POT

[Harvester]

I'm with Darth Marley on this one. Banning smoking of any sort in public spaces is one thing, but not allowing the use of a legal product in a privately owned location is quite another. If an bar owner wants to have his/her place be a smoking environment then I as a consumer have the choice to not go there, and potential employees have the right to work somewhere else. I'm sick of government regulation of every aspect of our lives. I don't need politicians to protect me from myself.
I don't have much of a problem with the legalization of pot.....it's just not a big deal. It doesn't need to be any more regulated than booze is either. No operating machinery under the influence would be one regulation I'd accept as that truly is a matter of public safety.

[ah-chie]

Just so long as all those folks who allow smoking on their private premises also agree to pay the extra taxes to support all the extra health care services that those ciggies are responsible for (why should I pay for their lung cancer treatments - I don't smoke, right?).

And many places other than bars are privately owned but come under the jurisdiction of being more or less a "public" type place - like theatres, grocery stores, other places of business. If unrestricted smoking is allowed in places like that sometimes people unknowingly become victims of the second hand smoke by patronizing the establishment and a smoker coming in and ruining their experience (not to mention endangering their health).

Before smoking was restricted in my city I have unwittingly sat down in a theatre and got about 20 minutes in to it when someone lights up and starts choking me - should I be expected to just leave every time? And "no smoking" sections don't really work - it is like saying "Please only pee in one end of the pool."

[Harvester]

I would suggest that the amounts collected in taxes from smokes greatly exceeds the health care costs assosciated with smoking. So your stipulation is already satisfied. I think a pack of smokes is about $10 and the majority of that is taxes. The government is more addicted to the revenues than the smokers are to the nicotine.
As a grossly overtaxed Canadian I wish I could have the option of only paying into the programs I intend to use.
To use your example ah-chie if I were to be in a grocery store and become a 'victim' of second hand smoke, I'd either not shop there again or go back with the realization that I might be exposed to it. Same goes for going to Tim Horton's or to a casino or any other place.
If the owner of a business wants to create an environment free of smoking that should be their decision not Big Brother's (not the absent board member).
I'm not a smoker. I find the habit disgusting. I choose to go to places without smoking, but I think that should be my choice and not the Government of Canada's.

[ah-chie]

There is a thing called "societal good" - some things have to be done for the good of the society as a whole.

I don't have children but it benefits all Canadians to have a strong public education system. Some people may never call the police but the society as a whole benefits from the presence of a police force. My house has never caught fire, but I gladly pay taxes to support a fire department. I don't drive to TO but I think that I should contribute the upkeep of the roads that go there.

Thank goodness the majority of the Canadian public believe in this principle instead of "what's mine is mine".

It makes our country a safer, healthier place overall and I appreciate someone looking out for us, so that I can go into any grocery store, theatre or restaurant and have a healthy environment.

And you are definitely wrong about the proportion of taxes collected as compared to the extreme amount of money that it takes to care for those who have smoking related diseases. Those taxes don't even scratch the surface of the costs.

[Darth Marley]

ah-chie said:

Just so long as all those folks who allow smoking on their private premises also agree to pay the extra taxes to support all the extra health care services that those ciggies are responsible for (why should I pay for their lung cancer treatments - I don't smoke, right?).

Or, you could just get those tax dollars out of the business of paying for everyone's health care.

There comes a point at which you must either choose socialized medicine, or freedom. I choose freedom, and opt to shoot at geeks that think their vote empowers them to take freedom from me.

So, you don't smoke, and want smokers to pay extra, but argue later that everyone should pay to educate the kids. Why? Assuming the parents knew where babies come from, they were making as much of an informed decision as a smoker when they risked parenthood.

In fact, since sex might produce offspring, perhaps we should tax all birth control methods to pay for education?

[ah-chie]

Darth said:

There comes a point at which you must either choose socialized medicine, or freedom. I choose freedom, and opt to shoot at geeks that think their vote empowers them to take freedom from me.

Oh yes, socialized medicine is the evil of all evils!

Here comes a true story -

I was twenty years old once (long ago ;D) and became very ill with a severe kidney infection from swimming in contaminated water (which wasn't posted and appeared perfectly safe). I ended up in the hospital for 13 days, (nearly lost both my kidneys) and although both my husband and I were working at the time they were both very low paying jobs (we were just starting out on our own).

If it weren't for that evil "socialized medicine" I would have died because there was no way I could have afforded my operation or resultant care afterwards (and since we were "working" poor at the time also couldn't fall into the category of welfare or charity cases).

