Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
CRD Bylaw: Where are the smokers now?
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > CRD Bylaw: Where are the smokers now? |
| Danielle User Info... | This is a letter I wrote to the Times Colonist last week, unpublished of course. Ok ya I know smoking is disgusting, but so are alot of other things..... Re: New CRD Bylaw banning smokers from outdoor patios I wonder what the average age is of the body of decision makers who passed this bylaw. I’m not THAT OLD but when I was a kid people used to smoke all over the place - in the car, in the house, in the bank, in the mall, on the ferry, on planes, etc. Was everybody sick? Did all the kids have asthma? I remember one girl in school that had asthma. However I don’t recall her ever carrying medication with her only that she was excused from strenuous exercise during P.E. I didn’t know any kids with allergies. Shouldn’t we all be dead by now? Not that I am saying to smoke in a house with your children is a practice anyone should follow. Smoking indoors anywhere is disgusting. But this “plastic bubble” we are attempting to build in the guise of public health is not only hyporcritical but simply ridiculous. In Monday’s Times Colonist a Dr. Pengelly is quoted saying “some people don’t smoke, so why should they smell smoke”. I don’t drive a commercial vehicle that emits fumes that makes people nauseous, so why should I smell them? Have you ever gotten into an elevator where someone who must have had a bad bowl of chili for lunch just let loose the gas build-up from his lower intestine? Why should I have to breathe that? Ever got into a taxi and had your eyes burn and your breathing passage close up from the noxious odour of the cologne that the driver obviously marinated in prior to starting his shift? Why should I be subject to that? As well, why should anyone have to stifle the urge to vomit from the rank body odour emanating from the person behind you in a check-out line who likely hasn’t bathed in about 17 months and is oblivious to his/her own foulness. When is the CRD going to pass bylaws restricting these assaults to human health and comfort? The people that are going to feel the impact of this new bylaw are the pubs and restaurants who offered outdoor smoking sections to their patrons. Many establishments went to great lengths and expense to provide these outdoor areas when the bylaw was passed banning indoor smoking. Ever go to a pub and see how many people packed these “patios”? Why not let the individual businesses decide for themselves whether they want to have a smoking patio or a non-smoking patio (or both where feasible) based on the preferences of their clientele? It seems to me that this would be the more liberal way to go. Next time I go out I am going to demand to sit in the no sickly cologne/no flatulence/no body odour section that must be sealed off from any nearby roads, thoroughfares or parking lots thus avoiding my risk of breathing in carbon monoxide and any other pernicious gases and/or fumes emitted from vehicles. - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 7:58am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | I.....I.......I think I love you. - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 8:08am | ||
| Mean Mike User Info... | Where's my granpa now? Oh right he slowly hacked his lungs out his mouth and then died. :) . - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:27pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | ........ummmmmm.....sorry about farting in the elevator the other day......I thought I was in the clear........third floor, heading for the lobby........but no........ you and your 90 year old mom and dad had to get on at the SECOND floor........that was the most uncomforatable 30 seconds ever......everybody thinking it, but nobody saying anything.........your poor old dad looking all guilty and confused cause he thought he did it........ - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 3:53pm Edited: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 3:55pm | ||
| Danielle User Info... | Sorry to steal your glory but that stench was his. He alwasy shits in his depends right after his blender lunch. - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 6:53pm | ||
| Danielle User Info... | We will die from something no matter what we do or don't do. I have alot of stress in my life which thankfully I have many outlets for. There are some days when sittin back and having that little smoke break precludes me from murdering someone, or even worse - just losing my cool and going postal like other idiots do when they don't know how to control their anger. Although there are a couple of people that have been able to push me to that point of blind rage as of late. At the least it reduces my stress level, which as they say, STRESS IS A KILLER. I would rather enjoy my vices in moderation and take my chances than live like a freakin Buhdist(sp) monk(ette) and still have the risk of getting hit by a bus in any event. FYI the damage to lungs from smoking ONE joint is equivalent to 10 cigarettes! And if anyone comes on here and criticizes my spelling in this post, you better watch your fucking back man, because I'll hunt you down and....and... do something.....really nasty.... - Sat, 21 Jul 2007 7:10pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | .....................I count four spelling mistakes.................. - Sun, 22 Jul 2007 4:02am Edited: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 4:52am | ||
| jeff User Info... | smoking rules - Sun, 22 Jul 2007 9:38am | ||
| J User Info... | "...FYI the damage to lungs from smoking ONE joint is equivalent to 10 cigarettes..." Ive never seen any medical report anywhere to back that statement. And furthermore, no doctor would come out and make such a comparison with exact numbers like that. I've also heard people tout that 1 joint is "equivalent" to 20 cigarettes... Its a wonder what parents went through to make sure we didn't smoke pot. Good thing mine didn't ;) If you do have some information(either medical journal/reports, scientific findings) I would be more than intregued to read it. I do smoke pot, and always revel in having more information about the shit I like to smoke and the stuff going on in my system. ps, I dont disagree with you at all on your other points danielle; in fact its a more than valid argument. - Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:09am Edited: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:10am | ||
| trevor corey User Info... |  Smoking is the number one cause of death, pain, and suffering in our society. Not to mention $ burden on our overburdened medical system. The government can't criminalize it, so they are just going to make it more and more difficult and expensive until it's just to much of a hassle to bother. Don't you remember how bad your clothes and hair used to smell after a night out at the bar? Comparing it's effects to marijuana is just a rude ignorant grasp at justification. Exactly how big of a joint do you smoke to = so many cigs? Smoking tobacco weakens your system so as to make dealing with "stress" more difficult. All you need is a good rodgering twice a week and you'll be fine. - Sun, 22 Jul 2007 2:29pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | I also strongly disagree with the cigarettes being worse for your lungs than weed. I smoked pot daily, chronically for ten years and didn't have a perpetual cough or even a morning hack fest in all the time I partook. It barely even affected my cardiovascular functions aside from smoking a joint then hiking up a hill. I did make me more forgetful and sometimes unable to grasp common sense issues...I believe there has been some long lasting effects on my memory as well. I have been smoking Captain Black's sporadically lately and in the month and a half I have been having, on average one a day I have noticed significantly more coughing and phlegm issues than normal. Of course, any foreign smoke like substance will be bad for you, but cigarettes are artificially loaded with toxic chemicals. Weed, unless it's over fertilized or sprayed with pesticide is for the most part naturally occurring substance. Cigarettes smell like shit and so do the people who smoke them after they finish and come inside. You aren't fooling anyone. - Sun, 22 Jul 2007 2:46pm Edited: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 2:51pm | ||
