# The cost of smoking in Canada



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'm a hardcore smoker,
Hardcore because I roll my own and have done so since the
price of cigarrettes were 50¢ a pack and the price of my
tobacco of choice which is Drum was also 50¢ a pouch.
I've seen the steady climb of tobacco prices soar to the
outrageous level of $10.00 including tax for a pouch of
Drum and to tell you the truth...I have no idea what the
tailor mades are going for now.

However...Today I was tobacco store hopping looking for
the best price of Drum and discovered that I couldn't find
any in the local stores in my neighbourhood, I did however
find that I could buy a pouch of Players Light with an
advertized on the pouch of "50 % more" rolling tobacco for
the price of $11.99 + tax if I chose to.

Is it really time to quit?
Has the romance of smoking really bitten the bullet?
I miss the days when I could smoke in the last 4 rows of the
theatre or up in the balcony, The subway platforms used to
be enjoyable when I could have a smoke while waiting for a
train on the cold platforms of either Rosedale or Davisville
stations...Yes...Sad but true...The cowboys have stopped
rolling cigarettes with one hand and are riding off into the
sunset.

Dave


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was a comitted nonsmoker until my early thirties. Both my parents were lifelong nonsmokers and I was almost the only guy in high school who didn't smoke. 

But I picked up the cigar habit in South America. You can have a cigar rolled while you wait at most open air markets and they are often rolled for you by a very pretty young lass. On her naked thigh. I used to buy a lot of them before I ever decided to smoke one.  

BTW...you can't buy rolling papers in many Latin American countries. They were illegal in Brasil when I was there.

Also...in Cuba, most of the world-famous cigar manufacturers (like Cohiba, Romeo y Juliet, H. Uppmann's etc.) also make cigarettes. They are wonderful, if you can get past the taste of the paper.

And they only cost about 50 cents a pack!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm a three pack'er a day addict and today I went for a "stress" test on the old ticker...the one where you run the tread-mill while full of nuclear tracers and wired up to the heart monitor. 

I also drink about three gallons of coffee a day...my doctor just shakes his head...









I'm seriously considering quitting this crap...but I know I'll be a nasty, miserable, S.O.B. (more so than I am already) until I get over it.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> BTW...you can't buy rolling papers in many Latin American countries. They were illegal in Brasil when I was there.


I've always smoked with the best papers that money can
buy, Zig Zag "White"...Can't beat them...Unless you can get
some Ritzla "Green" papers or some Chantecler papers.

When I lived in Europe...I was in tobacco heaven, They have
stores in Switzerland that are dedicated to every flavour of
tobacco imaginable...Ahhhh...To live in Switzerland...The
place that invented non smoking parks...But the best
tobaccanists in the world.

Even Italy was enjoyable for their wonderable desires to
smoke tobacco from foreign lands, A turkish smoke shop
could most certainly be found in almost every major Italian
city, Then there was Germany with their wonderful cigarette
machines hanging on a wall in nearly every remote
community just begging for you to make a late night stroll
to purchase a daily supply in the middle of the night when
the stores were all closed.

My recent travels to Mexico gave me a little insight on what
it is like to taste some of the forbidden fruits of Cuban
cigars and cigarettes, When I asked about getting a refill of
Drum...I only achieved a blank face and a reply "What is
Drum", They truly don't know what they are missing.

Dave


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> I'm a three pack'er a day addict


If I were you, I'd start rolling my own as soon as possible,
Tailor made cigarettes are the absolute worst cigarettes you
can smoke.

Ever since they changed the recipe back in the early 1980's
those cigarettes have become deployable in taste, You
really need to decide why you smoke...Is it because of the
taste or is it because of the addiction.

I'm one of those people that is addicted to the taste and the
product, I'll binge now and again and smoke those god
awful native brands when I can't get Drum...But only
because my body is asking for a fix...But my mind wants
the taste.

The thing I liked about Drum is is the cigarette would keep
going out all the time, I'd go through more lighters than
pouches of Drum.

Dave


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

My Dad now nearly 82 used roll his own and for my Mother (God rest her soul) every night. He used Export tobacco and papers. The result of his efforts looked like tailor mades.

Every night he rolled 25 for himself and 50 for my Mom. 

My Mom always said “when smokes hit a dollar a pack I am quitting” When she died (well after a dollar a pack) she was still smoking.

I never voluntarily smoked (second hand smoke only).

The cost of smoking in Nova Scotia for me is very high. I can never again sleep in my Father’s home. The effects and the smell of smoke are in the walls, furniture and carpets. You see I am now allergic to tobacco smoke. I can only visit my Dad for a few hours at a time.

It is an awful price to pay for tobacco.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I began to smoke when I was 10 or 11 years of age, but it did not become an everyday habit until I was 14 in 1958.

I smoked a pack and a half every single day, until I had my first heart attack in 2000, a total of 42 years. I enjoyed every last one of the cigarettes and cigars that I smoked and wish to this day that I could do so again.

BUT, I promised my doctor and my wife that I would quit, and quit I did, cold turkey, and never had another after that fateful day. (August 23, 2000)

The irony in my story is this. When I met with the heart specialist three days after my heart attack, (my heart stopped three times and they had to use the paddles to get me going again) he told me I was most fortunate to even be here, never mind without more serious damage to my heart than I had suffered (25% is dead tissue). 

He told me it was a good thing I was not a smoker, or my chances would have been zero. How, said I, did you come to that conclusion? Well, he explained, the X-rays of your lungs indicate that they are clear. I told him of my smoking habits and asked if, based on the X-ray results, if I could continue to smoke. He said no way, but did not believe that I was a smoker, and to this day I am curious why after 42 years of heavy smoking, my lungs suffered no ill effects.

Today I continue to be smoke free for the benefit of my family who do not like the second hand smoke or the smell.

One thing I can now tell you smokers is this:

When I was a smoker, I would excuse myself from a group of non smokers and nip outside for a quick puff, then return to the gathering. When people I know now, do the very same thing and return to the room, the stench of smoke is absolutely overwhelming.

If you want to be considerate to a group of non smokers, don't smoke at all.

The bottom line, is that you stink like hell.

Been there, done that.

Cheers


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

BigDL scribbled:



> The cost of smoking in Nova Scotia for me is very high. I can never again sleep in my Father’s home. The effects and the smell of smoke are in the walls, furniture and carpets. You see I am now allergic to tobacco smoke. I can only visit my Dad for a few hours at a time.


Hello,

My parents also smoke and I have a lot of trouble staying at either of their homes for any length of time. I'm not allergic, but the stink really bothers me and I can't stand the smell it puts into my hair and clothes.

It reminds me of when my wife and I were in New York City. We stayed there for just a few days and the toxic fumes from all the cars gave me a very sore throat and my gave my wife a migraine.

James


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Can't say I feel sorry for any of you smokers, sorry. This is of course due to my asthma and allergies to cigarette smoke, and the fact that it is a filthy descusting habit. 

Anyway to my point(s) I would like to say how nice it has been to be able to go to restaurants and bars without having to breath the crap in. 

But I do find it very irresponsible for gov'ts like the newly elected Liberals here in Ontario to count on the tax money of cigarettes. It would be nice to see what the would have to tax if everyone stopped smoking in Canada. Of couse our beloved alcohol would be next, hey maybe even our Tim Hortons. But I just find this bad budgeting on their part, it's like depending on winning publishers clearinghouse. "Don't worry Ontarians, Ed here says that we could have already won $10,000,000!" God forbid they get any of their perks taken away to lower costs. How about those gold plated pention plans, take them away for having run up a 5.5 billion dollar deficit. Not bloodly likely.

But to sum this all up, smoking sucks yes, but it really shouldn't be counted upon to save our butts from Ontarios deficit. Stick it to the man, quit!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The sort of cigars that I smoke are called "Backwoods" Sweet Aromatic, and I have had all sorts of people come up to me and comment on the pleasant smell. They are sort of a combination of vanilla and chocolate and a deep tobacco smell...nothing like the raunchy reek of regular cigarettes. 

I doubt if I could smoke one of those darn things. Yuck.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aw Geez macnutt, there you went and did it again.

I LOVED BACKWOODS!

Every darn flavour of them.

AND THE SMELL!

It was likened by people who didn't even smoke, to be just like pipe tobacco. So soft, so sweet, so fully satisfying.

I may buy a pack for my 60th birthday and smoke the whole darn thing.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

when i smoked, my favourite cigar was the Partagas Torpedo - full, rich flavour
Cuban don't ya know, macnutt


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I love Partagas cigars, Michael. They are some of the best cigars that Cuba produces IMHO. As are H.Uppman's. Plus, you are far less likely to get a crappy counterfit Partagas or Uppman's. On the other hand, I have only had one or two of the more famous Cohibas that WEREN'T fakes! Same goes for Monte cristos. The last box of those I brought back were pure junk.

Unfortunately, I can't go back to Cuba as often as I used to and I'm too Scottish to pay the inflated prices for Cuban cigars up here. One stogie in Canada costs more than a whole box full does down there.

Sinc....do you suppose that the Scots gene pool is at work here? It can't be a very large one....we spent too many millennia killing off all the weaker ones before they could spawn. 

The similarities between the two of us are rather amazing, eh?







 

BTW....are you a fan of McEwans Scotch Ale? Does regular strength beer leave you feeling as though you'd just doffed down a glass of dishwater?

Just wondering.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I love Partagas cigars, Michael. They are some of the best cigars that Cuba produces IMHO.


mark the date and time, gerald macnut and i agree !!!!

i never was a fan of Uppman's and Monte Cristo's just seemed too common
Partagas were introduced to me by a beautiful Paraguayan woman.... ahhh memories...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually we agree on several things Michael.  

Paraguyan women, for one.  

I recall my last visit to Cuba. I had my quota of cigars packed in the bags already, and don't know why I decided to pay the airport prices for a box of the smallish Partagas. But I did anyway. I particularly like cigars that are about as big around as an index finger and all the ones I had bought during my stay were monster Churchills and the like. Monte Cristos, Romeos and several boxes of Cohibas for a buddy who "only smokes the best".(bleeccchhh)

And you know what? The Partagas that I bought at the last minute in the airport were, by far, the best tasting cigars that I have ever brought back. I spent hours combing cigar stores and the back alleys of cigar factories in Cuba for the top stogies....and the Partagas blew them all away!

Next time I'm shopping in that aisle first.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

My wife and I both smoked a over a pack a day each...at 29 I got really really sick when we lived in Ontario...so at this point I decided to quit smoking...I remember being at pearson international and having my last half cigarette ever...once I got on the plane for Calgary I never went back to smoking...I then went back to Ontario at Christmas (4 months later after I was feeling better) to bring Jen out west...and she quit smoking (not cold turkey like me though  ) but all I can say it's now been two over two years for both of us and it is the best thing we EVER did. The other thing is if we still smoked in Alberta it would cost us over $600/month and $7200 a year in stinkin smokes...new macs, new toys, and we feel much better!! I am glad we quit!..damn right!! cheers, Mark

my only issue is that I still love the initial smell of a fresh lit cigarette! then after a few seconds it stinks!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

macnutt, my preferred beverage is a pint of darn near anything, although I do have the odd dram of Lagavulin.

I have never tried McEwans Scotch Ale, but will do so soon. I do like Guiness stout, John Smith bitter and Newcastle Brown Ale for example.

On hot summer days when camping, I succumb to a Labatt Lite or two.

Cheers


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Back in the Day I used to enjoy the occasional cigar. However I haven't touched one in about 5 years ever since I met my wife. I feel she doesn't need to be subjected to the ungodly smell on my breath or clothes from the cigar.

I will however, light one up once my son is born in January/February.

At that time I had a few favorites:

Davidoff
H. Upmann
Hoyo de Monterrey
Punch
Romeo y Juliet
and last but not least the Cohibia - if I could steal one from my Dad.

There is a real science behind cigars. I find one of the best resources on the web or in print is Cigar Aficionado.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Home/


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I used to belong to a forum called SIGarettes and Alcohol,
All they ever talked about was their favourite vices.
It's been about 8 months since I quit that forum...
Maybe I'll check in to see how they are doing.  

Dave


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sinc...

Please try a chilled McEwans and tell me what you think. Some say it's an acquired taste but most Scots seem to just love the stuff. But be aware that it packs a wallop, it is rated at 8% alcohol and feels more like ten.

An old Scotsman once told me something about McEwans which I have found to be absolutely true. I'll pass it on to you:

"Bottles of McEwans are like breasts, laddie. One is not enough, two is just right, and three is way too many"

Words to live by.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

For anyone looking for a better way to quit than cold turkey, you could try what some people I know did.

Step 1) Work out what one cigarette of your preferred brand costs from your preferred pack (as in if you buy 20 packs for 10 bucks one cigarette is 50 cents). 

Step 2) Get a big jar. The more you smoke, the bigger jar you will probably need.

Step 3) Every time you jones for a cigarette, toss some loose change (equal to the amount your worked amount above) in the jar.

Step 4) After a few weeks (or days, depending how much you smoke) count up the change and see how much money it is; I bet it'd be a lot. Now think of all the other stuff you could be spending that cash on.

If that isn't enough to shock you out of the habit, well, go on the patch or something.

Those of you that actually enjoy smoking, carry on.

--PB


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macnutt, you will be pleased to hear that my local liquor store did indeed have the product. I today purchased a six pack of McEwan's Scotch Ale and am embarking on my daily walk. When I return in a half hour, for I shall forego my stop for a daily pint, I will sample a couple of bottles as you suggest. I do so with the knowledge that one is not enough, two is just right and three is way to many!

I will duly report my findings later in the afternoon.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good on ye!   

I suppose we'll be able to tell by your spelling if you broke the old rule and had three. If you are absent for the next two days...then we can surmise that you lost it and quaffed all six of the wee devils in a single sitting.

I say "sitting" because you will be officially legless after six McEwans in one evening. I know this from personal research.

Good luck!


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Ah, McEwans Scotch Ale... fine stuff indeed. Tried it for the first time this fall; our local SAQ (Societe des Alcools du Quebec) outlet always has some in the fridge. It's on my list of er... _medicinal compounds_ to pick up for the holidays. That, and some McAuslan Oatmeal Stout, which can be hard to find. If you're a stout aficionado, and if you see it at your local shoppe, GET SOME. None's better, eh?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry to disappoint you macnutt, but I had two McEwan's and they did me nicely.

Fantastic ale. Not sure what I can compare the taste too, other than perhaps a wee hint of molasses.

If this is an acquired taste, I am very much afraid that I acquired it some time ago.

I'll not be forgetting this brew soon. Thanks for the education. It now becomes part of my weekly stock.

I normally have pints in the 4% range, so I will only have a couple once per week of these 8% wonders.

It is tough to describe its pleasant effect, but does the term "goes down singing hymns" seem adequate to you macnutt?

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hymns indeed! I tossed back three in a row in 20 minutes one time and I swear I could hear Metallica dialed all the way up to TEN. Right in my ear, too! 









I woke up on the floor....with the party still going on all around me.









Fun stuff. But you should only administer it in smallish doses under controlled conditions. It does not mix well with sharp implements or complex machinery. Do NOT try to operate a motor vehicle after drinking even one. Do NOT even THINK about _looking_ at a motorcycle. Hide your electric carving knife. Unplug the toaster (I got my tongue caught in mine after a snootful of McEwans. Don't ask)

And...if you ever feel a serious Scotch Ale bender coming on...it might be best to pre-apologise to everyone you truly care for, well in advance.










I know this. Trust me.  

Other than that, it's wonderful stuff. My favorite brew.

Och and Aye!


----------



## Ingenu (Jun 4, 2003)

Well, I think I may be the only one to dislike the taste of the McEwans. To be honest, it's about the only ale I can't support-even thought I like strong beers.

Grolsch is my favorite one, as all Dutch beers...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I have always loved Bitter beers and Stouts, St.Ambroise
Stout is one of my favouites...Mmmm...Espresso & Chocolate.

Here's a nice site that lists some of the best of the best:

The Best Canadian Beers 

Dave


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> Can't say I feel sorry for any of you smokers, sorry. This is of course due to my asthma and allergies to cigarette smoke, and the fact that it is a filthy descusting habit.


I have to agree. As a non-smoker I find it a disgusting habit. You kill yourself, cost medicare tons of money (I had one workmate loose a kidney to cancer from cigarettes - needless to say that stopped his smoking habit), and it is a disgusting habit. I find it disgusting when you have to walk through a bunch of smokers at the entrance to your building and how they just throw their butts on the sidewalk causing such a mess on the sidewalk. No matter how many butt-out sand trays the maintenance staff leaves, there's always a ton of butts on the ground. 

I'm all for banning smoking in all public places and it's nice to see that Ontario/Ottawa has made great strides in this area.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

> No matter how many butt-out sand trays the maintenance staff leaves, there's always a ton of butts on the ground.


That disgusting habit is called littering.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> No matter how many butt-out sand trays


Sand ash trays...
Reminds me when I was a kid and since I couldn't afford to
smoke back then, Those little sand filled ashtrays certainly
made it easy to get free smokes (Looking back...Thank God
I never got mono)

Dave 

[ December 11, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I remember the other kind of sand filled ash tray dolawren.

The ones about 4 inches in diameter that had a bag filled with sand attached to the bottom of them.

Nearly everyone I knew kept on or two of these in their vehicles, where they rode nicely on the "hump" in the front and back seats.

You remember the "hump" don't you? Back in the days of all rear wheel drive cars, every one had a distinct "hump" to enclose the driveshaft of the vehicle. I spent many hours standing on that hump in the rear seat, hanging on to the front seat and watching my Dad drive.

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Those outlaw days is done and gone.

Not that people weren't "safety conscious" in other ways. That must have been about the time my dad went to see his bank manager about a loan for a second car - something cheap to get him to work and back - A VW Beetle. The bank manager turned him down flat - and Dad said "I don't understand... my credit rating is excellent." And the bank manager replied, "Not if you're dead! If I let you buy one of those things my money is as good as gone. Tell You what though, doc, I'll give you twice what you've applied for if you get yourself a real car."

So he got himself a car with a hump, of course.  

Oh - another thing... dad had previously been riding a bike to work but the other doctors claimed "bikes are for kids and crazy people" and threatened to ostracize him unless he started to behave like a professional a get himself a car.

Interesting window into that world and that time.

I hate to ramble - but to get vaguely back on topic... one day i visited my dad at the laboratory and noticed two stainless steel containers each holding some goo. the left basin had a fleshy pink thing in it - the one on the right was a ragged black stringy heap. "What's that?" I asked. Without looking up he said, "well, they are both lungs. Both from victims of car accidents. The one on the right was a habitual smoker."

This influenced some of the decisions i made later in life.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> You remember the "hump" don't you? Back in the days of all rear wheel drive cars


My last car (A Volvo 240 DL wagon) had rear wheel drive,
I think that I'd like a rear wheel drive car or truck to be my
next vehicle as well.

I really hate front wheel drive on the highway, My old Volvo
was a great highway car.

Unfortunately even though I've been driving for 27 years,
The insurance rates in Ontario cost more than car payments.
Renting a car as I need it has always been the best way to go, 
Perhaps moving to Quebec might be an ideal solution in the future.

Dave


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The days of front wheel drive seem to be numbered. Many of the big car companies are switching their biggest and most expensive cars back to rear wheel drive and the mid range stuff seem destined for all wheel drive. FWD will probably end up on only the cheapest vehicles, eventually.

That was, after all, why the car companies switched to FWD in the first place. It's far cheaper to build than any other system.

I should note here that the companies that are most known for engineering excellence and innovation...Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, Ferrari etc. have NEVER offered even one single front drive model.

Does that tell you something? It should.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

WHAT A GOOD OLD BOYS THREAD... CIGARETTES... BOOZE... CARS... wo...

Tim the Toolman would be proud!

I quit smoking on December 14, 1984. Cold turkey. Never even wanted to smoke again. I used to smoke 3, and sometimes 4 large packs a day. Players plain!

I wanted to quit.

