great detail in a LONG thread last year!

Anyhow, to answer your question, most times there is always an easy choice: let smokers have a place of their own!

All that ever had to be done was to allow club, restaurant or whatever owners to post a sign at the door clearly stating "Smoking, Nonsmoking or Mixed". If you didn't like it, you went to a different restaurant.

This was the first way anti-smoking rules started to be implemented, way back in the early 80's. The "nico-nazis" immediately discovered a problem. It was as plain as the nose on your face that in any restaurant the smoking section was full with a lineup and the non-smoking section was only sparsely filled.

This of course was not the goal! The real goal was to make smoking inconvenient for smokers to gradually discourage them from lighting up and hopefully eventually "training" them into quitting. So they needed a new tactic.

Presto! Second hand smoke is dangerous! Not just in fog-filled pool rooms and blues bars but anywhere, in even the tiniest trace amounts! You didn't need any real scientific proof. You could just shout "It's common sense! The smoke has scary stuff in it!"

The smoker's rights people made a dumb mistake. They tried to defend themselves with science. Bad move! They were immediately dismissed as agents for the evil tobacco company Illuminati and no one made the slightest effort to debate from a science viewpoint. Eventually, scientific "evidence" came all by itself, from those paid to do so.

This of course was not considered biased because these sources came from the "angels" and not the "nico-demons".

Passive smoke was the best lever anyone could have asked for! You now could claim that you had to save everyone from themselves! Smokers could no longer be allowed to have their own clubs and restaurants, leaving non-smokers sitting all by themselves in their mostly empty sections. EVERYTHING had to be non-smoking! After all, a stray wisp of smoke might make it past any huge filter/fans from ventilation units and kill someone on the spot!

Not to mention the staff, who needed protection even if they were smokers themselves or just didn't care. They were to be saved even if they didn't want to be saved. As venues closed from lack of business many lost their jobs but no one liked to talk about that and that effect went largely ignored.

Except by musicians who lost steady gigs, of course, but who cared about them?

It seemed that as smokers were being forced to sit with non-smokers, many of whom could not resist gloating about it, they didn't like the preachy, cheerless company. So they found other places to go and things to do. The hospitality crowd took a big hit, from which it just now is only slowly starting to recover. Live music and clubs took the biggest hit. It wasn't that hard for a smoker to go without for an hour or two with a meal but to go without for an entire night at a live music club was just too much. Their tables emptied out and somehow we never saw non-smokers replacing them.

Makes one wonder why they bitched so much, if they didn't go to clubs anyway!

You can take the stand that smoke-free clubs are better environments but the level of business is a completely separate point. To deny that the live music club scene is but a shadow of its former self would require smoking a lot more than just tobacco! Smoking laws of course were not the only factor but to deny they were an important one is just to be religiously righteous in your argument and deny what those of us who remember the glory days know first hand to be true.

To put it simply, passive smoke was simply a tool to social engineer. Not being scientific, it didn't have to defend itself on scientific terms. At one stroke smokers' rights could be ignored. They could either sit with non-smokers or stay home. Lump it or lump it were the choices.

But to say that "Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed." is to deny simpler, more practical solutions. Non-smokers just wanted to be able to enter ANY place, ANY where, and find no smoke! They didn't want separate facilities, not because it meant they might have to walk a bit further down the block for their style of venue but because the real goal was to remove ANY venue for the smokers!

If someone has an argument that this was not the case I'd like to hear it. So far I've heard some really convoluted attempts!

Finally, a sad sidebar has been the encouragement of anal-retentive, self-appointed policemen types using anti-smoking laws as an excuse to "wield power" and throw their weight around, posing as some kind of fascist, "nico-nazis" who just love to make other people do what they tell them.

I would rather die of lung cancer than to see my children grow up in a society with too high a percentage of these types!

:food-smiley-004:

[Milkman]

Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).

