|
Patios and street are the next smoking target
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Give them an inch they take 1000 km...
This is why im against the starting of a ban even if its reasonable, becuase once you get the ball rolling they dont stop. This is absolutely ridiculous.
This has obviously gone beyond "protecting non smokers" and into the realm of behaviour modification and social engineering. Saving adults from themselves is not the business that the government should be in.
| quote: |
Second-hand smoke campaigns target great outdoors
CBC News - November 15, 2005
Smoking has been banned in workplaces, restaurants and theatres, leaving the great outdoors as the next frontier for anti-smoking campaigns.
"People understand the concept of air pollution, that it may be everywhere," said Roberta Ferrence of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. "Somehow [with] second-hand smoke outdoors they feel it's magically whisked away, and it isn't."
Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia are working on provincewide bans on smoking on restaurant patios, which is already the law in 16 municipalities across Canada.
The governments have acted although there is little published research on levels of outdoor second-hand smoke or its health implications.
Ferrence's colleague, Pam Kaufman of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, points to other reasons to ban or reduce outdoor smoking. "Studies have shown that with restrictions, people are more likely to quit and possibly cut down on the amount that they smoke, even if they don't quit."
For Filip Palda, an economist and senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, the move to restrict or ban smoking outdoors is less about protecting people's health than preaching.
"It's a big business, the anti-tobacco lobby gets a lot of government funding," said Palda. "I'm not saying this in a cynical way, but where there's funding to study something and even to repress it, there will be people who come to take the funding."
The lobbyists' activities are so intense that Palda questions why they don't seek to outlaw smoking altogether. Some smokers lighting up on a sidewalk outside a hospital in Halifax asked the same question. For their next move, anti-tobacco advocates say they want governments to address what they consider a form of child abuse: parents who smoke in their own cars or homes with children present. |
|
|
|
| mushyflowa |
im not happy with the govt banning smoking outdoors.. as long as people dont do it indoors.. i have no problems at all..
but there is alot of people who dont respect the rules and keep lighitng cigarretes indoors.. and i've seen alot.. even from this site..
it bothers me because i dont smoke.. nor want second hand smoke cancer..
honestly that is the reason why i quit on cigarretes..
but hey.. this is canada.. the free country.. get used to all those stupid bans.. and expect many, many.. .. .. many more :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
smoking indoors at entertainment facilities for adults who are over 19 who have made the CHOICE to be there shouldnt even be an issue.
They should have stopped at banning smoking in most public places except clubs and bars. When they crossed that line they went too far. And obviously now they wont stop at even that.
Free country my ass |
|
|
| BTG |
| it's like that southpark episode. |
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Free country my ass |
see.. now we're talking.. |
|
|
| girllovingtvibe |
| I am a non smoker now and am happy that there is no smoking indoors (to be fair). However, to ban it like this is kind of absurb. azzes. b4 they do this perhaps they should start with the pollution that is being created in other areas....argh.... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by girllovingtvibe
I am a non smoker now and am happy that there is no smoking indoors (to be fair). However, to ban it like this is kind of absurb. azzes. b4 they do this perhaps they should start with the pollution that is being created in other areas....argh.... |
But now you see how unreasonable these people are. And now you see that dispite any factual evidence they may be given, they will not be deterred from their crusade. This is why i was against the club ban. Most clubgoers are smokers. Not to mention that i forsaw this extention of the ban back when the current one was being debated and everyone called me crazy.
Sadly i see the bigger picture which is why even though im not a smoker, im very much against these social engineering methods. Because now that they have done this to smokers, drinkers and fast food eaters are next.
here's a good editorial:
| quote: | Pollution of the mind
by Paul Jackson
Fearmongers have us many of us running scared over the phenomena of second-hand smoke. To listen to them it is the greatest pollution, so great that, without any real scientific evidence to prove the claim, it should even be banned outside in the open air.
And smoking in general – well that is so bad that we should even ban it from movies, or at least put an X rating on any film that portrays it.
Personally, I am more worried about pollution of the mind. Second-hand pollution of the mind. Especially when it comes to our younger generation, but also in terms of society as a whole.
Perhaps it is because society has become so desensitized about so many other things that it is now proving so easy for extremists to whip people into such a frenzy about being in the vicinity of a smoker, or even having to witness smoking in movie – or through the window of s smoking room.
I do not smoke cigarettes and am all in favour of sensible, effective measures that prevent kids or anyone for that matter from taking up smoking.
