What should be done with smokers?

[KrazyHorse]

Umm...aren't min. wages uniform across Canada?

It's 6.90 here, so I assumed...

[Asher]

Nope, they're provincial.
BC's is something like $8/hour. Crazy. Leads to unemployment.

[KrazyHorse]

Wow. Didn't know that. I've never held a job outside la province du Québec.

I know that the states set their own min wages. A few years ago the Vermont leg. almost passed a bill increasing theirs to something crazy like 10 $US an hour. Was defeated narrowly.

[blackice]

Again, you forget the difference in taxation which allows for Albertans to have that extra income to spend on things.

I will not highjack this thread over this debate but would love to debate you on it email me. You forget that Alberta has one of the highest single parent poverty levels in all of Canada over 50%...Due to minimum wage...and cost of living...rather unforgiving for a province with so much wealth...http://www.independentreporter.com/a...advantage.html Just a tid bit...
Minimum wage earnings is from the Alberta Government site:

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/hre/employmentstandards/publications/pdf/ESGuide2001.pdf

If that does not work go to thier Employment standards site:

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/hre/employmentstandards/publications/index.html

$5.90 per hour.

Nope, they're provincial.
BC's is something like $8/hour. Crazy. Leads to unemployment.

Myth totally a myth look at it this way while they eek out a living they are paying taxes, healthcare and adding to the economy. While they are starving and living on the street they are a tax burden which would you prefer? Do the math and average rent is $625.00 per month heh $8.00 yup crazy...

Thoth Alcohol.

Exactly tells a very large story does it not

Back to smoking... owners of the businesses should call the shots here if they want a smoking establishment they should own one. Why should a customer tell you how to run your business?
If they post this is a smoking establishment then do not go in, do not tell me I can not because I want to smoke in thier establishment and they want me too. Now if it is such a health hazard why does the government allow the sale non perscription?

Why do they not pass a law demanding that tar and nicotine be reduced by 25% per year for the next four years? Think of it all smokers slowly wiened at the same time... On top of that no more addition for the future generations. Or better still demand they adopt the smokeless cigarette? Must be money, what is the cost of a life anyways and do they care?

I mean we have laws that make it illegal to kill ones self. We have laws demanding seat beats for safety. We have helmet laws, lifejacket laws, new laws saying it is abuse to smoke around children, you can not even have assisted suicides nope against the law, safety laws everywhere yet we can smoke something that is known to kill people. They still do nothing except raise the taxes kind of like gasoline...what is wrong with this picture? Seems to me if smoking is a known killer then the government is breaking the law allowing assisted suicides are they not? Explain to me the difference ask Kavorkian to do it today or do it myself over the next several years? Since I know the risks and accept it and still smoke is it not suicide is that not against the law...hummm

[DarlinKell]

I just wanted to say.. i understand smoking is bad for your health and the ppl around you..... but...... i smoke...... i'll come on out with it and own up....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by blackice
Back to smoking... owners of the businesses should call the shots here if they want a smoking establishment they should own one. Why should a customer tell you how to run your business?

Because there's a thing called social cost. It's the same reason why you are not allowed to dump toxic waste.

Just remember that even the smokers, workers, and owners of such establishments are all covered by medical insurance, which is in turn footed by taxpayers.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a government to reduce such burdens.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Because there's a thing called social cost. It's the same reason why you are not allowed to dump toxic waste.

Uhhh.... dumping toxic waste is illegal... smoking isn't.

I do think an owner has the right to determine what "legal" actions should be allowed in his place of business. It is ok for the government to limit it on government property, that's their choice.

But to tell somebody they can't allow smoking is just crap.
If they want to make laws determining that there has to be a clear division of smoking sections vs non smoking... the amount of ventilation required... fine. But to tell a bar owner that nobody is allowed to smoke in his/her establishment is a joke.

If you don't like clubs that are filled with smoke... DON'T GO.

