For or against smoking bans in public places? why?

Oh, but I have no problems with people smoking outside in public. I've stated that in this thread a couple pages back.

I just disprove private & government establishments forcing everyone to tolerate smoke. I mean, it was only a decade ago people were smoking while performing open heart surgeries in hospitals. I just think if the public area is properly ventilated (ie. outside) and there is no seriously effects on wildlife (ie. a protected national park or a Zoo where animals could choke on cigarette butts) I have no problems with anyone smoking in public places.

There isn't a ban on public places here in Canada.

 

i like to breath fresh clean air. i do not like to become sick with a migraine because someone is smoking near me..

 

WHAT?? Where was this??

 

It's not state health care though, so it's not socialized medicine. It's universal health care based on a two-tier system. The provincial government pays like a 65% tab on the costs of most health care. Private insurance companies pay the rest.

But it's different in each province how much of the percentage is picked up by the "state" (provincial) government. Alberta for exactly, is mostly funded of a privatized health care system. So the government there pays less than half of the tab for the health of its citizens.

 

Income tax is quite varied. We have certain tax credits that Americans are not able to file for (ie I got a moving cost tax credit when I move somewhere for school paid in the amount of kms and gas used to haul my stuff) but we can't receive certain tax credits that Americans are able to claim on their income tax. Like the uhhh, the tax credit you guys have for low income families or that interest rate on your mortgage you claim through your income taxes. (Is it an interest rate?! I forget.)

We like you, file "state" and "federal" tax bracket forms in order to receive a regressive tax return. It's not all that different of a process, but the tax credits we claim are different and dependent upon what "state" or "province" we reside in.

 

i rather like it, but i dont smoke... though i do think you should still be able to smoke on patios at restaurants. here you cant smoke in public buildings, and as someone who coughs up a lung and a half when i get a bunch of smoke in my face, its nice to not be hacking and coughing just because i wanna go eat supper somewhere nice. my moms a smoker and she just gets up and goes out for a smoke once or twice while were at the restaurant (depending on the speed of service) and only really complains about it once its damn cold outside

 

Okay sorry. With a thread this long and with the strong ideas on both sides, it is easy for me to miss stuff.

 

Dunno. Ask your mom about this. I was being a little liberal with my time line. (I just forgot what decade I was in for a moment there)

Maybe people were smoking during open heart surgeries just 20 years ago?

In any case, it wasn't that long ago people were smoking in hospital waiting rooms, etc.

 

Yeah, public buildings like libraries and stuff. You can't smoke in any indoor environment anywhere in Ontario. But you can smoke outside in any public place.

 

Right. But not in the operating room. Hehe.

 

Hahaha, yeah. I remember those days too.

You should get to bed, Mr. Bad.

 

not even your own home? that doesnt sound right. here in SK its just liek businesses and publicly/govt owned shit, private houses still allow smoking (and actually most of hte small towns around my city allow smoking in bars and cafes still)

 

Your own home isn't a public place. It's private property. So yes, you can smoke in your own home, but more and more people are going outside to smoke. Like the kids outside my window right fuckin' now. These two girls like to sit out and chatter at each other when they smoke right near my open window. Meh. They have the stupidest conversations too.

 

you said "any indoor environment" in the post i quoted, hence my confusion.

 

Any government-public-commercial establishment it is illegal to smoke inside.

Private homes are the only place you can legally smoke inside in all of Ontario.

EDIT: And you can smoke on patios and terraces in bars. As long as you are 10 feet away from a doorway, you can chain smoke for as long as you like.

 

the owners should have the right to determine if smoking is allowed or not, one could easily avoid places with smoking allowed.

 

*yawn*

There is only so many places you are forced to avoid because there is smoking it most places out there. If a woman walks into a restaurant several times because she's pregnant and craves food at 30 minute intervals and people are smoking all around her, granted in a smoking section, is it her fault if her baby is born with a hole in its heart or is the restaurant that put a hole in the heart responsible?

According to precedence and case law, it's the restaurant owner's responsibility to ensure a safety and health standard, and by law in Ontario - it's proven to be reasonably and legitimately unsafe to allow patrons and clients to smoke while indoors. It costs extra to keep the air and ventilation flowing properly, there are less complaints from customers, etc.

Honestly, it makes sense. In 10 years from now, everyone's going to realize this and instead people will bitch about how you can't buy Bisphenol-A in your baby's bottle because it's your own right to have it leech through breast milk and poison babies.

I wish we could fast-forward life sometimes.

 

I am not saying sextions, I am saying it should be a binary decision, I also think that there should be some sort of incentive for not choosing to allow smoking (i.e. if you will make more money by inviting smokers with open arms, than the tax break will give you, by all means, go for it.) it would make restaurants much less likely to have smoking, as the ratio of smokers to non-smokers typically, would be insufficient to counteract the tax break

make it dollars and sense

and give bigger tax breaks to places in neighborhoods with a great many pro smoking places, you support the businesses of the few remaining smoking establishments, but you also support a lack of clusters where said pregnant woman couldn't find somewhere to eat for all the smoking.

win-win

just give out the incentives from taxes on tobacco.

 

What is the purpose of government?

As far I can see, your Department of Health and Human Services through "Healthy People 2010" (one goal is reducing the adult smoking prevalence to 12%), and our Department of Health Public Health programme (Rationale: The smokefree law was introduced to protect all people in virtually all enclosed public places, workplaces, public vehicles and work vehicles, from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.)
Is simply that: Public Health.
"Public Health" has been a priority for governments or on the agenda of governments for a few hundred years (long before I was born, may I add.) I really don't see why you need to make this into something it is not.

"Tens of thousands of jobs in rural parts of southern Europe are at risk as the European Commission prepares to remove subsidies paid to tobacco growers.

The subsidy cuts are expected to be announced this week as part of the Commission's efforts to phase out the industry and to help reduce smoking in Europe."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3257089.stm

"The UK backs the change"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4314366.stm

Ongoing.

 

Now you can bring in your Anti EU rhetoric if you like...lol.