# N.S. bylaw will ban smoking in cars with kids



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

Now this is progress!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/18/wolfville-smoking.html


----------



## bRian (Jul 3, 2006)

I'd like to see all the municipalities in our province come up with similar regulations. I realize that not all parents smoke in the presence of their children but there are many who still do. Children have to be protected from those who are too ignorant to care for their health. It pisses me off to see a car pull up in a mall parking lot to see 2 adults with a cigarettes lit with kids in the back seat.

If this is what it takes to get those parents to begin to realize that cigarette smoke is extremely harmful to their kids, then so be it. Have you ever been to someone's home to see 4 to 5 adults having a smoke with toddlers crawling around the floor, with noses running and coughing. Enough rant.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

There ought to be a law with stiff penalties in every province. 

At the risk of starting a flame war, I believe that smoking needs to be banned everywhere, and that's what is actually happening, gradually. It might not be evident from the smoking areas outside of highschools and offices, but fewer folks are indulging. Maybe in a generation or two it will be history.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

If people want to find a place they can go where they are the ONLY ones affected by their smoking, then I say power to 'em.... 

But keep it the hell away from MY face (And I'm an occasional smoker myself)
and keep it the FK away from ANY kids.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...now that we know the risks, there is simply no excuse for smoking in the presence of children. it really should be classified as child abuse, and prosecuted as such. and, while i agree that our privacy must be respected, child abuse is a very serious issue.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

"Wild Bill's going to be up in arms"
That right there aughta tell you this is probably a good idea to implement.


----------



## Robboman (Oct 14, 2006)

This ban is a no brainer good idea. When I was a kid my sister and I rode back seat long hours on the highway, both parents chain smoking up front in a small car. The air was grey, we'd be coughing.. "Daaaadd... can we open a window?" "NO, it's too cold.. stop your complaining!"

My parents guilt-trip about that to this day


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

One cannot be faulted for what you didn't know.... Only for your actions, after you did know!


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

Hey
I'm a heavy smoker, and yes it's a trick to smoke with gloves on..but this is one regulation that I thoroughly support, as well as driving while holding a cell phone, however...
I shudder to think what would happen if they decided that taking a puff while driving is outlawed..total ban....need both hands on the wheel..
kids should not be in an environment with secondary smoke..period.
cheers
Gerry


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2007)

"as well as driving while holding a cell phone"
Studies have been shown that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting.... 

Zero cellphones for the driver of a moving vehicle....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Good to hear NS is leading the way.

In spite of the protestations of some smokers (not all) if they don't have the character and common sense to avoid activities that are obviously harmful to their kids, laws need to be created to protect their children from them.


:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Canman (Oct 21, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> Now this is progress!
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/18/wolfville-smoking.html


Thats progress alright- Hopefully Pretty soon they'll have mandatory monthly bloodtesting to see if pregnant women are eating correctly and drinkin' and drugg'n. And if they refuse...tazer'm.


Right on Clinton!


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2007)

Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> I'm pretty sure Will Rogers never met you.



...nor dale carnegie:smile:!

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2007)

WTF does any of this have to do with Will Rogers??? 

What you see as smug, isn't, because it's warranted.

(But only when compared to some...)

If you don't want people being 'better' than you, stop making it so easy for them to be...


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2007)

"You're better than us"
I never said that...


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

so.... how about that football game?

Just to bring this back on topic, it's important to note that this by-law is for one community (Wolfville, home to Acadia University) only, not all of NS.

Wolfville was also the first municipality in NS to adopt a bylaw banning smoking inside a public place, back in 2001.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2007)

"this by-law is for one community"
Every idea has to start somewhere... I'm hopeful this will spread like wild-fire!


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm a light-to-moderate-smoker myself. To the best of my knowledge, I was pretty careful to avoid smoking in the proximity of my, or anyone elses children - be it in a car, a home, whatever.

Having said that, I do wonder where this type of legislation will eventually lead us. If, given the amount of medical evidence available today, these people insist on this behavior, then what else are they doing to their kids (for which we need further laws)? 

Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?


----------



## Canman (Oct 21, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence.



But not my abundance of ignorance.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2007)

"Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?"
If not, then the human race wouldn't last long....


----------



## auger (Apr 23, 2006)

hey all....
I think its high time that the powers who be.....put cigarettes back into the pharmacy....and take them off the shelves in all other stores completely....

and for those who are addicted.... they must go to the doctor to get a prescription to get their smokes.....

there is no longer any reason for cigarettes to be sold to the public in general....and no reason for kids to be able to start smoking......and become addicted...

lets face it.....smoking should be dealt with once and for all....
time to make the cigarette extinct......

Auger


----------



## Canman (Oct 21, 2007)

After ciggarettes are banned and no one has used them for a generation, what then will we blame the illness on and who then can we attack?

Years back most smoked and the stats were made up. Now that there is less smokers the stats are the same so it must be the second hand smoke.

What once was the territory of the smoker has become that of the non-smoker due to second hand smoke. It is fallacy and deceit of the highest order.
The reason lung cancer was prevalent in 60's people was from some smoking sure-but what about all the dust from asbestos laden brake shoes?

The establishment is misleading us. The truth is...

Auto exhaust pollution(now with additives creating highly complex toxins)

Personal products containing chemicals such as make-ups and deoderants

household cleaning products-those weird things they want you to put in the dryer too...feebreeze and crazy soaps and shampoos and toothpastes with new this and that-

food additives including candy with manmade sweeteners and dyes

Over the counter medications
It goes on and on...

and the smoker is baring the hate of the many people in fear...

I think its a rather healthy thing compared to the above-all of which I only partake in little if at all by choice.

Should those who dont drive have to breath all that crap everyday-

Maybe we should fine people who give kids candy and cheap hamburgers for lunch-

This is more evasion of govt on people and families-another errosion of freedoms...chip...chipp away until one day oops? 
What happened...they didnt give me the key today...I guess they dont want me anymore...I guess we should have...but...I didnt smo...I did everything they said I should...I...

Government at any level should just mind there own business something they're no good at.

Maybe next, start fining people who play that loud boombox stuff with kids in the car...or those parents who let their under 18 kids drive around playing it, damaging they're ears...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Canman said:


> After ciggarettes are banned and no one has used them for a generation, what then will we blame the illness on and who then can we attack?
> 
> Years back most smoked and the stats were made up. Now that there is less smokers the stats are the same so it must be the second hand smoke.
> 
> ...



We are, whether some people want to not, evolving.

The following used to be considered normal and acceptable:

Husbands laying beatings on their wives and children when they "needed" it.
Driving around with a beer between your legs.
Not wearing seatbelts.
Racism
Homophobia
Mysoginism
Smoking in enclosed spaces with children.


This is not an invasion of our privacy by an intrusive government. It's protecting children from abuse.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This is not an invasion of our privacy by an intrusive government. It's protecting children from abuse.



...hear! hear!

-dh


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

It is an uncomfortable truth that government intervention is sometimes required to help modify the behavior of society, for the benefit of all.

At some point government had to step in to place restrictions on/create laws to:

1) how fast you can drive in certain zones 

2) what waste can be discarded and what should be recycled

3) insure children of a certain age received basic education

4) what activity is acceptable in a watershed area

5) where industry should locate

etc.

Over burdening our society with needless laws is one thing, but allowing everyone to "do their own thing", without regards to others, is the reason a lot of civilizations have failed. (you can watch Mel Brook's "The History of the World" for proof of that concept )


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Here are a few interesting quotes.



> "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" —pg 32





> "Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children." —pg 24





> "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face… was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…" —pg 54


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

Brave New World?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

laristotle said:


> Brave New World?


1984 I think.


But comparing Orwels vision of government gone horribly wrong to a law preventing people from exposing their kids to carcinogens is a bit hard to swallow for me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

Yup. 1984.


----------



## Canman (Oct 21, 2007)

Milkman said:


> 1984 I think.
> 
> 
> But comparing Orwels vision of government gone horribly wrong to a law preventing people from exposing their kids to carcinogens is a bit hard to swallow for me.



I know we are evolving, and I think the idea has some merit- Not a misanthrope, Im merely trying to play the devil's advocate. 
A little bit of healthy cynicism never hurts. 
It just keeps things moving on an even keel.:smile:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Canman said:


> I know we are evolving, and I think the idea has some merit- Not a misanthrope, Im merely trying to play the devil's advocate.
> A little bit of healthy cynicism never hurts.
> It just keeps things moving on an even keel.:smile:


Agreed.

There's much to be said for balance.

(biggest reason I don't own an SG)


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

While it seems like a common sense kind of a thing to me, I would never want to see a law passed in support of it. It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced.

Not to mention the next logical extension, which will be enforcing a similar law in homes where children are present. Will inspections be carried out? Will teachers need to sniff the children's clothing? Will the children be encouraged to tell?

I remember years ago, my young teenaged stepson came home with a card from school with a "Help Line" number on it that they were giving out . He waved it in my face and said that I'd better be careful (or something to that effect) or he'd cause me trouble.

Tie this in with the other post about 1977-2007. Extremes perhaps - but there are truths as well. Common sense, decency, compassion, respect - these things cannot be legislated. And God help us when they try. 

Very George Orwellian indeed.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> While it seems like a common sense kind of a thing to me, I would never want to see a law passed in support of it. It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced.
> 
> Not to mention the next logical extension, which will be enforcing a similar law in homes where children are present. Will inspections be carried out? Will teachers need to sniff the children's clothing? Will the children be encouraged to tell?
> 
> ...


What about a law ensuring that children are not left unattended in cars during hot summer months?

A quick death from heat stroke or a slow painful one from cancer. 

I understand the concerns about privacy but children need protection.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I understand the concerns about privacy but children need protection.



...raising the spector of 1984 every time a new law is proposed just seems silly.

it seems especially silly when the issue is that of child abuse.

should parents be free to abuse their children out of respect for their privacy?

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"It boggles my mind as to how it would be implemented and enforced."
Ya... but people said the same thing about enforcing drinking and driving laws... We've implemented and enforced them pretty well (Not to say we couldn't do better)

That you can't imagine how to do it, doesn't mean that nobody else has good ideas....

"enforcing a similar law in homes"
Well, for one, that's called a slippery slope logical fallacy.... But I for one hope that one day, they DO 'outlaw' smoking in homes where there are children. 

"Common sense, decency, compassion, respect - these things cannot be legislated."
They also don't even actually exist.... They are totally subjective.... and so, pretty must worthless.

"God help us"
There's no "God" either.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> ...........
> There's no "God" either.


There is, I met her.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

I'm willing to accept that you THINK you met her..... Or even that you BELIEVE you met her....

But people are capable of thinking, of believing a lot of nonsense....

But that's got nothing to do with this thread.

N.S. is also banning hand-held cellphones behind the wheel (And making other improvements)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/23/road-safety.html


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> I'm willing to accept that you THINK you met her.....


Just kidding Clinton, I have no way of knowing one way or the other, for sure.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...raising the spector of 1984 every time a new law is proposed just seems silly.
> 
> it seems especially silly when the issue is that of child abuse.
> 
> ...


Your not seriously calling smoking in a car with kids "child abuse" are you? If so, than who is being silly?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I dunno, I would agree with dh on this one. Second hand smoke is no joke. And I partake occasionally..


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Starbuck50 said:


> I dunno, I would agree with dh on this one. Second hand smoke is no joke. And I partake occasionally..


Are you calling it child abuse? Be careful with that term. People get locked up for that offense. Are we now suggesting that we lock up smokers? If so, than we have passed over into the absurd.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I don't necessarily call it child abuse, but what would you call it? Colossal stupidity? I would have no problem passing a law to make it illegal to smoke with a child in the car.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Starbuck50 said:


> I don't necessarily call it child abuse, but what would you call it? Colossal stupidity? I would have no problem passing a law to make it illegal to smoke with a child in the car.


You can call it anything you want... I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse."
Locking children into a small box and polluting the air with high levels of dangerous toxins.... 

Sounds exactly like child abuse to me.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I think it goes way over the line to call it child abuse."
> Locking children into a small box and polluting the air with high levels of dangerous toxins....
> 
> Sounds exactly like child abuse to me.


Like I said, slipping into absurd


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Are you calling it child abuse? Be careful with that term. People get locked up for that offense. Are we now suggesting that we lock up smokers? If so, than we have passed over into the absurd.


Calling it abuse is a bit of a stretch but locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting. Forcing a child to inhale known carcinogens is a little different than having a smoke yourself.

Why not give them a little Jack Daniels as well?

Smoke if you must, but never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others, particularly children under your supervision.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

We protect our children from lead paint.... from asbestos.... from being left alone... from abuse, physical, mental and sexual.... 

But 2nd hand smoke is o.k.? Remember, if the toxins coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in a mine shaft or a foundry, in the same levels, no one would be allowed to work there, no matter what 'safety equipment' they were issued.... 

So whose point of view is the absurd one?

Or do you maybe think it's o.k. to lock children into a small box and pollute the air with high levels of dangerous toxins....

"locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting"
Locking someone up, or fining them, or similar is EXACTLY what this proposed law is about.... 

"never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others"
Hear FN hear!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> Calling it abuse is a bit of a stretch but locking up someone for smoking is not what anyone is suggesting. Forcing a child to inhale known carcinogens is a little different than having a smoke yourself.
> 
> Why not give them a little Jack Daniels as well?
> 
> Smoke if you must, but never assume that it's ok for your habit to harm others, particularly children under your supervision.



Finally.... a man with a little common sense. It goes a long way folks. Don't do things to your children that you know to be harmful. That goes for everything in life, not just smokes. I guess though, since we "must" have a huge percentage of ignorant, half retarded mutants in this country that we need the government to create a law to make sure we do it. What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Finally.... a man with a little common sense. It goes a long way folks. Don't do things to your children that you know to be harmful. That goes for everything in life, not just smokes. I guess though, since we "must" have a huge percentage of ignorant, half retarded mutants in this country that we need the government to create a law to make sure we do it. What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?


Well, the shocking lack of common sense in people is exactly why crazy laws come to pass. I mean really, who could EVER think it's ok to smoke in an enclosed space with children or ANY non smoker for that matter? Like Milkman said, might as well pass them the JD.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?"
When has the human race EVER done that?????? 

We -had- to make laws against drinking and driving.... against beating our wives.... against owning other people.... We had to make wearing seatbelts a LAW.... 

