oh mr klein, you're so goofy!

[meggo]

this guy... i tell ya... how he remains the representative for an entire province baffles (and worries) me...

personally i say ban, ban away!

Klein dismisses health benefits of smoking ban

By DAWN WALTON and KATHERINE HARDING

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

POSTED AT 12:46 AM EST Thursday, Jan 20, 2005

Advertisement

Calgary and Edmonton —

Provincewide smoking bans and municipal bylaws that prohibit lighting up in public do little to improve the health of Canadians and more to drive businesses into the ground, says Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, whose caucus is locked in a heated debate over the issue.

"It's useless to impose a total ban," Mr. Klein said in Calgary, where he ruled out provincial anti-smoking legislation akin to that of most other provinces.

"Municipalities can do what they want to do," he added, "A ban where children are involved will do a lot. A ban where people my age are involved doesn't do a damn thing."

Mr. Klein went on to suggest that those who work in environments where secondhand smoke is present - such as casinos, bingo halls, and bars - consider looking for another job.

"You have to weigh the interests of business against the interests of health. I guess people have a choice as to where they work in some cases. It's an unfortunate situation and perhaps we'll have a discussion about that and how we deal about secondhand smoke," Mr. Klein said.

Mr. Klein, himself a smoker who has whittled down his habit to about four cigarettes a day, has called anyone who smokes or takes up the habit "stupid" and suggested road signs to that effect would go further to promote wellness than banning smoking in public places.

But he appears ill-informed on the impact of smoking bans.

A study published last summer in the Canadian Journal of Public Health found that 36 per cent of people who quit smoking said smoking bans were a key factor. It also found that smokers who tried to kick the habit were three times more successful when a bylaw banning smoking was in place and found it far easier to remain abstinent.

British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have provincial smoking bans, and last month, Ontario unveiled what its government is calling the "toughest, most comprehensive and far-reaching" regulations in North America.

On top of those regulations, municipalities across the country have stepped in with anti-smoking bylaws.

In 2001, then-health-minister Gary Mar floated the idea of a provincewide smoking ban, but failed to get it by the Premier and his fellow members.

However, newly minted Health Minister Iris Evans's attempt this month to look at stopping smoking in the workplace isn't going away quietly. The minister is lobbying cabinet and caucus members to come up with ideas to reduce tobacco use. She has even suggested the party look at banning smoking in places where there are children.

Dan MacLennan, president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, said he is disappointed that the Premier doesn't view smoking as a major workplace safety hazard.

"Things happen slower here in Alberta," he said. "Decades ago, they told my father that it was okay to work in a building with asbestos."The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has found that businesses across the country have failed when smoking bans were put in place.

Mark von Schellwitz, the CRFA's vice-president for Western Canada, said B.C.'s tough ban was quickly amended to allow smoking in designated rooms. That, he said, is the preferred solution.

"We're not opposed to provincewide regulations. We just want health concerns to be balanced with business realities," he said.

[c-towns]

why not ban drinking to then, that would save a lot more lives.

[ollie]

For once I agree with Ralph.

[PalacePrincess]

i completely agree with c-towns

and i also agree with ollie & this guy.... especially your bolded part, meggo. i mean c'mon, if i had a job in a plastic factory, and i hated the smell of plastic fumes, i would get another job! why is it so 'wrong' to expect people who work in smoke-filled places to look for employment elsewhere if they have such a problem with it? like getting a job in a plastic factory and knowing you'd be exposed to plastic fumes, they would KNOW when applying for the 2nd-hand smoke job, that they would be exposed to that. so why is that such a heartless suggestion? there are PLENTY of smoke-free places they could work. or even smoke free sections in places.

i can tell you right now, that forcing establishments to be entirely smoke free DOES hurt the economy. right in my very own town, many bars, restaurants, etc. had to close when they enforced the ban. they're taking it too far with trying to ban smoking outside too... look how many establishments have invested a lot of money in comfortable OUTDOOR smoking areas that are soon to be obsolete -- money they probably didn't even have at the time, due to lack of business from people not going out to bars anymore (i know plenty of people who stopped going to bars & restaurants when the smoking ban came in place).

