ollie Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Heh, heh... I've been developing this web site for the past month. I'm impressed with the coverage it's getting. (Don't blame me for the sucky design though.) Smokers' rights group takes to the web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 problem>?? i'm not a smoker but i say if you like to smoke, smoke. it's not cigarettes that are killing us, it's an overall lifestyle of bad food, air pollution, and laziness. i think the sintaxes are a good idea but i dont' think they're ultimitely fair unless the money is going directly into the health system - which i doubt it is. i dont' know why the government doesn't regulate the additives tobacco companies put in their tobacco. that's the root of the problem, not the plant itself anyway. if the government would make it illegal for canadian tobacco to have any additives i know smokes would taste different and burn differently but they'd only have tar and a little bit of carcinogens instead of all the insane chemicals that are in cigarettes. those smokes should be dirt cheap...if there was a legal loophole that would make that act unconstitutional, there should be provision for an ultra sin tax for those smokes and no takes on the healthier smokes. i think we'd see an incredibly giant outcry for natural tobacco. i bet i'd start smoking - it'd probably not make me want to wretch so much. way to go ollie. at least you're helping people feel like they can't be ignored anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 What about Crack dealers and Crack-head rights? Man, smokers just whine and whine. What about the little guy? Curiously, is the company you did this for mostly funded by the tobacco company at this point? BTW, there's no smoking in the new office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 We only found out about the tobacco investment today. We're subcontracted so don't deal with them. I don't smoke tobacco but I'm totally against the local ban. I think it amounts to social engineering. I don't have a problem with the ban in restaurants but people should be allowed to smoke in bars. Allow us to publicly indulge in one of the few legal sins we have left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 it should be a smoking license deal. a bar has to apply and pay loads of loot for a smoking license. they would have to pay their staff mroe and give them health benefits. they should have to pay mroe taxes, cause it's true...people drink more when they smoke. it should be a tax grab not social conditioning. think about the bucks the city could get to fund daycare or social services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elemeno Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 thats a great idea there beats and i dont even smoke!! making bars buy smoking license would rake in millions a year. i also like the idea of having to pay staff better wages who have to work in smoke filled bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meggo Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 meh. i smoke [i like to think i'm not a "real" smoker, but hell, it's been 10 years almost.... ewwwwww... i am] and i'm glad you can't smoke in bars. if i'm sitting outside it's nice to be able to do it, but once everyone's inside and stinking up the place, ugh, i think it's nasty. i hate how my clothes and my hair smell after, it must be sooooo gross to clean up the bar after, and most importantly i think that even if you give staff a pay increase you're still putting their life at risk. it's not exactly the same, but it's like moms in developing countries [and probably here] who have to sell their bodies to feed their kids. it's not like they want to breath in all that sh!t, but if they're getting paid top dollar, they'll sacrifice their health. still a personal choice but... i think we're better off without it. my dos centavos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 My reply to the safe workplace argument is that every job has inherint risk. I wonder what my back is going to be like in 20 years after sitting on my ass for 8 hours a day. And I can't wait for them to discover that all the emissions I'm exposed to from my monitor and computer are going to kill me. The world is filled with danger! Or, life will kill you and if the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meggo Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 fair enough.... and i guess i could be attacked by a lunatic teenager [or principal]... but i'm pretty sure you won't get ass cancer from sitting for 8 hours a day and you can exercise which will offset most of the health problems inherent in your desk job. anyhoo, that's my stance. do whatcha wanna! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 saw the article about that site today in the Hamilton paper I'm still for free choice, just have smoking and non-smoking bars... if you don't want to work in a smoking bar don't... if you want people to come to your non-smoking bar book really good music and serve great food... not many moms work at the bars I hang out in, the few I've known who do smoke anyways... a ridiculous rule, I don't see anyone shutting down Dofasco though its certainly not safe to breathe down there... living in Hamilton cars and industry will kill me before cigarettes will I like the license idea, not only bars but upscale restaurants or coffee shops could get them too (popping outside for a butt while having a conversation with someone while enjoying a coffee sucks)... also have a ventilation test and ensure that airflow meets a certain level that minimalizes any smoke dangers... funny how exclusive "clubs" still can have smoking areas, must be nice to be rich (and still have rights) not really related, but I found it interesting... read an article yesterday about how over 90% of mentally ill patients smoke... they did a study that seemed to prove that it allowed people with certain illnesses to self medicate themselves by releasing dopamine with nicotine intake which helped control their erratic behaviour, reduced their stress, and made them feel more in control of themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 My reply to the safe workplace argument is that every job has inherint risk. I wonder what my back is going to be like in 20 years after sitting on my ass for 8 hours a day. And I can't wait for them to discover that all the emissions I'm exposed to from my monitor and computer are going to kill me. The world is filled with danger! I just walked down the street to get a coffee and paper. I faced many risks - a brick might have fallen off of a building and crushed my skull, or a car may have lost control and jumped the curb and run me over; I saw MarcO waiting for the bus - he might have run across the street