Booze... I had surgery to relieve pressure on my spinal chord in 1992. Since then, drinking half a beer or a glass of wine gives me a devastating migraine. I can't go to a party without good ventilation or the fumes from the variety of alcohol beverages also gives me migraines.

I have been allergic to tobacco smoke since 1986-87. My throat tightens up and I have difficulty breathing.

The good side of the story is I am alive and only suffer from mild bronchitis. I had it before I started smoking at age 20, and it reared it's ugly symptoms after I quit smoking.

While I have not escaped unscathed, I consider myself one of the fortunate ones.

Will you be?

To the guys who like humps in the car, (rear wheel drive) I agree. That's why I went looking for an old car rather than a newer one. The alternative was to buy a truck. I like trucks, but I have no use for one on a regular basis.

Life is good, eh!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hey....I've got a truck as well, darntootin.

It's a shiny black 1985 Chevy Silverado shortbox. power windows, power locks, tilt, air,cruise...the works. And a nice snappy four barrel small block Chevy V8 under the hood. Rumbly dual exhaust comin out the back.

Sh'e a beaut. Useful AND pretty at the same time. People are always asking me if I will sell it to them.

And, like the musclecar, it's value increases every single year.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

OK macnutt...

I surrender... if only they didn't cost so much. As I said, I like trucks too, and I can understand why people would want to buy yours. Mine is a Olds Cutlass Supreme Coupe, V8- 4 bbl, but with single exhaust.

Don't sell it, eh!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'll probably sell it someday, when someone offers me twice what I've got into it.  

I just love driving something that cost less than five grand and then selling it several years later when the price has more than doubled. Try doing THAT with a brand new Honda or Toyota. 









And, if you do that very often...then you will be able to buy a house. Or a second house. Or a nice classic motor yacht that's as big as a house.

Which I did.    

(Of course....I DID 'miss out' on owning a brand new Toyota.)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Unless the Toyota was a Land cruiser...
Or better than a Toyota would be a... G4 Defender 

Dave


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

dolawren...

Maybe you missed the part where macnutt expressed the high satisfaction level he gets from driving his vehicle too...

A G4 DEFENDER???

Different strokes for different folks...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> A G4 DEFENDER???


I saw a couple of the earlier versions of the Defender at an
Auto Show in Toronto a few years back, There were only 25
of the vehicles in Canada and they were covertibles with the
wonderful aluminum bodies and roll cage.

Built like a brick sh*t house with 8 cylinder engines and
short wheel base, A truly rugged car for any condition that
you threw at it...What can I say...My Dads first car was a
Land Rover.

I guess it's still in my blood.

Dave


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Cough cough* This thread is getting a little smoke filled. All we need is a lounge singer in here and we're all set. 

Used to smoke in university. I actually started smoking to meet my now wife. She used to smoke outsider her dorm and chat with friends. Eventually I went up to her and asked for a smoke. I smoked about a pack a day for about 2 years. Was going to quit after I got married, but while in the US on our honeymoon, I asked what the price of a pack was. Decided to stop smoking after the honeymoon. 

Eventually I quit the habit. And yeah, now when I smell someone who has just been smoking. *Blech*!

It's funny, where I live has one of the most strict anti-smoking policies in Canada. Basically the only place you can smoke is behind dark allies under dripping water pipes.  There are not restaurants. bars or public places anywhere you can smoke. I recently went to another city where I went into a coffee shop we're there was a smoking section. 

I had to leave the smell was so bad.  

My father-in-law is almost 60 and has been smoking since he was 13. He recently quit after going on the patch. He says now he can't believe how good food tastes. The only problem is he eats like crazy and has put on about 20 pounds.









We won't go into other types of recreational smoking.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I campaigned for the smoking ban in restaurants in Toronto by turning up at the debates at North York council and Toronto city hall. There were a stream of passionate pleas from all walks of life (I just talked about the health effects, cancer, etc). The only real opposition was the restaurant association. They were out in force though and claimed that the legislation was not only descriminatory but would force them out of business. Sorry, but the restaurant trade is a fairly sure thing compared with most businesses (not that it isn't very hard work). The arguments turned out to be scare-mongering and Sheela Basra stood her ground (against the likes of Mel Lastman).

McGuinty has proposed banning smoking in all public places in Ontario. It's about time. Sorry for the soapbox but in my trade, seeing people on chemotherapy drips standing outside the hospital sucking on a cigarette is very sobering. We need to do more in stopping kids take up smoking (increase the price) and in helping long-time smokers quit (support programs). It's already socially unacceptable in many places. I look forward to seeing the lung cancer rates stabilize and then fall (the rates for women are unfortunately climbing due to the uptake in female smokers 20 years ago - it'll take another 20 years to begin to fall back).

BTW, I've nothing against smokers having the right to smoke in their own homes, outside, etc. Smoking is not illegal and if people are aware of the dangers and wish to smoke in their own space, its a free country.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> We need to do more in stopping kids take up smoking (increase the price)


I have to point out that increasing the price doesn't work,
All it does is provide less food for the children of parents
that are on either welfare or disability payments (They
haven't had a raise since Mike and the Tories came and left
power, If anything they took a pay cut and saw the increase
of food banks).

Stop smoking in public places?
How about banning benzine in gasoline while we are at it,
Or better yet...Let's ban leaded gas in boats.

It's really a matter of who's view is seen here.

Dave


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Better yet...lets ban RADON gas in all homes in Canada! There are an unsettling number of lifelong nonsmokers who have never been exposed to large amounts of tobacco smoke or industrial polloutants and who STILL seem to be getting lung cancer! There was a disturbing documentary about this on telly the other night. Lets just go ahead and ban the damn stuff!

What? You mean we can't ban RADON? Well then, how about we ban all human consumption of any water that originates in the horribly pollouted Niagara area? The lethal chemical soup leaching out of all of those old abandoned toxic dumps along the river is some of the most carcinogenic stuff on this planet.

Lets just BAN the damn stuff! While we're at it...let's also ban all human consumption of coffee beans that are blasted with deadly pesticides twice per day, every single day it's growing (that would be about 95% of the crop by the way). The stuff they use on coffee plants is so deadly that it literally rots the fingers off the heavy black rubber gloves that the coffee pickers wear. They change these gloves out a couple of time per day. These are the very same type of gloves that scientists use when handling the deadliest chemicals or strong acids.

This stuff also makes birds fall from the sky, dead as a doornail, when they fog the rows of coffee plants (twice per day). The operator of the tractor towing the fogger is wearing a spacesuit and is inside an enclosed cab. But they never do that particular job very long, even though it pays the most on the coffee plantation. 

They often die young, too.

I know this because I have drilled in, or right next to, a great many coffee plantations during my years in South America. I've seen it with my own eyes. (I don't drink coffee anymore, BTW)

And while we're at it...let's ban sugar and regulate fat levels in all foods. Excessive weight and it's attendant medical problems are far more pervasive in our modern society than smoking ever was. Perhaps we should even make people submit regular blood samples just to prove they are eating according to the laws of the land...especially since we are all sharing medical costs. It's not fair if people choose to abuse themselves and then expect the rest of us to help pay for the damage! 

Heck...a couple of more laws...a few more regulations here and there..... and we could have a real UTOPIA!

C'mon people! Let's Go for it!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for that macnutt. People still have the right to kill themselves slowly through smoking but they don't have the right to take others with them. Take a walk through a cancer ward or look at the postmortem lungs removed from life-long smokers for a better grasp on the all-too-real effects. Personal liberty is not threatened here, tobacco is a legal product. Most smokers are responsible citizens and while they may argue that their freedom to smoke in a restaurant is unfair, it is their choice to smoke. People who choose not to smoke should not be exposed their exhaust fumes.

As for tobacco pricing and kids, I'm sorry, but a parent who is irresponsible enough to choose cigarettes over food for their kids needs help. I have no sympathy for anyone who puts their addiction before their children and doesn't seek help. I have full sympathy for providing help to cure them of that addiction as it will have enormous benefits to their kids and family. There is a direct link between prices and rates of smoking uptake by kids. Breaking the addiction circle is easiest by preventing it's initiation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes, Jim....smoking is a terrible habit and it can cause some pretty awful diseases. No question.

But, rather than forcing all restaurants and bars to ban it outright, why not allow well-ventilated "smoking rooms" that completely seperate the people who choose to smoke from the ones that choose not to?

The late and not lamented NDP enacted a total ban on smoking in restaurants and pubs out here quite some time ago. It was a major disaster for many of the people who worked in these places (eighty per cent of whom ARE smokers, BTW. The restaurant and bar association did a poll.) Quite a few bars actually closed down, and most of the ones that stayed open built some sort of "smoking area" that is seperated from the rest of the bar by doors, and has some exposure to the outside air. (Think of a glass enclosed patio that isn't quite enclosed on all sides)

This was terribly expensive and, while not technically legal, even the NDP had to look the other way and not disallow it. These smoking areas are usually jammed to the rafters, while the rest of the bar is rather quiet.

And some bars and pubs just didn't have the space for a major new addition to their premises. The biggest and most popular pub here on Salt Spring Island....the Harbour House Hotel...closed their pub and now they only have a smallish lounge. The biggest and oldest pub in the town I grew up in on Vancouver Island was right on the waterfront in a prime spot at the foot of main street. It had been there since before WW2.

It is an empty lot now.

In each case many jobs were lost. Mostly by people who actually liked working there. And were, by and large, smokers themselves.

Where is the sense in this?

Thankfully the new Campbell government has changed the regs a bit to allow internal smoking areas that are completely seperate and must be very well ventilated. (I was at one of these places recently, and if you toss a cocktail napkin into the air it will be sucked staright up to the ceiling and stay there. The whole thing is one big air vent.

So...if I want to have a cigar in a nice bar that advertises that is is ONLY for smokers, then what the heck is wrong with THAT?

Apparently nothing at all, now that some reson has been restored to our own local government. Hopefully you guys will eventually figure this out as well.

BTW...neither of my parents ever smoked. I was practically the only person in my high school who was a nonsmoker. I like to have an occaisional cigar. Why should there not be 'cigar bars' where a person can have a smoke and a wee dram?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

having just been to Lewiston / Buffalo, NY last Saturday for a "chicken wing" crawl, let me report that ALL bars and restaurants in NY state are smoke free

i could be wrong, but last time i checked, NY state didn't have a "leftist commie pinko" NDP gov't nor governor

i'm sure you'd never get this kind of legislation passed in N. Carolina nor Virginia, because of the tobacco lobby and their mega dollars, but one step at a time

what people don't seem to realize is the affect that 2nd hand smoke had upon employees of bars and restaurants that allow smoking

the issue has become one of workers' rights and workplace safety - good tactic by the anti-tobacco lobby


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

AGAIN with the 'second hand smoke' argument and plaintive cries for the health of the workers!









And AGAIN I would like to remind you that what I have proposed...and what is happening out here...is "smoking ONLY" rooms that are completely cut off from non-smokers. There is no second hand smoke for anyone who does not want it.

And AGAIN I would like to remind you that the polls done by the restaurant and bar association out here showed that over eighty per cent of the people who worked in smoking bars were already smokers themselves. The other twenty per cent should have no problem finding work in the non-smoking bars.

Simple and effective. And a lot less draconian.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmmm... a survey BY the restaurant association that says 80% of staff are smokers....? This is utter poppycock. The restaurant association in Toronto was an embarrassment. They blatantly put the health of their profits before the health of their customers (and staff). Meanwhile, the industry is pretty healthy in Toronto (although SARS did impact the hospitality industry in a very real way).

In Ontario, no workers can be forced to work in the "ventilated" areas by law - except that if they don't they are fired. We had a series of studies that were published about three years ago by architects and HVAC engineers that showed it is physically impossible to construct a fully ventilated room unless custom-built to industrial standards. In Toronto, our current law allows smoking in bars and (I think) bowling alleys. However, that is temporary and by 2004, these will no longer be exempt.

The new Ontario government plans to enact a province-wide ban on smoking in enclosed public areas. It's long overdue. One effect of the partial smoking ban is that it increases peoples sensitivity to smoke. When you are exposed to it all the time, you acclimatize. As a consequence, more and more people now find the odour of cigarette smoke repugnant, hardening attitudes and isolating smokers.

We certainly need something to counteract the billions of dollars of Big Tobacco money spent on pushing their killer product.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You're missing my point, Jim.

I'll lay it out for you and hopefully clarify a few things at the same time.

-Is it necessary to enact a total ban on any sort of pupose-built "smoking lounge". One that would be staffed only by smokers, and that has large warning signs outside that warn all non-smokers to stay away because of the deadly (but legal) tobacco fumes inside.

(the one I was in a few weeks back in Van WAS pupose built to industrial standards. The whole cieling was one giant intake for a powerful air filtration system. Worked like a hot damn...unless you are a fond of wearing hats)

-Since there are very many other things in our environment that are just as deadly as tobacco smoke....some of which are far MORE deadly than tobacco smoke...why do we not actively pursue all of those, as well?

Especially since many of them are also a lifestyle choice and account for far more medical problems than tobacco smoke. Firsthand or secondhand.

Or do you want to stop at tobacco? If so, why?

Please explain in detail.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

Why is there any argument about the eventual banning of smoking cigarettes.

What again are their redeeming qualities?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't smoke cigarettes. My parents never smoked cigarettes. Ever.

But I like to enjoy an occaisional cigar. So do a whole lot of other people, judging from sales figures. Some of them are committed health fanatics, as well. I see nothing at all wrong with this...and they are totally legal.

Why can't we have legal "cigar bars" that will allow several friends to get together and enjoy a fine Cuban or two while sipping a nice drink? In nice surroundings? Served these drinks and cigars by people who are themselves smokers....and totally isolated from the air supply of lesser mortals who are frightened of their own shadows and scared of their own food and drink.

We have them out here. They are doing very well. But....then again, we had total smoking bans long before you guys in Ontario did. We have since moved on to a more realistic stance on this. And nobody is crying foul about it..

We are always a bit ahead of Ontario on the bell curve of any big trend, it seems. 

Hope you guys catch up really soon.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

"Scared of their own food and drink"?  

I agree with your point (after cutting through the melodrama). The vast majority isn't going to have a problem with a members-only establishment that partakes in their joy of smoking fine cigars.

But I don't see ventilation being a practical answer. A separate smoking room doesn't work any better than the old "smoking section" system if there's traffic between the two rooms. And most establishments don't have the means nor desires to turn themselves into a wind tunnel. Either the place is 100% smoking or 100% non-smoking.

The whole thing is passé here in North Van anyway. Most smokers are resigned to going outside or sticking to the renegade establishments that will tolerate them. The neighbourhood pubs like The Raven are cleaner and look as busy as ever.

- Martin.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vancouver did try to leap ahead of Toronto on this matter but seems to have fallen back compared with the rest of the country (again). Macnutt, you don't have to spell it out to me - I've heard legal testimony from both sides about dedicated smoking rooms. It doesn't hold water (let alone smoke). I wish cigar smokers well in defending their last bastions to smoke but smokers are acting like King Canute in denying that the tide has turned. You'll find that smoking will be a major health issue for the foreseeable future (until the lung cancer and emphysema cases drop into insignificance). BC will catch up eventually. Let's just hope that by pushing smokers outside, you won't increase the risk of forest fires.

By condoning smoking rooms, smokers make a conscious decision to either abandon their non-smoking friends or to expect such friends to expose themselves to smoke for their sake. Either way its anti-social, but then again, smoking ceased to be a socially acceptable practice in North America 20 years ago.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough, Jim.

Now...do you wish to deal with the fact that there are several other lifestyle choices that produce far more medical maladies in the general population than smoking?

How do you propose to legislate these out of existence?

What regulations will you personally back, in order to end this greater scourge?

Please...enlighten us all.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Anything that's *proven* to lead to significant morbidity in people and that is *practical* for risk reduction. Trans-fatty acids are a big thing right now and I think they'll be significantly reduced from products over the next couple of years. The problem is that TFA's have a big effect on satience and taste so the food industry has been lazy and arrogant in allowing their use because it makes things taste yummy.

I've been labelled a nicotine/cigarette Nazi by several groups (such as the Tobacco Users Rights Association) via my letters to the Globe and Mail and other papers but I couldn't give a toss. The voices of the anti-tobacco lobby have pitiful resources compared with the industry.

And before you ask me about alcohol, gambling, obesity, whatever, there are simialrities and differences to tobacco and how we, as a society deal with them, needs to be appropriate to each issue. All lead to real health problems and they are not being ignored. All are "backed" by big industries (in the case of gambling, the government!). Some are addictive (I don't think obesity is addictive, its a combination of genetics and behaviour). But none of these elements are a problem in moderation. There is no safe level of cigarette smoking.

It comes down to social acceptance. MADD was born out an irresponsible behaviour that society appeared to tolerate. However, you'll be hard-pressed to find sympathy for drunk-driving anywhere. It is intolerable. Alcoholism is a big problem for a minority of drinkers (and their loved ones who can often bear the brunt of the effects). Obesity is tougher as its a complex interaction of lifestyle and personal perception. The diet industry is a joke and most successful programs targeting obesity tackle the underlying cuases (poverty, self-esteem, activity, etc).

Smoking killed over 16 THOUSAND Canadians in 2002 from lung cancer alone (I've subtracted the non-smoker lung cancers which presumably includes those that contracted the disease through passive exposure). It's difficult to me that anyone would NOT to be shocked by these numbers and not DEMAND action. Add in heart disease, emphysema and years lost to other conditions as a direct result of repeated exposure of lung epithelial cells (which normally form delicate, beautiful membranous structures designed to maximize gas exchange) to the toxins present in smoke, and I find no problem in trying to protect our kids from this health nightmare.


----------



## macbruce (Nov 13, 2002)

I am an addicted smoker, and have been for over 35 years. I once quit smoking and held out for almost 3 years. I guess "quit" is wrong , it should be "Took a break" I woke up every morning and had to force myself not to smoke. This addiction is worse than most ellicit drugs, and yes it does cost millions each year. Not only to the smokers, but also to the medical community. I for one would love to be able to stop completely, but I can't. I've tried the patch, I've been hypnotized, I've been to stop smoking clinics, nothing seems to get me to stop. 
I feel that if the government was really serious about this, then they would ban the sale of cigarettes totally. When it was apparent that DDT's were a health risk, they were quickly banned, fermaldihide was banned, the list goes on....But oops I forgot, of the $8.00 a pack smokes cost, about $7.00+ is tax revenue. 
How could we run a country without all that money generated by the cigarette taxes and the taxes from the profits of those who sell them?
If there was a real concern from our boys in Ottawa about the various effects caused by cigarettes, then there would be some action. 
If it were the money, I'm sure that people such as myself, would gladly give up the money spent on cigarettes, to fund a programme that would help me stop forever. 
Believe me, I wish I didn't smoke!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Why can't we have legal "cigar bars" that will allow several friends to get together and enjoy a fine Cuban or two while sipping a nice drink? In nice surroundings? Served these drinks and cigars by people who are themselves smokers....and totally isolated from the air supply of lesser mortals who are frightened of their own shadows and scared of their own food and drink.


if you and your buddies want to share a cigar at your SSI resort, please do, BUT once you have employees, you are subject to rules and regulations governing employee health

what is the difference between a server in a restaurant being subjected to 2nd hand smoke and someone working in a factory where they are exposed to dangerous chemicals?

if you want to smoke, please do, but on yours or someone else's private property where it is a PRIVATE decision to do so

if you hire someone to serve you drinks, then be prepared NOT to smoke

not draconian, just commone sense

gerald, it's crazy to believe that 2nd hand smoke has no effect on health
would you stand in your garage with your car running and the door closed?

i agree with and earlier post, that the simple solution is to ban the sale of cigarettes PERIOD
seeing that this could not happen in reality (at least for now)
i would NOT ban the sale of loose tobacco for making one's own cigarettes or for pipe smoking

i would still BAN ALL smoking in any public place or workplace

i'm waiting for the first lawsuit brought forth by the child of smoking parents - it will be interesting to see how that would go - child abuse? a case could be made that smoking in your child's presence presented a known health risk - i'll let the legal eagles iron that one out

also, i would allow all programs that try to help one quit smoking to be tax deductible, personally and corporately - the cost benefit to the health system would be seen for generations to come - kids are already exposed to terrible environmental factors that i never had to endure - pollution, snack foods, smoke - seems more kids have more allergies and illnesses than i was a youngster (back when stree lights were gas powered)

one more thing - i was a cigarette and cigar smoker for about 2 years
cigarettes were just habit forming
i did enjoy a nice cigar with a nice port
if there are any medical people around that could shed some light on cigars vs. cigarettes, please speak up
i think that cigars are smoked less often than cigarettes and have less un-natural chemials in them
cigar smoking for me was more of an event - therefore much less frequency
i have quit ALL smoking and remain smoke free to this day

i never allow any smoking in my car nor do i allow someone who just finished a cigarette to step inside my car

one would only hope that over time, smoking would simply go away - even booze in moderation has been shown to be beneficial, especially red wine w.r.t cholesterol

cigars vs. cigarettes

cigars vs. cigarettes, 2

[ December 21, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macbruce...