| Hang the DJ User Info... | Smoking's way worse in other parts of the world. Heck, at the Frankfurt airport they have many booths set up just for people to smoke at. I don't have a problem with people smoking if they ask me. But say I've finally found somewhere to sit, or am in a bus stop out of the rain and someone starts blowing smoke in my face... I'll tell them off. I was at a Starbucks after the new rules had been set, and some chick just decides to light up around my friends and I when she's surrounded by at least 6 "NO SMOKING"signs. I've seen a couple people around town peeling the no smoking stickers off bus stops and windows and stuff.... I dunno I just don't like it when people hog fresh air but I'm sure I'd have a different opinion if I was a smoker myself. - Mon, 23 Jul 2007 5:52am | ||
| dumpstermesh User Info... | I'm of two minds on this one. I quit almost 6 years ago and I find it digusting now. I'm also pregnant and I work in the service industry. There used to be days when I would be the only server on and people would want me to serve the patio while they smoked. I said no. They could come inside to get their drinks and I really didn't care if I got no tip from them. Staff shouldn't be forced to be around the smoke if they don't want to be. I only really had one guy give me attitude over it and I called him on it...he shut up and tipped me well. But now, if my customers want to smoke they have to go over the new smoking area (our smoking room had been banned by CRD - now it's just an empty room!) but they aren't allowed to take their drinks over there. So they can't drink where they can smoke and they can't smoke where they can drink. Pretty smart eh? Soon businesses will need licenses like they do for alcohol just to allow smoking. I thought that they would at least keep the smoking patios in pubs/bars where kids aren't allowed in but nope. None of this makes any sence. - Tue, 24 Jul 2007 2:03am | ||
| Jl User Info... | "...Smoking is the number one cause of death, pain, and suffering in our society. Not to mention $ burden on our overburdened medical system..." and smokers still have rights just as much as someone with a seriously environmental damaging vehicle or just and ordinary person enjoying THEIR life. Sorry if their a burden on our medical system; but have you ever thought that its OUR medical system that could use a re-working? I dont disagree that smokers can be a crutch for any medical system; but to go as far as cutting off their right to enjoy smoking, then I think everything that's bad for us should be by-lawed into hell. Since smokers dont get a choice in the matter; no one else should... how does that sound? (kinda like a situation that we dont even wanna go near) - Tue, 24 Jul 2007 9:59am | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | I was just trying to give a few reasons why smoker's freedoms are being encroached upon. Smoking tobacco is dumb. It's too late to criminilize, so they will just make it more and more dificult. If people want to smoke then that is their right, if people don't want to breath second hand smoke, then that is also their right. Who's rights are more valued than whose? I guess by your logic JI, your rights are being infringed upon by having to legally wear your seatbelt. Or even better, a junkies right to shoot up and leave all their mess behind, and take up hospital beds is okay too? Thanks, now I need a fuckin smoke! TWO SMOKES, LET'S GO! - Tue, 24 Jul 2007 1:25pm | ||
| bbjones User Info... | No one said smokers can't smoke. You just can't smoke in front of all the non-smokers. Smoking increases and causes stress. I'm in full support of illegalization of cigarettes apart from the fact that our gov has no ability to support the addicts or to effectively help people quit. There is no way that pot is worse that cigarettes... you do all know that tabacoo now cantains fire retardant? Add that to the list of chemicals you inhale. I don't see people lacing their weed with poison. There are many methods out there to help you break the smoking addicition just like there are ways to get people off other addictions/drugs. Same deal though, you have to want to do it. - Tue, 24 Jul 2007 2:02pm | ||
| metalqueen User Info... | I was so mad when they banned smoking in the bars but now it makes so much sense and Im glad they did that...why should a non smoker have to inhale the sucked off fumes from a cig when they go to a bar.But ..I dont know why they would ban outside smoking areas?there is a reason why they call it a smoking patio? I could not beleive all the gig butts on the street and sidewalk outside of Logans sat. night ...it was disgusting. Least the smoking areas had ashtrays!...smoking is such a gross habit as well as drugs but hey we all have some kind of addiction. - Tue, 24 Jul 2007 3:52pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | "...If people want to smoke then that is their right, if people don't want to breath second hand smoke, then that is also their right. Who's rights are more valued than whose? I guess by your logic JI, your rights are being infringed upon by having to legally wear your seatbelt. Or even better, a junkies right to shoot up and leave all their mess behind, and take up hospital beds is okay too?..." So when did junkies have a right to vote? last i heard you had to have a fixed address and pay your taxes/have a steady income... neither of which a piece of shit junkie has access to or would even be bothered to respect. So NO, they do not have rights to shoot up anywhere and leave a mess. If they dont pay taxes they dont get free medical; so they shouldn't be taking up any extra beds than the next grey back retiree. And for seatbelts, well the only reason I wear one is to avoid a 125$ fine. So if you really think my rights are infringed there; then your right. Simply because I wear a seatbelt to avoid an infraction isnt' the aim of ICBC for wearing seatbelts in the first place. But since we HAVE to or else we get fined, i do. And for smokers, they never had a say in what the by-law was going to do to them. I would bet my bottom dollar that at least half of the smokers out there vote, pay taxes, work etc... so why didn't they have the equal oppoutunity to speak for themselves? do we not live in a democracy? we just went along and said "we dont wanna put up with it anymore". But that came from people that had a predisposed judgement on smoking; rather than having the people of the community vote. I DID NOT and DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SMOKERS CAN BE A BURDEN ON A MEDICAL SYSTEM NOR DID I DISAGREE WITH THE DISASTERS OF SMOKING; and for those smokers who've led life of hard work, taxes, raising a family, put in dues to the country; they should've had a hand in the decision making of this by-law. Not just non-smokers. I dont like second hand smoke but then again Im out in fresh air, move a couple meters away or ask them politely to smoke elsewhere... most people dont have a problem if they know they're bothering someone else with something that's apparently gone socially unacceptable; dont hide behind bylaws and sanctions. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 8:16am Edited: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 8:19am | ||
