The truth about alcohol

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
The truth about alcohol

6 DEBUNKED MYTHS ABOUT ALCOHOL THAT WILL STAGGER YOU

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/features/6-debunked-myths-about-alcohol-...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Interesting. But alcohol remains one of the most dangerous drugs circulating in the public. I had friends with alcoholic parents and I have seen friends almost drink themselves to death.

The list is interesting in the fact that a lot of urban legends were debunked. But it failed to mention that it is the most dangerous drug next to heroin.

I will say that back in the day when I drank a lot,a beer in the morning always cured hangovers, The beer and then liquor rule is real.

Red wine apparently is good for you...supposedly. But everything is harmless in moderation. The problem is,alcohol is abused,especially by young people.

Theres nothing charming about alcoholism. Have a conversation with a raging alcoholic (if its at all possible),it fries your brain,that's why many with alcohol problems usually find 'god' and become nauseatingly preachy and somehow feel above anyone who does not live a completely sober existance. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Root cause of alcoholism isn't neces alcohol - usually alcohol is being used to self medicate. My grandfather actually did drink himself to death. He suffered from chronic depression, if it wasn't the alcohol it would have been something else. I had a close friend achieve a similar level of self destruction with eating. 

Anyway, it's a far cry from that kind of drinking to enjoying a glass of wine with dinner or a beer on a hot day. 

contrarianna

I occassionly drink but I don't delude myself that "moderate" or even "light" drinking is harmless.
The risks of alcohol are much downplayed, and not just for "excessive" drinking.

The trillion+ dollar annual alchohol industry, with its army of lobbyists, is like the tobacco industry in its 1950's golden days of harm denial and information suppression and government regulatory collusion

Alcohol industry subverting science to prevent greater regulation, study finds 
Researchers say industry’s lobbying of politicians and involvement in policy discussions obstructing health outcomes

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/01/alcohol-industry-...

They are plenty of recent studies that show a direct relation of alcohol to incidence of a range of cancers. No alcohol level is safe and more is worse.

No Confusion: Alcohol Causes Seven Cancers
Nick Mulcahy
July 27, 2016 

...."In a statement about the new review, Prof Dorothy Bennett, director of the Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute at St. George's, University of London, said: "Alcohol enters cells very easily, and is then converted into acetaldehyde, which can damage DNA and is a known carcinogen.

In the new review, Dr Connor describes various hallmarks of causality that have been found in epidemiologic studies of alcohol and these seven cancers, such as a dose-response relationship and the fact that the risk for some of these cancers (esophageal, head and neck, and liver) attenuates when drinking ceases.

Current estimates suggest that alcohol-attributable cancers at the seven cancer sites make up 5.8% of all cancer deaths worldwide, she states.

The alcohol industry has a lot at stake, she says, which in turn leads to "misinformation" that "undermines research findings and contradicts evidence-based public health messages.""

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/866727

http://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/live-well/alcohol/?regi...
 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Nothing is without risk and the dose makes the poison. My point wasn't so much about alcohol as it was alcoholism, in any case.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd say the leading reason to do drugs is to self-medicate. It's all an escape from reality. At the least an altering of one's mood (Í include both alcohol and nicotine on the list).

Personally,I think everyone is free to use drugs (alcohol and nicotine) recreationally.

Alcohol in particular,is a hard and dangerous drug that causes unpredictable and dangerous behavior. It's underplayed. When the media talks about alcohol problems,they talk about addiction (as they should and impaired driving) They omit what it does to your character,reputation and physical being.

I read about the official stance Psychiatrists (L'AMPQ) have taken in regards to cannabis. They warn of psychotic reactions from a small number of smokers. Reminds me of Spencer Tracy,who used to have his people rent motel rooms for him to drink alone because he'd always flare into psychotic rage after a few drinks.There are a portion of the populace who get the same reaction. If any 'drug' should be controlled by a prescription,it should be alcohol not cannabis.

http://ampq.org/la-legalisation-du-cannabis-pourrait-compromettre-lacces...

http://ampq.org/la-legalisation-du-cannabis-risque-de-nuire-a-la-sante-d...

Until then,we will see sports organizations hold news conferences about a new 'zero tolerance' policy on drugs in front of a background donned with Labatt Blue ads. And ignorant yet self-righteous politicians do the same.

lagatta4

A modern trend among substance abusers is to abuse many at a time, which leads to wildly unpredicatable behaviour, and can kill. Little as I liked Rob Ford... misuse of food, booze, crack, smack, you have it. Dead at 42, was it?

But at the same time, I don't like scare stories, or rather, moral panics. I'm old enough to remember when drink driving and smoking in front of just anyone were practically socially acceptable. Fortunately they aren't any more.

Sean in Ottawa

Timebandit wrote:

Nothing is without risk and the dose makes the poison. My point wasn't so much about alcohol as it was alcoholism, in any case.

Your point is well taken about the root. However, addiction is complicated as it is not a symptom alone either. Where you have a symptom if you treat the root cause the symptom goes away or at least becomes inactive (static chronic). With addiction you have to treat both the root cause and the alcoholism as the alcoholism once generated is a disease in itself that will progress if it and the root are not addressed.

This is true of a number of mental illnesses where they have a root but the treatment is not complete with elimination of the root but you a condition that can continue long after the root is gone.

This is my understanding anyway. It explains a difficulty with co-existing compared with simple conditions in my opinion.

Rev Pesky

As a person who quit drinking and smoking in the same year, I can tell you that quitting drinking is easy. Quitting smoking is another thing altogether. Tobacco is extremely addictive, and smoking is, without doubt, the worst epidemic in the land, and in fact, around the world.

From Physician's for a smoke-free Canada:

Tobacco in Canada

45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year – and the number is still growing.
 
Tobacco is responsible for one in five deaths in Canada.   This is roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined.

​...No Canadian health authority has produced a comprehensive estimate of the number of Canadians who are killed from second-hand smoke, but international scientific reviews indicate that second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death (after smoking and drinking alcohol).

Junkies and alcoholics will not force their poison down your throat. Smokers, on the other hand, have no problem sharing their smoke with you. 

Mobo2000

What did you use to quit smoking?   I've been trying but it is freaking hard.  

