So let's talk about smoking...

[PedroSteckecilo]

As an asthmatic and a non-smoker I fully support laws that do not allow smoking in public places. If you are smoking a cigarette within 10 feet of me, you are assaulting me by forcing me to breath in your fumes, I could move yes, but so could you, the fact of the matter is, you have STOLEN my choice. However when I am outside, I can easily move away, and hence I do not feel that the anti-smoking measures that have been put in place for outdoor environments are entirely necessary and may in fact be more of a "dick move" than anything.

I also feel that some of the laws are damned silly, like the fact that right now in Alberta, Tobacco products cannot be displayed to the public and must be "hidden". The only places where tobacco products can be displayed openly is in a tobacco shop, and it must have its windows covered.

People do have a choice, and if they choose to smoke I don't want their right to choose taken away from them. However they must accord me the same courtesy in my choice not to.

 

[Deathsong17]

I personaly think that cigarrets should be banned full stop. Sod the dangers of second hand smoking, it has no redeeming features and only contributes negativly to society.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

those rules are not applied to forbid you from smoking because it's harmful to yourself..it's because it can be harmful for the ones around you. If I go to a public place, i shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke..there should be a special room for smokers. and btw i have smoked for many years..i'm not one of those non-smoking fanatics on a quest to save the world..just sayin

Do you wear a gasmask when you walk near crowded traffic as well?

Did you know that a five-ten minute walk near some exhaust spewing cars is about as harmful to your body as a few minutes of second-hand smoke (meaning the average smoker smoking one cigarette). So if you find smoking so very dangerous to your health why don't your wear a gasmask near cars as well?

We all have immune systems you know. Sure serious smoking will be bad for your health in the long run, but it is yet to be proven that second hand smoke has any tangible harmful effects on your body and that these effects would be any worse than a simple stroll near some cars with the engine running.

Hence, second hand smoke is at most an annoyance, nothing more, and the banning of it in public resturants and pub's is just a matter of political correctness.

I mean I don't like the shitty music they play at some pubs I visit, but I'll just have to suck it up. Im expected to let the annoying sounds "pollute" my ears, and were I to complain the pub manager would most likely tell me to piss off. Seems only fair that non-smokers shouldn't be treated any more special than I am in that regard.

It really should be up to the pub owners or resturant owners to decide if they want to keep a non smoking clientele or not, and not something the government should decide for them.

//Housebroken Lunatic - non-smoker actually

 

[Aerodyamic]

I Agree with you completely, in Ontario the Gov't forced all bars, coffee shops Etc. to construct "smoking rooms" enclosed and with seperate ventilation systems, then less than two years later they decided those were no longer legal and banned smoking inside altogether. I know businesses that spent over $100,000 only to have to tear apart the rooms the Gov't told them to build a year earlier. When the Gov't gets involved they're not out for the good of the people, they're out to line their own pockets.

And BTW I'm usually standing outside freezing my ass off with my friend while they're smoking so I agree a shelter or something would be great, but probably not likely

The major problem with the way that most of the anti-smoking bylaws are drafted is that they draw inspiration from the original version of the bylaw, enacted in California, which was then essentially copied by the B.C. provincial gov't. Unfortunately, those bylaws consider ANY form of (even partially) enclosed structure to by publicly accessible, and therefore, a target of the legislation. It also doesn't help that the jurisdiction along the west coast that intially enacted these bylaws are considerably more temperate than inland jurisdictions.

 

[Biek]

Smoking is banned from almost every public establishment, but the anti-smokers still complain. Smokers are being treated like Hitler, but anti-smokers still complain. Images of ciggerets have been removed from almost all media, but anti-smokers still complain. Are these people ever going to be happy in their miserable little lives.

OT: If you own a private bar or disco, you're allowed to decide wether your customers can smoke or not. And anybody who works there should respect the owners rules.

PS. If second hand smoke is as deadly as everyone claims, shouldn't the human race be extinct by now, after breathing it in for thousands of years.

You pointed out exactly why I hate "anti-people". Their not interested in negociations. They want it THEIR way and no other. Even if it doesnt affect their lives (or lungs) directly. They are scum riding moral high horses and I want to spit a smoke-laced wad on them right after I had a pull of my cig.

This doesnt count for those non-smoking types by the way. if any of you think a little deeper or know me longer than a day you'll probably know what im on. But I dont wanna say it and stir up yet another shit storm.