I'm astounded that you're surprised we apparently have to make a LAW about this too....

"common sense"
No such thing.... It's as useless a term as 'Classic" (When used to describe something that someone somewhere might have liked at one point....)


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?


I guess we need a law against eating now too


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Didn't I see somewhere recently that obesity was now the #1 Killer?


Yeah and that's the fault of McDonalds etc.. Gord forbid anyone should know that imbibing in your total allowed caloric intake in one meal on a regular basis might contribute! Yeah, I'll have a Double Big Mac, Fries and a Large DIET COKE!!! Morons!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

ClintonHammond said:


> "What ever happened to thinking for yourself and just doing the right thing?"
> When has the human race EVER done that??????
> 
> We -had- to make laws against drinking and driving.... against beating our wives.... against owning other people.... We had to make wearing seatbelts a LAW....
> ...



CH, those laws have been in place for eternity... everyday I pick up the paper and another one is killed by a drunk, or no seatbelt being worn. Just because there is a law does not ensure that some halfwit is going to follow it. Thats why the jails are full. So it's not the answer man.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have to go and pick up my pizza, empty the ashtrays in my sons room and then take the draw for snapjack cables. Let the smoking debate continue.... sdsre


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"another one is killed by a drunk, or no seatbelt being worn"
Yer never going to STOP it (d'uh) but having laws against such things sure cuts down on them.... 

"So it's not the answer man."
Funny how it seems like the people who seem to be asking for anarchy the loudest are the ones least likely to be able to really cope with it... 

So, what -is- the answer?

*cross post edit*
"I would argue that clean air is on that list"
Abso-FN-lootly.... and to extend that, clean air... clean water.... healthfull food.... in short, next I guess will be "Environmental" laws.... They can't come quick enough, AFAIC....


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Paul said:


> No but there should be better information provided to the consumer. Portion sizes have gone up, and the Big Mac and fries of today has a significantly larger calorie hit over the meal of 1970.
> 
> (Typed by the guy who used to singlehandedly put down a family fun gulp at the 7-11)


I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I guess I'll reiterate:

Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.

And for those of you that don't believe these things even exist, then I guess you should have met my parents. God rest their cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf souls.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> I guess I'll reiterate:
> 
> Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.
> 
> And for those of you that don't believe these things even exist, then I guess you should have met my parents. God rest their cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf souls.


Here's some wisdom. Amen :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.


Ah, but GC! Are you not placing an enormous amount of blind faith in government to be a COMPETENT "Big Brother"?

Those who liked tainted blood and the Kreever Commission I guess would have faith. Or Walkerton. Or the Air India Inquiry. On and on and on...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"We need big brother"
There's no Big Brother.... If there ever was is up for debate, but there certainly isn't one now.... It's my theory that he probably died from apathy....

The term "Common Sense" keeps popping up here.... Define it.... and then get people to agree on that definition.... Then maybe, just maybe it will exist.... Until then, it's too subjective a concept to be even remotely useful

Allow me to paraphrase.... "you should have met my... cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf parents" Seems to me I'd be glad not to....


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Wild Bill said:


> Ah, but GC! Are you not placing an enormous amount of blind faith in government to be a COMPETENT "Big Brother"?
> 
> Those who liked tainted blood and the Kreever Commission I guess would have faith. Or Walkerton. Or the Air India Inquiry. On and on and on...
> 
> :food-smiley-004:



Good Gosh... what was I thinking? Then there is nobody to protect us from evil. Or our own stupidity


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

clint
you mentioned foundry and smoking...now there is definitly something really absurd...I work in one..lots of stuff in the air...but I have to go outside to smoke.....go figure

for the record...my grandkids are coming down for a visit...guess who smokes outside of his own house......going to be chilly...LOL

anyone with any inteligence does not smoke around children, but lately I've been thinking about the critters too.
cheers
RIFF


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

" you mentioned foundry and smoking..."
I will endeavour to source the study I'm quoting.... Unfortunately, I might be quoting a conversation I had with a relative who is an international labour lawyer....

"guess who smokes outside of his own house"
I don't smoke in my house... I don't smoke in my car.... When I'm at the pub, I'm HAPPY to step outside to smoke.... Especially in winter. Cigarette smokers are some of the few remaining naked-eye astronomers... ,-)


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Allow me to paraphrase.... "you should have met my... cigarette-smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing, hit-you-with-a-wooden-spoon and turn-that-down-or-you'll-go-deaf parents" Seems to me I'd be glad not to....


Aim a little higher please


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

I wouldn't want to be above your reach....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> I wouldn't want to be above your reach....


Nice, decent response CH.

I asked nicely....perhaps we do need more laws after all


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "You're better than us"
> I never said that...














nuff said.

CT.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

http://www.mulletjunky.com/webimages/child1.jpg

Now THIS is child abuse!!

CT.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2007)

"Nice" is a foul, belittling, under-reaching concept....

it lacks any verve... any fire... any exuberance....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Good Gosh... what was I thinking? Then there is nobody to protect us from evil. Or our own stupidity


Actually, there never was! A mature mind protects itself from evil and strives not to be stupid.

After all, in the final analysis it is ourselves that suffer, not "the government". 

Although if you always take the easy way out and do what others tell you then you always have the excuse that someone ELSE was wrong! Assuming you survived to lay the blame.

I've never been one to have blind faith in authority. I've known too many bosses that were incompetent and politicians for whom a stop sign was a week's good reading. I've had to submit in the face of rank and power of course but I've never been able to feel blindly confident in someone's rank or title. It takes me a while to see if their decisions warrant trusting in them.

But that's just me!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Yes, but the no smoking in cars law in NS is meant to protect _children_, who have no say in choosing their parents. The children, by definition have a markedly immature mind, and are completely dependant on parents for protection. Without mandatory child restraint laws, the auotmakers would not be mounting tether points in vehicles, and some parents would still be wrapping the child in an extra layer of clothes for padding, and letting them sleep on the dashboard.
> 
> I am convinced that there are children alive today because we have standards and laws for approved child restraints. I've heard of hospitals refusing to release children because the car that came to pick them up was ill equipped to transport an infant.


Well, this is a grey issue. You seem to take the perils of passive smoke as an absolute given. Not everyone agrees that smoking in a car is such a deadly peril to children in the back seat. Particularly if the windows are open. The law of course just flat out says "Don't". It doesn't care if you're driving a convertible with the top down!

Many smokers might see this law as not an attempt to protect children at all! It's simply meant to use unfounded science as a lever to deny smokers one more place to light up. If you don't agree with the danger then you don't agree with the aim of the law and you don't believe you're putting kids in danger.

It would seem to many to be yet another example of what's called "gradualism", where you take tiny steps one at a time to achieve your real goal, which in this case is to prevent smoking not by an outright ban but by slowly removing any place where a smoker CAN smoke!

I mean, there's no smoking in workplaces. There's a movement to ban it in your own home. Many apartments have been declared non-smoking, often with an arbitrary sudden decision that has caught seniors by surprise, with no ability to move.

Now they've banned it in your car. Some cities talk of bans in the open air on a sidewalk. In Hamilton you're not allowed to have a roof or enclose any smoking area. Smoking on patios in clubs has been gone for a couple of years. So are most of the patrons, it would also seem. What's the point of banning just a simple roof to keep off the rain? The answer seems obvious - you WANT smokers to get wet or cold!

Me, I haven't smoked in years but I'm still struck by the hypocrisy of the situation. If the government were to simply make nicotine illegal I might not agree but I would at least consider that an open and honest approach. What's happening today looks to me like using a fascist streak of human nature that wants to tell their neighbour how he should live his life as a very effective instrument in a jihad against smoking.

I've always been more afraid of my daughters acquiring this very prevalent attitude! I've tried to teach them some of the old "hippy" sense of tolerance. All these phony smoking laws do is teach them that if it's politically correct you can force your neighbour to have to do almost anything.

Kinda ugly, from my POV.

BTW, given the words of your post signatures I'm surprised at your support. The anti-smoking movement is a religion by it's practice, if ever I saw one.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2007)

"Not everyone agrees that smoking in a car is such a deadly peril"
Not everyone agrees that NASA landed on the moon in the late 60's... 

The people who don't are called crackpots and in some cases, idiots... because they are.

Find a reputable scientist who will say that 2nd hand smoke isn't very dangerous.... You will have found, at the very least, another crackpot.


----------



## fingers (Sep 4, 2007)

If the government was serious about stopping smokers from harming others,costing the public millions and protecting children then why dont they raise the cost of smokes to say......250$ a pack?
I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.
I havent smoked a cigg inside my house for 10 years,or in my car(s) for about the same amount of time.
I dont really know what I am trying to say except I hate the stinkin things and fully support ANY law that makes there use less tollerable and that forces smokers far away from children.
End rant
Aaron


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2007)

"I hate every one I smoke"
Then quit... because yer not too weak to do it... 

It's a simple as stop buying them. Simply DO NOT buy them.

If you need to, chew the gum, or go on the patch.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

fingers said:


> If the government was serious about stopping smokers from harming others,costing the public millions and protecting children then why dont they raise the cost of smokes to say......250$ a pack?
> I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.
> I havent smoked a cigg inside my house for 10 years,or in my car(s) for about the same amount of time.
> I dont really know what I am trying to say except I hate the stinkin things and fully support ANY law that makes there use less tollerable and that forces smokers far away from children.
> ...


...wow! that just begs the question: why smoke?

personally, i smoke an average of 1/3 of a pack a day. even after over forty-five years, i have never become physically addicted. i could quit this minute. but, i don't. why? because, i actually enjoy it...

aside from that, i enjoy a very healthy lifestyle. i don't sweat the smoking because its just one of a long list of things that will eventually kill me, not the least of which is old age...

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

fingers said:


> I am a smoker 10-15 ciggs a day.I hate it,I hate every one I smoke,I hate feeling weak for not being able to quit.I look at other smokers in the same light.I curse the day I started and all the day's that I gave up the quit just to go back to them and admit defeat again.


Hey I totally hear you. I was in the same boat. I had even quit for extended periods of time, like 3 years (twice) then having a couple of drinks.. (Oh I can have one when I have a drink) We all know where that goes. At any rate I finally quite for good when I got pregnant. I have had absolutly zero desire to go back. I even tried one (Outside) when my daughter was 6 months old and it made me physically ill. I knew I was through for good. My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

auger said:


> hey all....
> I think its high time that the powers who be.....put cigarettes back into the pharmacy....and take them off the shelves in all other stores completely....
> 
> and for those who are addicted.... they must go to the doctor to get a prescription to get their smokes.....
> ...



...if we are going to start banning things that are bad for us, i'd start with most of the poison we call "food".

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Michelle said:


> There is, I met her.



...does she have a sister?

:smile:

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Your not seriously calling smoking in a car with kids "child abuse" are you? If so, than who is being silly?


...you tell me.

willfully committing an act that is harmful to your children would appear to be the very definition of child abuse, no?

do you seriously think that's absurd?

how so?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I agree, Paul. But CH would tell you that we are unable to comprehend these things. There NEEDS to be a law put in place so that chuckleheads like us can't harm ourselves or harm our children. There is no other way bro. We need big brother to step in and TELL us what to do. The big corporations are not going to do it, we work for them. So we need the GOV to do it for us. We are incapable of making these decisions ourselves. I am convinced of it.


...baloney! complete and utter baloney. we don't make laws based on the actions of intelligent, law-abiding citizens who DO comprehend the consequences of their own actions.

duh!

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> I guess I'll reiterate:
> Common sense, decency, respect, tolerance - you can practice them and encourage them in others....but you can't legislate them.



...perhaps not. however, through a combination of social change backed by solid legistation, we have come a long way from the days of men physically and sexually abusing thier own familes with impunity, not to mention other social ills like slavery, racism, sexism, drunk driving, homophobia, public lynchings, xenophobia etc etc etc etc etc etc

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2007)

"I knew I was through for good."
Good for you! Bravo!!!! 

"My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up."
Everything worth doing IS difficult.... Difficult it might be, but it's only impossible if one LETS it be impossible.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> The anti-smoking movement is a religion by it's practice, if ever I saw one.QUOTE]
> 
> ..that may, or may not, be true. and al gore and david suzuki and michael moore may very well be hypocrites.
> 
> ...


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> I'm a light-to-moderate-smoker myself. To the best of my knowledge, I was pretty careful to avoid smoking in the proximity of my, or anyone elses children - be it in a car, a home, whatever.
> 
> Having said that, I do wonder where this type of legislation will eventually lead us. If, given the amount of medical evidence available today, these people insist on this behavior, then what else are they doing to their kids (for which we need further laws)?
> *
> Should stupid people be allowed to have kids in the first place?*


We've already gone that road before. It wasn't a pretty one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Canada


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I knew I was through for good."
> Good for you! Bravo!!!!
> 
> "My point is, it is really difficult for some folks to give the things up."
> Everything worth doing IS difficult.... Difficult it might be, but it's only impossible if one LETS it be impossible.


Gee, I don't know. Breathing seems to come pretty effortlessly to me.

At least I'll give you that your sophistry is entertaining.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2007)

Waste of electrons


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> You can kneel and suck my sophistry...


Oh, I get it. Fallacy, phallus, phallacy. Gee, did you come up with that one on your own? 

And to think that I wasted all that time reading Shakespeare. 

PS. Phallacy is not a word...but you knew that, didn't you?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2007)

Not worth it....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> You can kneel and suck my sophistry...



...well, at least i have the rest of the day to try and erase THAT mental imagery.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2007)

"If you think you can do something, or you think you cannot, you are right."

One of the current 'quitting plans' advises that, you call yourself a Quitter.... say "I'm quitting smoking" over and over to yourself, in your head or out loud if you have to... when you're on the phone and doodleing, write it over and over.... 

Even, and here's the tricky bit, even when you fall OFF the wagon (cause you WILL fall off... It took you years and years to become the smoker you are... It's going to take years to become the non-smoker you want to be) continue to call yourself a Quitter! When you fall off the wagon and are standing outside having a smoke and someone says "I thought you quit" respond by saying "I am quitting, but it's a difficult change to make."

That's part of the bigger plan, but an important part nonetheless... 

You said "I hate every one I smoke", well, if it's quitting you want to do, then quit.... I wish you the very best in that endeavour!


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Long thread... too lazy to read... I'll just say smoking is ****in' disgusting.