RE: secondhand smoke, I think the rise of the portable vaporizers are putting a dent in that problem.  They seem to be everywhere in Toronto.   20 years ago I was in a university psych class with 350 other people, large auditorium style, and smoking was allowed.   It was like being in an 80's era billard hall.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

As a person who quit drinking and smoking in the same year, I can tell you that quitting drinking is easy. Quitting smoking is another thing altogether. Tobacco is extremely addictive, and smoking is, without doubt, the worst epidemic in the land, and in fact, around the world.

From Physician's for a smoke-free Canada:

Tobacco in Canada

45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year – and the number is still growing.
 
Tobacco is responsible for one in five deaths in Canada.   This is roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined.

​...No Canadian health authority has produced a comprehensive estimate of the number of Canadians who are killed from second-hand smoke, but international scientific reviews indicate that second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death (after smoking and drinking alcohol).

Junkies and alcoholics will not force their poison down your throat. Smokers, on the other hand, have no problem sharing their smoke with you. 

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

You should not presume that your experience in this area is at all transferable. Addiction is a dependency and the degree a person is dependent to a particular substance is variable from person to person and the degree by which a person  is dependent on one substance or another varies according to the person.

You will see such statements often comparing sugar, fat, alcohol, various drugs including tobacco and other dependencies based on individual experience. The are mostly unsupported by evidence.

Dependencies (as discussed here) have different root causes and substances have different effects on each individual.

Some sources claim Nicotine is slightly harder to kick but this can only be seen in the context of the strength of dependecies being at some relative baseline as some are more addicted to one than another. As well, the ease of giving up one thing or another has a lot to do with your exposure and context. In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol, especially in some work or family contexts.

Any such statement by medical authorities assumes a number of scientific controls that do not exist in the real world. It is common that the two are ranked close to each other when compared against other levels of addiction so these other factors can make the difference.

I hope you will do more research and refrain from making such sweeping statements ever again about this topic as it is potentially damaging to people.

 

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/adult-addiction-treatment-programs/h...

"Since smoking is not illegal, is often a social endeavor, and does not have to be performed clandestinely, it may be harder to stop than some other drugs." In many circumstances it is now illegal in many public places where alcohol is permitted.

"Alcohol dependence may range from mild to moderate to severe, and in its more severe form, the resulting withdrawal symptoms can be life threatening." And this emphasizes why you cannot make comparisons from personal experience to another person or people.

I hope anyone here fighting any addictions gets all the support they require and that their struggle is not minimized in any way by those around them.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Yeah. Tobacco is worse than alcohol in the dependence catagory.

I've been smoking cigarettes since I was 10. Do the math on how many years its been and I'm surprised I can still climb stairs,run and breathe in general.

I tried quitting. I always failed. Plus most of my friends smoke. That isn't conducive for my addiction. The only addiction I ever had any experience with and I've done a lot of things. Fuck tobacco.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

45,000 people die in Canada every year from tobacco. That is far more than any other cause of death. As noted above 

"roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined. ​"

Many of those who die from tobacco are non-smokers. In other words, they are ingesting smoke given to them freely by smokers. 

So what was so 'dangerous' about my statement?

Further from Sean in Ottawa:

In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol,

You must be joking. A smoke free world? How about when I walk down the street and am forced to inhale tobacco by the smoker on the street? How about when I enter the coffeeshop where I have to brave the tableful of smokers hanging around by the door? How about the several million cigarette butt filters casually tossed into the gutter to help feed the fish? How about the tobacco smoke that enters my apartment when I leave my windows open on a hot summer day?

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world you can't get away from tobacco. I would love to be able to sit outside on a nice fall day and have my coffee free of tobacco smoke, but that is not possible, and if you ask someone to put out their cigarette they'll either ignore you, or became very aggressive. I've had someone take a swing at me because I pointed out the No Smoking sign they were standing next to when they lit up.

The only function tobacco has is to assuage the symptoms of it's own addiction.

Rev Pesky

From Mobo2000:

What did you use to quit smoking?   I've been trying but it is freaking hard. 

I wish I could tell you of some easy way to quit smoking, but I can't. In my case it was complete cessation, and I firmly believe that is the best, although likely the most difficult, way.

​The reason is it is the nicotine that is addictive, and supplying yourself with nicotine by some method other than smoking may be slightly less harmful, but the addiction remains. And as long as the addiction remains, the easiest, and fastest, way to satisfy the craving is by smoking.

If you want to rid yourself of the addiction, complete cessation is the ony answer. But hard as it is, it can be done, and I can tell you that if you do quit, the feeling of accomplishment will almost overwhelm you with joy. It really is extraodinary.

In my case it came down to a minute by minute struggle, but for whatever reason, I was able to resist (whereas many prior attempts had failed), and after quitting on a Wednesday evening, I woke up early Saturday morning soaked in sweat, but in that instant of wakening, I knew the addiction was gone. What a feeling!

So if you fail once, don't become discouraged. Try again, and again, and eventually you will win. And believe me, the rewards are almost beyond the telling. It is a decision you will never, never, regret.

Good luck!

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

45,000 people die in Canada every year from tobacco. That is far more than any other cause of death. As noted above 

"roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined. ​"

Many of those who die from tobacco are non-smokers. In other words, they are ingesting smoke given to them freely by smokers. 

So what was so 'dangerous' about my statement?

Further from Sean in Ottawa:

In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol,

You must be joking. A smoke free world? How about when I walk down the street and am forced to inhale tobacco by the smoker on the street? How about when I enter the coffeeshop where I have to brave the tableful of smokers hanging around by the door? How about the several million cigarette butt filters casually tossed into the gutter to help feed the fish? How about the tobacco smoke that enters my apartment when I leave my windows open on a hot summer day?

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world you can't get away from tobacco. I would love to be able to sit outside on a nice fall day and have my coffee free of tobacco smoke, but that is not possible, and if you ask someone to put out their cigarette they'll either ignore you, or became very aggressive. I've had someone take a swing at me because I pointed out the No Smoking sign they were standing next to when they lit up.

The only function tobacco has is to assuage the symptoms of it's own addiction.

It is one thing when you miss the point by accident but when you are actually trying to miss it  the result is irritating.

I said it was dangerous assuming your personal experience is transferrable when it comes to ease of quitting -- here you bring up the unrelated issue of the numbers of people who die from smoking. So long as you were not aiming to have your comment respected I guess we are all right.

