About time. Now I can enjoy a meal on a patio without having to get suffocated by the person sitting next to me and smoking.
We don't have to choke on patios
- Thread starter ThighMan
- Start date
long overdue ... less than 1 in 5 people in BC smoke and they
hold the rest of us hostage indoors with their shit-smoke ... if
this finishes them all off, good riddance!
How 'bout "the addiction" factor? The gov't pimped tobacco onto them, grew rich from the taxes, and now wants to beat them over the head with a carton of cigarettes. Sure, it's unhealthy, and eventually I'd like to see everyone give up the weed. I'm a non-smoker and I don't want to breathe it secondhand, either.
However, ya gotta have some compassion for folks who got hooked on the stuff...they need a ton of support to get off. (end of rant
)
However, ya gotta have some compassion for folks who got hooked on the stuff...they need a ton of support to get off. (end of rant
)Maybe we should set up a 'safe smoking site' downtown where they can all go and smoke their cigs and leave the rest of us alone.
My argument to smokers who say that they have a 'right' to smoke in my presence is that if that is the case, then I should have a 'right' to drink beer in their presence.
Since the result of them smoking is blowing smoke out, and they CHOOSE to blow that smoke out where it ends up all over me, well.. the result of my drinking beer is that I have to pee.
So hold still while I pee all over you.
My argument to smokers who say that they have a 'right' to smoke in my presence is that if that is the case, then I should have a 'right' to drink beer in their presence.
Since the result of them smoking is blowing smoke out, and they CHOOSE to blow that smoke out where it ends up all over me, well.. the result of my drinking beer is that I have to pee.
So hold still while I pee all over you.
I agree.How 'bout "the addiction" factor? The gov't pimped tobacco onto them, grew rich from the taxes, and now wants to beat them over the head with a carton of cigarettes. Sure, it's unhealthy, and eventually I'd like to see everyone give up the weed. I'm a non-smoker and I don't want to breathe it secondhand, either.
However, ya gotta have some compassion for folks who got hooked on the stuff...they need a ton of support to get off. (end of rant
As a former smoker, I know how hard it is to quit and how addictive a drug it is. Raising prices and banning smoking from all of Creation is easy enough to do, but what are these anti-smoking do-gooders really doing to help free the smokers from this poisonous addiction?
Any anti-smoking treatments, gum, patches, etc... are tax deductable, keep your receipts.
If a smoker wants to quit, they should go talk to their doctor who can get them all sorts of help with it. But if they don't want to quit enough to take that step, then nothing is going to help.
Step 1 to quitting any addiction is an honest desire to quit.
Damn, I'm addicted to sex, I hope they don't come out with a patch to fix it!!
________________
Intimacy and sex can rule the world
________________
Intimacy and sex can rule the world
[sexist joke] Women have had a patch for sex for a long time. It's called marriage! [/sexist joke]
[duckforcover]CJ_Tyler
[duckforcover]CJ_Tyler
If you go to a bar or pub, which is a place where people socialize and consume their vices (alcohol, etc.), you should expect to have to put up with some of the consequences of it. That includes having to have your ears hurt because the sound is loud, having someone who is drunk puke next to you, tolerating hooliganism, and having to smell cigarette smoke. You don't have to go to a pub or bar. You don't have to eat on the patio.
They brought in anti-smoking legislation because of 2 things: 1) government wants to inhibit you from smoking so you don't tax the medical system, 2) pressure from worker's compensation and insurance type groups to "protect" restaurant staff from "second hand smoke", something that still has not outright proven scientifically to be detrimental to one's health (in fact, it has been shown in case after case of nearly all who get lung cancer, that they were in fact smokers who inhaled cigarettes directly for tens of years). And both these things are the result of the lefty governments you so often whine about, as a right-leaning government is more apt to give you the choice to smoke based on the fact they care more about individual rights and also because of pressure from business groups such as restaurants and the tobacco industry.
Everyone here who is happy about the anti-smoking laws are happy principally because they simply have a distaste for the smell of cigarette smoke, and have swallowed the fancy notion that being anywhere in the vicinity of it is going to cause them lung cancer so they can stand on the moral high ground as well. It is reduced to simply a case of their taste against the taste of others.
The anti-smoking laws benefit few people. It only benefits those who are intolerant of the smell of cigarettes and who outright refuse to merely adjust their presence so they are absent from it. It does not benefit waitresses and other restaurant staff, because though it purports to protect their health, frankly they chose the job out of their own free will and they can just choose another. It does not benefit the medical system, though as the tax payer subsidizes treatment in the event of lung cancer, that subsidy is short-lived as 90% who come down with lung cancer die within 3 months even if they undergo chemotherapy - and it is the smoker who pays the dearest. It does not benefit the insurance industry, for the insured must declare that they are smokers and the insurance rates are adjusted to ensure their profits anyway. It punishes businesses such as the tobacco, entertainment, hospitality and restaurant industry.
There was no reason to enact such legislation except that the basis of it was ideological. And so the sheeple developed the taste motivation out of government run campaigns and adhered to it. What we lost is, once again, over and over, the individual right to treat their own physical person as sovereign and independent from government.
GBM in what world do you live. There is scores of scientific evidence that prove that second hand smoke is as dangerous, if not more so than first hand smoke. The only people that question this evidence are those who work for the tobaco lobby, and as far as I am concerned, the only people less honest that polititians are lobbiest.
You are obviously not familiar with BC politics or you would know that BC's original anti-smoking laws were brought in by the Social Credit goverment which, for your information, was probably more right-wing than the current BC Liberal government, which is liberal in name only.
As for pressure from business groups? Why didn't airlines pressure the government when smoking was banned on airplanes? Perhaps it was because the airlines saved millions of dollars in cleaning bills. Don't believe me, then look it up.
Also, smoking was banned in BC restaurants decades ago. It was only recently the the WCB introduced regulations prohibitting smoking in bars and pubs. When this was originally overturned because it was improperly enacted, many bars and pubs remained non-smoking because they experience an increase in business. Again, look it up if you do not believe me.
Also, there is no tobacco industry in BC so why should we give a shit about the tobacco industry. It is just another way to support the assholes in Ontario.
Really? It benefits me and the approximately 80% of the people in BC who do not smoke. I would state that allowing people to smoke anywhere they want benefits few people.
Really? What about majority rule? Or are you against that as well?
As far as I am concerned if you are a smoke and want to smoke in an area where it will effect the majority of people who don't smoke, then too figging bad. There are more of us than you and why should I as a member of the majority give you the right to pollute my airspace.