I suspect if you had the same situation these days, there would be one or two in the smoking section and the non-smoking section would be full, other than the fact that non-smokers are no longer so uninformed that they would think they were protected by the invisible shield.

Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?

I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".

Apparently we do as I regularly see people doing just that. I have no problems whatsoever with a law that protects children from idiots.


People have the right to decide if they want to kill themselves with lung cancer or heart disease. They do NOT have the right to make that decision for their kids.

[Wild Bill]

Are you an anarchist?

Not at all! I just believe in individual rights. I will support laws that infringe on this area only if I myself understand them and see the need for them.

I no longer give governments and "society" a blank cheque to tell me what's right and wrong. I've just seen too many examples over the years of how they are simply not capable of being reliably rational. Politicians run to to get in front of parades and nobody starts a parade based on rationality and science. "Blood and Circuses" wins every time.

I'm also realistic enough to realise that some things are too big to defy. Governments have cops with guns and tax agents that can seize your house. Still, so far no one is forcing me to agree and say that many such things as lifestyle laws are fair, right, just and/or enacted only from a spirit of brotherly love!

Actually, I consider myself to be MORE law-abiding than many other citizens! I would break a law only because of conscience, after careful consideration to see if I had a moral or ethical (NOT the same thing, of course!) problem with it. Never for simple greed or dishonesty.

I also believe that you should support the rights of others, EVEN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!

That's why the anti-smoking movement has so appalled me, despite the fact that I don't smoke myself.

I'm reminded of an old classic Star Trek episode, where Kirk shouts:

"Not just for the Yangs but for the Comms as well! The Holy Words must be for EVERYONE or they mean NOTHING! Do you understand, Cloud William?"

Whenever I see that re-run episode I look around at our society today and feel rather alone...

:food-smiley-004:

[Wild Bill]

I'm REALLY suprised no one took me to task for my bagpipe suggestion!:smile:

[Michelle]

............

Finally, a sad sidebar has been the encouragement of anal-retentive, self-appointed policemen types using anti-smoking laws as an excuse to "wield power" and throw their weight around, posing as some kind of fascist, "nico-nazis" who just love to make other people do what they tell them.

I would rather die of lung cancer than to see my children grow up in a society with too high a percentage of these types!

:food-smiley-004:

I'm with you on that Bill, that's the way I see it and I have encountered such creatures, best way to deal with them is to meet force with force, like; "Where's your tape-measure?", "Which way is the wind blowing?", "Are you the property owner?", etc. I don't back down.

I really don't understand why they aren't raising a stink, (pardon the pun), over the poisonous air, but that creates jobs I guess so athsmatic deaths from that are 'collateral damage'.

I will quit when I damn well feel like it, problem is, I ain't no quitter. :smile:

[Paul]

I would rather die of lung cancer than to see my children grow up in a society with too high a percentage of these types!

:food-smiley-004:

How would your children enjoy watching you die from lung cancer? Perhaps when all is said and done, they just might be willing to accept the no smoking lobby in exchange for a few more years with their father, or at the very least not watching you suffer.

[Wild Bill]

Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).


Who says anything more was needed? The anti-smoking folks! And their sources are unbiased and the others are only Rothman shills, of course.


I suspect if you had the same situation these days, there would be one or two in the smoking section and the non-smoking section would be full, other than the fact that non-smokers are no longer so uninformed that they would think they were protected by the invisible shield.


Yeah, since the smokers have either been successfully trained or no longer come out anyways this would seem to be quite true.


Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?

I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".

Apparently we do as I regularly see people doing just that. I have no problems whatsoever with a law that protects children from idiots.

People have the right to decide if they want to kill themselves with lung cancer or heart disease. They do NOT have the right to make that decision for their kids.

Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real. With open windows, ventilation systems set to draw in outside air, or a convertible top down some folks would disagree with this assumption.

Actually, so far I haven't seen any attempt whatsoever to scientifically prove how much and therefore how dangerous is the smoke from a cigarette in a car. It seems to have been enough to simply say "It's smoke! ANY amount will kill your children! So we'll MAKE you stop!"

