bassman Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 This law should have been introduced years ago, and should apply for smoking in the home as well. Non-smokers should not have to be subjected to second smoke, especially children. It makes me furious when I see parents smoking in the car with their kids. By the way, I am a smoker, and I will never smoke in mine, or anyone's home, out of respect for the non-smokers.
jughead Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 As for health care...my 2 cents: OHIP shouldn't cover anything smoking related...its expensive with very faint hope, just delays the inevitable, if you can afford to p*ss away seven bucks a day for cigs...pay for your own chemo, or cyal8er. I see the IV hooked up smokers on University Ave getting their free cancer treatment and it really offends me to hear of kids not getting the coverage they need to grow up healthy while the so called 'adults' puff away. You can't take the good with the bad in a country with universal health care. Cigarettes and alcohol are two of the most heavily taxed items. Much of this tax money goes into the health care system. In fact, a heavy smoker puts more into the tax system than a non-smoker since they pay all the same other taxes in addition to the taxes from cigarettes.. A heavy smoking alcoholic even more so. If you want a health care system based on legal life style choices consider this, obesity is on the rise and is fast catching up to smoking as the number one health hazard and burden on the medical system. Should fat people forfeit their right to medical care because they eat too much and don't exercise? What about health issues more prominent in certain races of people. As a man, why do I have to pay for anything related to childbirth, gynocology, etc. No one forced single mothers to get pregnant. No one sensible would suggest smoking is anything but harmful and I agree with the smoking laws but to suggest smokers should be second class citizens in terms of access to health care is a slippery slope.
Moosebunk Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 This sounds just as bad as a person that use to hunt and now say hunting is cruel.LOL Sorry,thats the way I read it. Except that the right to eat is a human necessity for sustaining life, and therefor killing animals for food and nutrition through many different practices will always remain a constant, even if and when there are certain societal opinions involved. Smoking, the way we are talking about it; unlike eating, does not benefit a soul... in fact it worsens society. Again, a "bottom line" thought.
Rich Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 If you wanna get technical Moosebunk, smoking does benefit society in ways. It provides income for hard working people like tobacco farmers, puts money into local businesses, and promotes it's own version of socialization. I'm sure this post wasn't meant to turn into an anti or pro-smoking rally. Let's focus on the original topic.
Corey Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 As for health care...my 2 cents: OHIP shouldn't cover anything smoking related...its expensive with very faint hope, just delays the inevitable, if you can afford to p*ss away seven bucks a day for cigs...pay for your own chemo, or cyal8er. I see the IV hooked up smokers on University Ave getting their free cancer treatment and it really offends me to hear of kids not getting the coverage they need to grow up healthy while the so called 'adults' puff away. You're kidding me right? You lead a 100% healthy life, so you should get health care? I know many non-smokers who have lung cancer or emphasima... is this because they didn't smoke? If you lead a perfect life you should never need health care right? So give up your right to it in this country... doubt you will. Do you not realize that the common ailments of smokers affect non-smokers too? You should get your head out of the ground and then fall off your high horse. I hope that one day when you are sick someone tells you you can't have treatment because it is associated with something bad.
Kirk Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Thanks for your good wishes Corey... When children are being refused healthcare treatment, then I think we should look at how resources are spent...don't ask me...ask the parents of autistic children if they think the governments priorites are correct when they fund healthcare for basically lifestyle choices adults make vs children trying to cope with illnesses they have through no fault or decision of theirs and having treatment refused. Canada...the land of hand outs and a never ending line up of proud recipients Edited November 20, 2007 by Kirk
TennesseeGuy Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 "I hope that one day when you are sick someone tells you you can't have treatment because it is associated with something bad." I'm having difficulty understanding why this post was made.
Puckhead Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Geeze kirk, I hope you excersize properly, eat properly and live a clean and healthy lifestyle. If not, I would say your going to be rather hypocritical when you line up for that triple by pass surgery for eating too many big macs. Somehow, I suspect you will gladly take that 'handout' as your "right" to healthcare. Legislating stupidity is dangerous if you appreciate your freedoms (or what's left of them). Smokers are the lepers of modern society Edited November 20, 2007 by Puckhead
misfish Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 Order in the court,,,,,,,,,,,,,,order in the court.
