Smoking ban will apply to First Nations: health minister

[flames85]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

When they pay the same taxes I do, they can have the same voice I do.

best opinion on this thread! they shouldn't even had their own land!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that they have to be treated as private property.

Every Bar in Calgary is private property, but no one is allowed to smoke in those. How is that different than a casino on a reserve?

A jobsite on a reserve is private property, but they have to abide by provincial safety standards. The smoking ban is being discussed partly on the argument that it is to protect the health of workers, why should any business on a reserve be any different?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So you are saying that someone who doesn't pay taxes due to the treaty agreed upon by the government don't deserve the same rights as you do? Where do you draw the line there, do natives not deserve the right to vote, I mean that is the way that the majority of us express our voice, through the ballot box. I hope I am just not understanding your arguement on this one.

Equality is impossible when the rules differ for each group. More to the point, native leaders insist on being treated different when talking out of the left side of their mouths, and whine about how they are treated different when talking out of the right.

I've said it in every recent thread about native actions: If natives want to move towards a more equitable position, then move off the reserve, and join the real world. So long as they hide on the reserves, and hide from the responsibilities and challenges that the average person faces, they are always going to be treated differently.

So yes, if you want the same voice, then play by the same rules. Until then, I have a hard time taking a lot of the whining seriously.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Every Bar in Calgary is private property, but no one is allowed to smoke in those. How is that different than a casino on a reserve?

A jobsite on a reserve is private property, but they have to abide by provincial safety standards. The smoking ban is being discussed partly on the argument that it is to protect the health of workers, why should any business on a reserve be any different?

It seems to me like you're questioning my stance on the issue. I'm not saying it SHOULD be any different, I'm saying it IS different. I didn't make the laws. They have self-government. As such, there is stuff that the provincial government will have no control over. Why do they get their own reserve police? Why can't the RCMP take care of crime on the reserves? Well I'm sure they can... when the reserves allow it. Remember the murder on reserve land last year where the reserve police requested that the RCMP be called in for? Why do you think they had to request it? Like it or not, it's just different there.

Perhaps they can pass it if they pass it as safe workplace regulations... but the ban is more encompassing than that, as far as I can tell. Doesn't it include sidewalks and whatnot? How do you figure they'll claim that as worker safety? Perhaps they'll say the streets on reserves do not count as public places so smoking will still be allowed there, but not within businesses... I don't know.

I'm not saying it should be different, I'm just saying that there's a very real possibility that if the reserve natives press the issue with the Supreme Court, it'll get trumped. In a perfect world, this would cause the renegotiation of treaties... IE: you don't follow our health laws, you're going to pay for your health care, etc.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It seems to me like you're questioning my stance on the issue. I'm not saying it SHOULD be any different, I'm saying it IS different. I didn't make the laws. They have self-government. As such, there is stuff that the provincial government will have no control over. Why do they get their own reserve police? Why can't the RCMP take care of crime on the reserves? Well I'm sure they can... when the reserves allow it. Remember the murder on reserve land last year where the reserve police requested that the RCMP be called in for? Why do you think they had to request it? Like it or not, it's just different there.

Perhaps they can pass it if they pass it as safe workplace regulations... but the ban is more encompassing than that, as far as I can tell. Doesn't it include sidewalks and whatnot? How do you figure they'll claim that as worker safety? Perhaps they'll say the streets on reserves do not count as public places so smoking will still be allowed there, but not within businesses... I don't know.

I'm not saying it should be different, I'm just saying that there's a very real possibility that if the reserve natives press the issue with the Supreme Court, it'll get trumped. In a perfect world, this would cause the renegotiation of treaties... IE: you don't follow our health laws, you're going to pay for your health care, etc.

Fine, but you said this:

"I don't think the provincial government has the right to ban smoking on what is essentially private property"

I was making the point that that was some incredibly flawed logic to be applying to this arguement. The government has, and most certainly does excercise the right/ability to ban any number of things on private property. Some laws supercede any sort of self government held by reserves. If some band wanted to pass a law that said it's okay to kill white folk on the reserve, it most certainly would not be a valid law because the general no killing rule supercedes it. I'm certain that the government of Alberta could also make the case that a provincial smoking ban supercedes any preceived "Right" to alllow smoking on a reserve.

As for smoking on sidewalks (which I'm fairly certain you're mistaken about), I'm sure they could come up with any sort of pretence to pass it such as public health concerns. Either way it's irrelevant, because my point is that saying the government can't dictate what happens on a reserve simply because it is "Private property" is flat out wrong. There may be provisions in the treaties that cover situations like this, but they have nothing to do with the "Private property" issue.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Fine, but you said this:

"I don't think the provincial government has the right to ban smoking on what is essentially private property"

I was making the point that that was some incredibly flawed logic to be applying to this arguement. The government has, and most certainly does excercise the right/ability to ban any number of things on private property. Some laws supercede any sort of self government held by reserves. If some band wanted to pass a law that said it's okay to kill white folk on the reserve, it most certainly would not be a valid law because the general no killing rule supercedes it. I'm certain that the government of Alberta could also make the case that a provincial smoking ban supercedes any preceived "Right" to alllow smoking on a reserve.

