Smoking laws coming into effect Jan. 1

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Swarly

i never said that, now your just making things up.

You said the government controlling people and telling businesses what they can and can't do is absurd. Without govt controls you couldn't stop store owners from selling smokes to minors.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Dion

You said the government controlling people and telling businesses what they can and can't do is absurd. Without govt controls you couldn't stop store owners from selling smokes to minors.

We have special laws in place to protect minors. Those same laws don't apply to adults. It is legal to sell smokes but now the government steps in and makes a bunch of random rules that make no sense. If they want to make smoking illegal then do it and no more argument. Just this law is completely pointless. What do they hope to achieve here?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

You said the government controlling people and telling businesses what they can and can't do is absurd. Without govt controls you couldn't stop store owners from selling smokes to minors.

WOW...smoking to much crack tonight? where did he mention breaking the law of selling to a minor? He's right, If I owned a small drug store I would be pissed that people could go next door to buy sigs and lose business because I sell Pharmaceuticals. I would fight that every 7-11 and Macs stop selling tylenol and cough syrup.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Swarly

We have special laws in place to protect minors. Those same laws don't apply to adults. It is legal to sell smokes but now the government steps in and makes a bunch of random rules that make no sense. If they want to make smoking illegal then do it and no more argument. Just this law is completely pointless. What do they hope to achieve here?

So what if they don't apply to adults they are still a form of govt control you don't like.

I like this law as it will give smokers less options in which to purchase thier cigarettes. Limiting where people can smoke has helped people quit so i'm sure those trying to quit will apprecaite having less places to buy thier smokes.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by T@T

WOW...smoking to much crack tonight? where did he mention breaking the law of selling to a minor? He's right, If I owned a small drug store I would be pissed that people could go next door to buy sigs and lose business because I sell Pharmaceuticals. I would fight that every 7-11 and Macs stop selling tylenol and cough syrup.

You might want to put down the whiskey bottle your drinking from. He said government controlling people and telling businesses what they can and can't do is absurd. Take away govt controls and store owners a free to sell smokes to minors.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Dion

So what if they don't apply to adults they are still a form of govt control you don't like.

I like this law as it will give smokers less options in which to purchase thier cigarettes. Limiting where people can smoke has helped people quit so i'm sure those trying to quit will apprecaite having less places to buy thier smokes.

Fine that is a reason you like this law. Is that the reason why it was passed. Seems to me if they want to limit the places to buy smokes they would do the opposite, only allow them to be sold in pharmacies as there are far fewer of those than not. Also if their goal is to limit the exposure of minors in a family grocery store, seems to me there are tons more kids at every 7/11 than I ever see in the stores.

Which leads to me seeing this as an irritating law with no point.

I still cant get over how dumb the previous law was of covering up all the smokes. That in itself is a fine idea but they took it too far. I went into petro to buy some cigars so I asked the guy what they had. Well they arnt allowed to tell you that as it would be advertising tobacco products not even give you an idea of what they have in a price range. I left bewildered and a couple of pom poms because thats the only name of cigar I could think of.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Fine that is a reason you like this law. Is that the reason why it was passed. Seems to me if they want to limit the places to buy smokes they would do the opposite, only allow them to be sold in pharmacies as there are far fewer of those than not. Also if their goal is to limit the exposure of minors in a family grocery store, seems to me there are tons more kids at every 7/11 than I ever see in the stores.

Which leads to me seeing this as a pointless and irritating law with no point.

Selling smokes in a place that is promoting wellness is hypocritical to me.

I still cant get over how dumb the previous law was of covering up all the smokes. That in itself is a fine idea but they took it too far. I went into petro to buy some cigars so I asked the guy what they had. Well they arnt allowed to tell you that as it would be advertising tobacco products not even give you an idea of what they have in a price range. I left bewildered and a couple of pom poms because thats the only name of cigar I could think of.

Research suggests that removing the display of tobacco products at the point of sale can help prevent young people from starting to smoke.
Selling cigarettes where candy and snacks are sold makes cigarettes seem normal to young people.

The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit reports that “in an Ontario survey of youth aged 11 to 18 years, 85% of respondents spontaneously recalled convenience stores as a place where they had seen cigarettes, over 75% said they visited convenience stores at least once a week, and over 40% spontaneously named at least one cigarette brand.”

Studies suggest that removing point of sale advertising such as power walls can help smokers try to quit and reduce relapses. A power wall is a wall of cigarette packages that is typically behind the counter wherever those products are sold. Removing power walls will eliminate a powerful trigger for impulse cigarette purchases.

http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/news/2008/053008.asp

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Dion

Selling smokes in a place that is promoting wellness is hypocritical to me.