| bbjones User Info... | Junkies and other addicts deserve medical treatment the same as anyone else whether they pay taxes or not. Same with smokers. If you want to abandon anyone who doesn't meet your minimum standards of your definition of acceptable society, go start your own country. The less people are smoking in public, the less our society will perceive smoking as acceptable. Who hear can even fathom the idea that you would get on a tiny airplane and 75% of the passengers would chain smoke the entire trip? Smoking is nearing the end of its place in society. You should be in full support of that as there is nothing positive about smoking. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 8:44am | ||
| Jl User Info... | the point i was trying to get across has/d nothing to do with the social acceptability of smoking... it had to do with smokers deserving their rights just as much as non-smokers. Its easy for a non-smoker to say that theres nothing positive that comes from it; much the same as someone talking about harder drugs. But we all agree that junkies have rights just as much as anyone else apparently, so why cant that principal be accepted for smoking? is it because the media? government? I just thought that smokers deserved to argue their point just as much as a non-smoker has the right to say NO. Who are we to tell someone what they should be doing with their life? at anyrate this is gunna turn into a very very big circular arguement over rights between smokers and non. So nothing changes; views stay the same and people will still smoke. Are we to next ban smoking perminantly? then alcohol... then? There has to be some sort of line drawn where equal opportunity comes through. Otherwise we'll be throwing back and forth the same ol' pile of shit. again, I do not disagree with the bad points on smoking; just that of not giving a fair chance for their part of the bargin from the get go. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 9:01am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | (edit) I wasn't necessarily responding to you, JI, but more to some points you made in your post as well as others in this thread. I think many smokers will agree that there is nothing positive about smoking (not to mention that techincally there is no benefit). But they are addicts and cannot help themselves. So what do most intelligent people do when they screw themselves like that? The find some way to justify that smoking is either "good" or "ok" or anything they can think of to not feel like an idiot everytime they light up. There are big differences between some arguments made so far. Points like: Are we to next ban smoking perminantly? then alcohol... then? Yes, we are moving towards banning smoking permanently. Why not alchohol you ask? Becuase in moderation, it has proven medical benefits or is at least not poinsonous. Yes it can be abused and there are laws and treatments surrounding that side of things. But anything can be abused... like hamburgers or ice cream or suntanning. Smoking in moderation is not beneficial. Smoking is smoking. Taking poison in moderation is still taking poison. Do smokers have rights? Of course they do. Do smokers have the right to continually poison themselves due to an addiction? Yes. Does anyone have the right to continually poison other people? Not a chance. Do we allow this in society? Yes, all the time. Are we always trying to do something to stop it from happening, yes all the time. Are there smokers out there who think they should be allowed to maintain the right to toss around poisonous fumes with complete disregard for other people's health and safety? - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 9:21am Edited: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 9:33am | ||
| tobaccoian User Info... | taking smokers off of outdoor patios and forcing them out on the street just means more people are going to be exposed to the smoke, its ridiculous, not to mention what happens when you put a bunch of drunk people out on the street and in a big group, thats how shit gets started. I agree with the not smoking in restaraunts, maybe not even restaraunt patios, but pubs that have outside areas specifically for smoking should be fair game, you dont like it sit inside with all the other fuckin prudes. You dont want to serve people outside? fine, just let us have a drink with our smoke. Anyone on the crds side on this one really needs to watch the south park about this. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 9:42am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | No doubt there will be complications and difficulties in adjusting to these by-lawas. Change is difficult. It forces people to think and make decisions. I heard all the same views about the ban for restaurants, and then the ban for bars/pubs. Is this the same? Not exactly, but it sure is similar. Smoker rights, blah blah... I can't do what I want anymore, blah blah... If you really think these bylaws are harmful to the public then you have something to gripe about. Otherwise, you are just throwing a tantrum because there was a change made that didn't go your way. Maybe, just maybe if things get annoying enough, more smokers will think about quitting. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:02am | ||
| Spinvis User Info... | Smoking is disgusting and a complete turn off... not to mention the stench. I don't understand why people smoke this day in age. so unhealthy...and what about the people working and serving the food on the patios? The ones that don't smoke have to be exposed to the smoke for their shift. So it makes sense they ban it outside. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:49am Edited: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:51am | ||
| Sati User Info... | Can't stand smoking rooms, and can't even really stand packed shows when people spark up cuz they can't make it outside. Can barely take hanging out with my best friends in their homes when they're smoking (cigarettes). It seems I take it for granted now, but the ban in restaurants & bars has been a godsend for people like me who actually step outside the bar for *fresher* air, rather than a smoke! - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:10pm Edited: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:11pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | I know where your coming from BB, I hear all the stats possible; my boss' wife heads the clean air initiatives(anti-smoking bylaws). I do believe its your right to not have to put up with smoke. I also believe its my right to ask you not to drink infront of me or my kids because I do not want the influence of alcohol to take over their lives and destroy their liver thus eventually dying of some form of cancer. What I've been after is that there has to be a defined line between addiction(to substance) and bystanders rights. I can safely say that half the bystanders that complain about smoke happen to enjoy drinking to excess(*who doesn't?); now while smoking has no benefit other than killing you, alcohol may have benefits at the NON-abused level; it still has the potential to kill. And not to mention the alcohol related deaths are very high too. Why isn't this substance considered just as bad? Is it because some doctor found that drinking a half ounce of alcohol a day keeps the doc away? The reason why I keep posting on here is that I think that its a pretty heated debate and I like to hear everyones opinions.... bb you seem to have a good grasp on your opinions and value that you haven't called me an idiot for my opinions. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 1:26pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | At the Deftones I was givin er so hard in the overwhelming heat and then caught a waft of tobacco smoke which almost made me puke. Whatever, we all agree it's not a great smell. Junkies may technically have the same rights to a hospital bed as a non junkie, but try overdosing some time and see how you get treated in the emerg. Many surgeries will not be performed if a patient won't quit smoking. This is so "1984" . The gov is just trying to make it more and more difficult to continue to smoke, without making it illegal. If you don't like it, protest, smoke in bars anyway, riot in the streets. Go for it. See how much support you get. Democracey doesn't mean freedom for all, it means freedom for the majority. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 1:35pm Edited: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 1:36pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | Stupid, lame, boring, lame, stupid. - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 3:25pm | ||
