Alright, so what?

So? Treat other drugs (make no mistake, alcohol is a drug) the same way. Again, it's a good idea, IMO, but it'll never happen. Smuggling is too profitable.
 
OK, maybe outlawing smoking is silly but Al you're wrong when you say it doesn't affect anyone other than the smoker. Second hand smoke is unfiltered and thus has more checmicals than what the smoker's inhaling. The only issue I have with smoking with the current Ontario laws (no smoking anywhere inside except your own home/car or the home/car of someone you gives you permission and no smoking in covered patios and no smoking within a certain distance of all doors) is the cigarette butts which are all over the ground. If there was some way to prevent dirty cigarette butts everywhere I'd be content to let smokers smoke outside or in their own private homes/cars.

Essentially, if I don't have to breath it and see the reminants of it all over the ground then go for it.

A question for you Al, why didn't you just tell the guy he wasn't allowed to smoke? Noone smokes in my car, and when I get my own place noone smokes there either. When I was younger my parents used to let people smoke in our house, I always hated it. When my dad got sick smoking in the house was banned because he wasn't allowed to be around smoke and he could be given the OK to come home for a few days at any time and the house couldn't be smokey. The No Smoking has stuck everysince. Most people we know don't smoke but those who do don't smoke in our house (many of them don't even smoke in their own).
 
Professur said:
Won't track what's in the blood stream. Believe me, or look it up yourself. If there was an easy test, the cops would have it already. They don't.
Click to expand...

You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not like driving stoned is legal now so if marijuana is legalized it doesn't change anything. If that's the only hold up then I think we're ready to legalize it.
 
spike said:
You know what, it doesn't matter. It's not like driving stoned is legal now so if marijuana is legalized it doesn't change anything. If that's the only hold up then I think we're ready to legalize it.
Click to expand...

As the law is now, a cop doesn't have to prove against any acceptable level of influence. Any use is enough use to nail a user. Once it's legal, that's no longer the case. .08 isn't there because the cops want it. It law isn't based on common sense. It's a line in the sand. A definite line, with absolute boundries within which it can be applied. At present, that line cannot be drawn for pot.

But besides that, I've heard someone here say that they'd rather be around a pot user than an alcoholic. Well, don't forget ... an alkie can go get a drink anywhere, anytime. Pot users right now are more or less limitted to their own personal supplies. What are those pot users gonna be like when those limits are removed? I'll wager that the difference balances itself out, and not in any good way.

And!!! for those who continue to parrot on about legal pot in canada .... tried any of it? the legal canuck pot is about a tenth strength compared to the street. And still twice the potency of weed in the wild.

And!!! anyone here live in a place where you're allowed to drink alcohol outside? If you were to look into it, odds are you're not. There's a reason that every bottle of beer sold is bagged. Every bottle of wine, and spirits. You walk down the street with a bottle of beer in you hand in Mtl, and you're gonna get stopped by the first cop. Most folk don't know that.
 
Nixy said:
OK, maybe outlawing smoking is silly but Al you're wrong when you say it doesn't affect anyone other than the smoker. Second hand smoke is unfiltered and thus has more checmicals than what the smoker's inhaling. The only issue I have with smoking with the current Ontario laws (no smoking anywhere inside except your own home/car or the home/car of someone you gives you permission and no smoking in covered patios and no smoking within a certain distance of all doors) is the cigarette butts which are all over the ground. If there was some way to prevent dirty cigarette butts everywhere I'd be content to let smokers smoke outside or in their own private homes/cars.

Essentially, if I don't have to breath it and see the reminants of it all over the ground then go for it.

A question for you Al, why didn't you just tell the guy he wasn't allowed to smoke? Noone smokes in my car, and when I get my own place noone smokes there either. When I was younger my parents used to let people smoke in our house, I always hated it. When my dad got sick smoking in the house was banned because he wasn't allowed to be around smoke and he could be given the OK to come home for a few days at any time and the house couldn't be smokey. The No Smoking has stuck everysince. Most people we know don't smoke but those who do don't smoke in our house (many of them don't even smoke in their own).
Click to expand...

Well, today I told him that if it's raining, we need to keep the windows up, and no smoking.

He did put a cigarette on the dashboard and it dropped into the vents, hope that doesn't turn out badly.

I tried letting him smoke in my car just for the hell of it, and it didn't smell any different, so I let him. With all the windows down and the vents on full. And he blows smoke out the window, not into the car. It hasn't made a dent in the "old car smell" at all.
 
Altron said:
Well, today I told him that if it's raining, we need to keep the windows up, and no smoking.

He did put a cigarette on the dashboard and it dropped into the vents, hope that doesn't turn out badly.

I tried letting him smoke in my car just for the hell of it, and it didn't smell any different, so I let him. With all the windows down and the vents on full. And he blows smoke out the window, not into the car. It hasn't made a dent in the "old car smell" at all.
Click to expand...

