1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

[jaguar]

No. I don't smoke, anymore. I did smoke, for about a year.
The result of a: social smoking at parties (very much passé) b: stress, but I stopped about 3 months ago now, haven't touched one since. Although I have smoked some apple - yes apple. Its a mix of apple, molasses and little bit of pure tobacco smoked in one of those huge middle eastern water pipes, incredibly smooth, very nice tasting, but that doesn't belong to me so its a once in a blue moon thing.

I gave up by cutting down slowly how much I smoked (from 4-5 a day to one every day/2days. Encouragement from my girlfriend "you've smoked, I’m not kissing you", and a nasty feeling every time I looked at the horrible yellow patches on my fingers. Surprisingly enough mum never found out I did smoke, that was difficult to pull off, but I managed to get my tongue pierced for about 3 months before she twigged too.

and god don't even let me start about the raves... why must kids smoke! why!!! why when it is 30 billion degrees inside a venue and sweat is collecting on the ceiling and raining on people

There's something out there that's getting kids to smoke... we just gotta find out what it is and eliminate it.

Being a young bloke that ahs smoked I guess I’ve got a pretty good idea why - culture. For all the knowledge, most kids still think it’s cool to smoke, from my experience it tends to progress from social smoking at parties and the like to a permanent habit. They are not hard to get hold of, about 50% of places will sell to underage, and some charge a "tax" on it though. I still have a reasonable number of friends I know will smoke for their entire lives or close to, pack a day at 16 years old...

Personally I think if they made better use o the impotence ads, it'd probably have an effect, heart disease, lung cancer etc are a long way off, not being able to get it up would certainly stop allot of people, and the jokes would help too.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by modernhamlet
I'd like to ask whether or not people think that there should be public places that smokers can go and smoke without either breaking the law or standing outside (that's illegal in CA now too, isn't it?)?

As a follow up, those who said "no" to the above questions: Should people be allowed to smoke at all? (In their own homes...) Obviously if the majority (non-smokers) completely had their way, smoking would be illegal. But should it?

NO ONE should be denied the right to smoke in their home or on their property. Although, I see a dangerous possible scenario here...

Let's say you smoke in your home. And you have kids. Could Social Services pull those kids out of your home, citing that you are putting them in danger?

Anyway...back to point.

Yes, people should be allowed to smoke outside, along the lines of what dham said. At the VA Hospital in St. Louis, they had a little alcove set aside where people could smoke. When I was on jury duty in St. Louis, they had a separate inside ventilated room where you could light up as you wished.

As far as places INSIDE...UNLESS a majority of that company's employees smoke, I don't think they should have to go out of their way to accomodate smokers.

Restaurants and bars: There is a Bennigan's in Columbia, MD that has a sealed-off bar--you have to enter the bar using a separate entrance. (i.e. You go in the restaurant, but if you want to go to the bar, you go through another door that is inside the restaurant.) I thought that was very cool. I say leave the bars for smokers. My personal opinion of course...but in the end, it should be up to the owner of said bar. He should try to determine whether it is worth it to stop the smoking or not...not the state or county or city or whatever.

However, what if public smoking "bars" were set up? Like a tavern of sorts...where people could chew the fat and smoke 'til their heart's content.

I don't know what the numbers are at this point. What is it? Like 20% of Americans smoke? That's over 50 million people, not to mention those that were too ashamed to answer. That's too much of a section of people to ignore. In my 26 years on this earth, the coolest people I've met have mainly been smokers. *shrugs*

[datalas]

As far as places INSIDE...UNLESS a majority of that company's employees smoke, I don't think they should have to go out of their way to accomodate smokers.

There is certainly something to be wary of in this, as you said "UNLESS a majority", seeing as in my current employment we have to (by law) provide a disabled toilet having to provide a smoking room could get expensive, especially considering that non of the nine employees are disabled (at least not in the way that requires their own toilet) nor smoke....

All things considered I suppose we could merrily have the disabled lav be the smoking room too, but then we are talking about silly laws for silly reasons...

Datalas

You'll appreciate that "disabled toilet" when you wind up in a wheelchair, I promise.

[datalas]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You'll appreciate that "disabled toilet" when you wind up in a wheelchair, I promise.

I dare say that I would, however since we currently have no need for it (we don't get many visitors either) it is occupying floor space that we need not pay for, and therefore draining resources needlessly (we really could do with the space, it is big enough for an office).

Since I suspect that if I, or anyone else needed the disabled lav they could use the one in the office next door (which is actually closer to the ofices than ours is...) you do wonder why it is one per company, and not neccersarily one per office suit, we have seven rooms, (three offices, a lab, a kitchen and two toilets...) and there is another lab set-up with similar facilites about three feet away from our front door.

