It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 12
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

There are jobs - in which smoking is not a factor in performance - where not only must the employee not smoke, members of their family may not smoke. This is not just to not smoke on the job but to not smoke in their off-duty hours as well. And when applying for the job, a smoker must not have used any Big PHarma nicotene products (patches, gummy bears, lozenges or inhalors) - all of this things will provide a positive reading on the drug test.

Since the requirement to not smoke is unrelated to job performance, smokers are denied jobs simply by being smokers.

www.cbc.ca...

Rob Hall makes no apologies for his hiring policy. Smokers need not apply for jobs at Momentous in Ottawa. The internet company insists that employees don't light up. Not just at work but also at home... or anywhere. His company joins a growing trend in North America ... hospitals and companies are increasingly adopting similar hiring practices. Rob Hall says it's popular with the employees.

That is one example. Smokers are an identifiable minority who can no longer keep their private life separate from their work life.



Now you are going to patiently explain to me that smokers are not discriminated against because they can choose not to be smokers.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

www.parl.gc.ca...




The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. Here are some protections that the Charter guarantees: freedom of religion, of thought, of expression, of the press and of peaceful assembly the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic government the freedom to move around and live within Canada, and to leave Canada legal rights such as the right to life, liberty and security equality rights language rights


Note particularly the right of peaceful assembly - what does that mean. It means that Canadians have a constitional right - not only to assemble - but to assemble for a purpose.

there was a recent Supreme Court decision on this particular right. The police had shut down a private sex club where swingers liked to go and swap wives. The Supreme Court ruled that these people had the right to assemble peacefully to indulge in an activity that they enjoyed.

Just as recently, a man started his own private club in a private, free-standing building. The club had no employees. Entry to the public was restricted as you had to be a member to enter the building. Inside the building, the club allowed smokers to assemble for the purposes of smoking and socializing together. You understand that every single person who entered that building knew and understood that smoking was taking place inside the building.

The Health Unit shut the club down, depriving smokers of the only building in the entire province of Ontario that allowed smokers to peaceful assembly.

There is nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that limits its protection of citizens who like to indulge in practices that the general public might not approve of. We are not required to conform to anyone's idea of normal in order to be protected. - except smokers. Apparently, it is insufficient to be born in Canada, grow up in Canada, work and pay taxes in Canada and undertake all the duties and obligations of a Canadian Citizen to enjoy the protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must quit smoking or lose our rights

Tired of Control freaks




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Surefire
So, what I can gather from this is that non-smokers have some otherworldly 6th sense that greatly imperils them when someone somewhere lights up a cigarette. This same 6th sense of course doesn't encompass all the air pollution from anything else, just cigarettes.

It's not a 6th sense, it's smell.


As for air pollution, I live in a place with very little air pollution, and I notice the difference if I go to Lisbon, on the other side of the river, as there the pollution is much worse.


I'm beginning to think this is something similar to a pavlovian effect, where the mere knowledge of smoking causes you to feel bad, but being the the midst of a thousand vehicles pumping out fumes doesn't even register to you.

No.


There's nothing wrong with wanting me to not smoke near you, I get that. I wouldn't. But it's getting to the point to where you're saying the fact that I exist is an insult to non-smokers.

Not me, I'm not insulted just because someone wants to make their life worse, that's their problem.



I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some magical undocumented study comes up saying that smokers, even years after they quit, are somehow hurting everyone's health.

I would.


The important thing though, is that nonsmokers have someone they can deride and feel superior over, right?

Wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Pollution got much much better in California during that time. Cars were required to install catalytic converters. Industry were forced to control their discharges much closer

In the 1960s, children were actually wearing gas masks to play outside during recess because the smog and pollution was so bad, people were afraid the children would get sick and die.

So its not air pollution and its not smoking.

