Cigarette Ban

User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 64890
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Mr. Barre was never fined the million dollars.
Barre was fined $3,000 on Nov. 29 for carelessly discarding a cigarette that started the McLure-Barriere forest fire in southwestern British Columbia in August 2003.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/man-respo ... y-1.542859
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Sparki55
Guru
Posts: 5434
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Sparki55 »

mexi cali wrote: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.


This doesn't give anyone the right to take away their dangerous items. It does open the opportunity for someone to watch over them and assist as much as possible to mitigate risks.
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1718
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by youjustcomplain »

Cigarette ban won't fly. It just won't. Too many addicts out there.
But we can put limitations on it. Such as in Lake Country where it's a bylaw that people are not allowed to smoke in parks. We already have the law that people can't smoke within a few meters of a doorway or window of a business. Maybe we should continue to restrict until it's just too much work for smokers. They already have a rough time of it, but if we make it worse, maybe it'll be enough incentive to find a way to kick the habit.

I'm proposing:
No smoking in public places.
No smoking in Parks.
No smoking within 20 feet of a non-consenting adult or child and everyone is presumed to be non-consenting unless otherwise stated, (children can not give consent).

Also, any fires directly related to smoking should have the costs added up and yearly tacked on to the tax put on cigarettes. If it means a pack of cigarettes goes up by 500% one year, so be it. While we're at it, lets readdress the health impacts from smoking and the drain it puts on our health care system. Are we taxing them enough as is?
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36974
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Glacier »

Given all the known side effects of smoking, those who go down the route of smoking are probably the dumbest and most irresponsible twaggers in the country to begin with, so really, it's no surprise the are irresponsible with their butts.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

mexi cali wrote:
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?

Lol! You'd be surprised how many people don't get that even the "flushable" wipes are really bad for the sewage system and should be disposed of in the garbage can.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 64890
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

youjustcomplain wrote:I'm proposing:
No smoking in public places.
No smoking in Parks.
Bans already in place.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

youjustcomplain wrote:...
I'm proposing:
No smoking in public places. Sounds good
No smoking in Parks. Sounds good
No smoking within 20 feet of a non-consenting adult or child and everyone is presumed to be non-consenting unless otherwise stated, (children can not give consent). Fine, except that any adult should be considered consenting if they are on the property of someone who has given permission to smoke.

Also, any fires directly related to smoking should have the costs added up and yearly tacked on to the tax put on cigarettes. If it means a pack of cigarettes goes up by 500% one year, so be it. While we're at it, lets readdress the health impacts from smoking and the drain it puts on our health care system. Are we taxing them enough as is?

Okay, but while we are at the whole taxing people in proportion to the costs associated with their actions, how about things like a tax on cyclists, people who use parks and other public amenities, distance driven, use of healthcare system, letters to public representatives, complaints to public institutions, 911 calls, education received by children, baby wipes, tampons, etc.
I'm sure you can find other areas our government spend money for our benefit which could be directly passed on to the beneficiary and not spread among all of us.

I'm being absurd, but in my opinion, so is attempting to increase taxes on cigarettes to an exorbitant level.
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by gman313 »

neilsimon wrote:
youjustcomplain wrote:...
I'm proposing:
No smoking in public places. Sounds good
No smoking in Parks. Sounds good
No smoking within 20 feet of a non-consenting adult or child and everyone is presumed to be non-consenting unless otherwise stated, (children can not give consent). Fine, except that any adult should be considered consenting if they are on the property of someone who has given permission to smoke.

Also, any fires directly related to smoking should have the costs added up and yearly tacked on to the tax put on cigarettes. If it means a pack of cigarettes goes up by 500% one year, so be it. While we're at it, lets readdress the health impacts from smoking and the drain it puts on our health care system. Are we taxing them enough as is?

Okay, but while we are at the whole taxing people in proportion to the costs associated with their actions, how about things like a tax on cyclists, people who use parks and other public amenities, distance driven, use of healthcare system, letters to public representatives, complaints to public institutions, 911 calls, education received by children, baby wipes, tampons, etc.
I'm sure you can find other areas our government spend money for our benefit which could be directly passed on to the beneficiary and not spread among all of us.

I'm being absurd, but in my opinion, so is attempting to increase taxes on cigarettes to an exorbitant level.


Don't forget a water tax. It didn't rain in July so City workers had to use extra waters in the parks and on planters around the roads etc.
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1718
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by youjustcomplain »

neilsimon wrote:Okay, but while we are at the whole taxing people in proportion to the costs associated with their actions, how about things like a tax on cyclists, people who use parks and other public amenities, distance driven, use of healthcare system, letters to public representatives, complaints to public institutions, 911 calls, education received by children, baby wipes, tampons, etc.
I'm sure you can find other areas our government spend money for our benefit which could be directly passed on to the beneficiary and not spread among all of us.