Sorry, but I wouldn't trust the people leading this movement or the politicians who pass these laws (often one and the same people) to put a plug on a lamp, let alone have informed judgement about this matter.

If YOU trust their judgement, that's your right! Just grant the same right to others, please.

[allthumbs56]

Amen Bill - you nailed it.

Is anybody aware that when the big push came on they quietly modified the collected stats so that any lung-related death, and I mean ANY, was attributed to smoking.

Really, if the "facts" about second hand smoking were remotely true don't you think a first-hand smoker would drop dead on the spot after the first puff?

It has however been a boon to those that look for causes and excuses, from the insurance industry, who use it to deny claims and coverages, to Medicare to explain why the system is failing, to the self righteous, who are always looking for any easy cause.

Now if I could only find the (buried) studies that show that seatbelts kill more people than they actually save.

[Wild Bill]

How would your children enjoy watching you die from lung cancer? Perhaps when all is said and done, they just might be willing to accept the no smoking lobby in exchange for a few more years with their father, or at the very least not watching you suffer.

Paul, as I've said many times on this board, I'm NOT a smoker!

Still, I could only agree with you if first, I agreed with you about the risks and second, I agreed with you about FORCING people to do what OTHERS think is good for them!

I don't, and I don't! I couldn't look myself in a mirror if I did!

:food-smiley-004:

[allthumbs56]

How would your children enjoy watching you die from lung cancer? Perhaps when all is said and done, they just might be willing to accept the no smoking lobby in exchange for a few more years with their father, or at the very least not watching you suffer.

My mother died 10 years ago from ovarian cancer. I was alone with her in her hospital room when it happened. She was weak, delusional, scared, and tired of being poked and prodded by strangers in a strange place. She begged me to take her somewhere where she could have a cigarette. I told her that she was too weak to move and she wasn't allowed to smoke in her room.

What I should have done was close the door, light one up for her and let her have a puff or two, consequences be damned. I owed her that much and I regret it to this day.

[Paul]

Actually, so far I haven't seen any attempt whatsoever to scientifically prove how much and therefore how dangerous is the smoke from a cigarette in a car. It seems to have been enough to simply say "It's smoke! ANY amount will kill your children! So we'll MAKE you stop!"



Soooo, how do you propose we test this? Shall we randomly pick children out of the population and expose them to ever increasing amounts of toxins until we find the breaking point? Do we pick your children and/or grandchildren. This is in the name of science. That's a good cause, right?

Sometimes Bill we have to put aside our "show-me" convictions and just think for a change. There is no possible benefit to exposing children to second hand tobacco smoke. Just like lead paint from a generation ago, we know that most kids won't eat paint chips, (apparently the lead makes them sweet), but there was no way to control who would eat lead paint, when they would eat lead paint, or how much. We do know that lead is a toxic substance to human beings, just like we know all of the carcinogins in tobacco smoke. Banning lead paint is a reasonable solution to remove/limit a known threat. There are still plenty of houses and classroomsout there with lead paint issues, but over time we are improving the situation.

This one seems obvious to me. Exposing children to tobacco smoke in a car is definitely not in the best interests of the child, is likely to the detriment of the child, and there is NOTHING out there that suggests tobacco smoke has no effect.

Many hospitals won't let you drive your newborn home unless you have a properly installed child seat in your car. That may be considered a safer enviroment. It doesn't mean that there won't be a Motor Vehicle Accident, it doesn't mean that no child will die inside a car. It does mean that few children will die, and any injuries will likely be less severe.

If children are exposed to fewer hazards, and the hazards they are exposed to are less intense, then it stands to reason that fewer children will suffer negative consequences as a result of those hazards.

We all know career smokers who didn't get cancer, and we all know non-smokers who did. There is endless data out there that shows exposure increases risk. There is endless data out there that shows that children are physiologically less developed than adults, and are more sensitive to everything.

