Smoking? Chewing Tobacco? Snuff?

[5.0]

I am just wondering if anyone is addicted to any of these? I wouls uspect that smoking would be the largest one even though I consider smoking the deadlest out of all of them. Im not one of those queers who wants to make calgary smoke free im just curious.

[Rockski]

im not so much addicted to chew as i love it when im at work and on the rigs.... gives me a good strong buzz, just never smoke a cigar when your chewing, thats hard to handle

[5.0]

yes I do chew as well, not so much addicted I just love going to the states and getting those nice big tins and a big bag of red man!

[finboy]

Originally posted by 5.0
Im not one of those queers who wants to make calgary smoke free im just curious.

yes, because ridding calgary of nasty smelling and deadly smoke is a bad thing :rolleyes:

[FiveFreshFish]

I didn't know the diff between chew and snuff so I'm posting this for others who don't know.


There are two types of smokeless tobacco: snuff and chewing tobacco. Snuff, a finely ground or shredded tobacco, is packaged as dry, moist, or in sachets (tea bag-like pouches). Typically, the user places a pinch or dip between the cheek and gum. Chewing tobacco is available in loose leaf, plug (plug-firm and plug-moist), or twist forms, with the user putting a wad of tobacco inside the cheek. Smokeless tobacco is sometimes called spit or spitting tobacco because people spit out the tobacco juices and saliva that build up in the mouth. Source http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_63.htm

[Weapon_R]

Smoked for 6 years, quit recently, cold turkey!

[5.0]

Originally posted by finboy


yes, because ridding calgary of nasty smelling and deadly smoke is a bad thing :rolleyes:

no I just its a right that people have, not saying that it is good just that its taking one more right away from people who smoke

[redec]

smoking? yes...tobacco? no :D

[cman]

none of the above, waste of money

[1992_prelude_sr]

chew is the shit.
I'd rather smoke though.

Where can you buy snuff?
I've never tried it but I heard you get a MAD buzz.

Buddies use to do it at school because in between classes u could just snuff in the bathroom.
and then stumble into class lmao.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by 5.0
I am just wondering if anyone is addicted to any of these? I wouls uspect that smoking would be the largest one even though I consider smoking the deadlest out of all of them. Im not one of those queers who wants to make calgary smoke free im just curious. yea, cuz ure gay if u dont smoke :rolleyes:

[5.0]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
yea, cuz ure gay if u dont smoke :rolleyes:

what? you obiously misunderstood! if you read my post above it explains why I said that

[5.0]

Originally posted by 1992_prelude_sr
chew is the shit.
I'd rather smoke though.

Where can you buy snuff?
I've never tried it but I heard you get a MAD buzz.

Buddies use to do it at school because in between classes u could just snuff in the bathroom.
and then stumble into class lmao.

nah it doesnt give you a "mad buzz" if yo utake big hits of it it will give you a buzz but nothing morethan chew, it does clear up your sinus tho, I bought mine its apricot flavor at the chococlate and cigar shop in willow part beside southcenter

[finboy]

Originally posted by 5.0


no I just its a right that people have, not saying that it is good just that its taking one more right away from people who smoke

if you want to kill yourself in your car or on your own property fine, but i personally don't want to be subjected to someone elses shitty habbit if i decide to go out in public. i can't wait for calgary to go smoke free so i can actually go to a pub/bar/etc. and come out not smelling like an ash tray and have burning eyes :thumbsdow

[happydude]

Originally posted by 1992_prelude_sr

Buddies use to do it at school because in between classes u could just snuff in the bathroom.
and then stumble into class lmao.

Why did I think of the old Degrassi show when I read this? :nut:

[3G]

Smoke tobacco! quitting tho

[wildkarrde]

Snuff is sick.
I tried the mint one, and I was spitting up mint for SO long.

[Kona9]

Originally posted by finboy


if you want to kill yourself in your car or on your own property fine, but i personally don't want to be subjected to someone elses shitty habbit if i decide to go out in public. i can't wait for calgary to go smoke free so i can actually go to a pub/bar/etc. and come out not smelling like an ash tray and have burning eyes :thumbsdow

Could not agree with you more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im from Kelowna and I am happy that I have had a chance to live in a smoke free city. Can't wait for it to happen here in Calgary.