irishfield Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Not sure if Kirk could find a good lawyer to represent him though.... You can't legislate parenting...if you could we'd go back to neutering the less brilliant and you know...that' not a bad dang idea. Start with Britney ! As for the smoking gig... I don't have the energy for all I could type.. lets just say my wife has never smoked, but her parents did heavily. Wife was told 10 years ago (when she was 32) she had the lungs of a 95 year old women that smoked 5 packs a day for her entire life. Edited November 20, 2007 by irishfield
Moosebunk Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 If you wanna get technical Moosebunk, smoking does benefit society in ways. It provides income for hard working people like tobacco farmers, puts money into local businesses, and promotes it's own version of socialization. I'm sure this post wasn't meant to turn into an anti or pro-smoking rally. Let's focus on the original topic. My mistake Sir Ricky... smoking is good. Yes the pros far outweigh the cons. Allow me to behead myself while you blow purple bong haze to your little one in the backseat and pass him the hooch on green lights. How the educated world ever bought into the science that smoking is bad for the smoker and second hand smoke is bad for anyone else is beyond me; beyond sooo many. I guess this means all gas sniffers and coke shooters who like to "share" second hand junk must be in the clear too, because afterall they could be local business people who work hard, put money into the local economy and socialize their "own" way. And thank God for the tobacco plant while we're at it. Cause without the "Ohhhhh Soooo Carcinogenic Nic-Addictive One" the poor farmer might have to farm something else, the poor convenience store clerk may have to sell something else, and addicts wouldn't have smoker pride nor a group to call their own on the 9, 10, 11, lunch, 1, 2, 2:30, 3:00, 3:20, 3:40, 4:00, 4:15, 4:25, 4:34, 4:40, 4:44, 4:47, 4:50, 4:52, 4:54, 4:55, 4:56, 4:57, 4:58, 4:59 and 4:59:30 "scheduled" smoker work breaks on "their" perfect 9 to 5. Heck, John Player, Joe Camel and that Marlboro Man dood may just have to step down as the filthy rich presidents of the smokers club and open up a tofu and falafel joint. If you want to get technical Ricky and sort of back to the topic at hand, smoking laws aren't really about the smoker anyway... they are about the rights of the non-smoker. The smoker shouldn't even count every time... Especially in a case where kids cannot speak for themselves and so someone wisely takes the initiative to say it for them. "Most" smokers are young "impressioned" smokers first, and they're smokers for no single good reason whatsoever. I can't honestly think of one good reason to tell someone why they should take up an addictive habit like smoking, especially a kid. For the smoker, it may suck being on the losing end in todays society, but ask yourself, what are you really giving up anyway??? If you managed to quit, or in the very least control, what could you be gaining??? I used to defend my right to smoke too, but that was back when I was an addict. Today I rarely preach non smoking at all, at work to my patients nor to my smoking friends. But, a stage is set here at OFC, why not speak about it. Strangely, I don't even really care but it's fun to pick sides and then debate. Get's you so juiced just thinking and talking about it that you almost need a smoke when you're done.
ecmilley Posted November 20, 2007 Report Posted November 20, 2007 I quit smoking almost 2 years ago, most of my family and friends still smoke and Its only annnoying when they light up in the truck (ya you know who you are) to each ther own I say, common sense would dictate smoking with the kids in the car, not just for there health but the smell eewww. Should it be made law? thats a tough one abd a tougher one to enforce, but with the goverments addiction to taxes even worse than my former addiction to nicotine you'll never see the world's most dangerous legal consumer product outlawed. On the brighter side this is what not smoking fot 47 months paid for (it's almosr paid for).
Muskieman Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 I smoke , but not in the truck with the kids..I do if I'm alone and do so with the window open .. When I grew up .. We'd go for trips to wherever..I'd say " Mom! the seatbelt is poking me in the back! " She'd tell me to stuff it down the seat.. "Don't roll down the window ,you're letting the smoke out!"..."Give your Dad another beer"...that's how alot of us grew up. Now they are just giving monies out for research , if a "Study Shows" that such and such thing is bad for you or others... a law will be passed against it.. people knew this was wrong 35 years ago the public was less informed and less involved back then.. With the food they're feeding us nowadays who knows.. better give you're kids all the chances they can get.. "THEY" aren't done "Studying" the Pepsi generation yet. I think the law is to enforce common sense... Gotta wonder how they'd enforce it .. with tinted windows nowadays ? Would they have a "S.M.O.K.E" program like a "R.I.D.E" What would be the charges..? $$
Daplumma Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Wish I could still enjoy the odd smoke, but that's a can of worms I'd never want to risk opening again. Bout sums it up with me.To each his own but keep it away from the kids.There is no good reason on earth for kids to be subjected to the life of addiction that nicotine brings. Joe
Corey Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Thanks for your good wishes Corey... When children are being refused healthcare treatment, then I think we should look at how resources are spent...don't ask me...ask the parents of autistic children if they think the governments priorites are correct when they fund healthcare for basically lifestyle choices adults make vs children trying to cope with illnesses they have through no fault or decision of theirs and having treatment refused. Canada...the land of hand outs and a never ending line up of proud recipients I totally agree with the fact that children should get treatment. I think everyone should get treatment. You say that anyone who does anything that puts their risk at health should not get health care if they need right? So for all the tax's I pay from income tax, PST, GST, cig's, booze, fuel, etc. I should not get any treatment if I come down with an ailment that may be related to something I do? I don't think it's a matter of stopping treatment for one thing to give money to another thing. It's a matter of spreading the money evenly according to need. I know there is a big push for children with autism to get more help. I probably know more about that situation than you do. You have no right to say stop giving treatment to people who may do harm to themselves. Better yet, for a thread that started off talking about not smoking in the presence of non-smokers, children in specific, why are you bringing health care up? I smoke, in my garage, away from my kids. I smoke in my vehicles, not with the kids in them. Pretty much all of my friends had smoking parents when they were young, some of them smoke, some of them don't. The ones who don't aren't all that much worse for wear at this point in their lives. Keep in mind, I grew up in Hamilton... you know the place that everyone thinks is stinky? The air might not be all that good compared to smoking eh. I don't smoke anywhere near my children. Obviously I can't protect them from all smoke, but I keep them away from it as much as I can. Should we ban farting near our children too? As I am sure methane can't be all that great for them either. What about banning kids from eating food that could possibly affect their health too? God knows all the fast food can't be all that great. But let me guess... you *never* eat at fast foods restaurants either right? You are the epidimy of health right? Eat a fish from Ontario waters lately? Take your fight for equal health care somewhere else, we are all pretty much in agreement with you that money needs to be spent on certain areas, but telling me I should not have health care because I smoke? Keep it up and you might need health care soon.
