Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Liberal policies are like a "One way street"

seeker
January 17th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Let me start off by saying that I am not a smoker, but at the same time I thought that the way smoking was banned went a little too far . Especially when many establishments had already spent lots of money to give smokers a place away from non smokers.I mean it was all supposed to be about the health of the people ,right ? The cost is ongoing in lost revenue for many businesses , some that had a higher than average number of smoking clients.
Now it seems that the provincial lawmakers cut into their own pockets a little too deep when they banned smoking in public places everywhere in the province. There is now an exemption for Provincially owned casinos , they will be allowed to build special covered areas to allow smokers a place to enjoy a legal cigarette in the hopes of bringing back lost revenue to the ,I say it again "provincially owned" establishments.
It appears that these law makers will not allow the same exemptions to other non provincially owned resturants, bars donut shops etc even though they face similar if not greater % losses to their businesses.Maybe it is because these covered areas will only be effective when attached to provicially owned property and that if they were built elsewhere non smokers still might get a whiff of smoke ? I don't know there reasons this is just a guess ,feel free to add your own because the "Science" this must be based on is way over my head:laughing:
I thought that this law to encourage people to quit for their own good was done to protect the public , just like their very own pitbull law{same science maybe ?}.
At first it appeared to me that the concern for the publics health was outweighed by by the loss of the almighty dollar to the province hence the reason for the change. But giving it some though today at work I realize that,that is only part of it . They think the voters in Ontario are stupid and we will just roll over once again.

Prin
January 17th, 2007, 04:46 PM
I agree with the ban. Smoking sections are a load of bull. Since the ban here in Qc, eating out has been so much more pleasant... And you don't get cigarette burns on your clothes when you go out to clubs. And the science is there, and the results have been there for years- smoking doesn't benefit anybody who smokes...

But I also think that if you ban them, you have to ban them outright. No exceptions regardless...

For me, personally, whether the outcast smokers quit or not is up to them, but I don't have to smell/breathe their bad habits/choices wherever I go, do I?

Odieandmaggiesd
January 18th, 2007, 12:55 PM
I am a smoker...I don't smoke in my house...and I'm glad they banned smoking in public places...but this casino deal...that's outrageous...they say the reason is that the main income doesn't come from food or drink..ok fine...but theydo sell food and drink at the casinos...weird...I bet if cops wanted to use pitbulls as K( units, theywould lift the ban for them too...

As for banning smoking alltogether, that would be a terrible idea...they would lose tons in tax revenue...and people would just start smoking contrband cigarettes...Non-smokers certainly have the right to a healthy life, I totally agree with that...but us smokers have rights as well...if we want to smoke, we can go stand out in the cold and smoke...

Dogastrophe
January 18th, 2007, 01:55 PM
I am a smoker...I don't smoke in my house...and I'm glad they banned smoking in public places...

I feel the same way. I smoke (have my quit date set for this Saturday :fingerscr ) but not in the house. When I lived in Fredericton a few years ago a smoking ban was put into place in bars and restaurants which made them more enjoyable to go into. I also found that if I was at the pub, I would have the same number of pints but only smoke about a quarter what I did when it was full smoking. Nova Scotia has gone completely smoke free as of Dec '06 including the Casinos.

pitgrrl
January 18th, 2007, 02:19 PM
...I bet if cops wanted to use pitbulls as K( units, theywould lift the ban for them too...


Ya know, you would think so, but there are examples of BSL being put into place inspite of pit bulls being used as police K9s. Here's an example in Washington state:
Thursday, December 21, 2006 Last updated 8:08 a.m. PT
Pit bull ban dropped in Richland, approved in Royal City
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHLAND, Wash. -- The Richland City Council has dropped a move to define
pit bulls as potentially dangerous, while the council in Royal City approved
a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers even in cars passing through town.

The Richland council voted unanimously Tuesday night to reject a proposed
ordinance that had passed its first reading in November 4 to 2 after a
rental property owner said a neighbor's pit bull was scaring away potential
tenants.

"I don't see where amending the (dangerous dog) ordinance will gain
anything," said council member Edward Revell, who voted in favor of the
proposal Nov. 21.

"We all have our fears," Revell said, "but I don't think there's any
evidence to support (pit bulls) are any worse."

Mayor Rob Welch, who also changed his stance, said opponents convinced him
that a breed-specific ordinance would be unwarranted.

"At this point in time, I think the community has spoken," Welch said.

In Royal City, population about 1,900, the council voted to banish
Rottweilers as well as pit bulls effective Jan. 12, including dogs used by
the State Patrol or in motor vehicles passing through the Grant County town
southwest of Moses Lake. Violators would be subject to a fine and the dog
could be impounded.

Pet owners made the same arguments as in Richland, but to no avail. Two
people brought their pit bull to the meeting to show how well-behaved it
was, only to be told by Mayor Justin Jenks to remove the dog from the
council chambers.

Citing a Web site that listed 12 dog deaths blamed on Rottweilers and pit
bulls in the last five months, none in Royal City, Jenks said he wanted to
prevent any such occurrence locally.

"I can look anything up on the Internet and find the answers I want,"
retorted Cindy Bartlett, a pit bull owner. "Don't make a family get rid of a
family pet. You should be outlawing dogs who have bit people."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Dog_Ban.html

You can read about Diane Jessup's Law Dogs program here:
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html

babyrocky1
January 18th, 2007, 10:34 PM
I feel the same way. I smoke (have my quit date set for this Saturday :fingerscr ) .
Good Luck Dogastrophe!!!! I quite about fifteen yrs ago... I have to say it was freaking hard but oh so worth it and if you get as snarly as I did we will all forgive you here!!!:laughing: :grouphug:

babyrocky1
January 18th, 2007, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE=Prin;354097]I agree with the ban. Smoking sections are a load of bull. Since the ban here in Qc, eating out has been so much more pleasant... And you don't get cigarette burns on your clothes when you go out to clubs. And the science is there, and the results have been there for years- smoking doesn't benefit anybody who smokes...

But I also think that if you ban them, you have to ban them outright. No exceptions regardless...

QUOTE] Exactly, I agree with the ban but if it isnt applied equally to everyone the businessess with the ban will suffer more... NOT FAIR! Especially when its the government making exemptions for their own greedy selves, but consistent with the Provincial Fibs sense of justice or lack of it.