Cigarette Ban

[Fancy]

Just recently parts of alberta have banned the use of off highway vehicles (like ATVs and motorbikes) because of the fire risk.

You didn't have to go as far as Alberta - Penticton has done so as I have already mentioned and on Castanet.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... ed-in-city

[WalterWhite]

Well, I'm going to buck the trend and say, bans are fruitless wastes of time. There's currently a bill being put forward that will make distracted walking a fineable offense in Hawaii. Seriously? Yes. We don't need to continuously ban things - we need to enforce existing laws and more importantly have more serious consequences that are enforced. I have personally never heard of forest fires being proven to have been started actually by dirt bikes or ATV's themselves. As the old saying goes: "guns don't kill people - people kill people". Society continues to be "dumbed down" and are becoming literally unable to think and act on their own, let alone take responsibility for their actions. Bans such as the current talk only keeps the honest people honest. The campfire ban resulted to two highly publicized incidents recently. Fines of $1150 was levied to each person involved. There's people putting that much fuel into their boat for a day's rip on the lake. Is a paltry $1150 dollar fine really going to prevent it - obviously not. Put all the efforts and costs of promoting and enforcing bans meaningless bans into lobbying for change to existing laws in regards to increasing consequences - substantially.

[tsayta]

Well, I'm going to buck the trend and say, bans are fruitless wastes of time. There's currently a bill being put forward that will make distracted walking a fineable offense in Hawaii. Seriously? Yes. We don't need to continuously ban things - we need to enforce existing laws and more importantly have more serious consequences that are enforced. I have personally never heard of forest fires being proven to have been started actually by dirt bikes or ATV's themselves. As the old saying goes: "guns don't kill people - people kill people". Society continues to be "dumbed down" and are becoming literally unable to think and act on their own, let alone take responsibility for their actions. Bans such as the current talk only keeps the honest people honest. The campfire ban resulted to two highly publicized incidents recently. Fines of $1150 was levied to each person involved. There's people putting that much fuel into their boat for a day's rip on the lake. Is a paltry $1150 dollar fine really going to prevent it - obviously not. Put all the efforts and costs of promoting and enforcing bans meaningless bans into lobbying for change to existing laws in regards to increasing consequences - substantially.

Got to a free with WW on this one. I remember the consequences were supposed to be huge for the guy that started the McClure fire in 03.HUGE

[Sparki55]

So banning one thing, might lead to banning other things. So be it, if a case can be made.
Maybe trampolines should be more closely regulated, if so, then what is wrong with that? Or if there is a way to mitigate the injuries, like using a safety fence, or following some simple safety rules, nothing wrong with that.
So we have the potential harm from the activity itself, then we also have to look at the potential for greater harm than anticipated.

Read the entire post if you are not a fan of out of context material.

Let's ban it all, cigarettes, sugar, driving, cell phones. Put nothing in the way of safety as we certainly cannot be safe unless all is banned.

Unfortunately I believe I am on the loosing side and soon many things I enjoy (smoking isn't one of them) may be banned due to this thinking.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs

[Silverstarqueen]

We could attempt to ban (or regulate) everything, but that isn't what we are discussing, and it would be silly.
We could attempt to ban nothing, we aren't discussing that either, but I think you would not have much support for that.
Since we as a society have agreed not to ban everything, or nothing, we have to try to agree on which things to ban (or regulate).
We know some people will still offend the laws, that isn't really a reason not to have laws. Some people will still murder, steal, rape, start fires, drive recklessly, that is not a reason to give up on trying to ban activities that seem to increase the chance of harm or damage to property.
We already know that having (estimated) a million smokers in B.C., lighting up ten million cigarettes a day (estimated) results in a certain number of them being carelessly dropped (we still find the butts everywhere), and a certain number of fires being started as a result(any one of which can cause great harm to property and great inconvenience to whole towns, neighborhoods or families).Not to mention the huge cost to our medical system, which is a cost to us all. For an activity that no one needs to do, or at least they don't need to do it outside the privacy of their own home. Absolutely no one needs to sell cigarettes (although I don't know why the government feels it has to profit from them). We have catered to and coddled smokers for enough years now, it's time for a change. They've had over 50 years to figure out how to butt out or switch to some other nicotine product that isn't going to burn down the place. IF we can ban running thru red lights (it doesn't always result in death or damage, but still worth banning), when we know some people will still insist on doing it, surely we can ban smoking.

[Fancy]

Not really. Far more likely to die just walking down the street. Many activities carry a higher risk of death than a cigarette caused fire. Let's put some perspective on the numbers.

Please do. I don't think you understood what was being said. What product has the ability to cause the costs of illnesses associated with cigarettes and the widespread death and destruction of wildfires/home fires? Calculating the deaths doesn't include the wildlife lost.

Some numbers regarding the McClure fire (Wikipedia)

On July 30, 2003, a wildfire was started by a discarded cigarette in the hills behind McClure, British Columbia. The fire burned for 75 days, destroying 65,285 acres (26,420 ha) of forest and 81 structures (72 homes and 9 businesses). The fire cost $31.1 million to extinguish and caused another 8.2 million dollars in property damage. 3,800 people were evacuated from the communities of McClure, Barriere and Louis Creek.