and you know, for all the sh!t smokers get from the government, if all of their anti-smoking plans worked, and everyone quit smoking, ontario would be out of a shitload of money. i heard on the radio last night that smoking brings 1.5 *billion* dollars in tax money alone to the provice EACH YEAR (not to mention all the jobs people have). it will probably be even more over the coming years, as the price of cigarettes is being jacked up almost weekly! so, if everyone quits smoking, where the hell are we going to get that money from? we would be saving less than a billion dollars in health costs. well, that's still at least $500 million dollars we aren't going to have anymore.

there are TWICE as many obese people in ontario as there are smokers, and obesity is the 2nd leading cause of premature death... so with twice as many obese people, death and healthcare from fattness will soon be costing us more than the smokers do... and if everyone quits smoking, obesity rates are going to rise even higher, since weight gain is pretty much unavoidable when you quit smoking. how much in taxes is the government getting from fast food chains? not nearly as much as smoking!

i would LOVE to quit smoking, and i hope to sometime this year. but even if i was a non-smoker, this war on tobacco campaign pisses me off, since the governement is taking SO much money from smokers, and yet at the same time doing everything they can to make the country completely smoke free. if they're going to keep the sale of cigarettes legal in canada, then at the very least, let the smokers (and the bar & restaurant owners) keep their outdoor areas for fu©k sakes. hell, let people open smoking and non-smoking bars, etc. if they want. no one is forcing the non smokers to go or work anywhere, if they don't want to deal with smoke then go someplace else. and if not, then make the sale of cigarettes illegal, & force everyone to quit.

[SevenSeasJim]

fu©k the Smokers. They are second class citzens anyway

[hamilton]

and i also agree with ollie & this guy.... especially your bolded part, meggo. i mean c'mon, if i had a job in a plastic factory, and i hated the smell of plastic fumes, i would get another job! why is it so 'wrong' to expect people who work in smoke-filled places to look for employment elsewhere if they have such a problem with it? like getting a job in a plastic factory and knowing you'd be exposed to plastic fumes, they would KNOW when applying for the 2nd-hand smoke job, that they would be exposed to that. so why is that such a heartless suggestion? there are PLENTY of smoke-free places they could work. or even smoke free sections in places.

no one is forcing the non smokers to go or work anywhere, if they don't want to deal with smoke then go someplace else. and if not, then make the sale of cigarettes illegal, & force everyone to quit.

Really? Have you ever tried to live without working? You're right, no one is forcing anyone to go to work, but it's either that or starve on the streets, isn't it? Not much of a choice, I'd say.

The point is that most of the jobs that require people to work in smoke-filled rooms are low-paying jobs that don't really require much education... People don't "choose" to waitress in a diner because of the great pay - if there were better-paying smoke-free alternatives, I'm sure people would choose them. Since people must work somewhere in order to live, why should anyone be forced to work in an environment which is scientifically proven to cause cancer?

People should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but where they get to smoke should be limited.

[Ms.Huxtable]

Ah you beat me to it Hamilton, I was typing the same thing. My sentiments exactly.

Second hand smoke KILLS. How could it possibly be okay to subject someone to that? I don't get it.

[Del]

Smoking kills too, but the government allows it... I'm all for non-smokers rights, but what about smokers rights? Until the government bans smoking, smokers shouldn't be treated like second class citizens...

[Ms.Huxtable]

Oh please. Second class citizens? Think about that. It sounds to me that you think they should be treated as superior citizens, being able to go around blowing their smoke on the people who serve them?

People should not be subject to that in their workplace. We all have the right to work in a healthy environment.

[meggo]

heh - actually, i bolded that part because i totally think it`s wrong.

when you have to put food on the table for your kids and yourself, sometimes people don`t have the luxury of getting the ideal job. putting up with other people`s second-hand smoke, which we all know does huge damage to your health, is something that they really don`t have a choice about - either accept that risk or let your family go hungry...not really a choice, is it.

and c-towns - about banning alcohol - i think you do have a point, however - if i`m serving you a beer in a bar, i`m not damaging my health in the slightest, so i think it`s a different situation. sitting in a room full of people drinking beer won`t give you cirrhosis of the liver.