[smin]

Originally posted by Kona9


Could not agree with you more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im from Kelowna and I am happy that I have had a chance to live in a smoke free city. Can't wait for it to happen here in Calgary.
Smoke free... does that mean everywhere in public (including bars and other 18+ establishments?) is no smoking (minus your own home of course).

[davidI]

Originally posted by smin

Smoke free... does that mean everywhere in public (including bars and other 18+ establishments?) is no smoking (minus your own home of course).

Yes!

I believe California and most of B.C. is no smoking in any public place. That's the way we should have it here. This is all second hand info but my cousin from Vancouver said that they couldn't pass a law banning smoking (not sure why exactly) so what they did is passed a law saying that owners can be held responsible for their workers health if it declines in the future. Ie. if in 20 years one of your former waitresses gets lung cancer your ass is grass. Sounds like a good move to me! I'm sick of waking up with a sore throat, burning eyes and smelling like shit after a night out drinking :whipped: :guns:

[finboy]

Originally posted by smin

Smoke free... does that mean everywhere in public (including bars and other 18+ establishments?) is no smoking (minus your own home of course).

100% correct, the only place you can smoke will be in your car and in your house, i can't wait :thumbsup:

[lam-boy]

Originally posted by finboy


if you want to kill yourself in your car or on your own property fine, but i personally don't want to be subjected to someone elses shitty habbit if i decide to go out in public. i can't wait for calgary to go smoke free so i can actually go to a pub/bar/etc. and come out not smelling like an ash tray and have burning eyes :thumbsdow

:werd:
hate going out ANYwhere and coming into my car/house and smelling like a walking ashtray.

[cman]

Originally posted by lam-boy


:werd:
hate going out ANYwhere and coming into my car/house and smelling like a walking ashtray.

:werd: as well, i hate coming home and being able to smell my clothes from closest. and getting in my car to go to work and having it smell like that also.

[KoukiS14]

Don't smoke cigarettes, hate the things. Quit along time ago. Can't seem to stop smoking the waterpipe though.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by 5.0


no I just its a right that people have, not saying that it is good just that its taking one more right away from people who smoke

would your right to smoke supersede other peoples rights to good health?

[Zero102]

would your right to smoke supersede other peoples rights to good health?


Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's not your right to infringe on other people's comfort/health. Sorry, but we're not taking away your rights if we ban smoking. You could still jump off a bridge if you want to kill yourself that badly, or if you want to do it slowly, go drink some arsenic or lick lead paint.

I didn't know that BC was smoke free. Although, I did notice that there were a lot less smokers out there.

I can't wait for Calgary to go smoke free, then me and my G/F can finally hit a few bars. She's a severe asthmatic, so this was previously impossible.

[davidI]

http://www.smokefreecalgary.com/

[WhiteNikes]

I'm feelin' smokin' ban. f' all them cats who ain't know, banff be smoke free since august. If you ain't mind the 2 weak clubs 'n' the drive.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Zero102

It's not your right to infringe on other people's comfort/health. Sorry, but we're not taking away your rights if we ban smoking. You could still jump off a bridge if you want to kill yourself that badly, or if you want to do it slowly, go drink some arsenic or lick lead paint.


Well then we should ban all cologne and perfume as that infringes on my confort/health. Also, everyone with a car that say... has more than 4 cylinders is infringing on my health as is anyone that allows their car to idle. Surprisingly both things I've mentioned are in the works as new bylaws. But in 10 years, you can thank yourselves. :D

Khyron

[Khyron]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


would your right to smoke supersede other peoples rights to good health?

And you're pathetic. You have problems with 2nd hand smoke, yet you don't mind making your car polute 100 times worse to gain a few hp.


GTS Jeff's Engine Mods: -EGR, PCV, catalytic converter removed

:thumbsdow Hypocrite.

Edit: Original post - I smoke a cigar every month or two, quit smoking over a year ago.

Khyron

[cboyspimp]

i gota quit smoking.. somone should make a drug forum that would be interesting lol..