See those 'NY Quits' or someshit commericials with the messed up foot, then the other one with the brain, etc? Barf. After seeing that shit how can someone not want to quit?  

Both my mom and step dad smoke... I layed down the law, I says to both them I says "Buy air purifiers or GTFO". True story.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

violation said:


> Long thread... too lazy to read... I'll just say smoking is ****in' disgusting.
> 
> Both my mom and step dad smoke... I layed down the law, I says to both them I says "Buy air purifiers or GTFO". True story.


Well, I looked at your profile and you're 18. Which makes me happy that we are evolving & that your generation is growing up with the thought that smoking is nasty. Education and public service announcements do work.

MY generation is in between & I can actually remember smoking AT MY DESK AT WORK!!! I shudder to think about it. I also remember being out to lunch with co-workers who smoked while they ate! These things are thankfully not acceptable these days and I have the hopes that one day it will no longer be an issue....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> Well, I looked at your profile and you're 18. Which makes me happy that we are evolving & that your generation is growing up with the thought that smoking is nasty. Education and public service announcements do work.
> 
> MY generation is in between & I can actually remember smoking AT MY DESK AT WORK!!! I shudder to think about it. I also remember being out to lunch with co-workers who smoked while they ate! These things are thankfully not acceptable these days and I have the hopes that one day it will no longer be an issue....


LOL, We're showing our age.

I can remember people smoking on planes.

The most vile recollection I have on the subject is watching people take drags from a smoke in between mouthfuls of food during a meal.

Yikes.


Meetings used to be a real drag as well (sic). I work for a Japanese company and up until a few years ago almost all of the Japanese associates smoked.

Now, none of them do.

Evolution. Gotta love it.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

You know, I wonder if I'm ever going to get the chance to tell all my fellow citizens what to do? At least, before I die!:smile:

I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!

I can't abide the taste of garlic. Often I get a mouthful of something laced with garlic by accident. The damn stuff is everywhere and you just can't always avoid it. Begone!

I happen to believe that if you don't learn math and science skills when you are young you will be unable to think logically enough to vote on scientific issues like emissions and climate change. Or nuclear power versus wind and solar.

So if you didn't take enough math and hard sciences like physics and chemistry (no "girly man" sciences like botany or biology) then you don't get to vote!

Since I have an Irish/Scottish heritage, bagpipes will be mandatory for all school music classes.

Who gets to pick who's the Kaiser of the country, anyway? I don't recall ever getting a chance to vote on anti-lifestyle laws, smoking or whatever. They just started being imposed. When I did go to vote in any particular election ALL the candidates were on the same side of such issues! Where was my choice for my vote? This is democracy?

Tyranny of an anal-retentive, kinda fascist bossy minority, I call it!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> LOL, We're showing our age.
> 
> I can remember people smoking on planes.



Yeah we are showing our age...I had the double edge sword of good luck and misfortune to sit next to Guy Lafleur on a flight from Halifax to Toronto. The man was a smoking feind!! VERY nice but ick! AND I was a smoker then. His fingers were yellow. Man, I had forgotten all about that!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> You know, I wonder if I'm ever going to get the chance to tell all my fellow citizens what to do? At least, before I die!:smile:
> 
> I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!
> 
> ...



Are you an anarchist?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2007)

"I don't like gin, so ban it!"
Liking smoking or not has NOTHING to do with banning it... d'uh....

"Are you an anarchist?"
Most of the people who THINK they are, are exactly the kind of people who'd be LEAST suited to surviving it....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i clearly remember when you could literally smoke anywhere. hospitals, buses, airplanes, movie theatres...ashrays were "standard equipment", no matter where you were.

okay, explosive factories and areas where hay was stacked were off limits, but that was about it.

i also get a kick out of watching old movies, where both men and, especially, women, lit up in every scene.

personally, i do hope they eventually develop an alternative or a (relatively) safe method of smoking, or something similar to it. 

but, that is because i am a hedonist - a pleasure seeker. i needs me vices!

-dh


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I don't like gin, so ban it! All disco, technopop and rap - gone!


You have a choice not to drink gin and listen to those kinds of music. Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed. Why should smokers be given the choice of affecting non-smokers health? They're the ones who have the nasty habit.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> Not worth it....


See what I was saying about sophistry. First you make a vulgar comment, then you erase it an feign disinterest.


----------



## bRian (Jul 3, 2006)

*Bridgewater considering ban on
smoking on sidewalks, in cars*

BRIDGEWATER, N.S. — Bridgewater is
considering a law that would make it
illegal to smoke in any public place in
town except for on the two bridges.
That’s because the bridges are
owned by the province and the bylaw
would apply only to town-owned property.
If the bylaw is approved, people
won’t be allowed to smoke while walking
on the sidewalk or driving in a car.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

violation said:


> You have a choice not to drink gin and listen to those kinds of music. Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed. Why should smokers be given the choice of affecting non-smokers health? They're the ones who have the nasty habit.


We covered this in great detail in a LONG thread last year!

Anyhow, to answer your question, most times there is always an easy choice: let smokers have a place of their own!

All that ever had to be done was to allow club, restaurant or whatever owners to post a sign at the door clearly stating "Smoking, Nonsmoking or Mixed". If you didn't like it, you went to a different restaurant.

This was the first way anti-smoking rules started to be implemented, way back in the early 80's. The "nico-nazis" immediately discovered a problem. It was as plain as the nose on your face that in any restaurant the smoking section was full with a lineup and the non-smoking section was only sparsely filled.

This of course was not the goal! The real goal was to make smoking inconvenient for smokers to gradually discourage them from lighting up and hopefully eventually "training" them into quitting. So they needed a new tactic.

Presto! Second hand smoke is dangerous! Not just in fog-filled pool rooms and blues bars but anywhere, in even the tiniest trace amounts! You didn't need any real scientific proof. You could just shout "It's common sense! The smoke has scary stuff in it!"

The smoker's rights people made a dumb mistake. They tried to defend themselves with science. Bad move! They were immediately dismissed as agents for the evil tobacco company Illuminati and no one made the slightest effort to debate from a science viewpoint. Eventually, scientific "evidence" came all by itself, from those paid to do so.

This of course was not considered biased because these sources came from the "angels" and not the "nico-demons".

Passive smoke was the best lever anyone could have asked for! You now could claim that you had to save everyone from themselves! Smokers could no longer be allowed to have their own clubs and restaurants, leaving non-smokers sitting all by themselves in their mostly empty sections. EVERYTHING had to be non-smoking! After all, a stray wisp of smoke might make it past any huge filter/fans from ventilation units and kill someone on the spot!

Not to mention the staff, who needed protection even if they were smokers themselves or just didn't care. They were to be saved even if they didn't want to be saved. As venues closed from lack of business many lost their jobs but no one liked to talk about that and that effect went largely ignored.

Except by musicians who lost steady gigs, of course, but who cared about them?

It seemed that as smokers were being forced to sit with non-smokers, many of whom could not resist gloating about it, they didn't like the preachy, cheerless company. So they found other places to go and things to do. The hospitality crowd took a big hit, from which it just now is only slowly starting to recover. Live music and clubs took the biggest hit. It wasn't that hard for a smoker to go without for an hour or two with a meal but to go without for an entire night at a live music club was just too much. Their tables emptied out and somehow we never saw non-smokers replacing them. 

Makes one wonder why they bitched so much, if they didn't go to clubs anyway! 

You can take the stand that smoke-free clubs are better environments but the level of business is a completely separate point. To deny that the live music club scene is but a shadow of its former self would require smoking a lot more than just tobacco! Smoking laws of course were not the only factor but to deny they were an important one is just to be religiously righteous in your argument and deny what those of us who remember the glory days know first hand to be true.

To put it simply, passive smoke was simply a tool to social engineer. Not being scientific, it didn't have to defend itself on scientific terms. At one stroke smokers' rights could be ignored. They could either sit with non-smokers or stay home. Lump it or lump it were the choices.

But to say that "Non-smokers who have to deal with second hand smoke don't have a choice unless laws are passed." is to deny simpler, more practical solutions. Non-smokers just wanted to be able to enter ANY place, ANY where, and find no smoke! They didn't want separate facilities, not because it meant they might have to walk a bit further down the block for their style of venue but because the real goal was to remove ANY venue for the smokers!

If someone has an argument that this was not the case I'd like to hear it. So far I've heard some really convoluted attempts!

Finally, a sad sidebar has been the encouragement of anal-retentive, self-appointed policemen types using anti-smoking laws as an excuse to "wield power" and throw their weight around, posing as some kind of fascist, "nico-nazis" who just love to make other people do what they tell them.

I would rather die of lung cancer than to see my children grow up in a society with too high a percentage of these types!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).

I suspect if you had the same situation these days, there would be one or two in the smoking section and the non-smoking section would be full, other than the fact that non-smokers are no longer so uninformed that they would think they were protected by the invisible shield. 

Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?

I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".

Apparently we do as I regularly see people doing just that. I have no problems whatsoever with a law that protects children from idiots.


People have the right to decide if they want to kill themselves with lung cancer or heart disease. They do NOT have the right to make that decision for their kids.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Are you an anarchist?


Not at all! I just believe in individual rights. I will support laws that infringe on this area only if I myself understand them and see the need for them.

I no longer give governments and "society" a blank cheque to tell me what's right and wrong. I've just seen too many examples over the years of how they are simply not capable of being reliably rational. Politicians run to to get in front of parades and nobody starts a parade based on rationality and science. "Blood and Circuses" wins every time.

I'm also realistic enough to realise that some things are too big to defy. Governments have cops with guns and tax agents that can seize your house. Still, so far no one is forcing me to agree and say that many such things as lifestyle laws are fair, right, just and/or enacted only from a spirit of brotherly love!

Actually, I consider myself to be MORE law-abiding than many other citizens! I would break a law only because of conscience, after careful consideration to see if I had a moral or ethical (NOT the same thing, of course!) problem with it. Never for simple greed or dishonesty.

I also believe that you should support the rights of others, EVEN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU! 

That's why the anti-smoking movement has so appalled me, despite the fact that I don't smoke myself.

I'm reminded of an old classic Star Trek episode, where Kirk shouts:

"Not just for the Yangs but for the Comms as well! The Holy Words must be for EVERYONE or they mean NOTHING! Do you understand, Cloud William?"

Whenever I see that re-run episode I look around at our society today and feel rather alone...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Bagpipes?*

I'm REALLY suprised no one took me to task for my bagpipe suggestion!:smile:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> ............
> 
> Finally, a sad sidebar has been the encouragement of anal-retentive, self-appointed policemen types using anti-smoking laws as an excuse to "wield power" and throw their weight around, posing as some kind of fascist, "nico-nazis" who just love to make other people do what they tell them.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on that Bill, that's the way I see it and I have encountered such creatures, best way to deal with them is to meet force with force, like; "Where's your tape-measure?", "Which way is the wind blowing?", "Are you the property owner?", etc. I don't back down.

I really don't understand why they aren't raising a stink, (pardon the pun), over the poisonous air, but that creates jobs I guess so athsmatic deaths from that are 'collateral damage'.

I will quit when I damn well feel like it, problem is, I ain't no quitter. :smile:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).


Who says anything more was needed? The anti-smoking folks! And their sources are unbiased and the others are only Rothman shills, of course.



Milkman said:


> I suspect if you had the same situation these days, there would be one or two in the smoking section and the non-smoking section would be full, other than the fact that non-smokers are no longer so uninformed that they would think they were protected by the invisible shield.


Yeah, since the smokers have either been successfully trained or no longer come out anyways this would seem to be quite true.



Milkman said:


> Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?
> 
> I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".
> 
> ...


Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real. With open windows, ventilation systems set to draw in outside air, or a convertible top down some folks would disagree with this assumption.

Actually, so far I haven't seen any attempt whatsoever to scientifically prove how much and therefore how dangerous is the smoke from a cigarette in a car. It seems to have been enough to simply say "It's smoke! ANY amount will kill your children! So we'll MAKE you stop!"

Sorry, but I wouldn't trust the people leading this movement or the politicians who pass these laws (often one and the same people) to put a plug on a lamp, let alone have informed judgement about this matter.

If YOU trust their judgement, that's your right! Just grant the same right to others, please.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Amen Bill - you nailed it. 

Is anybody aware that when the big push came on they quietly modified the collected stats so that any lung-related death, and I mean ANY, was attributed to smoking.

Really, if the "facts" about second hand smoking were remotely true don't you think a first-hand smoker would drop dead on the spot after the first puff?

It has however been a boon to those that look for causes and excuses, from the insurance industry, who use it to deny claims and coverages, to Medicare to explain why the system is failing, to the self righteous, who are always looking for any easy cause. 

Now if I could only find the (buried) studies that show that seatbelts kill more people than they actually save.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> How would your children enjoy watching you die from lung cancer? Perhaps when all is said and done, they just might be willing to accept the no smoking lobby in exchange for a few more years with their father, or at the very least not watching you suffer.


Paul, as I've said many times on this board, I'm NOT a smoker!

Still, I could only agree with you if first, I agreed with you about the risks and second, I agreed with you about FORCING people to do what OTHERS think is good for them!

I don't, and I don't! I couldn't look myself in a mirror if I did!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> How would your children enjoy watching you die from lung cancer? Perhaps when all is said and done, they just might be willing to accept the no smoking lobby in exchange for a few more years with their father, or at the very least not watching you suffer.


My mother died 10 years ago from ovarian cancer. I was alone with her in her hospital room when it happened. She was weak, delusional, scared, and tired of being poked and prodded by strangers in a strange place. She begged me to take her somewhere where she could have a cigarette. I told her that she was too weak to move and she wasn't allowed to smoke in her room.

What I should have done was close the door, light one up for her and let her have a puff or two, consequences be damned. I owed her that much and I regret it to this day.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real. With open windows, ventilation systems set to draw in outside air, or a convertible top down some folks would disagree with this assumption.


I know you don't smoke, but if you did would you do it anyway because you don't believe it's real? Proper ventilation or not, it's your kids... why bother even take the risk that it _could_ harm them you know?

Alls I knows is if or when I reproduce no one's getting cancer sticks near my kids, LOL.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Paul said:


> .............
> 
> Tobacco smoke kills. Unfortunately it doesn't kill quickly enough.


That's where it's going isn't it? ALL SMOKERS SHOULD BE SHOT!


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Michelle said:


> That's where it's going isn't it? ALL SMOKERS SHOULD BE SHOT!