The point I made is that while smoking is prohibited in many environments there are people who have to live around alcohol being consumed and work around it. By this I do not mean walking past it. But then again I gather that this is all about you and only your experience matters so carry on and be the kind of person who thinks your experience applies universally.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

I said it was dangerous assuming your personal experience is transferrable when it comes to ease of quitting -- here you bring up the unrelated issue of the numbers of people who die from smoking. So long as you were not aiming to have your comment respected I guess we are all right.

The point I made is that while smoking is prohibited in many environments there are people who have to live around alcohol being consumed and work around it. By this I do not mean walking past it. But then again I gather that this is all about you and only your experience matters so carry on and be the kind of person who thinks your experience applies universally.

The reason I made the point about how many people die every year from tobacco use is to emphasize that the addiction to tobacco is a transferable phenomenon. If it wasn't transferable, how does one explain the deadly addiction that almost every smoker tries to rid themselves of, but can't, to the point of killing themselves with their addiction? 

​How do you explain that people don't generally become violent when told they can't consume alcohol in a public place, yet smokers do that all the time? 

​There are a relatively small number of alcohol drinkers that cannot stop drinking. Yet an extremely large percentage of tobacco smokers cannot quit smoking. That suggests to me that the experience of being addicted to tobacco is a lot more common that being addicted to alcohol.

​I'll tell you something else. I have been a semi-professional musician, and when I quit smoking I was still playing in bars where smoking was allowed. After one of those gigs, I would dream that I had started smoking again. I have confirmed that is a relatively common response to being in a smoking environment for ex-smokers. 

​At the same time, I had also quit drinking, and there I was in a drinking environment, yet that 'dreaming' experience never occurred. Now why do you suppose that was? 

​You know what I think? I think the experience of watching someone drink is different than the experience of being forced to breath in tobacco smoke. 

Roughly twenty percent of Canadians smoke, while roughly eighty percent drink. Deaths from tobacco are about 17% of deaths in Canada, while deaths from alcohol are about 7%.

On those figures alone, the transferable experience of tobacco addiction is much more prevalent than the transferable addiction to acohol.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

I said it was dangerous assuming your personal experience is transferrable when it comes to ease of quitting -- here you bring up the unrelated issue of the numbers of people who die from smoking. So long as you were not aiming to have your comment respected I guess we are all right.

The point I made is that while smoking is prohibited in many environments there are people who have to live around alcohol being consumed and work around it. By this I do not mean walking past it. But then again I gather that this is all about you and only your experience matters so carry on and be the kind of person who thinks your experience applies universally.

The reason I made the point about how many people die every year from tobacco use is to emphasize that the addiction to tobacco is a transferable phenomenon. If it wasn't transferable, how does one explain the deadly addiction that almost every smoker tries to rid themselves of, but can't, to the point of killing themselves with their addiction? 

​How do you explain that people don't generally become violent when told they can't consume alcohol in a public place, yet smokers do that all the time? 

​There are a relatively small number of alcohol drinkers that cannot stop drinking. Yet an extremely large percentage of tobacco smokers cannot quit smoking. That suggests to me that the experience of being addicted to tobacco is a lot more common that being addicted to alcohol.

​I'll tell you something else. I have been a semi-professional musician, and when I quit smoking I was still playing in bars where smoking was allowed. After one of those gigs, I would dream that I had started smoking again. I have confirmed that is a relatively common response to being in a smoking environment for ex-smokers. 

​At the same time, I had also quit drinking, and there I was in a drinking environment, yet that 'dreaming' experience never occurred. Now why do you suppose that was? 

​You know what I think? I think the experience of watching someone drink is different than the experience of being forced to breath in tobacco smoke. 

Roughly twenty percent of Canadians smoke, while roughly eighty percent drink. Deaths from tobacco are about 17% of deaths in Canada, while deaths from alcohol are about 7%.

On those figures alone, the transferable experience of tobacco addiction is much more prevalent than the transferable addiction to acohol.

Lots of somewhat interesting and irrelevant points.

The iossue is that you made a sweeping statement of universal application from your personal experience related to the relative power of the addictions of two substances. I called you on it and you keep answering with stuff about how bad tobacco is. Of course it is bad but the point I made was addictions carry different force in different people and both individually and relatively.

Try as you want to wriggle out of the point I made -- it still is the point when mnaking sweeping statements from a dataset of one.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

A long time ago someone asked me, "Who is the boss, you or the cigarette?" It took some years for that one to sink in, however I am now a happy non-smoker. I also learned that I screwed my lungs up permanently (with COPD) because I smoked for 30+ years, but still life is better now I don't smoke. It is certainly better on my bank account! Most of the time I feel OK, but when I am exposed to dust, cigarette smoke, and/or humidity my lungs kind of hurt a bit. So I take a hit of a bronchodilator and I am fine a few minutes after. If you are a sincere ex-smoker, learn what you can about COPD and how to manage life with it. It is what my doctor told me to do, and I am glad she did.

I tried patches and nicotine gum but cold turkey worked the best. There were some relapses, but they would only last for a pack or so and I would stop in disgust.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I don't understand a lot of the tobacco laws.

I agree with the crack down on smoking on the bus,restaurants,public places like malls,airplanes,etc...

But I really strongly disagree with the ban in bars. There should have been a choice where you could decide if you prefer to drink or work at a smokeless bar or a smoking bar.

Everytime I go to a bar,98% of the clientele is huddled outside smoking including the barmaids and staff. It's ridiculous. And then they (the government) over reached by imposing a ban on smoking  on terraces. It's a complete joke because terraces for neighbourhood bars are practically on the road in front of the sidewalks. If you're so worried about inhaling carcinogens,shouldn't you worry about car,truck and bus exhaust? It's stupid.

Then they ban smoking outdoors within 9 metres of an entrance. The only comical part of that law is that it applies to vaporizers as well.

I find there is an agenda to make it illegal to inhale smoke,even water vapor. It's an over reach and a blow to freedom of choice.

Also,seeing that nicotine is so highly addictive,the price of cigarettes should not exceed $1. By jacking up the price,you're not stopping anyone from smoking,addicts will pay $10,$20,$50,$100 a pack if they had to. That's a blatant punishment to people with the sickness of addiction. I think it's just a huge cash grab in reality anyway.

Other than that,I have no problems with the anti-tobacco laws.

