[Rictor]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20041215/ca_pr_on_na/ont_smoke_free

the Nanny State strikes back with a vengance.

The new Smoke Free Ontario act would prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places - bars, restaurants, casinos and legion halls among them - and also restrict the display of tobacco products in stores.


"The bill. . . would protect all Ontarians from the deadly effects of cigarette smoke, whether they are in their office, at a restaurant, in the laundry room of their apartment building, on the floor of a factory, in an underground parking garage or at a shopping mall," Health Minister George Smitherman told the legislature.

[Taristin]

Not to sound like I support the restricting of people's rights (), but how is this different from pollution controls?

[Jetmech Jr.]

Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Does "public places" include the outside?

[Rictor]

Because pollution affects everyone. You can't just put pollution into a corner somewhere and it won't bother anyone.

With smoking however, you just go into the smoking deisgnated room, or step outside, and voila - you're only harming yourself. And to prempt the ravings of certain inidividuals, I'm not saying the danger is 0, I'm saying is negligble enough to be considered safe.

Seriously, this is just the government and certain groups trying to impose their views on everyone else. They say smoking is bad, so if you smoke you are a depraved monster that must be stopped.

Its like the Demolition Man movie....except we don't have the 3 little shells...yet.

[Sandwich]

*moves to Ontario*

EDIT: Has anyone figured out what the heck those three little shells were for, anyway?

[Flipside]

Meh, believe me, you don't want to work in a State with <>160,000 people of which <>40,000 will be in forced nicotine withdrawal?

That stuff's more addictive than heroine you know, would you want to be around 40,000 heroin addicts in withdrawal?

It's going to be messy

[IceFire]

Finally...I've been waiting for this.

I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others.  I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building.  I also know people who are alergic to smoking.  So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.

No...this is a smart thing.  Second hand smoking is dangerous...possibly even more dangerous than the actual smoking of a cigarete.  And look...I have plenty of friends with smoking addicitons and they just simply go and do it outside.  They've worked it into their schedule...and these people go to bars and party it up and the whole deal.  No problems that I'm aware of and they have never complained.

So its not going to be messy, bars are not going to loose their customers (they just have to step outside for a bit), and people like myself gain some freedom...or at least some more choices.

Oh and by the way....The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little bit different than the American Constitution/Laws.  There is a little less absolute freedom and a little more emphasis on protecting the public good...its very similar to the British system actually.

[Rictor]

Its funny how things which become life-threatingly perilous these days weren't even an issue like 20 years ago.

Sorry, but it just seems to me that people are getting way too sensitive and just finding new stuff to ***** about. What's wrong with having an smoking section and a non-smoking section?

"Civilization is sterilization"

[Flipside]

It depends on the definition of a 'Public Place' Icefire, which is one of the forbidden zones mentioned. If it means 'anywhere in public' then it means your friends can't go outside and have a cigarette, and can't stay inside either, unless they are lucky enough to have a car-park or the like, which is private land.

If Public place doesn't include highways and byways then yes, I'm in favour of this even though I myself am a smoker. And yes, I smoke outside

[Bri_Dog]

IMO it should be up to the owner of the various business establishments to decide to allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.

[Flipside]

In the UK it is decided by insurance, it is far far more expensive to insure a company building if you intend to allow smoking in it because of the fire risk. That way, most companies opt to be no-smoking. It's an rather clever idea, I must admit

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by IceFire
Finally...I've been waiting for this.

I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others.  I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building.  I also know people who are alergic to smoking.  So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.

No...this is a smart thing.  Second hand smoking is dangerous...possibly even more dangerous than the actual smoking of a cigarete.  And look...I have plenty of friends with smoking addicitons and they just simply go and do it outside.  They've worked it into their schedule...and these people go to bars and party it up and the whole deal.  No problems that I'm aware of and they have never complained.

So its not going to be messy, bars are not going to loose their customers (they just have to step outside for a bit), and people like myself gain some freedom...or at least some more choices.