As near as I can read into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, neither smoking nor driving are protected rights in Canada. Both activities come with conditions. And over time, as we learn more, the conditions/restrictions on those activities change.

Tobacco smoke kills. Unfortunately it doesn't kill quickly enough.

[violation]

Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real. With open windows, ventilation systems set to draw in outside air, or a convertible top down some folks would disagree with this assumption.
I know you don't smoke, but if you did would you do it anyway because you don't believe it's real? Proper ventilation or not, it's your kids... why bother even take the risk that it could harm them you know?

Alls I knows is if or when I reproduce no one's getting cancer sticks near my kids, LOL.

[Michelle]

.............

Tobacco smoke kills. Unfortunately it doesn't kill quickly enough.

That's where it's going isn't it? ALL SMOKERS SHOULD BE SHOT!

[violation]

That's where it's going isn't it? ALL SMOKERS SHOULD BE SHOT!
Thrown into rehab first... if they smoke or try and leave... well... :2guns:

Haha, kidding.

[Paul]

That's where it's going isn't it? ALL SMOKERS SHOULD BE SHOT!

That's not what I meant. If tobacco killed quicker there wouldn't be any debate. Because it takes years to build up fatal exposure to tobacco smoke many smokers choose to keep their head in the sand about the risk.

Nobody is saying that smoking will 100% kill all smokers. But smoking related illnesses are the single largest cause of preventable deaths in North America. (Obesity related illnesses are gaining fast.) Oddly, both seem to be lifestyle choice related.

If you as an adult wish to assume the risks of tobacco smoke, go ahead, I really don't care. When I care is when smokers force me to assume the risk, or children are forced to assume the risk.

Even the tobacco companies or the smokers rights groups have never taken the public position that tobacco smoke of any kind is good for children.

[laristotle]

I've been smoking 3/4's of my life. Trust me. I know
the health detriments. Quit? Easier said than done.
It's an addiction. As tough to stop as with crack or
H. Like other smokers have posted, I do respect all
around me. I step outside even when non-smoking
residents tell me it's ok to smoke in their house.
I never smoke in the presence of children
or non-smoking adults. With smokers being the latest
pariah of society, will we experience some sort of
Krystal Nacht anytime soon.
http://www.myemoticons.com/animated/our-favourites/images/joint.gif

[Wild Bill]

Thrown into rehab first... if they smoke or try and leave... well... :2guns:

Haha, kidding.

Perhaps YOU are kidding! There are always exceptions to everything.

There are a LOT of folks who would NOT be kidding! And a lot more who would just stand back and not speak up because "Well, it's for their own good after all."

:food-smiley-004:

[Paul]

It's official, Godwin's law can be invoked.

Wild Bill used the term "nico-nazi", and laristotle is expecting an anti smoking "Krystal Nacht".

As much as I can sympathise with the difficulty of breaking a nicotine addiction, do smokers rights advocates really believe that their cause is on the same level as the Holocaust?

[david henman]

...wow!

well-worded, wild bill.

while i am connvinced that excessive second hand smoke is harmful, based on the experience of my neice, who grew up in such an environment, i have to agree that the incredible outrage over the faint residual evidence of smoke is often laughable. not to mention ridiculous.

personally, i miss those old, smoke-filled bars so much i plan to write a song about it.