| bbjones User Info... | Shouldn't you be outside sweeping up cigarette butts? - Wed, 25 Jul 2007 3:59pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | "Democracy doesn't mean freedom for all, it means freedom for the majority." In a lot of cases the wealthy minority control democracy too. Vote with a bullet. - Fri, 27 Jul 2007 7:18am | ||
| mangelsen User Info... | I love Victoria. What other city will give you a syringe to shoot dope with and then a fine for smoking a cig? - Fri, 27 Jul 2007 7:29am | ||
| dumpstermesh User Info... | LOL...well said. - Fri, 27 Jul 2007 4:31pm | ||
| lisa User Info... | one minute they want everyone off the streets,cause theres always fights or plenty of loitering outside buisinessses and bars ,then they make patios too accomodate this , then toss evryone back outside,make up your mind already.. - Sun, 29 Jul 2007 5:56pm | ||
| Mofo User Info... | I agree 100% that non-smokers who want to eat somewhere should not be subject to that disgusting odour; and I'm a smoker myself. However, has anyone considered that the same people who outcry for the "illegalization" of cigarettes, are more than likely many of the same people who would openly support legalizing pot? Doesn't that constitude a bit of a double standard? While I certainly agree that sticking a cigarette in your face every hour or so is by far worse than the odd joint a few times a day, it can't be healthy...PERIOD. This society is, as someone else mentioned, assaulted by a myriad of other potentially threatening things that no-one seems to object to. Take the junkies and aggresive panhandlers (downtown) for instance. In a recent survey from the City of Victoria, it stated that over 40% of people who frequent downtown day and night feel "unsafe" because of this issue. I for myself see these people as just that...people. However, I do tend to feel threatened when by myself walking by a group of people who are so jacked up on shit that they don't feel pain....but thats ok right? As long as the non-smokers don't feel threatend by the off chance of inhaling a puff of smoke. Thats just fine for the city to allow these people to suffer, and in the process theaten the immediate sense of security of the public. Double standards surround us, and while there is no easy solutions, the city is more than aware that if smokers really wanted to smoke in these areas...they could with little ramification. In fact, in one story I read in the Times Colunist it more or less stated that the city would be all but powerless to enforce this by-law if smokers were to object. How many by-law officers are there in comparison to smokers in this city? - Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:56pm Edited: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 1:01pm | ||
| Bounce User Info... | don't throw your fucking butts out the window of your car... next time I see someone do that I will get out of my car and through it back in your window... stupid fucks...whats the difference between throughing garbage out??? hmmmmm lazy..don't all cars come with ashtrays? ok..i said it...lol... - Fri, 3 Aug 2007 4:50pm Edited: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 4:54pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | trust me, youd rather have a cig butt fly at your windshield than a bag of garbage lol it just seems logical that way :P I'll remember to clean out the ashtray next time; before I throw out a butt from the window lol last thing i need is some crazy woman tossin' it back at me :P j/k - Fri, 3 Aug 2007 5:16pm | ||
| dumpstermesh User Info... | That just so rude though...especially in the summer when most of us have our windows down. I haven't had a smoke fly into my car from another driver yet, but I've heard it happens and this preggo would follow you to the ends of the earth to go bonkers on you for such an offence. Lets not forget the fire hazard issue in dry weather! - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 1:16am | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | ...as mentioned in another thread, when I was a kid sleeping in the backseat of our 1974 station wagon, flying on down the highway, moms whipped a butt out of the front window that flew back in my rear window,lit my Teddy Bear on fire, the one I was using as a pillow at the time. HOLY SHIT BATMAN! - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 1:32am | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | When ML7 was on tour years ago, I was super hungover from a night of heavy drinking and undercooked pork chops at a campsite just outside of Canmore. We were cruising down the highway with all the windows open and I hurled pure acid bile out the window and it came back inside and hit Tony in the face and Chris in the eye. So if bile can fly back in, a butt can certainly do the same. - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:20pm | ||
| Bounce User Info... | fuck my spelling is bad! ewe Mr. Hell..... thats gross...lol... I usually open the door when puking from the car, but I usually get the driver to pull over...lol...you know your close friends when you can puke on your friends face and still remain friends!!! - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 1:41pm | ||
| nicola User Info... | I have to say that I liked things better when smoking was allowed on the patios... I mean... you expect that when you go out onto a patio at a bar, there will be smokers there... now what's happening is all the smokers are hanging out in the doorway just outside the place and you have to walk through the cloud of smoke to go into the building... so if anything... as a non-smoker, I"m more exposed to smoke now than before... at least before I could choose not to go out on the patio! - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 9:18pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Very soon, the only place for smokers will be a little drawn-off area in the middle of all multi-lane roadways. Many will die, but hey, they're killing themselves anyway.. (Or at least that might be the thought at the time). . . - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:40pm | ||
| Bounce User Info... | smokers....... you know, you are being banished from society..... what about us drunk girls?...when are they gonna ban us from getting hammered and taking our shirts off in public?.......uh oh..i'm gonna read this tomorow..and laugh at myself...but seriuosly....smoking does really stink.....ewe... but you should have equal rights....... - Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:53pm | ||
| Nicholas Antoni Marek Gibas User Info... | http://www.joejackson.com/news.php?id=81&m=07&y=2007 interesting read...even though it's UK based... - Sun, 5 Aug 2007 1:58am | ||