and punched me in the head. These are all inherent risks I took in leaving my apartment. Contracting cancer due to repeated exposure to second-hand smoke after years of working in a bar to make a living doesn't have to be an inherent risk, though - it's a preventable one. And I know that someone will suggest that the waitress get a different job, but the reality is that waitressing is one of the only options for many people in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenSeasJim Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Smokers; always thinking they deserve rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Contracting cancer due to repeated exposure to second-hand smoke after years of working in a bar to make a living doesn't have to be an inherent risk, though - it's a preventable one. And I know that someone will suggest that the waitress get a different job, but the reality is that waitressing is one of the only options for many people in society. Well said! I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 It's not like everyone who works in a smoke-filled bar is going to come down with cancer. I believe it increases the risk of contracting the disease, but so does washing windows at 100 feet increase your risk of falling to your death. And yeah, I would say that no one is forced to work in a smoke-filled bar and that we all have choices no matter what our situation. It might not be as easy for everyone but if you really hate working in a smoke-filled bar then you will find a way out. Let's also not forget to mention that this isn't even an issue if the worker smokes himself. I just think people should take more personal responsibility for their decisions instead of asking the government to legislate a safety net around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 I just think people should take more personal responsibility for their decisions instead of asking the government to legislate a safety net around them. Oh, I agree with you completely - I just think that we're looking at it from two different ends of the spectrum. I would argue that if people took personal responsibility for their decisions, we wouldn't need this legislation at all - because all smokers would voluntarily go outside of the bar to smoke, rather than force those around them to breathe in the noxious fumes they exhale. But we know that's not going to happen. Similarly, smokers could take responsibility for their own decision to start smoking in the first place, with all of the consequences - including not being allowed to smoke in certain places - that that decision entails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Ollie. Window washers can wear harnesses. Do you think that a waitress wearing a gas mask would find that her attire has a detrimental effect on her tips? I don't think it comes down to "really hating working in a bar". Single mothers are more often than not waitresses and secretaries, as these are two jobs they can get with little to no education and still support a family. (If you can't type, you are left with only one of those options.) It is entirely insensitive to suggest that they change careers because they "really hate it", when the actual issue is their exposure to noxious chemicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Ollie. Window washers can wear harnesses. Do you think that a waitress wearing a gas mask would find that her attire has a detrimental effect on her tips? I'm not against restrictions such as a well-ventilated room that must past strict inspection. That would at least provide a measure of safety to the worker, akin to the harness the window washer wears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamH Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 I'm a non-smoker that supports a smoker's rights to cigarettes, but only when that doesn't impact on the personal health and safety of others including me. I support access to them, taxing of them, hell I support smoking 3 packs a day but only in situations where the smoker is the only one affected. Basing this on the Charter of Rights is ludicrous because there's no mention there of someone's right to negatively affect the health of another Canadian. And insisting that people in the service industry need to adapt their jobs and workplaces to meet this indescribably pointless right is insulting. I will throw you one bone though. Having an obese person tell you that smoking is bad for you is stupid. I'd probably support a surtax on unnecessarily large portion sizes in restaurants for many of the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 I saw MarcO waiting for the bus - he might have run across the street and punched me in the head. These are all inherent risks I took in leaving my apartment. The bus was coming, otherwise........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Ban smoking altogether and be done with it. Smoking is absolutely the worst burden on society today. There would be no choice if the industry was destroyed. The only reason people are smoking is because they are addicted to the nicotene and whatever the hell else they dump in the tobacco. have you read this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 still...licences would bring in a lot of money...if you dont' like second hand smoke, as MANY people don't, the smoke free bars would be popular too. i just realized that in my scenario the smokeless bars wouldn't have a monetary advantage for employment...any suggestions? oh...and taxing large portions in a fast food restaurant?? just buy 2 smaller portions. it's a good thought but it should go back to the food ingredients. healthy food should be tax free and unhealthy food should have taxes...but the cheaper food is crappy. so an extra 15 cents on a frozen dinner that's already a dollar a meal wouldn't be as noticeable. think of all the additives that are in most foods...maybe health food stores should be tax free...then it'd be easier to afford to buy a 7 dollar box of cereal...not by much, but on a grocery bill it'd add up. organic, non-gmo foods should be taxless as well...in all levels, from producer to consumer. farmers and food manufacturers would have that extra push to make healthier food. unless it's a conspiracy to keep us unhealthy...give us cancer and disorders to keep the pharmaceutical industry alive and kickin...or there's something in our food that keeps us down (damn the man) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Ban smoking altogether and be done with it. First they came for the tobacco smokers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 no....no....I don't want it to go that far. just the addictive kind. The kind that makes you need 12 smoke breaks in an 8 hour workday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now