 

[Schmidtzkrieg]

I Agree with you completely, in Ontario the Gov't forced all bars, coffee shops Etc. to construct "smoking rooms" enclosed and with seperate ventilation systems, then less than two years later they decided those were no longer legal and banned smoking inside altogether. I know businesses that spent over $100,000 only to have to tear apart the rooms the Gov't told them to build a year earlier. When the Gov't gets involved they're not out for the good of the people, they're out to line their own pockets.

And BTW I'm usually standing outside freezing my ass off with my friend while they're smoking so I agree a shelter or something would be great, but probably not likely

The major problem with the way that most of the anti-smoking bylaws are drafted is that they draw inspiration from the original version of the bylaw, enacted in California, which was then essentially copied by the B.C. provincial gov't. Unfortunately, those bylaws consider ANY form of (even partially) enclosed structure to by publicly accessible, and therefore, a target of the legislation. It also doesn't help that the jurisdiction along the west coast that intially enacted these bylaws are considerably more temperate than inland jurisdictions.

Well you know how hard politicians like to work Eh. It's way easier to re-use a bill from somewhere else than to write you're own, can't miss recess you know. I wasn't aware of the origins of the bill but it's probably similar to the Ont. one
You make a good point about Temp, I live in southern Ont, it doesn't get anywhere near as cold here as it does in Alta. and it's a lot colder here than in B.C. It must be brutal standing outside and smoking out there -Brrrrrrrrr (getting cold just thinking about it).

 

[Malkavian]

As an asthmatic and a non-smoker I fully support laws that do not allow smoking in public places. If you are smoking a cigarette within 10 feet of me, you are assaulting me by forcing me to breath in your fumes, I could move yes, but so could you, the fact of the matter is, you have STOLEN my choice. However when I am outside, I can easily move away, and hence I do not feel that the anti-smoking measures that have been put in place for outdoor environments are entirely necessary and may in fact be more of a "dick move" than anything.

I also feel that some of the laws are damned silly, like the fact that right now in Alberta, Tobacco products cannot be displayed to the public and must be "hidden". The only places where tobacco products can be displayed openly is in a tobacco shop, and it must have its windows covered.

People do have a choice, and if they choose to smoke I don't want their right to choose taken away from them. However they must accord me the same courtesy in my choice not to.

I am totally on board with you there. As much as the rights of smokers should be protected, we still need to secure the rights of non-smokers too, especially those that simply can't be around smoke, for health reasons. I don't mind having to step outside for a smoke, it's just taht I don't have the CHOICE regardless of whether I have someone to display common courtesy towards, or I'm in a room filled with smokers only.



This thread is proving interetsting. I'm glad I started it.

As for the people supporting the law, a lot of you seem to miss much of the point. It's not so much the fact that I can't smoke in public I'm pissed about. Heck, I'd never light up in, say, a restaurent, or in a public park if I'm close to someone I haven't gotten permission from to do so. It's all about common courtesy. It's no biggie having to step outside/away for a second. But the very nature of the law is an infringement on our personal freedom, and THAT I oppose, and strongly.
Of course, there wouldn't be a need for a law if only all us smokers where considerate where, and in proximity to whom, we smoke...

 

[Cliff_m85]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves (yes, this includes hard drug use, if the individual is so inclined) without it being against the law.

However, I do agree with the smoking ban in establishments and the like, because while smokers should have the right to fill their lungs with all the rubbish you get in cigarettes if they so wish, non-smokers should also have the right NOT to have to put up with second hand smoke in such establishments. Now, if said establishmests have a seperate smoking section where smokers can go so that they are not bothering the non-smokers with their habit, then that is fair enough.

Shouldn't the owners of the establishment choose? I mean, if I own a restaurant and I want to cater to smokers, shouldn't I have the right to do so?

 

[silasbufu]

those rules are not applied to forbid you from smoking because it's harmful to yourself..it's because it can be harmful for the ones around you. If I go to a public place, i shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke..there should be a special room for smokers. and btw i have smoked for many years..i'm not one of those non-smoking fanatics on a quest to save the world..just sayin

Do you wear a gasmask when you walk near crowded traffic as well?

Did you know that a five-ten minute walk near some exhaust spewing cars is about as harmful to your body as a few minutes of second-hand smoke (meaning the average smoker smoking one cigarette). So if you find smoking so very dangerous to your health why don't your wear a gasmask near cars as well?