| Andrew User Info... | im a weekend smoker..(really) and i couldnt care less..saves me money and health...and i wont be coughing up phlegm in front of that hot bartender. :) - Sun, 5 Aug 2007 2:11am | ||
| Bounce User Info... | where's the hot bartender? - Sun, 5 Aug 2007 6:41am | ||
| Danielle User Info... | Mr. Hell: Good puke story. I got one for ya.....was takin the bus after new year's party when I was about 15. Started feeling sick so I opened the window and stuck my head out. The buses then still had the slide-over, rounded edge windows that had limited opening. Got my head stuck out the bus window and the driver had to pull over to assist in getting my head back in the bus. Good thing I was too gooned to be too embarrassed. I told this girl I met in Heidlberg, Germany about that 6 years later, some snotty young republican chick that was way too fucking whiny for me anyway and she laughed so hard she choked and fell down and one her homophobic sorority sisters had to go mouth to mouth to get her breathing again. Then I was laughing so hard...... - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 4:09am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | FFS! That artical (joe jackson) is such a useless waste of space it isn't funny. So many people are missing the point (on purpose in some cases just so they can rant about "rights"). It isn't that society is out to protect non-smokers you retards, it is about moving towards a total and complete removal of smoking from our society. Pot is not addictive (in general). Nicotine is highly addictive and must be stopped. Why is this so hard to understand? This comment is the exact type of thing the gov is trying to turn around: "I have to say that I liked things better when smoking was allowed on the patios... I mean... you expect that when you go out onto a patio at a bar" The whole idea is that in a few years time, if anyone lights up on an outodoor patio, every head within nose range will turn and stare, and someone will eventually walk over and ask the person to stop. Same thing now when you are on a plane or in a movie theatre, or in a non-smoking section. If someone lights up do you say "good for you excercising your rights!" or do you say "hey retard, you can't smoke here!". I sure wish people would stop focusing on the one point of "second hand smoke" and look at the real issue. Yes they are using the second hand smoke cause as a way to actually pass law (they would never get away with just saying smokers aren't allowed to smoke becuase it is bad for them). Smoke all you want. But do it inside your own home with your windows and doors shut. Oh that bothers you? Gee, I wonder why... - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 9:37am Edited: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 9:39am | ||
| Tim-Bitchfork User Info... |  Smoking has been around for far too long the only reason why is due to the bribes and taxes the gov't makes from them. Typically when the gov't sees a massive single thing killing it's people, especially when it's addictive and preventable, they stop it. Look at the TC's report on the most deadly car-crash intersections. Saanich was named most dangerous on the island, a week later the cops have Pat Bay covered every single block with speeding patrols. Yes, people will fart, people will drive cars, but does this give you cancer? Maybe. At anywhere near the rate of smoking? NOT A CHANCE. At the end of the day people need to fart, people need to drive (kinda), people DON'T need to smoke and if they do that only proves my point. People fart, you can't really make some rule not to, people drive polluting cars, the government is looking at making changes over to better fuels Vancouver has Air Care for example. The difference is these two things do something for the public and people. Farting releases gasses you don't need, driving can have some kind of product, you getting somewhere, maybe delivering something. Smoking costs you money, gets you addicted then kills you and basically has no benefit to the smoker and non-smoker. Like even if you don't drive, how did the food you eat get to your place? I believe 1 in 1600 drivers will be in a car accident in their lives, the gov't makes you wear a seatbelt due to this fact, same with bicycles. Yes, you could take your health into your own hands and decide not to wear something that will save your life, but it is enforced for the good of the people. Consider how many people have been saved cause of this seatbelt law enforcing safety, and smoking kills more than 5 times more people than driving accidents. This smoking law wasn't to target or alienate smokers, it was to stop people from DYING! Yes, you hate this now but look at the children in 10 years who won't be smoking and thus killing themselves because of this. Our gov't is kinda there to do that, thats their job. I know people addicted to smoking and hate smoking. They light up while bitching about the fact that they are addicted to doing it. That just kinda says it all to me. You know what they should have made illegal to begin with? NICOTINE. If you take the Nicotine out of smokes and you still want them, well then I'll just shutup then. And you'd probably smoke less thus making you less likely to die even though you are still inhaling like 200 chemicals that just shouldn't be anywhere near your body. My $0.02. No offense to smokers, I know many. I feel sorry for what you're going though. "Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death * 45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year - and the number is still growing. * Smoking is responsible for one in five deaths in Canada. This is roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined. The chance of dying from smoking for long-time smokers is 1 in 2. Deaths from smoking result in 15 years loss of expected life, on average. * About half the deaths from smoking happen before the smoker reaches 70 years of age. These smokers lose an average of 22 years of life. Older persons (70 and over) who die because of smoking lose an average of 8 years of life expectancy. * Of the 45,000 deaths each year: 29,000 are among men 16,000 are among women 100 are among infants Sources: Health Canada, National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse." - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:20pm Edited: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:48pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | "The whole idea is that in a few years time, if anyone lights up on an outodoor patio, every head within nose range will turn and stare, and someone will eventually walk over and ask the person to stop." good luck. - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 1:19pm | ||
| diordnadionarap User Info... | My feelings towards smoking are basically that anyone has the right to smoke if they want to, but I don't want to, so stop making me inhale it everywhere I go outside. Like, if you were obese, I would never try to stop you from eating. Go ahead and kill yourself with food, whatever. But once you start stuffing Big Macs in my mouth when I clearly don't want to eat that junk and become an obese pig like you, then I draw the line there. No, I don't enjoy inhaling that filth like you. So stop exhaling you fucking idiots when I'm walking past you. - Wed, 15 Aug 2007 8:53pm | ||
