oh mr klein, you're so goofy!

[Hux]

Wow, good point aspy, I wouldn't want 40 Main not to be Charter compliant.....

[SaggyBalls]

here's a solution.

decriminalize everything, spend the money we spent on policing on education. bars would require a license to have a smoking bar. when people smoke they drink more.

the bars and other places of business that allowed smoking would by law require health benefits, regular teeth cleaning, and life insurance.

we'd see few smoke friendly places, but the people that died sooner would have a few advantages, so it wouldn't be FORCING...it's be COERCING.

i think smokers should be allowed to smoke. but i don't agree with smoking just cause your'e addicted. i think too many smokers never savour the flavour. i'm pro smoking if it's all in taste.

cigarettes are unhealthy, but living to enjoy life is healthier than scientific studies would suggest.

[StoneMtn]

Asparagus, you are right that the section is open to interpretation. It does not apply, however, to "individuals" at all, rather to government action (which happens to be the case here, anyway.)

In my view the "Oakes Test" would likely save this legislation if impugned as a potential Charter infringement. Have you read the 1986 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oakes, which addresses this area of law? It should be available online at www.lexum.umontreal.ca, and I think you may change your opinion after you review it (but that is just my opinion).

[Asparagus]

Thank-you StoneMtn. I'm always looking to learn more about the law. I guess I could always ask a lawyer! Insert cheeky smile here.

I did know that that section applied to an individuals legal rights* as they specifically related to government action against said individual. I did, obviously, think that it could be extended in the sense that I mentioned above.

Time for some reading.

*It is the first part of the section entitled "legal rights" in the charter. This definitely implies govenment action, as individuals don't tend to legislate laws on there own.

[bokonon]

if you can interpret smoking as being constitutionally protected couldn't you pretty much say any behaviour is, like smoking crack, shooting heroin? i don't see how an argument could be constructed using our present laws as a framework to protect smoking but not these habits as well.

please don't misread this, i do not think these habits are protected. i personally don't interpret the charter this way, and i don't believe many others do either.

personally, i think people should be allowed to smoke outside, in their cars, at home, whatever. i like the smoke free bars. i think people should feel free to smoke on the patio or in the smoking room. that way everyone gets their rights. smokers smoke and non-smokers breathe. it's your choice to smoke, you are not compelled to do it. you can quit. i did. no zyban, hypnosis or any of that. i read a book. "alan carr's easy way to quit smoking". most boring book i've ever read in my life. but it's been eleven months smoke free after eight years of smoking. i didn't gain weight, in fact i lost weight. it's called willpower. yes, it takes willpower. what doesn't? when you feel like smoking or grabbing a bag of chips, don't. that's the best advice i've got.

[Del]

if you can interpret smoking as being constitutionally protected couldn't you pretty much say any behaviour is, like smoking crack, shooting heroin? i don't see how an argument could be constructed using our present laws as a framework to protect smoking but not these habits as well.

Does the government sell the public crack or heroin? No... Until smoking is banned outright, you can't compare someone's right to use a drug that the government taxes and considers legal to an illegal drug like crack or heroin...

[bokonon]

if it was protected under the constitution like some people are thinking the others would also have to be protected. i was just saying that the charter does not protect theses things. i was not equating them or saying that anything should be legal, just that smoking is not a legally protected right.

[bokonon]

like americans have the legally protected right to bear arms. we do not have the legally protected right to smoke butts.

tobacco is legal but it does not make smoking a right.

[Del]

I would argue that it is... Cigarettes are legal, and there are certain laws in place to ensure that once you reach a certain age (18), you have the right to consume them...

[Del]

There's not an amendment to our Charter Of Rights that specifies our right to smoke, but we have the right to smoke them... If we didn't, they would be illegal...

[Asparagus]

like americans have the legally protected right to bear arms. we do not have the legally protected right to smoke butts.

tobacco is legal but it does not make smoking a right.

Actually, my point, if you were referring to my post, was not that smoking is a constitutionally protected right, but rather that the right to liberty of one individual does not outweigh the right to life of another. But, as StoneMtn has pointed out, that particular part of the charter does not concern an individual's actions towards another, but rather the government's actions towards an individual. I still don't know if I agree, but I'm not an educated lawyer, nor have I finished reading the Supreme Courts decision in the case of R. v. Oakes.

[Asparagus]

Oh, and I'm an on again off again smoker, wishing I'd never been one in the first place. And I love the non-smoking bars. I find I get less tired dancing. Or talking for that matter.