Smoking laws coming into effect Jan. 1

[Ch40s]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I agree with your prediction. I bet that within a generation or two, smoking will be a thing of the past, save for maybe cigars here and there. It really is about the stupidest and most useless thing a person can do. It's no longer fashionable, it's no longer tolerated by the bulk of society and it gets evermore expensive. Plus, with all the education around it, it is so blatantly stupid, that people who do it (such as myself) might as well wear a sandwich board that say's 'I'm a Moran' on it.

All that said, I don't understand why some people are trying to squeeze tits so hard. Us dirty smokers already huddle in corners and go outside. There is literally nowhere that smoking is allowed where air lingers. I think alot of you people are being overly dramatic. As if having a faint whiff of smoke is going to kill you. If that's the case, then I think that Rouge is bang on for making comparisons to vehicle exhaust. And then there's camp fires. Hope none of you anti-smoking militants go camping. Smoke is smoke. Unless you're standing there breathing it, or are sitting in a room with still air and someone else is smoking, then it's not a big deal. It's not like friggin radiation. A tiny little whiff from time to time is no reason to act like Dominik Hasek and pretend you were just shot in the chest. Live and let live. We've got the rules. They're stacked pretty far in your favor (and, I admit, rightfully so). So just stop trying to make decisions for other people.

It seems really simple, and you spelled it out pretty well yourself.

If it's so useless, why have it around? Does it matter if arguements can be made for it affecting others or not? Just get rid of it.

Seems simple to me.

[transplant99]

Does it matter if arguements can be made for it affecting others or not? Just get rid of it.

Again...how do you plan on "getting rid of it"?

Prohibition....learn it and love it. And that was with a substance that didnt have near the same amount of people with addiction.

heroin, crack, weed, meth, child pornography, etc etc...all illegal and all fostering an underground trade that in itself is so much more dangerous than that of a government imposing restrictions.

[Ch40s]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again...how do you plan on "getting rid of it"?

Prohibition....learn it and love it. And that was with a substance that didnt have near the same amount of people with addiction.

heroin, crack, weed, meth, child pornography, etc etc...all illegal and all fostering an underground trade that in itself is so much more dangerous than that of a government imposing restrictions.

But I don't see anyone complaining about legalizing something like meth which, to me anyways, seems to be much more similar to smoking than does alcohol.

It's all speculation, obviously. It would be a completely unique case, opposed to something like prohibition.

It also seems to me that the only reason smoking is still around is because of its history, not because of the product itself. The whole 70s era of smoking where smokers were "cool" and "distinguished" and whatnot. Like Bobblehead said, can you imagine marketing the product nowadays? Can you imagine something that's like smoking (ie does not have any positives and is not safe in moderation) becoming prolific now?

Edit: I don't know why people are associating the problems with the black market on the ban of smoking or alcohol themselves. To me they are totally separate issues. Ban smoking to remove it's issues now; the issues associated with its banning are associated with anything made illegal. Like I said, I don't see anyone complaining about the sales of drugs like meth, because we can't imagine having those things legal.

[transplant99]

But I don't see anyone complaining about legalizing something like meth which, to me anyways, seems to be much more similar to smoking than does alcohol.

Well a simple explanation is that Meth alters your entire persona and often leads to manic episodes that often end up with others injured or worse.

[Ch40s]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well a simple explanation is that Meth alters your entire persona and often leads to manic episodes that often end up with others injured or worse.

But that's not the whole story as to why it's illegal.

I realize it doesn't come down to the "does smoking harm others?" argument for the government to decide to make smoking illegal. It's more of a "do we allow a sin to continue and profit on it (taxing), or do we banish said sin and spend money to fight the black market?".

I guess my point is that no one should be morally opposed to making smoking illegal. There are absolutely no positives from it (smoking).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I wonder if that's what they're doing in the entranceway of the Superstore on 130th. They're boxing it in and there's a huge pile of material for shelving just outside.

I was at Superstore today; and it appears that is what they are doing; along with a seperate entrance. The shelves inside all have locks, there is "illegal to sell smokes to minors" signs everywhere, and the entrance to the seperate "store" has part of it's sign up- saying convenience.

One thing I have though about this; the original topic- is that something this will do is take cigarette sales away from those who sell them as loss leaders. I'm sure the price that Superstore sells them for nets them very little; whereas a gas station likely marks them up to make it more worth their while. By trying to take away a cheap source for smokes it drives the prices up. And of my friends that smoke, for many of them it was the ~$10 per pack that was the TSN turning point in enabling them to quit.

And a side thought regarding the talk about them making McDonalds illegal, or making health places unable to sell candy bars and chips.... how do we know that isn't the plan currently in place? Because if I owned a store and was told what types of indulgence foods I could not sell, my first arguement would be "then why are we allowed to sell smokes?"

That last paragraph was not quite green text, but to be taken with a grain of salt. (Unless of course you are on a low sodium diet.)

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Ch40s

It seems really simple, and you spelled it out pretty well yourself.

If it's so useless, why have it around? Does it matter if arguements can be made for it affecting others or not? Just get rid of it.

Seems simple to me.

