Jump to content

      



























Photo

Concerned Citizens Coalition


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 10:37 PM

Didn't the CRD launch a skin cancer campaign a year or so back? Pretty soon they'll mandate UV ray free smoking patios.

#22 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 03 February 2008 - 11:20 AM

Well as a transit user, I am glad that they no longer allow smoking on buses.

#23 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 05:09 PM

The issue of smoking, and the rush to regulate where, and among who, smokers can partake of a cigarette, shows the hypocrisy of modern society. Cigarettes are legal, and the high tax provides a great deal of income to federal and provincial coffers. The situation is similar to the so-called 'war on drugs' where the addicted end user is more often, and more forcibly, punished, than either the producer or facilitator.

If we truly wish to mitigate the health effects of smoking then ban it, make it a criminal offense to produce, sell or consume. Before that is done let's look at everything else that has similar, or even greater, health, risk of life, effects; many of which have been mentioned in this thread, like driving.

It does no one any good to brand a political group like the CCC as 'right wing', libertarian or otherwise - all political parties, lobbyists and groups have policies that we agree with, and others we cannot abide. In this case the CCC I feel is correct in pointing out a fundamental position - our rights as Canadian citizens, although I do not agree with them on other positions. If smoking is legal, then surely business ought to be able to provide for them. Either allow smoking sections in bars and restaurants so owners can provide for all customers (like forcing owners to install wheelchair ramps and washrooms for disabled) - or ban the product completely.

Who is the guilty party here - the smoker who is acting legally, or our elected government who appreciates the tax income.

#24 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 07:21 PM

The fundamental flaw with the above argument of course is that smoking is NOT A RIGHT, and comparing it to installing wheelchair access is not only ludicrous, but insulting to those, who through no fault of their own, need to use a wheelchair to access the fundamental necesseties of life.

I agree that government benefits from the manufacture and sale of tobacco, and so making it illegal iis not the answer. But the known public health-system associated costs cannot be ignored either. Contrary to what the above poster would have us believe, no one's rights are being infringed upon by being told where you can and cannot smoke in public. Until it can be proved that second hand smoke, to which smokers subject me, causes me no harm, then it IS my RIGHT to be allowed to breathe smoke-free air in public. Smokers are free to pollute their lungs and bodies in the privacy of their own homes. I would fight to defend this right, but that is where the "right" ends.

#25 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 07:43 PM

[quote name='Nparker']The fundamental flaw with the above argument of course is that smoking is NOT A RIGHT, and comparing it to installing wheelchair access is not only ludicrous, but insulting to those, who through no fault of their own, need to use a wheelchair to access the fundamental necesseties of life.

I beg to disagree - as smoking is legalized, just the sale and transport of material is controlled, it is de-facto, a right. The issue you wrote above begs this case - a person who requires a wheelchair, but also smokes?

I love these arguments!!

#26 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 09:35 PM

Yeah, but look mat: alcohol is legal, but it's not my "right" to drink it wherever I want (for example, while walking down the street). I agree with NParker -- in fact, for smoking even more so than for booze, because while I can't get "second hand" wine from a drinker, I can get second hand smoke (against my will) from a smoker.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#27 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 09:37 AM

I can't get "second hand" wine from a drinker,

Unless you fall over on me.

#28 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 08:05 PM

I beg to disagree - as smoking is legalized, just the sale and transport of material is controlled, it is de-facto, a right.

This is incorrect. Playing bongo drums is legal, but it is not my right to play bongo drums wherever and whenever I choose. Hopping on pogo sticks is legal, but it is not my right to hop on pogo sticks wherever and whenever I choose. Handling gerbils is legal, but it is not my right to handle gerbils wherever and whenever I choose. There are an endless range of activities that are perfectly legal and yet also prohibited within bars and restaurants (and other environments). Playing the flute, cutting hair, juggling, using profanity...heck, even sniffing household solvents. You can't do these things anywhere, at any time, just because they're otherwise legal/not illegal.

If we want to put a label on this selective, contextual prohibition of otherwise legal activities, we could probably summarize it under the general term of "civilization."

If smoking is legal, then surely business ought to be able to provide for them. Either allow smoking sections in bars and restaurants so owners can provide for all customers (like forcing owners to install wheelchair ramps and washrooms for disabled) - or ban the product completely.

It simply doesn't follow that because smoking is prohibited in bars and restaurants, it should therefore also be banned everywhere else. There are an endless range of activities that are perfectly legal and yet also prohibited within bars and restaurants.

I'm still not getting why smoking is supposed to get such special consideration above all other activities. Because cigarettes are taxed heavily? Fuel is also taxed heavily. Does that mean we should we be able to run lawnmowers and chainsaws wherever and whenever we want, to hell with anyone who objects?

The real question here is not how/why society is choosing to revoke smoking's special status; the real question is how the heck did the activity of smoking get such special status in the first place?

#29 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 10:06 PM

VERY nicely put aastra. I could not agree with you more.

#30 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 01:22 AM

That is my question - why has smoking become a huge issue? Have any viewers of VV actually read the Canadian Bill of Rights? It does not matter if it is smoking, driving or playing bongoes - we all have rights based on legislation.