I don't mean to sound nasty, but it does seem silly, specifically that we have to have a "disabled access toilet" in addition to the one we have anyhow. We had to have one fitted at my previous place of emplyment, which again occupied space.

Perhaps a better rule would be to have a disabled toilet that the rest of us were allowed to use, apparently (or according to the regulations) there is something in the design of one that stops abled bodied people using it, never saw what, other than the fact it's larger....

Co-incidentely we don't have to have seperate ladies and gents facilities.....

Datalas

I think one "disabled toilet" in a common area should be sufficient. Go figure that law dictates otherwise. Here, we have one per floor, in a common area, with the rest of the toilets. Floor layouts that make sense!

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by sycamore
NO ONE should be denied the right to smoke in their home or on their property. Although, I see a dangerous possible scenario here...
Let's say you smoke in your home. And you have kids. Could Social Services pull those kids out of your home, citing that you are putting them in danger?

Dangerous possible scenario for the children ... or dangerous possible scenario for the smoker who has children. Which is your point?

Divorcing spouses are successfully arguing smoking as an issue in child custody cases, where the courts must decide in the best interests of the children.

There is no constitutional right to smoke.

There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?

[Nic Name]

defecate? shit ... what's your point?

Anyway, to spare you the pain of thinking about it ...

my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.

and your corresponding point that there is no constitutional right to defecate might be that the government could also abridge your right to emit shit? Actually, no, in your case that might be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

And dham, don't tell me to calm down. I'm jus' being feces us.

My point is that there are a lot of things we do that are not specifically detailed in the Constitution. This does not make them any less of a right. Remember - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is "the condition of being free from restriction or control" - or at least that's the definition we want for this example, and it's my contention that this definition is what was intended by the "founding fathers". So while they laid out a few essential freedoms that could not be encroached upon, they also made it clear that people should have the right to do and act as they please <b>so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others</b>.

A good example of infringing upon the rights of others would be if I got tired of your stupid rhetoric and beat you to death. This would be infringing on your right to life. Remember - "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". A good example of doing something that infringes on no rights is <b>defecating</b>. Hence the prior mention. However, this is not Constitutionally protected. Would you vehemently dispute the right to defecate? Or would you, now that you are backed into a corner of needing to "shoot down" every "non right" that we exercise so that you can defend your original position, talk about how it wasn't actually "entrenched in the constitution" and therefore isn't a right? If John Ashcroft placed a ban on defecation, would you follow it? Or would you quietly (or not so quietly) dissent, using <b>your</b> bathroom and <b>your</b> body as you pleased?

Now. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay close attention.

Sometimes, when people smoke, they don't hurt anyone else. A good example of this would be when my buddy <b>sycamore</b> was driving back to Philadelphia last Friday night. I guarantee you that he smoked some cigarettes. Guess what? No one was hurt, except himself. So, he's infringing on no one elses' rights.

But, he did hurt himself. Not a whole lot in just that one night, but definitely some. However, is this really any different than slapping yourself on the hand? Or maybe pinching the skin on your arm? The damage may be deeper, but the idea is the same - hurting oneself without hurting anyone else. We could also call this <b>using ones' body as they pleased</b>. Kinda like going to the bathroom. No one's rights are infringed by either act. So, in that <b>fundamental aspect</b>, they are similar.

I know it might have been hard to make this connection, so I have spared you the pain of <i>thinking</i> about it. I hope this helps.

So, now we get to your other point: "so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation". My question to you is: What is in the interest of all the people?

If it's not smoking, then is it removing the right to smoke? If that's the case, then what other "undefined" personal freedoms can be taken away? The right to masturbate? Would you stand for that? The right to have sex without the intention of impregnation? Would you stand for a law, then, that criminalized coitus <b>unless</b> it was for procreative purposes? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?

When you start removing personal freedoms, even those that are undefined, you open the door to losing them all. So while it may not be specifically defined in the Constitution, and while I may not smoke, <b>smoking is a right</b> that I will forever vote to uphold, because <b>no one should be able to tell you what is right for you</b>.

[modernhamlet]

Nic Name,

At what point do you draw the line in the government's power to protect me from myself? Can you not see the Big Brother argument here? Time was that the government stayed out of people's private lives, and to be honest, I don't think things are so much better now that we're all "protected".

I used to be a radical liberal. I'd say I still have those leanings, but with a healthy dose of libertarianism thrown in. The perspective helps. Try it sometime.

But to address your point...

<b>my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.</b>

This is why we don't have a pure and direct democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If what was best for the nation was always what was best for the majority, here are just a few things you'd see:

Slavery (African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the population. The cheap labor source would surely benefit the majority wouldn't it?)

Eugenics (Mentally and physically handicapped persons contribute less to the overall well being of the nation. Make sure they don't reproduce and drag the average down.)

Enforced Christianity (We are predominantly a Christian country. Why not repeal that pesky First Amendment (as the majority could do if they wanted to) and demand all heathens convert?