I personally never smoke in non smoking areas... in front of my kids or other kids... and when people tell me it bothers them.
I understand and I try to be considerate of others. But when I sit in a smoking section of a resturant, and somebody takes a table in the smoking section because it was faster to get a table that way... AND THEN ASKS ME TO PUT OUT THE CIG... I laugh in their face. Smokers have rights too... it is STILL A LEGAL product... just like many other harmful products...

[blackice]

Because there's a thing called social cost. It's the same reason why you are not allowed to dump toxic waste.

Or drive cars, manufacture pollution we could go on here...I do not see them ordering by law car makers to stop killing us you?

Just remember that even the smokers, workers, and owners of such establishments are all covered by medical insurance, which is in turn footed by taxpayers.

And they are what tax exempt

I don't think it's unreasonable for a government to reduce such burdens.

Me either lets start with cars...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny


Try opening your eyes.

I´ve tried that but the smoke irritated my corneas

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
The tax burden should obviously be higher to acommodate the cost burden that smoking brings to everybody. In my neck of the woods, it's about 4$us a pack, and I would definitely favor a 3$ increase in taxation alone. Keep in mind I'm a light smoker right now(down to about 1-2 packs a week) who's trying to quit for good. Hitting someone like me directly in the pocketbook is the most effective way to reduce/slash smoking.

Dave

Hell Dave, I'll hit you in the pocketbook so hard that you'll never be able to afford another cigarette in your life. Would that make you happy?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sik,

The problem with that model is it ignores the social cost of sidestream ("second-hand") smoking.

If the harmful effects of that is taken into account, smokers do incur a lot more expenses than non-smokers.

That cost is very hard to quantify, especially when some of the most famous and oft quoted second-hand smoke studies are bogus. The cost of second hand smoke is extremely variable from person to person. A lot of people never smoke indoors because their spouse doesn't smoke, or they have children. Additionally, in a country like the U.S. where the government doesn't pay for a huge percentage of medical costs, what is the logic in taxing Joe Blow for smoking because he is harming his son Joe Jr., when Joe Jr. is going to be paying his own health care costs, and perhaps paying them with an inheritance depleted by Joe Blow Sr.'s cigarette tax payments? Joe Jr. gets screwed twice.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Ming
I personally never smoke in non smoking areas... in front of my kids or other kids... and when people tell me it bothers them.
I understand and I try to be considerate of others. But when I sit in a smoking section of a resturant, and somebody takes a table in the smoking section because it was faster to get a table that way... AND THEN ASKS ME TO PUT OUT THE CIG... I laugh in their face. Smokers have rights too... it is STILL A LEGAL product... just like many other harmful products...

You sound like a considerate smoker, so I guess you are unfairly judged because of the actions of inconsiderate smokers.

A couple of them have posted several times in this thread.

But hey, so long as they think they have a wonderful sense of humour it's alright.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Give us a kiss, honey.

A serious point- Why should we be forced to wrap ourselves in cotton wool? Should we also be banned from driving cars? Or climbing cliffs?

Should we be fined if we fail to eat enough green vegetables and oily fish? Think of all the taxes being eaten up by treating colon cancers- one of the biggest killers that (unlike lung cancer) is on the increase in the western world.

Should we be locked up if we spend all our leisure time sat on our arses in front of PC's instead of going out jogging?

Do we, to be blunt, want the state to be a nanny in jackboots?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Give us a kiss, honey.

A serious point- Why should we be forced to wrap ourselves in cotton wool? Should we also be banned from driving cars? Or climbing cliffs?

Should we be fined if we fail to eat enough green vegetables and oily fish? Think of all the taxes being eaten up by treating colon cancers- one of the biggest killers that (unlike lung cancer) is on the increase in the western world.

Should we be locked up if we spend all our leisure time sat on our arses in front of PC's instead of going out jogging?

Do we, to be blunt, want the state to be a nanny in jackboots?

Do what you want so long as it doesn't impose a cost on me/others.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Can I have a refund of my taxes that went on your education?