But there has to be some balance. When did we become a society where smoking and smokers are the only – or at least the worst thing – we have to worry about? So bad that we must ban and censor anything to do with smoking and vilify those who choose to use this legal product, while letting everything else slide?
Go to a movie house and sex, violence and obscenities pour from the screen. Drug use is prevalent in many films. Censorship — except for tobacco advertising and promotion —is apparently considered archaic.
It’s the same on late night TV. Turn to any of the specialty channels — not even the Pay-TV channels — and you’ll be fed a non-stop diet of violence, four-letter words and nudity.
All right into the living room. Or behind the locked doors of a teenager’s bedroom. Hasn’t anyone in authority recognized this pollution of the mind actually encourages similar behavior?
If, as anti-smoking advocates say, even seeing bad characters smoke a cigarette in a movie will lead youngsters to smoke, then why are we so flippant about everything else they see in movies or on television.
Or in newsstands and on book stores, where you’ll see row on row of garish magazines and books glamorizing pornography in every imaginable form and perhaps to those who have led rather sheltered, or perhaps decent, everyday lives — in many unimaginable forms. This is considered either ‘art’ — though every real artist from Michelangelo to Gainsborough to Van Gogh would never recognize it as such. Surely, it’s polluting minds.
Often young minds listen carefully to the popular music of the day. Rap or gangster or whatever is the latest fad. Obscene words and calls to violence spew from CDs and radio stations. Few politicians seem to want to tackle these issues. It might lose them votes. Or have people laughing at them.
The federal Liberals even have a plan to decriminalize the possession of marijuana. That’s surely a green light to say to both adults and youngsters smoking marijuana isn’t so bad. Again, pollution of the mind.
Day after day we hear another huge ‘grow-op’ has been discovered by police. We are told grow-ops are a menace — as they are. But surely decriminalizing marijuana will only encourage more grow-ops.
We are told ‘light’ cigarettes are as bad as regular cigarettes – well okay. But then why are we told that ‘light’ drugs — marijuana — aren’t much to get overly upset about? Just ask those on skid row whether soft drug use started their descent into street life. Or ask someone whose home has been broken into, or whose car has been stolen by a junkie trying to pay for his habit what they think.
There are still — thankfully — a fair number in our society who are shaken by shocking cases of teenage depression, school yard bullying and teenagers sexually assaulting teenagers. But others explain this away by piously explaining ‘society has changed’ and we have to be more understanding of the pressures young people are under.
No one seems to want to tackle the pollution of the minds of our younger generation that leads to so much distress and crime.
Perhaps it really is easier to go after smokers rather than the pornography peddlers, the sadistic violence merchants, and the drug pushers.
Perhaps it is in our nature to need a and easily identifiable villain that we can hound with impunity to make ourselves feel good and to distract us from everything else that we are not allowed to change. A group whose rights no one will bother defending.
If so, it seems that in our society, smokers have been designated as it.
Paul Jackson is a veteran Canadian journalist and a columnist with the Calgary Sun and related Sun media newspapers.
Read the November 8 guest column, "Tides do turn"
|
|
|
|
| mushyflowa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
This is why i was against the club ban. Most clubgoers are smokers. |
i dont agree with u.. alot of people who go to clubs are non-smokers.. just because the place is 19+ doesnt really mean smoking should be allowed inside.. im happy with them banning cigarretes inside.. but outside is just ridicilous.. |
|
|
| lexclu |
um... right... ban smoking outside...
edit: gfy ontario lobbyists.. paternalism at its best... if pollution was the concern... lets ban industry, cars, open fires, bbqs...
this is a half measure... if you want to ban tobacco.. do it... or is the gov. addicted to tobacco tax revenue?
happy?
lex |
|
|
| Skipper |
Where does the article say ANYTHING about the Ontario government banning smoking on patios?
NS, Newfoundland - yes
Ontario lobbyists - yes
Government - no |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mushyflowa
i dont agree with u.. alot of people who go to clubs are non-smokers.. just because the place is 19+ doesnt really mean smoking should be allowed inside.. im happy with them banning cigarretes inside.. but outside is just ridicilous.. |
it should be the owner's decision. If enough people demand a non smoking club then the owner should be allowed to choose to cater to that crowd or not.
It shouldnt be the government's decision. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Where does the article say ANYTHING about the Ontario government banning smoking on patios?
NS, Newfoundland - yes
Ontario lobbyists - yes
Government - no |
for now
but thats how these current bans got started. Lobbyists. |
|
|
|
|