As for smoking on sidewalks (which I'm fairly certain you're mistaken about), I'm sure they could come up with any sort of pretence to pass it such as public health concerns. Either way it's irrelevant, because my point is that saying the government can't dictate what happens on a reserve simply because it is "Private property" is flat out wrong. There may be provisions in the treaties that cover situations like this, but they have nothing to do with the "Private property" issue.

Well they don't have the right to ban smoking in my house because it's also private property. That's the kind of private property I was talking about... the personal kind, not the business kind. My bad, I should have clarified better.

Generally laws that supercede the right to self-government are federal, not provincial. Note, I said generally.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well they don't have the right to ban smoking in my house because it's also private property. That's the kind of private property I was talking about... the personal kind, not the business kind. My bad, I should have clarified better.

Generally laws that supercede the right to self-government are federal, not provincial. Note, I said generally.

So you see no difference between a casino on a reserve and your house?
Why?

I can own my own casino. That is private property. Should I be able to decide if smoking is legal there?

What about a house on a reserve? Should they be able to decide what laws they abide by there? Should natives be able to smoke crack in their houses? Should I be able to smoke crack in my house?

The government already tells us we aren't allowed to do a lot of things in our own houses or businesses so using that as an excuse as to why the smoking ban may not be legally enforcable on a reserve is naive. As I said, there may be some clause in some of the treaties that address situations like this, but they have nothing to do with any sort of distinction between private property, homes, or businesses.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It seems to me like you're questioning my stance on the issue. I'm not saying it SHOULD be any different, I'm saying it IS different. I didn't make the laws. They have self-government. As such, there is stuff that the provincial government will have no control over. Why do they get their own reserve police? Why can't the RCMP take care of crime on the reserves? Well I'm sure they can... when the reserves allow it. Remember the murder on reserve land last year where the reserve police requested that the RCMP be called in for? Why do you think they had to request it? Like it or not, it's just different there.

Perhaps they can pass it if they pass it as safe workplace regulations... but the ban is more encompassing than that, as far as I can tell. Doesn't it include sidewalks and whatnot? How do you figure they'll claim that as worker safety? Perhaps they'll say the streets on reserves do not count as public places so smoking will still be allowed there, but not within businesses... I don't know.

I'm not saying it should be different, I'm just saying that there's a very real possibility that if the reserve natives press the issue with the Supreme Court, it'll get trumped. In a perfect world, this would cause the renegotiation of treaties... IE: you don't follow our health laws, you're going to pay for your health care, etc.

Just because they have self government, much like municipalities, doesn't mean that provincial or federallaws do not apply to them. The only reason that some reservations have police services is because they have an agreement with the federal and provincial governments. Most reservations don't have their own police forces. And, if the RCMP wanted to police on their property, they could.

How do you get away with saying, work place safety legislation pertains to them, but a provincial smoking law doesn't? You are making no sense.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well they don't have the right to ban smoking in my house because it's also private property. That's the kind of private property I was talking about... the personal kind, not the business kind. My bad, I should have clarified better.

Generally laws that supercede the right to self-government are federal, not provincial. Note, I said generally.

If the government wanted to ban smoking all together, they could. That means in your home.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So you see no difference between a casino on a reserve and your house?
Why?

I can own my own casino. That is private property. Should I be able to decide if smoking is legal there?

What about a house on a reserve? Should they be able to decide what laws they abide by there? Should natives be able to smoke crack in their houses? Should I be able to smoke crack in my house?

The government already tells us we aren't allowed to do a lot of things in our own houses or businesses so using that as an excuse as to why the smoking ban may not be legally enforcable on a reserve is naive. As I said, there may be some clause in some of the treaties that address situations like this, but they have nothing to do with any sort of distinction between private property, homes, or businesses.

Um, that's not what I said. Of course I see a difference, I'm not an idiot, though you apparently would like to make me out as one.

It was an EXAMPLE. Apparently you don't know what an example means. It's "taken to show the character of the whole." The CHARACTER. Not meant to be an exact reason.

The government cannot have something legal be banned everywhere. If it can't be banned everywhere as it's not illegal, where is it legal to use the substance? (I'll give you a hint, has to do with personal property.) There's lots of things I can't do in public that I can do in the privacy of my own home.

This is what happened in BC. The government tried to ban smoking in ALL public places, and the reserve natives kicked up a fuss saying that they shouldn't have to abide by the law because of self-government and the fact that it's not an illegal substance, therefore, the government does not have the right to ban it on reserve land. Their case upheld and you can still smoke in bars on reserve land. (At least, you could the last time I was there.) Why? Because the government doesn't have the right to ban a legal substance on reserve lands. It's kinda like... a private dwelling. Kinda... that's why it's JUST AN EXAMPLE.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If the government wanted to ban smoking all together, they could. That means in your home.