There is a lot of emotion in your post, and I empathize with your dilemma.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I quit December 14, 1984. Actually I didn't "quit'... I just decided to START not smoking. I did away with the notion that I HAD to have a cigarette. That's partly why I never smoked again, or suffered the addictive urges I couldn't seem to overcome the countless times I had tried to stop smoking before. I prided myself for every hour I went without a smoke... then it progressed to being measured in days... then in weeks. I didn't label myself as a smoker who quit... or a quitter of anything. I convinced myself I was taking care of my body. By the time three or so months had passed, I was confident I would never smoke again.

One of the major contributing factors was changing my daily routines... my habits... not sitting down to have a coffee and a cigarette... or at night... not to have a beer and a smoke.

I changed my hourly and daily habits that had for years, contributed to my needing a cigarette.

Soon I realized that part of my addiction was not entirely to tobacco, but to the HABIT of smoking. A cigarette and a coffee fit together... a beer and a cigarette were inseparable... 

Once I replaced those habits with a walk... getting up from the table... drinking coffee with a meal instead of a cigarette... and changing how I did things, I no longer needed a cigarette as an emotional 'soother'. I separated smoking from the other things I did every day.

And I felt better!

And... for me... it worked!

How quickly and how well you succeed depends on how close you are to having the courage to admit you are 'right' to stop... and not wait until the desire to not smoke overcomes the desire to smoke. I'm not sure that time would have ever occurred in my life.

You are not unique with the problem... you are as average as the next person.

Starting to not smoke is a difficult transition, and many will tell you they are not addicted and can quit anytime they want.

You and I and millions of smokers know better. 

For me it was about decisions... and more than one. It was not about strength and weakness... it was about 'decisions'.

I hope this helps... even a little.

Hang in there, and good luck.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...this is getting a bit tiresome..but, for the benefit of those that are sitting in the cheap nosebleed seats...and haven't heard what I have said in EVERY SINGLE previous post on this subject in the recent past , I will repeat this ONE MORE TIME!

Imagine, if you will, the singularly unlikely event of a well-established Cigar bar that has ONLY SMOKERS as employees. This would NOT be much of a stretch in thinking, because we have several dozen of these here on the west coast right now.

Despite the fact that we had a TOTAL smoking ban in ALL bars and restaraunts, just a few years ago.

The employees of these establishments...who ARE ALL COMMITTED SMOKERS, BY THE WAY...would be THE ONLY PEOPLE allowed to work in these places. NO exceptions! They would be hired on this basis.

Ask yourself if these employees... WHO ARE ALL COMMITTED SMOKERS, BY THE WAY...would be, in any concieveable manner, adversely affected by the second-hand smoke that would be present in this cigar-bar?

Would they actually consume more deadly fumes from the stray wisps of totally legal tobacco products while working, than they would while puffing away on common cigarettes during their break time in the back alley?

To those of you who are reading this and are not yet decided on the issue...or who still have some sort of personal control over your own decision making processes (and have not surrendered that crucial human right to some sort of all-powerful "handler") 

I invite you to consider the actual reality...versus the percieved reality that those who seem committed to some narrow ideology seem to imagine. In their smallish and highly-controlled minds. 

And, again, I have to remind you that THESE ARE ONLY COMMITTED SMOKERS working in this cigar-bar. They are hired as such, from day one. No one is EVER pressured to work in a cigar-bar who is NOT a committed smoker long before they came to work in this establishment. EVER!!

Make your OWN decision.   

Or become one of the herd of sheep that graze this vast land. And who do not ever rock the boat. 

Are you an indepenadant and enlightened thinker...or a brainless follower?

Your choice.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Only employ committed smokers? That's going to go down well in an advertisement. Pack-a-day applicant only? Payment in ciggies? That's a bit like a casino advertising for people who are gamblers. Good luck in getting health insurance (although retirement benefit payouts will be limited).

Here's some more second-hand smoke for the fire.

Baaaa, baaaa.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Employer: thanks for coming in today
Prospective Employee: you're welcome, thanx for interviewing me
E: do you smoke?
PE: No
E: sorry, we don't have a position for you

gerald, one more time for you....
once you HIRE someone, you then aibde by workplace environmental standards PERIOD

if someone wants to VOLUNTEER to bring you your dram o' scotch, so be it, but if you HIRE someone you MUST provide a reasonably HEALTHY environment for their employment

what's next Gerald?
_"Well what if we hired someone that was a committed slave and wanted to be a slave? C'mon people, stop being sheep and start being shearers." _
I'll leave the obvious Freudian deconstruction for a later time.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macnutt...

You keep referring to committed smokers.

QUESTION: What is the difference between a 'COMMITTED SMOKER' and an 'ADDICTED SMOKER'?

Would tobacco/nicotine addicts be welcome at your proposed 'cigar-bar'?

Or only committed smokers!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...I'll try to simplify it even further. Thereby cutting through the thick ideology that many of you use to deal with everyday decisions.

An advert in the employment section of the daily paper:

"CIGAR BAR looking for servers and bar personell. 
Experience an asset, but not required. Excellent ventilation system in premises, but be warned that THERE WILL BE TOBACCO FUMES PRESENT WHILE YOU ARE WORKING. 

ONLY tobacco users need apply! If you smoke cigarettes on a daily basis, a separate area is set aside for you to enjoy a smoke on your break. Without having to go outside in bad weather. If you are a cigar smoker, you may enjoy a some of our premium hand rolled cubans at a slightly discounted price. While at work. WITHOUT going outside, in bad weather.

Pay is reasonable. Tips are excellent. Reply with resume to......"

So what? Do you think that any nonsmokers would apply? Do you suppose that droves of experienced bar servers (who ARE smokers already) wouldn't be falling all over each other to get this job?

Well...guess what? I took that advert out of a local paper in Vancouver. They filled three positions before lunchtime the very first day it hit the papers. I checked.

Go figure.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JWoodget.....

Smokers make up about twenty per cent of the population these days. Correct?

According to what the ads say, approximately half of those smokers will develop serious health problems that can be directly related to their smoking. Right?

So that accounts for ten per cent of the overall population, if the Government figures are even close to correct (there is a considerable body of evidence that shows they are not...but for the sake of argument, let's use them anyway).

Ten per cent. Wow.

That begs the question:

What is the percentage of the Canadian population that is currently overweight? And suffering from debilitating health problems as a result of this excessive weight?

The figures I've seen are in the neighborhood of FIFTY PER CENT of the Canadian population. It could be even more in some areas.

What's the single biggest killer of Canadians? Lung cancer?

Nope. It's heart disease. Which is especially prevalent in people who are overweight. Even in non-smokers.

What is the most prevalent medical maladie that afflicts the biggest portion of the Canadian population outside of heart disease? One that costs us all many billions of dollars and cripples or kills tens of thousands of Canadians, each year (compared to the sixteen thousand that are felled by tobacco smoke?).

It's Diabetes. Also related to diet choices and excessive weight. 

What do you plan to do about this health scourge? Especially since it's many MANY times more of a problem than tobacco useage?

And affects FIVE TIMES as many people as tobacco use?

I eagerly await your detailed reply. (this should be interesting)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just because something CAN be done does NOT mean it SHOULD be done
why is it so foreign an idea that one could just enjoy the pleasure of smoking in one's own home or property?
why must you have a place that employs people?

i didn't realize it was that important to smoke in public
gee gerald, your mansion on SSI must be enough room for you and your smoking buddies to enjoy a Cuban or two - do you really need someone to serve you drinks? - holding court as it were

i thought the Scots detested royalty, but i was wrong i see


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

i hate to disillusion you Michael...but I don't have a mansion here on Salt Spring Island. It's just a simple cedar house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright's brightest student. ( Hank Schubart...he lives here).

It's a two bedroom affair and is almost totally encompassed by wild forest. I like it that way. There is a mountain just across from me and I have my own mountain less than one hundred feet behind the house.

I have no neighbors.

I live in silence. No traffic sounds. No car horns. No visible houses for as far as the eye can see. Nothing.

Just wilderness. Birds and deer and raccoons.

Clean air, perfect spring water. Organically grown food from my own land. 

I freakin LOVE IT!!   

And..yeah. I smoke the odd cigar here. No cigarettes ever. Just a Cuban or a Backwoods, once in a while.

And when I go to Victoria (the BIG island) or Vancouver (the mainland) I like to go someplace where I can sit down with a few of my cigar smoking buddies and have a wee dram. And a wee puff of something really profound. Without hiding like a criminal or standing out on a wind-swept patio in the driving rain.

Especially since there are several marijuana cafe's in Vancouver that DO allow the open smoking of totally illegal pot on the premises. It's openly advertised and consumed in this very public place. Nobody ever gets busted. It's an accepted thing. Many Americans come up here to partake in our enlightened atmosphere.

Why then, should totally legal cigars not be treated the same way?

Luckily...in newly enlightened Vancouver, they aren't ! 

And I just hope that you people in the east can... eventually...see past your ideological blinders to finally realise that there can actually be places set aside for the legal use of a legal product that is sanctioned and approved and taxed by your local government. And has been for many decades.

The logic and the reality of all this is inescapable. Very soon you will be forced to deal with it. One way or the other. Without the rhetoric. Or the ideological blinders.

You guys are very early on the bell curve, after all.    

And THEN...perhaps...you will also be forced to deal with a REAL health problem that is more than FIVE TIMES as big as tobacco. And FAR more costly. FAR more devastating to the average Canadian than cigarettes.

I will be very interested in seeing how you deal with this FAR GREATER health problem. Will it be the same relentless witch hunt? Are you prepared to deal with a massive public backlash from more than HALF of the total population of Canada, when you try to modify their food intake the same way that you've modified their tobacco useage?

Good luck. 

Tobacco was only one fifth of the overall problem. Tackle the other four fifths, and you will lose all of the small fraction of support that you still enjoy amongst the people of this country. Tell them what they can EAT...and pass strong laws that will enforce these eating habits...and the Canadian population will drop you like a bad habit.

Or...choose not to...and be seen as a bunch of lightweights who are not truly serious about trying to actually improve things. One-fifth is not really very remarkable, after all. Pretty much nothing really.

Your choice. Make a difference that really lasts...or simply dance around the edges and make some noises that will be lost as time moves on.

Personally, I'm very interested in what you guys do next. I've got a big bucket of popcorn, and a good supply of legal cigars. I'm ready to watch you guys either self destruct...and be labeled as idiots... or try to force your draconian food regulations on more than half the population.  

Should be a cool ride over the next few months. I've got my seatbelt done up.

YeeeHaaawww!!


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Hey macnutt...



> I live in silence. No traffic sounds. No car horns. No visible houses for as far as the eye can see. Nothing.
> Just wilderness. Birds and deer and raccoons.
> Clean air, perfect spring water. Organically grown food from my own land.


Sounds like a perfect location for your 'cigar-bar'...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Sounds like a perfect location for your 'cigar-bar'...


exactly the point i was trying to make


----------



## Johnny (Nov 14, 2002)

macnutt, you have clarified your idea a few times. Let us say your idea is adopted, THEN THE FOLLOWING SHOULD HAPPEN:

The rest of society should not have to pay for your and other participants' medical bills. Health insurance should be whatever the actuaries say is appropriate for the added risk.

Life insurance companies should be notified of your smoking, and be lawfully able to increase your life insurance premiums at any time, according to the added risk.

The rest of society should not have to get any second hand smoke when it is exhausted out of your smoking emporium. So, an air quality tax should be imposed, unless your emporium has totally eliminated the polution with air scrubbers and properly disposed of the toxins that the air scrubbers extract.

And your underlying attitude is in this phrase of yours: "...and totally isolated from the air supply of lesser mortals who are frightened of their own shadows and scared of their own food and drink." Perhaps you put yourself in the category of a superior mortal, afraid of nothing - eating and drinking and smoking whatever you damn well choose. 

I think the idea stinks!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt, seems that your neurons are already suffering from the effects of nicotine as I answered your belated points on obesity and diabetes a couple of pages before in a pre-emptive strike (since I know how you love to change playing fields....). I'm also not aware of second-hand obesity (although sitting next to an overly large fella in the movies can cramp one's view...).

I'd love to contest the government figures with you regarding smoking related deaths and morbidity - especially as they are gathered by the Canadian Cancer Society (...). Since the deep pockets of the tobacco industry have failed to challenge such data (maybe because it is data rather than balony), I'll match your bet and raise you 20,000 lives a year.

Smoking is now socially unacceptable - 20 years ago it was different but this is 2003 (just). Smokers are marginalized. The place I'm staying at over Christmas is entirely smoke-free. It's not a small place - www.bluemountain.ca

Merry Christmas!!!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macnutt,

quote:
___________________________________________________
I live in silence. No traffic sounds. No car horns. No visible houses for as far as the eye can see. Nothing.
Just wilderness. Birds and deer and raccoons.
Clean air, perfect spring water. Organically grown food from my own land. 
___________________________________________________
I first noted in downtown Toronto that smokers were the last people communing with nature as they were only ones standing outside. 

Seems a cigar bar would be out of place at your home. Perhaps a well designed Cigar rail would serve. Just a suggestion.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still blinded by ideology, I see.

And still unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that there are far more pressing lifestyle choices that cause far more widespread health problems than tobacco use.

Secondhand smoke is virtually nonexistant these days. It wouldn't be a factor in a dedicated Cigar bar since no one inside the place would be a non-smoker. In fact...that's precisely the case in the Cigar bars that I now frequent out here on the newly enlightened west coast.

And, I repeat, why should I be able to go into any one of a dozen or so Hemp cafes and be subject to the open useage of illegal drug smoke while NOT being permitted to attend a Cigar bar where totally LEGAL and government approved tobacco products are being used?

Do you suppose that anyone actually enters a Hemp cafe _WITHOUT_ knowing that marijuana is being consumed on the premises? By virtually everyone in the place? And that they will be subject to the stray fumes? Do you suppose that anyone who works at one of these establishments is actually a non-pot smoker?

Why then would you think that anyone who enters a Cigar bar...or WORKS at one..would not be totally aware of the stray tobacco fumes therin? (Note: the Cigar bars all have excellent industrial grade ventilation systems, BTW. The Hemp cafes never do.)

Do the people who work at or frequent these places have no common sense? Is it necessary for us all to enact severe and restrictive laws to protect them from themselves? Because they are all unwitting participants? Or Fools?

And what would you like to do about the much more damaging lifestyle choices that affect vastly larger numbers of the population? That cause far more damage to far more people?

That cost all of us many billions of health care dollars each year. Money that could be better spent on battling really unavoidable diseases and injuries.

Money that might just keep our failing National health care system alive for a while longer.

Since less people choose to use tobacco every year, and second hand smoke is pretty much a thing of the past for the vast majority of us...then we can expect to see less people adversely affected by this terrible scourge in the days and years to come.

When it has shrunk to a tiny fraction of the overall health problems of this Nation...will you, who have campaigned so ardently against it, then move on to finally address the much greater problems that are all around you? The ones that score MUCH higher in ALL of the statistics than tobacco?

Things that can easily be remedied by smarter lifestyle choices or stronger laws? Will you turn your your considerable efforts toward this far larger problem? Thereby doing much more good for MANY more people than the campaign against tobacco ever has? Or will you go silent and choose to ignore it?

If so...why?

I eagerly await your replies. Or your artful dodges.

Both will be quite illuminating, I trust.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> When it [illness and death due to smoking] has shrunk to a tiny fraction of the overall health problems of this Nation...will you, who have campaigned so ardently against it, then move on to finally address the much greater problems that are all around you?


we have to fight the battles that can be won
with illness and death due to smoking now being "politically and socially unaceptable" pressures can be brought to bear that noramlly cannot

it is the way of capitalistic democracies

why else do railroad crossings only get installed *after* a tragic death?

reactionary social change is still how the game is played
proactive social change is still, for themost part, seen as "authoritarian" regardless of its social benefit


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I guess its all a matter of definition. I guess I tend to think that >20,000 people a year is significant, especially when most of these are premature and ALL of these are avoidable. Second-hand smoke is "no longer a problem" precisely because of a long, long battle with the tobacco industry. They are relentless and couldn't give a toss about their clientele. Fact is that 20,000 people are going to die every year for the next decade at least because almost 30% of people still smoke. The incidence in lung cancer among men has stabilized but in women its increasing (second most prevalent form of cancer, after breast) - directly correlating with the increase in the numbers of women who smoke.

This war ain't over by a long shot. You can smoke your cigars in your own house and in other smokers houses. You can smoke on the beach or in your car. Just not wherever it can be smelled by non-smokers who have not consented to inhaling the carcinogens.

Health Canada spends more on promoting a healthy lifestyle (tackling heart disease, diet, etc) than on smoking, even though smoking is the LEADING CAUSE of preventable death in the world.

Ideology? It would be if the death rate was not so horrific and preventable. More like tragedy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not bad Macspectrum. Well said and well put. 

But it's still a bit of a dodge. Saying that we will only fight certain battles because we think we can win them, while turning away from greater and more far reaching problems sounds a bit like the "easy way out", if you know what I mean.

There has been such a concentrated and intensive campaign against legal tobacco products being used in public bars, while totally illegal drug smoking is now allowed in numerous places (out here) that I just have to ask....

Is the problem of "secondhand smoke" only applicable when it is from a product that you have decided to target for demonisation? Why do you not campaign even MORE ardently against the second hand smoke from marijuana in the Hemp cafe's? One is legal, the other is not. An outsider might be forgiven for mistaking WHICH is legal and which is NOT by how much time and effort is spent on one...and how much the other seems to be ignored (or even accepted).

And why not actually deal with the greater health problems that are unrelated to tobacco use and are far more prevalent among the population? If the same forces that are against tobacco were mobilised to force changes in our lifestyle that could curb or eliminate these much larger health problems.....then we might just have something. A real difference, and some faint hope that our failing medical care system could last long enough to be modified into something sustainable.

I guess it's just a case of "pick your target". Take on one that is easy to win, rather than tackling something that makes a truly large improvemet in the vast majority of Canadian lives.

It does sound a bit hypocritical, though.

Jim....I'd have expected far more from your reply. Simply quoting more facts and figures that show how dangerous smoking is while ignoring the questions about the far greater health problems that confront us....ones that can be altered by the same sort of forced social engineering that you people have been advocating for the past three decades....is, quite simply, a dodge. Sorry. 

My direct question to you, JWoodget, is this:

Do you advocate the passing of strong legislation and massive tax increases (on unhealthy food choices, for instance) to force the Canadian people into major lifestyle changes? In order to do something very real about these serious and much more far-ranging health problems that affect far more of us than tobacco use ever did?

If so...then please explain in detail (so we can all prepare ourselves for the onslaught).

If not...then WHY not? Especially since a campaign against unhealthy lifestyle choices...one that involves exclusion laws and heavy taxation of the very worst offenders...would be of far greater benefit to all of us than when the very same campaign was unleashed against tobacco?