| dumpstermesh User Info... | What gets me are the people who decide to inhale the smoke in the appriopriate place then walk to where they are not allowed to smoke to exhale it. Defiant little fuckers but I just want to punch them. Like, walking into my restaurant and exhaling your nasty smoke just makes me walk away instead of wanting to seat you let alone serve you!! Today we had regulars get mad because for the thousandth time we had to tell them that they had to stop taking their drinks over to where they could smoke. We are only licensed to serve alcohol on the patio or inside and, of course, they can't smoke there. We didn't make the rules and if we turn a blind eye to them then everyone else who is obeying the law gets pissed! Fuck 'em. Get a bottle and go home!! I don't need your bitching or your lousy tip! - Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:40pm | ||
| CL User Info... | "45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year - and the number is still growing." I assume the number is still growing because these people are getting older and reaching the age when they would've, uh, croaked anyway. The way these statistics are kept, if you're a smoker and you die, you're listed as "dying from smoking" whether you go from lung cancer at 45 or drift away peacefully in your sleep at 85. - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 8:32am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | Assume = Ass + U + me (except ignore the "me" part and just say it makes U sound like an Ass) - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 8:39am | ||
| CL User Info... | Wow - that's really clever. I never heard that one before. And it's a heckuvan argument, too! - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:45am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | How can I argue with someone that knows how national statistics are created? Send me the URL for your Pro-smoking website and I'll go sign up. Cheers! - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:31am Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:32am | ||
| CL User Info... | It's been seven years since I had these stats at hand, but I'll try to dig them up for you. While I'm at it, you can ponder why "deaths from smoking" would increase while the number of smokers declines. On a related note, here's an interesting link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=AbstractPlus And before we waste any more of each other's time, I'm not arguing that smoking isn't injurious to one's health, I'm just pointing out the fact that many smokers die at a ripe age, right around the time their non-smoking contemporaries are starting to drop off. Without even digging anything up, I feel confident I can assume this: 100% of us will die. - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:00pm Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:10pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | I have plenty more time to waste :) I ignored the "... and the number is still growing" comment after the first read since it is nonsense. My comments were attacking the point that the statistics are somehow invalid. As far as I know, all smoking/death stats I've seen are always talking about "premature" death from smoking. Genetics seem to always prevail even against smoking. Smoking isn't a guaranteed early death, but it sure increases the chances. I'm not sure I'm ready to agree with your last statement... science will save us! - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:19pm | ||
| CL User Info... | Study concluding physically active smokers can expect to die 1.6 - 3.9 years earlier than physically active non- smokers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10192312&dopt=AbstractPlus Unfortunately, this doesn't directly back up my assertion that cause-of-death statistics are skewed, but it does support it: presumably the non-active smokers are croaking off earlier due at least in part to other health factors i.e. obesity, other substance abuse, etc. Hey BBJ: I posted the first part here before I'd seen your last comment. I don't know if we're really too much at odds. Like I said, I'm not saying smoking doesn't damage one's health, just that the statistics cited by anti-smoking zealots are wildly skewed. I can also post a link to a major WHO study that showed no significant correlation between exposure to ETS (secondhand smoke) and premature death. I guess we MIGHT be at odds on that point ;) Anyway, my meta-point is that you've got to die from something, and if smoking brings a lot of pleasure and (since smoking is now banned in public places) doesn't harm anyone else, one might well consider a statistical risk of 3.6 years' premature death no big deal. Naturally, when you're on your death bed from smoking at 81 instead of 85, you might regret it, if you hadn't already gotten Alzheimer's or some other equally unpleasant disease of old age. - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:39pm Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:48pm | ||
| CL User Info... | I guess I shouldn't be a tease...Here's an abstract of the WHO study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=AbstractPlus - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:52pm Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:55pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | That's definitely the lowest "years lost to smoking" range I've seen. It does make some sense though that steady exersice will offset some of the poison injested by smoking. Got any numbers on what % of the population is actively exercising? That seems to be on the decline... drive by a school and look at all the fatties eating twinkies. I'm also sure that every study/statistics set has its own "interpretation"... here's some highlights of one off the Canadian site: In 1998: - 47,581 deaths attributed to smoking - 1,107 of those from second hand smoke (55 boys and 41 girls < 1 year old) - an increase of 9,224 since 1989, mostly females - cigarette smoking was responsible for 22% of all deaths in 1998 in Canada. A good point to remember is that these types of stats reflect smoking trends from 2-3 decades earlier (when they were young and smoking). http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/mortal/1998/index_e.html Smoking in on the decline. That will continue unless someone comes up with a "smoke and stay healthy pill" to go along with the "remove all my lazy ass fat pill". There should be a big increase in toilet paper sales. Time to buy stock. Once smoking dwindles and actually stops affecting mortality rates so much, perhaps society can get on with the real killers like heart disease. That will be a tough transition since its all about eating animals and not exercising. Does any of that matter? Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality "Imagine that a physicist detonates a nuclear bomb beside himself. In almost all parallel universes, the nuclear explosion will vaporize the physicist. However, there should be a small set of alternative universes in which the physicist somehow survives (i.e. the set of universes which support a "miraculous" survival scenario). The idea behind quantum immortality is that the physicist will remain alive in, and thus remain able to experience, at least one of the universes in this set, even though these universes form a tiny subset of all possible universes. Over time the physicist would therefore never perceive his or her own death." EDIT: Oh, wanted to just point out something. "... and if smoking brings a lot of pleasure ..." The "pleasure" that you get from smoking is satisfying the addiction that forms into cravings when not smoking. Weeeee! You can get the same "pleasure" by banging your head against the wall for while then stopping just to say "wow, not banging your head against a wall is really pleasurable!" - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 1:29pm Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 1:35pm | ||