So nice to know that in your "free" world I would have not been able to afford my life, but you would have your tax break and that's all that counts I guess. I guess I should be happy that you would have your "freedom" - but at what cost to others less fortunate? Even now a days, when I earn an excellent wage I think back to those harrowing early days and gladly pay my taxes - for socialized medicine included! ;D I firmly believe that there has to be something bigger to this society than just "I've got mine - too bad about you!"

We obviously are light years apart in our views of how things should work, but it has been interesting discussing these various philosophical issues.

BTW - let me take a wild guess... you live in Alberta (or wish you did - or better still - wish you lived in the US!)

[Harvester]

BTW - let me take a wild guess... you live in Alberta

I guess that was for me.....and no, I'm from Ontario, but nice try at the stereotyping

I don't 'gladly pay my taxes' I question where the money goes no matter who is the government of the day. I don't have a problem with my taxes being spent intelligently on providing base public health care, but if I want to use my money to improve MY health care I should be allowed to do so without leaving my country because the social engineers want to pretend 2 tier health care doesn't exist. I just love that Paul Martin suggests int's un-Canadian to question how much tax dollars are required and then he flies a flag of convenience on Canada Steamship Lines to avoid paying Canadian Taxes and meeting Canadian labour laws.

All that is really an aside from the general issue of this thread though, and we clearly think differently on how much of what we do should be controlled by the state and how much should be an individual choice. I don't subscribe to the thought that the government's place is to make all of my decisions for me and that they are the best ones to determine what is in my best interest.

[MarkusB]

ah-chie said:

BTW - let me take a wild guess... you live in Alberta (or wish you did - or better still - wish you lived in the US!)

Yes....all us Canadians wish we lived in the US.

[ah-chie]

LOL!

Yeah... right.

[Kass]

I absolutely would like to see it legal for medical uses. My grandmother's last few days with cancer would have not been as hellish as they were if she'd been allowed to use medicinal marijuana.

Recreational use I'm on the fence between I don't care and as long as it is regulated like alcohol. No driving under the influence, etc. It does impair judgment and has been the leading factor in numerous traffic fatalities.

The no public smoking puts a new spin on it though. As much as I don't like second-hand tobacco smoke, I don't care as long as people aren't blowing it directly in my face and it doesn't impair my abilities to drive, make accurate judgments, etc. Second-hand marijuana smoke *does* cause a contact high. I'm betting it would be more deliterious healthwise for a toddler exposed to it than an adult.

That creates a dilemma for everyone. There will be people who won't smoke marijuana for various reasons, including like me, I don't like my judgment impaired. People (especially my child) depend on me to be in control of my faculties, especially when driving. I'd not want to be at lunch getting a contact high.

I don't know what would be the right answer. There would have to be some sort of compromise between the right to smoke something legal and the rights of those who don't smoke maraijuana to not get high off someone else's smoke. It's definitely a fine line to find and walk.

So nice to know that in your "free" world I would have not been able to afford my life, but you would have your tax break and that's all that counts I guess.

Actually, you would have. Medicare/medicaid would have covered the costs and your operation would have come out of our taxes.

[Darth Marley]

Yes, those who have had life saving surgeries under socialized medicine are often want to suggest that they would be dead under another system.
The claim is as logical as saying that if you had a Labour government, you would have died had it been Conservative.

There are old (1970s) research studies that suggest that experienced weed smokers actually drive better when they are high. Note the popularity of video games among weed heads before suggesting that reaction time is impaired.

If weed is to be regulated just for regulation's sake, then I suggest we also regulat chocolate, as it acts on the same neurotransmitters as the evil weed.

[Kass]

Actually, reality contradicts those studies. Marijuana, like other intoxicants, impairs your reaction times.

A notable accident we had in my area a few years ago would be a good example. The driver, an 18-year-old girl, was driving three friends around one evening and those three were smoking pot. Driver wasn't, however, the contact high was pretty intense, especially since the windows were closed. She crashed the car because she didn't react quick enough and lost control of the car. Two of them died.

The police report indicated that her speech and reactions were severely impaired for a few hours afterward. Oh yeah, she wasn't injured. The accident investigation determined the marijuana in her bloodstream was high enough to have seriously impaired her driving and that was the leading cause of the accident. She was charged with DWI and and manslaughter. It was pleaded down and spent time in jail.

[CylonGod]

Seems like a lot of people here are pro Pot. Nothing wrong with that!