The Bill of Rights spells out, in lovely legalize, that anything not banned is allowed. It is up to the voters, through our MP's, MLA's and city council to determine how it is applied. Then, if contested, the Supreme Court, to determine if legislation is applicable.

Away from the smoking laws - what about the new Cab Driver laws in metro Vancouver, which will eventually apply here. Many Muslims are up in arms about taking seeing-eye-dogs into their vehicles. Do we force them?

The issue about banning smoking from city sidewalks - an example: a smoker, a house owner, who pays city taxes, and buys cigarettes with full tax locally - is he denied to smoke openly, or does your right to 'clean air' supersede? Does the smoker then have the right to withhold tax? Do the non-smokers have a right to demand clean air?

Canada has allowed medical marijuana, with a special license. Do we deny those users the right to use a legal pain drug in public?

We need to get away from the hypocrisy, and seriously look at what we believe - what we need to protect and preserve. The fundamental argument is - your rights end, where some one else's begins.

#31 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 07:24 AM

The fundamental argument is - your rights end, where some one else's begins.


No the FUNDAMENTAL argument is that everyone's rights end when those "rights" endanger the health of others. Smoking in public places does exactly that. And I will add, once again, no one has the "right" to smoke. The freedom to choose to do so, yes, but the right, no. End of story.

#32 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 07:38 AM

ANYWAYS

If everyone would like to have a discussion on the rights of smokers feel free to start a thread in the General Forum. Otherwise that is it.

This thread is meant to be about the Concerned Citizens Coalition. While this discussion may be somewhat related to one of their issues it has now gone beyond that.

Please return to discussing OTHER aspects of their political platform.

Thank you

#33 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 12 July 2008 - 11:59 AM

CCC

The Concerned Citizens' Coalition is pleased to announce that its new weblog entitled 'CCC Blog' is up now, and available for participation by citizen-voters:

http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/

We are particularly interested in seeking the participation through posted commentary from citizen-voters in the City of Victoria, where three of us are seeking seats on the Victoria City Council.

The CCC Blog will be strictly monitored to ensure a civilized and comfortable reading experience for all concerned, emphasizing decency, politesse and rationality.

As a paper- and monetary-conservation measure, we will be running a paperless campaign. We will not be affixing posters to telephone poles or posterboards, nor will we be delivering campaign literature to household mailboxes as we have done in previous campaigns.

We trust that this aspect of the CCC campaign in itself will garner us the attention of voters concerned about forest conservation and fiscal prudence.

-Gregory Hartnell, President
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

#34 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 13 July 2008 - 12:19 PM

CCC

According to the City of Victoria's Annual Report for the year 2007, there was an excess of revenues over expenditures in the amount of a staggering $14,097,257. This confirms what we have said for a number of years, which is that residential property taxes in the City of Victoria are too high. They go up every year by about 4-5%, and one wonders why.

Meanwhile, the same Annual Report shows that RG Properties, the City's favoured developer-manager of the private-public partnership running the new arena, had a tax holiday in 2007 in the amount of $1,192,693 (listed as 'deferred revenue'), and in the year 2006 the amount of deferred revenue was $1,152,106. Can the City really afford such largesse, or are we being charged too much to make up the shortfall?

Vote for CCC candidates this November for fiscal prudence and a residential property tax freeze.

CCC

#35 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 13 July 2008 - 04:16 PM

$14MM in the black? That's incredible.

Given the excess revenues I don't think there will be an issue of freezing taxes for the upcoming year, perhaps even the year after that.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#36 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 13 July 2008 - 09:42 PM

Gosh! With all that money they could afford to buy 14 whole homes for drug addicts! Of course staffing them will have to be paid for by tax increases....

#37 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 21 August 2008 - 10:23 AM

CCC

A short letter to the Editor of the Times-Colonist daily newspaper, written by the Concerned Citizens' Coalition President Gregory Hartnell, calling for the resignation of the Mayor in his capacity as chair of the Police Board, and the full release of the RCMP investitation report into disgraced Police Chief Battershill, was printed the other day.

For ease of access to this severely edited letter, and other information pertaining to the CCC, please click on the following link:

http://gregoryhartnell.wordpress.com/

- Gregory Hartnell, President
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

#38 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 22 August 2008 - 07:12 AM

Sometimes the CCC almost has a point, but the ridiculous hyperbole drowns it out in stupid. Don't be so dramatic and over the top in your announcements and people might take you a little more seriously (or seriously at all I guess)


I agree. The CCC did extremely poorly in the last election yet their strategy is unchanged. Why?
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#39 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 22 August 2008 - 08:24 AM

I agree. The CCC did extremely poorly in the last election yet their strategy is unchanged. Why?


Blame it on the looming presence of all those skyscrapers that the current administration is approving in their fiendish plot to bring upon the apocalypse, or at least a local version thereof. Clearly the mere presence of such abominations obscure even the most sensible person's ability to think clearly.

#40 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 22 August 2008 - 10:06 AM

The definition of neurosis is, repeating the same behaviour over and over while expecting a different result.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users