So in a store like Co-op should they not be allowed to sell junk food either? That stuff is bad for you, too much salt too and yet they are allowed with pharmacy there. The only reason they have both is for convenience to the customer not some evil tobacco plan to subliminally suggest that hey if is sold at a pharmacy it must be safe for me.

Originally Posted by Dion

Research suggests that removing the display of tobacco products at the point of sale can help prevent young people from starting to smoke.
Selling cigarettes where candy and snacks are sold makes cigarettes seem normal to young people.
...

if you had read beyond my first sentence you would see I agree with the covering up of smokes but that they took it way too far, if someone wants to see what products they have they should be allowed to show them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

I like this law as it will give smokers less options in which to purchase thier cigarettes. Limiting where people can smoke has helped people quit so i'm sure those trying to quit will apprecaite having less places to buy thier smokes.

It will take away cigarette purchasing options in the same way that removing motor oil from hardware stores will stop people from buying it at gas stations.

Not one smoker will quit smoking because they have to make an extra stop at the gas station to buy cigarettes. If a person wants to smoke, they'll do it. When they want to quit, they'll do that too.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by boobaloo

Well, as a Respiratory Therapist for longer than lots of you have been alive, I can assure you that second hand smoke is one of worst things possible. I have the largest bag over my head for smoking for 16 years. Back when I trained, everyone smoked. We used to joke about how it was like being a parent....do as I say, not as I do.

Rather than go somewhere such as straightdope.com to get medical information, perhaps looking at a place like the Mayo Clinic which is world renowned for it's medical care might give you a little insight on second hand smoke. Oh, and here's the link.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

And no, I am not being arrogant etc etc etc. I can't tell you how many people I've had to comfort and try and ease their breathing while they were dying from the effects of cigarette smoke. I can't tell you how many hands I've held of people who were dying of second hand smoke. If only smokers REALLY knew what happens when you get COPD from smoking and breathing other's smoke....you have NO idea....it is among the most unpleasant ways to die. And yes, I've had people die on me in pretty much every way imaginable.

Your lungs do not heal themselves once you stop smoking. They regain SOME of their "pinkness" but not all. We have special cameras called bronchoscopes we use to look at people's lungs, and I can assure you that it's easy to tell the ones that have smoked....long after quitting. It's not just about the color.

Diesel trucks, SUV's etc...they are a problem, too, without a doubt. But nothing is as deliberate as taking that cigarette and lighting it. It's a brutal way to kill yourself. And for the poster that said that smokers shouldn't have to pay for health care because the don't live as long....you are wrong, my friend....Emphysema can torture you for years and years....wasting your body away slowly as you gasp for every breath....

Anyone that thinks that smoking should not be illegal is either ignorant or just not listening. The true facts are out there. Quit sticking your head in the sand.

I didn't post the link to the straight dope for its medical evidence. I quoted it to point out that there have been serious issues with the studies done on second hand smoke. Once again your link to the mayo clinic isn't a study. It does show anything about second hand smoke..

For the record I don't think second hand smoke is good. If you live in a small area with someone and they smoke constantly obviously you are going to feel the effects. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. However the idea that walking by somebody smoking is going to kill you is just ridiculous. This applies to restaurants and bars, having to work in an environment where 50 people are sitting around smoking in a small room, is going to have a negative effect, no doubt about it. This not the same as having to walk past someone smoking outside a bar or restaurant.

As far as the the lungs turning pink argument, clearly anybody who has smoked for a very long time, is not going to get back to square one. Once again just trying to point out that if someone who smokes for a short period, will heal, that walking past or standing near someone smoking for 30 seconds OUTSIDE will have little to no effect.

Just to state, again I am a non smoker, I support no smoking in bars, restaurants, I don't think people should smoke anywhere near a young child, but the argument that walking by a smoker will give you cancer and kill you right now, is just dumb. Whether or not people agree that the cars pollute argument is valid doesn't matter. Whats worse? Walking down the street and walking past a smoker, or walking down the street next to big suv's and diesel trucks putting out pollution the whole way you are breathing that in the whole time, not 15 seconds.

For the record I don't want to ban cars either.
Yes it might be unpleasant to walk past a smoker, but I also find it unpleasant to walk past a car blasting nickleback, this will have a negative affect on my hearing and my mood..

[Daradon]

It's a dumb rule and if I was a retailer I'd probably be upset.

And this is coming from a non smoker.

I have to agree with the people on here that say it makes more sense to ban them from 7-11's than drug stores.

Course, most convienence stores are also gas stations, and you couldn't stop selling smokes there. Travellers would be screwed and I'm sure road rage would increase 558% or so.

It's just a dumb rule. Smokers have had to put up with a lot recently, to me this makes no sense.

We've taken action to limit second hand smoke as much as we can. I don't like it either, but come on, in life you have to put up with things that you don't like or are unhealthy to you from time to time.

