Smoking ban coming to Bluesfest?

[ollie]

National Capital Commission will inevitably embrace a city-like outdoor smoking ban, the agency’s CEO said Friday.

“We’re following very closely what the city is doing because obviously the minute they go ahead with this it will definitely impact ours,†Marie Lemay told reporters at Ottawa City Hall.

...

Earlier this week, some business leaders expressed concern that festivals on NCC land will have a competitive advantage when the municipal outdoor smoking ban begins because people would be able to smoke. The restaurants see those festivals as direct competitors.

Two major festivals, Bluesfest at the Canadian War Museum and the Ottawa Folk Festival at Hog’s Back Park, are on federal land.

NCC expects to follow in city's footsteps on smoking ban

[rubberdinghy]

filthy smokers

[bouche]

I guess this will affect the masking effect cigarettes have on smoking weed.

[RobL]

their is a ban at jazzfest but people still smoke. in a crowd that large they will have a tough time controlling it.

[hey now]

"Earlier this week, some business leaders expressed concern that festivals on NCC land will have a competitive advantage when the municipal outdoor smoking ban begins because people would be able to smoke. The restaurants see those festivals as direct competitors."

i don't really care (anymore) however this reasoning seems like the lowest common denominator is appeased and that's about it...much like the cumberland councilor who can't take his toddler to the beach for all the smoking. this city loves to ban shit.

[hamilton]

I guess this will affect the masking effect cigarettes have on smoking weed.

Like. Or +1. Or whatever. You know what I mean.

[AD]

I'm all for these smoking bans. I know it's pretty much fascist but in this case I'm ok with it.

[hey now]

just before sunset create a perimeter with a twelve pack of incense...that with the stage smoke and a little help from prevailing winds and you got yerself a little happyland

[phishtaper]

people still smoke in your city?

[skelter]

Why worry about banning smoking when they still allow lawn chairs?

[SaggyBalls]

They could be doing so much more with their time.

feck.

[AD]

They could be doing so much more with their time.

Exactly, smoking wastes so much time and money! Do something productive while not killing yourself and others around you, smokers!

[c-towns]

[Freak By Night]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought for a moment that "Smoking Ban" was the name of a band.

[rubberdinghy]

What do you think c-towns googled to find that pic?

[SaggyBalls]

They could be doing so much more with their time.

Exactly' date=' smoking wastes so much time and money! Do something productive while not killing yourself and others around you, smokers!

[/quote']

Indoor air quality does far more harm to people than standing near a smoker in an outdoor area.

It would be far more productive for City Hall to do something other than ban smoking.

It's going to take a lot of time to fix their planning blunders that are going to be a huge drain on infrastructure demands in the next decade...sewer, water, traffic...

I'm sure that future development could benefit more from finding ways to cut down on energy demands and that would, of course, come with friction from developers and take extra time accordingly.

I think people are going to need to smoke A LOT more to get through the headaches of the city fumbling through it all. Why ban it now?

Oh yeah...people think it matters.

[phishtaper]

wow, ottawa city hall would have to become one huge place to handle all of the problems that YT points out.

btw, people think exposure to second hand smoke matters because, well, it does.

[Velvet]

"Indoor air quality does far more harm to people than standing near a smoker in an outdoor area."

This statement implies that you agree standing near a smoker in an outdoor area causes harm, and I agree that if you can smell someone's smoke there is harm involved. Good one YT!

"It would be far more productive for City Hall to do something other than ban smoking."

They did do other stuff, like raise the water bills to enact a 10-year sewer fixup plan, and creating a new rental agreement for the baseball park. And I'm sure lots of other things. It's a rare thing to hear someone complain that the city staff is doing too much work. Nice one YT!

"I think people are going to need to smoke A LOT more to get through the headaches of the city fumbling through it all."

Smoking does not relieve headaches, and people don't NEED to smoke. People do, however, NEED to breathe. Not saying a person can't breathe if a smoker stands nearby, but I am pointing out that smokers fight for something that can be considered a luxury, while nonsmokers fight for a life necessity.