Rev Pesky

Fom Sean in Ottawa:

The iossue is that you made a sweeping statement of universal application from your personal experience related to the relative power of the addictions of two substances. I called you on it and you keep answering with stuff about how bad tobacco is.

Here's what the people who know have to say:

Addictive power of tobacco examined

The report by the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians called for an aggressive advertising campaign and other government-funded programs to help people give up cigarettes. It said cigarettes should be regulated just as other drugs, by an independent committee with the power to restrict the number of additives and amount of nicotine in them.

... "The extent to which smokers are addicted to nicotine is comparable with addiction to `hard' drugs such as heroin or cocaine.'' The report said smoking should be viewed as a drug dependence ``second to no other.'' ...Clive Bates, director of the anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health, applauded the report's conclusions, saying,  "The fact that they are legal is irrelevant - cigarettes are hard drugs by any physical or medical definition.''     

For the average smoker, the addiction is severe. For the average drinker, it's not.

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I don't understand a lot of the tobacco laws.

I agree with the crack down on smoking on the bus,restaurants,public places like malls,airplanes,etc...

But I really strongly disagree with the ban in bars. There should have been a choice where you could decide if you prefer to drink or work at a smokeless bar or a smoking bar.

Everytime I go to a bar,98% of the clientele is huddled outside smoking including the barmaids and staff. It's ridiculous. And then they (the government) over reached by imposing a ban on smoking  on terraces. It's a complete joke because terraces for neighbourhood bars are practically on the road in front of the sidewalks. If you're so worried about inhaling carcinogens,shouldn't you worry about car,truck and bus exhaust? It's stupid.

Then they ban smoking outdoors within 9 metres of an entrance. The only comical part of that law is that it applies to vaporizers as well.

I find there is an agenda to make it illegal to inhale smoke,even water vapor. It's an over reach and a blow to freedom of choice.

Also,seeing that nicotine is so highly addictive,the price of cigarettes should not exceed $1. By jacking up the price,you're not stopping anyone from smoking,addicts will pay $10,$20,$50,$100 a pack if they had to. That's a blatant punishment to people with the sickness of addiction. I think it's just a huge cash grab in reality anyway.

Other than that,I have no problems with the anti-tobacco laws.

Most of the bars I go to, which isn't especially often, about 10% of the clientele goes out for a smoke. That number continues to fall. And, as someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke and likes to enjoy the patio in the summer just as much as smokers do, I freaking love the patio ban. Cigarette smoke affects me when I'm outside as much as in if I'm downwind or even just nearby. A face full of smoke leaves me feeling like I've been punched in the head. I also love not having to run the gauntlet without breathing in because smokers can't be arsed to take their fumes a reasonable distance from the door. And I really don't want a facefull of water vapour, either - although, it's more than just water vapour, isn't it? I mean, what would be the point, otherwise? 

Cost, to some degree, motivates some people to attempt to quit or cut down, even though some will continue to pay. Rather than just throw up our hands because people are addicted, it's at least an attempt to address the problem. If you feel it's ineffective, suggest something else. But making cigarettes super cheap doesn't sound like much of a solution - more of an enabling.

If you drink too much, you're hurting yourself, and that's your business. But if you smoke in my environment, you're hurting me and yourself.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

 

Most of the bars I go to, which isn't especially often, about 10% of the clientele goes out for a smoke. That number continues to fall. And, as someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke and likes to enjoy the patio in the summer just as much as smokers do, I freaking love the patio ban. Cigarette smoke affects me when I'm outside as much as in if I'm downwind or even just nearby. A face full of smoke leaves me feeling like I've been punched in the head. I also love not having to run the gauntlet without breathing in because smokers can't be arsed to take their fumes a reasonable distance from the door. And I really don't want a facefull of water vapour, either - although, it's more than just water vapour, isn't it? I mean, what would be the point, otherwise? 

Cost, to some degree, motivates some people to attempt to quit or cut down, even though some will continue to pay. Rather than just throw up our hands because people are addicted, it's at least an attempt to address the problem. If you feel it's ineffective, suggest something else. But making cigarettes super cheap doesn't sound like much of a solution - more of an enabling.

If you drink too much, you're hurting yourself, and that's your business. But if you smoke in my environment, you're hurting me and yourself.

Obviously we live in different provinces. There are a lot of smokers in Québec. When I mentioned the 98% of clientele and employees at bars,I wasn't exaggerating.

And you missed my point entirely. I think you should have the choice of whether you want to work and drink at a bar that allows smoking. Or you can go to a smokeless bar. And voila,no smoke for you to smell. There are much worse things in our air than cigarette smoke.

As for being allergic to smoke,this is an argument that a lot of people make when it comes to cannabis legalization. My advice to those people is tough fucking shit.

Again,you wouldnt have to go to a bar which allows smoking. You don't have to sit on a terrace at a bar that allows smoking.

People that hate cigarette smoke wouldn't be affected if bars had a choice to be smokeless or or not. As I said,I agree with all the tobacco bans with the exception of bars. There are cigar bars out there where rich folk drink scotch and smoke cigars. If you think cigarette smoke is bad,how about a faceful of cigar smoke? The establishment plaainly says 'Cigar Bar' So if you don't like tobacco smoke,you don't go to cigar bars and that's the way it should be with bars in general. Cigarette bars would be explicit. And those with no tolerance of cigarette smoke have fair warning of what is consumed at particular bars.

This is not hurting YOUR health or YOUR right to go to smokeless places. This is about the rights of people who,as much as the media tries to paint as lepers,are adults and adults deserve choice. In fact,you deserve choice as well.

As for the price,it shoulod be significantly lower. Anyone who lives near a reservation (like I do) can buy a carton of smokes for $10. Everybody who has a car or doesn't mind taking the bus can buy them. And they do. Why in the name of fuck would anyone spend $10 on a pack of cigarettes when they can get a carton for the same price?

Not to totally change the topic,with all the bans (silly many of them) it hasn't stopped teens from smoking. I live near a high school and at lunch a lot of these kids are smoking something. Not as much as when I was in high school but still have a good chunk of students puffing away.

This idea of,if we hide the smokes and take away advertisements,everyone will not start smoking.That's a real failure and I don't remember starting smoking because the packs looked cool or that I can see them out in the open at depanneurs.

I started because I hung out with older kids who happened to smoke. I was always given smokes and as an adolescent I thought it was 'cool',all my peers did the same thing.