We all have immune systems you know. Sure serious smoking will be bad for your health in the long run, but it is yet to be proven that second hand smoke has any tangible harmful effects on your body and that these effects would be any worse than a simple stroll near some cars with the engine running.

Hence, second hand smoke is at most an annoyance, nothing more, and the banning of it in public resturants and pub's is just a matter of political correctness.

I mean I don't like the shitty music they play at some pubs I visit, but I'll just have to suck it up. Im expected to let the annoying sounds "pollute" my ears, and were I to complain the pub manager would most likely tell me to piss off. Seems only fair that non-smokers shouldn't be treated any more special than I am in that regard.

It really should be up to the pub owners or resturant owners to decide if they want to keep a non smoking clientele or not, and not something the government should decide for them.

//Housebroken Lunatic - non-smoker actually

The usage of cars is far more important for human kind than having a smoke. So don't put them in the same pot. and btw people ARE trying to get rid of cars that run on gas or diesel but this is a step that is going to be taken in many years due to lack of technology and knowledge.
It doesn't matter if second-hand smoking KILLS or not , but it does bring harm to people and that is enough for a reason.
As for the music..shitty music doesn't harm your health. And no, owners should not be able to decide, but if you have read my post more carefully you would have seen that I support the idea of dividing the public places , smoking and non-smoking.
As for pubs or clubs, I think smoking should be allowed 100% there, but that's about it.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Well you know how hard politicians like to work Eh. It's way easier to re-use a bill from somewhere else than to write you're own, can't miss recess you know. I wasn't aware of the origins of the bill but it's probably similar to the Ont. one
You make a good point about Temp, I live in southern Ont, it doesn't get anywhere near as cold here as it does in Alta. and it's a lot colder here than in B.C. It must be brutal standing outside and smoking out there -Brrrrrrrrr (getting cold just thinking about it).

Now imagine working outside in -30c all winter. That's the only reason I don't actually ***** about having to smoke outside of my favorite Saturday night haunt; I'm usually cold-resistant within a couple weeks of winter truly arriving.

 

[JanatUrlich]

I don't think it's right to go that fair. Banning smoking in buildings is fair enough, but banning it in public settings is ridiculous.

I smoke because I like to. I am considerate of other peoples feelings towards smoking and if the person I am with doesn't like it, I won't do it in front of them. I don't see what the problem is

 

[Schmidtzkrieg]

Well you know how hard politicians like to work Eh. It's way easier to re-use a bill from somewhere else than to write you're own, can't miss recess you know. I wasn't aware of the origins of the bill but it's probably similar to the Ont. one
You make a good point about Temp, I live in southern Ont, it doesn't get anywhere near as cold here as it does in Alta. and it's a lot colder here than in B.C. It must be brutal standing outside and smoking out there -Brrrrrrrrr (getting cold just thinking about it).

Now imagine working outside in -30c all winter. That's the only reason I don't actually ***** about having to smoke outside of my favorite Saturday night haunt; I'm usually cold-resistant within a couple weeks of winter truly arriving.

You're truly a hardier soul than I. I start bitching when the temp drops to single digits.

 

[LockHeart]

The usage of cars is far more important for human kind than having a smoke. So don't put them in the same pot. and btw people ARE trying to get rid of cars that run on gas or diesel but this is a step that is going to be taken in many years due to lack of technology and knowledge.
It doesn't matter if second-hand smoking KILLS or not , but it does bring harm to people and that is enough for a reason.
As for the music..shitty music doesn't harm your health. And no, owners should not be able to decide, but if you have read my post more carefully you would have seen that I support the idea of dividing the public places , smoking and non-smoking.
As for pubs or clubs, I think smoking should be allowed 100% there, but that's about it.

Well second hand smoke never brought harm to me... I honestly don't know what it is my Dad's supposed to have killed me with, all that I've been told is that breathing in his cigarette smoke is A Bad Thing but I have yet to find out what the supposed health risks are above and over the health risks that I might incur while breathing in residual polish while cleaning my house...

My real issue is this: 'owners should not be able to decide'. Why not exactly? By what right can you justify restricting how they run their own business in their private property?