[smoky500]

Ban the forests, pave everything over with concrete and pavement then nothing can burn!
Ban people because they are the main cause of all the earths problems! LOL

[mexi cali]

How about banning wet-wipes because some people flush them down the toilet?

You can't flush wet wipes? What do you do with them then? Put them in your pocket and discreetly dispose of them in the neighbors garbage can?

[mexi cali]

There are less drastic solutions which can allow us to manage the risk without needlessly telling people what they can and cannot do

But that's where you're wrong. It isn't needless. There are many, maybe most even who need to be told what to do, where to go and how to get there because they are stupid.

And, they are usually the ones who complain the loudest when they feel like big brother is once again taking away more of their freedom.

It is this group of people who 100% don't see any of their actions as being harmful or disrespectful or dangerous. Once again because they are stupid. And stupid and dangerous are very good friends.

[mexi cali]

Yes we all know products can cause problems - especially if used improperly. Hardly does any product cause the widespread carnage that one cigarette can do by starting a wildfire. Banning cigarettes in public areas and parks - already in place. Penticton just issued a press release regarding no off road vehicles and no smoking as well. The law is there - people need to start reporting those that are endangering others and get the message out there.

All true but the rub is that reporting those who are acting recklessly isn't working because the authorities either can't or won't act on reports coming from Joe Public.

[mexi cali]

Of course you can regulate things people enjoy. Some people enjoy driving at very high speed, some people enjoy a campfire in the middle of a drought (don't deny them their fire roasted weenies and marshmallows). Some people enjoy the wind in their hair when they ride a motorcycle. Some people enjoy driving drunk or not wearing a seatbelt. Some people enjoy stealing other people's stuff. Some people enjoy molesting children. So we regulate or at times ban or fine certain activities, might even fine those who think they have every right to enjoy every thing regardless if it is banned or puts others property or health at risk. There is no reason I can see why the production,importation or sale of tobacco products could not be banned for starters.

Good post. Right up to the last sentence. There are simply too many people making too much money for that to ever even be a consideration. The government loves tobacco. They love that it is addictive. Same with Booze. We are talking billions in tax money and profits and I can not see any involved party wanting to walk away from that.

[Fancy]

With hot temperatures leading to dangerous fire conditions, Creston RCMP have been vigilant in going after open fire burners and drivers tossing out cigarette butts.

"We have issued three tickets each to people who had open fires and drivers who threw lit cigarettes from their vehicles," Sgt. Dave Nassichuk said on Tuesday morning.

The fines, he said, are $1,150 for the fires and $575 for the cigarette infractions.

"Please let people know we have zero tolerance in these hot weather conditions," he said.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/435249853.html

[mexi cali]

Well, I'm going to buck the trend and say, bans are fruitless wastes of time. Not really. While they are unlikely to eliminate tragedy, they do help to minimize or at the least, decrease instances so that's good. There's currently a bill being put forward that will make distracted walking a fineable offense in Hawaii. Seriously? Yes. I like that bylaw. Anything to keep peoples eyes off their freakin phones even if it's not for safety. It is epidemic and ridiculous so yah, fine them and shame them for being disconnected. We don't need to continuously ban things - we need to enforce existing laws However, there are laws needed that don't currently exist to curb the actions of imbeciles and more importantly have more serious consequences that are enforced. Amen to that.I have personally never heard of forest fires being proven to have been started actually by dirt bikes or ATV's themselves. Correct. It takes the actions of a moron to enable the machine to cause the damage As the old saying goes: "guns don't kill people - people kill people". Society continues to be "dumbed down" and are becoming literally unable to think and act on their own, let alone take responsibility for their actions. Close; it's because they don't take responsibility for their actions that they can't be trusted to act or think for themselves. Both of those actions have dire consequences when entrusted to idiots Bans such as the current talk only keeps the honest people honest. The campfire ban resulted to two highly publicized incidents recently. Fines of $1150 was levied to each person involved. There's people putting that much fuel into their boat for a day's rip on the lake. Yah but I'm guessing these weenie roasting *bleep* brains felt the pain of that fine because if they had a boat that took that much fuel, they would have been in it. Is a paltry $1150 dollar fine really going to prevent it - obviously not. No, but it will definitely put a damper on the romance of a fire and will stop somebody else from doing the same thing themselves. Put all the efforts and costs of promoting and enforcing bans meaningless bans into lobbying for change to existing laws in regards to increasing consequences - substantially. 100% there my friend.

[mexi cali]

Got to a free with WW on this one. I remember the consequences were supposed to be huge for the guy that started the McClure fire in 03.HUGE

He was fined one million dollars but that decision was reversed due to public support for the guy (a volunteer fire fighter) and because he owned up to it and was devastated over the destruction his careless act caused.

But, as I said, he took responsibility. Something most people won't do.

[tsayta]

Got to a free with WW on this one. I remember the consequences were supposed to be huge for the guy that started the McClure fire in 03.HUGE

He was fined one million dollars but that decision was reversed due to public support for the guy (a volunteer fire fighter) and because he owned up to it and was devastated over the destruction his careless act caused.

But, as I said, he took responsibility. Something most people won't do.

I'm hoping that the 1mm "close call" sent a message