| CL User Info... | Good points, and the quantum reference is nice. Actually, I'm confident I'm immortal because the notion of linear time is an artificial construct of the mind's reliance on the perception of cause and effect. Naturally, in the noumenal realm, reality is timeless and monistic. That probably wouldn't be much consolation in my oxygen tent, but I will have quit smoking long before then :-) - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 1:39pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | Still smoking? http://www.allencarrseasyway.com/ I tried countless methods and times. No luck, or did quit then started again. Now I'm done for good by reading a book (see above link). Why does it work? Becuase it undoes all of the tomfoolery that you put yourself through to continue smoking. Any intelligent self-respecting smoker can quit easily. Its not magic. Want to hear the best part? You are supposed to continue smoking as you normally would all the way through reading the book. No cutting down, no setting dates when to quit etc. Just smoke and read. You have nothing to lose. Enjoy. - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 1:58pm Edited: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 2:03pm | ||
| CL User Info... | Thanks - it's well-reviewed. I'll take a look at it. - Thu, 16 Aug 2007 2:07pm | ||
| CL User Info... | Dang - I wish I'd read the Joe Jackson article before I blabbed. He pretty much hit my points and referred to the same evidence (although he didn't have my juicy links.) Oh well, I guess that's why he's a hasbeen pop star and I'm just an opinionated schlub *sigh* - Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:21am | ||
| Mofo User Info... | RE: dumpstermesh's comment "We didn't make the rules and if we turn a blind eye to them then everyone else who is obeying the law gets pissed! Fuck 'em. Get a bottle and go home!! I don't need your bitching or your lousy tip! " no offence meant whatsoever, but actually according to the city of Victoria, they are acting on behalf of what non-smokers (such as yourself) wanted. So, the lesson? Be careful what you ask for! I smoke occasionally myself, but always do so in respect to others, period. I really think that this by-law has its' merits, however it borders on autocratic. - Sun, 19 Aug 2007 4:49pm Edited: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 4:52pm | ||
| Sati User Info... | "That article (joe jackson) is such a useless waste of space it isn't funny." I agree with this... mostly because from what I got from finally forcing myself to skim through it, is the guy didn't have the sensitivity to note that LIVING POORLY (sucking up smoke that actually DOES make a lot of us REALLY SICK) isn't good enough for a lot of us. Statistics backing up 2nd hand smoke deaths don't matter. I don't care whether I die from 2nd hand smoke or not (actually I do, but thats not my point)... its how I may be forced to LIVE with it in a less than acceptable/comfortable way that I'm offended by. Seeing music is essential to me. Seeing music while huffing other people's cig smoke shouldn't have to be part of it. If its my choice to view/listen from a smoking room, thats my choice. In the common area, would not be. Thank god for the smoking ban here. To some people eating/drinking in certain places is essential to them... ditto. And I agree with what "diordnadionarap" said.. although I don't like to say it like that because a lot of smokers aren't physically sensitive enough to be aware of what they're doing to the rest of us. Its like a macho thing - what, are they finally going to call us fags? And thanks for the book recommendation. I'm going to send that and what you wrote to one of my best friends tonight. Fingers crossed! (he's already tried to quit multiple times and wants to) - Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:56pm Edited: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:58pm | ||
| CL User Info... | "Seeing music is essential to me." "To some people eating/drinking in certain places is essential to them" This gets us back to the original question (i.e. original indoor smoking ban) of individual versus public rights. You say you don't even care whether secondhand smoke kills you, just that you find it unpleasant, and apparently feel your desire trumps those of smokers, non-smokers who don't mind smoke, and the proprietors of the establishment. Well, I think to most people, the argument against ETS is that it's physically harmful. As Jackson points out in his article, there has yet to be one proven death from ETS, and the World Health Organization,s longest, largest study actiually showed a slight DECREASE in risk of death in certain cases of exposure. At any rate, we're not even talking about indoor exposure anymore - now we're talking about OUTSIDE. To eliminate outdoor exposure to an airborne substance that has not been proved to have any adverse health effects even indoors, the CRD has forced smokers to the sidewalk, where they probably expose more passersby to their smoke than they would have diners on the patio. Not to mention lost revenue and increased expenses for many of the restaurants. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 8:22am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | "Not to mention lost revenue and increased expenses for many of the restaurants" The sooner it is made more difficult and less acceptable to smoke the more people qill quit. The sooner you get people to quit smoking the sooner they will have hundreds of more dollars a month to spend on $5 beers and $15 omlettes. As with many businesses and industry things change. A smart business sees it coming, prepares and adapts and has little trouble dealing with it. The stubborn ones that try to hold out are the ones that suffer (and complain) the most. Were there any hard numbers on the effects of the indoor ban? I remember owners screaming about having to shut down etc etc. It does help that the economy is so strong right now... probably a good time to force some change for the good. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 9:10am | ||
| Sati User Info... | First, I want to apologize for finally dropping my 2 cents into these arguments without properly reading through the whole thread first. I usually only make time to skim every few days so my stuff sometimes doesn't come off in a linear way. Anyway, again, who really cares how many deaths from 2nd hand smoke there are? I am not going to die from 2nd hand smoke because I'm smart enough to know that it causes MY body damage so I make sure not to expose myself to it. And if I did it may not show itself as lung damage, it may only show as overall damage to other organs etc, a debilitation to my entire body, so how would they know it was primarily as a result to 2nd hand smoke anyway? Especially if I lived a completely healthy lifestyle apart from the smoke? This deaths gage is crap. When I was younger I was around 2nd hand smoke a lot and wasn't aware of what it was doing to me, just that I felt kinda crummy. It wasn't til later that I pieced it together and started avoiding it. A lot of people are not aware until its too late... they're much more desensitized. We have an obligation to public health & safety... we wouldn't put kids in a smoking enviro, for instance, because we know better, and they don't. But it sounds like some of you would without batting an eye. (- sorry, I edited out my potty mouth after the fact!) - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 9:13am Edited: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 9:47am | ||
| Jl User Info... | "..The sooner you get people to quit smoking the sooner they will have hundreds of more dollars a month to spend on $5 beers and $15 omlettes." doesn't beer seriously damage your liver as with egg's being high in cholestrol there for is going to cause you heart problems? WHERE WILL IT END!!!!!!! lol - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 9:31am | ||