I'm being absurd, but in my opinion, so is attempting to increase taxes on cigarettes to an exorbitant level.


I don't think you're being all that absurd. :)

I think that there are some activities that should be paid for by everyone. Such as parks, bike lanes, education. Basically things that benefit everyone. Feminine hygine products should probably be subsidized to some or a full degree, but not exactly what I'm talking about specifically. :) However, unhealthy stuff and stuff that causes massive damage to everyone should be.

If a cigarette toss causes a 100000 hectare fire that consumes 26 houses, causes thousands of people to be on evacuation, causes hundreds of firefighters and water bombers to deploy, causes stores to close etc... it all affects the economy. We're talking many millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money that we all pay and for that, we get air that causes respiratory injuries. This is not ok. We shouldn't be on the hook for these costs. Even if the butt tosser gets caught and fined, we will still pay 100% of the costs. Since we (society), can't catch and hold the cigarette tosser accountable for the damages done, we CAN recoup the costs up front. If it means your pack of cigarettes is 75$ EACH, bu that money covers the costs of the fires and of the strain on health care, then I'm all for it. Sure, at 75$ per pack, there will be fewer smokers so the money will NOT actually cover the costs in full, but it will mean that people have given up the habit which also means fewer cigarettes tossed out the window of cars. Should eventually mean fewer fires. It will also mean less heart disease and lung injuries.
jimmy4321
Guru
Posts: 6844
Joined: Jun 6th, 2010, 5:40 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by jimmy4321 »

youjustcomplain wrote:If a cigarette toss causes a 100000 hectare fire that consumes 26 houses, causes thousands of people to be on evacuation, causes hundreds of firefighters and water bombers to deploy, causes stores to close etc... it all affects the economy. We're talking many millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money that we all pay and for that, we get air that causes respiratory injuries. This is not ok. We shouldn't be on the hook for these costs. Even if the butt tosser gets caught and fined, we will still pay 100% of the costs. Since we (society), can't catch and hold the cigarette tosser accountable for the damages done, we CAN recoup the costs up front. If it means your pack of cigarettes is 75$ EACH, bu that money covers the costs of the fires and of the strain on health care, then I'm all for it. Sure, at 75$ per pack, there will be fewer smokers so the money will NOT actually cover the costs in full, but it will mean that people have given up the habit which also means fewer cigarettes tossed out the window of cars. Should eventually mean fewer fires. It will also mean less heart disease and lung injuries.


All this does is empower the black market with a mainstream product where the customers will be any Canadian from any walk of life . Illegal cigarettes are a big problem elsewhere in Canada and the price difference is not nearly as much as your suggesting..
You actually think authorities get the same support fighting black market smokes as they do with hard drugs?
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

I believe that cigarette smokers contribute around $600,000,000 from taxes on tobacco products alone (about $1,000 each). They also pay the same taxes as the rest of us, to cover healthcare, etc. Do the taxes on tobacco products cover all of the damage done to third parties? I can't say for sure, but it would surprise me if they don't.
User avatar
WalterWhite
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3838
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 3:56 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by WalterWhite »

Cigarettes need to have a deposit fee imposed on each cig. $0.10 each on top of the retail cost. Return all 20 butts and get a $2.00 refund. Any found on the ground can be returned just the same as beer and pop cans. Every rubby will come out of the woodwork scouring sidewalks, roadsides and beaches clean knowing there's $0.10 literally every couple of feet everywhere you go. Sure there will still be situations arise where a smoker feels compelled to toss it rather than recycle/return for a refund - but it would create a reduction overall - and probably a tidy increase in government coffers - and we all know they won't mind that.
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 9386
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by mexi cali »

Fancy wrote:Mr. Barre was never fined the million dollars.
Barre was fined $3,000 on Nov. 29 for carelessly discarding a cigarette that started the McLure-Barriere forest fire in southwestern British Columbia in August 2003.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/man-respo ... y-1.542859


I knew I should have fact checked. I was relying on memory and I thought he had been assessed the fine but it was later repealed.

Thanks.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 64890
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

You certainly were right about the support Mr. Barre received.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by gman313 »

WalterWhite wrote:Cigarettes need to have a deposit fee imposed on each cig. $0.10 each on top of the retail cost. Return all 20 butts and get a $2.00 refund. Any found on the ground can be returned just the same as beer and pop cans. Every rubby will come out of the woodwork scouring sidewalks, roadsides and beaches clean knowing there's $0.10 literally every couple of feet everywhere you go. Sure there will still be situations arise where a smoker feels compelled to toss it rather than recycle/return for a refund - but it would create a reduction overall - and probably a tidy increase in government coffers - and we all know they won't mind that.


that is probably the best idea yet

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”