Thrown into rehab first... if they smoke or try and leave... well... :2guns:

Haha, kidding.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

I've been smoking 3/4's of my life. Trust me. I know
the health detriments. Quit? Easier said than done. 
It's an addiction. As tough to stop as with crack or
H. Like other smokers have posted, I do respect all
around me. I step outside even when non-smoking
residents tell me it's ok to smoke in their house.
I _never_ smoke in the presence of children
or non-smoking adults. With smokers being the latest
pariah of society, will we experience some sort of 
_Krystal Nacht_ anytime soon.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

violation said:


> Thrown into rehab first... if they smoke or try and leave... well... :2guns:
> 
> Haha, kidding.


Perhaps YOU are kidding! There are always exceptions to everything.

There are a LOT of folks who would NOT be kidding! And a lot more who would just stand back and not speak up because "Well, it's for their own good after all."

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...wow!

well-worded, wild bill.

while i am connvinced that _excessive_ second hand smoke is harmful, based on the experience of my neice, who grew up in such an environment, i have to agree that the incredible outrage over the faint residual evidence of smoke is often laughable. not to mention ridiculous.

personally, i miss those old, smoke-filled bars so much i plan to write a song about it.

-dh




Wild Bill said:


> We covered this in great detail in a LONG thread last year!
> Anyhow, to answer your question, most times there is always an easy choice: let smokers have a place of their own!
> All that ever had to be done was to allow club, restaurant or whatever owners to post a sign at the door clearly stating "Smoking, Nonsmoking or Mixed". If you didn't like it, you went to a different restaurant.
> This was the first way anti-smoking rules started to be implemented, way back in the early 80's. The "nico-nazis" immediately discovered a problem. It was as plain as the nose on your face that in any restaurant the smoking section was full with a lineup and the non-smoking section was only sparsely filled.
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Sadly restaraunts that had smoking and non-smoking sections seldom had anything other than an invisible line dividing the two (a bit like having a no-peeing section in a pool).



...few years ago i had a three-hour stopover at an airport in hamburg, germany.

virtually every person walked around with a lit cigarette, including employees and airline people.

right in the middle of all of that was a seating area that was roped off and a sign posted designating it a non-smoking area.

you could barely see it for all the smoke............

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Anyway, getting back on topic, how can anyone rationalize smoking in a confined space like car with children sitting with you?
> I hear people saying things like "we don't need laws to tell us not to do this".
> Apparently we do as I regularly see people doing just that. I have no problems whatsoever with a law that protects children from idiots.
> People have the right to decide if they want to kill themselves with lung cancer or heart disease. They do NOT have the right to make that decision for their kids.



...absolutely. i don't see how this can be argued.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Your argument assumes that the risk to children is real.



...it is real, wild bill.

i see it in my own family, with a neice who suffers complications from 20+ years of living with parents who are both heavy smokers.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Soooo, how do you propose we test this? Shall we randomly pick children out of the population and expose them to ever increasing amounts of toxins until we find the breaking point? Do we pick _your _children and/or grandchildren. This is in the name of science. That's a good cause, right?
> 
> Sometimes Bill we have to put aside our "show-me" convictions and just think for a change. There is no possible benefit to exposing children to second hand tobacco smoke. Just like lead paint from a generation ago, we know that most kids won't eat paint chips, (apparently the lead makes them sweet), but there was no way to control who would eat lead paint, when they would eat lead paint, or how much. We do know that lead is a toxic substance to human beings, just like we know all of the carcinogins in tobacco smoke. Banning lead paint is a reasonable solution to remove/limit a known threat. There are still plenty of houses and classroomsout there with lead paint issues, but over time we are improving the situation.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid I just can't agree with the logic of your argument! Correct me if I've misunderstood.

It seems to me that you're saying that tobacco smoke kills, period. Therefore, any amount, anywhere is deadly. Therefore society has a duty to force everyone to restrict where they smoke, especially to protect children. That the danger mitigated by child car seats is as true and valid as that of the danger of passive smoke.

Furthermore, society can pass laws without any need to have scientific proof about the true danger to children in cars from smoke. That the burden of proof is upon smokers to prove that they are not endangering their children. That because YOU don't enjoy the habit it is no hardship for smokers to give up because you and others tell them they must.

In other words, YOU know you're right so I and others should simply believe you! And with your msg signatures you take jabs at the religious?

Paul, when did you stop beating your wife? How can you prove a negative and when did someone or some organization have the right to impose on some individual's lifestyle and make HIM responsible to prove it's unnecessary??!!

You also seem to be saying that because YOU and others think there is a POSSIBILITY of danger then OTHER citizens should be forced to change their habits, even if they don't agree with you!

I'm sorry, Paul. I'm sure you're well intentioned but this is just fascism, by dictionary definition.

The same arguments could be made by religious conservatives if they ever got into political power to impose their views on the entire population. After all, they know that they're right! Their god told them! So it's ok to make everyone else follow their commandments! A rational thinker would consider their arguments circular. He should only publicly agree if they have a gun trained on him or his family!

You should also consider that with smoking laws the precedent has been set. There is a "slippery slope" happening where we hear serious consideration being given to defer or even refuse health care to individuals who don't appear to have been conscientious enough about their weight or health or habits. Companies have not only outlawed smoking at work but ban employees from smoking altogether, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES! 

Insurance companies have been handed easy and bulletproof excuses to raise insurance premiums or even deny payouts on coverage.

You either believe "Cloud William's Holy Words" are for everyone or you don't, Paul. Half a democrat is really just an elitist. 

What it all boils down to is that if you think that someone has the right to tell you how to live your life then you have the right to someday back a motion to tell HIM what he can or cannot do!

Do unto others as they have done unto you. With many people it's the only damn way to get the concept of liberty into them!

The smoking movement has shown that you can keep pushing people around for a long time. What isn't obvious is that many of those people may be forced to go along with you but that doesn't mean they don't resent you forever! I think that with many such politically correct lifestyle laws we are breeding and festering a BIG backlash! 

More and more straws on that camel's back...


:food-smiley-004:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> As much as I can sympathise with the difficulty of breaking a nicotine addiction, do smokers rights advocates really believe that their cause is on the same level as the Holocaust?


We have advocates?

I have watched this band wagon gathering speed since the mid-70's. For the most part, the average smoker has been docile, respectful, and aquiescent as they have complied with the ever increasing restrictions imposed over them for the "Greater Good". 

Quite franky, it's gone past being unfair and inconsiderate but you have the power and I don't. 

Pariah or not, I don't see myself quitting so just tell me where I can go to have my smoke in peace....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...it is real, wild bill.
> 
> i see it in my own family, with a neice who suffers complications from 20+ years of living with parents who are both heavy smokers.
> 
> -dh


Ah David, your niece may indeed have problems but one incident doesn't prove anything. Try drawing a curve when you have only one point of data! There could be a host of other reasons for her troubles.

Besides, this thread was about smoking in cars with kids in the back. I can guarantee you that convertibles will NOT be exempt from this law! That in itself is revealing.

I appreciate your post agreeing that in cases such as this so-called "justifications" have been carried to extremes. This just proves my point that you should not be puzzled at these inconsistencies if you look for the real goals.

The real goal with this car law is NOT to protect children! Otherwise there would be more scientific studies along with it measuring the actual exposure to a child in the back seat, with and without open windows, with and without the ventilation set to recirculate the air inside or to draw from outside. Or having a convertible top down!

The good councilors of this Maritimer town didn't bother with all that. They passed this law because they don't like smoking, period! If they ban it at work, at home if you have kids and in your car going to and from work, it becomes all but impossible to have anywhere at all! There are movements afoot to ban smoking on sidewalks. Outside smoking areas are not allowed a roof to keep off the rain and snow.

This is just hypocrisy! They don't want to ban the stuff because then they would obviously be fascists and might take a political hit. So they just make it impossible to find a place to light up and think that the smokers will never put two and two together and know who to blame!

More simply, they want to ban smoking without appearing to ban smoking. They want to force people to do what THEY think they should without paying any political price.

A pox on all their houses! Weasels all! Screw them and the horses they rode in on too!

If someone (not old hippies like us, of course! :smile wants to be a social fascist then they should have the honesty to stand up and admit to it!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> We have advocates?
> 
> I have watched this band wagon gathering speed since the mid-70's. For the most part, the average smoker has been docile, respectful, and aquiescent as they have complied with the ever increasing restrictions imposed over them for the "Greater Good".
> 
> ...


http://www.mychoice.ca This might interest you, Mr. Thumb!

Of course, since they get a bit of tobacco company funding anything they say can't possibly be true. Unlike anti-smoking sites who are totally unbiased and on the side of Angels.

Still, if you look at enough info you might be better able to make up your own mind.

That's still legal, isn't it? Some days I'm no longer sure...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

Sorry Wild Bill... Your paranoid ranting, and Star Trek boner don't change the fact that 2nd hand smoke is very dangerous, and there is PLENTY of scientific evidence to support that... 

That you think for a second that you're somehow qualified to dismiss the evidence in no way invalidates it.

I hate to tell you, but "Nick Naylor" was satire...

"no evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is harmful."
I think that's called being willingly blind


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Bill,
> 
> I wasn't clear. You've stated that you've seen no evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is harmful.


Where did I say that I've seen no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful?

Although to be truthful, I don't believe I have seen any that held water. That being said, I don't believe I've SAID any such thing in this thread!

You're twisting my words, Paul! I believe I've been saying that it's not enough to believe that a substance in itself is harmful. You have to talk about dosages and exposure times or the point is meaningless.

Two tablespoons of table salt will kill if swallowed by a baby. Yet over the first few years of its life that baby will consume far more than two tablespoons! Is that not "long term exposure"? Should we ban salt?

ALL substances are harmful! Just pile enough on top of someone! Without context this is not science but just simple BS!

Even so, suppose we grant that society always knows better than ourselves and has the right to force us what to do. So let's all of us swear off marijuana forever! (At least, those of us who do!) 

What's more, we've all seen how with too many people alcohol leads to big problems. Let's not actually ban it 'cuz after all, we have no right to remove their free choice. However, no more bars and no more at home! Especially at home if there are children there that could see you imbibe! You'd be setting a bad example that might lead to problems in their adult life!

I'm sure it would be no problem to google up a ton of studies about the perils of alcohol. The same arguments for passive smoke (NOBODY talks about passive smoke in terms of moderate or severe levels!) could be made for Prohibition!

It wouldn't bother me if we attacked grass or alcohol. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to start a Temperance movement steamrolling these days, particularly with Harper's crew in power!

Maybe I should drop them an email or two, and pen some Letters To The Editor. Who knows what we could make happen!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"The absense of a study that meets _your_ requirements is not a reason duck our collective responsibility"

Especially given that WB's requirements are such that they would render any such study moot.... 

"let's all of us swear off marijuana forever!"
It'd probably do you a world of good, if you did.

"you are so stuck in Missouri"
Is that like being Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

jroberts said:


> You'll see that this issue has been hashed out previously on several occasions if you do a search. I recall that the last time the topic was discussed at any great length, Bill asserted that there was no evidence that second hand smoke was harmful, I provided links to dozens of peer-reviewed studies that said it was (there were actually _hundreds_ of studies, but I didn't want to spend all day writing out links). Bill still didn't buy it, on the basis that he's a "free thinker" and all the studies were just propaganda. And so the circle continues...


Yes but really you can find evidence of virtually any POV on the net. For instance:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/asthma.htm

Not that I agree with any of it and I would never, ever smoke round a child...


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Hmmmm.... my daughter once fell when she was learning to walk and hit her head on the coffee table.

Should we;

a) Ban coffee tables
b) Make toddlers wear protective headgear
c) Bind toddlers ankles so they can't try to walk and potentially hurt themselves
d) Make it illegal for parents with children to drink coffee
e) Sue somebody

Silly - yes. But the point is, I knowingly jeopardized my daughter's well-being by owning a coffee table. There outta be a law!

Sorry.... Anyway, as I stated much earlier in this thread, although I smoke, I have never knowingly done so in the near-presence of my children. For that matter, I have never smoked in the presence of someone who was bothered by it - period. 

But... What I am tired of, on this and far too many other issues, are the legislators, the do-gooders, the Holier-than-thou's and all manner of professional lobbiests, political point-grabbers, zealots and cause-seekers that feel the need to not only tell me what is best for me - but turn it into law. 

History is littered with their ilk and the millions who have suffered at their hands.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"Bill still didn't buy it, on the basis that he's a "free thinker" and all the studies were just propaganda."
Well, he certainly seems to have set his throught process free, if that's what you mean.

Fortunately, the facts don't rely on WB or anyone else believing in them or not.... They are facts no matter what the "Free Thinkers" would like to believe.... 

"feel the need to not only tell me what is best for me - but turn it into law."
Apparently they need to.... Look how long it took to convince people seat belts were a good enough idea to make them law... And still you'll get a few crackpots and "Free Thinkers" who will TRY to tell you that seat belts kill more people than they save... 

Then the "Free Thinkers" try to tell you that NASA never landed on the moon.... Then they try to tell you that there are alien bodies stored at "Area 51", and that in their back yard they have a machine that generates more energy than is put into it.... and it's sitting on top of an anti-gravity generator....

" History is littered with.."
...everyone.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

LOL!

Not even a little bit!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

It's hard to believe there are still people who question the hazards of second hand smoke.

Then again there are plenty of people who deny global warming and others (or maybe they're the same people) who say the holocaust never happened.


If those comparisons seem extreme, read some of the other posts in this thread.

Freedom of choice stops the second your choice impacts others in a negative way, particularly when those affected are under your "supervision" and are unable to question your "authority".


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Freedom of choice stops the second your choice impacts others in a negative way, particularly when those affected are under your "supervision" and are unable to question your "authority".


Amen to that. On that note why isn't it illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke or drink? I've seen it and it's completely disgusting to me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> Amen to that. On that note why isn't it illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke or drink? I've seen it and it's completely disgusting to me.


Well there's a sticky wicket.

Now you're stepping into the rights of the unborn.

I'd rather not get into that, but I do agree, seeing pregnant women smoking, drinking or otherwise poluting their unborn babies is a disgusting thing to see.

There are warning posters in most bars lately advising expectant mothers not to drink.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"Freedom of choice stops the second your choice impacts others in a negative way"

I heard someone put it this way....