-dh


We covered this in great detail in a LONG thread last year!
Anyhow, to answer your question, most times there is always an easy choice: let smokers have a place of their own!
All that ever had to be done was to allow club, restaurant or whatever owners to post a sign at the door clearly stating "Smoking, Nonsmoking or Mixed". If you didn't like it, you went to a different restaurant.
This was the first way anti-smoking rules started to be implemented, way back in the early 80's. The "nico-nazis" immediately discovered a problem. It was as plain as the nose on your face that in any restaurant the smoking section was full with a lineup and the non-smoking section was only sparsely filled.
This of course was not the goal! The real goal was to make smoking inconvenient for smokers to gradually discourage them from lighting up and hopefully eventually "training" them into quitting. So they needed a new tactic.
Presto! Second hand smoke is dangerous! Not just in fog-filled pool rooms and blues bars but anywhere, in even the tiniest trace amounts! You didn't need any real scientific proof. You could just shout "It's common sense! The smoke has scary stuff in it!"
The smoker's rights people made a dumb mistake. They tried to defend themselves with science. Bad move! They were immediately dismissed as agents for the evil tobacco company Illuminati and no one made the slightest effort to debate from a science viewpoint. Eventually, scientific "evidence" came all by itself, from those paid to do so.
This of course was not considered biased because these sources came from the "angels" and not the "nico-demons".
Passive smoke was the best lever anyone could have asked for! You now could claim that you had to save everyone from themselves! Smokers could no longer be allowed to have their own clubs and restaurants, leaving non-smokers sitting all by themselves in their mostly empty sections. EVERYTHING had to be non-smoking! After all, a stray wisp of smoke might make it past any huge filter/fans from ventilation units and kill someone on the spot!
Not to mention the staff, who needed protection even if they were smokers themselves or just didn't care. They were to be saved even if they didn't want to be saved. As venues closed from lack of business many lost their jobs but no one liked to talk about that and that effect went largely ignored.
Except by musicians who lost steady gigs, of course, but who cared about them?
It seemed that as smokers were being forced to sit with non-smokers, many of whom could not resist gloating about it, they didn't like the preachy, cheerless company. So they found other places to go and things to do. The hospitality crowd took a big hit, from which it just now is only slowly starting to recover. Live music and clubs took the biggest hit. It wasn't that hard for a smoker to go without for an hour or two with a meal but to go without for an entire night at a live music club was just too much. Their tables emptied out and somehow we never saw non-smokers replacing them.

Makes one wonder why they bitched so much, if they didn't go to clubs anyway!

You can take the stand that smoke-free clubs are better environments but the level of business is a completely separate point. To deny that the live music club scene is but a shadow of its former self would require smoking a lot more than just tobacco! Smoking laws of course were not the only factor but to deny they were an important one is just to be religiously righteous in your argument and deny what those of us who remember the glory days know first hand to be true.

To put it simply, passive smoke was simply a tool to social engineer. Not being scientific, it didn't have to defend itself on scientific terms. At one stroke smokers' rights could be ignored. They could either sit with non-smokers or stay home. Lump it or lump it were the choices.

But to say that "Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed." is to deny simpler, more practical solutions. Non-smokers just wanted to be able to enter ANY place, ANY where, and find no smoke! They didn't want separate facilities, not because it meant they might have to walk a bit further down the block for their style of venue but because the real goal was to remove ANY venue for the smokers!

If someone has an argument that this was not the case I'd like to hear it. So far I've heard some really convoluted attempts!

Finally, a sad sidebar has been the encouragement of anal-retentive, self-appointed policemen types using anti-smoking laws as an excuse to "wield power" and throw their weight around, posing as some kind of fascist, "nico-nazis" who just love to make other people do what they tell them.

I would rather die of lung cancer than to see my children grow up in a society with too high a percentage of these types!

:food-smiley-004:

[david henman]

Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).


...few years ago i had a three-hour stopover at an airport in hamburg, germany.

virtually every person walked around with a lit cigarette, including employees and airline people.

right in the middle of all of that was a seating area that was roped off and a sign posted designating it a non-smoking area.

you could barely see it for all the smoke............

-dh

[david henman]

Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?
I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".
Apparently we do as I regularly see people doing just that. I have no problems whatsoever with a law that protects children from idiots.
People have the right to decide if they want to kill themselves with lung cancer or heart disease. They do NOT have the right to make that decision for their kids.


...absolutely. i don't see how this can be argued.

-dh

[david henman]

Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real.