I think there are some factors that prevent this from happening:

1) Fear of black market and tax revenue loss, as mentioned already.
2) Powerful tobacco-farmers lobby group in Quebec and Ontario. (Don't underestimate this, the Quebec Asbestos lobby has us shipping asbestos to 3rd world countries for uses that we consider unsafe in Canada.)
3) Possible NAFTA issues.
4) Lots of addicted consumers who, as proven by this thread, can be a little cranky.

So, instead of banning it, they continue to try to find "clever" ways to get the message out that the product is unfit for human consumption.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

What about chocolate?

yeah chocolate too..and i love milk products from china and red dye and maple leaf products too..but mostly i love smokes..booze and drugs..but smokes are number one

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Can you humour me by telling me what it is you actually do to avoid cigarette smoke? What steps you have to take. "I avoid it" isn't an answer.

This is what I don't get. People aren't allowed to smoke anywhere, but we have people griping about all the second hand smoke they inhale.

Hell, I don't like second hand smoke either, but you know how I avoid it -- I live in Calgary. I haven't encountered indoor cigarette smoke in at least a couple years. I occasionally get a whiff of it outside a door and I manage to struggle through it.

I guess we'll have to disagree with how relevant automobile exhaust is. I think it is relevant. Some clown driving an Exhibition to the grocery store is making a decision for me too. He's polluting just as needlessly (and more) than any cigarette smoker. He gets a free pass from you while you bitch about the tiny amount of cigarette smoke you might get a sniff of.

I never said the clown driving unnecessarily large vehicles for unnecessary trips get a free pass. I'm against them too. It's just not relevant to the smoking argument, IMO. I can accept that I won't convince you of that.

I'm not sure what else I can say about what I do to avoid cigarette smoke. I don't go where it is. If I walk past a group of smokers, I try not to inhale until I'm past them. If everybody I'm with at the pub go out for a smoke, I wait inside rather than socializing with them outside. If I see a group of smokers ahead and I have the option to skirt them without going too far out of my way, I take it.

To be honest, I've lost track of what you're arguing. You seem to be trying to poke holes in things I've said, but I'm not sure what your position on the subject is. Maybe you're just looking for clarification on my opinion, in which case I'm not sure how to get more clear than what I've already said.

[Dion]

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

To be honest, I've lost track of what you're arguing. You seem to be trying to poke holes in things I've said, but I'm not sure what your position on the subject is. Maybe you're just looking for clarification on my opinion, in which case I'm not sure how to get more clear than what I've already said.

My point is that the anti-smoking side has, for all intents and purposes, won the battle, and won it decisively.

It boils down to this:

Smoking is bad and it kills people and second-hand smoke is unfair to non-smokers and it hurts them, so we have rightly eliminated it (almost) entirely from public spaces.

Burning enormous amounts of unnecessary fossil fuels is bad news and causes health problems and is unfair to people who don't partake in this activity, but we don't do anything about that. We sure as hell don't see the militancy and griping about it that we do about smoking.

If the health of non-smokers is the major issue, there are much bigger fish to fry, but we only fry one fish. And nowadays, it's a minnow.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

My point is that the anti-smoking side has, for all intents and purposes, won the battle, and won it decisively.

It boils down to this:

Smoking is bad and it kills people and second-hand smoke is unfair to non-smokers and it hurts them, so we have rightly eliminated it (almost) entirely from public spaces.

Burning enormous amounts of unnecessary fossil fuels is bad news and causes health problems and is unfair to people who don't partake in this activity, but we don't do anything about that. We sure as hell don't see the militancy and griping about it that we do about smoking.

If the health of non-smokers is the major issue, there are much bigger fish to fry, but we only fry one fish. And nowadays, it's a minnow.

Because the two issues are not even close to the same Rouge.

I will be the first person to say that people own vehicles that they don't need, but you cannot compare smoking to the ownership and usage of certain types of vehicles.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Burning enormous amounts of unnecessary fossil fuels is bad news and causes health problems and is unfair to people who don't partake in this activity, but we don't do anything about that. We sure as hell don't see the militancy and griping about it that we do about smoking.

Dunno, looks like we're begining to see the war on carbon, of course the biggest problem with it, is unlike smoking, it is currently irreplaceable in numerous applications.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Dion

you HAVE to send that to jay leno

[kootenayguy9]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

you HAVE to send that to jay leno

I actually saw this on Jay Leno's Headlines a few months ago.

[ikaris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/he...e.html?_r=1&em

Blech... glad I'm a former smoker. I say just keep raising taxes on it. (I'm all for raising taxes on alcohol too).

Tax fatty foods? Why not? Use the revenues to subsidize fresh foods.

[Muta]

Time for me to quit... just got depressed from reading only a part of this thread. Hopefully my extremely low dependence on ciggies (2-3 a day?) helps me in my quest.... 2009 should be a strong year, hopefully.

Although, going to Japan for 2 months in a couple weeks isn't going to make it any easier. Vending machine cigarettes for about $2-3 CDN is torture.

[Russic]

After standing on the scale this morning I realized that I suddenly also support the ban of unhealthy food in addition to cigarettes.