Your freedom to throw a punch stops where my nose starts


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

There are also posters in the Liquor stores. When I was about 8 months pregnant, We had a birthday dinner at my house and I went out to buy the festive beverages and man, they at the counter gave me the hairy eyeball, I felt dirty just buying it! 

It's something that is completely incomprehensive to me.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

jroberts said:


> So you obviously realize the difference between smoking and your example of owning a coffee table, then?


Obviously. 

The point I was trying to make is that there is no shortage of things from which children could be protected from. Secondhand smoke is one of them.

It just also happens to be the "Danger de Jour".


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> I'll stand on your soapbox for a moment. Show me the unbiased study that clearly demonstrates second hand tobacco smoke in the closed environment of a car is _good _for children. Until you can do that, there is no way I'll approve of a law that _requires_ the driver to chain-smoke lucky strikes with children as passengers. A law like that, well that's just facism. Dictionary facism.


Paul, I'm not demanding you approve or not approve. I'm not demanding you smoke or don't smoke, passengers or otherwise.

Simply, I'M not telling YOU what to do! If you do want to tell others what to do, I'm just saying I do not respect such action carte blanche.

If I'm not the one forcing someone to do or not do something, why should the burden of proof be on ME?



Paul said:


> Get over it, Bill, you have fewer enshrined rights than you'd like to believe,


Sadly, you're absolutely right! No argument here!



Paul said:


> and a lot more obligations than you seem willing to accept.


Tell me which specific obligation you're talking about and I'll tell you if I'll accept it. Just don't ask me to unthinkingly swallow ALL of them because you, any lobby group or any government believe you should be believed and obeyed without question.

I might give that kind of confidence if I saw proven results. Tainted blood scandal, anyone? Adscam? Walkerton?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> It's hard to believe there are still people who question the hazards of second hand smoke.
> 
> Then again there are plenty of people who deny global warming and others (or maybe they're the same people) who say the holocaust never happened.
> 
> ...


Did I not already address this? I don't CARE about who's right about the hazards of second hand smoke! I care about people and governments thinking they have the right to save people from themselves!

I notice no one responded to my point about letting smokers have their own clubs and restaurants, being free to avoid militant non-smokers. Seems like confirmation of my belief that protecting non-smokers was never the real goal. No one talked about windows or ventilation factors in a car, or if the car was a convertible.

This proves to me that indeed, it's really just trying to force smokers to quit. What else could it be?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"letting smokers have their own clubs and restaurants"
No one would be allowed to work there, as a matter of worker safety... The reason I didn't say it sooner is that I figured it was obvious enough to go without saying....

"windows or ventilation factors in a car, or if the car was a convertible"
You're grasping at straws, like any other drowning man will...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Freedom of choice stops the second your choice impacts others in a negative way"
> I heard someone put it this way....
> Your freedom to throw a punch stops where my nose starts



...is there any wiggle room?

:sport-smiley-002:

jes' kidding!

-dh


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Did I not already address this? I don't CARE about who's right about the hazards of second hand smoke! I care about people and governments thinking they have the right to save people from themselves!
> 
> I notice no one responded to my point about letting smokers have their own clubs and restaurants, being free to avoid militant non-smokers. Seems like confirmation of my belief that protecting non-smokers was never the real goal. No one talked about windows or ventilation factors in a car, or if the car was a convertible.
> 
> ...


What amazes me about this whole discussion Bill ... is that you don't smoke. 

Having said that, you really seem to have done your homework, THOUGHT about this issue with all of your gray matter, and arrived at some completely sensical and unbiased arguments.

I applaud you sir, and you may work on my smelly old bar-smoke tainted Fenders anytime :food-smiley-004:.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> What amazes me about this whole discussion Bill ... is that you don't smoke.
> 
> Having said that, you really seem to have done your homework, THOUGHT about this issue with all of your gray matter, and arrived at some completely sensical and unbiased arguments.
> 
> I applaud you sir, and you may work on my smelly old bar-smoke tainted Fenders anytime :food-smiley-004:.


Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Thumb!

I'm just a guy that believes in individual freedom. I don't like to see folks being forced to do or not do things by the politically correct do-gooders.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"you really seem to have done your homework, THOUGHT about this issue with all of your gray matter, and arrived at some completely sensical and unbiased arguments."

Hahahahaha! Ya gotta love good sarcasm!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"What a crock."
That's why I figured it HAD to be sarcasm....

"what the heck do they have to do with this issue?"
Nothing... see above, re: Clutching at Straws (And I don't mean the stellar album by Marillion)

"It's a small comfort, but we look for those, don't we?"
Often, they are what make our days, weeks and years worth living....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Did I not already address this? I don't CARE about who's right about the hazards of second hand smoke! I care about people and governments thinking they have the right to save people from themselves!



No, you're getting things a bit convoluted there. It's not about saving people from themselves in this case. It's about protecting helpless children from anyone ignorant or negligent enough to smoke with them in their cars.

That's a big difference.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

jroberts said:


> In other words, you agree with him. And those who disagree have not done their homework, used their brains or thought about the issue, and their arguments are purely nonesensical and biased.
> 
> What a crock.


I agree with him. He's made a good argument and didn't use the word "boner" once. Did that imply that everybody else was wrong or that they hadn't done their homework? I don't think so.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2007)

"I agree with him."
That's the crux of your support.... 

It's as baseless as WB's arguments....

"didn't use the word "boner" once"
Oh no! *Gasp* not the word... BONER... Oh no.... what ever shall we do... Someone stuff cotton into grandma's ears, and take the children to the neighbours farm... someone used the word boner.... 

I'm surprised you can even access the internet from way back there in 1950.....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I agree with him."
> That's the crux of your support....
> 
> It's as baseless as WB's arguments....
> ...


......now THIS .... I would call "non-sensical"


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Because in this case it seems that you won't accept _any_ level of proof from the other side. (not that we've offered any, but that was covered in another thread.)
> 
> This case, this case only is about smoking in cars with children present. Smokers are still free to light up in their cars _without_ children present. As proposed, this is on its face simply about protecting children from the potential long term consequences of exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. Perhaps there are some other underlying motivations, but I can see no long term harm in that.


You're still assuming the danger is real. If someone disagrees with you, you seem to be saying it doesn't matter they should be forced by law anyway. In effect, you seem to be saying the State has the right to decide for the children over the views of the parent. Didn't the Jehovah Witnesses already cover this one with the issue of blood transfusions for their children's operations?



Paul said:


> Perhaps the next step will be to ban smoking in cars period. That may be part of an attempt to eradicate smoking. Would that be so bad?


Certainly! Who owns the car? Besides, are you saying you're in favour of FORCING people to quit?

Perhaps I've been misunderstanding you by giving you the benefit of the doubt. For you to imply that it would be no big thing to remove someone's free choice frankly appalls me! I sincerely hope you're never on the opposite side of that one!




Paul said:


> But right here, right now, you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the rights of the child supercede the rights of the smoker. Even some of the smokers on this thread recognize that is a reasonable limit to smoking.


Paul, you still haven't gotten past the point that the danger is an assumption. You're still arguing that it is a given! Many folks don't agree with you. What gives your side the right to coerce the other?



Paul said:


> This is a yes or no question Bill: Is it even possible to show you a study that you would accept that confirms the negative impact of second hand tobacco smoke on children?


Of course! It's just that every time you or some other anti-smoking champion shows me one it always seems to come from a biased source and/or doesn't sound very scientific to me when I read their methodology, if they even bother to cite it in their footnotes! I've worked in labs with engineers. I understand such reports and have some experience myself in bullsh**ting "proof" dressed up as "science". 

The tobacco companies slung a lot of crap reports. I doubt if you'd have a problem dismissing them! Yet if I see similar crap from anti-smoking sources about the danger of passive smoke or the degree of danger to children in an automobile you imply I must accept that as gospel.

Paul, crap is crap! No matter who it comes from!

So it's not enough to google up a mess of links and heap them on me! Before I can accept them I have to read them and check their sources. They have to make sense to me in how they came about their conclusions. We both know that most folks don't have the background to make a judgement about many of these reports. They simply try to "one-up" their opposition with the "glamour" of their links. 

One guy even sent me one that he obviously hadn't read because if he had he would have realized it actually supported MY views!

And please forgive me if I no longer have the patience I once had with the reports that people give to me. They're often either the same ones or they have the same old lack of good methodology. It's like friends who keep sending you links to junkscience sites like rense.com It gets damn samey and boringly aggravating after a while.



Paul said:


> And Walkerton, Adscam and the Tainted Blood Scandal....what the heck do they have to do with this issue?


Just examples of things run by governments that were not run honestly or properly. I cite them as reason to make your own decisions and not have blind faith that what you're told is always for the best.



Paul said:


> Walkerton was two lazy brothers who decided unilaterally that untreated water was "best" and, lacking the oversight that had been cancelled by the Mike Harris Revolution, eventually sickened and killed people. Had the oversight remained, and the supervisors been held accountable in their jobs all along.....then maybe Walkerton might not have happend. Do you see the contradiction here Bill. The Mike Harris gov't took the gov't OUT of peoples lives, with tragic consequences.


Were the brothers not hired by the MUNICIPAL government? I had heard that the Cable brother who actually was responsible for the dodgy reports and lack of testing was a cousin of the mayor! Whatever, the local politicians hired him and kept him on without checking on him for years. 



Paul said:


> Adscam? A waste of money for sure, but no active party members were prosecuted, much less convicted. Again, it was individuals without appropriate oversight acting in their own self interest.


They were party workers and bagmen. Higher ups obviously had been careful enough to maintain "plausible deniability". Again, just an example of how they are not competent in many such manners. Do you think Harper's crew is qualified in their new approach to the "war on drugs" that can be used to declare someone who shared a toke as a "conspirator"? Like it or not, they ARE the government! You don't get to pick and choose.



Paul said:


> Tainted Blood??? HIV was less understood then. (There is still a significant lobby that argues HIV is unrelated to AIDS). A bad decision was made as to when approved testing would start, and what the dispostion of pre-testing blood would be. I feel for the families that suffered due to tainted blood. But at the same time, without the blood supply, many of those families would have suffered losses long before. I lost an Uncle due to Hep C tainted blood. To his dying day he was grateful for the extra time he got. Without the blood supply he would have died years earlier. It's a small comfort, but we look for those, don't we?


Hey, I'm sorry for what happened to your uncle but just getting the blood was not something to give the government agency credit. It was their job! They were supposed to maintain a blood supply! And they were told about the problem of tainted blood for some years and did NOTHING! They bought blood from American sources that was illegal to use in America because of the new regulations down there. This is all public knowledge that came out in the inquiry. They were boneheads, pure and simple! People got sick and died because they were lazy, fat cat, complacent bureaucrats! Some of the managers should have gone to jail! That they didn't is still a sore point with many of the victims and their families and a perfect example of the "system" protecting its own!

Bad, bad example, Paul!



Paul said:


> The idea that we can all do what we like and nobody can tell us otherwise, barring evidence acceptable to Wild Bill is certainly an interesting idea. Perhaps you'll mellow on this in time. After all, the Catholic Church eventually agreed with Gallileo about the relationship between the sun and the moon. Of course that took centuries to resolve.
> 
> I have hope that you are quicker study than the Pope, Bill.


Surprising tone, considering that it sounds more like YOU are playing Pope to my Galileo! Am I not the one being painted as a "heretic"?

You have also completely misunderstood my philosophy here. Of course we can't all do what we like. We have to consider our effects on our fellow citizens! That's why we have courts and laws. I'm saying we answer to a higher law, that of our own wit and conscience! We should obey a law because we KNOW it makes sense! Not just because it's the law. To refuse to obey ANY laws would be just as mindless!

I'm saying that in the final analysis it's up to us to get off our intellectual asses and THINK about what is the right or wrong thing to do! And don't take it for granted that lobby groups and political organizations are smarter and infallible!

Because if you do the WRONG thing you have no moral excuse in hiding behind the alibi that "Well, I obeyed the Law! It's not my fault that in this particular case the law was in error!"

To have done so would simply have been a moral copout.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"most folks don't have the background to make a judgement about many of these reports"

That'd be YOU you're talking about I guess....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> We'renot talking about forcing kids to eat brussels sprouts. We're talking about allowing an environment where kids can be exposed to concentrated levels of known toxins and carcinogens.
> 
> There are two options:
> 
> 1) We continue with the status quo, in spite of the generally accepted scientific consensus, and continue to allow adults to expose children in their care to second hand tobacco smoke. In 20 years when we finally have a study that meets Wild Bill's standards we can at least offer an "oooops" too the kids negatively affected.


20 years of FORCING someone to change their habits unnecessarily! You're being kinda cavalier here, aren't you Paul?



Paul said:


> 2) We agree with the generally accepted scientific consensus, and put measures in place to protect children from exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. In 20 years we may learn that we got it wrong, and we we protecting children from a non-hazard. In this case the "ooops" goes to the adults who smoked fewer cigarettes.


My word! You force your neighbour to do what you tell him and years later if you're wrong you say "Oops!"

I wouldn't stand too close to him when I said "Oops!" He would have every right to make you say "Oooww!"



Paul said:


> It's all well and good to state your principals and standards, but Wild Bill has placed himself in that corner of the room where he is not required to defend or support his stance, and everyone is obliged to meet his un-defined standards. It must be nice to live in a world where you don't have to defend your pricipals, only re-state them, yet require _everyone_ else to meet your burden of proof.


You've got it backwards. I don't have to defend anything because I am not forcing MY will on others! I am resisting others forcing their will on me. I don't care what you do as long as you don't injure ME or abrogate my rights!

Let's keep it clear just who is playing Tsar here!



Paul said:


> If Bill's local gov't decided to put a garbage incinerator next door to his home, do you think Bill would support it? After all, there are studies that show garbage incineration releases toxins into the air, and other studies that show garbage incineration is safe. Absent conclusive proof that this is bad, it must be good, right?


Paul, have YOU been smokin' somethin'? If the local gov't did such a thing I would oppose it as an eyesore affecting the worth of my property. We don't have the right to property in our Charter but still a gov't could not easily get away with that. They would have to pay compensation.

If you mean would I approve of garbage incineration that would totally depend on their design. There are good incinerators and bad incinerators. I would want to see the design for myself before I'd approve or disapprove.

