TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- City of Toronto muses banning smoking on outdoor patios
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

and i cant wait until the ban rudeness. LOL i can see it happening too. "$105 fine for being rude...next time hold that door open!"

People want the government to do everything for them unfortunately.

Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. All you smoking whiners who are concerned about a few puffs of smoke once a week should focus your attention on changing cars into natural gas if you really care about your lungs.

Oh and if you smoke pot you have no leg to stand on. I know the debate about whats better and whats worse but the bottom line is that if you argue that second hand smoke is harmful, pot smoke is at least just as harmful.

There are so many real issues out there in regards to air quality and yet people are now starting to attack OUTDOOR SMOKING?? If you really cared you would stop buying chemically treated carpeting which is what is really going to give you cancer as it breaks down. After all you live in your house every day...

Oh and that new car smell? Fresh Factory grade glue and initial chemical breakdown of apholstery as it is exposed to the sun. real good for the lungs

^^^ the pot comparison is irrelevant. "pot smoke is at least as harmful". wow...get your facts straight. now you're not even presenting a debatable position, you're simply WRONG, lol

1. Few pot smokers expect decriminalization to allow us to smoke pot anywhere we want in public.
2. Pot use has not been linked to serious disease either for the user themselves or those in contact with second hand pot smoke.
3. 99.9% of pot smokers don't smoke it throughout their day where the second hand smoke would affect others...and that second hand smoke doesn't contain the plethora of harmful chemicals and compounds found in second hand cigarette smoke.

come on...I disagree with you often...but I *know* you're not so ignorant as to truly believe that pot is at all relevant to this debate non-smokers generally could care less if smokers smoke...they just don't want to be subject to second hand smoke in public places. As a pot smoker, and whether it's deciminalized or legalized (or not), I'd easily allow myself to be subject to that common-sense restriction in favour of those who don't smoke pot.

As well, just because there are other factors that affect air quality, it does not follow that we should be overlooking this one!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 There are so many real issues out there in regards to air quality and yet people are now starting to attack OUTDOOR SMOKING?? If you really cared you would stop buying chemically treated carpeting which is what is really going to give you cancer as it breaks down. After all you live in your house every day..

FFS, the way you twist things to suit your argument is unreal. It's been said in this thread, NUMEROUS times, and pointed out to you. They simply SUGGESTED they would ban smoking on PATIO's, if people are turning them into INDOOR ROOMS! (ie. a loophole in the Law). The law says no smoking inside, it's quite clear. You turn your patio into basically another room, the law should still apply. Where do you keep getting this "OUTDOOR SMOKING" business?

jayx1, you really need to sign up with toastmasters. your arguments are weak and half your attempts of rebuttal are totally irrelevant. your willingness to bring weed into the argument is thoroughly irrelevant and a futile attempt to hide your inept ability to think anything through. adding immaterial issues to cloud your already weak points does not improve your standing.

i already have you on my ignored list, however my friend from this board told me to view this thread. i accept that you're allowed to express your thoughts, but as a human being, i have nothing to gain from reading your posts. they are all negative, and i have nothing to learn from you.

way to go kytracid. your comments are well thought out and quite intelligent.

hey to each their own i guess....

Disagreement and debate is what makes the world go round

But hey i guess personal attacks have everything to do with a debate about smoking....

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Nobody has addressed the issue of smoking on patios, a place non smokers wouldnt go to anyways.... The indoor smoking arguement is over anyways... but now they are attacking outdoor smoking.. Discuss...

It's been discussed. A 3-walled patio with a ceiling is not "outdoors".

And yes, non-smokers DO go out onto patios, I happen to be one of them. When it's a blistering 76� celsius inside a club, sometimes you want to cool off a bit.

Although I'll agree with Margs that I'm a lot less tempted to go out on a patio with all the damn smoke. Notwithstanding, as long as the patio is truly open-air, THAT would be my problem and not the smokers'. Patios that are not open-air, however, are outdoors.