"Why ban it now?"

Because cities all over the world are banning it, and it's a sensible follow-up to the workplace smoking ban that came in several years ago. It would have been nice if Ottawa had been a frontrunner in the global push towards smoking regulations, but alas, we are mere followers in this regard. Perhaps you are wondering why they are banning it now instead of years ago? Nice one YT!

"Oh yeah...people think it matters."

While, ironically, some people don't think at all!

It's very telling that many former smokers support these movements. It seems to suggest that the fight for smokers rights is borne not of logic, but of addiction.

[Booche]

Look, you can argue this fact all you want, but a fact it remains: Taco Bell's soon selling tacos made out of giant Doritos, and you're going to eat one. No, shh—it's true. Millions of orange shells await.

The Doritos Locos Tacos, already available at a few experimental Taco Bell locations—the Los Alamos of shockingly cheap Mexican food—will roll out worldwide. And then, it'll be too late to resist, you stupid gourmand. You think you're too good for Taco Bell, maybe? Hah, no, friend. That's not how it works... But if you're going to be difficult about it and turn up your nose, try this on for size (like an enormous taco): the company has already mass produced 85 million Doritos taco shells ready.

That's enough for every single person in Germany to receive one. And then another four million left over. So shut up and eat your tacos, which are so Locos that they require a specially-designed holster to prevent Doritos dust from getting on your skin and overwhelming your entire central nervous system.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Guest

[Esau.]

As a smoker (working on quitting now) I've never really had much issues with the smoking bans. In fact I was rather happy when the indoor ban (eg: bars) came into effect. I'm a conscious smoker in terms that I pay attention to my surroundings and light up in appropriate areas, or distances from others. I don't have any complaints about doing that. But it seems that the non-smokers are really only focused on the smokers instead of the source of all these issues - the tobacco industry.

Instead of stacking law upon law onto the Canadian people until we live in a complete nanny state afraid of sneezing in public for fear of someone calling foul, perhaps focus should be directed at the tobacco industry, the source of the issue. One could even argue the government (all parties) who are more then happy to collect taxes while making more and more laws would be worth focusing on as well. I mean, the direction this seems to be going is to ban smoking in public, period and restricting smoking to private. Correct? So, just do it.

As many may already know, unless you own or have permission from the owner of a home/apt/condo etc where you reside, smoking can and/or is on many occasions banned in rental properties. Owners have that right and I agree. But, considering the laws applied to smoking in a vehicle with children and the rental possibilities of smoking bans I just mentioned, it's safe to speculate that in the future we'll hear about banning smoking in private homes that have children. All the signs seem to point in that direction at least. It would be naive to think smoking will only be legal for home owners with no children, so again, why bother? - just ban smoking outright in Canada and save the money, time and bullshit wasted on enacting laws that will no doubt have funny little loopholes allowing government more intrusive powers then they already have and are lobbying for currently.

I plan on being smoke free in the future so I'm not complaining about the bans per se, just the ever growing acceptance that more laws, restrictions and intrusions from government are the best way to deal with these issues. Again, if an outright ban is the desired end result, just do it. Lobby the gov't to shut down the tobacco companies, stop taking money from them (taxes, contributions or otherwise) and ban smoking period. Done and done.

[NewRider]

Look, you can argue this fact all you want, but a fact it remains: Taco Bell's soon selling tacos made out of giant Doritos, and you're going to eat one. No, shh—it's true. Millions of orange shells await.

The Doritos Locos Tacos, already available at a few experimental Taco Bell locations—the Los Alamos of shockingly cheap Mexican food—will roll out worldwide. And then, it'll be too late to resist, you stupid gourmand. You think you're too good for Taco Bell, maybe? Hah, no, friend. That's not how it works... But if you're going to be difficult about it and turn up your nose, try this on for size (like an enormous taco): the company has already mass produced 85 million Doritos taco shells ready.