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by Khyron


And you're pathetic. You have problems with 2nd hand smoke, yet you don't mind making your car polute 100 times worse to gain a few hp.



:thumbsdow Hypocrite.

Edit: Original post - I smoke a cigar every month or two, quit smoking over a year ago.

Khyron theres a difference between NOx emissions and cancer-causing second hand smoke. oh boo hoo, im contributing to acid rain, which is A COMPLETE NON ISSUE here, whereas cigarette smoke is the leading preventable cause of death in north america.

so...how does it feel to not know what u are talking about?

[DUBBED]

I chew, only when I'm golfing though. Nice little stress reliever. :banghead:

[Khyron]

A new study appears to confirm what many doctors have long asserted: long-term exposure to air pollution significantly increases the risk of dying of lung cancer or heart disease.

Researchers say the study is compelling because it involved hundreds of thousands of people in many cities across the United States who were followed for almost two decades. Michael Thun, a population expert with the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, says, "What we found was that living in the city with the highest air pollution was approximately equal to the risk of secondhand smoke… being a non-smoker married to a smoker. And to put that in perspective, the active risk for a smoker is a about twenty times larger than the increase that we saw with the most polluted city compared with the least polluted city."


...


so...how does it feel to not know what u are talking about?

Dunno - you tell me. But even agreeing that 2nd hand smoke is more lethal doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite. It's like catching you pouring bleach into the drinking water and having you say "Hey, at least it's not hydrocloric acid".

I actually agree with the smoking ban - but for different reasons. Every arguement made in this thread can be applied to older cars, modified cars, etc. How many of you would bitch if we got emissions testing every year, or had a ban on vehicles older than 20 years? Give away your freedoms carefully is all I'm saying...

Khyron

[davidI]

Originally posted by Khyron

Dunno - you tell me. But even agreeing that 2nd hand smoke is more lethal doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite. It's like catching you pouring bleach into the drinking water and having you say "Hey, at least it's not hydrocloric acid".

I actually agree with the smoking ban - but for different reasons. Every arguement made in this thread can be applied to older cars, modified cars, etc. How many of you would bitch if we got emissions testing every year, or had a ban on vehicles older than 20 years? Give away your freedoms carefully is all I'm saying...

Khyron

I don't go sit in a garage with 500 cars idling. Hell, I won't sit in my closed garage with my car idling. I have no problem with people smoking outside as long as I'm not forced to be around them. Besides, cars serve a purpose - what the hell is the purpose in smoking? I'm going to look cool and waste money as I kill myself and others? I'll smoke the occasional cigar because I find them to have a nice flavour but not around others that don't want to inhale them! If you want to go smoke in the middle of a fucking park that's fine by me. What I don't like is being forced to breathe in the smoke if I want to enjoy any 18+ establishment! As far as your perfume/cologne rebutle that's pretty ridiculous because my breathing some perfume is completely different than breathing a cigarette! I may not like the smell of it but atleast I'm not going to have lung cancer and die. What are your amazing reasons for a smoking ban that no one else has mentioned?

[Khyron]

Originally posted by davidI
I don't go sit in a garage with 500 cars idling. Hell, I won't sit in my closed garage with my car idling.

If you drive downtown you pretty much do. And even if you don't - would you accept the same argument from a smoker saying "hey I don't smoke 500 smokes at once". Of course not. Using the anti-smoker argument, 1 smoke is too much.


I have no problem with people smoking outside as long as I'm not forced to be around them.

No one forces you to go into a bar or comedy club. If non-smoking bars/clubs were so sucessful there wouldn't need to be a law for it would there? What was stopping businesses from going smoke free? Oh right - money.


If you want to go smoke in the middle of a fucking park that's fine by me.

Too bad it will be against the law.


As far as your perfume/cologne rebutle that's pretty ridiculous because my breathing some perfume is completely different than breathing a cigarette!

No it's not. Several cases (including one at Mt Royal) have come up where someone that is either alergic to the smell/chemicals has basically forces an entire company to ban perfume/cologne. There is a horrible case I read about a few years ago (I think it's in the US) where someone has such severe alergies that their neighbours are forbidden from having things like barbeques even in their own yard because it causes discomfort to the neighbour. They use the same case as 2nd hand smoke - Why should 1 person suffer when everyone else can just stop causing it?


