|
|
|
|
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 2:24:59 AM | And yet smoking is allowed in government run casinos. At least it was up until about a year or so ago as I recall. How would you justify that logically?
A press release was also issued stating that the OPP does not intend to really enforce this new smoking by-law.
As far as cracking down on tobacco sold from reserves there is much evidence contrary to that in regards to the Six Nations reserve. The government complains that they are losing billions in the tax revenue from smoking yet they turn a blind eye when it suits them.
If smoking is such a horrible thing, make it illegal. Just don't forget fast food, alcohol and anything else that would fall into that category.
Don't even get me started on big pharma, most of the prescription drugs out there are just as dangerous (side effects) as smoking if not worse and yet we had Bill C51 which would have taken away the choice of alternative natural medicine.
It would seem to me, those of us who govern ourselves according to common sense are losing the right to choose for ourselves because of those that don't. I take issue with that and it leaves me wondering, what's next?! | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 8:16:10 AM |
If smoking is such a horrible thing, make it illegal. Just don't forget fast food, alcohol and anything else that would fall into that category
I think the issue is about the second hand smoke. If smoking in a car or in a building others are forced to breathe that smoke into their lungs. As far as fast food, alcohol, etc., that's totally different. It's food and beverage, not something airborne and potentially fatal to others while being consumed.
Casinos are sacred ground - easy cash for gov't.... lol.
If people want to eat bad food that's ok... the gov't will eventually put a "Fat tax" on them.... especially if you vote Liberal (Federal and Provincial) - they love taxing people. | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 9:58:31 AM | And yet smoking is allowed in government run casinos. At least it was up until about a year or so ago as I recall. How would you justify that logically?
Smoking is generally not permitted inside run casinos. The Windsor casinos raised all sorts of hell when the government imposed a smoking ban on them a couple of years ago, claiming they would lose customers as a result. And as a result, there were plans floated to build new casinos across the border in Detroit to cater to the newly-disenfranchised smoker crowd left without a casino floor on which to stamp out their butts.
Casinos operated by First Nations bands on band land are a different matter as there are jurisdictional issues involved in policing those lands. Those same jurisdictional issues make it difficult to close down illicit tobacco operations on Six Nations and other band lands, but the police regularly seize shipments of contraband tobacco leaving reservations as well as the vehicles used to transport that contraband.
With respect to the smoking in car law, the issue there is second hand smoke and its effect on children. Smoking within the small confines of a car leads to toxin concentrations several times higher than in just about any other environment short of a coffin. The kid doesn't have a choice in the matter - that kid is going to ingest large volumes of second hand smoke that we know to have serious health effects.
It's the equivalent of you force-feeding large quantities of alcohol down your kid's throat, which by the way is also illegal even in your own home.
Besides, smoking is far different than alcohol and fast food. Diets heavy in fast food and alcohol consumption can be harmful for a person, but unlike smoking there are safe levels of consumption. Any degree of smoking is known to have harmful effects on the body - there is no "safe" dosage.
It's one thing for an adult to make that choice for themselves, but it's quite another for an adult to impose that choice on their kid.
The OPP are enforcing the law just as they are bound to enforce other laws. However, they won;t be setting up checks like RIDE programs aimed specifically at weeding out smoking drivers with children in the car. However, if you're discovered while stopped for any other reason, or if you're terribly obvious about it, or if a concerned neighbour lodges a complaint with local police about you, you're probably going to join the ranks of the charged. | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 12:28:55 PM | There is smoking allowed in the gov't run casinos in Niagara Falls. "Generally" doesn't tend to make the gov't look any less hypocritical especially when you so kindly point out that they don't allow all casinos the same courtesy.
I know the effects of second hand smoke thanks. As a responsible parent I don't smoke in my car with my children. It is the principle that I take issue with. | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 12:54:16 PM | I know the effects of second hand smoke thanks. As a responsible parent I don't smoke in my car with my children. It is the principle that I take issue with.
As a responsible driver, I know the effects of driving impaired on myself and any others using the road with me, and as a result I avoid drinking and driving. Should I be offended in principal because the government passes laws forcing me to stop and be scrutinized at the same RIDE checks that the impaired drivers are subject to?
Laws are often enacted precisely because not all of us are responsible enough to act wisely and avoid harming others. That's what's at issue here, not impeding the actions of the responsible parents, but the actions of the irresponsible ones. | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/18/2009 1:26:40 PM |
As far as fast food, alcohol, etc., that's totally different. It's food and beverage, not something airborne and potentially fatal to others while being consumed.
Surely you jest. What about second hand fast food breath? Or second hand fast food dumpster diving?