I await you detailed reply. Or yet another dodge.

Or stony silence.

Any of the three will do. All will tell a tale.  

Trust me on this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Umm.... methinks the "dodge" was made by you macnutt (hint: read the title of this thread?). Chocolate cigar anyone?

You ask why don't we enact legislation to curb poor eating habits? This is presumably a rhetorical question since, last time I looked anyway, you couldn't kill someone else by eating junk food. "Enforced social engineering"? How about enforced exposure to known carcinogens? The re-engineering of society to reflect the known risks of smoking is surely a good thing. Hopefully, better lifestyle choices will be made in the future regarding diet and exercise. It's unfortunate that junk food is cheaper than good food. The food industry clearly produces what people demand. If people are better educated to care about their bodies, demand for Krispy Kreme donuts and Big Macs will decline.

Why not tax Big Macs? The relevant tests here are CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY. I have only negative choices if I'm in a restaurant and someone lights up. I either get to inhale their exhaust or I get to leave. If the person on the next booth orders poutine with extra curds, I don't even know it. 

As I also mentioned previously, Health Canada spends more on programs for healthy eating, exercise, etc than on smoking prevention. So the question (if you ever cared) is how can we be more effective in getting the message across? Ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions. All society can do is lay out the facts - unless their actions cause harm to others (as in smoking). I hope our eating habits change. There is evidence for this ("healthy choices", better awareness, consumer education).

As for facts and figures (which macnutt seems to have some sort of allergy to, along with back-up URLs), I made a glaring error in stating that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in *the world*. Of course, that would be famine (followed by HIV). We throw out more food in North America every day than is needed to feed the developing world for a week. Smoking is just the leading cause of preventable death in the "developed" world.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually it's heart disease. By a long shot. Followed by the complications of diabetes. Which will affect one out of every three people in the next few decades, if the projections are correct. Both of the above can be directly linked to lifestyle choices and food intake. Both are largely preventable. 

We could defeat these much larger health problems...if we just had a little more social engineering, with the same sort of zealotry, that has been deployed against tobacco use.

Second hand smoke seems to be a rallying point for your arguments here. But everything I've read seems to be pretty ambiguous on the subject, no matter who writes the study....or who funds it. No one can actually say, with absolute certantity, that second hand smoke causes cancer in nonsmokers. And no one seems to be able to explain the lung cancer deaths in people who have never smoked or been exposed to smokers.

Perhaps you would like to use some of your high-speed connect time to help out a guy with a dog-slow dialup (that disconnects every seven minutes or so). Find me a definitive study by the AMA or a large scale study featured in Lancet that says....without a shadow of a doubt...that second hand tobacco smoke is a certain killer.

While you're at it, you might just look up RADON gas and see if constant exposure to that particular carcinogen (present in most Canadian detached homes with a basement) might just be responsible for a few lung cancer deaths. Especially in nonsmokers.

Do you plan on doing something profound about those lung cancer deaths? How about the many millions of people across Canada who partake in smoking illegal substances? No? Why not?

Okay....so we have dealt with second hand smoke by enacting sweeping new laws that prevent anyone from smoking in any sort of a public place. But that's only half of the two-pronged sword that has been deployed against tobacco.

The other half is massive tax increases on the offending product. By all accounts, this has been very effective in getting large numbers of people to quit the demon weed.

Advertising and government information programs hasn't had much effect on anyone I know. It was the giant price increases that got most of my friends to quit.

So....how big are you planning to make the tax increases on donuts? Candy bars? Butter? Bacon? Or a whole host of other popular foods that contribute to our major health problems.

A pack of cigarettes only brings in about a buck for the manufacturer...but out here in BC the retail price is about nine bucks for the same pack. That's a tax rate of about 800%. Quite a markup...and VERY effective at discouraging many of the former users.

Fifty bucks for a pack of bacon? Twelve bucks for a donut? Butter is so evil that we should just jack it up to a hundred bucks for a single stick...don't you think?

And think of all the good advertising we could do with all of that new money?! Think of the windfall to the failing and cash-starved Health Care system if we hiked the price of all the bad foods (not just junk foods) into the stratosphere (like we did to tobacco) and then channeled that massive pile of brand new tax money into fixing the well-documented problems that these evil foods are causing amongst so many of us!

So many MORE than were EVER affected by tobacco smoke. 









We could do something REAL here!!







 

A few more laws...a bit more tinkering...some well thought out social engineering...and a whole bunch of new taxes.....and we could have _UTOPIA_ !!









C'mon Jim! Don't stop now! You've been so darned successful on this tobacco thing, now it's time to take on a real problem! A Big one, that affects FAR more people! 

Whaddaya say? Let's GO for it!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...some friends of mine have just returned from an extended vacation in Europe. (Like myself, they don't smoke cigarettes).

They were both astounded by the amount of smoking they witnessed in public places! They were totally shocked by the sight of several very pregnant women puffing away like chimneys in a really nice restaurant (Belgium, I think). They said they saw this practically everywhere they went!

And, while I don't have any reliable figures for lung cancer rates amongst the European elite, I am aware that heart disease is MUCH lower in both France and Italy than it is here in North America. Despite some of the seemingly fatty foods they consume with great frequency. This stuff has been all over the news for several years now, and it has everyone scratching their heads.

And, since heart disease is the number one killer around here (FAR more widespread than lung cancer ever was)....and since the Europeans don't seem to have as much of it as we do....and aren't in the same headlong rush away from tobacco that we seem to be engaged in....

I just gotta ask: Who is setting these priorities for us? Especially since they seem to run counter to the actual facts? If tackling the biggest and most wide-ranging health problems that afflict us is NOT their sole purpose....then what is the real agenda?

Any thoughts on this, Jim?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> And, since heart disease is the number one killer around here (FAR more widespread than lung cancer ever was)....and since the Europeans don't seem to have as much of it as we do....and aren't in the same headlong rush away from tobacco that we seem to be engaged in....


the lower statistics of heart disease in Europe, has been linked to the consumption of red wine which helps increase good cholesterol (LDL if i recall) in the blood - no such effect from beer nor hard liquor, nor white wine for that matter

cigarette smoking not only causes respiratory problems, but is also a prime contributor to heart disease

as an analyst of data yourself, as you have previously noted Gerald, you should understand how statistics can be skewed to suit one's own viewpoint - didn't you say your claim to fame was the creation of a methodology to accurately analyze data?
to quote Monty Python; "Come now, let's see a bit of the ol' wit then."

why is it so horrible for your Gerald to imagine a world where you can smoke on your property or on the property of one of your cigar smoking buddies? Is it such a terrible thing. Does it cramp your lifestyle so much? Does your personal right (nevermind the left) to smoke matter so much that you need to smoke in a public place? Is it the thin edge of the wedge in attacking our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Smoking today. Tomorrow zee vorld?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Snore..... "no evidence that second-hand smoke is dangerous". What HAVE you been smoking macnutt?

Some links for your 7 min dial-up connection:

Health Canada and SHS 

SHS and the EPA 

BBC on SHS 

SHS and kids 

Ontario Medical Association and SHS 

There are *substantial* resources being put into de-bunking SHS and the hazards of smoking as a myth propagated by the anti-smoking Nazi's. Here's one of the more vitriolic sites (acting on the behalf of consumers rights): Forces. This one seems right up your alley macnutt.

Here's an excerpt from the Canadian chapter: "Welcome to the web site of FORCES CANADA, the Canadian chapter of the FORCES international smokers' rights movement. We exist in order to help prevent the hysteria and extremism of the U.S.-led anti-smoking movement from infecting and corrupting Canadian society, due process, and the rights of our citizens.

These are times of great danger for our liberties. We are going through a powerful backlash of puritanism and repression, in stark contrast to the 60's evolution towards progress and liberalization."

They even have a smokers singles site! Yeh!

Leading causes of death: I said "preventable" death. Remarkably (sic), heart disease often occurs at the end of life and is simply not preventable. This is also true of almost all cancers EXCEPT lung cancer. Heart disease can be accelerated by poor diet and a fraction of the population dies prematurely from genetic or epigenetic factors relating to elevated cholesterol, etc. In quite a few of those individuals, their lifestyle choices are actually good, it's their genes that are bad (or don't you know of any premature deaths among non-obese people?).

Some 90% of lung cancers are directly attributable to smoking and it kills people prematurely and horribly. Associated with this are heart disease (as macspectrum pointed out), oral cancers, emphysema, bladder cancer, diabetes, breast cancer, stroke, etc. The list is appalling and doesn't include smokers cough, the debilitating effects on the skin and complexion.

I also came across a fetish site for smoking and sex. I won't post it for reasons of taste (another casualty of smoking - desensitized taste buds).

I, for one, am all for increasing taxes on cigarettes (as I've mentioned before) since it is the primary deterrent for kids to start smoking. It seems that the Feds have gotten the balance right and smuggling (sponsored by Big Tobacco) has not increased as it did in the early 90's.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum....
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "smoking in a public place". I don't recall voicing my desire to torch up in a restaurant or a movie theatre or anywhere else where non-smokers are present. Never, in fact.

What I would like all the rest of you to realise is that there CAN be a dedicated cigar bar, right next door to a dedicated non-smokers bar. One would be staffed and attended only by smokers, one would obviously contain only non-smokers.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? It seems rather straightforward to most of us out here on the west coast. And we have had very restrictive smoking laws for a LOT longer than you have, after all. 

You are just on the early part of the bell curve. I suspect that, much like out here, the pendulum has to swing all the way over before it starts back to find its natural center. That would be the place where logic and common sense begin to override the ideological zeal and we find ourselves, eventually, in a place that pleases everyone...and doesn't step on anyone's rights.

I'm also a little curious as to why both you and Jim choose to ignore the open consumption of Cannabis in the Hemp cafe's out here. This is NOT a rare occurence in Vancouver. These are places that are dedicated to the selling and consumption of an illegal substance. One that most studies have pointed out, is rather more damaging to the lungs than tobacco. The second hand smoke from this stuff has DIRECT effects on anyone in the room. (I know this from personal experience.)









Is this not considered a "public place" in the same way that a cigar bar would be? What about the workers and patrons who are not pot smokers in these places? Have you no concern for their health?

And, before you start thinking that Hemp cafe's are a tiny abberration that is unworthy of comment...I should tell you that it is currently much easier to find a public place to smoke pot in Vancouver without hassle than it is to light up a legal cigar. A buddy of mine who lives in Vancouver, and partakes in both forms of combustibles, has pointed this out to me quite recently. Until we got the well-ventilated cigar bars (quite recently) he told me that he wouldn't DARE try and smoke a cigar anywhere in the city.....but that he had quite a few public places where he could fire up a big gagger without any grief at all.

I'm guessing that your ideological radar isn't picking up any of this at all. Nor does it seem to register a much larger and more widespread health crisis that can ALSO be modified by social engineering in the same way that has worked so effectively against tobacco use.

And _THIS_ is the point that I am trying to make here.  

You have been very successful in this anti-tobacco campaign. We all GET IT. It worked. This is a good thing!

But don't wait for your handlers to direct you on to the next big thing. Think for yourselves. Break out and use your own thought processes to decide for yourselves what to go after next. Don't wait to be told.

Because it's all right there, staring you in the face. A much MUCH bigger problem. One that can be fixed!

Social engineering on a grand scale is a tough and thankless job. This next battle is gonna be a biggie, I suspect. And you'll have to be very careful not to lose the momentum that you've gained by winning the war against tobacco. It's pretty easy to piss off pretty much everyone while you're trying to show them how to be better people.

Good luck.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sorry macnutt, but smoking of hemp in public places doesn't seem to be an issue East (or North or South) of Vancouver so, you are right, it is off my radar screen. There is still a lot going on in Ontario though as 2004 will see the elimination of smoking in public bars in the GTA and separately vented rooms are supposed to be dumped by 2005. in addition, the provincial government will introduce a province-wide ban on smoking in public places. Placing emphasis on the health problems of smoking (which only idiots deny), helps raise awareness of general health issues which are less obvious to many. 

Perhaps you are noticing the hemp fumes because the other sources of blue haze have dispersed? 

With the reliance of BC on a $6 billion marijuana cash crop, perhaps you guys are more willing to put up with weed fumes for the sake of your economy?

Inhaling fumes of virtually anything deterioriates the performance of your lung alveoli. Be it cigarette smoke, asbestos, cigars, gasoline, hemp, carbon monoxide..... often irreversibly. It's difficult to find a middle ground in dosages of known poisons

Noone seems to be disagreeing that there are other, important health priorities, but letting up on smoking is like decriminalizing shop-lifting while clamping down on drunk driving and burglary. It's not all or nothing.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"All or Nothing" indeed!
















And therin lies the flaw. The achillies heel that has divided and dispersed the mass movements that the left was so proud of a few decades back. Tobacco use, environmental awareness, the campaign against big business ("Multi-Nationals")...the list goes on.

First a wild swing away from the previously accepted norms, then massive new laws and regulations driven by popular demand from a newly aware public...who are themselves being driven by outraged charismatic individuals with an agenda...followed closely by some reportable and widely celebrated improvements in the situation....followed by increasing public apathy and a general feeling that the problem has been "fixed".

It's at that point that the mass movements lose steam and start to consume themselves from within. Or piss so very many people off that the public no longer takes them quite as seriously as they had in the early days of the movement.

And some semblance of reality returns. Logic and common sense prevails over ideological zealotry.Order is restored.

That is what has happened out here. Now, committed smokers of a legal product can gather in a place that is solely dedicated to them and enjoy their substance of choice. So can committed users of a non-legal but widely accepted substance, for that matter.

Who is unwittingly harmed by this simple excercise of personal freedom? Not the patrons of these establishments. They have chosen to be there. Not the workers inside, who are similarly there by their own choice.

No one is harmed by this. No one but the zealots who's feelings have been hurt.... who have been stifled because they didn't get it "all".  

Well...guess what? You can't have it "all". Ever!

There is a rather strong movement afoot right now by the same sort of zealots to address the much greater health problems that we face from heart disease and diabetes by radically altering the eating and lifestyle habits of pretty much everybody. This movement will run the very same course as I previously laid out above. We are at the early stages right now and it's just gaining momentum. Some very good things will come out of this, and we will all gain from it.

But it will begin to lose steam after some very strong legislation has been enacted to force people into changing their ways. New taxes on certain foods are certainly in our future....(unless the movement peaks too early and the whole population gets pissed off and collectively says "Stuff THIS! I'm going to live however I WANT to live and the devil take the hindmost!")

But...if it's managed very carefully, this new movement will go quite far before it runs out of gas. But it too will eventually lose it's lustre and the public will then decide for themselves just how much they will put up with...and how much they will not.

An equilibrium will be found that allows everyone to be happy. Reason will prevail. The zealots will move on to the next battle...or perhaps disperse (we can only hope).

But one thing's for sure....

Whether it's burgers and butter and heart disease or tobacco and lung cancer....you will NEVER get it "all".

Sorry. Just the way it is. Accept this simple reality and be happy with what you've gained. What we have ALL gained as a result of your efforts  

But even totalitarian states have never managed to get it "all". Not ever. 

And _THAT_ is the point that I have been trying to make here. Honest.

[ December 30, 2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

From my point of view, macnutt, I don't want it all, but 95% would be good. However, your cigar entrenchment is not what concerns me. Over 25% of Canadians over the age of 15 smoke. That is no victory - not by a long shot - which is why big tobacco keeps paying out. These guys think they have a future in selling cigarettes and that the anti-smoking campaigns will slowly lose steam and disappear. They've got deep pockets and are in the game to win. They realise that addicted smokers are easy game and they only need to ensure replacements by keeping smoking accessible. However, they deal in death and that won't go away. That is why the tobacco industry is fighting tooth and nail against the de-normalization campaigns. By making cigarettes as uncool as decaying teeth, the initial cachet is gone, and the hurdle of first experience is raised.

Freedom of rights doesn't include freedom to abuse, injure and kill.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm still hearing zealotry. Sorry.

People will always make their own choices. Whether it's crappy food or bad water or evil substances. There is only so much you can do.... and it's always easier to demonise the "Big Corporations" who are "pushing" the stuff than it is to deal with the true reality.

Which is that we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions and must ultimately pay for any bad choices that we make along the way. We are not children who are led along by our noses. I know that many of the leaders on your side of the fence would like to think that we are all just simple little folk who can't tell right from wrong...but that's not the reality.

And this abrogation of responsibility for wrongdoing or bad choices has been one of the most widely-disliked results of the mass movements that started back when we were just lads.

It has become quite stylish to "blame society" when your child steals or smokes or does drugs. It can't be juniors fault...because that might mean that WE had failed as parents...so it must be something else. Big Corporations! That's it! They are the ones who are forcing all this evil upon us! A pox on their houses! Rally the troops! We march at dawn! Down with General Motors! Death to Rothmans!
















It all seems a bit silly doesn't it? Especially when we are applying this nonsense to thinking adults who seem to be hell-bent on making their own decisions. No matter what anyone else tells them.

Which is why you can never have it "all" Jim.

And why you have no right to ever expect to have it "all" when dealing with adults in a free society.

Otherwise, it would no longer be a free society. And you will never get THAT away from us.

Promise.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Zealotry macnutt? All I'm hearing is same-old diversion, market-forces, and right-wing ideology. I guess its easy to put everything under the rubrik of personal responsibility as that way you don't have to care about the people who smoke themselves to death, or run out of health insurance because they became sick? Heck, I earned my money, why should I subsidize the ignorance or misfortune of others? Let me decide whether I want to pave the road or build a hospital or buy a yaght.

The one thing an individual cannot defend against is corporate greed. That is (or is supposed to be) one of the roles of government. There's nothing wrong with the profit incentive except when it comes at the expense of human misery. Whether its a small company or a multi-national, there has to be responsibility. Unfortunately, that tends to get diluted when people hide behind the anonimity of faceless corporations (or beaurocracy). 

I don't know how tobacco execs live with themselves, knowing their product causes so much harm. All they seem to care about is to retain their clientele through maintenance of its addicitive ingredients and to introduce new clientele to replace the ones that no longer have enough breath to draw on their product.

If it is zealotry to think that something is very wrong with this picture, so be it. But don't espouse personal responsibility in this case unless you also wish to abandon people to their fate. Where is the humanity in that?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

People MUST take responsibility for their own actions. For the choices they make as they move through life. Good or bad.

It was always that way in the past. But we seem to have gotten derailed sometime during the latter part of the twentieth century. After that point, it became popular for the drunk to point an accusing finger at the company who sold him the booze...for the dying smoker to blame the company that foced him to smoke five packs a day for all his adult life...to blame the evil automaker for designing a death machine that failed to protect him from serious injury when he flipped his car into the ditch at high speed. Why should the damn car HAVE that much horsepower, anyway? No one needs that much power! Sue the hell out of the company that built it! That big nasty GREEDY corporation!!

(But the guy DID buy the car specifically because it had a big motor) Hmmmm...

It goes on and on. People even began suing the owners of buildings because something terrible happened to them when they were walking nearby. As though the owners of these buildings were somehow negligent in preventing late night crime in the vicinity or something.

Luckily, this nonsense is starting to abate somewhat these days. Like most of the silly notions that were born in the sixties, we are casting off the worst of it while retaining something useful from the experience.

And I honestly think that sometime not too long from now, we will also revamp our basic Constitution to include a bill of Rights and _RESPONSIBILITIES_ .

The two go hand in hand.

"You've got THIS inalienable right...then you must accept THIS responsibility that goes along with it."

You have the right to drink alcohol after a certain age...you must accept the responsibilities of your actions afterwards. No blaming anyone else.

And on down the list.

Once we get to that point, a whole lot of lawyers will be looking for a new line of work, and people will begin to take more personal responsibility for their own choices in life. We won't be treating adults as if they are children anymore.

To me, this will be a major improvement. From what I have heard, a lot of others feel the very same way.

At that point, the only social engineering that will be allowed is the kind that employs a tasty carrot. Not a big nasty stick. 