What are your amazing reasons for a smoking ban that no one else has mentioned?

Nothing so dramatic - just that the employees can't be forced to work in a toxic environment. As much as I'd love to have a bar owner be able to say "Fuck you all, I'm making my bar SMOKING ONLY, stay out", that owner can't discriminate against non-smoking staff when hiring. That's the only reason I have to agree with the ban even though I hate the idea.

Khyron

[davidI]

If you drive downtown you pretty much do. And even if you don't - would you accept the same argument from a smoker saying "hey I don't smoke 500 smokes at once". Of course not. Using the anti-smoker argument, 1 smoke is too much.


So you want to ban cars from going downtown? Driving downtown serves a purpose...smoking does not.



No one forces you to go into a bar or comedy club. If non-smoking bars/clubs were so sucessful there wouldn't need to be a law for it would there? What was stopping businesses from going smoke free? Oh right - money.

What's stopping you from moving to the middle of africa to get away from hydrocarbon emissions?



Too bad it will be against the law.

If someone isn't around anyone who is going to charge them?




No it's not. Several cases (including one at Mt Royal) have come up where someone that is either alergic to the smell/chemicals has basically forces an entire company to ban perfume/cologne. There is a horrible case I read about a few years ago (I think it's in the US) where someone has such severe alergies that their neighbours are forbidden from having things like barbeques even in their own yard because it causes discomfort to the neighbour. They use the same case as 2nd hand smoke - Why should 1 person suffer when everyone else can just stop causing it?

My dads allergic to seafood. Lets ban it. I know someone allergic to peanuts. BANNED. Grass? Fuck grass, let's pave the planet. :rolleyes:



Nothing so dramatic - just that the employees can't be forced to work in a toxic environment. As much as I'd love to have a bar owner be able to say "Fuck you all, I'm making my bar SMOKING ONLY, stay out", that owner can't discriminate against non-smoking staff when hiring. That's the only reason I have to agree with the ban even though I hate the idea.

Isn't me having a choice of going to an establishment and me working in an establishment the same? I totally agree with you that they shouldn't have the right to discriminate against employees but what about customers? That's everyone else argument in this thread.

[Rockski]

Originally posted by 5.0
yes I do chew as well, not so much addicted I just love going to the states and getting those nice big tins and a big bag of red man!

have you tried red man gold? its sooo delicious


Originally posted by 5.0


nah it doesnt give you a "mad buzz" if yo utake big hits of it it will give you a buzz but nothing morethan chew, it does clear up your sinus tho, I bought mine its apricot flavor at the chococlate and cigar shop in willow part beside southcenter

if youve never chewed, the harshest way to get a buzz is to power dip. and just rub it into your gums.
do you know any other places to get snuff?

[Khyron]

Originally posted by davidI
So you want to ban cars from going downtown? Driving downtown serves a purpose...smoking does not.

Without opening another can, I can think of many smokers who can name many reasons. Whether you agree with them or not doesn't matter. I'm sure there's some crazy biker fiends that would argue driving serves no purpose when we have such an amazing public transit system and bike path system. :nut:


What's stopping you from moving to the middle of africa to get away from hydrocarbon emissions?

Apply that same statement to the people that want to get away from smoke.


If someone isn't around anyone who is going to charge them?

If you're speeding on a highway all alone, you can still get tagged by a cop looking for a quota.


My dads allergic to seafood. Lets ban it. I know someone allergic to peanuts. BANNED. Grass? Fuck grass, let's pave the planet. :rolleyes:

I'm alergic to both and I'd love to see it all banned. Anyone eating anything with nuts (candy bar, etc) has a smell that disturbs me. But I don't automatically assume my rights are greater than his. You roll your eyes like I'm the one promoting this - I'm just saying that all the arguments used to win against smokers can and will be used against other things, one by one. BTW - ever read alt.pave.the.earth?


Isn't me having a choice of going to an establishment and me working in an establishment the same? I totally agree with you that they shouldn't have the right to discriminate against employees but what about customers? That's everyone else argument in this thread.