Oh and by the way....The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little bit different than the American Constitution/Laws.  There is a little less absolute freedom and a little more emphasis on protecting the public good...its very similar to the British system actually.

*agrees*

Second-hand smoke, btw, IS more dangerous than regular smoke. At least if you smoking the damn thing, it's getting filtered...slightly. People around the smokers don't have that kind of luxury .

I actually have an 'agreement' with my parents (although they think I was joking). If My brother or myself get lung cancer or some **** because of them, I will never let them live it down.

Not that I'll live very long, in all likelihood.

[Rictor]

Yeah that's why its called private property. But that doesn't seem to bother certain people.

[Gank]

Brought it in here a while back, people grumbled a bit then got on with things. If you're a smoker its a good thing, cut back on them big time.

[Flipside]

Well, if a company is able to set up a smoking area on private land, then that would be legal, it is not, to the letter, a public place, but what about companies that don't have the luxury of that kind of room? That's why highways and byways are important.

Gank,what are the laws there for that, isn't it pubs, bars and restaraunts? You can still smoke in most public places like in the street iirc?

[MicroPsycho]

Originally posted by IceFire
Finally...I've been waiting for this.

I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others.  I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building.  I also know people who are alergic to smoking.  So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.

 

I agree. There are way more non-smokers than smokers, why should the minority have more freedom then the majority, especially when it involves harmful 'freedom'.

Bars and restaurants and the like won't lose customers but likely gain customers, non-smokers that were turned away by smoking.

[karajorma]

At the moment my position on this subject is somewhat undecided. I've not heard of any studies showing the effects of second hand cigarette smoke other than certain sets of numbers that seem to have been pulled out of a hat at random.
However I know the chemicals that make up cigarette smoke and I know precisely how nasty many of them are.

Originally posted by Bri_Dog
IMO it should be up to the owner of the various business establishments to decide to allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.

Let me give you an analogy.

Suppose I go to work in a chemical lab. I work with PAHs all day long. Just because I'm employed by a company that has situated the lab on private property doesn't mean that they can say "We choose to ignore the government mandated limits on PAH concentrations in air"

The fact is that the Health and Safety Executive would come down on any company that suggested this like a ton of bricks. The fact that the company wants to ignore the limits doesn't matter. The HSE would look at the expose levels of the workers and say "We don't care if all your workers agree to work in higher than legal concentrations of potent carcinogens like PAHs. We don't even care if you offer them extra pay for doing so. You're compromising your workers safety and therefore we're shutting you down"

Now cigarette smoke contains pretty high levels of PAHs too. The question that needs answering here is should I have less rights to worker protection if I'm a barman who works in a pub than if I'm a scientist working in a lab?

You see the problem here is not the rights of the smokers in the bars but the rights of people who work in the bars.

[Rictor]

See, thats where I disagree. If someone willingly works in areas where there are dangerous chemicals kicking around, that's their thing. I can decide for my self, and whether the incentive is money or anythng else, the government can't take that choice away.

I don't think bar/restaurant employees are too happy about this though, they stand to loose lots of tip money and/or their jobs. And even if you are only protecting the workers, what about all the other places where its banned? Car parks, malls etc.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Rictor
Its funny how things which become life-threatingly perilous these days weren't even an issue like 20 years ago.

Sorry, but it just seems to me that people are getting way too sensitive and just finding new stuff to ***** about. What's wrong with having an smoking section and a non-smoking section?

"Civilization is sterilization"

They didn't become life-threatening, they always were life-threatening. It's just that it takes a bit for people to die from the effects, whether they realize it or not.

What's wrong with having a smoking section and a non-smoking section? Unfortunately, smoke fails to comply with laws or regulations regarding where it may or may not be. Setting aside a smoking "section" does very little; the smoke just drifts over into the non-smoking section. If it's a room, things are onlya little better.

Finally, while smoking may infringe on freedom, it's the same way that laws on rape, drunk driving, and hazardous waste infringe on freedom, it protects a group against the hazards of another group's decisions.