...it is real, wild bill.

i see it in my own family, with a neice who suffers complications from 20+ years of living with parents who are both heavy smokers.

-dh

[Wild Bill]

Soooo, how do you propose we test this? Shall we randomly pick children out of the population and expose them to ever increasing amounts of toxins until we find the breaking point? Do we pick your children and/or grandchildren. This is in the name of science. That's a good cause, right?

Sometimes Bill we have to put aside our "show-me" convictions and just think for a change. There is no possible benefit to exposing children to second hand tobacco smoke. Just like lead paint from a generation ago, we know that most kids won't eat paint chips, (apparently the lead makes them sweet), but there was no way to control who would eat lead paint, when they would eat lead paint, or how much. We do know that lead is a toxic substance to human beings, just like we know all of the carcinogins in tobacco smoke. Banning lead paint is a reasonable solution to remove/limit a known threat. There are still plenty of houses and classroomsout there with lead paint issues, but over time we are improving the situation.

This one seems obvious to me. Exposing children to tobacco smoke in a car is definitely not in the best interests of the child, is likely to the detriment of the child, and there is NOTHING out there that suggests tobacco smoke has no effect.

Many hospitals won't let you drive your newborn home unless you have a properly installed child seat in your car. That may be considered a safer enviroment. It doesn't mean that there won't be a Motor Vehicle Accident, it doesn't mean that no child will die inside a car. It does mean that few children will die, and any injuries will likely be less severe.

If children are exposed to fewer hazards, and the hazards they are exposed to are less intense, then it stands to reason that fewer children will suffer negative consequences as a result of those hazards.

We all know career smokers who didn't get cancer, and we all know non-smokers who did. There is endless data out there that shows exposure increases risk. There is endless data out there that shows that children are physiologically less developed than adults, and are more sensitive to everything.

As near as I can read into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, neither smoking nor driving are protected rights in Canada. Both activities come with conditions. And over time, as we learn more, the conditions/restrictions on those activities change.

Tobacco smoke kills. Unfortunately it doesn't kill quickly enough.

I'm afraid I just can't agree with the logic of your argument! Correct me if I've misunderstood.

It seems to me that you're saying that tobacco smoke kills, period. Therefore, any amount, anywhere is deadly. Therefore society has a duty to force everyone to restrict where they smoke, especially to protect children. That the danger mitigated by child car seats is as true and valid as that of the danger of passive smoke.

Furthermore, society can pass laws without any need to have scientific proof about the true danger to children in cars from smoke. That the burden of proof is upon smokers to prove that they are not endangering their children. That because YOU don't enjoy the habit it is no hardship for smokers to give up because you and others tell them they must.

In other words, YOU know you're right so I and others should simply believe you! And with your msg signatures you take jabs at the religious?:eek:

Paul, when did you stop beating your wife? How can you prove a negative and when did someone or some organization have the right to impose on some individual's lifestyle and make HIM responsible to prove it's unnecessary??!!

You also seem to be saying that because YOU and others think there is a POSSIBILITY of danger then OTHER citizens should be forced to change their habits, even if they don't agree with you!

I'm sorry, Paul. I'm sure you're well intentioned but this is just fascism, by dictionary definition.

The same arguments could be made by religious conservatives if they ever got into political power to impose their views on the entire population. After all, they know that they're right! Their god told them! So it's ok to make everyone else follow their commandments! A rational thinker would consider their arguments circular. He should only publicly agree if they have a gun trained on him or his family!

You should also consider that with smoking laws the precedent has been set. There is a "slippery slope" happening where we hear serious consideration being given to defer or even refuse health care to individuals who don't appear to have been conscientious enough about their weight or health or habits. Companies have not only outlawed smoking at work but ban employees from smoking altogether, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES!

Insurance companies have been handed easy and bulletproof excuses to raise insurance premiums or even deny payouts on coverage.

You either believe "Cloud William's Holy Words" are for everyone or you don't, Paul. Half a democrat is really just an elitist.