 

[Haunted Serenity]

The law is designed to make other people who choose not to smoke, safer from the harmful effects of the chems, not to make you downtrodden. Personally i quit smoking and it's annoying for me to be in a area with everyone smoking. It's so brutal

 

[silasbufu]

The usage of cars is far more important for human kind than having a smoke. So don't put them in the same pot. and btw people ARE trying to get rid of cars that run on gas or diesel but this is a step that is going to be taken in many years due to lack of technology and knowledge.
It doesn't matter if second-hand smoking KILLS or not , but it does bring harm to people and that is enough for a reason.
As for the music..shitty music doesn't harm your health. And no, owners should not be able to decide, but if you have read my post more carefully you would have seen that I support the idea of dividing the public places , smoking and non-smoking.
As for pubs or clubs, I think smoking should be allowed 100% there, but that's about it.

Well second hand smoke never brought harm to me... I honestly don't know what it is my Dad's supposed to have killed me with, all that I've been told is that breathing in his cigarette smoke is A Bad Thing but I have yet to find out what the supposed health risks are above and over the health risks that I might incur while breathing in residual polish while cleaning my house...

My real issue is this: 'owners should not be able to decide'. Why not exactly? By what right can you justify restricting how they run their own business in their private property?

Because if the private property is open to the public for a purpose, such as a restaurant or an ice cream..thing , then he is obligated to follow the customer protection and health regulations..Even if it's a firm, if the manager allows the workers to smoke indoors, without having a special smoking area, then he's going to be in huge trouble.
And I still don't see why everyone is avoiding the idea of smoking and no smoking areas in public places. This is what I strongly support , why is it so bad?
I'm only 20 now, I don't really care about stuff like this but in 10-20 years when I might have kids and I would take them somewhere to eat, if someone would , even by accident, blow smoke in their faces I would be extremely pissed, not only on the person, but on the manager as well.
So my point is, even if it's private, if you're opening it to the public, then play by the rules..If it's a private property like your own apartment , car etc. then do what you want inside.
Someone's freedom ends the moment he affects another person's freedom and rights. A bit of fine-tuning to that sentence according to our situation and you get what I'm trying to say.

 

[LockHeart]

Because if the private property is open to the public for a purpose, such as a restaurant or an ice cream..thing , then he is obligated to follow the customer protection and health regulations..Even if it's a firm, if the manager allows the workers to smoke indoors, without having a special smoking area, then he's going to be in huge trouble.
And I still don't see why everyone is avoiding the idea of smoking and no smoking areas in public places. This is what I strongly support , why is it so bad?
I'm only 20 now, I don't really care about stuff like this but in 10-20 years when I might have kids and I would take them somewhere to eat, if someone would , even by accident, blow smoke in their faces I would be extremely pissed, not only on the person, but on the manager as well.
So my point is, even if it's private, if you're opening it to the public, then play by the rules..If it's a private property like your own apartment , car etc. then do what you want inside.
Someone's freedom ends the moment he affects another person's freedom and rights. A bit of fine-tuning to that sentence according to our situation and you get what I'm trying to say.

Yes, but no one is forcing you to enter an establishment that allows smoking, if a person truly objected to having a smoky environment then they would avoid those places. The regulations you cite, to my knowledge, deal with making sure that the building has no structural hazards and that it is safe, i.e. no bare wiring, landmines etc., to work in, not with smoking.

I don't mind if places want to have separate areas, but the government has no right to force that upon them.

I would be annoyed as well, but sitting in a restaurant or a pub would mean that someone went out of their way to do it and I'd take issue with that.

Well by opening a place to the public, you are allowing them to enter on license - they have to play by your rules and if they don't like it then you are well within your rights to revoke their license and get them to leave. As long as the building's not going to collapse onto them or let them fall through the floor, then they are playing by the rules as they stand. As for your points about rights - to my knowledge there is no right to not have people smoke around you, much in the same way that there is no right not to have a car drive past you emitting exhaust fumes; if it's not compulsory to enter a smoke filled room, then people're willingly forfeiting whatever theoretical right they think they have when they enter the place.

