That's great Karrie, neither one of my sons ever experienced that. That's not to negate the reality of the matter. It's to highlight that not every child is adversely affected.By the time I was 18, I had to turn my head to hear properly. My right ear is so scarred from ruptured ear drums that I have significant troubles hearing. The infections that caused it stopped finally when I was 16 years old and mom made Dad stop smoking in the house. Research has since proven that smoking in the presence of children inflames Eustachian tubes and increases infections.
Smoking in the presence of children is a very direct violation of their right to health. I find it distressing that our provinces have recognized that fact as it applies to waitresses and strangers in a public building, but, not when it comes to our children.
I'm not, I'm saying that you can not focus on one group, without balance. You are acting in breach of the charter in so doing, hence and I'll say it again, this charge is easily beaten. Therefore making it a waste of time and money to the taxpayers.both. so why pretend one issue should remain if the other can't be dealt with?
Go ahead. While you're at it, make sure that anything taught to minors is not adversely negative towards society.Then why not just change the law for minors? We already prevent them from smoking unitl they are 16 why not do the same for second hand smoke?
Am I the only one that can get past emotion, rhetoric and easily manipulated stats, and sees the slippery slope here?
Avro, what do you think of the Patriot Act?