Bottom line to the actual point I was making in the first place,bars should have been given a choice. If you have a problem with that,you have a problem with a person's right to choose --- even if that choice kills them.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

First off, you're wrong about adolescents and smoking - the rates are shrinking steadily over time.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/c-e/c-e01-eng.htm

Next - when you say that it's tough shit that someone has an allergy, which is a health issue they are not in control of, are you also saying that there are places people with disabilities should just choose not to go?

Cigarette smoke is a workplace hazard. From a public health perspective, it's irresponsible to expose workers to it whether they think it's okay or not. This is borne out in case law and class action suits that have led to these regulations over time. Sooner or later cigar bars will meet the same fate if they don't go out of fashion first.

If you want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, go for it. I have no bone to pick with that. It has no place in public. Your addictions shouldn't dictate where I can or cannot go. Ultimately, the freedom of people to be in safe environments, both workers and other customers, trumps your desire to poison yourself and the people around you. So if you dislike regulation - in your words - tough fucking shit.

lagatta4

Even here in Québec, it has been falling. Why do so many young people in Saskatchewan smoke?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Adolescents may smoke less but that's only because they are smoking vapes and pot. I  really don't care what studies say. I take a good look around myself. Those mobs of teenagers smoking by the metro at noon speak for themselves.

Again,if a bar is smoke friendly,YOU have the power to avoid such a place. This authoratarianism by non smokers makes ME ill.

Notice I am talking strictly about bars. I'm not forcing you to be exposed to anything. you don't have the right to expose smokers or anyone else with this agenda.

The tough shit comment was badly worded. I am talking more about people who want society to continue criminalizing pot smokers simply because they don't like the smell. To them I say tough shit.

I didn't mean to demean your allergy. I have allergies too,so I can relate.

Bars should have the right to make that choice and people can make the choice whether they want to enter such an establishment or not. And it's a freedom that does not impede your rights.You have the right to avoid such places.

There's not much to argue with what i'm saying. I'm talking exclusively about bars. Which brings me to another question. Where will peple be able to smoke their pot once its legal? 9 metres from an entrance or at an establishment that serves up cannabis?

We all neeed to live on this planet with some amount of respect toward each other. Not imposing personal opinions on all of us.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Adolescents may smoke less but that's only because they are smoking vapes and pot. I  really don't care what studies say. I take a good look around myself. Those mobs of teenagers smoking by the metro at noon speak for themselves.

Again,if a bar is smoke friendly,YOU have the power to avoid such a place. This authoratarianism by non smokers makes ME ill.

Notice I am talking strictly about bars. I'm not forcing you to be exposed to anything. you don't have the right to expose smokers or anyone else with this agenda.

The tough shit comment was badly worded. I am talking more about people who want society to continue criminalizing pot smokers simply because they don't like the smell. To them I say tough shit.

I didn't mean to demean your allergy. I have allergies too,so I can relate.

Bars should have the right to make that choice and people can make the choice whether they want to enter such an establishment or not. And it's a freedom that does not impede your rights.You have the right to avoid such places.

There's not much to argue with what i'm saying. I'm talking exclusively about bars. Which brings me to another question. Where will peple be able to smoke their pot once its legal? 9 metres from an entrance or at an establishment that serves up cannabis?

We all neeed to live on this planet with some amount of respect toward each other. Not imposing personal opinions on all of us.

Interesting discussion -- there are two problems with your argument:

1) Public demand created the smoking ban meaning many wanted smoke-free places before regulations. However, the need for smoke-free bars was not well served even though there were clearly many wanting it. You can't get the market to answer this now anymore than it did before the bans took place.

2) You cannot put this back in the box. Employers have to provide a safe workplace. The data show that you cannot permit a known unsafe environment, even by choice. With the data on smoking and community standards towards unwanted smoke, it would be probelmatic to create such an environment purposefully. Workers that need a job could be forced to take one in a smoking bar if that is the only one available.

It is quite possible that the second, only through litigation and disruption, could serve to address the first, but it would not allow choice in the end. The question is has the law regarding protection from unsafe environments led to the point that a smoking ban is not needed? Why find out? -- either the ban is unneeded because the second would eliminate smoking bars or the second is not as well advanced and we might have to go through piles of litigation with the problem of the first point in place, more workers injured by second hand smoke, forced to take jobs there for employment and people socializing there against their will but as the only option to staying at home.

Now let's consider the health impacts. There is no doubt that smoke free places slows dow the volume of smoke a person consumes for smokers as well as those forst to breathe that air. The costs of smoking to the public is hugely significant in health costs.

Lastly, since we discussed this based on concern about the addiction, let's address that. You can with willpower go to a bar and order a coke and not consume alcohol. You cannot when it comes to a smoking bar. This is significant because a bar is seldom an individual choice since it is often a social activity. This means if you are in a group of six people and three smoke and there are smoking and non-smoking bars you are pressed to go to the smoking bar -- if not always -- let's say half the time. Don't bother with the math -- just recognize that it is a group choice and a nonsmoking is an individual choice. Second hand smoke is not avoidable except where it is banned. This might explain why bars did not in any large number choose to bane smoking before the government made them.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Actually, there is a lot to argue with your bar stance - and it's been argued to death over decades and you're not on the winning side for a lot of extremely good reasons.

Basically, due to the inherent hazards of cigarette smoke, an employer is irresponsible - and potentially liable - if he or she allows conditions that expose employees to a harmful substance beyond a reasonable degree. Over decades, it's come down to this: Cigarette smoke in bars is not a reasonable risk for the employer to expose employees to even if they agree to it.

As to me avoiding a place: Well, I'm just using myself as an example. However, you're creating conditions that bar entry from people who, for example, have emphysema or COPD or asthma, much more serious health concerns than my allergic headache. This is ablist. It's like creating a space where people in wheelchairs can simply choose not to go because of the stairs when you have it in your power to easily make it accessible. Not gonna fly with with civil liberties or human rights commissions. You're asking for your addiction to be a pass for discrimination.

And as for not caring about stats... Well, I don't care about your observation because you just don't have enough information. Only 20% of teens have tried vaping, although that is higher than those who smoke, it's not necessarily a fixed rate as vaping and ecigarettes are relatively new. It could rise, but to my mind the novelty will eventually wear off. And bear in mind the vast majority of teens haven't bothered. So while you're seeing gaggles of kids with ecigarettes, what you aren't seeing is the 4x as many who have better things to do. My empirical research (daughters and their cohort) is that most of them think eciggies are kind of stupid.

