Jump to content

      












Photo

Tobacco Free in the CRD (smoking ban)


  • Please log in to reply
397 replies to this topic

#1 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 04:29 PM

Curious to know what the thoughts are on this topic. I am very pleased with the latest ban on smoking cigarettes on outdoor patios and think the bans have not gone far enough.

I look forward to the day cigarettes are illegal and Governments stop preying on people's addiction to cigarettes.

#2 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 04:32 PM

I think it's offensive, and that it is no longer about protecting the health of workers, it's an attack on our freedom to do nasty things to our body if we so choose.

It's outside for ****s' sakes.

#3 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 05:24 PM

it doesn't affect me much because i don't smoke. it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference even to the smokers. instead of smoking on the patio they hop the fence, smoke there ont he sidewalk & then go back in.

#4 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,168 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 05:46 PM

I agree with Monkeyman. Prohibition of anything is the wrong way. Hell I am for decrimializing pot and heroin too. Lets let people do what they want to themselves so long as they are not hurting anyone else. Also not a smoker.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#5 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 11:21 PM

I was on the patio at the Fernwood Inn tonight and people were smoking on the sidewalk in front of where I was sitting so the bylaw makes no difference at all.
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#6 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 12:58 PM

i found out last night that people aren't allowed to smoke on patios only if food/drink are being served.

#7 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 05:10 PM

i found out last night that people aren't allowed to smoke on patios only if food/drink are being served.


Correct. Steamers has a "smoking patio" now.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#8 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 05:46 PM

i found out last night that people aren't allowed to smoke on patios only if food/drink are being served.


Correct. Steamers has a "smoking patio" now.


at first i thought it was pretty heavy-handed to ban smoking everywhere but now that i know about that detail it doesn't sound so bad.

#9 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 06:28 PM

What do you mean by a smoking patio at Steamers and where is it located on their property?

#10 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,168 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 06:29 PM

It is on the sidewalk.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#11 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 06:37 PM

It is on the sidewalk.


Is it a dedicated smoking area that people can eat and drink or is someone being facetious by saying the sidewalk is the "smoking patio"? Just curious.

#12 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,168 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 06:56 PM

It is a non service patio.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#13 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:54 PM

It is a non service patio.


Not just non-service, but also non-consumption (ie. you can't order food/drink inside then take it out to the smoking patio). You can have an outdoor area that people smoke in, or an outdoor area that people eat or drink in, but not both.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#14 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 14 July 2007 - 02:54 PM


"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

#15 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 14 July 2007 - 03:05 PM

Strange how they spelled "to-day."
Is that how it was spelled in the olden days?

#16 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 14 July 2007 - 03:17 PM

Smart-ass kids to-day.
"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

#17 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 14 July 2007 - 04:04 PM

Nice, the ad says "it's easy to enter and you may send in as many entries as you like."

Break that down and what it is saying is "it's easy to suck back our smokes but it is hard on your lungs and it will cause cancer but smoke as many 20 packs as you can to ensure your chance to win a new car and if we have to deliver your car to the palliative care ward we will."

Believe it or not some new cars are equipped with oxygen for people with emphysema and COPD.

#18 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:32 AM

Hmmmm, now the smokers seem to be taking over the sidewalks. I guess that is next on the list of things to do.

I thought littering was against the law. Isn't it amazing how many people flick or toss their butts anywhere they happen to be? Butt nobody is cited for littering, why is that? Maybe it is sort of a recycling thing like cans & bottles where the homeless come and collect them - they pick-up the cigarettes on the street as well. I don't think so because there are butts everywhere you look. Planters, sidewalks, streets, window sills, etc etc.

Some people are very considerate and carry a compact astray with them. Others will nicely flick the hot ash off the end and toss the butt in the garbage can closest to them.

http://www.quitnow.ca

#19 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:32 AM

Hmmmm, now the smokers seem to be taking over the sidewalks. I guess that is next on the list of things to do.

I thought littering was against the law. Isn't it amazing how many people flick or toss their butts anywhere they happen to be? Butt nobody is cited for littering, why is that? Maybe it is sort of a recycling thing like cans & bottles where the homeless come and collect them - they pick-up the cigarettes on the street as well. I don't think so because there are butts everywhere you look. Planters, sidewalks, streets, window sills, etc etc.

Some people are very considerate and carry a compact astray with them. Others will nicely flick the hot ash off the end and toss the butt in the garbage can closest to them.

http://www.quitnow.ca


Some places are no going quietly on this issue. V-Lounge is openly allowing smoking/drinking/eating on their patio. The Cambie only recently (in the last week or so) partitioned their patio.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#20 osmich

osmich
  • Member
  • 205 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:52 PM

I did not write any of the following article but I fully support it:

Anti-smoke law needed for kids (in cars & confined spaces)
Nanaimo Daily News
August 23, 2007

Though not all the initiatives from the medical community to change laws -- witness the near unenforceable bicycle helmet law -- make sense, Canadians may be more supportive of a law making it illegal to smoke in cars with children.
The proposal is just one of a host of items on the agenda for the Canadian Medical Association's convention this week in Vancouver.
Some might ask what's taking so long to protect children from inhaling toxic substances in confined spaces. It was clear as many as 60 years ago that cigarettes were somehow linked to illness. About 30 years ago the link was proven, and in the last decade the risk of second-hand smoke has been clear.
The idea for such a law makes sense on consideration of some very simple facts: Children are highly vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke, and while strapped in for safety's sake they have no way to avoid smoking along with whoever the moron is who has lit up in the vehicle.
How anybody could be thoughtless enough to smoke with kids in the car is no mystery. It's sheer stupidity. Yet it still happens, and happens often enough for doctors to be concerned.
It would be very difficult to argue that this is a matter in which the state should not get involved. Anybody who argues that it is their right to light up with children in their vehicle needs to think this one through, if they can.
A parent has a legal obligation to see that their children do not come to harm through negligence. And there is no other term for someone who insists on their children effectively smoking with them. The harmful effects of cigarettes are not only now common knowledge, but printed on every single cigarette pack. A person with an illness proved to be caused by second-hand smoke may in later years even have a very good case against their parents in court based on such negligence.
The penalties with such a law need to be effective for the sake of deterrence. Very high fines should be accompanied by a mandatory review by child protection authorities.
But such ideas raise the issues of enforcement. We want our police to respond to life-threatening situations, and to catch serious criminals. And child protection authorities are overburdened and underfunded.
Is this a law that we can afford? It likely is, given that most people are smart enough not to expose their children to such toxins. Only a small minority would be the targets of this law; they would be the very stupid.
While children should also not be watching too much television, or eating junk food, this is different. There is no smoking in moderation.
In all cases we need to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is one such case.

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