The only thing that makes sense is the Hygiene Theory. That kids are no longer exposed in any meaningful way to smoke during the time when their respiratory systems are developing.

you can read about the studies that were done into the relationship between smoking and asthma/atopy (allergies). They have even gone to the laboratory and found the biological pathway by which exposure to smoke prevents asthma and allergies in children

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Sorry I forgot to add the link

daveatherton.wordpress.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Surefire
So, what I can gather from this is that non-smokers have some otherworldly 6th sense that greatly imperils them when someone somewhere lights up a cigarette. This same 6th sense of course doesn't encompass all the air pollution from anything else, just cigarettes.


No. It is our lungs. Our lungs are sensitive to certain pollutants in the air and can cause an asthmatic flair up. Though if you want to consider my lungs seizing up as a "sixth sense" by all means. I just call it being unable to breathe.

I am just now getting over a particularly bad case of Bronchitis. Pretty much every possible allergen near me caused my lung to seize up. Pollution, animal dander, smoking, etc. Smoking is something YOU as the smoker can control. Neither of us can control pollution.


I'm beginning to think this is something similar to a pavlovian effect, where the mere knowledge of smoking causes you to feel bad, but being the the midst of a thousand vehicles pumping out fumes doesn't even register to you.


Actually, pollution does the same thing. I happen to (unfortunately) live in a particularly pollution heavy part of Baltimore and the pollution there certainly does affect my asthma. It's just that in places like a bar, where cigarette smoke becomes so thick you can cut it with a knife, that you really start to notice these things.


There's nothing wrong with wanting me to not smoke near you, I get that. I wouldn't. But it's getting to the point to where you're saying the fact that I exist is an insult to non-smokers. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some magical undocumented study comes up saying that smokers, even years after they quit, are somehow hurting everyone's health.


No it isn't getting to that point at all. I am perfectly fine with you being a smoker. I could care less. I have some habits that are less than healthy myself and don't appreciate people demonizing me for them. I just want you to smoke outside so that your smoke has an easier chance to dissipate. Is that too much to ask for? I try to do my unsavory habits out of view from others that don't like seeing those things.

Also for the record, I am against banning vaping indoors. It's mostly just water vapor and besides the smell from some of the flavored liquids, you don't even notice when people do it. Second hand vaping doesn't hurt my lungs and I haven't met or heard of anyone that it has hurt.


The important thing though, is that nonsmokers have someone they can deride and feel superior over, right?


Where did you get this sentiment from? Tiredofcontrolfeaks? Because he is the only one pushing that rhetoric. We, as non-smokers, just want to be comfortable breathing.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Isn't Rob Hall the same mayor who was busted for doing heavy drugs?

I remember my friends from Toronto were making fun of that, acting like it was shocking. I reminded them of Marion Berry, the mayor of DC.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Isn't Rob Hall the same mayor who was busted for doing heavy drugs?

I don't have the slightest idea of who Rob Hall is.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And we, as smokers, just want a place where we can congregate and socialize in a manner that we feel comfortable with. Its the exact same thing that you want!

You have stated (rather arrogantly, I might add) that the smoking bans are so popular that the public would never go back to the days when smoking was allowed in privately - owned hospitality venues. If this is true, why do these smoking bans require enforcement officers?

When smoking was banned in government offices, no one felt the need to hire police officers to enforce the law. Smokers willingly complied with the law because we understood that people like yourself needed to be able to go to a government office to conduct your business.

Same thing happened in grocery bans and in bans that occurred anyplace where the general public HAD to enter.

But a bar or a restaurant is not a place where you HAVE to go. You have the freedom to choose to go to a bar or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking because that is the way the owners want it.

Are you afraid that smoking bans in hospitality venues are truthfully so unpopular that if the ban was lifted, EVERY bar and restaurant owner would love to welcome smokers back as their customers.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

LOL - that's Rob FORD!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Smoking in reality is no longer the problem. Its in reality another right to choose being taken away. A not so subtle way of hearding a population to conform to another's ideal. Their is no problem with smokers assembling in an area of choosing, and lighting up if they so choose. Its always been this way "smoking and non smoking". So what's changed on an international level to try and make smokers the new lepers.