 

[silasbufu]

Because if the private property is open to the public for a purpose, such as a restaurant or an ice cream..thing , then he is obligated to follow the customer protection and health regulations..Even if it's a firm, if the manager allows the workers to smoke indoors, without having a special smoking area, then he's going to be in huge trouble.
And I still don't see why everyone is avoiding the idea of smoking and no smoking areas in public places. This is what I strongly support , why is it so bad?
I'm only 20 now, I don't really care about stuff like this but in 10-20 years when I might have kids and I would take them somewhere to eat, if someone would , even by accident, blow smoke in their faces I would be extremely pissed, not only on the person, but on the manager as well.
So my point is, even if it's private, if you're opening it to the public, then play by the rules..If it's a private property like your own apartment , car etc. then do what you want inside.
Someone's freedom ends the moment he affects another person's freedom and rights. A bit of fine-tuning to that sentence according to our situation and you get what I'm trying to say.

Yes, but no one is forcing you to enter an establishment that allows smoking, if a person truly objected to having a smoky environment then they would avoid those places. The regulations you cite, to my knowledge, deal with making sure that the building has no structural hazards and that it is safe, i.e. no bare wiring, landmines etc., to work in, not with smoking.

I don't mind if places want to have separate areas, but the government has no right to force that upon them.

I would be annoyed as well, but sitting in a restaurant or a pub would mean that someone went out of their way to do it and I'd take issue with that.

Well by opening a place to the public, you are allowing them to enter on license - they have to play by your rules and if they don't like it then you are well within your rights to revoke their license and get them to leave. As long as the building's not going to collapse onto them or let them fall through the floor, then they are playing by the rules as they stand. As for your points about rights - to my knowledge there is no right to not have people smoke around you, much in the same way that there is no right not to have a car drive past you emitting exhaust fumes; if it's not compulsory to enter a smoke filled room, then people're willingly forfeiting whatever theoretical right they think they have when they enter the place.

Again, I am not for banning smoking in public period , but for separating smokers from non-smokers. This being my personal opinion, we could debate it for months about wether the government should force owners to make this separation or not without many results.
Regarding workplaces, in most countries the smoke area is required by Workplace Protection especially in firms.
The car fume issue i have discussed above.
Again, I am all for smoking in pubs and clubs. I could not enjoy a night to the pub or a party as much without smoking. Plus , in these places you don't enter to relax, but to go a bit wild and everyone knows the risks.
I will agree to disagree , because these are our personal opinions and to start researching to bring proof would be too much of an effort for a thread that will probably just be left hanging.
a good evening to all

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The Government decides everything for us now. We've proven ourselves to be incapable of independent thought thanks to a Government advisory project on that very issue that was paid for by the taxpayer and granted 6 squillion pounds to tell us that we need more Government advisory projects to tell us things.

Smoking is, of course, the greatest threat to humanity since the last one and we should all be deeply ashamed that we're buying a product that the Government say is bad for us from the Government sanctioned dispensers that allow us to buy them. Smoking is far worse than all other drugs, including crack-cocaine, because it's the drug that we can buy legally and has over 80% tax applied to it.

If you want to stop, the Government has a Government approved stopping project that take another 6 squillion pounds to tell you that smoking is bad and that you should stop. Something you could do for free if the Government didn't try and show you pictures of dead bodies to scare you into stopping smoking, which tends to scare you into having a smoke just to relax yourself afterwards.

Smoking - which only Hitler did and not Churchill - oh no no no, has been proven to release tons of noxious gases, filling your lungs full of terrible chemicals, shrinking your man-parts, thinning your blood and doing things completely unlike driving your Range Rover down to the shops just to get your Government sanctioned Lottery Tickets or leave your sproglings to school because the Government said there might be smokers out there.

The Government sanctioned no smoking projects have all been based around the Houses of Commons and Lords where the MP's have been, and still are, smoking and drinking on the job in blatant disregard for the laws that help us all to live in a nice Government sanctioned way while they cop off with each other's partners and borrow money from us that they then give back to us if they win the next election.

TLR Smoking's bad because we say so, but don't stop or we'll have a huge debt.

 

[LockHeart]

I will agree to disagree , because these are our personal opinions and to start researching to bring proof would be too much of an effort for a thread that will probably just be left hanging.
a good evening to all

You make a good point there, agree to disagree it is. A good evening to you too sir

 

[Malkavian]

Yes it is right, becaus emost of us don't want your filthy second hand smoke in our air.

Wow. Thanks to your incredible post, I am now deeply ashamed I ever made this topic, and will at once write a supporting letter to the Danish Liberal party, commending them on such a great law. Sir, I stand aghast at your incredible debating skills. I am your humble fan.