Yes, these are exaggerations. But there is a point where a human being should be left to make their own choices. You and I clearly choose a different point. Smoking probably does harm to children who grow up in a smoking house. But so does parental neglect, a FAR more serious and widespread problem in this country.

I grew up in a house with a smoker. Yet I was an star athelete and got into a prestigious college. I picked up smoking there. Neither of my brothers smokes. Both are healthy and decent human beings. Do you really think that being taken from our loving home and forced to live in a series of foster homes with strangers would have been beneficial to our well-being?

The fact is... you have to have a license to drive a car, but you don't need one to have a child. Parenting well is incredibly difficult and most parents are frankly not fit for the job. But they do it anyway, the best that they can. And some of them smoke.

But arguing that the solution to any social problem is for the government to intervene on behalf of those who are being harmed is to invite us to live an Orwellian existance without free will. I, for one, will tolerate a little inconvenience or pain to make sure that never happens.

peace,

tom

[Nic Name]

Let me be clear, that I fully support your right to express your opinions and to disagree with me if you think differently. It doesn't bother me that we don't always agree.

I have said before, and I'll say it again, I have no problem whatever with those who choose to exercise their right to self-destruct by cigarette smoking. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't care. They can suck on the exhaust pipe of their car if they wish, and it wouldn't bother me. Although, there is probably a law against that.

And I'm not trying to change the minds of those who hold firm the views that it is their right to smoke.

I was just expressing concern for the higher rights of the children, and I suspect we might actually agree on that.

And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.

I was just hoping to raise some points of concern that smokers might value more that their so-called right to smoke. There may be personal costs associated with that choice that are just not worth it. For some people, even smokers, their children matter more ... so they buck up and quit their self-indulgent behavior. Sadly, other smokers are not at all concerned about the costs to their loved ones, never mind society, of their destructive habit. That concerns me. It might or might not concern you, and I'd still be interested to hear about your rationale for your opinions.

Those are the points that I hoped would be discussed, rather than a thoughtless response such as "There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?" And if nothing else, my barbed repartee did in fact motivate dham and hamlet to think about it for more than a minute and get their passionate thoughts out in their ensuing posts.

Gotta like that!

Originally posted by Nic Name
rather than a thoughtless response such as "There is no constitutional right to defecate. What's your point?"

No. It made a perfectly valid point, which was reinforced in my later post. The fact that you could not infer the meaning of it only indicates that it didn't make sense <b>to you</b>. It was far from thoughtless, even if it was only one line in length.

[Nic Name]

I apologize for not making my point make sense to you.

[modernhamlet]

Well, not to be difficult, Nic, but I didn't see a lot of substantive argument in your last post. I made my points, in a fairly dispassionate manner, and you largely ignored them. But to continue/conclude my argument against your stance...

<b>And as far as hamlet's inference that smoking parents can be good parents and the State ought not to step in and wretch the children from their natural parents ... the point that was raised by me for discussion is the issue of custody disputes between two caring and lawful parents. In such a case, whether smokers like to hear about it or not, the fact is that courts are taking into consideration the health risks to the children of the environment of a smoker's home compared to a non-smoker's home. Also, courts are prudently placing conditions on child access to restrict a smoking parent from smoking in the presence of their children for their sake.</b>

And I am arguing that this is absolutely wrong. There are SO many things that people do as parents that could be construed by the state as detrimental to the well being of a child. Yes, smoking is one of them. But so is arguing in front of them... How about drinking in front of them? That's legal for us, but illegal for them. I'm sure they'll be more likely to drink before 21 if they see that mom or dad do it.... How about divorce itself? That bad for children. Should we ban divorce for the good of the children?

I guess I have just two more tangental points before I drop this argument:

1. Just because the state (by legislation or by judicial verdict) says something is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong. Government does not have a monopoly on wisdom, nor does it never make mistakes. (see: Prohibition and the current failed War on Drugs) Those who make the laws are people too... They have an agenda and a bias... They make mistakes.

2. "Won't someone think of the children!?" has got to be the most overused and annoying argument ever. We're raising generation after generation of people essentially unequiped for dealing with the realities of adult life. We don't trust most kids to lead their own lives until their early twenties now. And even then they are inadequately prepared. Quit "protecting" them so much. You're not doing them any favors.

One final note: If you think that the people involved in the divorces you cite are being altruists, you really should wake up. I guarentee you that (like all other decisions we humans make) they're selfish individuals using the "smoking" card to manipulate someone into giving them their way. If they were so damn worried about the health of the child, why did they marry a smoker in the first place? Smoking should be a very minor factor, and certainly not a deciding one, in determining something as important as child custody.

peace,

mh

P.S. Whoever's .sig reads: "If salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon." has a good friggin' point.