Couldn't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

A brave new world indeed. Whatever happened to community spirit, helping those less fortunate than yourself? Survival of the fittest, eh? Oddly, it was not selfishness and individual strength that set humans apart from the animal kingdom. It was/is our sense of community and compassion. To put the group before the individual. Not to leave the weak to the lions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

well said UTBW

compassion and common good should outweigh corporate profits and politics, otherwise we are no more advanced that the animals we share this planet with.

it is up to us to preserve the future for the future inhabitants, not to piss it all away like a bad weekend in Vegas

"...we all breathe the same air and we are all mortal." - JFK


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Compassion and community spirit begin to wear a bit thin when one group is dictating the behavior patterns to another. Especially when what the second group are doing is totally separated from the first group and doesn't affect them in any sort of way.

"Compassion and Community spirit" were some of the bywords of the old Soviet Union...and are still being used in Cuba today in order to force people into certain behavior patterns that are being dictated from above.

When used in this context, it's a lame excuse for exerting control over others. 

Does any of this ring a bell? Set off any alarms?

It should.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacNutt: At that point, the only social engineering that will be allowed is the kind that employs a tasty carrot. Not a big nasty stick. 

Couldn't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. 


Well spoken. Social engineering becomes a really interesting topic when you try to draw the line on where and when it stops. I love the idea of a constitutional bill of rights and responsibilities, however I think that it would tend to frighten a lot of people because it really does put the focus back on them as individuals rather than us as a social group.

Mike


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum....

JFK smoked really nice little cigars. And I bet he would have been appalled at anyone who told him that he did not have the freedom to associate with other cigar smokers in a well-ventilated room set aside from the nonsmokers.

Think about it.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt....


He screwed around on his wife too..

Does that make it more acceptable because JFK did it?

Neither his indiscretions or his cute little cigars do it for me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Thank you Guinness. My point exactly.

And I agree with you that it is a very frightening idea for some of us to begin treating people as individuals and not as a collective group...with collective bargaining that submerges individual skills/faults into a sea of mediocrity...with collective thinking that melds the proletariat into one easily herded mass.

That can be directed by a few charismatic individuals.

Individuality and personal choices, coupled with personal responsibilities is what I have been driving at here.

We all need to think very hard when we surrender ourselves to what we believe is the "greater good".

If not, then we take the chance of losing far more than we gain.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Think you are missing the point here, darntootin.

Perhaps I might invite you to go back and read the posts that led up to this particular moment.

Just a thought.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...

Don't faint, but I agree... now if we could just convince GWB...


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...

I follow you, but I couldn't resist an obvious joke about JFK.

What I agreed to was:


> We all need to think very hard when we surrender ourselves to what we believe is the "greater good".
> If not, then we take the chance of losing far more than we gain.


Ain't life a hoot?

Am I on the same page yet?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

whether I do or do not hold JFK in high reagard doesn't take away from those words

they are bigger than the man

again, smoking is not a problem, if you do it in a private home - buy loose tobacco and roll, stuff, smoke your life away, but no need to do it in a place that has employees

the logical extension of your argument of well ventilated, blah blah blah is to cater to alcoholics
COME IN - show your AA card and get the 1st drink free !!!









I was just in a bar last night watching the hockey games and the bar was filled with smokers - today I have a headache and didn't sleep well - before you ask I only had 3 beers

my clothes reek - but better that than tramping on some sort of God given right to smoke


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacSpectrum: no problem, as long as you don't have any employees
knock yourselves out

If those employees have chosen to work in an establishment which clearly caters to the smoking public, then they have clearly accepted the risks so defined. If, on the other hand I had hired them under the false pretense of working in a smoke free, risk free environment, I would be severely libel for their safety. They are making a choice to work their, no one is holding a gun to their head to remain there, and modern labour laws have various mechanisms that require me as an employer to compensate employees for changes in workplace health and safety conditions which would force an employee to leave.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

>> MacSpectrum: I was just in a bar last night watching the hockey games and the bar was filled with smokers - today I have a headache and didn't sleep well - before you ask I only had 3 beers

I have a friend who has a severe allergy to peanuts and potatoes. If she and I were to go into a bar that served mashed potatoes, I would guarantee you that she would be ill within minutes and suffering breathing difficulties severe enough to require hospitalization shortly thereafter. Her solution - DON'T GO INTO THE BARS.

Mike


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guiness, you're mssing the point
SAFE working environment
we're not talking about police or firefighters here

days were that employees didn't have to wear masks when spray painting
what, you should just say "if you don't like spary paint fumes, you shoud get a different job."

EMPLOYERS are requied to provde a SAFE and HEALTHY working environment
remember aesbestos insulation?

again, smoke away all you want in your home, subject your kids to it, if you so wish (i'm waiting for the 1st lawsuit filed by a child against his parents for smoking in his/her presence - that will be a good one to watch), just do it with you and your friends in a NON-workplace environment

is that really so much to ask?

what about clearly marking bars as WHITE ONLY - is that somehow acceptable? After all, everyone in the bar knows....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Her solution - DON'T GO INTO THE BARS.


so the rights of the minority of smokers trample those of the rights of the majority (like me) non-smokers

so if i want to have a beer and watch a game with my buddies, i just have to suffer and inhale the smoke, because the rights of the smokers are somehow paramount

uh huh


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Precisely, Guinness.  

As an employer I can tell you that there is a veritable forest of rules and regs for workplace safety. If I were to switch from bottling spring water to practically ANYTHING even slightly more "toxic" then studies would have to be done and safety equipment purchased. By me.

And anyone who felt personally threatened by the new substance could not be fired for refusing to work. Or go unpaid, even though they no longer chose to work there. It would go before a board and a decision would be made as to how much compensation I would have to pay out to the offended employee. Honest.

Macspectrum. I have no idea what you were doing in a bar that allowed smoking. Why would you even enter such a place?  

Long before we experimented with a total smoking ban out here in BC, we had LOTS of non-smoking bars! Surely you guys aren't THAT far behind the curve?!

And, for your information, a local news station did a survey of bar employees AFTER the total ban took effect. Over eighty per cent were committed smokers. (You could see them all gathered outside having a puff at break time).

In my experience here on Salt Spring Island, I know a couple of dozen bar employees. Every single one is a smoker. Even though most work in bars where smoking is limited to a tiny well-ventilated area nowadays (the total ban was a total flop, really).

I am still rather puzzled why an otherwise smart guy is having such a tough time grasping this simple concept?

What did they use on you? Drugs? Cattle prods?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt, you keep mentioning these ventilated pubs (you've mentioned them in the past too), where exactly are they? as far as I have been able to find out the only ventilated area in any bar or pub in Vancouver is the (outdoor) balcony.

In fact, I have read in a couple of places that business in many Vancouver bars actually increased after the smoking ban which is why many places continue to disallow smoking despite the ban being defeated in court.

You keep talking about "Rights and Responsibilities", so while yes it is the individuals right to smoke, it is also the individual's responsibility to realise that a) smokers are a minority, b) second hand smoke is both uncomfortable and smelly to the non-smoking majority, as well as being _toxic to others_. 

The freedom of choice in Canada isn't so much being "free to do what you want", it is being "free to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on the rights or welfare of others".

Since second hand smoke infringes on the rights and most definitely the welfare of others, would not everyone who smokes in a public place have to be held responsible for any and all health issues and deaths that can be caused or accelerated in others under your "Rights and Responsibilities" charter?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'll see if I can get you some addresses PB. They featured a couple of them on the NewsHour a few months back. Harvey Oberfeld demonstrated how good the ventilation system was in one of them when he tossed a cloth bar towel into the air and it was sucked right up to the ceiling. And stayed there.

So...I have a question for you, my fellow west coaster (fellow Salt Springer, for that matter):

When you go into a bar in BC these days, are you assaulted by cigarette smoke? Do you even notice any stray fumes? (I do not...and I don't smoke cigarettes. Some days I don't partake in a cigar. My sense of smell is fairly good)

But you DO realise that we, here in BC, went from a total ban to a grudging acceptance of well ventilated and well separated smoking zones that...once again I must repeat for the cheap seats...are strictly for smokers and do NOT force anyone who is a nonsmoker to breathe any nasty fumes.

And I just HAVE to ask:

You must be familiar with the many Hemp Cafe's in your adopted city. Any thoughts on those? Any comments on stray fumes wafting into the nasal passages of non pot smokers who might have wandered into one of these establishments totally unaware of what is being consumed on the premises?

And what the heck is wrong with the concept of a totally smoking bar, manned and staffed ONLY by smokers? With giant warning signs outside?

Why is this something that the zealots feel MUST be outlawed at any cost?

And...even more scary than that....what is next on their list?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Whoops PosterBoy, you must be living in a different dimension than macnutt. Watch out for those hemp bars.

macnutt, I guess you have the right and responsibility to remain silent as anything you say may be used to rebutt you....

Community = communism, eh? Not in my Canada where common values bind rather than divide people.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Community = communism


that is the clarion call of the right wing - the boogey man they always parade out when even thinking of any sort of policy that tried to treat those that are less well off

the AMA uses that argument against socialised medicine
the CMA used it many years until Canada became an enlightened country

"Survival of the fitttest !!! until I become one of the unift..."
speaking of fits... where's macnutt?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Right here...laughing!
















I noticed how you all scattered when Guinness signed on and made some very astute observations that totally shattered your "Collective Conciousness". Too funny!









Still no real answers, eh guys? Still stuck in that ideologically-driven causality loop that demands total obedience...or nothing?

Still can't concieve of a place where free people can partake of a government approved substance and be served beverages and food by workers who are also committed users of this legal substance? How about the illegal ones?

EEK EEK EEK! It's _BAD FOR YOU!!_ MAKE it all STOP!!!

You guys crack me up.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

> You must be familiar with the many Hemp Cafe's in your adopted city. Any thoughts on those? Any comments on stray fumes wafting into the nasal passages of non pot smokers who might have wandered into one of these establishments totally unaware of what is being consumed on the premises?


 

Whoa!

I know I don't get out much, but.....is this true?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm guessing that you might just be one of those people who feels that TV is evil and who won't watch the local evening news.

I used to be that way too.

You'd be surprised what is happening out in the world, LG. Watch the Vancouver BCTV NewsHour and you will hear a lot more about this sort of thing. CNN just did a report that said Vancouver is about to surpass Amsterdam as the marijuana capital of the world. BC already produces almost thirty per cent of all the pot that is sold in the USA.

That would be the TOP thirty per cent, by the way. The very best stuff. The skunky green that commands prices that are higher than gold or platinum. And that is much sought after.

The same stuff you can buy and smoke in some downtown cafe's in Vancouver. Without hassle.

I kid you not. Watch the news. It's all there.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

hhhmmmmmm....interesting. A far cry from the concealed activity and vigorous pursuit by the law common in my past. My wife and I had a conversation about the legalization of marijuana recently and concluded it would be a good thing, if only to shed some of the underworld influence in this area. She is the one who watches the TV. (By the way, I don't believe TV is evil...just intolerably irritating







)

It's nice that we have the ability to produce something of quality that contributes to our trade surplus with the US. Sort of.  

In my experience, the pungency of pot smoke is pretty well known and I cannot easily imagine a person stepping into a Hemp Cafe without being aware of the activities therein.

My wife used to smoke and I still do. When our children began arriving, we made the decision to never smoke inside our home - or anyone else's. This led to some amusing smoking events in blizzards and rainstorms and frigid weather, but the air inside was clean. This was our choice then and I still cannot abide cigarette smoke in a confined space. This is my choice now. What others do is a matter for them to decide with the proviso that no children are involved.

Smoking in the workplace is something I feel cannot be permitted. Some find smoke incapacitating and suffer greatly. Similarly, there is an increase in the number of scent-free workplaces for just the same reasons. As a person who suffers debilitating migraine headaches upon exposure to some fragrances, I can sympathize with anyone who reacts negatively to smoke. Unfortunately, the management of the place where I work and some of the people I work with cannot understand why I would object to perfumes and aftershave lotion, etc that cause me to suffer. I cannot understand why they cannot understand. There is strife. Although I would really like to leave this circumstance behind, it is impractical to do so. I am therefore trapped and resentful. I imagine others could feel the same way.

To me, one does not engage in activities that will harm others if those who hurt have not the alternative to leave. It really boils down to this. Do I expect and demand laws to protect me? No. It would be nice if I could count on the maturity and good will of those who share space with me...not happening.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just for the record here, I no longer partake in BC's most famous agricultural product. Not even a puff.

But I sure used to. I was chronic, at one point.









All that aside, I need to ask you...LGB...if you would have any objections to a dedicated cigar-bar in your area?

A place that is ONLY for smokers, that is staffed ONLY by smokers. A place that is plastered with signs that say "Do NOT enter if you are a non-smoker!!"

Would this offend your sensibilities? Would you actively campaign to have it shut down?

If so, why so? If not...why not?

Please feel free to speak your mind about this. I am terribly interested in your input. One way or the other.

Honest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I began smoking full time when I was just 14 years old. I continued to smoke between one and two packs per day until after my 56th birthday, a total of some 42 years.

I had three heart attacks in one hour on the morning of August 23, 2000. I was gone, then back three times thanks to the paramedics using defibulators on me, before I could be taken to the emergency room. How I survived is a mystery to even my doctor, but survive I did. I have never had another cigarette since that morning. I quit cold turkey and it was one of the hardest things I ever did. It takes guts and determination, but I had the motivation do do it from my doctor: smoke or die.

Oddly enough after I was stabilized the next day, my doctor came in and talked to me, while I was hooked up to all those machines. He commented that it was a good thing I was not a smoker or my heart attack could have been fatal. I was puzzled and asked him why he made the comment. He said the x-rays taken, showed my lungs to be clear, so he assumed I was a non smoker. He nearly fainted when I told him the truth. Why smoking as much as I did seemed not to harm my lungs, was a mystery to him.

When I take my daily walks, I still stop in for a pint at the local. And where do I sit? Usually right at the bar, between a couple of smokers. I still enjoy the smell of a freshly lit cigarette. What I can't stand though, is people who excuse themselves from a non smoking room, pop outside for a smoke and come back into the room. That is the foulest smell. They literally stink to high heaven. And to think I used to do it all the time. Had I known then what I know now, I would have quit back then.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, I suggest you sell off the water bottling business while the going is good (since the Feds are starting to get interested in water resale) and open a cigar shack where you can happily cater to like-minded smokers. Being owner/operator, you don't have to abide by the various levels of employer exploitation legislation (as long as you don't employ anyone). Since you'll need to take a day off every so often, maybe a collective would be in order where your clients rotate in service and take a share of the profits?

If this is such a good business proposition with enormous pent up demand, perhaps you could franchise the idea? McCiggies? I'm sure other investors would be happy to burn their investments along with the cigars.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt,,,

For someone who purports to live in a Camelot, how can you permit smoking? Wouldn't that get into the lungs of your friend's cows grazing on your pristine fields and drinking the purest of water?


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Oh... BTW macnutt...



> Just for the record here, I no longer partake in BC's most famous agricultural product. Not even a puff.
> But I sure used to. I was chronic, at one point.


It explains a lot, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Does it also explain why I live on a large acreage in paradise and have a big yacht? And a successful company that I built from the ground up, without any sort of government grants or handouts from family? Or from anyone else, for that matter.

Not too bad for a guy who was born into a working class family (both my parents were unionised workers) and who had to leave school after grade twelve to support himself. Who was living on his own by age eighteen and who has never taken a dime of welfare money...despite being dirt poor several times.

Sorry about that darntootin...but you fired a cheap shot across my bow. I had to respond in kind.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

You've come a long way baby...

But take a joke...

Just like you give out.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My last post wasn't a joke, Darntootin.

Just so you know.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Mine was.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

> All that aside, I need to ask you...LGB...if you would have any objections to a dedicated cigar-bar in your area?
> 
> A place that is ONLY for smokers, that is staffed ONLY by smokers. A place that is plastered with signs that say "Do NOT enter if you are a non-smoker!!"


No objections whatsoever...



> Would this offend your sensibilities? Would you actively campaign to have it shut down?


No and no.



> If so, why so? If not...why not?


Smoking cigars may not be healthy - but it is legal. And fun perhaps. Why would I object to a pastime organized by and for voluntary participants? Would I enter the premises? Once - out of curiousity; twice - if the cigars were good and free.







If someone told me I HAD to enter, I would revolt.

Smokers note....go ahead, smoke yourselves sick...we have universal healthcare to ease you into the grave.









Seriously, Macnutt, this is not an issue for me. Engaging in activities that victimize others unecessarily is an issue.

All things considered, smoking is expensive. On the other hand, imagine the tax void that would be created if all smoking ceased.

Thanks for your interest.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Who's prickly now macnutt?







I congatulate you on your self-made accomplishments (horns tootin). It's good to see that the liberal, oppressive, anti-individual regimes of Canada have not beaten you down (as if they ever would).

That said, I don't count personal wealth as a particularly relevant marker of a good citizen. Perhaps you could enlighten us of your other accomplishments - such as charitable work, giving back to the community, etc. I know you've done some of this, and I think it would provide a far better insight into success than a rags to riches story (Conrad Black, Rest In UK).

Back to topic, I've noticed a heck of a lot of Health Canada and Canadian Cancer Society ads encouraging smoking cessation over the past two days (the only TV I've seen). Her's hoping that 2004 is successful in bringing the smoking rate down to 25%.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

*When you go into a bar in BC these days, are you assaulted by cigarette smoke?*

No, but every bar in the city that I have been to does not allow smoking inside. Some, as I have mentioned, have a balcony but that is the extent of it.

*But you DO realise that we, here in BC, went from a total ban to a grudging acceptance of well ventilated and well separated smoking zones that are strictly for smokers and do NOT force anyone who is a nonsmoker to breathe any nasty fumes.*

I think I said that already, we had a total ban that was later defeated in court. But again, as I said already, most bars (in fact all that I have been too) in the city kept the ban on smoking inside because their business _increased after implementing it_.

*You must be familiar with the many Hemp Cafe's in your adopted city. Any thoughts on those? Any comments on stray fumes wafting into the nasal passages of non pot smokers who might have wandered into one of these establishments totally unaware of what is being consumed on the premises?*

First, "many" is an overstatement. There are only two that I know of that have actually managed to stay open for any length of time. Both of them are in the seedier areas of town as well, so I doubt there are many people walking around them that aren't at least familiar with the smell.

And considering how blatant the motif outside and in is (or was the last time I actually looked) I think it would be hard to "wander in unawares" of the theme of the establishment.

Blunt Brothers, the more well known of the two, is also visited by the police on a semi-regular basis, so smokers beware.

*And what the heck is wrong with the concept of a totally smoking bar, manned and staffed ONLY by smokers? With giant warning signs outside? Why is this something that the zealots feel MUST be outlawed at any cost?*

I don't think there is anything wrong with a bar only for smokers, it is an interesting idea. 

Problem is that smokers are a minority, and chances are that in any given group of friends there is going to be at least a few more non-smokers than smokers. When they all go out together do you think they are going to indulge the smokers habit and go to a bar guaranteed to reek of cigarettes? I don't think so, probably they are going to go to a bar where they can all enjoy the atmosphere and the smokers can step outside for a puff if they want to.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't think there is enough of a market for a "smokers only" bar to work.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

But the question is not "whether there would be enough of a market to support a smokers-only bar"

The question IS.....

Why would you, or anyone else, make it ILLEGAL for a business owner to open one? Selling or condoning the on-prermises use of a totally legal and govenment approved product? Served drinks by workers who are also committed users of this legal and govenment approved product?

Is this a problem for anyone who is reading this? If so...why? Please explain. I'm listening. Honest.

As for the Hemp cafe's, PB...there are several more than you have listed. I asked someone who is a supplier here on SSI (a long-term friend) and he says there are " a whole bunch of them....you just have to know where to look"

Perhaps if you picked up one of the free underground papers that are available on every streetcorner you could find several addresses of active Hemp cafe's.

They are out there. The evening news (BCTV) features them on a regular basis. American pot smokers are coming up here in droves to take advantage of the situation. I'll bet they aren't just going to two small bars.
















