Hypocritical governments and their loopholes

[Genghis Khan]

I only use the word 'hypocritical' in order to emphasize, similarly to (and yet contrastingly to) the emphasis, in popular useage, of the phrase 'wet water' when describing this life-giving liquid.

The gist of the story:

The province of Ontario has strict anti-smoking laws in public and private buildings and premises.  This has affected many businesses and patrons from restaurants to clubs, from machine shops to office buildings, from casinos and bingo halls to educational buildings.  Everyone has to abide by these rules in order to prevent everyone from potential harm of first-hand and second-hand tobacco smoke.  Everyone, that is, except the Ontario government.  Their casinos can operate with special shelters for smokers, which are now apparently perfectly legal to the surprize and dismay of all consistent and concerned citizens.  Losing money is perfectly acceptable, if the public health is served, unless the government is losing the money, of course.  They make the laws, so they can make them up as they go. 

Read the full story, here: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/171897

I'm bitter.  Can you tell?

 

[IronDuke]

Gee, you'd almost think they wanted tax and gambling money....

Nova Scotia recently enacted a similar ban, though much more stringent. You're not allowed to smoke in any area defined as a "public space" which includes private clubs, restaurants, bars, pubs, you name it. The legislation was pretty straigforward, so not even the province's two casinos are exempt. However, Indian reservations aren't subject to provincial law (though they get to vote in provincial elections...go fig. Another discussion), ergo they are allowed to have smoking in their restaurants and VLT-houses. This means that the non-Indian pubs in towns near reserves are losing all their customers who smoke (sadly a large percentage of the population)

It's been proven by study after study that in Canada, for every dollar a government takes in from cirgaette taxes, they end up paying 2 or 3 out in health care costs from treating smoking-related ailments. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I'd like to ban them altogether  - not because I care about people's health, but because I don't want my tax dollars supporting people who knowlingly inflict such diseases upon themselves.

 

[Genghis Khan]

How can we ordinary citizens expect our government to be consistent and smart in their policies?  That is too much to ask.

 

[Yax]

How can we ordinary citizens expect our government to be consistent and smart in their policies?  That is too much to ask.

Here in Sweden, you're not allowed to smoke in restaurants and the rest of the "public space" because of the employes (and I'm sure it's the case in Otarioi). They can't walk away from a smoking guest who wants to order. It's their job, and if you don't have a job, you'll find living your life will be a lot more difficult. So what do you want them to do? Just walk around and inhale the toxic air? That's not what I think. And everyone, please don't come with the old argument "they can find another job, if it doesn't suit them." We've got a fair number of unemployed, and it's hard to get a job in Sweden. So I don't see any reason for why peolpe like this would have to put up with all the smoke from the cigarretes.

One solution, would be to build "smokingtents" or something like that so you can go light your cigarette without having to contaminate the employes.

 

[Anomica]

When the public smoking ban was enacted in Sweden the summer of -05, some people were afraid for the restaurants, pubs and bars and their business. It turned out that business was better than ever, while staff felt better, less sick-days etc. Go figure... It even got me to quit smoking after 25+ years. Another good result of this ban is that the number of smokers are decreasing for the first time in decades. In very few places there still are designated smoking areas, usually the size of a phone booth and with fans that sound like 747s taking off so they're not very frequently visited.

But this is a consistent ban that affects politicians as well as "normal" people - as opposed to many other laws that are enacted, that doesn't affect the decision makers...

 

[Genghis Khan]

(and I'm sure it's the case in Otarioi).

Oh, how you murdered my Ontario's name. 

So what do you want them to do? Just walk around and inhale the toxic air?

Who are the questions directed to or is it rhetorical?

But this is a consistent ban that affects politicians as well as "normal" people

How I envy you...

- as opposed to many other laws that are enacted, that doesn't affect the decision makers...

Never mind.

 

[Natalie]

The situation in Austria is amusing. The government (supported by the doctor's union) wants to implement a smoking ban in public places. Needless to say, the far-right party (FPÖ) who is no longer in government opposes this ban. Why, you may ask? Because so many Austrians smoke, and this means votes for the far right. I am skeptical about this ban, not because I smoke, but because I think it'll put the far-right parties back in government by the next election. 

 

[Albie]

This story reminds me, in a way, of the ban the current UK government made on smoking advertising. However, it was decreed by the government to exempt Formula 1 from this (as you may be aware, even car manufacturer's are named after ciggies - Marlboro Maclaren, etc - Formula 1 is a tobacco tart). It turned out that Bernie Eccleston (the CEO of Formula 1) donated £1M to the Labour party (the party in power). Obviously, the British press (been what they are) acted on this in the only way they could - a scandal was afoot.

The Labour party swiftly returned the donation (breif outline here).

As a footnote, the sooner we get a full on public place smoking ban in England (Scotland has had it for a while now), the better - and its coming this summer.

 

[Urizen]

Judging from Natalie's post we'll soon have 'United smokers' party's wying for power. Now when I think of it, they could get many votes- there are MANY smokers out there(there's one in my room, help!), then they could even form a government and make their revenge on us non- smokers because of all these laws that ban smoking in so many places. I can see it now 'Smokers of the world, unite!', and non-smokers treated like second class citizens working in mines...

Seriously now, I always thought smoking is one of, if not the only thing I could say is absolutely bad. You give money for it and it damages your body and of those around you too- apsurd. I admire governments that put out these bans against smoking in public. Not only that they protect non-smokers from the poisons, but they could also work as another reason for smokers to quit smoking.