If you don't understand that there are design differences that are very important then I submit you're not qualified to express an opinion. You have the right to express it! It just won't be a qualified opinion!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> I'm just a guy that believes in individual freedom. I don't like to see folks being forced to do or not do things by the politically correct do-gooders.:food-smiley-004:



..."politically correct"? how so?

this phrase is used so often to describe the thinking of someone with whom the user disagrees, that i cannot seem to recall to whom or what it was originally intended to refer.

ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!...."do-gooders"...people who try to do good.

there's your problem! we can't have people going around trying to do good.

think of the consequences.

:smile:

no offense, bill...but these "accepted" phrases merit a little sober second thought, don't you think?

americans have succeeded in turning words like socialist and liberal into four-letter words, so i'm curious to know how that process works.

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I think That in this case an "ounce of prevention is TOTALLY worth a pound of cure" We're talking about children here.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

An elderly woman was on a Greyhound bus going across
the States to visit family. She's a smoker and after 3 hrs
was getting cravings. In the next town another lady boarded
and sat beside her. She pulled out a cigarette and a condom,
lit the cigarette and slid it in the condom. 

The first lady asks,
"What is that? Where can I get one?"
"It's called a condom. It's keeps the 
smoke contained so that I don't bother
anybody. You can buy them at any drugstore".

At the next town, the first lady gets off and goes into the
drugstore. She asks the clerk for a pack of condoms.

"What size would you like ma'am?"
"Oh...give me one that'll fit a camel".


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> So, in the case where there are two choices, (smoking in cars with children present, or no smoking in cars with chilren present), _in *your* opinion _Bill, which is the better choice?



Sorry! Can't choose from a rigged model!

How about this? If you smoke in your car with children present, make sure the ventilation system is not set to recycle interior air and have the front window down a bit and also a window in the back?

If you find yourself parked with no movement to flow air through your car then open the windows wider!

Now, tell me how much smoke the kids are likely to inhale in that situation and how likely that is to hurt them!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ..."politically correct"? how so?
> 
> this phrase is used so often to describe the thinking of someone with whom the user disagrees, that i cannot seem to recall to whom or what it was originally intended to refer.
> 
> ...


I don't think so, David. The term "do-gooder" is actually quite an old one. It doesn't just refer to someone who tries to do good. It refers to those types of people who get an idea in their head that is not well-thought out and do their level best to push it through, despite any negative consequences. If there are such consequences they invariably refuse to accept any fault.

The usual example is "Hawaiian missionaries". When Europeans first discovered these islands the natives were living in a South Sea paradise! They had no shame in nakedness, a culture of free love that always revered any and all children and plentiful sources of fish, fruit and meat. With all those lovely beaches and seawater, hygiene was actually much better practiced than by the Europeans of the time!

Anyhow, the Churches found out and were horrified at how these people were living "in sin" and rushed out missionaries to "save them from themselves and bring them to God!"

Of course, we all know the result. They brought guilt and shame for body nudity, an unnecessary harsh work protestant work ethic inappropriate to the natives' situation and last but not least, a whole pile of germs for which the natives had no resistance and they died like flies!

This is what I understand to be the definition of a do-gooder. Someone with a big heart but a small brain who often imposes cures worse than the original disease.

This is why there are many old folklore cautions about being too quick to give advice. Whenever you do you take on some responsibility for the outcome.

I believe that today there is little more popular than not only giving advice but forcing other folks to take it! I resist this trend and also refuse to let such folks escape any responsibility for being wrong.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

So, if I were to dare to summarize the whole discussion;

1) We are all in agreement that it is wrong to smoke in an enclosed space where children are present.

2) All of the non-smokers, except Bill, think it should be law.

Can we agree on that much?

Good.

So as much as I might want to quit smoking, let's say that I don't.

Where do you see this ending? When will the non-smokers be happy? Will I be allowed to smoke in my house, my yard, on the sidewalk, outside a doorway?
Can I smoke in my basement if there is a 2-year old on the second floor? Will I be hiding away in a "Smoke-easy" somewhere or pursued as a criminal in to the mountains?

What should be the penalty for smoking in an enclosed car with a child present? Am I fined? Do I lose my license? Some demerit points? Does Family Services take the child away?

Where does it end?


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm glad that you have more time and interested in dealing with him than I do, Paul....

Bartender... get one for Paul and put it on my tab would ya.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Gee what a surprise. I guess you'll never see something if you refuse to look.
> 
> 
> The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization, including:
> ...


Paul, I'm sure I could google up a long list of contrary claims sponsored by tobacco companies. I don't consider them good science and would not expect you to change your mind simply by the length of my list.

For the same reason don't expect me to be impressed with yours!




Paul said:


> Then again, we wouldn't want to trust the medical community. They make their money off of keeping people sick. Clearly the real hidden agenda is to STOP smoking, and make the general population less healthy to increase the profits of the health care systems. That HAS to be the REAL truth.


Who started talking about a greedy, profit motive for a bias? Besides, even if your example was right about money(which I DON'T believe, BTW) and also about making people stop (which I do!) then all the more reason to stamp out passive smoke! As I thought I had already said SEVERAL TIMES the real agenda would seem to be to use passive smoke as a reason to give smokers absolutely nowhere to ply their habit. This would likely mean they wouldn't smoke anymore 'cuz they couldn't find anywhere to light up! 

I never questioned how much they cared about helping people. I take exception from them FORCING their help on people!

You really should think your models through before you throw them out to see if they can stick!

Besides, studies have shown many times that smokers don't cost as much as non-smokers to the medical system. Sick smokers die young and quickly! It's the healthy old farts that run up the bills, getting hip replacements at 65 so they can keep skiing!




Paul said:


> and:
> 
> The World Health Organisation, the United States Surgeon General and other public health bodies have concluded that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), sometimes called ‘second-hand smoke’, is a cause of various serious diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses in children.
> 
> They conclude that _there is no known safe level of ETS exposure _and hence advise that public health policy would be best served by bans on public smoking. (my italics, and again, supporting citations can be supplied if requested.)


And that is a true statement! And exactly what I mean when professionals mislead! By saying there is no known safe level they are really saying they have no idea at what level passive smoke becomes dangerous! Read the words yourself! They are simply saying that they have no idea how much passive smoke represents a danger but they do believe that SOME amounts are dangerous so therefore the only safe level is NONE!

To me, a true scientific report would say that "X number of ppm of passive smoke particulates inhaled over a Y time duration of exposure will cause damage to Z percentage of humans." Anything else is not science but merely an opinion.

Your report is about as scientific as saying "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin!" All you have to do is find 4, even if you need to wade through thousands! Take those 4 and only one of the others and you can make that statement. It's perfectly legal to state in a commercial but also totally misleading to the average, non-scientific viewer!

Paul, we may as well move on to something else. We are never going to agree. All I can say is that I would consider it real easy to write up an ad and sell you something. How would you like an amp where I only used teflon insulated wire? There is a measurable improvement in the sound! Of course, you'd need a NASA lab to measure such an infinitely trivial amount and the result would still be within the margin of error but of course, I wouldn't tell YOU that! Particularly if I believed what I was saying myself.

Besides, it still doesn't matter. I'm not debating what is or is not dangerous. Life is dangerous. Virtually everything that tastes good or feels good is dangerous if over done! The only safe foods would appear to be rice cakes. Start chomping and knock yourself out! Me, I'd rather starve than eat the vile things.

My issue is with forcing choices on my neighbours. If I were YOUR neighbour, you would have nothing to fear from me MAKING you live your life as I think good for you. Please grant me the same courtesy.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

I bet there's an OJ Simpson joke in there somewhere... I'm just too tired to make one. 

PS: This thread is ****ing huge.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

And yet, no one could or would answer my questions...



allthumbs56 said:


> Where do you see this ending? When will the non-smokers be happy? Will I be allowed to smoke in my house, my yard, on the sidewalk, outside a doorway?
> Can I smoke in my basement if there is a 2-year old on the second floor? Will I be hiding away in a "Smoke-easy" somewhere or pursued as a criminal in to the mountains?
> 
> What should be the penalty for smoking in an enclosed car with a child present? Am I fined? Do I lose my license? Some demerit points? Does Family Services take the child away?
> ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"WB eventually wears everyone down"
But that doesn't mean he wins anything.... Or that he's in any way 'right'.

His arguments are flawed.
His assertions are the worst "appeal to emotion" tripe.

When he holds his own arguments up to the same level of scrutiny he holds everyone else's up to, then maybe, just maybe he'll be something more than just a blow-hard.

"his sheer volume of wordage"
Verbal (Textual) diarrhoea is still diarrhoea... 

Anybody who equates a study done by the W.H.O. with one done by a tobacco company needs more help than I, or Paul or this thread is capable of offering.... 

"To me, a true scientific report"
You wouldn't know one if it bit you on the knob.

"forcing choices on my neighbours"
I force my neighbours not to beat their kids or their spouses.... 
I force my neighbours not to deal in illegal drugs
I force my neighbours not to drink and drive.
I force my neighbours to do, and not do a lot of things.

And so do you Wild Bill... 

That elevated position you think you speak from is an illusion, and nobody believes in it but you...

"I'm done with this thread."
If you must go, go with vindication.


"What should be the penalty for smoking in an enclosed car with a child present? Am I fined? Do I lose my license? Some demerit points? Does Family Services take the child away?"

O.k... In that order... Sure... Why not.... that too... Eventually, I suppose so.

" Where does it end?"
It doesn't... the 'struggle' to end child abuse is never ending... Does that mean one aught give up the struggle?!?! No FN way


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> Folks, I'm done with this thread.
> 
> The one thing I have learned is that I want Wild Bill on a jury if I'm ever charged with something. If he didn't see me do it, then no amount of direct or circumstantial evidence will convince him. I have the right to a speedy trial, and the planet just doesn't have time to wait while Bill verifies the bonafides of the witnesses providing testimony.
> 
> Wild Bill must be the hung jury's best friend.


I hear he makes a he11 of an amp though.



Peace.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

"Can I smoke in my basement if there is a 2-year old on the second floor?" -- *You tell me. Would you be willing to risk your childs health because you want a drag? Health risks proven with facts or not, why bother even take a chance?*

"What should be the penalty for smoking in an enclosed car with a child present? Am I fined? Do I lose my license? Some demerit points? Does Family Services take the child away?" -- *According to Goolge it could be child endangerment in the US, I can't find shit about Canada but:

Child endangerment is a criminal offense that involves the subjection of minor children to inappropriate or dangerous situations. It is not the same as child abuse, which involves direct harm to children, but carries a similar penalty in the American judicial system.

Prepare to get ****ed by the long dick of the law!*

Weee off to sleep.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"I hear he makes a he11 of an amp though."
Which, in the context of this conversation, has ZERO bearing at all.....


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I hear he makes a he11 of an amp though."
> Which, in the context of this conversation, has ZERO bearing at all.....


I disagree, I see a few of the last posts riddled with character assassinations and name calling. In that light, saying something GOOD about the guy was meant as a rebuttal.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you don't agree with it or like it... thats fine but that person has the right to express the opinion. Keep that in mind and everyone will be OK.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"was meant as a rebuttal"
Then as a rebuttal, it's worthless....

He might very well make a hell of an amp... but that doesn't change the fact that he's completely out to sea in this thread...

In exactly the same way that his being out to sea here, has NO bearing on his ability to possibly make a hell of an amp....

It's 100% inconsequential.

"Everyone is entitled to an opinion."
But, a lot of this thread, a lot of this issue isn't about opinion... It's about fact. 

And well, lets not pretend that all opinions are of the same value.....
(Ask me anything about "Modern Art" for a prime example of a worthless opinion! LOL)


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"Until that time, "out to sea" doesn't begin to describe how far off the beaten path WB is on this particular topic."
I was trying to be NICE!  

(It was most distasteful!!)

Facts and Opinions.... Interesting point.... Why do so many people seem to think that the two concepts are interchangeable?
That might be a subject that's too off topic for this thread, or indeed this whole forum....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Michelle said:


> I disagree, I see a few of the last posts riddled with character assassinations and name calling. In that light, saying something GOOD about the guy was meant as a rebuttal.


Thank you, Michelle!:smile: And you've indirectly confirmed something for me!

As I've mentioned before, I have a couple of members blocked by the "ignore list" in the CP of this board. Yet of course I see in this thread numerous blocked messages and it does tell me who's sending them.

I block people not because it bothers me that we disagree but rather that I see no point in listening to personal attacks instead of rational argument. So I blocked these members but I was still a bit curious if they actually were being "civilized" or still just trying to make personal slams.

Your post here tells me that for them it's same old, same old.

So I'll leave them on my ignore list. They can do the same for me, if I bother them so much. It keeps things calmer and more serene!

If my beliefs are that much of a deal for them that they have to keep acting this way then geez, they could use a life! 

What is it in some people that they can't stand someone refusing to accept their arguments? I dunno. That was the basis for the Spanish Inquisition and any other abuse of "heretics". There's an ugly streak in human nature that demands conformity.

Oh well, nothing changes. How are things coming with getting into the amp repair business? Had anything neat into your shop lately? I've been working on a Garnet Enforcer that's pretty sweet!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

been hearing a gov't of ontario guilt ad on the radio. The young individual asks someone to not smoke in the car not only when they are present but not smoke in the car period. 
geeze Bill, I def'n agree with what you are saying in principal.
cheers
RIFF


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"That was the basis for the Spanish Inquisition and any other abuse of "heretics""
Logical fallacy... appeal to emotion... 

"rational argument"
Maybe given that you refuse to be rational, they feel no obligation to offer you the courtesy.... 

"When somebody spouts nonsense, others should be free to call them on it. There is nothing "uncivilized" about that."
+1!

I'll even go one step further... Others are OBLIGATED to call them on it.... (For a good example see Stans monologue from the South Park episode "Biggest D0uche In The Universe")

People spouting nonsense (Especially about a subject they have NO grasp of in the first place) are bad for the human race as a whole....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Another WB debate tactic - claim persecution whenever your reasoning is called into question.


Forgive me but that's a bit much - how can Bill possibly claim persecution if he's not even a member of the target group in question?

I, however, AM a member of the target group, but I've already said that I agree with the issue in question (not smoking around children). In fact, my only concern is whether such a law is required in the first place, and how such a law could be implemented, and enforced ........ and what's next.

