Application for Preliminary Injunction in Smoking Bylaw Case - Dismissed

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by arsenal

What about Hookah bars? Where the entire point of going there is to smoke and socialize. Should they butt out too? I think Calgary has at least one.

Why stop at smoking as being socially unnacceptable. Why not continue on to the obese?

Hardly the same thing. You don't go into a Hookah bar and expect it to be non-smoking. That would be ludicrous as that is the main purpose of that business. The main purpose of a bar is to sell alcohol, not allow smoking.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So, if a bar has a ventalated smoking room, that employees are not allowed to enter, and force the patrons to go out and get their own alchohol, or served at their other table, what is the problem? If no one but the smokers are being effected, then there shouldn't be an issue. And why has this not gotten any play in the media? I know of at least one bar in bc that you are allowed to smoke inside, but it is in an enclosed smoking room, that is very well ventalated.

Well....that isn't the case now so what is your point?

Originally Posted by arsenal

What about Hookah bars? Where the entire point of going there is to smoke and socialize. Should they butt out too? I think Calgary has at least one.

Yup

Originally Posted by arsenal

Why stop at smoking as being socially unnacceptable. Why not continue on to the obese?

Oh.....because those two are sooooo similar....nice comparison. Last I looked....eating 15 half eaten cheese burgers doesn't kill other people around you.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

Plus the obese will be targetted next, I have no doubt. First they ought to tax crisco lard cubes, then those Chrisco Christmas Hampers followed by punching the Chrisco Hamper Fake British Accent lady.

!!Awesome points made here!

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh.....because those two are sooooo similar....nice comparison. Last I looked....eating 15 half eaten cheese burgers doesn't kill other people around you.

like i said before, its not a perfect comparison but if a kid sees his 350lb dad eating a 25 piece bucket of kfc and its seen as socially acceptable, guess what jr's gonna do. so to say that someone overeating can harm only themselves... i guess for the act of being an unhealthy fatass in itself, you're right... but there can sometimes be more to it than that.

edit: oh! plus the fact that its all of our money that's gonna pay for the triple bypass.

[ken0042]

So, just to turn your example around on you Phaneuf3...........

What you are saying is that as a society we should do everything we can to shun smokers. That way when junior sees his father being shunned as he smokes he realizes it isn't the correct thing to do; and is less likely to start up himself.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, just to turn your example around on you Phaneuf3...........

What you are saying is that as a society we should do everything we can to shun smokers. That way when junior sees his father being shunned as he smokes he realizes it isn't the correct thing to do; and is less likely to start up himself.

should or shouldn't... meh... not gonna get into that but that's what we are doing; so the "why not extend it to fatties?" argument clearly holds some water.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh.....because those two are sooooo similar....nice comparison. Last I looked....eating 15 half eaten cheese burgers doesn't kill other people around you.

Nope, but it will probably make me sick.
I personally don't care about the smoking ban one way or the other. I will still go to pubs, still go the bar, I will go out side to smoke, go into a seperate smoking room, doesn't really bother me.

The only point I am trying to make, is that this could open up for more government control over our lives. Right now it is smoking. Next it could be food that is deemed un-healthy. NYC has already banned Trans Fats from all food. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ .

I am just wondering if and when it is going to stop.

[fredr123]

At the risk of further derailing the topic of this thread in a direction first steered by ken0042, I find it a bit insulting when people talk about weight loss as the battle of the bulge. It's insulting to the thousands of casualties who sacrificed so much in WWII. Our inability to keep get off the ****in' couch and keep that extra order of fries out of our fat faces just doesn't compare.

But back to the smoking bylaw... anyone else see compliance as sort of a Prisoner's Dilemma?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

should or shouldn't... meh... not gonna get into that but that's what we are doing; so the "why not extend it to fatties?" argument clearly holds some water.

Because it doesn't pose an immediate effect on the publics health.

[arsenal]

The cost of Cigarettes has increased in the past few years, because the Gov't said that smokers should subsidize the Health Care System as they are more prone to use that system later in life.

That was the first blow about 5 years ago, maybe longer. Obese people can be just as much a burdon if not more on the Health Care system as smokers.

So how long do you think it will be untill the health nuts deem that no one should be obese, and everyone can and should live a healthy life style, and lobby the government to make it law? It happened with smoking, it has opened up the door for the obese.

Not saying it will happen for sure, just don't surprised if it does.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because it doesn't pose an immediate effect on the publics health.

immediate? no. but go look at an elementary school classroom - there's huge potential for public health risk.
and its not like second hand smoke is an immediate risk in that sense either - it'll take 20... 30... maybe even 40+ years for bar staff and patrons to develop lung cancer because of the second hand smoke.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

- it'll take 20... 30... maybe even 40+ years for bar staff and patrons to develop lung cancer because of the second hand smoke.

Do you have anything to back that up? I ask because I have been told by my doctor that I have damage to my right lung that looks like I used to smoke; and I only ever worked in the bars for a 2 year period.

Never mind the health reasons; the main reason why I quit a decent paying job (for a 24 year old); as well as a job I liked, was because I was tired of coming home and smelling like an ashtray, or even getting into my car the next day and being able to still smell it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

it'll take 20... 30... maybe even 40+ years for bar staff and patrons to develop lung cancer because of the second hand smoke.