Customers can vote with their dollars. Employees don't have a choice. That's the difference. Businesses discriminate against customers all the time - it's their choice.

The thing that gets me - is if non-smoking bars/clubs are so desirable, how come every one that has opened in Calgary has tanked? Even though we all know the ban is coming, how many bars have switch early?

Khyron

[davidI]

The first bunch of things you responded to me quoting was doing the exact same thing as I was doing. I guess I should have put some sarcasm in there....the fact is there are a million things in this world that can hurt you and we can't ban them all!!! Smoking is worth banning because it impacts others in a huge way and causes millions of dollars in tax money to be spent on treating people with smoke related illnesses. Yes car pollutants are bad too but it is a much broader problem to address. Banning smoking is easy! No one has to do anything except put up some no smoking signs and toss out some ash trays. You can only do one thing at a time. Cali has banned smoking and put in emission laws...it will probably happen here in due time as well.

Saying customers have a choice with their money but employees don't have a choice where to work is ridiculous! I wanted to work at a bar but decided not to because of the smoke / health affects. I made that choice. I do agree that it's unfair to non-smoking people such as myself to be limited to the places where I can work but it's the same as being limited as to the places I can go.

I do want to respond to the last thing you said because it is really the only argument anyone has to keep smoking. The fact of the matter is that little places opening up can't fight with the bigger bars around. If all the bars in Calgary were forced to ban smoking it would solve this problem. Since you kept using the car emission example, imagine one car company cutting emissions on all their vehicles (lowering performance, raising costs). Do you think they'd survive if all the other companies could offer everything? It's better for society as a whole if everyone would buy emission reduced vehicles (or go to smoke free bars) but unfortunately people aren't forward looking by nature and that's why the government needs to step in on certain issues. The only solution is a blanket law. If you don't want to break smokers' rights then do what Vancouver did and say business owners are responsible for their employees health and have to incur any health care costs associated with a smoking related illness, then see what happens.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by Khyron


...



Dunno - you tell me. But even agreeing that 2nd hand smoke is more lethal doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite. It's like catching you pouring bleach into the drinking water and having you say "Hey, at least it's not hydrocloric acid".

I actually agree with the smoking ban - but for different reasons. Every arguement made in this thread can be applied to older cars, modified cars, etc. How many of you would bitch if we got emissions testing every year, or had a ban on vehicles older than 20 years? Give away your freedoms carefully is all I'm saying...

Khyron that google quote u posted is using the term "air pollution" in a very general manner. in fact, its referring to particulate matter suspended in the air, which is harmful to human health, and which is not at all affected by the catalytic convertor nor the egr system of a car. probably the worst environmental thing ive done by removing my emissions equipment is increasing the risk of acid rain in alberta, which incidentally doesnt have acid rain at all. has acid rain ever been labeled a cause of death?

i like to think i know what im talking about, cuz ive taken more than one class on pollution ecology issues and im not just pulling google quotes.

and anyway, if it came down to it, id put a cat back on and ive already reconnected the pcv. im pretty sure i could pass emissions without egr.

[noodles]

used to smoke for a couple years and not just tobacco.... i have the occasional cigar from time to time, and shisha usually once every blue moon.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by davidI
...the fact is there are a million things in this world that can hurt you and we can't ban them all!!!

It's the precedent that it sets. If you claim that X should be banned because it causes problems in others, but you also have Y which causes problems in others, you can't legally say that one can be banned and the other can't just because it's "easier to ban". Of course someone walking in and saying "we should ban all cars tomorrow" would be laughed at for being totally impractical but being impractical doesn't mean it's wrong. Once the precedent is set, he can start with emissions, then idle rules, then displacement limits, then power limits, etc - just like smoking bans started small and worked their way up over the years.

That new anti-idle bylaw makes me mad - I don't need the government telling me when to leave my engine running or not. But it's just another step towards a mama-state watching over us and keeping us safe...


Saying customers have a choice with their money but employees don't have a choice where to work is ridiculous! I wanted to work at a bar but decided not to because of the smoke / health affects. I made that choice. I do agree that it's unfair to non-smoking people such as myself to be limited to the places where I can work but it's the same as being limited as to the places I can go.