As for weed, there are other ways to consume it - I think edibles are going to be huge business once they're legal. I feel the same about weed smokers as I do about tobacco smokers. Keep it out of my face and I don't care. I figure it should be legal, but used in a way that doesn't affect anyone but the user.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Fom Sean in Ottawa:

The iossue is that you made a sweeping statement of universal application from your personal experience related to the relative power of the addictions of two substances. I called you on it and you keep answering with stuff about how bad tobacco is.

Here's what the people who know have to say:

Addictive power of tobacco examined

The report by the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians called for an aggressive advertising campaign and other government-funded programs to help people give up cigarettes. It said cigarettes should be regulated just as other drugs, by an independent committee with the power to restrict the number of additives and amount of nicotine in them.

... "The extent to which smokers are addicted to nicotine is comparable with addiction to `hard' drugs such as heroin or cocaine.'' The report said smoking should be viewed as a drug dependence ``second to no other.'' ...Clive Bates, director of the anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health, applauded the report's conclusions, saying,  "The fact that they are legal is irrelevant - cigarettes are hard drugs by any physical or medical definition.''     

For the average smoker, the addiction is severe. For the average drinker, it's not.

 

 

 

All this debate just to get you to do what you should have at the start. Read your last sentence. This is one I would never have argued with as it includes the word average (twice). What a long way we have come from your bold sweeping assumption that you knew that one was worse than the other and implied that this was a universal truth.

Now I accept that cigarette smoke is harder to break for more people than alcohol is. But given that addiction strength varies from person to person and their individual addictions, sweeping statement are unhelpful. They are also not supported by statements of statistics unless that statistic is 100%. I happen to know a person who gave up tobacco easily but could not give up alcohol. I do not suggest such an example is a rule, other than to support that there are exceptions.

The reason I have fought you on this is that addiction is a severe battle for many people and minimizing other people's experience to prefer your own should never lead to statements in absolute. Absolutes about addiction are extremely dangerous especially since the margin of whether one even exists is a fine line. You cannot do it from personal experience as you cannot possibly assert that the mildest tobacco addiction is more severe than the most serious alcohol addiction. There is a continuum that makes speaking in these terms irresponsible. This is why the literature on addictions speaks about averages, general terms, and not in strict absolute terms as you have.

In order to keep arguing you have moved to exactly the place you could have started with, which is to frame it in general "on average" terms that your experience seems to support. But that would never have generated the argument your sweeping statement did.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, there is a lot to argue with your bar stance - and it's been argued to death over decades and you're not on the winning side for a lot of extremely good reasons.

Basically, due to the inherent hazards of cigarette smoke, an employer is irresponsible - and potentially liable - if he or she allows conditions that expose employees to a harmful substance beyond a reasonable degree. Over decades, it's come down to this: Cigarette smoke in bars is not a reasonable risk for the employer to expose employees to even if they agree to it.

As to me avoiding a place: Well, I'm just using myself as an example. However, you're creating conditions that bar entry from people who, for example, have emphysema or COPD or asthma, much more serious health concerns than my allergic headache. This is ablist. It's like creating a space where people in wheelchairs can simply choose not to go because of the stairs when you have it in your power to easily make it accessible. Not gonna fly with with civil liberties or human rights commissions. You're asking for your addiction to be a pass for discrimination.

And as for not caring about stats... Well, I don't care about your observation because you just don't have enough information. Only 20% of teens have tried vaping, although that is higher than those who smoke, it's not necessarily a fixed rate as vaping and ecigarettes are relatively new. It could rise, but to my mind the novelty will eventually wear off. And bear in mind the vast majority of teens haven't bothered. So while you're seeing gaggles of kids with ecigarettes, what you aren't seeing is the 4x as many who have better things to do. My empirical research (daughters and their cohort) is that most of them think eciggies are kind of stupid.

As for weed, there are other ways to consume it - I think edibles are going to be huge business once they're legal. I feel the same about weed smokers as I do about tobacco smokers. Keep it out of my face and I don't care. I figure it should be legal, but used in a way that doesn't affect anyone but the user.

Looks like we crossposted on this. I agree with all you say here.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

 

 

Employers are not subjecting their employees to something hazardous like smoking when virtually ALL of them smoke anyway.

I admit,I only go to local bars mostly in St-Henri and Ville Émard. This subject comes up often and virtually everyone I talk to thinks it's a stupid law.

Please come to my neighbourhood and I'll prove it. And the ban on terraces are even more unpopular. Terraces at neighbourhood bars in this area are off the sidewalk where a parking space would be. They are set up when the weather gets warm and taken down when the weather gets cold. You're sitting in the middle of the street. Cars,trucks and buses passing constantly and you're going to worry about a fuckin' cigarette? Give me a break.

People who've been smoking for decades,like myself,all have COPD and these neighbourhood bars are filled with people my age and older. I'm sure some of the people I talk to outside having a smoke have even worse problems with their lungs than I do. They all want to be able to sit,have a beer or a shot and a smoke. In my life I've met non-smokers who were 'casual' smokers. They only smoked when they drank. I fit into that crowd and there are plenty of people who agree with me that they like to have a cigarette while they drink. This is talked about with patrons and barmaids all the time. I'm telling you this as someone who is out there at these establishments,not some arm chair quarterback reading too much propaganda from the 'Smoke-free Canada' organizations.

As for teens,I said some vape,which they do,but the majority of them are smoking cigarettes. This is what I see all the time. Why would I lie?

As for cannabis,what I do in the privacy of my own home is MY business,nobody else's. But landlords don't want you smoking in their appartments,the federal government wants to pass a law prohibiting people from smoking in THEIR OWN HOMES,there will have to be Dutch style coffee houses or people will have to deal with people smoking pot outdoors. It's either or. There are no other choices.

As I said,it's narcissistic and authoritarian,this 'I don't like the smell of smoke so nobody should be able to' attitude. It's full of shit. And freedom of choice out weighs someone's opinion.

Anyway,this conversation is going nowhere. Seeing that you don't go to bars,you shouldn't even have an opinion.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Employers are not subjecting their employees to something hazardous like smoking when virtually ALL of them smoke anyway.