What it all boils down to is that if you think that someone has the right to tell you how to live your life then you have the right to someday back a motion to tell HIM what he can or cannot do!

Do unto others as they have done unto you. With many people it's the only damn way to get the concept of liberty into them!

The smoking movement has shown that you can keep pushing people around for a long time. What isn't obvious is that many of those people may be forced to go along with you but that doesn't mean they don't resent you forever! I think that with many such politically correct lifestyle laws we are breeding and festering a BIG backlash!

More and more straws on that camel's back...


:food-smiley-004:

[allthumbs56]

As much as I can sympathise with the difficulty of breaking a nicotine addiction, do smokers rights advocates really believe that their cause is on the same level as the Holocaust?

We have advocates?

I have watched this band wagon gathering speed since the mid-70's. For the most part, the average smoker has been docile, respectful, and aquiescent as they have complied with the ever increasing restrictions imposed over them for the "Greater Good".

Quite franky, it's gone past being unfair and inconsiderate but you have the power and I don't.

Pariah or not, I don't see myself quitting so just tell me where I can go to have my smoke in peace....

[Wild Bill]

...it is real, wild bill.

i see it in my own family, with a neice who suffers complications from 20+ years of living with parents who are both heavy smokers.

-dh

Ah David, your niece may indeed have problems but one incident doesn't prove anything. Try drawing a curve when you have only one point of data! There could be a host of other reasons for her troubles.

Besides, this thread was about smoking in cars with kids in the back. I can guarantee you that convertibles will NOT be exempt from this law! That in itself is revealing.

I appreciate your post agreeing that in cases such as this so-called "justifications" have been carried to extremes. This just proves my point that you should not be puzzled at these inconsistencies if you look for the real goals.

The real goal with this car law is NOT to protect children! Otherwise there would be more scientific studies along with it measuring the actual exposure to a child in the back seat, with and without open windows, with and without the ventilation set to recirculate the air inside or to draw from outside. Or having a convertible top down!

The good councilors of this Maritimer town didn't bother with all that. They passed this law because they don't like smoking, period! If they ban it at work, at home if you have kids and in your car going to and from work, it becomes all but impossible to have anywhere at all! There are movements afoot to ban smoking on sidewalks. Outside smoking areas are not allowed a roof to keep off the rain and snow.

This is just hypocrisy! They don't want to ban the stuff because then they would obviously be fascists and might take a political hit. So they just make it impossible to find a place to light up and think that the smokers will never put two and two together and know who to blame!

More simply, they want to ban smoking without appearing to ban smoking. They want to force people to do what THEY think they should without paying any political price.

A pox on all their houses! Weasels all! Screw them and the horses they rode in on too!

If someone (not old hippies like us, of course! :smile:) wants to be a social fascist then they should have the honesty to stand up and admit to it!

:food-smiley-004:

[Wild Bill]

We have advocates?

I have watched this band wagon gathering speed since the mid-70's. For the most part, the average smoker has been docile, respectful, and aquiescent as they have complied with the ever increasing restrictions imposed over them for the "Greater Good".

Quite franky, it's gone past being unfair and inconsiderate but you have the power and I don't.

Pariah or not, I don't see myself quitting so just tell me where I can go to have my smoke in peace....

http://www.mychoice.ca This might interest you, Mr. Thumb!

Of course, since they get a bit of tobacco company funding anything they say can't possibly be true. Unlike anti-smoking sites who are totally unbiased and on the side of Angels.

Still, if you look at enough info you might be better able to make up your own mind.

That's still legal, isn't it? Some days I'm no longer sure...

:food-smiley-004:

[Paul]

Bill,

I wasn't clear. You've stated that you've seen no evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is harmful. I'm suggesting , (somewhat tongue in cheek), that we use the children in your family as test subjects. If you want evidence, we need a test. I'm sure we'll eventually find a point where exposure levels pass the point of no return.