It's not ridiculous - it's the only reason the smoking ban wasn't defeated. There is an industry standard that a fireman will be exposed to smoke. So they get paid more, and get health benefits etc. There is no such standard for wait staff. And because waitresses are considered a low end job, you can't say people have a choice to work there or not. Sure, you might have a choice, and I might have a choice, but for a single mom, that might be her only job option. And making someone work in a toxic environment as her only job option is illegal. If that reason wasn't there, the ban would have been shot down a long time ago. It has nothing to do with protecting customers - economics is supposed to take care of that.


The fact of the matter is that little places opening up can't fight with the bigger bars around.

Bullshit. If there's such a great demand for a non-smoking bar, the customers will come. If the customers don't come, and they all stay in the smoking bars the demand wasn't there.


imagine one car company cutting emissions on all their vehicles (lowering performance, raising costs). Do you think they'd survive if all the other companies could offer everything?

This is already happening with hybrids. More expensive, less power. But you get better fuel economy, and it's the customers choice (keyword). But how many of you would start bitching if the government said everyone has to drive 50 hp electric cars? It's the choice issue.


If you don't want to break smokers' rights then do what Vancouver did and say business owners are responsible for their employees health and have to incur any health care costs associated with a smoking related illness, then see what happens.

See, employee health is the only reason it works - customers have nothing to do with it. I don't know if you've been to Vancouver lately but their bar scene is pretty pathetic. Everyone stays home and smokes pot instead. :D

Khyron

[tirebob]

I have both chewed Copenhagen and smoked for years, and quit both for years now as well, and I will tell you what, I still have dreams that I am chewing, but couldn't care less about smoking! LOL!

[Singel]

Originally posted by Khyron


It's the precedent that it sets. If you claim that X should be banned because it causes problems in others, but you also have Y which causes problems in others, you can't legally say that one can be banned and the other can't just because it's "easier to ban". Of course someone walking in and saying "we should ban all cars tomorrow" would be laughed at for being totally impractical but being impractical doesn't mean it's wrong. Once the precedent is set, he can start with emissions, then idle rules, then displacement limits, then power limits, etc - just like smoking bans started small and worked their way up over the years.


Cars serve a purpose, cigs do not. Open and shut case. Every thing is different, and needs to be looked at differently.

And I'd love it if we paved the earth, i fucking hate grass! :guns:

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Singel


Cars serve a purpose, cigs do not. Open and shut case.

What about Alcohol? The effects of Alcohol are disasterous every year, and it serves no purpose. It should be banned too.

[Zero102]

Oh dear, look where this argument has gone, it's gotten terirbly sidetracked. There's been the argument about alcohol on here before, if it was discovered today, it would be illegal. There should be tighter laws governing the distribution and use of alcohol.

Particulate matter in the air... Hmm, that argument works against smokers too.

Anyways, here's my arguments against smoking.
1) It affects my health
2) It costs me money. I think if people choose to smoke, they should not be covered by AHC or any insurance plan for any smoking-related illness. No flu shots, no lung transplants, nothing.
I'm not paying for people who choose to kill themselves.
3) Smokers litter. Don't say that you don't, every smoker throws their butts on the ground at some point in time.
4) Smokers are busy killing themselves. Think about the effect it will have on your family when you die of lung cancer in 10 years. Will they think it was worth it? Will you???

Now, that said, here's my argument for smoking:
TAX MONEY!!
I think smoking should be legal, but cost prohibitive. Make it around $500 a pack.
Then you guys can't bitch that we're infringing on your rights, it's your choice to smoke, and if you throw away $500 a pack, you've earned the right to smoke.

Now, if you guys don't like that, then smoking should be illegal. It's not your right to infringe on my health.

Now, about one of the earlier arguments. I would be FOR car emissions testing, with the sole exception of race only vehicles.
I'm actually trying to track down a catalytic converter for my car, since a couple owners ago, somebody installed a straight pipe through where the cat goes. I feel it helps keep everybody's cars in better running order, increasing mileage, saving you money (although, not always a lot, depends on the car and it's condition), and saving our air.