I think we have a good balance right now.

[transplant99]

Selling smokes in a place that is promoting wellness is hypocritical to me

Selling weight loss supplements while selling bags of potato chips is hypocritical to me.

See how that goes? The law has zero effect on me, but that doesnt mean it isnt beyond stupid...it is. And it only hurts the stores...no one else.

And ANYONE who thinks making tobacco illegal is a good idea....one word for you.

Prohibition.

See how well that one worked out.

Speaking of which....and yes it was mentioned earlier....why make tobacco so illegal yet have government sanctioned stores for liquor sales?

Someone else drinking liquor and getting in their vehicles hurts other people just as much as second hand smoke can. Hell, long term affects of alcohol consumption has been proven umpteen times, but somehow that's OK...because you want it that way. So why is it OK to sell one but not the other?

THATS the hypocrisy in all this mess...and the Government has got the anti-smoking crowd to buy it hook, line and sinker.

[habernac]

I think the argument against that stance, Tranny, is that alcohol, in moderation, really isn't that bad for you (glass of red wine, etc) while smoking has zero benefit.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by habernac

I think the argument against that stance, Tranny, is that alcohol, in moderation, really isn't that bad for you (glass of red wine, etc) while smoking has zero benefit.

In addition, the other arguments - alcohol, fast food, etc - are, I believe much more voluntary that smokes.

I don't see people grabbing a Big Mac when they wake up, before work, mid-morning, before and after lunch, mid-afternoon, after work, before supper, after supper, before bed.

People go days/weeks between having fast food and or beer. And if you do that those aren't bad for you.

But smokers can't go days/weeks between smokes. Most have trouble going hours.

It is the addiction that makes smoking different.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by fotze

What kind of ghastly people do this?

The ones that invite me over to finish off their skunky beer

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Dion

You said the government controlling people and telling businesses what they can and can't do is absurd. Without govt controls you couldn't stop store owners from selling smokes to minors

This is such a straw-man argument it's absurd.

Honestly, this is basically the goverment stepping in and saying people aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions. Ergo, they take mind bogglingly stupid measures to ensure we, as consumers, aren't ensnared by the HORRORS OF TOBACCO.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

It is the addiction that makes smoking different.

Anything can be mentally addictive, and fast food has been proven to have physically addictive properties. And how many people get up, and go to Tim Horton's? That's fast food. Don't deny that 300 calorie and 82g of sugar donut and 4 sugar 2 cream coffee isn't contributing to the cellulite and diabetes epidemic.

Why does no one want to ban Timmy's? (See? I can do straw mans too!)

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Anything can be mentally addictive, and fast food has been proven to have physically addictive properties. And how many people get up, and go to Tim Horton's? That's fast food. Don't deny that 300 calorie and 82g of sugar donut and 4 sugar 2 cream coffee isn't contributing to the cellulite and diabetes epidemic.

Why does no one want to ban Timmy's? (See? I can do straw mans too!)

Sure it can.

But tell me, what percentage of smokers are addicted, compared to almost ANYTHING else? It isn't in the same ballpark.

And your Tim's argument? That's a stretch. If you had left it a coffee I may have been tempted to grant the caffeine/coffee addiction (while I doubt the health effect are anywhere near as severe as smoking), but to include the 4 creams/2 sugar and a doughnut as if everyone who goes there gets that just made the argument inane.

[CaramonLS]

I really don't get the logic some smokers use.

"Hey, we're terrible but... look over there, so are they - you have to ban us all!"

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Sure it can.

But tell me, what percentage of smokers are addicted, compared to almost ANYTHING else? It isn't in the same ballpark.

And your Tim's argument? That's a stretch. If you had left it a coffee I may have been tempted to grant the caffeine/coffee addiction (while I doubt the health effect are anywhere near as severe as smoking), but to include the 4 creams/2 sugar and a doughnut as if everyone who goes there gets that just made the argument inane.

Well that was kind of the point. It was a straw man arguement, much like Dion's govt controls dealie.

I was being facetious.

Anyhow, I'm a non-smoker, but I still think they are taking far too many steps to try and help the poor, ignoble and seriously stupid general population from smoking.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I really don't get the logic some smokers use.

"Hey, we're terrible but... look over there, so are they - you have to ban us all!"

It's because smokers have been vilified for whatever reason. Not only are they harming themselves, but they've been vaulted from 'public nuisance' to 'public threat'.

There exists a double-standard in the world, and unfortunately for them, the smokers fall on the wrong side of it in this day and age.

[Bobblehead]

Lets turn the conversation around.

What CAN be done to try and reduce smoking, without setting up a smoking gestapo?

I'm not sure smoking education or graphic warnings can go much further.

What if, in order to sell tobacco a business needed a specific license, and if they are caught selling to minors they can lose the license?