BeardofPants
New Member
rrfield said:
Yep, I can as well. Tobacco smoke usually lingers on their clothes, and makes their breath smell like poopy.
Smoking bans... your thoughts.
- Thread starter CheeseRocket
- Start date
Yep, I can as well. Tobacco smoke usually lingers on their clothes, and makes their breath smell like poopy.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
K62 said:
That's right. That should be between the driver and the insurance company. If you get into an accident, and aren't wearing a seat-belt, you should be responsible for your own injuries.
BTW...what does that have to do with smoking? NOTHING...so pull your head out, and deal with the subject at hand, instead of trying to put your own spin on the subject.
Lopan
New Member
Nixy said:They forget that the government pays for our health care, so here it IS the government's business...trying to prevent hundreds of people from being exposed to secondhand smoke surely won't do anything but LESSON the burden on the health care system, eh?
hehe I just had to an an "eh" cause you had one and I can't let you be MORE Canadian than me or anything
Without the exhorbitant tax from cigarette sales the Health care system would collapse.
*note: I'm not picking on you today*
Back to the "it should be up toindividual companies" discussion...
While I was laying in bed last night freaked out by the windstrom going on around me I thought of something. A bar or the like CAN have smoking they just have to declare themselves a "Private Club" and I guess there is some extra fee or tax or something...but anyway...then they just have to charge a "membership fee" and they can have smoking. This one bar down the road from here charges a dollar for the membership card...it never expires...so...basically each person who goes there has to pay a dollar ONCE and they can go to a smoking bar...So, smokers still have their place to smoke and I still have places to go where i KNOW are smoke free.
While I was laying in bed last night freaked out by the windstrom going on around me I thought of something. A bar or the like CAN have smoking they just have to declare themselves a "Private Club" and I guess there is some extra fee or tax or something...but anyway...then they just have to charge a "membership fee" and they can have smoking. This one bar down the road from here charges a dollar for the membership card...it never expires...so...basically each person who goes there has to pay a dollar ONCE and they can go to a smoking bar...So, smokers still have their place to smoke and I still have places to go where i KNOW are smoke free.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Nixy said:
Unfortunately, that's not the way most bans work. Some people would rather go to a place that allows smoking, and complain, than find a place that does not allow the activity. As for being a 'private' club, it shouldn't have to be that way. The public, meaning you, me, or anybody, has the right to go into a business and spend their money as they see fit. They have a responsibility, however, to see to it that they do not expose themselves to any perceived danger. We live in a society that will willingly go onto 'Fear Factor', and expose themselves to imminent danger, and turn around and whine about exposure to cigarette smoke, when they have the option to avoid that smoke by vacating the area. The idea of that ban is retarded...
BTW...nobody has proven that 'second-hand' smoke is dangerous. As I pointed out before, that first study was flawed, and every study since the first has relied on the data the first study cherry-picked.
Gato_Solo said:Unfortunately, that's not the way most bans work. Some people would rather go to a place that allows smoking, and complain, than find a place that does not allow the activity. As for being a 'private' club, it shouldn't have to be that way. The public, meaning you, me, or anybody, has the right to go into a business and spend their money as they see fit. They have a responsibility, however, to see to it that they do not expose themselves to any perceived danger. We live in a society that will willingly go onto 'Fear Factor', and expose themselves to imminent danger, and turn around and whine about exposure to cigarette smoke, when they have the option to avoid that smoke by vacating the area. The idea of that ban is retarded...
BTW...nobody has proven that 'second-hand' smoke is dangerous. As I pointed out before, that first study was flawed, and every study since the first has relied on the data the first study cherry-picked.
They are called private clubs...but, atleast in Ont...any business can do whatever it is they have to do to be deemed as such and then make their own rules (obviously to a certain extent..they can't serve minors). And many of the businesses who do so will let anybody in, they just get classified as "private club" so they can get around certain things. For example there is this posh upscale place not far from my house that is licenced as a private club and they choose to restrict access to those 21 and above...this other place chooses to allow smoking. It's a loop hole, it definately wasn't thought of by the government when the ban was being placed. As for smoking be allowed in public places. I do NOT agree with it. With no smoking bans NO bars here in Hamilton or in Brampton were non-smoking. Smokers are NOT going to go to a place that is VOLUNTARILY smoke free...therefore they'd lose business since there are usually atleast one or two smokers in every group of friends (atleast from what I've seen)...but if the government makes everywhere smoke free...well...then the non smokers can have their booze and still beable to breath and see...most places offer a licenced patio anyway so one can still be dirnking while enjoying a cigarette.