Your car, your lungs, your life :shrug:
 
Nixy said:
Your car, your lungs, your life :shrug:
Click to expand...

As long as you're willing to live in a society that has cumbustion engines, en masse, and uses energy to make stuff (inclding more energy) you will breath far more foul & harmful ingredients than a little cigarette smoke. But you do have the right to not allow it in your car or house.
 
Gonz said:
As long as you're willing to live in a society that has cumbustion engines, en masse, and uses energy to make stuff (inclding more energy) you will breath far more foul & harmful ingredients than a little cigarette smoke. But you do have the right to not allow it in your car or house.
Click to expand...

I'm not really "willing" to live in a society with combustion engines...the only reason I don't have a hybrid is because of the higher price and not being able to afford one. I am already thinking about my next car and a Ford Escape Hybrid is WAY up there on the list. I wish hybrids were more inline with regular cars so people would buy them, I wish electric cars were mainstream, I wish we could harness solar and wind power in quantities high enough to give us the power we need. I however am not in any of those industries, the company I work for is very big on sustainibility and we do our part to provide sustainable designs in our field so I guess we are doing SOMETHING to help us on the way to a greener way of life. So, I guess what I'm saying is "willing" or not...there are not a lot of options available at this point in time...I think they are being developed but they're not yet out there for the public in a big way.
 
If you're already thinking of a new car this soon after getting the Pursuit... then maybe the Pursuit wasn't the right car in the first place.
 
how does electricity get made?
Click to expand...

It can be made all sorts of ways. Solar, wind, fossil fuels, nuclear, et. Hybrids can even turn braking energy into electricity.
 
Gonz: You'll also notice I said I wish we had an efficient enough way of harvesting wind and solar to provide the electricty we need.

Inkara: I'm thinking of the environmental issues. I love the Pursuit but I do not like killing the environment.
 
yeah let's burn a shitload of coal to make some electricity!

i'm still sayin' more nuke plants and tax incentives for non fossil fuel anything.

for the environment? um, no.

so we can stop having to dump money on stabilizing oil republics... yeah!
 
I too would like to see more nuclear power plants in the USA. For a very considerable time though, I don't see us switching from coal fired power plants, which produce the vast majority of the nations power. And despite impressions that people have, coal fired power plants are now incredibly clean. Most emissions are reduced by about 98-99% before the exhaust is released from the stack. There really is nothing close right now that can compare to the cost effectiveness of coal fired power plants. And it's not like we're going to run out of coal anytime soon. There is enough to sustain the current power demand for hundreds of years.

So although we are burning coal to produce the electricity needed to run electric vehicles, that choice is still better than having gasoline powered vehicles. The emission standards on coal power plants are much tighter and more regulated than car emission standards. On top of that, our dependency on foreign oil is reduced.
 
RDX said:
I too would like to see more nuclear power plants in the USA. For a very considerable time though, I don't see us switching from coal fired power plants, which produce the vast majority of the nations power. And despite impressions that people have, coal fired power plants are now incredibly clean. Most emissions are reduced by about 98-99% before the exhaust is released from the stack. There really is nothing close right now that can compare to the cost effectiveness of coal fired power plants. And it's not like we're going to run out of coal anytime soon. There is enough to sustain the current power demand for hundreds of years.

So although we are burning coal to produce the electricity needed to run electric vehicles, that choice is still better than having gasoline powered vehicles. The emission standards on coal power plants are much tighter and more regulated than car emission standards. On top of that, our dependency on foreign oil is reduced.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me how few people understand what you said about coal fired electric plants. In fact, if nuclear power were significantly cheaper than coal, there'd be plenty of nuclear power plants. with today's technology, coal (and natural gas) are the cheapest, most efficient forms of power generation. Nuclear is a good alternative, but the number of nuclear plants won't expand significantly until the cost is closer.

Re electric only vehicles, however, I think we're a long ways away and I don't think power generation is a determining factor. Batteries don't exist to make rechargeable cars feasible. I think fuel cell technology is the direction we'll end up taking, but it won't happen until the gas is all but gone.
 
The problem with electric cars for me isn't so much transferring pollution from the freeway to the power site... it's that pesky 100-mile-per-charge range and that pesky eight-hour recharge time. Most of the mass market can't afford to have one vehicle be that specialized, as in, for commuting to work only. Most multi-car families, each driver will have one for all their needs... often times, the husband will drive a truck every day because they need a truck from time to time for hauling stuff, and he has to get to work, but the economics don't make sense for having both a truck and a commuter car.

The reason hybrids are popular is because they're still practical. You can commute to work in one or take a cross-country trip in one. So you can make a little less impact on the environment while not being limited to a 100-mile total trip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top