Jwoodget...despite what you may think, I am not "rich". At least I am not rich in cash money. On paper, I'm probably woth quite a chunk of change...but in the day to day reality I don't actually draw a wage out of my water company just yet. Sometime this year, maybe. That's what I'm hoping. Once all the big bills are paid off..

My small collection of "toys" all date from before I struck out on my own and decided to start my own business. The yacht is pretty nice, but its forty years old. My newest vehicle is a 1985 pickup truck and my current Mac is a single processor G4 400 AGP. I would love to go out and buy a brand new G5 dualie right now. I could do it...but then I would have to stall out on some crucial piece of gear that we need for the water business. Right NOW!

Not going to happen. So I have to wait. Simple as that.

The Chris Craft could use a new motor (it has one new one, and one very old one) it could also stand some serious hull work to bring it up to bristol shape. About twenty grand worth.

Also not going to happen. Probably not until next year. Or perhaps even the year after that (when it will cost forty large or so, due to deterioration).

But I only used it a handful of times this summer, after all. I can't justify spending big bucks on it right now. Just the way it is.

Nor can I spend the time or money to totally restore my one remaining American musclecar back to perfection (I had to sell the rest in order to support the business). It sits in my garage, looking forlorn and awaiting the attention of a loving owner. It is the last one left of it's kind, by the way. 

Do I support any charities? Absoloutely! Carley Spring water is a key supporter (the biggest) of the SSPlash society on Salt Spring Island! We aslo provide water to the voluteer firemen, and the guys who fix our steep roads on this island. Free.

Every single one of my employees started at 8 bucks an hour..and all make more than that now. Despite the fact that half of them would have qualified as "first time workers" and could have been paid far less than that under current BC labour laws.

Oh yeah...they are all from one single, large, extended family whom I have known and been close to for almost two decades. They are outstanding employees and I value their contribution to this enterprise greatly. They all got very nice Christmas bonuses this year. They earned them. Big time. I want these guys to stay!

BTW...they are not..technically...from the same racial group as myself.

The only reason that I choose to mention this insignifigant fact is because so many people here have openly referred to me as a "*******" and have tried to pigeonhole me into one of their little classifications.

Probably in order to discredit me or in order to feel better about insulting me.

Whatever...

But it would be quite illuminating to some of you if you happened to drop by Carley Spring farm sometime. You might just find me hanging out with my best buddy (of the past 35 years) or working with my guys, bottling water.

And it would be one hell of a "rainbow" lemme tell ya. There's about four different and very disparate races represented here, on any given day. My best buddy is about as different from me as you can get, from a racial perspective. Been that way since we were in the ninth grade together. He'd laugh his ass off if you called me a "*******' in his presence.  

But you know something? Skin color, and country of origin is irellevant here. That fact doesn't even come up. We don't even notice. We never have noticed.

Some of you might, though. (some of you are, after all, VERY big on "lables") 

Fair enough. The rest of you'll catch up, eventually.

Meantime...life goes on just fine, right here.  

[ January 04, 2004, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...



> But the question is not "whether there would be enough of a market to support a smokers-only bar"
> 
> The question IS..... Why would you, or anyone else, make it ILLEGAL for a business owner to open one? Selling or condoning the on-premises use of a totally legal and government approved product? Served drinks by workers who are also committed users of this legal and government approved product?
> Is this a problem for anyone who is reading this? If so...why? Please explain. I'm listening. Honest.


Regardless of my personal views on smoking or 'smoking-only bars', society, generally in good faith, attempts to determine what is in the best interest of the majority. Deterrents to killing each other is clearly instilled in us to set a standard of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior.

While I don't like all the existing laws and rules and regulations and laws in Canada, at some point I must grapple with the concept that laws are (in principle) enacted and maintained to protect society from itself. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES! Smoking is bad for our health, whether we smoke or inhale second-hand smoke.

Except for hermits, we all live in shared societies. Therefore, when activities and habits are proved to cause harm, 'the collective' may decide to discourage such habits in the best interest of that particular society. As long as you live in Canada, you won't be able to legally set up your own 'smoker's commune' with immunity to the laws of the land.

Smoking is harmful to the person inhaling and addicted to nicotine...and everyone around the smoker, whether it occurs in private... public... or in crowded consentual environments.

So if you open a smokers-only bar or establishment, it would clearly be done to circumvent, and thus in direct violation, of laws designed to protect you from yourself. It wouldn't take long before it would be closed down.

"... A LEGAL AND APPROVED PRODUCT"... it's legal because to make it illegal with the stroke of the gavel would bring too many lawsuits against governments by an industry that wants people to become addicted to their products. So governments have chosen to impose heavy taxes to discourage buying and using tobacco products, while clearly stating it is harmful to one's health.

It's a catch 22 for all level of governments, so I guess there are times when 'private' becomes very 'public'... and the right to choose goes against the grain.

Smoking is bad for you too, macnutt, and it's bad for the young children and teenagers being enticed to become lifetime addicts to cigarettes and other drugs.

And it's costing society a bundle of money.

I mean... where would YOU draw the line?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting, Darntootin....

You talk about the "collective' and, yet again, raise the specter of unwitting bar workers being subjected to the horrid scourge of second-hand smoke.

Despite the fact that 88% of the bar workers out here already CHOOSE to smoke on their own. And regularly gather outside the few totally nonsmoking bars for a quick puff while they are working.

A bar in Van advertised two positions for bar personell in a "smoking-only" joint and got more than 80 applications for each of the two positions. That's 160 smoking applicants for TWO jobs!!

In one day!!

You know what? I think your "collective and protective" ideology is being circumvented by people who are committed smokers, and who have NO TIME for the nonsense that is being forced upon them by a tiny but very vocal group of zealots.

Gee...what a shock.

You know what? I think you guys should take whatever sucesses you have made...and fold the tent.

You are NOT going to persuade the very hard core to quit!!

Never!

But...you can certainly piss a LOT of people off while trying!

Go for it...if you want to lose everything you have gained so far.

Trust me on this.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...



> A bar in Van advertised two positions for bar personnel in a "smoking-only" joint and got more than 80 applications for each of the two positions. That's 160 smoking applicants for TWO jobs!!
> In one day!!


Check your bones, dude! These could just as easily have been people in desperate need of jobs to pay for their rent and food. What guarantee can you provide that every single applicant was a casual, light, or heavy smoker... or simply willing to tolerate smoking to get hired? Or better yet... took it as an opportunity to make a political statement for smokers!!!!

Visit your local hospital in Victoria, Nanaimo, or especially Vancouver the next time you visit the mainland. See for yourself how busy they are attending to people afflicted with lung, heart and other problems directly related to smoking or smoking environments.

Then observe their age. Count the young children with asthma and other related diseases. Some are victims of other pollution caused by other processes in their area, but many will attest to their condition(s) having been caused or aggravated by parents who smoke in the home, or working where smoking was prevalent.

Then visit the people who have suffered heart attacks.

Get real for a minute, macnutt... I respect your right to defend your right to smoke, but I'm against smoking, and will defend that position and speak out on behalf of those who can't defend themselves... such as the next generations in their teens, or starting school, or still in the cradle... or in the womb.

Obviously my motivations are quite removed from yours... smoking killed my mother at the young age of 50... that's when magazine ads told us smoking was good for our health.  

There is no doubt in my mind (or several doctors') that it would have done the same to me if I hadn't stopped smoking cigarettes 19 years ago.

As for my being a member of a small ideological minority hardly addersses this, or any other issue, except to indicate your desire to 'put-down' anyone who doesn't agree with you.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The figures in Canada (similar to North America in general) are that approximately 28% of people over the age of 14 smoke. That's down from over 35% about a decade ago. There has been a slow drop in overall numbers but there are some groups that are smoking more (young women being the most notable).

macnutt suggests that the hardcore will never give up. I'm not sure what hardcore means, but more than half of smokers say that they have either tried to give up or intend to give up in the future. These, along with kids who have yet to smoke, are the targets of both the tobacco companies and the anti-smoking organizations. These frontlines represent about 2.5 million people in Canada (the majority of whom will suffer some form of health problem due to smoking if they do continue their habit). If you ask me, this population is well worth helping.

The "hardcore" smokers may well be unconvinced, but at least they'll have our healthcare system to look after them.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*But the question is not "whether there would be enough of a market to support a smokers-only bar", The question IS why would you, or anyone else, make it ILLEGAL for a business owner to open one? *

See, this is where I think you are wrong. They made smoking in all indoor public places illegal, a law that was later defeated in court. It is the bars themselves that have kept the effective ban in place across the board.

So, just for arguments sake let's say the law is still in place, that smoking in a public place is still illegal. A bar is a public place and therefore there is no smoking allowed inside. Now lets say that someone wants to open a bar for smokers, are there going to be enough people to support such a venture? Especially when they can quickly step outside any other bar to have a puff? Do you really think there would be enough patrons to be able to not only pay off the added bills for the ventilation system you speak of but keep the bar afloat?

You kept talking about the benefits of social engineering before, why can't you recognise it in place here? You want to smoke? Go outside, take a few minutes away from your friends and the good time to have your puff. That is the penalty you pay, and I think it is just as effective as the high tax rate on cigarettes.

*Is this a problem for anyone who is reading this? If so...why? Please explain. I'm listening. Honest.*

I don't have a problem with the idea of a smokers only bar, I just don't think such a venture would work, for reasons (such as the minority that smokers are in most circles of friends that I know) that I have already pointed out but you seem to have skipped over.


*As for the Hemp cafe's, PB...there are several more than you have listed. [...] there are " a whole bunch of them....you just have to know where to look".*

Oh, I know there are a "a bunch" more than I am probably personally aware of (and I know of a few), but there are only two that have managed to stay open for any length of time, and even those are visited by the police fairly often. 

*88% of the bar workers out here already CHOOSE to smoke on their own.* [...] *That's 160 smoking applicants for TWO jobs!!*

Do you have a source for these numbers? 93% of statistics are made up on the spot after all.

Huge numbers of people applying for jobs happens a lot in the city, what with rent (and other bills) being so frickin' expensive (especially downtown). The fact that it happened for two jobs that say smoking only seems rather convenient for your point. Being willing to work in a smoke filled environment in order to pay your bills is a compromise that I am sure many, many people would be willing to make. That doesn't mean I would be, but I am not living with a downtown rent bill either.

*You know what? I think your "collective and protective" ideology is being circumvented by people who are committed smokers, and who have NO TIME for the nonsense that is being forced upon them by a tiny but very vocal group of zealots. [...] You are NOT going to persuade the very hard core to quit!!*

You know what? I think calling people who don't agree with your points a "small but vocal group of zealots" only shows that you are growing more desperate, or at least more frustrated. 

For the record, I would never bother trying to get a hardcore smoker to quit because it isn't them I am worried about. I would rather keep people from starting than try to convince the people who have been smoking 3 packs a day for 20 years to quit because I think the kids are the more important group.

I don't really relish the idea of seeing these kids becoming the next hapless supporters of the last widespread legal drug trade.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This still gets back to my original question.....

Just because you claim that there wouldn't be enough business to keep a smoking-only bar open...would you still make that bar illegal? Why not let the market decide that?

Or..are you afraid they'd catch on? If not..then what's the problem? It is a legal substance, after all.

Which brings me to my next question:

If there is to be some heavy enforcement on the use of a legal sustance in a known smokers-only bar...then will the very same heavy hand of the law be used in the very same way on the Hemp cafe's?

If not...then why not? THIS is an illegal substance, after all.

And, belive me, the cops don't spend much time hassling the people in the Hemp cafe's right now. Nobody ever gets busted for smoking the stuff. Doesn't happen.

But light up a stogie in a regular cafe or bar and watch the gendarmes descend on you. Interesting,eh?

As to the supposition that I have made that this is all being driven by a small group of zealots, who have managed to persuade much of the rest of the population to join in their cause....

Go back and read darntootin's post. The one where he says that it doesn't matter if smoking is done in a smoking-only bar. He says we have to have laws "That protect us from ourselves". He even highlights this in a zealous fashion, to illustrated his point.

I find it curious that this very same zealotry to "protect ourselves from ourselves for the greater good of all" is not directed at a MUCH larger health problem. One that affects MANY, MANY more people than smoking ever did.

Are they hypocrites? Why do they not direct their energies into something that will make a really big difference and extend all of our lives by actively banning and heavily taxing certain foods?

Perhaps the tobacco campaign was just a test case. It has been a roaring success, after all.

And I'm hearing many more studies about how dangerous our North American fatty diet has become. 

It's only a matter of time before we are subject to a brand new onslaught. This time it will be food and drink.

In fact...it's already begun.

How soon before we must all submit regular blood samples to confirm that we are all followqing good eating practices for "the greater good of all" and to "protect ourselves from ourselves"?

Not long at all, I'll wager.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW PosterBoy...

I detest any sort of social engineering or any sort of rules and regs that decide for us how we will live our own lives. I had my fill of that while living in several dictatorships in latin america during the seventies and eighties.

I had my toungue firmly planted in my cheek while advocating the stupid notion of social engineering. I was attempting to show everyone how silly it all really is.

And how easy it is to slide down that slippery slope into a time when we are totally controlled by society. "For the greater good of all".

When that finally comes to pass, I'll be on the first boat outa here!

Trust me on this.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Whether we like it or not, smoking bans are here and are not going away. There will be few cities, perhaps whole provinces, that allow indoor smoking in 10 years.

Partial bans are used to introduce the law, so that the full ban can come later. That's just the way it is (it's a proven method for any political agenda. It works).

Although there is not enough evidence to prove that second hand smoke harms anyone, that's irrelevant. The public has been convinced it does, and all that matters is what people believe.

Professionals in health, especially, have no problem bending the truth if they feel it will change our behaviour for the better. Thus the now-famous EPA metastudy of 1992 is considered fact, (it's cited constantly today by such agencies as the Lung Association of Canada and the WHO) despite it's serious flaws.

The EPA metastudy is the "study that started it all", and is the most commonly cited study in media reports about the issue right up to today. This despite the fact that they ignored 80% of the research, citing only the 31 studies (and later changed that to 30) that supported it's contention that second hand smoke was harmful. They also publicly announced the conclusion before they completed the research. *

Note: a "metastudy" is not research itself, it is a compilation of the research studies conducted so far. When you do a metastudy that ignores all the research that doesn't support your conclusion, you're conducting Junk Science.

Even when they did so, their results didn't show any link. So they eliminated one study with the weakest findings. No link. Then they began to increase the margin of error until the results fell into a causal window, "found" a link, and reported that.

There are as many studies that show second hand smoke is harmless as there are that show it's harmful (actually, there are far more that show it harmless; there are even a few that find second-hand smoke reduces respitory ailments- not proof they do, just indicating that we aren't able to find enough evidence to come to a scientifically justifiable conclusion either way (ie repeatable, procedurally correct, withstand peer review, and consistent with other research findings).

The WHO, a major proponent of banning tobacco, commissioned the largest metastudy of second hand smoke research ever undertaken; it's own study concluded there is no evidence second hand smoke harms anyone (1998).

California's EPA simply adopted the flawed Federal EPA study's conclusions as it's own, ignoring the findings that the research itself was flawed. So, you can cite the Califonia study, which was not villified by the courts and by the research community but is identical to the one that was.

The Centres For Disease control, in a study of 5,400 asthmatic children aged 4 to 16 years found no link between tobacco and asthma (January 2001).

The CDC, and the WHO have never been able to show or suggest any link between second hand smoke and any respitory ailments, despite conducting such research themselves.

But, and this is a big but-- the public is convinced. The debate is over. Just the way things are.

*- not to go into too much detail; I will just quote briefly from Judge William Osteen's 1998 98-page decision declaring the study invalid:

" ,,, "In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion.

In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers.

EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer.

Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen." ..."

Any time you hear the US EPA classified second-hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen, that person is referring to the above metastudy. The EPA has never undertaken any tobacco research itself; all it's findings are based on the work of others.

Even though Judge Osteen found the EPA study to be without merit and deliberately misleading, he has ruled in favor of US governments in Tobacco Lawsuits and is the Judge who made the landmark ruling that the FDA has the right to regulate tobacco. There is no pattern of bias in his tobacco rulings.

Read his entire ruling here.

[ January 06, 2004, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macnutt... Just a thought...

"Zealot \Zeal"ot\, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See {Zeal}.]
One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his/her object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his/her zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan."

IMHO... you misuse the word in most of your posts. To disagree with you, specifically, doesn't necessarily make people 'zealots'. At least not in the context you continually employ the word.

To have an opinion on one subject does not automatically trigger a domino-effect of predetermined convictions, beliefs, notions or assumptions on other related or unrelated subjects, beliefs or doctrines. Thus your opinion on this particular subject, re: smoking, does not mean you feel the same way about pollution in general; why else would you have chosen to live on Salt Spring Island where city air, noise and industrial waste and/or other pollutants are diminished or totally absent?


ALSO...

From your personal views, e.g., "I detest any sort of social engineering or any sort of rules and regs that decide for us how we will live our own lives."

I make this poignant analogy:

There is a man in Penticton, BC who probably felt the same way. Especially about killing women. He did it on his own property... in his own little world where he made his own rules detached from any influence from local or other laws of society. Maybe he too detested any sort of social engineering or any sort of rules and regs that decided for him how he should live his own life...

If your first response is to dismiss this little discourse as nonsense, or to pigeonhole the killer as being different from you, because you possess different morals and standards than the killer, then explain to me where you, in fact, draw the line on when; where, or at what juncture any sort of social engineering or any kind of rules and regs should be installed, or have be decided to protect victims, or as to how he/we should live our own lives? 

Of course you (or I) are not being compared to this sicko, for we, and the 'majority' of society, are drastically removed... at opposite ends of what such people perceive as the 'common' sense of what freedom means.

However, only the INTERPRETATION is different. Thus you are not alone in wanting your own freedoms, without social engineering, or rules and regulations, but each of us has his/her own unique and personal reasons.

If other people, like the sicko who kills women, or child-molesters; parents who physically and/or sexually abuse their sons and daughters; spousal abusers, and the myriad of crimes committed in the privacy of homes or on private properties also agree with your ideology, then.... does 'society' not have the 'collective' responsibility to 'socially-engineer' moral parameters for the 'collective' to abide by? Are 'rules and regs' not installed in the best interest of everyone... to protect the majority from freedom-zealots... or to avoid anarchy?

Or thus in essence...

TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Short answer?

No.

Also, there is a world of difference between the accepted rules of society that say "do not kill" and an intrusive society run by zealots who poke their noses into every facet of everyone's personal business. "For the greater good of all."

BTW...I don't refer to people as zealots simply becuase they don't happen to agree with me. I refer to them, rightly, as zealots when they are so totally committed to their cause that they will not listen to any sort of logical argument against their position...they simply begin quoting statistics, pointing out how the thing they are after is "for the greater good of all society" and advocate lots of new laws and regulations to force everyone to bend to their will.

THAT is zealotry.

So...now that the zealots have sucessfully campaigned against tobacco use, how soon till they (You?) go after a REALLY big health problem. "For the greater good of all society"?

If you (they) do NOT...then you are most certainly a narrowly focussed bunch who are not truly concerned about the health and welfare of the greater society. You will have missed the big fish whilst snagging a minnow.

If you (they) DO embark on this next, much bigger, campaign to save us all from ourselves.....(and it looks like it's already begun)...

Then you're sunk.

So is social engineering on a grand scale. (it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world, either...so don't feel too bad).

Should be an interesting ride.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

I don't think a smoking only bar is illegal, and frankly I don't really care if they are or aren't. I just don't think that a smoking only bar would have enough patrons to stay afloat.

The cops stop by the hemp bars semi regularly, not exactly on a schedule or anything. Not as much as they should, but it's not like they never stop by to say Hi.

And the difference between people smoking joints in a pot bar and you lighting a stogie in a regular pub is that people go to pot bars to smoke pot, whereas people go to a regular pub to have a drink and be with friends, and these days are expecting a smoke free environment. 

And keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with everything darntootin' is saying either.

Did you have a source for those stats BTW?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's ironic that George W. Bush's sojourn into Iraq is often described by his supporters as social engineering of the middle east. To each his/her own.

Thereare major differences between smoking and poor diet. For one, smoking is addictive and cigarettes contain clearly addictive components including nicotine. Junk food contains lots of bad stuff too, but it simply isn't addictive. Moreover, the food companies are not addicted to what they sell. If BSE somehow became a widespread hazard (i.e. was found to be endemic in the North American cattle population), do you think McDonalds would still base its profit generation on hamburgers? As much as I dislike McDonalds (or any of the other junk food outlets) their business model relies on consumer empathy as they have competitors who are not reliant on beef, etc. They simply satisfy fickle demand and constantly tweak their menus to try to follow the trends.

The diet/obesity problem is one of education and promotion of a healthy lifestyle. The food industry can and will adapt. They'll provide us with whatever we demand. Therefore, the key is to getting people to demand healthier food, not forcing McDs out of business. Unlike the tobacco industry, the food industry has a smorgasbord of stuff to prepare for us. 

Belatedly, the tobacco companies have diversified (even changed their names) but many of their profits still derive primarily from cigarettes. They are addicted to their product and its profits as much as their clientele.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The stats about the people who work in smoking bars and the advert for workers in a smoking-only bar are from a week-long series that was done for the BCTV NewsHour about smoking in bars. The total ban had just Harvey Oberfeld was the reporter and it was several years ago when it aired. Back in the NDP days, as I recall. I was back from the oilpatch and most of my visiting buddies were from freewheeling Alberta...where zealotry seems to recieve rather short shrift from the locals. I watched their reactions to our latest intrusion by the hated NDP and we listened to story after story from long-term bar workers who were now not allowed to smoke at work. The statistics were quite shocking and we all commented about them, that's why they stuck in my mind. Perhaps the newshour might have transcripts or something?

Your admission that you would not make smoking-only bars illegal puts you squarely among the majority who are both level-headed and pragmatic.

If you had claimed that they should be outlawed, and that people shouldn't be given the freedom to choose to go to a specific location in order to use a legal product..

...just because the product is _REALLY REALLY BAAAD FOR YOU_ ...then I would have had to write you off as one of the zealots whop will stop at nothing to get their own way.

Somehow, I just knew you were better than that.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macnutt...



> BTW...I don't refer to people as zealots simply becuase they don't happen to agree with me. I refer to them, rightly, as zealots when they are so totally committed to their cause that they will not listen to any sort of logical argument against their position...


You've described yourself!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Food is not addictive? Especially sugary foods? Don't make me laugh!









And people can get terribly obese by eating pretty good food as well as the junky stuff. Just as many people who have never been exposed to tobacco can and do get lung cancer.

The North American obesity situation has been described as a national crisis, and it's only getting worse...despite massive advertising campaigns by the government and a new awarenes by the eating public. Heart disease and diabetes due to lifestyle choices are at record levels and climbing fast. So are food allergies and a whole host of other problems. The medical cost and health problems that come with this are vastly worse and more widespread than anything that was ever caused by exposure to tobacco smoke.

So waddaya say guys? Isn't it time to do something aout this "For the greater good of all society"?

Don't we have the right to step into people's lives and prevent them from harming themselves?

You have said that you do, in the above posts. Why not now?

(this should be good. I'm expecting a dodge clouded by more statistics about how terrrible smoking is. I may end up being pleasantly surprised. who knows?)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Darntootin...

You have a _LOGICAL_ argument? If so, why haven't you used it yet?

I might have missed it. Please enlighten me. I'm listening...honest.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt: "Food is not addictive? Especially sugary foods? Don't make me laugh!"

"And people can get terribly obese by eating pretty good food as well as the junky stuff. Just as many people who have never been exposed to tobacco can and do get lung cancer."

Hello, calling Mars, I think you left one of your guys behind.... please pick up. 

Food is NOT addictive. Sugary (and fatty) foods trigger a neurological response that is pleasurable but that is not the same as chemical addiction. Anyone ever gone cold turkey on a Boston creme?

Over 90% of small cell lung adenomas are attributed to smoking. So "many" is about as useful an adjective in that context as "few". 

There are genetic contributions to obesity (see the Pima indians and the HNF1A gene) but obesity is largely governed by an imbalance of caloric intake versus activity. If you eat "well" but excessively, you will put on weight. It is the convenience and cheapness of junk food that makes it more likely to be over-indulged. It's a darn sight harder to get fat if you eat a rounded diet with fresh veggies and fruit - simply because the caloric density is lower.

Eating 1000 calories of carrots is not the same as 1000 calories of fried donut.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No doubt that all of the above explains how we are all getting slimmer and healthier each year. And why headlines and TV articles NEVER talk about 'food addiction"...right?

Earth to Jim...care to swing that big social engineering cannon at a large slow moving target and let fly?

Or are you just satisfied with the small ones. One specific small one, in fact.  

Tells the tale.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt, saying it twenty times doesn't make it true. Food is not addictive, period.

If you provide people with easy access to fatty, sugary foods, they'll consume it. So the answer is not to deny them those delights but to provide perspective. I know that you live in a secluded paradise and don't have to worry about the troubles of the world, but educating people about balanced diets (not fad diets) is hardly repressive. Supply will follow demand. Obesity is not like the tobacco problem because:
1. Its not addictive
2. We have to eat to live
3. The industry produces what people demand and is not limited in that response
4. Over-eating has no effect on taste perception

Obesity is a growing problem but since you can get fat from overeating some 10,000 different products, banning/limiting/taxing them is not going to help.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I don't want to get in between the "crossfire" between jwoodget and macnutt, add to the problems with certain types of refined foods the issue of learning disabilities. Certain additives to highly refined foods, and the variety of different types of refined sugars that are put in these foods, triggers certain inabilities to process information. Many thought that it was the sugar that triggered hyperactivity, and then along came ADD/ADHD. Now, it is the additive and sugar "villian" that is potentially harmful for certain non-hyperactive learners.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Macnutt... 


> So...now that the zealots have sucessfully campaigned against tobacco use, how soon till they (You?) go after a REALLY big health problem. "For the greater good of all society"?


I then quote from my own post: 


> "To have an opinion on one subject does not automatically trigger a domino-effect of predetermined convictions, beliefs, notions or assumptions on other related or unrelated subjects, beliefs or doctrines."


May I be afforded the same freedoms as you? May I speak out on issues I feel (zealously-or-non-zealously) strongly about? Just as you feel strongly about providing your opinions of everyone who disagrees with you? Isn't that sticking your nose where it doesn't belong? Just like the zealots you don't like?

There are many issues that I feel strongly about, and they include many more than mentioned anywhere on this Ehmac forum. However, my problem is you requiring others to justify their opinions (to you) simply because you choose to pigeonhole people more than anyone on this Ehmac forum.

When there is a thread on obesity, or whatever, I may or may not join in. It's a choice, not zealousness.

However, I don't understand why your concept of a debate seems to be how quickly you can analyze every single person who diasagrees with you as being a minority and those who agree with you members of a more enlightened majority...

From one of your recent posts:



> "Your admission that you would not make smoking-only bars illegal puts you squarely among the majority who are both level-headed and pragmatic.
> If you had claimed that they should be outlawed, and that people shouldn't be given the freedom to choose to go to a specific location in order to use a legal product..
> ...just because the product is REALLY REALLY BAAAD FOR YOU ...then I would have had to write you off as one of the zealots whop will stop at nothing to get their own way."


From whence does this right to judge the character of people from their views on these threads? Most of what is posted here is out of context from everyone's daily life!

How can you determine that my opinion/position on smoking transcends to every, or any, subject that comes to your mind? Or on these threads?

I appreciate your opinions on all subjects macnutt, but not your personal anecdotal analysis of all of us. Your opinion of me is irrevelant, but distracts from enjoying good open discussions.

I agree with you on the existence of other and equally harmful habits and lifestyles that must be addressed. However, (my) feelings and opinions on those subjects can be revealed on other threads... NOT assumed by you prior to discussion.

Thus I feel it is important for society to be informed as to the health hazards caused by smoking. At some point you too may become a financial burden to the medicare system in BC. I hope not. But it is easy to become a smoking statistic without any warning, regardless of your stance on smoking.

It can come from first or second hand smoke.

You may want to start not smoking someday. Will you then be zoned as a member of a zealous group? Or an enlightened one?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jwoodget...I may currently live in a secluded island paradise but I have lived all over the world. I am keenly aware of the sort of problems we face in the future and what is being done...or not done...about each and every one of them.

Call it a hobby, if you'd like.

The food addictions, lack of excercise, obesity, rising incidence of food allergies, poor lifestyle choices, and their attendant health problems which impact every single one of us in rapidly rising health care costs, are very real. It is the single biggest non-disease based health threat facing us. Bar none.

And ignoring it twenty times won't make it go away.  

It also won't mimimise it. And nothing we've done so far has slowed the rapid growth of this widespread problem. It's worse than it ever was...and it's impact on our society makes tobacco use look like a fart in a hurricane.

So...what are you planning to do about it? It will have to be something brand new and very draconian or it won't have any effect at all. Something far-reaching and very intrusive...other wise the problem will swamp our health care systems and kill off or sicken massive amounts of the population in the coming decades.

We need to be protected from ourselves Jwoodget. For the greater good of all society.

What's the plan?

[ January 06, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Darntootin...

I notice that you say that you may want to comment about other similar and equally harmful personal habits on another thread....

But this is a thread that has demonstrated, quite effectively, if my emails are any indication...that one small group can be so compelled to "change the world for the better" that they lose sight of all other things and lunge forward ready to attack anyone who doesn't fall in and agree with them. No matter what the argument.

I note this because you have said, in your last post that smoking is "equally as bad" a some other human habits.

Not even close, bucko!









What I have been trying to steer some of the people at this thread onto is the actual realisation that they are attacking one SMALL problem for reasons that can only be guessed at...while ignoring a massive one that touches us all! They claim to be working for the greater good of society and protecting us from ourselves (your words exactly, darntootin)

But not, apparently by mobilising this campaign against a problem that is ten times the size and costs us hundreds of times as much as a society to fix. I've been working at this for several days...from all sorts of different angles...

And they're just not seeing it.

Now THAT is zealotry!







 

BTW...I only smoke a cigar once in a while. Sometimes I don't have one for a week or more. I was in Cuba for six weeks and only smoked two. How's that for an addicted smoker, eh? (I hate cigarettes, and both my parents were lifelong nonsmokers)

This is no longer about smoking vs nonsmoking. It's about how much one group can intrude upon another to force them to change their ways. Even in private. 

So...have you got a logical argument, darntootin? If so, I'm listening. Honest.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...

You're a hoot!



> We need to be protected from ourselves Jwoodget. For the greater good of all society.
> What's the plan?


I can't believe you copied my words!!!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm using them to skewer the both of you. Read it all again. Carefully this time.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

macnutt...

You're right again. There are many problems out there requiring everyone's attention. I don't mean to be candid, but the smaller problems are easier to tackle and solve than the bigger ones. (inch by inch is a cinch... yard by yard is very hard... etc)

If we can succed in decreasing the number of people who smoke nationally, we may develop a model to help solve other health related habits, including stopping the wierd chemicals put in our food.

The discovery of BSE in the cattle food supply will, hopefully, provide catslysts for research into exactly how the quality of cattle raising may have degraded through the years for the sake of money, and how it can be improved.

Just as food additives can be harmful to humans, so can the introduction of chemicals that make us want to eat more, or affect the reasoning capabilities as mentioned by Dr.G.

There is now the beginning of a trend to awareness of the dangers of trans-fatty acids; hydrogenated oils, and many other chemically modified foods in our diet. We (the general public) consumed these concoctions whilst unawares of the long term effects.

There is no law or regimen more effective than education that can change the habits of 100's of millions of people.
children adopt and cause trends... so let's start there.

Of course there are incidents like BSE scares that can make a difference. (Notice I said 'scare'.. not epidemic)


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Sorry Macnutt..

But I don't feel skewered.

But I am tired. (Got to get up 5:00 AM!) It's 9:13 PM in beautiful Nova Scotia.

Goodnight all!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt, you either need glasses or you need a short term memory pill. The solution to the obesity problem is consumer education. I think I've mentioned this 3 times to date in this thread. Food is not addictive (mentioned 4 times in this thread - will someone please do a dictionary look-up for macnutt since I cannot be bothered?). There are fads in food consumption and these simply demonstrate how food choices change with time.

Life is full of choices but informed choices are all the more valuable. As with smoking, some people will make stupid choices, but unlike smoking, their will power is not corrupted by a chemical addiction. Therefore, their eating preferences are far more malleable than a smokers need for cigarettes. Breaking the chemical addiction to nicotine is more than half of the battle as most ex-smokers will attest.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The solution to the obesity problem is consumer education.


that and putting "gym class" back in the public school system

the price we are and will pay for this terrible decision is far too high for our future generations


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I heard you quite clearly, and understood you quite clearly Jwoodget.

But I have noted that education of the public about changing their eating habits has been at a rather high level for some time now. The government has spent tens of millions on this. The news is full of it. Everyone seems to be quite aware of this major health crisis.

But the problem is getting worse. Even faster than it was when the "education" program started. It's NOT working!

It's a far far bigger and more widespread problem than smoking ever was. It needs to have the same attention from those who would like to save us from ourselves as the much smaller problem of tobacco.

So..as a vocal advocate of social engineering to make the world a better place...I just have to ask...

What's your plan?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Darn it, I've assumed that you are for education, macnutt. My apologies but I still have this romantic assumption that education of the facts is a useful mechanism for generating informed opinion. I also believe that all humans are capable of absorbing information and forming an opinion. Finally, I hold out considerable faith that when informed, people make better choices than when they are ignorant. I may live in cloud cuckoo land with these assumptions, but if so, it is at least a place where sanity prevails.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm all for education Jwoodget. But it didn't signifigantly alter the amount of smokers we had in Canada. That took lots of new exclusion laws and some major taxation increases...which caused massive price increases to the offending product.

Now THAT worked!

Education and awareness has been just as big a flop on the much bigger health problems that face us. In fact they are actually getting worse. MUCH worse.

So...what's your plan?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sorry macnutt, but like I said, smoking and obesity are two very different problems. Education will work given time since the market for food is malleable. Indeed, education is also being used effectively in concert with the various other disincentives to combat smoking. Its a very important tool. In the case of obesity, education is in it's infancy but I don't see the food industry disputing the claims - unlike the constant denial of the tobacco industry.

So my plan, for the 7th time, would be to educate, educate, educate: the consumer, the food industry and our kids (who have a profound influence on purchases of food products).

If that ain't good enough for you, go stick a cigar into an orifice and smoke it (in your own abode)! Hope that is clear enough.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pretty clear jwoodget.  

You advocate...rather loudly...a massive attack upon a smallish problem using every tool in the book. Taxes, new legislation...the works. You say it should be illegal for users of this legal product to have their own commercial establishment to gather in. Because it's REALLY bad for you. To hell with any sort of logic or personal freedom in this...It MUST be stomped out. To protect us from ourselves!

But you have no real plan to fight the MUCH bigger problems of heart disease and diabetes in the same manner. Even though it's very possible to make a huge difference in this much larger health problem...using the very SAME tactics that have been used on tobacco.

We'll just let education take care of that won't we?























Let's see...attack a small problem with great zeal, while treating a much larger and more deadly one with near indifference...

Hmmmm.....

Hypocrite or zealot? I can't decide. 

Which do you prefer?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Smoking is an insignificant, "smallish" problem? It's taken over 40 years to educate people of the harmful effects. It kills 400,000 people a year on this continent. Reducing that number has been one of the most significant achievements in public health in the last 25 years although its nowhere near finished. I don't care about a hypothetical bar for smokers, even if you could ever get around the legal issues of requiring people work in a smoking atmosphere (say one of those employees developed lung cancer - would they have to quit their job?). There are no supporting facts only hearsay. In the meantime, todays Globe has two stories on public smoking bans in New Brunswick and Ireland. The tipping point for this issue was about 5 years ago and its been accelerating ever since. Unfortunately, the full impact of the health benefits will not be seen for another 20 years, but better then than never. 

Obesity is also a very significant problem but it'll take time for people to understand this and to change their eating preferences. I've no magic solutions other that confidence in people and informed opinion. Some of what worked for smoking is inappropriate for obesity (see above posts in case you've forgotten the reasons). In the meantime, what are your solutions macnutt? All ears......


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> that and putting "gym class" back in the public school system


I couldn't agree more. Also with gym class, they should have some valid marking or some comments. I had a workmate at school mention that he has a nephew that is overweight. The kid can't even climb a set of stairs without stopping several times to catch his breath. The parents say he's fine pointing to he passes his gym class, yadda yadda. The kid weighs more than 250 lbs. No way should this kid be passing gym class or if he's passing there should be a note of concern on the report card. This kid needs help or he's going to die a very early death, but the parents don't seem to want to hear it.

When you're talking of education are you talking about those subway commercials. I think they are the only ones I pay attention to. Ontario seems to have these 2-4 minutes spots with this black guy and this white woman telling you what you should and shouldn't eat and how to keep active, I think I toned those out since they started... channel surfing time. The only thing that really has gotten me to go on a diet or change my food choices and exercise more is seeing these people who just fit through the door on the bus, take two seats to be able to sit, and probably can't sit in a regular bus seat. I definitely don't ever want to look like them. 

Well, there may be one other thing that got me to change my diet or exercise more, and that hearing about all the heart bypasses at work, specifically the father of one of my work mates just had one. Man, when you hear what they do nowadays to do a heart bypass, you probabbly don't want one unless you have to get one.


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

used to be jwoodget...

(Don't get angry at macnutt. Use him as the antagonist providing a platform to express your opinions.)

I agree with you that smoking is an addiction, and cannot be compared to obesity... the product of, among other reasons, eating the wrong foods.

However, I want to add that sellers of foods do not have different motives from tobacco marketers. Both want our money at 'all costs' including our health. Both are not averse to spiking their products with anything that will make us come back for more as cigarette manufacturers are accused of doing. One obvious example is the use of Monosodium Glutemate (MSG) in foods to improve taste.

Becel sells their product on the basis of NOT containing partially-hydrogenated oils. The ingredients however, list vegetable oil without specifics; ARTIFICIAL colour, and acetate. Which veggie oil, colour agent, and which acetate and why? Is it the acetate that leaks from the plastic container at time of filling with margarine? There are many types of acetates. Who knows which one(s), and who will tell?

OK, so manufacturers remove or replace trans-fatty acids... but do they then install new ingredients to make the food look and taste 'just right' to compete against other margarine manufacturers? If so, they put another "vicious circle" into motion, and it's not long before these producers use ingredients with equally adverse effects to trans-fatty acids, and they'll keep doing it until the heat from the public is overwhelming or until they find an ingredient(s) that gives them an edge on the competition. It then takes years to prove such an ingredient is or may be harmful.

Just as cattle were fed beef ruminants as a roll of the dice, we are now being fed new chemicals in processed foods to replace fatty-acids. To what level of risk to our health, I don't know. It's a game these companies continue to play knowing only governments have the financial capabilities to take them to court... but only if the governments are willing to accept some of the blame for permitting the use of damaging chemicals or processes in the first place.

Not likely.

My point? 

Just a tiny example of why children and the rest of us get fatter, sicker, and no one is willing to risk taking a loss in profits... or losing their jobs or votes or all of the above!

We lose... the food producers and manufacturers win.

And so do tobacco companies.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Kosh,

Education has to be tailored to particular types of people, just like effective advertising. Some people appreciate "just the facts ma'am", others respond to shock, others to advice, etc. I think a greater emphasis on physical exercise is another important component. Why on earth was it reduced in school?

darntootin',

I don't take macnutt personally (or too seriously) but I kinda get pissed when he (or anyone else) enters a rhetorical mode. There's room for diversity of opinion and some people are hard-set in their ways but rhetoric is just a waste of time.

