Twila, at no time have I stated it was OK. Merely unconstitutional and a major breach of rights.
Car smoking ban carrying children
- Thread starter theconqueror
- Start date
In many places in the Maritimes, there are housing projects, condos, various apartments that all have total smoking bans, regardless of how much you pay to live there, and thus legally, is your place of dwelling.
And considering leasing contracts usually state that the place you are leasing/renting should be in the same condition as it was when given to you, whatever you do between the time you move in and move out, should be irrelevant to anybody, so long as the place can be returned to it's former condition. Which is of course easy to do by at the worst, repainting the walls/ceiling, shampooing the carpets, etc.... which are already part of the typical process of anybody moving out of leasing/renting contract. (Smoker or not)
So whether you smoked the whole time, or rubbed your own crap all over the walls, so long as it's returned to it's former condition, you can not have any costs expended to you. Some places, depending on where you live are the ones responsible for repainting and shampooing the carpets.
But for some reason, they're now making rules/laws to dictate that you can't even smoke a perfectly legal product in the comfort of your own place of dwelling when there's no logical arguments in dictating this policy, especially if you have no children in the equation and the building is properly ventilated as it should be.
And considering leasing contracts usually state that the place you are leasing/renting should be in the same condition as it was when given to you, whatever you do between the time you move in and move out, should be irrelevant to anybody, so long as the place can be returned to it's former condition. Which is of course easy to do by at the worst, repainting the walls/ceiling, shampooing the carpets, etc.... which are already part of the typical process of anybody moving out of leasing/renting contract. (Smoker or not)
So whether you smoked the whole time, or rubbed your own crap all over the walls, so long as it's returned to it's former condition, you can not have any costs expended to you. Some places, depending on where you live are the ones responsible for repainting and shampooing the carpets.
But for some reason, they're now making rules/laws to dictate that you can't even smoke a perfectly legal product in the comfort of your own place of dwelling when there's no logical arguments in dictating this policy, especially if you have no children in the equation and the building is properly ventilated as it should be.
I’m a bit confused as to how there can be so many members here who feel that they have a God-given right to force others to inhale second-hand smoke, their children included. Yes, parents should be able to raise their children the way that they choose; but if they added a bit of asbestos to each meal, they wouldn’t be parents for very long once that caught wind.
:roll:
Wow, why not supplement asbestos for rat poison, or LSD, or some other extreme?
Is it really so extreme? Asbestos causes long-term, often slow-acting toxic effects.
Smoking also causes long-term, often slow-acting toxic effects.
The difference is, cigarettes are taxable.
Smoking also causes long-term, often slow-acting toxic effects.
The difference is, cigarettes are taxable.
Why? Eating asbestos won't hurt you, it's not poisonous.
It's breathing in loose fibers that damages your lungs.
Spoken like a real smoker. I understand suicide is also against the law. I've forgotten what the punishment is for a successful suicide....:roll:lol
Last edited:
Yes.
And it's also outlawed, smoking isn't.
Sure it does. Hence why we are completely over flowing with dead and dying baby boomers, living to ripe old ages, long past that of their parents. Who I migh point out smoked like fiends.
Absolutely.
Spoken like a true moron...Got proof of that juan? Any other asinine accusation you want to make, to try and dismiss the facts of the matter?
Exactly- if something is likely to kill you, why try to change the outcome? It just prolongs the problem. Clean needles aren't going to encourage a single person to quit drugs- but one death from Hep C might encourage two or three others to quit. If a person is naturally self destructive, he'll just find another way to do it. Most drug addicts are nice people but they'd be nicer if they were clean.
Now I understand, CDNBear — you think that the science behind the dangers of smoking is make-believe! :lol:
No, not at all. I am fully aware of the very real dangers of it. Having had a heart attack, and having to quit, started smoking again, felt like ****, then quit again.
So please spare me the smug crap.
My point is, it's overblown and used to infringe on the rights of others.
I know the stats, I have proven in the past that Stats Can uses a very broad interpretation what is or isn't a smoking related death. My favourite one was the one in which a man was lighting a cigarette and lost control of his car, being used in the stats provided on cigarette packs.
If smoking is the great evil, that you and the rest of the nanny staters believe it to be. Baby boomers should all be gone by now. Given the fact that they were raised in an environment where smoking was habitual and without consequence. Then to top things off, they smoked, themselves. And yet here we are facing a pension crisis, because they're living longer.
Is there a danger? Absolutely. Is there a greater danger to our freedoms? Absolutely.
I don’t argue that people shouldn’t be able to smoke — I argue that people should not have the right to force others to inhale second-hand smoke, whereas you seem to think that they should. The danger here is not to the freedom of smokers, but rather to non-smokers because of an “everyone else be damned” attitude.
And Oxygen slowly kills us all from the very moment we breath our first breath of air, due to oxidants which gradually break down our DNA over the years and causes organs to eventually fail, skin to lose its youthful look and begin to sag..... Dying of "Old Age" is basically dying from a lifetime of breathing in Oxygen.... AKA: The thing we are so dependent on for keeping us alive is the same thing that ensures our death if nothing else kills us first.
In other words, everything we take into our bodies has some effect on us, be that positive or negative.
You can make Asbestos legal if you so wish and sell it as this wonderful thing so you can tax it too if you want, thus both are possible to sell and tax if one was so inclined to do so.... but tobacco is addictive and ensures your customer comes back for more.
In defense of CDN's view, it's spoken like someone who knows the law and existing rights, smoker or non-smoker.
Regardless if he or even I smoke, it doesn't disqualify the points made or the laws that currently exist..... just as you being a non-smoker doesn't disqualify your view simply because you have no 1st hand knowledge on the subject and just parrot everything you've been told or read.
However while neither side's points are disqualified, one side of the argument has more backing it then the other, which tends to rely on emotional appeal over logic and law.
Not at all. I'm saying abusing one written law, to breach the rights of a specific group is unconstitutional, hence why if you fight this asinine charge in court, you're guaranteed a win. If it is a deteriment to children, make the product illegal and ban it. Or call CAS and have the child removed from the custody of the parent. It's as simple as that.
I have to ask though Chris, where do we draw the line? One group just wants to be left alone, the other wants to force their beliefs on the first. To the point where it's cost restaurants hundreds of thousands in renovations, that are now redundant, and revenues. Smoking shelter can not have 4 sides and a door, no matter the quality of ventilation, and so on. This is arbitrary and punitive. That is simply unconstitutional. I know for a fact, and commended you for it, that you have an excellent grasp of constitutional law. Please tell me you do not agree with my assertion, that as it stands, this is the infringement upon the rights of a specific group.
This isn't just an attack on the freedom of smokers Chris, this is an attack on the rights of people. This is the proverbial slippery slope. It won't be long before smokers can't smoke in the homes they own. The system already has kids ratting on Mom and dad for not recycling, and so on. So what's next? I don't know, and I do fear the unknown. Especially when the Nanny staters are left to run amok.