This whole article was about establishments that are trying to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. This has nothing to do with constitution or the "slippery slope" you speak of - it is the EXACT same issue that we dealt with before. It's simply been dug up again because incessant chain-smoking whiners who won't take "no" for an answer feel the need to stir shit up.

What do you care Jay, half the clubs aren't properly enforcing the by-law INDOORS. I'd say that your precious Guvernment is a prime offender in that area.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's been discussed. A 3-walled patio with a ceiling is not "outdoors". And yes, non-smokers DO go out onto patios, I happen to be one of them. When it's a blistering 76� celsius inside a club, sometimes you want to cool off a bit. Although I'll agree with Margs that I'm a lot less tempted to go out on a patio with all the damn smoke. Notwithstanding, as long as the patio is truly open-air, THAT would be my problem and not the smokers'. Patios that are not open-air, however, are outdoors. This whole article was about establishments that are trying to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. This has nothing to do with constitution or the "slippery slope" you speak of - it is the EXACT same issue that we dealt with before. It's simply been dug up again because incessant chain-smoking whiners who won't take "no" for an answer feel the need to stir shit up. What do you care Jay, half the clubs aren't properly enforcing the by-law INDOORS. I'd say that your precious Guvernment is a prime offender in that area.

its funny that the 'slippery slope' which Jay speaks against, is the exact logic (incorrect, as it be) he is using. the type of 'whats next, a being rude fine'? that my friend is slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 hey to each their own i guess.... Disagreement and debate is what makes the world go round But hey i guess personal attacks have everything to do with a debate about smoking....

personal attacks? all people have done is attack your arguments.
You said, discuss the issue about a smokeing ban OUTSIDE, i responded, but no retort...how come? cant twist it around? awww....too bad.

here's a personal attack: Jay you are a dumb ass! learn to admit when you have been proven wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by Orko its funny that the 'slippery slope' which Jay speaks against, is the exact logic (incorrect, as it be) he is using. the type of 'whats next, a being rude fine'? that my friend is slippery slope.

That was said tongue in cheek

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Jay you are a dumb ass!

LOL... im offended

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Even in a pure capitalist/free-market political system, the governments primary function is to protect the rights to life and to personal property. Since the smoking patrons don't own the premises, they have no property rights to speak of. Second-hand smoke, on the other hand, has been conclusively linked to several life-threatening illnesses, so with properly conducted research (which has indeed been conducted), any government is well-justified in making this law because it protects many people's right to life and does not violate anyone's property rights. Whether or not you like this law, Jay, you have no constitutional grounds to win this argument with. The key point you seem to be missing is that second-hand smoke directly harms others, and not in a mysterious subtle way like "discrimination" but in a very real and scientifically proven way. I am fairly certain that removing one wall from an otherwise indoor area is by no means sufficient to keep second-hand smoke off the premises. It is a GROSS MISINTERPRETATION of the issue to claim that the government is trying to take away your right to smoke outside. The government hasn't changed a damn thing for you personally - it has simply stated that one missing wall doesn't make an area "outdoors" at all, and rightly so, since a large part of that smoke is no doubt going to end up in the "indoor" area.

Heh. For once I agree with you. Calling a 3-walled room a patio solves nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Nobody has addressed the issue of smoking on patios, a place non smokers wouldnt go to anyways.... Discuss...

The real issue here are bar and restaurants trying to blur the line between inside and outside.

Zeldas on Church Street, for example built a huge glassed-in enclosure on a large part of their patio. Then they put patio doors opening into the structure from the main restaurant. Then they leave the doors all open. Lately, they have put a stage in the enclosure. The result is that they have built a an indoor area - that has evolved to be an extension of their main space - and call it a patio.

THIS is what the inspectors are getting pissed off about.

The city is trying to determine what is reasonable and what is a blatant attempt to get around a valid law, and admits they are still working on figuring that out.

Doesn't seem like much of an issue to me.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.