Aside from the fact that it's irrelevant, it's becoming less and less the case all the time.

It's irrelevant because the employer cannot allow that environment even if the employee agrees to it or is already a smoker. It's not about the habits of the individual, it's about public policy. And the fact that the individual can come back and say that they made a mistake, but their employer helped reinforce it. Given the data, it's an ureasonable exposure. This is something that's been hashed out in courts and by Worker's Compensation Boards (I used to work at one, 20+ years ago, so this is NOT NEW.)

alan smithee wrote:

I admit,I only go to local bars mostly in St-Henri and Ville Émard. This subject comes up often and virtually everyone I talk to thinks it's a stupid law.

Irrelevant again, from a public policy point of view.

alan smithee wrote:

Please come to my neighbourhood and I'll prove it. And the ban on terraces are even more unpopular. Terraces at neighbourhood bars in this area are off the sidewalk where a parking space would be. They are set up when the weather gets warm and taken down when the weather gets cold. You're sitting in the middle of the street. Cars,trucks and buses passing constantly and you're going to worry about a fuckin' cigarette? Give me a break.

As it happens, I'm working on a documentary on air pollution, so I probably have more information on exhaust and other air pollutants than you do. However, it's not just one cigarette. It's millions of them. And with an amazing flexibility that is common in the human mind, you can care and worry about more than one thing at a time. Both cigarette smoke and exhaust are bad and something needs to be done about them.

alan smithee wrote:

People who've been smoking for decades,like myself,all have COPD and these neighbourhood bars are filled with people my age and older. I'm sure some of the people I talk to outside having a smoke have even worse problems with their lungs than I do. They all want to be able to sit,have a beer or a shot and a smoke. In my life I've met non-smokers who were 'casual' smokers. They only smoked when they drank. I fit into that crowd and there are plenty of people who agree with me that they like to have a cigarette while they drink. This is talked about with patrons and barmaids all the time. I'm telling you this as someone who is out there at these establishments,not some arm chair quarterback reading too much propaganda from the 'Smoke-free Canada' organizations.

And I'm out and about a fair bit in more than one city and neighbourhood. You're in a very small and shrinking cohort, and the concerns of that small cohort should not dictate policy that affects millions of other people.

alan smithee wrote:

As for teens,I said some vape,which they do,but the majority of them are smoking cigarettes. This is what I see all the time. Why would I lie?

I don't think I said you lie. I am certain I said you're incorrect. And you are - the numbers bear it out. Unless you're doing large-scale surveys, you don't have the information to make your conclusion reliable.

alan smithee wrote:

As for cannabis,what I do in the privacy of my own home is MY business,nobody else's. But landlords don't want you smoking in their appartments,the federal government wants to pass a law prohibiting people from smoking in THEIR OWN HOMES,there will have to be Dutch style coffee houses or people will have to deal with people smoking pot outdoors. It's either or. There are no other choices.

As I said,it's narcissistic and authoritarian,this 'I don't like the smell of smoke so nobody should be able to' attitude. It's full of shit. And freedom of choice out weighs someone's opinion.

And you don't think "I do what I want, regardless how it affects the people around me" isn't narcissistic???

alan smithee wrote:

Anyway,this conversation is going nowhere. Seeing that you don't go to bars,you shouldn't even have an opinion.

I didn't say I don't go to bars. I do go for a drink from time to time. I'm also every bit as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, although much of what I've posted isn't so much opinion as explanation for why things are not to your liking based in some facts and stats.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Employers are not subjecting their employees to something hazardous like smoking when virtually ALL of them smoke anyway.

Aside from the fact that it's irrelevant, it's becoming less and less the case all the time.

It's irrelevant because the employer cannot allow that environment even if the employee agrees to it or is already a smoker. It's not about the habits of the individual, it's about public policy. And the fact that the individual can come back and say that they made a mistake, but their employer helped reinforce it. Given the data, it's an ureasonable exposure. This is something that's been hashed out in courts and by Worker's Compensation Boards (I used to work at one, 20+ years ago, so this is NOT NEW.)

alan smithee wrote:

I admit,I only go to local bars mostly in St-Henri and Ville Émard. This subject comes up often and virtually everyone I talk to thinks it's a stupid law.

Irrelevant again, from a public policy point of view.

alan smithee wrote:

Please come to my neighbourhood and I'll prove it. And the ban on terraces are even more unpopular. Terraces at neighbourhood bars in this area are off the sidewalk where a parking space would be. They are set up when the weather gets warm and taken down when the weather gets cold. You're sitting in the middle of the street. Cars,trucks and buses passing constantly and you're going to worry about a fuckin' cigarette? Give me a break.

As it happens, I'm working on a documentary on air pollution, so I probably have more information on exhaust and other air pollutants than you do. However, it's not just one cigarette. It's millions of them. And with an amazing flexibility that is common in the human mind, you can care and worry about more than one thing at a time. Both cigarette smoke and exhaust are bad and something needs to be done about them.

alan smithee wrote:

People who've been smoking for decades,like myself,all have COPD and these neighbourhood bars are filled with people my age and older. I'm sure some of the people I talk to outside having a smoke have even worse problems with their lungs than I do. They all want to be able to sit,have a beer or a shot and a smoke. In my life I've met non-smokers who were 'casual' smokers. They only smoked when they drank. I fit into that crowd and there are plenty of people who agree with me that they like to have a cigarette while they drink. This is talked about with patrons and barmaids all the time. I'm telling you this as someone who is out there at these establishments,not some arm chair quarterback reading too much propaganda from the 'Smoke-free Canada' organizations.

And I'm out and about a fair bit in more than one city and neighbourhood. You're in a very small and shrinking cohort, and the concerns of that small cohort should not dictate policy that affects millions of other people.

alan smithee wrote:

As for teens,I said some vape,which they do,but the majority of them are smoking cigarettes. This is what I see all the time. Why would I lie?

I don't think I said you lie. I am certain I said you're incorrect. And you are - the numbers bear it out. Unless you're doing large-scale surveys, you don't have the information to make your conclusion reliable.

alan smithee wrote:

As for cannabis,what I do in the privacy of my own home is MY business,nobody else's. But landlords don't want you smoking in their appartments,the federal government wants to pass a law prohibiting people from smoking in THEIR OWN HOMES,there will have to be Dutch style coffee houses or people will have to deal with people smoking pot outdoors. It's either or. There are no other choices.