The Non-smoking Movement has been afoot for decades and I have yet to feel persecuted. Perhaps I'll scream persecution when the day comes that I am rounded up and put in a "Smoking Camp" but until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is a democracy and the majority rules. I can accept that.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"how can Bill possibly claim persecution if he's not even a member of the target group in question?"
He can't... but it a tactic that poor debaters try to employ, especially when they've lost the argument on merits and are just left with a handful of logical fallacies at their disposal....

"my only concern is whether such a law is required in the first place"
I'd suggest that the evidence would support that apparently we DO need such a law.... To make people do what they won't elect to do on their own....

"how such a law could be implemented, and enforced"
I'm happy to leave that up to mind more suited to such thinking.... That why I elected them in the first place... To work that kind of stuff out, cause I don't want to.

"and what's next"
Again... "Logical Fallacy".... Slippery Slope....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "and what's next"
> Again... "Logical Fallacy".... Slippery Slope....


Huh? Asking a question is hardly a flawed argument


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

"Not a sound debating tactic at all, if you ask me."
The only thing such a tactic supports is how weak his case is in the first place....

"Depends on the question."
+1! "allthumbs56", might I be so bold to suggest you look up what the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy means before you criticize it... As said above, it's not that you asked the question, but the question itself is a flawed 'leap' in logic....


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Not a sound debating tactic at all, if you ask me."
> The only thing such a tactic supports is how weak his case is in the first place....
> 
> "Depends on the question."
> +1! "allthumbs56", might I be so bold to suggest you look up what the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy means before you criticize it... As said above, it's not that you asked the question, but the question itself is a flawed 'leap' in logic....


No...honestly. I am not interesting in being a member of the Junior Debater's Club. I have no desire to win this argument, run circles round' you logically, or engage in verbal jousting. I am not waxing philisophically. 

I am simply asking a question: "Where does it end?", meaning "Where do you see it's logical conclusion?".

I am interested in your answer.

___________________
"Is this the right room for an argument?" Indeed


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> No...honestly. I am not interesting in being a member of the Junior Debater's Club. I have no desire to win this argument, run circles round' you logically, or engage in verbal jousting. I am not waxing philisophically.
> 
> I am simply asking a question: "Where does it end?", meaning "Where do you see it's logical conclusion?".
> 
> ...


No, it's getting hit on the head lessons in here!

I'd save your breath, Mr. Thumb. You'll either get singled out with rude postings of how you must be stupid or "evil" to disagree or you'll just find yourself running in circles trying vainly to make them understand your POV.

It all depends on your real goal. Some people view debate as a tool to uncover truth. Some people think they already know the truth and can't for the life of them understand why another may not agree with their arguments! Others just view debate as a game to be won and really couldn't care less about uncovering some truth. They will pick apart your models and ignore your point, or use snide rude comments or "humour" in an attempt to personally debase you. If you get upset they view this as great fun! It's entertainment for these types! If things get really out of hand they always claim they were simply dispassionately debating the issues, when a scan of their posts always shows to any reasonable viewer that they did nothing of the sort. 

Most of the discussion boards I've visited seem to be full of these types, of all political stripes from neo-cons to commies. This board has only this one small forum and so far we've managed to keep most of the posts mannerly. I think a lot of the credit for that goes to the "ignore" button. A lot of other boards would do well to adopt it. When things get emotional it's too easy to get emotional back. That just makes things worse. What you don't hear doesn't get your dander up!

My advice is to put up with as much as you can and if you reach your limit go to the user CP and set up your own ignore list. 

Or better yet, just bail for a while! There's a world out there! Some of us have a life and some of us just get cranky in discussion forums.

Now you can understand why when we had smoking and non-smoking sections I always preferred to sit with the smokers. Much more pleasant company! Preachiness and screechiness are both bad for digestion!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> ..........How are things coming with getting into the amp repair business? Had anything neat into your shop lately? I've been working on a Garnet Enforcer that's pretty sweet!
> 
> :food-smiley-004:



The Garnet would be cool to work on, I'm mostly playing and working. Just tinkering with my own stuff, trying to get the shop done, (heat, insulation, wiring). Biz starts once they give me the 'tap'. :banana:


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

" I am simply asking a question: "Where does it end?", meaning "Where do you see it's logical conclusion?".
I am interested in your answer."

Asked and answered then... There is no conclusion to fighting child abuse.... It's a struggle that must be ongoing if it's to be of any value.

"I am not interesting in being a member of the Junior Debater's Club."
So, then one is left to assume that you waded into this thread to, what, be a troll?

I'd like to hope you had better things to do with your time... 

"I'd save your breath, Mr. Thumb."
So, once again you demonstrate just how 'out to sea' your perceptions are.... Please... don't try to drag others here down to your pathetic level.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ohhhh .... I get it.

So the issues themselves don't really matter. There is no real meaty intelligent discussion or real-world solutions being offered.

It's more like a playground argument ......kinda like watching the House of Commons. A little bit of wit, some chest beating, and a few "your mammas" thrown in for good measure.

And here I was expecting answers and well though-out opinions.

My mistake....Have at er' boys :sport-smiley-002:

And, for what it's worth ... Bill is winning


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> It's more like a playground argument ......kinda like watching the House of Commons. A little bit of wit, some chest beating, and a few "your mammas" thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Ohhhh .... I get it.
> 
> So the issues themselves don't really matter. There is no real meaty intelligent discussion or real-world solutions being offered.
> 
> ...


Really?


So the guy who thinks it's cool to smoke with kids strapped into the car is winning and those who advocate protection for these kids are not?

I won't jump on the Beat on Bill Bandwagon, because I happen to think he's a pretty bright individual and he, like all of us is entitled to his opinion, however I think this one's a no brainer. 

Those who defend smokers "rights" are clearly missing the point.

When I don't smoke in the presence of a smoker, I am not impacting a their health or offending him or her with my lack of foul odour. The opposite is not true.

The child in the car seat of Mom's Civic has no way to protect or defend itself from a parent or guardian who is selfish and negligent enough to smoke in the car. How can you question a law that says don't smoke in a confined space with someone who cannot ask you to stop?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Those who defend smokers "rights" are clearly missing the point.


I don't even think it's about that at this point. I think for Bill it's about the Gov't stepping on someone's civil liberties and ability to make their own decisions.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> I don't even think it's about that at this point. I think for Bill it's about the Gov't stepping on someone's civil liberties and ability to make their own decisions.



Right well, this is not a Big Brother scenario in my opinion.

I don't think the police should be able to tell me I'm driving too fast. It's my car. I'm intelligent enough to know how fast I can drive safely.

Hmmm, but then again by driving too fast, I'm endangering other drivers and pedestrians. 

Also, I know whether I've had too much to drink and don't need laws telling me I can't drive.

We can't all have our own set of rules and sadly there are MANY people who for various reasons, cannot be trusted to make resonable decisions.

The fact that ANYone protests a law protecting kids from smoke in cars is evidence of this in my opinion.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> And yet, no one could or would answer my questions...


...that's because they're not relevant.

its like the common response to the topic of same sex marriage: oh, so, what's next? will the farmer be permitted to marry his chickens?

no.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> He might very well make a hell of an amp... but that doesn't change the fact that he's completely out to sea in this thread...


...wild bill has offered some excellent points, as have you. all are worthy of consideration.

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Right well, this is not a Big Brother scenario in my opinion.


Absolutely! But don't you remember when seatbealts were made mandatory and the ensuing uproar? Any change brings about unrest. Then before you know it it's like it's always been that way..


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Huh? Asking a question is hardly a flawed argument


...i'm with clinton on this - see above.

-dh


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

"Oh noes I can't smoke in the car with the kids around... I won't be able to make it! I can't stop and exit the vehicle to smoke or wait until I get home or someplace where the kids aren't around!"

Seriously, how hard is that?

If you want the ability to make your own decisions I guess your kids should get the same... no matter how uneducated or irresponsible they may be. Ask them if they want to be exposed to something that (insert the word 'may' here if you don't believe the studies and tests) contributes or causes lung cancer, LOL.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

"for what it's worth ... Bill is winning"
Ya, but that's the opinion of someone who has also lost... 

So, sorry, but that opinion ain't worth squanto....

"I was expecting answers and well though-out opinions."
Well, you certainly haven't contributed any.

"I happen to think he's a pretty bright individual"
You are allowed to think what you want, but his posts sorta outweigh your opinion... especially in this

"the Gov't stepping on someone's civil liberties and ability to make their own decisions."
No one has any 'civil liberty' to poison children... That's one of the many things that Bill can't wrap his head around.

"this is not a Big Brother scenario"
There is no Big Brother....


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> Absolutely! But don't you remember when seatbealts were made mandatory and the ensuing uproar? Any change brings about unrest. Then before you know it it's like it's always been that way..


Very true. How silly does protesting seatbelt laws seem now?

I suspect ten years from now, assuming this NS law sets precedant, people will scratch their heads and wonder how ANYone could have objected to the law.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

I wonder how anyone could object to it now....


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Me too... people are weird.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "how such a law could be implemented, and enforced"
> I'm happy to leave that up to mind more suited to such thinking.... That why I elected them in the first place... To work that kind of stuff out, cause I don't want to.


Really???? You're a citizen, living in a democratic society, who wants me to believe that you're intelligent and well informed, so I logically conclude from your statement that you're negligent. Watchdogs are as important as lobby groups. There's always has to be 2 sides to an argument. And, due to that truth, the result of an argument will be biased in some way to the middle. A democratic society should be based on that assumption. If you don't open your mouth you have no influence. I think it was Stanfield that said (I could be wrong) " you lie and do what you have to do to get in power & then you try to do some good". It doesn't matter what they said or appeared to be to get in they'll do something else once they're there so, society must monitor politicians through debate, influence and generally, raising a stink.



Wild Bill said:


> Your report is about as scientific as saying "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin!" All you have to do is find 4, even if you need to wade through thousands! Take those 4 and only one of the others and you can make that statement. It's perfectly legal to state in a commercial but also totally misleading to the average, non-scientific viewer!


Peoples sources are skewed for their own benefit. Who cares? For the politician & business world perception is reality, there is no truth, only beneficial or not. The means don't justify the end? If the end makes good sense, again, who cares? Don't get me wrong, if you're worried about government overstepping civil liberties you have to make a point about it, it's your duty as a citizen living in a democratic society. 

Do you think that some of smoker's judgment is not biased by their addiction? And, that laws and taxes that provide an incentive for people to quit are not infringing as much on their civil liberties (ability to make your own decisions) as their addiction to nicotine??? An addict doesn't necessarily have free choice!!!! Unless he's not addicted, but most smokers are maintaining a level of drug in their system to avoid withdrawal and hoping that the next smoke gives them a bit of a rush (ADDICT). I would imagine that very few of them can wait 4-8 hours to have their next cigarette (tolerating withdrawal) so they actually catch a buzz off it. 

Wouldn't the smokers you like to hang out with be the same great people if they didn't smoke? For sure. And, they'd have more money so they could hang out more often and live longer. Even though the means don't justify the end the end could be seen as liberating the smoker and saving them from their addiction influenced judgment. Then they can make an uninfluenced decision to sneak a smoke and catch a buzz.

The means or underlying reason should make no difference to you if you agree that it's a good thing not to let parents smoke in a car with their kids. Let's be honest probably a majority percentage of laws that truly benefit society happened by accident, my meaning: the real underlying reason was not the publicly marketed argument for it. Let's not argue the law to clean up the process, focus your energy on the real problem, the process.



ClintonHammond said:


> "the Gov't stepping on someone's civil liberties and ability to make their own decisions."
> No one has any 'civil liberty' to poison children... That's one of the many things that Bill can't wrap his head around.


Take this a little further:
Recently there were adds showing smoke in fabric that forms a demonic hand and grabs a child. You believe in the implied health risk to the child (for the sake of this argument: there is no truth, perception is reality). Should CAS be able to take my child, simply because he can smell smoke on my clothing? You would believe yes? But,
Does the smoker make a conscious effort to smoke? He lost that ability a long time ago to the influence of the drug he's addicted to. What's wrong with strongly influential public education before law? What's wrong with making a strong and compelling argument through less unilateral forums? You're assuming that smokers are making a conscious decision to smoke , so, therefore you're okay with taking away their civil liberties. Would you deny me the right to go to church on Sunday because I have asthma and due to my loud coughing I am highly disruptive to your ability to hear the sermon, and because I'm sitting directly beside you I could potentially cause you hearing damage? Compared to say asking me politely if I'm okay and letting me know politely that you are inconvenienced by my disability.

Good food for time killing guys! Thought I'd feed the fire.

By the way I'm a smoker whose Dad smoked around me all the time. I hated it. So my kids don't even know I smoke, yet, the day will come when I have to quit because they figure it out.

Cheers


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Warren said:


> Do you think that some of smoker's judgment is not biased by their addiction? And, that laws and taxes that provide an incentive for people to quit are not infringing as much on their civil liberties (ability to make your own decisions) as their addiction to nicotine??? An addict doesn't necessarily have free choice!!!! Unless he's not addicted, but most smokers are maintaining a level of drug in their system to avoid withdrawal and hoping that the next smoke gives them a bit of a rush (ADDICT). I would imagine that very few of them can wait 4-8 hours to have their next cigarette (tolerating withdrawal) so they actually catch a buzz off it.


Oh dear! I've heard this one before. Smokers' are addicted so therefore their brains don't work and that's the reason they don't agree with new restrictions. It has nothing to do with maybe our restrictions are not justified or based on good science. That is gospel and addiction makes smokers automatic heretics. The idea that people do not have the right to run their own life is blown off REALLY quickly!

This is similar to the "smokers don't really like smoking, they're just addicted and will eventually thank us for rescuing them!" argument. It makes some grievous unproven assumptions. That nicotine has fried their brain, for one. Or that smokers actually don't like smoking. For generations vast numbers of people enjoyed smoking and practiced their vice in reasonable moderation. There were always people who smoked to excess just as there were drinkers who fried their liver with alcoholism. 

As for addiction clouding judgement, most of the folks who put men on the moon were smokers, given the habits of the times. 



Warren said:


> Wouldn't the smokers you like to hang out with be the same great people if they didn't smoke? For sure. And, they'd have more money so they could hang out more often and live longer. Even though the means don't justify the end the end could be seen as liberating the smoker and saving them from their addiction influenced judgment. Then they can make an uninfluenced decision to sneak a smoke and catch a buzz.