Orrrrrr, we can look at the preponderance of evidence that shows prenatal smoking is unhealthy for mother and fetus, and look at the preponderance of evidence that shows first hand smoking is unhealthy for adults, and look at the growing body of evidence that shows second hand tobacco smoke is unhealthy for adults and children, and maybe, just maybe, make the inference that discretion is indeed the better part of valour, and not allow children to be trapped in an enclosed environment with second hand tobacco smoke.

Canada has ratifed the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child, (Only Somalia and the United States have not).

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/child.html

We have international obligations to now put childrens rights ahead of our own, even if our own domestic legislation has not yet caught up to the commitments we have made.

Defend the rights of smokers all you want, question the motives of lobbyists on both sides, and/ or legislators, but there is No Freakin' Way you can ever justify exposing children to toxins and carcinogens that you know, or ought to know, are present in second hand tobacco smoke.

[ClintonHammond]

Sorry Wild Bill... Your paranoid ranting, and Star Trek boner don't change the fact that 2nd hand smoke is very dangerous, and there is PLENTY of scientific evidence to support that...

That you think for a second that you're somehow qualified to dismiss the evidence in no way invalidates it.

I hate to tell you, but "Nick Naylor" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0427944/) was satire...

"no evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is harmful."
I think that's called being willingly blind

[Wild Bill]

Bill,

I wasn't clear. You've stated that you've seen no evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is harmful.



Where did I say that I've seen no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful?

Although to be truthful, I don't believe I have seen any that held water. That being said, I don't believe I've SAID any such thing in this thread!

You're twisting my words, Paul! I believe I've been saying that it's not enough to believe that a substance in itself is harmful. You have to talk about dosages and exposure times or the point is meaningless.

Two tablespoons of table salt will kill if swallowed by a baby. Yet over the first few years of its life that baby will consume far more than two tablespoons! Is that not "long term exposure"? Should we ban salt?

ALL substances are harmful! Just pile enough on top of someone! Without context this is not science but just simple BS!

Even so, suppose we grant that society always knows better than ourselves and has the right to force us what to do. So let's all of us swear off marijuana forever! (At least, those of us who do!)

What's more, we've all seen how with too many people alcohol leads to big problems. Let's not actually ban it 'cuz after all, we have no right to remove their free choice. However, no more bars and no more at home! Especially at home if there are children there that could see you imbibe! You'd be setting a bad example that might lead to problems in their adult life!

I'm sure it would be no problem to google up a ton of studies about the perils of alcohol. The same arguments for passive smoke (NOBODY talks about passive smoke in terms of moderate or severe levels!) could be made for Prohibition!

It wouldn't bother me if we attacked grass or alcohol. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to start a Temperance movement steamrolling these days, particularly with Harper's crew in power!

Maybe I should drop them an email or two, and pen some Letters To The Editor. Who knows what we could make happen!

:food-smiley-004:

[Paul]

Where did I say that I've seen no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful?

Although to be truthful, I don't believe I have seen any that held water. That being said, I don't believe I've SAID any such thing in this thread!

You're twisting my words, Paul! I believe I've been saying that it's not enough to believe that a substance in itself is harmful. You have to talk about dosages and exposure times or the point is meaningless.

Two tablespoons of table salt will kill if swallowed by a baby. Yet over the first few years of its life that baby will consume far more than two tablespoons! Is that not "long term exposure"? Should we ban salt?

ALL substances are harmful! Just pile enough on top of someone! Without context this is not science but just simple BS!

Even so, suppose we grant that society always knows better than ourselves and has the right to force us what to do. So let's all of us swear off marijuana forever! (At least, those of us who do!)

What's more, we've all seen how with too many people alcohol leads to big problems. Let's not actually ban it 'cuz after all, we have no right to remove their free choice. However, no more bars and no more at home! Especially at home if there are children there that could see you imbibe! You'd be setting a bad example that