Yeah, they'd have to make it an illegal substance.

[worth]

I believe the municipal government in San Francisco was looking at banning smoking in private condos and such.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...as+some+fuming

[Cowboy89]

Every law is as good as its enforcement. Expect many native reserves and rural areas to laugh this one off and continue to smoke as they always have.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Um, that's not what I said. Of course I see a difference, I'm not an idiot, though you apparently would like to make me out as one.

It was an EXAMPLE. Apparently you don't know what an example means. It's "taken to show the character of the whole." The CHARACTER. Not meant to be an exact reason.

The government cannot have something legal be banned everywhere. If it can't be banned everywhere as it's not illegal, where is it legal to use the substance? (I'll give you a hint, has to do with personal property.) There's lots of things I can't do in public that I can do in the privacy of my own home.

This is what happened in BC. The government tried to ban smoking in ALL public places, and the reserve natives kicked up a fuss saying that they shouldn't have to abide by the law because of self-government and the fact that it's not an illegal substance, therefore, the government does not have the right to ban it on reserve land. Their case upheld and you can still smoke in bars on reserve land. (At least, you could the last time I was there.) Why? Because the government doesn't have the right to ban a legal substance on reserve lands. It's kinda like... a private dwelling. Kinda... that's why it's JUST AN EXAMPLE.

Well then it is one hell of a poor example. What you are alluding to is more like a form of soverignty than any sort of private property, which are very different things.

Governments can ban you from doing a lot of things in your home that are legal elsewhere such as running certain types of business.

What you're refering to is akin to the federal governemnt imposing conditions on the natural resources of a province which according to the constitution are under the provinces jurisdiction. Such may be the same depending on the conditions of the treaty, but it would have absolutly nothing to do with it being anything like private property.

Oh, and just becuase something isn't illegal because it isn't banned everywhere doesn't mean that private property is the defining factor that makes it legal to use.

What about say Methodone? A substance that is illegal to use in your home, but can be used under medical supervision in a clinic (which is run by the province, so it has absolutely nothing to do with public property).
See using private property as the yardstick for something being illegal or not is another really poor example.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

What about say Methodone? A substance that is illegal to use in your home, but can be used under medical supervision in a clinic (which is run by the province, so it has absolutely nothing to do with public property).
See using private property as the yardstick for something being illegal or not is another really poor example.

And what about pot? People can legally smoke it for medicinal purposes as well. There are exceptions to every rule, my point is valid, you're just being obtuse.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And what about pot? People can legally smoke it for medicinal purposes as well. There are exceptions to every rule, my point is valid, you're just being obtuse.

How am I being obtuse.
You said:

The government cannot have something legal be banned everywhere. If it can't be banned everywhere as it's not illegal, where is it legal to use the substance? (I'll give you a hint, has to do with personal property.) There's lots of things I can't do in public that I can do in the privacy of my own home.

In resonse I gave the example of Methodone which is illegal in all circumstances except in a provincially run/sanctioned center. The legality of it has nothing to do with personal/private property.

My point is that saying that the reserve is anything like private property in regard to the validity of a smoking ban is completely irrelevant, and more than a little naive.

We've both now given examples where substances of varying legality are/aren't legal on someones own property, and this big circle has brought us back to the fact that the private property arguement is irrelvant.

Lists of what is and isn't legal in your home or elsewhere have no bearing on this because the difference between a casino, or any other business, on a reserve and one that isn't has everything to do with the autonomy of the band as laid out in their treaty, which as absolutely zero connection to the concept of private property, and the rights given to the holder of that property.

The relationship between the province and the reserve is much like that of the province and some random municipality, where each level of governement has been granted certain responsibilities. The question here is whether the area in question (ie smoking bans) fall under the influence of the band or the province, and has about as much connection to the concept of private property as the ban being enforced on every municipality in the province.

[DuffMan]

Aren't smoke like $3/pack on reserves. They might as well let them smoke at that price.

[FanIn80]

Just wait 'til we ban Trans Fat!

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The relationship between the province and the reserve is much like that of the province and some random municipality, where each level of governement has been granted certain responsibilities. The question here is whether the area in question (ie smoking bans) fall under the influence of the band or the province, and has about as much connection to the concept of private property as the ban being enforced on every municipality in the province.

So it's less like private property and more like a municipality? Do the reserves get their own school boards? Health regions? Have to build their own roads? Publilc transit? They're not comparable at all. Your argument has as much validity as mine until it is determined in which category smoking would fall under.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do the reserves get their own school boards? Health regions? Have to build their own roads? Publilc transit?

I would have to say the answer to all of those is "yes." That is; as much as any other town of comperable size. (For example very few towns with a population in the 100's have public transit.)