Sinker Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 You have a combination beer drinking / smoking area at work? Did I say I was at work? I was at school......our smoking area is outside the pub....... Yet another person complaining about people smoking outside......blows my mind.......while sitting in traffic none the less.......HAHAHAHAHA......Ok.....your sitting in traffic......inhaling fumes from thousands of car exausts, and your worried about the guy smoking beside you.... I'm sorry, but this topic really gets me........... If you don't like inhaling second hand smoke while your outside.......STAY AWAY FROM SMOKERS........its not rocket science........I keep it outside out of respect for non-smokers.....all I ask is for the same respect. I LIKE TO SMOKE!!! Sinker
Corey Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 I quit smoking almost 2 years ago, most of my family and friends still smoke and Its only annnoying when they light up in the truck (ya you know who you are) to each ther own I say, common sense would dictate smoking with the kids in the car, not just for there health but the smell eewww. Should it be made law? thats a tough one abd a tougher one to enforce, but with the goverments addiction to taxes even worse than my former addiction to nicotine you'll never see the world's most dangerous legal consumer product outlawed. On the brighter side this is what not smoking fot 47 months paid for (it's almosr paid for). Please don't take offense, but if quitting smoking for almost 2 years adds up to 47 months, I will keep smoking! cd. ps. good on ya for quitting, it takes a lot to quit.
Guest gbfisher Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 ha ha ha ha I like it. Yup Thats what all 'users' say when they are told they should quit something that is highly addictive. LOL. That's what I thought only 5 years ago. Yes! I loved smoking but I love not smoking even better. The last thing I would do is tell some one they shouldnt smoke.
camillj Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Woo hoo ... 261 days for me .... but Im staying out of it ... because I still consider myself a smoker ... just one who hasnt been under the 'control' of my habit for a while ... and would like to keep it that way. I think the car thing is going a bit .... oh never mind I said I was staying out of it.
danc Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 I smoke. I'm not proud of it. Obviously it isn't good for me. Give me my space and I'll give you yours. Don't smoke in the presence of children. How difficult can this be?
Sinker Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 I smoke. I'm not proud of it. Obviously it isn't good for me. Give me my space and I'll give you yours. Don't smoke in the presence of children. How difficult can this be? God love ya DanC.......finally someone who I agree with on the topic!!!
Daplumma Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Woo hoo ... 261 days for me .... but Im staying out of it ... because I still consider myself a smoker ... just one who hasnt been under the 'control' of my habit for a while ... and would like to keep it that way. I think the car thing is going a bit .... oh never mind I said I was staying out of it. Glad to hear you are still doing it.Good job. Joe
John Bacon Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Heard on the news, its only in one town in Nova Scotia and its only a 50.00 fine...so go ahead and light up, fine is the equivalent of what? 6 packs of smokes? Glad I quit about 5 years ago, love feeling better and love the money saved too. As for health care...my 2 cents: OHIP shouldn't cover anything smoking related...its expensive with very faint hope, just delays the inevitable, if you can afford to p*ss away seven bucks a day for cigs...pay for your own chemo, or cyal8er. I see the IV hooked up smokers on University Ave getting their free cancer treatment and it really offends me to hear of kids not getting the coverage they need to grow up healthy while the so called 'adults' puff away. Where do you draw the line at withholding medical care? If smokers aren't covered for illness, should we also make skiers pay to have a broken leg fixed? They chose to go skiing. Do we also refuse to cover people with unhealthy diets; and people who don't exercise? Smokers are only one of very many examples of people who have contributed to their health issues. Getting back to the original question; I agree that smoking with children in the car should be banned. Studies have shown that second hand smoke in a car is several times more concentrated than second hand smoke in a home. An hour in the car with a smoker is probably worse than a whole day at home with the same smoker.
Greencoachdog Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 Awww c'mon and light one up folks... yanno ya want to...
Rich Posted November 21, 2007 Report Posted November 21, 2007 My mistake Sir Ricky... smoking is good. rolleyes.gif Yes the pros far outweigh the cons. Allow me to behead myself while you blow purple bong haze to your little one in the backseat and pass him the hooch on green lights. I never said it was good.. you just said it was no good for society, which is not entirely true. Just a debate, right? Like I said, I never smoke in a car with children, actually I don't smoke in a car with a non-smoker. Mostly just to keep them from preaching. What's with you and the purple haze anyway? I could go on for days about the benefits of wacky tabacky! LOL
Recommended Posts