Man, what kind of Marlboro brand pseudo-science have you been reading?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

immediate? no. but go look at an elementary school classroom - there's huge potential for public health risk.
and its not like second hand smoke is an immediate risk in that sense either - it'll take 20... 30... maybe even 40+ years for bar staff and patrons to develop lung cancer because of the second hand smoke.

But the risk is not the same as smoking. Smoking and eating both have the potential to influence the choices of the people around you, whether to smoke or eat a lot. That I understand, but the difference between smoking and eating is the second hand smoke that damages me directly. If you choose to eat 10 000 calories a day that will not effect me. My health will not be worse by being in the vicinity of you stuffing your face.

Obesity is a huge problem. Controlling peoples weight and controlling smoking cannot be compared in the same light IMO. A cigarette is one item, controlling weight is not as simple as banning one substance it would be very invovled.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Do you have anything to back that up? I ask because I have been told by my doctor that I have damage to my right lung that looks like I used to smoke; and I only ever worked in the bars for a 2 year period.

Never mind the health reasons; the main reason why I quit a decent paying job (for a 24 year old); as well as a job I liked, was because I was tired of coming home and smelling like an ashtray, or even getting into my car the next day and being able to still smell it.

oh - damage for sure. and childhood obesiety is probably causing them some direct harm right now.

i was talking lung cancer which often develops later (often, not always) because that's kinda like how a fat kid could have heart problems later on. feel free to correct me on my numbers, didn't look them up sorta just ballparking things but it seems reasonable. i can't say i've heard of anyone getting lung cancer within 2 years of them starting to smoke let alone breathe second hand smoke.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So, if a bar has a ventalated smoking room, that employees are not allowed to enter, and force the patrons to go out and get their own alchohol, or served at their other table, what is the problem? If no one but the smokers are being effected, then there shouldn't be an issue. And why has this not gotten any play in the media? I know of at least one bar in bc that you are allowed to smoke inside, but it is in an enclosed smoking room, that is very well ventalated.

Sounds very much like some of the places here.... they had smoking rooms, but the smoke would seem into the non-smoking areas with people going in and out all the time. Some places had horrible ventilation systems, and it was just as smoky in the non-smoking areas as it was in the smoking rooms.

Sounds like a very short-term solution regardless. Just adapt...

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Obesity is a huge problem. Controlling peoples weight and controlling smoking cannot be compared in the same light IMO. A cigarette is one item, controlling weight is not as simple as banning one substance it would be very invovled.

its not the same, no. its similar in some ways. i didn't bring it up in the first place but am just pointing out some of the similarities. the one main difference is it doesn't have the same negative effects to everyone around you. but it can have negative effects on some. either way, we're all going to be paying for their unhealthy choices via taxes.

you see plenty of ads run against tobacco in general: cigarettes, cigars, chew and the people that both produce and use them. these are seen as fine. its not quite socially acceptable to ridicule fat people the same way... yet.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

its not quite socially acceptable to ridicule fat people the same way... yet.

I, personally, hope it never gets to that. Ridiculing someone for what they do, fine... for who they are physically? Not acceptable. It's not like it's a bad haircut that you can fix or let grow out. This is who they are, and what may or may not be able to be changed.

Smoking is in no way the same as obesity.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

oh - damage for sure.

<snip>

i can't say i've heard of anyone getting lung cancer within 2 years of them starting to smoke let alone breathe second hand smoke.

So, what you are saying is as long as it isn't cancer, then I have nothing to complain about?

There are many other lung diseases other than cancer; cancer is just one of the most infamous. I had to miss an entire season of hockey and skiing 2 years ago while battling this. (WebMD Link for those interested.)

As for 2nd hand smoke not being as bad for you; I don't follow your logic. If you are a smoker you spend 3 hours per day smoking. (I used 25 cigarettes per day and 7 minutes per cigarette.) You are also ingesting the smoke via a filter. Working a job, you are exposed to the smoke for 8 hours; with no filtration.

I understand that this new law cramps your lifestyle; but if it helps keep people healthy, then is it not worth while?

As for obesity; I don't have a problem with that being targeted next. But let's get one problem under control; and the one that I see as a bigger problem. The fact is that fatty foods consumed in the correct portions can be a part of a healthy diet; as long as the rest of your diet is that much more healthy. However no amount of smoke is safe.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

its not the same, no. its similar in some ways. i didn't bring it up in the first place but am just pointing out some of the similarities. the one main difference is it doesn't have the same negative effects to everyone around you. but it can have negative effects on some. either way, we're all going to be paying for their unhealthy choices via taxes.

you see plenty of ads run against tobacco in general: cigarettes, cigars, chew and the people that both produce and use them. these are seen as fine. its not quite socially acceptable to ridicule fat people the same way... yet.

I totally agree that obseity is a huge problem (no pun intended). Not sure on the numbers, but I would speculate that it costs us, the tax payers, more money than smoking does. But feasibly there is no way to ensure people won't get fat. But measures like banning trans fats is a step in the right direction. But it really needs to start by educating people, and especially educating them young.