As for the food industry and profits, same goes for any commercial activity. Cars are only safer now because of public demand. The technology was there in the 50's at the same time as exteriors and dashboards became hard and pointy. That's why we cannot leave ethical decisions to people who potentially benefit from being unethical. Keeping people honest doesn't work well if its simply based on trust. Human nature is such that corners will be cut, rules bent and then covered up. Competition works both ways. If you need to be more competitive, why not reduce the testing. There again, if one company is found to have flouted the law and is caught, others who can prove they didn't will benefit in the long term.

Of course, governments, civil servants and public companies need independent ethical oversight just as much as private companies. The fruits of the lack of such oversight are plain to see (gun registry, Walkerton, Pickering nuclear reactors, even SARS to a degree). It's hard to understand why such safeguards have been relaxed over the past few decades resulting in a decline in standards overall. It always costs more to put right that if it was done properly in the first place.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Firtsly...let me say this.

I've been feeling slightly (just slightly, mind you) remorseful about my closing comments to Jwoodget at the end of my last post. This does not happen very often.

During the heat of the debate, I somehow forgot that our citizen Woodget is also one of Canada's leading cancer researchers. I knew this...I knew it well. But I tend to focus on my opponent in battle and I have a "take no prisoners" style. It's a Scottish thing.

To be honest...I can easily see why tobacco is such a big blip on his personal radar. Makes total sense why he is so terribly opposed to any sort of use...even by committed users. Or occassional ones, like myself.

I formally withdraw my closing comments to Jwoodget re: "Zealot or Hypocrite" and offer him a humble and sincere apology.

I'm serious.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Now...back to the main argument!  

Jim...I did NOT say that tobacco and it's related health problems were "small". What I said was that they are a MUCH smaller problem than heart disease and diabetes. 

And they are.

You have simplified this down to "obesity" and that's a big part of it, to be sure. But it's a whole lifestyle problem. Not just for the truly obese amongst us.

And it's a way..WAYY bigger one than tobacco ever was. This is indisputable.

What is also indisputable is that education is simply NOT working. Not at all! The problem is reaching crisis levels. Now!

What do I suggest we do about it?

Hell...I don't know! YOU'RE the doctor. You tell ME!

I've been trying to get you to tell me what your plan of attack is on this huge health crisis for the last four pages...but nada. Just more statistics on how bad chronic tobacco use is for the human body.

I already know all that. Which is probably why I don't smoke cigarettes. Or anything, on a regular basis.

I was kind of hoping to steer you toward some sort of realisation that you have a much bigger problem on your hands than tobacco...and I had some faint hope that by debating you on this, you would eventually decide that the very same forces that have been so effectively been deployed against the use of cigarettes could be mobilised against this much bigger and far more damaging health threat.

I was also kind of hoping that you had some sort of thoughts on why Europeans seem to have a far lower incidence of heart disease and diabetes...even though they eat a pretty fatty diet and smoke like chimneys.

Any thoughts on any of this? Am I getting anywhere, or should I give up on this thread?

Let me know.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> What is also indisputable is that education is simply NOT working. Not at all! The problem is reaching crisis levels. Now!


so because we are getting fat there is no problem with smoking?

getting fat only hurts the eater (unless he falls on someone), but smoking hurts others (unless you believe 2nd hand smoke is just a joke)
or by your recent rantings you believe smoking is an "acceptable risk" for the smoker and others, sort of like a "winnable nuclear war"


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The relationships between diet, lifestyle, etc are incredibly complicated. The reduced level of heart disease and diabetes in the Mediterranean countries (but is not universal or stable) has been the subject of many studies and a bunch of theories that were later dismissed. There is no magic bullet. These people have a diet that is varied and traditional. So can we. You can eat like an Tuscan and benefit from the same diet.

I have no easy answers other than beginning with awareness and education. It's pretty clear to me that people do not understand that their weight is largely their own responsibility. But they don't have the right tools to tackle the problem. Once someone becomes clinically obese, it is incredibly difficult to reduce weight in a lasting way. The diet industry is a total joke and exacerbates the problem by conditioning our bodies to become MORE effective at converting food to fat when we come off the caloric restrictions. On top of this, we are bombarded with images of the ideal body. Go back 200 years and look at the accepted body image and it wasn't that of a supermodel. These synthetic images further reduce self-esteem and promote dispair.

Dealing with the problem requires a long term effort, appreciation of what is good and bad in food types. there are no instant hits although we've been conditioned to expect miracle cures. Forget it. The food industry will make as much profit from healthy foods as from junk food if the demand is there.

My wife gave up dietetics because she couldn't understand why people whose life depended on a particular diet couldn't stick to it. She isn't a psychologist and that's who is needed in many cases. It's in part a reflection of our instant-gratification society. Everyone is looking for the easy way out but it isn't there. Unless you want to eat Olestra and are willing to put up with "anal leakage"!


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

Well said, used to be jwoodget!

On obesity...

The dilemna begins when an attempt is made to stop a humungous runaway train with a tiny piece of common sense... it just ends up blowing in the wind.

The harder we try to educate, the harder the producers of the offending foods, who have enormous amounts of money to increase advertising to compete, for example, against a teacher in school. Kids buy junk food; the teacher bans it in the classroom with educational warnings and alternatives, but the kids simply eat the stuff after class anyway... because their parents bought it for them.

Kids bring home volumes of diet advice that ends up on the fridge, but often ignored.

If food companies were to make healthy choices popular, the masses would follow. Unfortunately, the goal is to produce foods that have indefinite shelf-life; exaggerated taste; sex appeal and high profit margins.

Fear as a motivator...

Fear can cause people to change their eating habits, but as we have recently seen with BSE scare, beef producers were, and are, the best prepared. It's as though they fully expected to have to deal with BSE at some point in time.

Somehow, the CFIA is more concerned with the adverse effects of BSE on the beef INDUSTRY rather than the health and safety of Canadians.

For example; the Federal Minister of Agriculture made me feel warm and fuzzy all over today, when he announced that 8,000 head (no pun) of cattle would be tested for BSE, increasing to 30,000 in five years.

Why didn't he announce that each and every animal would be checked before it's meat would enter the food chain? I suspect it's because he and the industry are afraid of (or know) what would or might be revealed. So they have chosen to selectively test healthy animals where prions are unlikely to be found, regardless of the possibility that BSE could still be prevalent in the entire Canadian beef industry. Five years from now, the incidents are hoped to have decreased to a level where it might be safer to test more animals.

It smacks of backroom dealing at the risk of Canadian lives. It's just another roll of the dice!

As BSE goes... so goes the crusades against obesity.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

darntootin',

The CFIA is acting in a totally numbskull and protectionist manner. They have instituted a ban on a variety of products from the US that include cattle products. This includes a number of reagents for diagnostic testing of various diseases. 

See here for the  list.

Since the majority of these products are not made in Canada (so what are we protecting?), this ban could severely limit our ability to conduct routine testing for a variety of disorders. For example, all tissue cultured cells are grown in bovine serum. This is put through rigorous quality control and is not cheap. But there are no alternatives. Without a supply, thousands of research labs will be unable to work, including hospital and other diagnostic labs (including the CFIA!!).

It's all politics. The farmers and the consumers are caught between a rock and a hard place.

As for testing, BSE tests are not fast and so it would be difficult to widen the screens to include all animals. But I agree that the tack they've taken smacks of only looking for it in places they know it won't be found. The only way to deal with this is by careful removal of the nervous tissue, complete ban of animal products in the food, electronic tagging of all herds and the meat derived from them and a fractional audit for BSE of all stock (i.e. 1 in every 20 cattle would be tested in a purely random manner).

Who'll pay for this? You and I of course.

By the way, on the CBC National the other night was a story about culled cows. These animals are older dairy producers that are too old to calve and so are sent off for slaughter. Sinc ethe BSE case, their value has dropped to less than $70 whole. Their meat is used just for hamburgers. Just loving it? Or Just losing it?


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

> By the way, on the CBC National the other night was a story about culled cows. These animals are older dairy producers that are too old to calve and so are sent off for slaughter. Sinc ethe BSE case, their value has dropped to less than $70 whole. Their meat is used just for hamburgers. Just loving it? Or Just losing it?


Yeah... I remember the show... only too well!

It's obvious you and I, and many Canadians and Americans are becoming frustrated with the manipulation of the truth regarding BSE. At some point in time, and hopefully soon, the cattle and dairy industry in both countries will get blind-sided by client countries revealing truths about our beef industries.

How long before Japan and/or other nations begin taking north American beef producers to task? Can we really expect Brittain to continually accept bovine-bashing from self-righteous counterparts in North America before they begin to strike back?

It's one of the only catalysts I can imagine having enough impact to force our beef industries to respond and face their responsibilities, since they are, for now, successfully avoiding having to answer to the largest consumers of their beef... Canadians and Americans!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I no longer smoke and this pretty much sums it up for me:








Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A simple question here, Sinc...

And it doesn't matter if you are a smoker or not.

Would you advocate creating a law that says that committed smokers may NOT have their own bars or lounges to smoke in? Manned by bar staff who are also committed smokers? No one who is a non-smoker would ever be subjected to tobacco smoke in one of these places...unless they knowingly chose to venture inside.

Should this be made illegal?

If not, why not? If so...please elaborate.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NY state still has its total no-smoking policy in bars and restaurants
NY isn't Viriginia or North Carolina of course, but a very good step in the right (cough) direction


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

macnutt:


> A simple question here, Sinc...
> 
> And it doesn't matter if you are a smoker or not.
> 
> ...


Of course I would not advocate anything of the sort. And no, it should not be made illegal in any way, shape or form.

Those who smoke should be able to, without hassle from governments bent on social engineering, have a place of their choosing to practice their habit. Whether or not employees of that establishment smoke or not, it is the employee who should have the right to choose where he or she works, provided they are aware it will be in a smoking allowed atmosphere.

The real problem is that governments view smoking laws as a public health issue pure and simple. They pass such laws to protect minors and workers, but they always have to insert the "social engineering" part for whatever reason.

If a business owner wants to establish a smoking allowed business and properly label it as such, he should be allowed to do so, provided no minors can enter the premises at any time. People can then vote with their feet if they don't like it.

And that is all I have to say about that!

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well said and well put, Sinc. As always.   

My sentiments exactly.

And, like yourself...I find social engineering to be far more scary than any health threat. Real or imagined.

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> And that's all I have to say about that.


uh oh.. macnutt is now quoting Forrest Gump


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OMG no! Not Forrest Gump.

Call the cops!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually...I was quoting Sinc.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Couple of recent sets of data on the original topic.....

Smoking deaths in Canada. 48,000 in 1998. One in four deaths. They note current smokers make up only 21% of the adult population. I thought it was around 28% so this is good news. It was approximately 50% in 1960. Smoking-related deaths are still increasing due to the latency/cummulation of the effects.

Obesity and being overweight accounts for one in ten deaths of people between the ages of 20 and 64. This represents about 4,400 people and is up from 2500 in 1985.

Both are significant problems..... although macnutt thinks smoking is a " smallish " problem compared to obesity:

"You advocate...rather loudly...a massive attack upon a smallish problem using every tool in the book. Taxes, new legislation...the works. [...]

But you have no real plan to fight the MUCH bigger problems of heart disease and diabetes in the same manner."

I'm not arguing that heart disease and diabetes (both directly linked to obesity) are not important (you know me better than that). Just that some perspective is needed. Smoking and obesity are different problems with different causes and different remedies. Both need tackling with vigour since smoking is on the decline and obesity is on the rise.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

UtbW,
how dare you confuse the issue with facts


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sorry Macspectrum, my bad. Please excuse my scientific habits, they get in the way all the time....


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

As a smoker...I'm glad I don't like salmon.
I hope to be quitting smoking soon though.

Dave


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

dolawren...



> As a smoker...I'm glad I don't like salmon.
> I hope to be quitting smoking soon though.


Have you noticed the info on farmed salmon coincides with the discovery of BSE in another cow from Canada?

Hmmm... is someone afraid people will switch to fish?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...care to publish the amount of deaths each year from heart disease and strokes? How about the amount of health care money that is being currently spent on diabetes and heart disease? And the terrible medical complications that go along with these?

The projected figures for type 3 diabetes during the next thirty years is one out of three people, according to what I have read. Most of this can be attributed to lifestyle choices (not just obesity) and pretty much every expert is saying...rather loudly...that we CAN change this and that we MUST change this. Starting now!

Smoking is a tiny problem compared to this looming and massive health crisis. 

So...now that we've wrestled the terrible scourge of tobacco to the ground and have it pinned....

What is your plan for the bigger and much more deadly problem that threatens to harm far more people?

Print up some pamphlets? Buy some TV time and make some public service adverts?

Or are you planning to use the same weapons that you used in the war against tobacco? Radically higher taxes on the offending (and unhealthy) products, exclusion of useage in any sort of public places? Forced excersise...en masse...every morning?

How about a few thousand people all doing tai Chi in the public square at daybreak? Followed, of course by mandatory blood tests to make sure that everyone was not eating any illegal foods.

Just gotta love social engineering! It's quite effective! And...once you've started in on it, there's no real reason to stop! 

Sky's the limit,eh?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Heart disease and stroke are major killers but there is no way to extricate the effects of "lifestyle (whatever that is defined as), diet, obesity and age on those conditions. The vast majority of heart disease and strokes occur over the age of 65. So no one has the figures for the lifestyle-caused deaths. Cancer is the same EXCEPT for lung cancer. That's why the health authorities have to break up the incidences by age.

Type 1 diabetes is early onset and due to the pancreatic islet cells (kids have to self inject insulin). Type 2 is also known as maturity onset. It, like Type 1 has some genetic component but is primarily due to excess fat/obesity and poor diet. Type 2 is (or should be) preventable. Type 1 can only be treated by insulin injections or islet transplants (Edmonton protocol).

There is no type 3 as far as I know.

To prevent lung cancer, emphysema, etc. you "simply" reduce consumption of cigarettes.

To prevent heart disease and type 2 diabetes, you simply do what exactly? The causes are multi-factorial and there is no smoking cigarette.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Heart disease and smoking go hand in hand. Just ask me.

As a near two pack a day smoker for over 40 years, I can tell you from bitter experience what smoking does to your heart.

I suffered a small heart attack on the morning of August 20, 2000 when I was alone and out camping in my motor home. At least it must have been, but I denied it had happened and said nothing about it to anyone. I was horribly weak and disguised my symptoms as the flu.

Three days later on the morning of August 23, 2000, I collapsed on the floor of my living room after my morning cigarette. Luckily my daughter and son were home and heard my calls for help and dialed 911.

My heart stopped beating three times that morning in 45 minutes. Later that day, I would see the bright red burn marks on my chest and side where they used the paddles on me to shock my heart back to life.

I lost 25% of my heart's function that day, because it died. I was lucky though, as angioplasty and the implant of two stents gave me back a lot of my function.

My cardiologist explained the ravages of smoking on my heart and body in general later that day, when I had been stabilized and lay in CCU with what seemed like a hundred machines hooked up to me.

I quit smoking that day, and have not had another since. I will never forget my doctors words, "Quit or die." He said it so matter of factly that it scared the living hell out of me.

If you are a smoker, do your friends, your family and yourself a favour and please stop today.

You will be amazed how much better you feel.

You CAN do it.

Cheers


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Let me get this straight, Macnutt: you agree that government efforts to curb smoking have worked. So what's your complaint? 

Governments tax smokers through the price of cigarettes. To do anything else would be negligent. I don't need to drag out the statistics, do I? 45,000 killed by smoking every year...the size of a small Canadian town. Someone's going to pay the cost of treating these people when they get sick? I would have thought that a conservative minded person like you would approve when government makes users pay for what they use (in this case, the health care system), rather than socking it to the rest of us. 

Then there's your point about regulation..,Regulations aren't always the product of "social engineers" (as you put it). Just as often, it's a manifestation of popular will. Here in Ottawa, the city took all kinds of heat from bar owners for passing bylaw banning smoking in public places. Bar owners and restauranteurs cried fowl and predicted the inevitable decline and obliteration of their industry. Sure, some claimed that they has spent some money developing smoke cubicles (or what ever they were called). But the majority didn't. Two years later and business is doing fine. Better still, no one has to settle for getting a crummy table in the smoking section of a restaurant because nonsmoking is full. Even better still, no one has to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Smokers take their addiction outside.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A fine posting, Sinc. Hopefully, those who smoke shall heed your call to arms......or to butt out. We shall see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hope to have you around for many years sinc
my father was a smoker for a long time and i am quite sure it shortened his life
he was the victim of several heart attacks and in his case the ravages of smoking were not addressable


----------



## darntootin' (Nov 1, 2003)

SINC...

What a GREAT testimonial to the self-inflicted injury and irrefutable harm caused by smoking.

It kind of puts the discussion as to whether COMMITTED SMOKERS should be allowed to make themselves sick or even kill themselves, as long as they don't harm anyone else. Well if you are closely related to, friends, or intimately associated with smokers, it becomes a momentous issue. To watch someone you love and/or respect systematically permit a habit to deny them a better quality of life every day... to know full well that the smoking will cause irreparable damage to parts of the body never seen by ordinary folks, is like a chronic pain in itself. To know smoking will shorten the life of someone dear to you, stabs at your heart. With every cigarette.

Maybe it's your life that will suffer self-imposed illness or premature death as a DIRECT result of smoking!

Don't wait to find out.

Do exactly as SINC implores you to do...

Don't even have the next cigarette... cigar... pipe or cigarette!

You'll love yourself for the greatest gift you could ever give yourself and your friends...

A BETTER YOU! And your life...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aw shucks fellas, it was nothing, really.

Cheers


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> 45,000 killed by smoking every year...the size of a small Canadian town. Someone's going to pay the cost of treating these people when they get sick? I would have thought that a conservative minded person like you would approve when government makes users pay for what they use (in this case, the health care system), rather than socking it to the rest of us.


We're not just paying for those 45,000 if they get sick. My understanding is that's the number that die each year. That doesn't include the number that get sick each year and don't die.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I was thinking of this thread after I found this link entitled:
Video - The Three Yard Dash for Smokers 

Dave


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Very funny dolawren.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

For anyone interested, this is National Non-Smoking week (Jan 18-24). The Canadian Cancer Society web site has information on quitting and a pop-up calculator for the costs (you input the number of packs you smoke, etc).

For anyone thinking of quitting, there is a lot of useful information on this site. Unfortunately, it only takes a couple of cigarettes to become addicted and I doubt many teens think about the lifetime consequences. Lung cancer is now the leading cause of death in women, beating out breast cancer. Its ENTIRELY preventable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks UTBJW.

That reminds me that on "Weedless Wednesday" I am celebrating my 1,244th day of being smoke free.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Make that 1,245 days, but who's counting?

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I heard that at www.quitsmokingontario.ca is having a
contest in that if you quit smoking for the whole month of
March...Then you could win a Mini car.

That's a good incentive to quit.

The website doesn't appear to be working properly at the
moment though, I just keep getting a stupid search engine.

Edited to prevent an infection to P.C. users,
I didn't notice that the .com site is a virus infection site.
Wow, Learn something new everyday.


Dave 

[ January 22, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: dolawren ]


----------



## Ingenu (Jun 4, 2003)

There's also a "Quit to win challenge" held in Quebec. There's prizes for the smokers and sponsors (a friend, wife, husband, etc.). First prize is a vacation package worth $5000 for the destination of your choice.

Here's the link :

Défi tabac


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ha, the QuitSmokingOntario website is off limits for people working at the Ontario Cancer Institute (we have an inappropriate website filter to prevent us from "wandering"). Ironic, eh?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Too funny.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Actually, we filtered it for a good reason, it turns out. That web site is a trap. The correct web site is www.quitsmokingontario.ca 

The .com variant is an off-shore clone that attempts to infect your computer (if you use a PC). 

Dolawren, could you edit it to the correct URL to avoid potential infections? Thanks.


----------

