I've never heard of anyone dying from poor hearing, unless they walked into traffic and didn't hear the honking and a car hit them and they died. Cancer, however... I am almost certain someone somewhere has died from that.

 

i dint say it could kill you, although 160+ db can and has killed people. i said it is hazardous to your hearing. im not comparing dying with losing your hearing, im saying that many things are harmful and you cant get rid of them all. i quit smoking 2 years ago because of the health problems so although it may sound like im arguing because i want to smoke, its not the case. it should be up to the owner of the bar to have the atmosphere he wishes(within reason). the same way a guy who listened to rock music might not go to a bar or club where they play only rap music, its part of the atmosphere and you can go somewhere else if you dont like it. smoking on a plane beside kids is one thing but saying you shouldnt be allowed to smoke in a seperate room in a bar? thats being unreasonable.

 

Cost of living or should I say the luxuries of life tend to be more expensive in Europe. In North America it is cheaper. There is enforcement on genetically modified foods, tighter restrictions on processed foods (eg. fillers, hydrogenated oils).
Lifestyle is more relaxed, more vacation time. If I am not mistaken 3-4 weeks is mandatory in Europe, where as 2 weeks in NA is the norm. IMO this is a big one regarding obesity.

 

2-3 packs a day. Birth of daughter 1980..O packs a day. If you want to smoke I'll pay my share of the taxes to help you if the worst happens. The only place smoking only enters your lungs is outside on a windy day. Outside is as good as it gets, sorry.
Still want one after a couple....., it never realy ends.

 

Whoa 2-3 packs a day . Glad you quit so you could still be with us.
Good for you at kickin the habit Sam.

 

So what is the government doing with all the tax money they get from cigarettes?

This is one thing I just don't understand, they (the government) know the side effects, health problems eg of smoking and 2nd hand smoke. They went as far as making laws that warning labels with pictures are required on the packs. They have restricted the public freedoms of a smoker now.
And in some provinces they can sue the tobacco companies for health care related costs. <---This is double dipping and is complete BS, so back to my question.

 

This is a very emotive subject for a lot of people and I don't see how it could ever stay clear of any sort of debate!

That having been said, I'm a non smoker (never have smoked) and certainly have no wish to take up the habit. It was one of two main things that contributed to the death of my father and I'd be quite happy if the dreaded weed didn't exist at all.

As for smoking bans, I can vividly remember how nice it was in Sweden when the smoking bans came into effect, being able to go out for an evening without coming home stinking like an ashtray.
However, coming from the UK where it seems they're trying to rid the common man of any sort of enjoyment in life through over taxation of anything that they deem politically incorrect (pretty much everything), I do sometimes sympathise with smokers and the way they're portrayed as outcasts these days.

Don't forget that there are plenty of people who could 'prove' that powerful/modified cars or alcohol or even just plain old tiredness and fatigue kill thousnads of people a year and should therefore be outlawed. The next thing you know we'll all be driving a Toyota Prius, drinking will be illegal and there'll be a legal requirement to get at least 8 hours sleep each day

A little melodramatic that may be, and I do agree that a smoke free Canada (or any other country) would be great, but lets just try and view things from someone elses perspective.

With that, I'll shutup for a wile.

 

Simple answer. I don't know for sure but I expect the same thing as our taxes from income, sales, fuel, liquor etc. It goes into general revenue and contributes towards health care, education, roads, administration, military etc. Unfortunately government isn't as good as it should be when it comes to accountablity on spending in the area it is collected. ie. fuel taxes do not all go to pave roads, some goes to other areas of government

I agree government is hypocritical in wanting/collecting revenues and also spending to eliminate smoking.

However, I prefer to see this as they are now beginning to acknowledge my and other peoples rights and "public freedom" to a smoke free environment.

Good for them. I prefer to have corporations knowingly causing addictions, and health problems/deaths to citizens pay for it rather than with my tax dollars. With corporations paying it's really only money going from smoking customers back to the care of those same smokers that will inevitably need it.

 

Nice Sam. Congrats on quitting. You're all winners in my books.

 

Your analogy about cops and tickets just doesn't make any sense relating to smoking and health care costs.

It's clear to me and to most people that corporations are putting profits before health.

It's not clear to me that non smokers are being **** disturbers or don't care about the facts. We care about our health, the health of others and the costs to society. That's a fact.

 

^^+1-wds.^^

C.

 

First off im not a smoker, 2nd I Was DJ and being a non smoker DJing at clubs like Guvernment and Joker and Docks etc I got a lot of unnecessary smoke and I’m grateful for the law to havea smoke free public environment. However I do feel the current scenario ahs gone a bit to the extreme and is an infringement of rights. If I want to build a bar just for smokers and only smokers the government says I can’t? but why?

Its like movies, its Rated R… its Rated R for a reason, if you are going to be offended by something in a movie that maybe Rated R don’t go watch that movie, if you end up going to watch that Rated R movie that you know is Rated R and get offended well then that’s your problem, but you shouldn’t be able to ban all Rated R movies from being created.… same as If someone opens up an all smoking bar for smokers. They should be allowed to do that. That’s just my opinion…

Another popular argument is health care costs, however I think they are taxed enough per pack or if not tax it more to cover smokers health cost in the health care system, and that will cover that angle of the argument.

Anyways as said before im a non smoker, well maybe have the occasional one… (everything in moderation)

Whats curious is if they do this to tobacco why are they not doing this to Alcohol… drunk driving kills as well as we’ve seen this past week… and unfortunately as long as there is alcohol there will be those who drink and driver…

Anyways my 2 cents on the topic for now…

 

If having a drink involved taking a swig and spitting some in the mouth of every adult or child nearby
whether they wanted you to or not, we probably would look differently at drinking in public, too.

 

The way I see this issue is I don't want to have my "airspace" invaded with second hand smoke. If somebody is at the bar or a restaurant and they need to have a smoke then go outside for 10 minutes. The bar will still be there when they get back.

 

Yeah that about sums it up.

In fact a small amount of alcohol like wine take daily is proven to be a health benefit. Last time I checked cigarettes can lay no such scientific claim.