[davidI]

Originally posted by Khyron


It's the precedent that it sets. If you claim that X should be banned because it causes problems in others, but you also have Y which causes problems in others, you can't legally say that one can be banned and the other can't just because it's "easier to ban". Of course someone walking in and saying "we should ban all cars tomorrow" would be laughed at for being totally impractical but being impractical doesn't mean it's wrong. Once the precedent is set, he can start with emissions, then idle rules, then displacement limits, then power limits, etc - just like smoking bans started small and worked their way up over the years.


Good, bring in emission laws. People are great at proving that they can't think for themselves anyways. If smokers just got cancer and died off I wouldn't care because their choice only affects themselves. Unfortunately, smoking costs everyone around that person health and tax money to support their dumb ass.



That new anti-idle bylaw makes me mad - I don't need the government telling me when to leave my engine running or not. But it's just another step towards a mama-state watching over us and keeping us safe...

Same argument as above. I hate having my rights revoked as well but the truth is we can't seem to self-regulate. Everyone thinks 'I'm just polluting a little bit' but the little bit times a million people in Calgary adds up to a lot. I'd love to have a 6MPG V12 running straight pipes and no emission control....and probably would unless the law prevented me from doing so. I know it seems like the air is still so great in Calgary but every once in a while I'll drive down Bow Trail and see a heavy brown smog blanketing the city. Everytime I go to L.A. I think the air smells funny and have a hard time breathing....it's a good thing they finall did something about it. I'm hoping Alberta will make a similar move in the future BEFORE we have a huge air quality issue - atleast in densely populated areas.



Sure, you might have a choice, and I might have a choice, but for a single mom, that might be her only job option. And making someone work in a toxic environment as her only job option is illegal. If that reason wasn't there, the ban would have been shot down a long time ago. It has nothing to do with protecting customers - economics is supposed to take care of that.

Economics is supposed to take care of job options too :rolleyes:
I don't see how she has any less choice of places to work than I have of places to go but I do agree we should both be able to do so in a SAFE environment.



Bullshit. If there's such a great demand for a non-smoking bar, the customers will come. If the customers don't come, and they all stay in the smoking bars the demand wasn't there.

Once again people aren't smart for their own good. I always go to smokey bars because that's where I'm going to have fun and the utility at that point in time outweighs my thought of the future where I may have lung cancer. Too bad you're going to be paying for my hospital stay when I end up there. I hate giving up my rights but the whole reason there are laws in the first place is because people do not have self-control!



This is already happening with hybrids. More expensive, less power. But you get better fuel economy, and it's the customers choice (keyword). But how many of you would start bitching if the government said everyone has to drive 50 hp electric cars? It's the choice issue.

I said ALL cars. A company selling ALL hybrids would fail for the same reasons as a non-smoking bar!
I agree I would bitch about having to drive a 50hp car....even if I was driving into an air polluted wasteland that gave me 80% odds of getting cancer! That's what laws do, save us from our own stupidity.



See, employee health is the only reason it works - customers have nothing to do with it. I don't know if you've been to Vancouver lately but their bar scene is pretty pathetic. Everyone stays home and smokes pot instead. :D

Vancouver bar scene is pretty hype from what I've heard. It's cool if someone is staying home and smoking pot on their own...it does kind of suck that I may one day have to pay for their health care bill but atleast I'm not getting lung cancer just from being around them.

I'm not going to even bother arguing anymore. You make good points, points I could get behind and debate quite easily if I wanted to. I'm just happy we agree that smoking should be banned even if our reasons for it aren't the same. :thumbsup:

[Singel]

As far as alcohol goes, it can be used responsibly without any bad effects. The only way cigarettes could be used almost responsibly is if u drive out into the countryside and smoke when no one is around and smoke...but it still damages the environment, and hurts my pockets when you're in the hospital.

Ideally, alcohol would be prohibited too, but a few dozen deaths on the roads and alcohol poisonings a year is a lot less than the 47 000 deaths caused by smoking each year, and money drained from the system on people who don't die yet.