That's enough for every single person in Germany to receive one. And then another four million left over. So shut up and eat your tacos, which are so Locos that they require a specially-designed holster to prevent Doritos dust from getting on your skin and overwhelming your entire central nervous system.

This is awesome news!!!

[Velvet]

As a smoker (working on quitting now) I've never really had much issues with the smoking bans. In fact I was rather happy when the indoor ban (eg: bars) came into effect. I'm a conscious smoker in terms that I pay attention to my surroundings and light up in appropriate areas, or distances from others. I don't have any complaints about doing that. But it seems that the non-smokers are really only focused on the smokers instead of the source of all these issues - the tobacco industry.

Instead of stacking law upon law onto the Canadian people until we live in a complete nanny state afraid of sneezing in public for fear of someone calling foul, perhaps focus should be directed at the tobacco industry, the source of the issue. One could even argue the government (all parties) who are more then happy to collect taxes while making more and more laws would be worth focusing on as well. I mean, the direction this seems to be going is to ban smoking in public, period and restricting smoking to private. Correct? So, just do it.

As many may already know, unless you own or have permission from the owner of a home/apt/condo etc where you reside, smoking can and/or is on many occasions banned in rental properties. Owners have that right and I agree. But, considering the laws applied to smoking in a vehicle with children and the rental possibilities of smoking bans I just mentioned, it's safe to speculate that in the future we'll hear about banning smoking in private homes that have children. All the signs seem to point in that direction at least. It would be naive to think smoking will only be legal for home owners with no children, so again, why bother? - just ban smoking outright in Canada and save the money, time and bullshit wasted on enacting laws that will no doubt have funny little loopholes allowing government more intrusive powers then they already have and are lobbying for currently.

I plan on being smoke free in the future so I'm not complaining about the bans per se, just the ever growing acceptance that more laws, restrictions and intrusions from government are the best way to deal with these issues. Again, if an outright ban is the desired end result, just do it. Lobby the gov't to shut down the tobacco companies, stop taking money from them (taxes, contributions or otherwise) and ban smoking period. Done and done.

I think you're right on all points.

I think the reason smokers are targetted over the Industry is because smokers don't spend millions on lobbyists, whereas the smoking industry does.

I think part of the strategy (for good or ill) is to attack the Industry indirectly through their customers.

[Esau.]

I think part of the strategy (for good or ill) is to attack the Industry indirectly through their customers.

Agreed. But to what end though? I mean, I get it and I imagine it worked to a degree. But now I believe it's failing. Those who are still smokers regardless of the prices, restrictions, health warnings or numerous other issues attached to smoking are obviously unaffected by these laws in terms of quitting. Meanwhile corporations get more tax cuts and incentives from the government. While lobby groups burn money and time simply fighting the smokers. In my opinion, like the war on marijuana it's an exercise of futility accomplishing nothing except more laws and restrictions which are almost always abused in the name of protecting one thing or another.

I think the reason smokers are targeted over the Industry is because smokers don't spend millions on lobbyists, whereas the smoking industry does.

Yep. Not too mention income generated from taxes on import/exports and again at point of purchase. Fact is the government will always be more then happy to collect even more cash from the people via fines all through more restrictions on the people, requested by the people. They got to love shit like that.

I guess I no longer see the advantage of simply creating more laws instead of working at fixing the problem at the source. I see it like using a bilge pump to empty an over flowing bathtub instead of pulling the plug and turning off the tap. Costly with no real results.

Anyway, I'm pretty much wandering off topic here....

[Davey Boy 2.0]

[phishtaper]

in the spirit of squirting lighter fluid on the charcoal bbq just for fun ... economically speaking, smoking is cost-positive. i have the reference somewhere and will post it later, but financially, when all sin tax revenues and smoking related expenses (mostly health, direct and indirect) are costed out, we make money off cigarettes. the old anti-smoking argument that "your smoking costs me money because of your health damage" no longer is true. taxes are so high, they raise more more than is estimated spent on various heart and stroke and cancer issues.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Guest