Casinos are sacred ground - easy cash for gov't.... lol. Exactly!! You can't build on sacred burial grounds, not even a golf course, but you can erect a casino. I read or heard somewhere that the biggest cash cow for the Government of Ontario in terms of gambling revenue comes from those video lottery terminals.
especially if you vote Liberal (Federal and Provincial) - they love taxing people. What's the alternative though? | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 3/19/2009 8:30:50 PM |
"You can only smoke if you're a smoker. Non-smokers will be levied a tax."
............tell me this was not ACTUALLY said/put in print somewhere??
Would that it were in print - we could put Ontario on the map by having Jay Leno show this article on his Monday night's "Headline News" segments...
HnH  | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/10/2009 2:50:19 AM | This law is here supposedly to protect ppl from second hand contamination right?
So how soon will it be made illegal that:
-TTC vehicles be scrapped due to their "smoke"?
-all cars for their "smoke"?
-coal fired electric plants?
-ppl who wear perfume/colgne/deoderant/cloths detergent/etc...?
-VOC's (volitile organic compounds, known to be toxic and fatal) to be emitted for years on end from virtually every product made (carpets, car interiors, plastics, curtains, furniture, paint,)
-cell phone users must be 25 feet from any other person due to microwave feilds? (I dont want yer brain cancer)
-chlorine and IQ lowering floride removed from drinking water?
-smoke from meat smoke factories?
-smoke from restaurants?
-particulate matter that falls from airplane exhaust onto us?
-incinerators?
-EMF's from monitors?
-cell phone repeater towers?
-any chemical that mimics or messes with human hormones or buggers up your DNA leading to mutations (found in soaps and shampoo's, etc...)?
-chemicals the gov allows and insists is sprayed on your foods or the petrolium based fertilizer it grows in?
-smoke from BBQ's ?
need I go on?
sounds like Big Gov hurts you more than smokers do
who protects you from them?
who protects non smoking adults who are passengers in cars driven and owned by "minors" who smoke in their own cars?
one day the gov will make it illegal for the sun to shine.
You want a law like this to work, tell children that every time they cal l the police on adults who smoke in their presence, take a picture of it and the will get candy/toys/allowance/etc..... from the Nazi's | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/10/2009 8:05:32 AM |
need I go on?
sounds like Big Gov hurts you more than smokers do
No need to go on. Your argument is not that valid.
who protects you from them?
You protect yourself... you get away from those things.
A child can't realistically be expected to jump out of a moving car every time mom or dad wants to smoke while driving. The car is basically a smoke chamber that entraps the smoke, forcing it into the children's lungs.
who protects non smoking adults who are passengers in cars driven and owned by "minors" who smoke in their own cars?
Adults have choices. They can remain in that environment; they can drive in a seperate vehicle; they can choose not to go with that driver. How many parents would be willing to provide taxi fare for their children to meet them at the grocery store, at grandparents/relatives house or meet them somewhere on a road trip?
Adults have that choice.
from the Nazi's
Nazi's? Didn't they put people in gas chambers?
I'm just saying..... a smoke filled car is, in effect, a gas chamber.
Nazi's are on your side..... | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/10/2009 9:26:28 PM |
The car is basically a smoke chamber that entraps the smoke, forcing it into the
children's lungs.
smoke chamber?, like inside a BBQ? gimmie a break.
forcing it into the children's lungs? what, like an inhailer for asthmatics?
you must live in a strange dimension where all smoke from cigarettes are"forced into childrens lungs".
Your argument is not that valid.
Please be as so kind to inform the public as how pollution/chemicals/EMF/Radon/and other killers are not valid. Sounds like your trying to say that nothing harms children except smoke from cigaretts, because science is completely wrong when it says that micro asbestos particles from friction
materials (brake pads and transmission components) dont float through vehicle ventilation systems and end up in ppls lungs (where they stay till you die, scar your lungs and lead to cancer), not to mention anything else that comes from outside the vehicle like other vehicle exhaust.
Adults have that choice.
Just adults huh, so no one under 19 (12-18) has a choice? Your not sexist/ageist/racist/discrimining/etc.. are you?
Nazi's on your side huh, yea real mature and intelligent there buddy, the smiley face thing does'nt make your statement any better, I wont go further here.
a smoke filled car is, in effect, a gas chamber
then perhaps all vehicles should be banned right? First its a smoke chamber, now a gas chamber, perhaps even a stasis chamber.
Listen, I dont personally agree with anyone confining a small child and harming them with any ype of smoke/chemical/pollution/etc.... Just to be clear on my side here.
This law is silly, it seriously requires refinement, such as consent clauses of persons above a certain age.
Fining this boy didn't stop him from actually smoking in the car, therefore this law protected no one in this situation. I say educate instead of taxate.
Example, pull ppl over who smoke with minors in the vehicle, hand them a citation that requiers a madatory education from lets say health care workers, they pay for this class, learn something perhaps, and ppl are working. Maybe send CAS over to the house too.