The reason smoking will never be completely prohibited is of course money. Unfortunately, our democratic system only forces our government to look 4 years to the future, not 40. If they were to all of a sudden all out ban even selling cigarettes, we'd lose tax revenues, and still have to pay for the last 50 years of smokers, even though we'd save a ton of money in the long run.

Ideally: Over the next 10 years, the gov't should put half of the money from cig taxes into a healthcare fund for the next generation of lost cig revenue. Then criminalize cigs and just make the financial sacrifice of losing the revenues for a generation or two. When our kids are seniors, both the healthcare system and governement will be in great shape. And since it's liek 10 years before the law would go into effect, smokers rights aren't infringed on because they can just buy a hundred cartons to last them the rest of their lives if they are that dedicated to killing themselves.

As far as non smoking bars, its a mob mentality. An individual person may be smart enough to make the right decision, but for some reason a large group of people won't. Non smoking bars will succeed, as soon as their competition who have already developped strong brand power are non smoking. If I just opened a bar, it's only slightly more likely to succeed if its smoking than non smoking, because Cowboys and Coyotes are recognizable to everyone, and its tough to achieve that kind of business no matter what the circumstances.

Smokers Suck.

[LKL]

I smoke about a pack a day. All of my friends and half my co-workers smoke also. I know very few people who don't smoke.

I don't really like non-smokers very much. At the same time I hate smokers who deal with everything through cigarettes, i.e. run outside to have a cigarette and act all angry every time something pisses them off.

I smoke because I like to, and because I can. I don't smoke around non-smokers unless I am in an indoor place that specifically allows smoking, and then I tend to be courteous about it. If someplace allows smoking, then you as a non-smoker are the one who has to compromise. I just do it cuz I'm nice.

[noodles]

you guys take things too far.......its a simple yes or no answer, and what you did....dont need a essay on other crap

[5.0]

Yes redman gold it is soooo good! if anyone goes down to the states ill give you $10 for each pack of red man you pick up! its only like $3 american there! so if ya do pm me!!:D

[Khyron]

2) It costs me money. I think if people choose to smoke, they should not be covered by AHC or any insurance plan for any smoking-related illness. No flu shots, no lung transplants, nothing.


and hurts my pockets when you're in the hospital.

Dangerous arguments. Pretty much everything you do is considered a stupid risk to someone out there.

For instance: People who eat at McDonalds are idiots that are killing themselves - I shouldn't have to subsidise their suicidal eating habits. No medical coverage for those fools!

Mountain bikers that get injured brought it upon themselves with their wreckless behavior. No medical! I don't bike, why should I cover you?

Car drivers know that it's one of the leading causes of death, yet they still do it. Why should a non-driving taxpayer pay a share to cover the carnage - they aren't driving. I know several people that don't own cars, but they pay their share for all the accident victims. Not fair I say!

Skiers and snowboarders - tons of hospital visits for those crazy people. They are a boil on our medical system. Coverage void!

Horse jumping - death with a saddle! Just ask superman!

Etc etc etc, repeat until ill.

At some point you have to accept that you will pay for the stupidity of others, but gain the right to be stupid yourself. Not a bad deal in the end.

Btw - did you know that smokers are actually cheaper on the medical system overall because they die younger? If all smokers magically vanished your cost/person would go up, not down.

Khyron

[davidI]

Originally posted by Khyron

Btw - did you know that smokers are actually cheaper on the medical system overall because they die younger? If all smokers magically vanished your cost/person would go up, not down.


Where'd you read that? It would be an interesting analysis to read!

[Khyron]

"Is there any other company that would boast about making money for the public treasury by killing its customers?"

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech.htm

Note it's funded by a smoke company, but the arguments don't really attack the numbers, just the fact that the company brags about killing people early. :banghead:

Do a search, there's lots:


A 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that total medical spending actually would go up if everyone stopped smoking. Smokers also collect less from Social Security--another factor mysteriously absent from the CDC's calculation.

I personally haven't seen a study that can't be disputed, or is missing some facts that could bump it the other way. I suspect it probably works about even in the end.

Edit: You should read this - he's more cynical than me.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/789728/posts

Quiting smoking makes us fatter, which costs more in healthcare. :D

Khyron