[hamilton]

Smoking kills too, but the government allows it... I'm all for non-smokers rights, but what about smokers rights? Until the government bans smoking, smokers shouldn't be treated like second class citizens...

Smokers do have rights... they have the right to smoke, and the right to kill themselves through smoking. They just don't have the right to smoke anywhere they choose to, or the right to kill others through indulging in their habit - and they shouldn't have those rights, either. Should gun owners be allowed to fire off their guns wherever they want to?

Is being forced to stand outside really being treated like a second-class citizen? If everyone was more considerate, we wouldn't need to have laws like this.

Ms. Hux - great minds think alike!

[paisley]

I don't drive and would really appreciate it if people would keep their smoke spewing machines the hell away from me... maybe they could just drive outside the cities?

[Del]

Oh please. Second class citizens? Think about that. It sounds to me that you think they should be treated as superior citizens, being able to go around blowing their smoke on the people who serve them?

People should not be subject to that in their workplace. We all have the right work work in a healthy environment.

Exactly the opposite Sharon... I believe smoking should be banned in workplaces, but places like bars, bingo halls, etc. should have BOTH smoking and non-smoking areas... As long as there's proper ventilation, what's the problem? Totally banning smoking everywhere but your house makes smokers feel like they are shut ins, and therefore second class citizens... I like the idea of smoking bars and non-smoking bars... What's wrong with that? That's true equality, because you would have the choice then...

[meggo]

isn`t that like, having an area of the pool that is pee-friendly...

ick

[Ms.Huxtable]

Who works at the smoking bars?

[Del]

People that smoke? I've known a few bartenders and waiters/waitresses that smoked...

[Hux]

So you're not gonna hack butts in my living room any more meggo? sounds good to me!

40 Main is going smoke free soon.....I want to live a long and healthy life.

[Del]

I don't know why you guys ever changed it Hux...

[StoneMtn]

I believe smoking should be banned in workplaces, but places like bars, bingo halls, etc. should have BOTH smoking and non-smoking areas... As long as there's proper ventilation, what's the problem? Totally banning smoking everywhere but your house makes smokers feel like they are shut ins, and therefore second class citizens...

As has already been posted here, and to state the obvious, bars/restaurants/bingo halls, etc ARE WORKPLACES, so I think that point is not even an issue.

With regard to being "shut ins", I think a subtle point has been missed. Could smokers not simply refrain from smoking for a few hours while they are out? Smokers are not banned from bars, etc.; merely the act of smoking is prohibited. I can think of many things I like to do at home that I am not permitted to do in public. I don't consider myself a shut in, though, because I am not entitled to do everything in public that I am entitled to do at home.

[Asparagus]

Anybody ever read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Just curious.

[StoneMtn]

Certainly. Any particular section?

[Lazlo]

If you don't like the smoke hold your breath then you won't die from so called second hand smoke. You'll just get brain damage from oxygen deprevation. Either way I win.

[meggo]

So you're not gonna hack butts in my living room any more meggo? sounds good to me!

40 Main is going smoke free soon.....I want to live a long and healthy life.

hey man, you say the word (was that saying the word?) and it won't happen again. could try some classical conditioning, like pinching me really hard when i light one. to be honest i like it when i can't smoke places, b/c i don't wanna be a smoker! i just have this personality flaw called "poor ability to resist temptation." i'm good at obeying most rules, though.

[Asparagus]

Certainly. Any particular section?

Yes, this section:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I always took this as meaning that any one individual could not infringe on the right to life of any other individual. Even though the word directly following life in that sentence is liberty, I always thought that meant liberty within reason (ie. within the scope of maintaining a balance of life, liberty, and security of person between each individual in question, or between individuals and the state or society as a whole). It is pretty vague and probably open to a great deal of interpretation, but that is my opinion.

[Douglas]

I like smoking outside...even when it's cold, I'm glad that I'm not sitting in a smokey room long afterwards.

(oh, and I'm glad that I'm glad mostly because I'm glad that the non-smokers aren't having to wince their eyes and cough...and that's alot of "glads" to be had)