Actually, some would of course. Perhaps the majority. It's just that over the years I've found that many smokers who quit became militant anti-smokers and some of the worst company you can imagine. I think that some folks have a problem with their own willpower and need to have all the temptation removed from around them. They need to keep stoking their own fires of righteousness or they'll slip back into "evil" and light up again. 

I guess converts make the best fanatics!:smile:



Warren said:


> The means or underlying reason should make no difference to you if you agree that it's a good thing not to let parents smoke in a car with their kids. Let's be honest probably a majority percentage of laws that truly benefit society happened by accident, my meaning: the real underlying reason was not the publicly marketed argument for it. Let's not argue the law to clean up the process, focus your energy on the real problem, the process.
> 
> Take this a little further:
> Recently there were adds showing smoke in fabric that forms a demonic hand and grabs a child. You believe in the implied health risk to the child (for the sake of this argument: there is no truth, perception is reality). Should CAS be able to take my child, simply because he can smell smoke on my clothing? You would believe yes? But,
> ...



Warren, this thread is about passive smoke dangers. To be honest, I got a little confused in your final arguments. You seemed to switch from smokers having rights to practice their vice to smoker's being addicts which we should pity. Whatever, I just have never found PASSIVE smoke evidence to be very scientific. I've seen all kinds of evidence that direct smoking can be bad for you, especially to excess. Worse yet, over the years the average North American was in worse shape than his ancestors and the tobacco companies were pushing high levels of consumption. I never saw any evidence that those who smoked less than half a pack a day suffered a lot more danger to their health. Those who smoked a couple of packs or more each day always seemed to eventually die an early death. The real danger is probably in between.

Passive smoke has always seemed to be backed with completely different "reports". Direct smoking had hard number type of evidence. Passive smoke reports used weasel words like "seems" or "would appear" or "inconclusive, but alarming". 

Meanwhile, when the term was first introduced it was a sledgehammer weapon in the war on smoking! And almost all of the restrictions that flowed from it seemed at first to be confusing. Giant fans and powerful ventilation systems were never enough. Even the great outdoors was often not enough! When you understood that the real goal was to discourage DIRECT smoking things made more sense. Notice how in this long thread not a single soul took on my point about having windows open while you smoked in a car. It's obviously because the real goal is to make the driver quit, period. Passive smoke hurting the children is just a ploy. Any questions about the real amount of danger can be dismissed as "being evil and uncaring about kids"!

Anyhow, enjoy your smokes! Just try to keep it under control. Like all vices, excess IS dangerous! If you can't keep it under control, then maybe you SHOULD quit! I've known alcoholics who simply cannot stick to only moderate drinking. They had no choice but to totally swear off.

Unless you're one of those folks who run a mile or two every morning. If that's the case, just tell me to shut up and mind my own business!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*newspaper article*

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/To...itemid=CTVNews/20071130/smoke_montreal_071130

Thought I'd post this here for folks to consider.

Not at work, not in your car and not in your own apartment, but nobody's forcing anything!

What's next? I don't smoke and I can't eat much that I like anymore since I was diagnosed a type 2 diabetic. The wife and doctor make sure of that! It's a good incentive to lose weight though. My family has a heart history so I've already been watching my fats and chlorestrol. I find that instead of switching to so-called "yummy alternatives" that taste like crap I just don't bother.

Still, that's just me, of course. There's lots of other targets! We'll all spend our days tellling each other what to do...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Oh dear! I've heard this one before. Smokers' are addicted so therefore their brains don't work and that's the reason they don't agree with new restrictions. It has nothing to do with maybe our restrictions are not justified or based on good science. That is gospel and addiction makes smokers automatic heretics. The idea that people do not have the right to run their own life is blown off REALLY quickly!


But, we do know nicotene is highly addictive, physically & mentally. But, their brains do work right? That's why no matter how many times I tell myself what an idiot I am I still blow about $1500/year on smokes instead of buying a new amp, guitar etc... I feel justified in spending money on something that, unless I go through a bit of withdrawal doesn't offer any reward. And, if I abstain for a buzz I've broken even, trading torture for pleasure (Remember, 2-3 packs a week for the last 20 year smoker here).



Wild Bill said:


> For generations vast numbers of people enjoyed smoking and practiced their vice in reasonable moderation.


From personal experience as a moderate smoker, whose Dad smoked in car, again I hated it, windows open or shut I had to smell it. And, as a moderate smoker beleive that most moderate smokers probably wouldn't smoke near their kids. I can drive for about 6 hours without one.



Wild Bill said:


> As for addiction clouding judgement, most of the folks who put men on the moon were smokers, given the habits of the times.


I never aledged that it reduced mental capacity, but (see above) addiction influences decisions that directly impact my ability to feed it. 





Wild Bill said:


> Actually, some would of course. Perhaps the majority. It's just that over the years I've found that many smokers who quit became militant anti-smokers and some of the worst company you can imagine. I think that some folks have a problem with their own willpower and need to have all the temptation removed from around them. They need to keep stoking their own fires of righteousness or they'll slip back into "evil" and light up again.
> 
> I guess converts make the best fanatics!:smile:


I've seen that.



Wild Bill said:


> Warren, this thread is about passive smoke dangers. To be honest, I got a little confused in your final arguments. You seemed to switch from smokers having rights to practice their vice to smoker's being addicts which we should pity. Whatever, I just have never found PASSIVE smoke evidence to be very scientific. I've seen all kinds of evidence that direct smoking can be bad for you, especially to excess. Worse yet, over the years the average North American was in worse shape than his ancestors and the tobacco companies were pushing high levels of consumption. I never saw any evidence that those who smoked less than half a pack a day suffered a lot more danger to their health. Those who smoked a couple of packs or more each day always seemed to eventually die an early death. The real danger is probably in between.
> 
> Passive smoke has always seemed to be backed with completely different "reports". Direct smoking had hard number type of evidence. Passive smoke reports used weasel words like "seems" or "would appear" or "inconclusive, but alarming".
> 
> Meanwhile, when the term was first introduced it was a sledgehammer weapon in the war on smoking! And almost all of the restrictions that flowed from it seemed at first to be confusing. Giant fans and powerful ventilation systems were never enough. Even the great outdoors was often not enough! When you understood that the real goal was to discourage DIRECT smoking things made more sense. Notice how in this long thread not a single soul took on my point about having windows open while you smoked in a car. It's obviously because the real goal is to make the driver quit, period. Passive smoke hurting the children is just a ploy. Any questions about the real amount of danger can be dismissed as "being evil and uncaring about kids"!


Again, my point was, I believe when it comes to political endevors or the ramblings of big business "public preception is reality, so make them believe!!!! Then do what you want". Society has to monitor that, there's a ton of proof today of what can happen when we become complacent and don't. So, if my reality is smoking, if not dangerous to the kid is for sure annoying, if it's not annoying the kid you've probably already created a smoker or at least someone more likely to smoke because they can tollerate it. Then I don't care how or why government has justified the creation of the law. I agree with it, but, I'm well aware that they cooked up a whole bunch of crap to justify it but in this case, again, I don't care because I like the end result. But I never take my eye off them because they may create laws that truely ruin peoples lives, but again that would be only my perception of that law. That's why, I'm glad you disagree because we always need differences of opinion that people fight passionately about so that all of our society's differing opinions lead us to a middle of the arguement biased result.




Wild Bill said:


> Anyhow, enjoy your smokes! Just try to keep it under control. Like all vices, excess IS dangerous! If you can't keep it under control, then maybe you SHOULD quit! I've known alcoholics who simply cannot stick to only moderate drinking. They had no choice but to totally swear off.
> 
> Unless you're one of those folks who run a mile or two every morning. If that's the case, just tell me to shut up and mind my own business!:smile:
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


I hope a couple packs a week is moderate, I don't run, I cycle to work everyday when the temperature is above 0, I have an awesome bike, but never wear a "cycling costume".

Cheers my friend.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

"we always need differences of opinion"
But not all opinions are of the same value.... Someone who thinks that 2nd hand smoke isn't dangerous? Their opinion ain't worth squatter-berries.....


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/To...itemid=CTVNews/20071130/smoke_montreal_071130
> 
> Thought I'd post this here for folks to consider.
> 
> Not at work, not in your car and not in your own apartment, but nobody's forcing anything!


That has nothing to do with a law... it's one situation where the landlord didn't/doesn't want people smoking in her building, and for a good reason:

_"Koretski was pregnant at the time of the original complaint, launched about one year ago, but has since had her baby. She also has asthma and claims the smoke is making her living situation unbearable.

Flory Doucas, with Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, was at the courthouse Friday and said there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke."_

Says they signed a pre-lease that said no smoking, who's fault is that? If they didn't say "Oh I'm a smoker, this won't work" after reading it then by signing it they agree to follow the terms of the agreement.

What made them think "Ok I'll agree not to smoke on the pre-lease but not on the actual lease"? Doesn't make sense 'cause they wouldn't have seen the terms of the actual lease at that point and they would have assumed no smoking would have been on it (because it was on the pre-lease)! 

Dollar says they rule in favor of the landlord this time.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

violation said:


> What made them think "Ok I'll agree not to smoke on the pre-lease but not on the actual lease"? Doesn't make sense 'cause they wouldn't have seen the terms of the actual lease at that point and they would have assumed no smoking would have been on it (because it was on the pre-lease)!
> 
> Dollar says they rule in favor of the landlord this time.


Perhaps I was not clear. I would never argue with the right to expect a signed contract to be upheld.

Unless and of course what is written is trumped by "oral history" where you simply declare documents bogus, as with the Caledonia land claims!

I was implying that this is a movement among landlords that eventually is likely to result in no apartments for smokers, period.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

"I was implying that this is a movement among landlords that eventually is likely to result in no apartments for smokers"
And that's called the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy, and it's perfectly safe to dismiss... 

I like how you've tried to scramble after being completely shot down on the original topic....


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

This is just bring out the worst in everyone. Perhaps this thread should be locked.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

B said:


> This is just bring out the worst in everyone. Perhaps this thread should be locked.



...no need to do that.

clint likes to toss the odd personal insult around, but we tolerate him because he's just so damn good looking.

aside from that, everyone here is typically polite/canadian.

:smilie_flagge17:

-dh


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

I don't insult people... 

But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm not afraid to call it a duck.

Wild Bill hasn't got even half a leg to stand on when it comes to his 'opinion' of this issue. I'm not the only one who's said it.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> I don't insult people...


...just from this thread:

"Your sarcasm only betrays your lack of intelligence."

"Please... don't try to drag others here down to your pathetic level."

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> DH, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding. An insult is based on opinion. I believe that CH would consider those two quotes "facts."


...ah, yes, of course. thanks for clarifying that, paul!



-dh


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

That's the nice thing about facts.... They make 'belief' immaterial.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> That's the nice thing about facts.... They make 'belief' immaterial.


Belief can't possibly be immaterial, switching to philosophy and contemporary physics, there are no facts. Even the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been shown to be only 1 of a number of explanations for observed universal entropy. Einstein, in his later years wrote an essay on the important role of 'belief' and 'faith' in the continual search for knowledge within the essay he said that fact is only as good as our ability to measure it. 

Aren't your facts only beliefs that you are strongly committed to?

So, to answer your earlier question, I believe, every point of view has validity, not necessarily equal, but should be considered.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

"every point of view... should be considered"
Oh sure... I considered Wild Bill's POV.... for about as long as it took to see all the logical flaws in his posts... after that, I wrote him off.

"Is Earnst Zundel's point of view on the holocaust valid?"
Well, it's valid as an 'opinion', but as a fact... as an example of reason and ration, not in the least.... Wild Bill is welcome to his opinion... But his opinion in this matter and a buck fifty will get you a small cup of lousy coffee.... 

So valid, maybe... but it can be valid and still be worthless.

"switching to philosophy"
Philosophy is a waste of time.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Philosophy is a waste of time.




...ah, no, clint old buddy. philosophy is a waste of YOUR time.

its not a waste of my time, or anyone else's who might have an interest in it.

just thought i'd clarify that for you, old buddy.

not that i expect anything to penetrate the thick fog of smug sanctimony that envelopes your brain.

:zzz:

-dh


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Philosophy is a waste of time.


The ultimate slippery slope, eh CH?


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2007)

Not at all....

Philosophy will never put bread on your table, or get your cow out of a bog.

A good roast is worth it's weight in philosophy


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Not at all....
> Philosophy will never put bread on your table, or get your cow out of a bog.
> A good roast is worth it's weight in philosophy



...can a good roast help you win the stanley cup?

can a good roast help you find just the right anniversary gift?

or, for that matter, help you remember that its your anniversary?

can a good roast help you find a bass player who understands the basics?

i thought not!

don't judge philosophy by what it can't do, but by what it can do, which is to keep an old hippie like myself amused for hours...

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Now.....what is a "good" roast?


That's easy - a free one cooked by your neighbour!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Now.....what is a "good" roast?


...if i knew the answer to that i'd get a lot more dates!

a good roast can be had at the keg, and many other fine establishments.

cooking a good roast at home has proven to be a challenge, for me at least.

anyone here know how to do it?

-dh


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2007)

"what is a "good" roast?"
They happen quite often in this house. I mean, so long as you don't over-cook it, a roast is a pretty easy thing to pull off well.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "what is a "good" roast?"
> They happen quite often in this house. I mean, so long as you don't over-cook it, a roast is a pretty easy thing to pull off well.



...the roasts i buy have to be neccessarily small. as well, most roasts i find at the markets are pretty lean - not a lot of marbelling.

thus, no matter how carefully i prepare them, they end up dry and somewhat chewy. i roast mine very, very rare.

i envy the restaurants those monster roasts, which they cook slowly.

yum!

-dh


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Crock Pot - a poor cook's best friend.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2007)

More information on this law being passed and the benefits from enforcing it

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/071213/x121323A.html

I applaud N.S.!!


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Hey maybe I shouldnt move to NS after all! :rockon2:


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2007)

It's law.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/12/13/smoking-legislation.html

Chalk one up for the good guys.


----------



## zinga (Apr 22, 2007)

be careful there watching....... whats next no beer , rye ect ect..


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

>.< d'oh, old thread! I went by what was hot on the bottom links. Sorry, I probably should have left this one alone!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

zinga said:


> be careful there watching....... whats next no beer , rye ect ect..


...while diving? Why, yes of course.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

way to dig up the ghosts of clinton and david you guys. now i miss them again-


----------