As I said,it's narcissistic and authoritarian,this 'I don't like the smell of smoke so nobody should be able to' attitude. It's full of shit. And freedom of choice out weighs someone's opinion.

And you don't think "I do what I want, regardless how it affects the people around me" isn't narcissistic???

alan smithee wrote:

Anyway,this conversation is going nowhere. Seeing that you don't go to bars,you shouldn't even have an opinion.

I didn't say I don't go to bars. I do go for a drink from time to time. I'm also every bit as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, although much of what I've posted isn't so much opinion as explanation for why things are not to your liking based in some facts and stats.

We're just WAY too ideologically divided. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. I don't need someone telling me I don't know what I clearly see with my eyes.

I think you can do whatever the fuck you want but I never said at the peril of others. I've been talking about bars. Maybe I can't speak for all bars but the bars I'm familiar with side with me on that choice.

Not liking the smell of something doesn't give anyone moral authority. I hate the smell of egg sandwiches,does this mean if you like them you can't eat them? And if you can eat them,you have to stand in the middle of traffic under a tarp?

If your goal is to stop the world from smoking,I hope you're ready to stop the world from driving and flying.

Anyway,the idea of a smokeless society or a drug-free society is laughable. It's life. And like anything in life,sometimes you have to learn to live with things.

You'd have to be dull-minded and vacant intellectually to believe such horse shit. I'm not under the impresssion that you are so I'm not calling you dull-minded or intellectually vacant.

I'm calling the Partnership For A Drug Free Canada and Smokeless Canada intellectually vacant,naive and living in an alternate universe.

It was nice talking to you about this. But you'll never see it my way nor will I ever see it your way.

Let's agree to disagree.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I understand that we don't see eye to eye on this, and I'm fine with that. What I do object to, though, is mischaracterization.

You talk about not liking the smell of something: The reasons I gave for why public health regulations are the way they are had nothing to do with that. The smell of egg salad, while not pleasant to some, isn't going to compromise anyone's ability to breathe. Smoke of any kind - whether it's from cigarettes, fireplaces or doobies, has the potential to do that. It's harmful enough to a large enough group that regulation is warranted.

You talked about "my" goal of eradicating smoking: I already addressed being concerned about more than one thing not being an impossibility. From the work I'm doing right now, I can tell you that exhaust from vehicles is a huge concern and I think there will be changes in the future with some of the new science on the subject. HOWEVER, we're talking about cigarettes, and the pulling in of other pollutants doesn't change the argument against a cigarette free for all one whit.

On being dull, vacant and/or naive: You're kind of pulling a "I would never say x" - one of Trump's favourite gambits. I think that's beneath you. Please don't do that. Especially since I haven't once said this was the addiction talking. (I kid, I kid. You're entitled to your opinion.)

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

lagatta4

Anti-car and anti-overuse of planes though I am, I know I won't see their utter abolition in my lifetime. Replacements are needed: mostly better public transport (short and long range). I remember taking connecting flights between Ottawa and Montréal and between Brussels and Amsterdam. Absurd.

I think that there are even differences between neighbourhoods. Both St-Henri and my area (Little Italy - Villeray) are gentrifying, but the gentrification in St-Henri is much more violent. A lot of the restaurateurs here are local people and involved in activities for the community. Still, rents are shooting up in both areas (I'm in a housing co-op, which is considerable protection). And our terrasses are better-planned.

I generally agree with Timebandit in terms of public policy, but I'd like to find a solution so those guys (and some gals?) could socialize with a cig and a beer without harming anyone else. Obviously they could do that at home, but the local is a different place where one can socialize with people one wouldn't necessarily have over.

I remember being very sick from cigarette smoke when I was interpreting at a CSN special conference ... on health and safety.  And situations where the other interpreter, often the person who had hired me, was smoking inside the interpreter's booth.

I'm not saying this to attack Alan. I have a lot of sympathy overall. Just pondering solutions.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

I understand that we don't see eye to eye on this, and I'm fine with that. What I do object to, though, is mischaracterization.

You talk about not liking the smell of something: The reasons I gave for why public health regulations are the way they are had nothing to do with that. The smell of egg salad, while not pleasant to some, isn't going to compromise anyone's ability to breathe. Smoke of any kind - whether it's from cigarettes, fireplaces or doobies, has the potential to do that. It's harmful enough to a large enough group that regulation is warranted.

You talked about "my" goal of eradicating smoking: I already addressed being concerned about more than one thing not being an impossibility. From the work I'm doing right now, I can tell you that exhaust from vehicles is a huge concern and I think there will be changes in the future with some of the new science on the subject. HOWEVER, we're talking about cigarettes, and the pulling in of other pollutants doesn't change the argument against a cigarette free for all one whit.

On being dull, vacant and/or naive: You're kind of pulling a "I would never say x" - one of Trump's favourite gambits. I think that's beneath you. Please don't do that. Especially since I haven't once said this was the addiction talking. (I kid, I kid. You're entitled to your opinion.)

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Im glad  that you mentioned fireplaces and car exhaust. These are 2 things we clearly agree with.

If you're writing something on this subject,I'd be happy to read it and I hope you release it here if possible.

And as much as we disagree about smoking in bars,I do happen to agree with all the other bans,I have no desire to blow smoke in your face simply because I want to smoke everywhere and anywhere. (I'm old enough to remember those days)

I respect someone's opposition when the subject is about public safety.

As for cannabis,like I said,when legalized provinces will have to have Dutch style coffee shops or there will be no other choice but to smoke outdoors. It's either one or the other.

Would you have a problem with Dutch style coffee shops where people can smoke their cannabis? If so,you'd be driving them outside,which you don't like either. There must be a compromise or resignation to the reality of coffee shops being a thing in Canada.

To me,this issue is complicated and there are a lot of nuances that must be considered. I don't think it's a black and white subject.

Peace.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

No, not writing - I'm making a documentary television program. It will air about a year from now. I make stuff for the TeeVee. ;)

You know, I don't know how the legalization of marijuana will play out, what venues, etc. I do know that any smoke inhalant is going to be bad for your health in some way, and smoking weed will have some of the same problems as smoking tobacco. I do think consumables are going to be big business.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

Even here in Québec, it has been falling. Why do so many young people in Saskatchewan smoke?

General hopelessness?