If you read all relevant studies, its only excessive smoking that's bad for health. Their are many more things far worse. So its not health concerns driving this new prohibition. As far as I know it started with Nixon, who incidentally caught a dose of Alzheimer's, which is ironic as in karma speak, nicotine protects you from.

The problem I have is that among the worlds leaders in the past hundred years its been the smokers who have generally outlived the non smoking leaders by a long way. Mao, Churchill, Stalin. This doesn't make any sense if you believe the propaganda. The non smoking world leaders Regan Nixon Thatcher have all died with Alzheimer's. Which again smoking protects you from.

From my own personal experience, my mate who had bad asthma, smoked moderately to control it, then he got married, The story line was she didn't like smoking, she didn't like the smell, but this wasn't enough, she stressed him out in other ways, and one afternoon had a bad asthma attack had a heart attack and died there and then. So making people do what they don't want to has a bad outcome.

The sheeple are herded, in economic ways to where they will spend, and now they actually believe that a section of the population is killing them. When the reality is, they are swallowing obesity related medication, stress related meds, anti depression drugs etc. by the handful, instead of just chilling out and having a drag.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And we, as smokers, just want a place where we can congregate and socialize in a manner that we feel comfortable with. Its the exact same thing that you want!


No it isn't. I keep explaining to you that I didn't choose to smoke. YOU made that choice. Therefore I shouldn't have to be subjected to the choices that YOU made. How are you not able to see that? You are so blinded by your selfishness that you cannot see how inconveniencing others all so you can slightly more comfortable while enjoying your destructive habit is wrong.


You have stated (rather arrogantly, I might add) that the smoking bans are so popular that the public would never go back to the days when smoking was allowed in privately - owned hospitality venues. If this is true, why do these smoking bans require enforcement officers?


You mean bouncers? I know of no such enforcement officers. When I see someone get caught smoking in a bar, it's usually be the bouncer and then him either throwing the person out or telling them to put the cigarette out. But when you are addicted to something, rules usually go by the wayside when you want your fix. That doesn't make you correct in your rulebreaking though.


When smoking was banned in government offices, no one felt the need to hire police officers to enforce the law. Smokers willingly complied with the law because we understood that people like yourself needed to be able to go to a government office to conduct your business.

Same thing happened in grocery bans and in bans that occurred anyplace where the general public HAD to enter.

But a bar or a restaurant is not a place where you HAVE to go. You have the freedom to choose to go to a bar or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking because that is the way the owners want it.


No I have the freedom to go wherever I want and not be inconvenienced by something that makes me unhealthy, especially when that thing that is making me unhealthy is coming from another patron.


Are you afraid that smoking bans in hospitality venues are truthfully so unpopular that if the ban was lifted, EVERY bar and restaurant owner would love to welcome smokers back as their customers.

Tired of Control Freaks


Well seeing as how that was the case before the bans went into effect, yes, that is a likely outcome. Your intolerance towards other's disability all so you can enjoy your stupid habit has really made me dislike you. It is sad that such a selfish person like you exists and then to have the GALL to do things like compare standing outside to smoke to Jim Crow laws or the Holocaust and then insult people with REAL disabilities that YOUR stupid habit is DIRECTLY causing to make unhealthy. It is all sick. This is why I am arrogant towards these bans to you and you alone. I like that you are forced outside to smoke, yes you, not the plural you, but the singular.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: WarminIndy

LOL - that's Rob FORD!

Tired of Control Freaks


LOL, ok.

I knew it was a Rob, but who here pays attention to Toronto? That's America Jr. anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Iwinder

They act as though it were always the total responsibility of smokers to be concerned with the health of non-smokers.

If you are exposed to cigarette smoke in a park - put on your big boy pants, take responsibility for your own health and stay away from the smoker. Its not like there is no room to move.

outdoor bans are another prooof that this issue is about control. There is absolutely no evidence that encountering a smoker out doors has any effect on your health at all.

Tired of Control Freaks


Yeah they also introduced a "No idle your vehicle" bylaw two years ago but they exempted all fast food drive throughs, but if you try to warm you car/truck up on your own property your getting a fine.