There is a lot of missleading propaganda out there, some of it from gov health web sites I saw earlier where most of the info provided was dispelled by profesionals, however, the false info still remains on the site.
1 ex: rolling down a car window does nothing. That is simply idiotic, of course it does something.
2 ex: second-hand smoke being more dangerous than first hand smoke, again it's silly.
Interesting tidbit if you are a learned and understanding individual http://cancrime.com/2009/01/ontario-recruits-25000-smoking-police.html
Oddly it's still perfectly legal for a 16 yr old driver to smoke in a car with minors, who
does the law protect there? answer is no one.
do a survey, lets put 2 smokers in a garage with the doors closed smoking, and lets put 2 people in the garage with the doors also closed and the car running lets see who walks
out, I'am willing to be one of those smokers and I'm not a smoker.
Education, education, education.
How about all minors be place inside bubbles? who knows, might just get legislated.
How much of a minors life is spent in a smoke filled car . How much of their life will be
spent in a toxic environment earning enough money to make products for you to consume? | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/10/2009 10:14:43 PM |
I say educate instead of taxate.
I say adults who are smoking with their kids in the car are too arrogant and selfish to heed any information about smoking. One example is in regards to the smoking law prohibitting smokers from lighting up within a certain distance of a building entrance. Most smokers break that law and do so with an arrogance..... educating such people is a waste of time. Enough money has been wasted on educating..... they simp[ly do not care.
smoke chamber?, like inside a BBQ? gimmie a break
With windows up and the heater on, in the car, the smoke is recirculated within the cabin of the car - call it what you will. But, from my perspective, it is a chamber.
forcing it into the children's lungs? what, like an inhailer for asthmatics?
Forcing a child to sit in a smoke filled vehicle is forcing smoke into their lungs. Maybe you need to be educated on the differences between inhaling cigarrette smoke and using an inhaler to clear up infections, etc.
There is a lot of missleading propaganda out there, some of it from gov health web sites I saw earlier where most of the info provided was dispelled by profesionals, however, the false info still remains on the site
I checked out the website you posted. It's amusing (not amazing) you heed information from a news reporter's blog. Reporters credibility is like that of a handyman. Handymen do work in every trade yet they have no license in those trades... it kinda questions his credibility since he reports on so many different topics in professions that require a lot of education and specialty training.
That's why gov't has to "Taxate" (your term) as opposed to educate. Ignorant people like yourself, prefer to believe the "Handymen", so to speak... it 's the easiest way to reject laws.
Just adults huh, so no one under 19 (12-18) has a choice? Your not sexist/ageist/racist/discrimining/etc.. are you?
First off, learn to read 'posed to 'ciphering.
With all the spelling infractions and gramar infractions you've committed in your post, I think it would be wise for you to stop insulting other people's intelligence/opinions..... I don't know how to be "discrimining". Nor, do I know anyone who has done that - whatever it is. | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/10/2009 11:58:48 PM | Posted By: My I on 4/11/2009 1 : 43 AM
With all the spelling infractions and gramar infractions you've committed in your post, I think it would be wise for you to stop insulting other people's intelligence/opinions.....
Um, do you still have time to go back and edit your post to fix your own spelling error? | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/11/2009 6:48:12 AM |
Seems there was a 17 year old boy pulled over - who was smoking while driving - and the police thought his passenger 'looked' to be under 16.Turns out they were right - the girl was only 15.As the cops were writing her 17 year old boyfriend a ticket........she lit up herself!!~Where is the sense meter when I'm looking for it???? I think some people are misunderstanding the law. Why are we debating a 15-yr old girl lighting up a cigarette? The law bans minors (under 16) inhaling SECOND HAND SMOKE. If the 15-yr old girl wants to smoke herself, that's not 2nd hand smoke. It's her own.
Protection for people under 16 years old in motor vehicles....
9.2 (1) No person shall smoke tobacco or have lighted tobacco in a motor vehicle while another person who is less than 16 years old is present in the vehicle. 2008, c. 12, s. 1.
The 15-yr old girl probably could smoke inside the vehicle while the 17-yr old driver inhales the 2nd-hand smoke. The law says that the 15-yr old cannot inhale the driver's 2nd hand smoke. The law also says that another minor cannot inhale the 15-yr old's 2nd-hand smoke. (no person shall smoke tobacco, no person meaning anyone) | |
|
| No smoking law - interesting loophole
Posted: 4/11/2009 10:27:03 PM | | I think it's pretty simple. My daughter will not ever be allowed to smoke in any car or house of mine if she ever decides to start one day. No loopholes. My house, my car, my rules. I am not a hardliner over-disciplinary type father, but as a parent i need to teach the dangers of smoking to a child, and set some ground rules. Thats it...its so simple. | |
|
| |
| |
|
|
Home
login 