| Chopper User Info... | I'm with Sati regarding smoking around kids. I've smoked outside our home since before my son was even born(16yrs now). Anyone who smokes around their kid(s) needs to be thrashed within an inch of death. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:00am | ||
| CL User Info... | I don't smoke in my house either, because my 2 year old can't choose whether or not to be exposed to it. That's the whole point of the individual versus collective rights discussion: bars don't allow entry to people under 19, ergo if you go into a bar you're by necessity an adult making a choice to do so. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:27am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | JI, that is part of the issue. The sooner we get smoking out of society the sooner we can focus more on the other heatth issues. Here's something else to consider (no longer responding to JI)... Smoking = you reek, you litter, you're inconsiderate of others Example: What would you think of me if I didnt bathe for a month (or rolled around in horse shit for a while) then stood upwind of you while you ate your fancy steak dinner? Then threw bits of garbage around wherever I walked or drove? I have the right to do all of that and you can't stop me. (don't argue about the littering thing... and maybe there is a law against bathing but just let me finish my example!) The thing is, it is not socially acceptable for me to do any of those things. I can sit in my house and stink it up and make a mess all I want. But outside... in public... 3 feet from someone eating a meal, I *shouldn't* be doing those things. Another example of the inconsideration bread into smokers: I was waiting outside the MV Branch waiting for a cab. A few smokers were around the corner etc. Then this 16 yr old walks outside, lights up and paces back and forth in front of me and the open door to the branch. She proceed to power smoke about half, chucks the butt on the ground in front of the door, gives it a squish with her foot and exhales as she walks back inside the building. Does any of this seem "appropriate" to anyone? Becuase there may not be a direct infant death proven to be a result of second hand smoke should we stop with the bans? (even though many studies state otherwise) Should we trust the word of any addicted smoker in any of these arguments? Is the bylaw fair? I don't care becuase anything that helps rid this city/country of smoking is a good thing. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:41pm Edited: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:44pm | ||
| CL User Info... | "I don't care becuase anything that helps rid this city/country of smoking is a good thing." At least you're honest, BBJ. The problem is, in our society we're supposed to balance individual rights with collective rights. The fact you hate smoking, and being exposed to smoke, doesn't automatically trump the rights of smokers and people who don't care about smoking (admittedly a small portion of the population now that the issue has become so polarizing.) One of the problems with the CRD bylaw (as has already been pointed out) is that in some cases it actually exposes MORE people (i.e. passersby) to ETS. When we try to balance individual and collective rights, aome appeal must be made to rationality and evidence, hence the importance of scientific studies. BTW I still don't smoke around my little girl, even though I am convinced ETS won't harm her, because she's my little girl, and why take the chance? (Of course I don't smoke around other people's children for the same reason.) But when we're talking about bar patios, which are only occupied by adults and, if properly constructed, exposed to the elements, it's quite simply ludicrous to impose the same standards. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 1:37pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | I'm in general agreement there in regards to how laws should come about, but still not sold on these laws causing as much harm as people think. I'm no scientist, but I would rather walk past a smoker than sit beside one for 30 minutes. Even though the sidewalk smoker contacts more people, it is for much less actual exposure time and certainly less concentrated. Besides, the less convenient it is to smoke, the less people will smoke. Push them to the sidewalk or into the middle of the street... they will smoke less. It will become even more degrading and embarassing (for some). And how much proof is needed to start passing by-laws? Has it been proven that smoking emits poisons and toxins? Yes. Does second hand smoke contain the same poisons? Yes. If I breath in second hand smoke and I breathing in poison? Yes. Should you have the right to exhale poison into my face while I'm walking down the road/waiting for a cab/eating my breakfast? No. Smokers are still allowed to smoke, just not allowed in even more places than before. EDIT: How's this for an idea? Next time a smoker breaths near me I'm going to sue for assault! Oh wait... I'm not American :( - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 2:00pm Edited: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 2:16pm | ||
| Sati User Info... | I just thought of something else - its a far different sucking back smoke through your mouth as opposed to through the nose. For me anyway. Its actually extremely painful. (I feel the need to explain this to you desensitized smokers!) I don't lecture or avoid smokers, and can hang in a bad smoking room for (up to 5 min) if I have to, but constant, thick smoke really hurts the middle/back of my nose & tonsils. If someone sparks up beside me at a packed show, and the air's not moving, I can be (& recently was) in excrutiating pain after a short time. I could take a drag off a cigarette and be ok, but definately couldn't inhale half that drag through my nose without first being in severe pain, and then being quite ill. And if it hurts, I'd imagine its damaging. And yes, I know I'm "delicate" compared to most bar folk. I live a healthy lifestyle because my body just isn't be able to tolerate excesses. But I don't think anyone should be denied essential pleasures because of having that kind of constitution. (I missed a couple shows at an a/a space a while back cuz they allowed smoking everywhere, when there was absolutely no ventilation. Still bitter.) Come on, aren't there pictures of blackened 2nd-hand smoke lungs or other soft tissue damage somewhere?! To think of babies' bodies being exposed to that... ugh. And he's right, ventilation is key. About outdoor patios, I think banning is an extreme measure, although sometimes if the air is stagnant, a couple of strategically placed fans should be required. I wouldn't care if I walked past a smokey patio though, I can keep going and clear my lungs with fresh air pretty easily. And I also wanted to add that most smokers aren't aware of how the residual, chemical-ly smell of smoke hangs in a well ventilated home for (literally) days after a single cigarette is smoked. No exaggeration. Non-smokers can pick it up in a wiff. Its not the same with weed, which clears within a couple of hours. - Mon, 20 Aug 2007 2:45pm Edited: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 2:53pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | For the kids... http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=64ac1d9a-316d-4b1f-bb7c-5cfca18924eb&k=36227 Also for the kids... http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat - Wed, 22 Aug 2007 4:25pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
Pacific Arts Market
Showcases local artists & makers, hosts events & workshops
Ladysmith BC
Open / Operational
District of Saanich - Community Services
The Community Services Division of Saanich Parks, Recreation...
Open / Operational