Then they banned all pesticides and yet again they exempt the golf courses and city owned properties, try a little Killex on your lawn that you bought and paid for your getting a fine.

It's crap bylaws like these that cause a Neighbour versus Neighbour feud and can and will destabilize the best of Neighbourhoods.

Perhaps that is the whole idea?

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 26-1-2015 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is something I think we should discuss when it comes to personal responsibility. You are offended by smokers in a bar because you want to go where you can feel free to go without inconvenience. I want to know that all those alcoholics are not going to be driving on the city streets.

Which is a greater health issue? Smokers or drunk drivers from those same bars you just mentioned?

We have legislated drunk driving, but how effective has that been anyway? And with the enormous cost of alcoholism in health care and the destruction of families, leading to domestic violence and abuse, I don't think bars should be brought into the discussion when it comes to where you want to go and not be inconvenienced.

I am inconvenienced by drunk patrons in bars, because they take my life and everyone else's when they decide to drink so much they can't stand up and then drive home in their cars. THAT legislation has changed nothing.

And alcoholism also leads to cirrhosis. but hey, as long as they aren't forcing you to drink, then it could be a minor inconvenience when you are paying for their medical bills through Medicare.

It is your choice not to smoke, but can you really dictate where smokers should not be, because the smell offends you? You know bars have smokers, but because it offends you, you want no smokers there. Do smokers now have no right to go where they can enjoy themselves, just like the alcoholic patrons in the same bars you are talking about?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ahhhhh - so finally we are done to it!

You really are afraid of not having anyplace to go if the smoking bans are lifted!

My poor pooo Krazysh0t - it really really is all about you. That is why you had absolutely no comment about the increase in the rate of asthma in California in the face of really draconian smoking bans. YOU DON"T CARE IF PEOPLE GET ASTHMA AT ALL. You just want to place to socialize.

Let me assure you that non-smoking places did exist before the bans and will most likely exist after the bans. I say most likely, because the pendulum has swung too far in the anti-smoker direction and the longer it stays there by force, the worse the blow back will be when it finally swings the other way.

Dont' you know that there are other solutions. The solution that should have happened instead of these draconian bans is VENTILATION. Many bars were built a long time ago before there were advanced technology in ventilation.

As you have noticed, you have no problem being with smokers when you are outside. That is because of increased ventilation.

We have HEPA filtration nowadays that can filter even microbes down to the point of non-existance. This type of ventilation is used in operating rooms. We have carbon filtration and Green Sand filtration to deal with the odour (all odours, not just smoke but also moulds and fungus and farts and BO)

There are filtration systems now that have little holes in the floor. The air is directed through the floor upwards and the smoke and odours are collected up near the ceiling and removed from the room for filtration and cleansing before re-circulation.

There are many options and before imposing draconian bans, the government should have done what governments are best at - set regulatory standards for indoor air quality and make the venue owner responsible for ensuring that they are met. Whether by using available technology or banning smoking in their establishment, if that is their choice.

I understand that you want to socialize and do so in comfort. SO DO I!
Tired of Control



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Your breath stinks.


Bad.


And you stink too, BTW.


All of you - your clothes, your hair - stinks.


Smoking is low class.


Sorry, but it's true.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Today, it's tobacco. Tomorrow it's sugar or peanuts or anything else someone can claim they are sensitive to that others are not and that they would prefer those others not enjoy in their presence for whatever reason.

Actually, peanuts and sugar are already being banned.

How far will we go banning substances to attempt to make the world safe for everyone?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

Finally! Someone agrees with me about Obama.

However personal attacks are not cool.

edit on 26-1-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

Oh gee thanks Seamrog

You know when I saw all those ads on tv that mentioned how dirty, filthy smokers were and how bad they stunk! God I thought it was all a mis-print for the last 50 years or so - I thought it was all a mis-print. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

You are a sweet sweet person aren't you?

Tired of Control Freaks




top topics



 
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join