Cigarette Ban

[Sparki55]

We know there are multiple possible reasons for a fire starting. One of those possible reasons is discarded cigarette butts. Otherwise you are arguing either that a) it never happens (when we know it does) and b) it doesn't matter because smoking is more important than security of property and person. If there was some good thing that came of smoking, let's say it cured cancer, or improved respiratory health, we could debate the good vs. the harm or potential harm. We do this everyday when we choose our diet, or a medication, or a recreational activity, or a form of transportation. I think the balance of good vs. harm is pretty clear with smoking. IF there is some good that can be found for nicotine, well then let's allow nicotine consumption without millions of people carrying around burning materials day after day.

If the government banned things based on a scale of good vs bad we would have almost nothing fun left to do. Most activities humans partake in serve no purpose other than fun or enjoyment and provide no health benefits. Your argument is flawed.

[Fancy]

I don't know if you saw the video, where the burn pattern clearly started by the side of the road, and spread out from there (very early in the life of the fire). Now fires don't start themselves. If there was no lightning in the area, or other wildfires nearby, what do you suppose would cause a small spot fire by the side of the road, no vehicle in sight, except traffic passing by?

And please don't say glass - that would be easy for officials to determine if that were the case.

[Fancy]

If the government banned things based on a scale of good vs bad we would have almost nothing fun left to do. Most activities humans partake in serve no purpose other than fun or enjoyment and provide no health benefits. Your argument is flawed.

Flawed how? What activities kill so much life and destroy so much property that affect so many?

[Silverstarqueen]

We know there are multiple possible reasons for a fire starting. One of those possible reasons is discarded cigarette butts. Otherwise you are arguing either that a) it never happens (when we know it does) and b) it doesn't matter because smoking is more important than security of property and person. If there was some good thing that came of smoking, let's say it cured cancer, or improved respiratory health, we could debate the good vs. the harm or potential harm. We do this everyday when we choose our diet, or a medication, or a recreational activity, or a form of transportation. I think the balance of good vs. harm is pretty clear with smoking. IF there is some good that can be found for nicotine, well then let's allow nicotine consumption without millions of people carrying around burning materials day after day.

If the government banned things based on a scale of good vs bad we would have almost nothing fun left to do. Most activities humans partake in serve no purpose other than fun or enjoyment and provide no health benefits. Your argument is flawed.

No, I didn't say they had to provide a health benefit. and most of those activities do no cause harm, or don't cause much harm. So balance of good vs. harm, means you consider both, not just one or the other.Not many activities that cause so little good and yet such great harm, as cigarettes. Even video games, you could say might provide some good (boredom relief, keeping children and adults occupied when they might otherwise get into trouble, social interaction even if online). And not much harm, not towns or homes burning to the ground, respiratory illness. WE accept a fairly high level of risk for some activities that we consider necessary such as driving, or heart surgery, because on the balance there is a fair amount of good (ability to get groceries, go to the doctor, get to work, even go on holiday, for driving, perhaps extending life for surgery). So the benefit of smoking (feeling good due to nicotine ingestion is perhaps the only one) can be had in other less risky ways that don't cause as much heart disease, respiratory illness, burned homes, towns, forests. Wrt to camping and cooking, we need to cook some things to reduce bacteria and illness, but we don't have to have open burning of logs to do that, we can have a small propane campstove (i think those are permitted). STill some risk, and if that was still causing wildfires, perhaps that would have to be stopped as well. IN the meantime, the good of not having food born illness, outweighs the harm but not in the case of campfires, which people frequently seem to leave unattended or burning when they leave (many people can attest to that).

[youjustcomplain]

Can all of the posters accusing smokers of being responsible for the loss of lives and property...please enlighten the rest of us as to exactly which fires have been caused by smokers thus far ????

I have seen the reports of lightening caused fires and the fires that have been deliberately lit by arsonists.
Where do the cigarettes come in here ??

Oh, wait...there was one woman on the news saying that one of the fires last week was definitely from someone throwing a cigarette out of their window. Although...well, she didn't actually see it...and she didn't actually know who did it or which car it came from....but it must have definitely been a cigarette.

I mean...what else could possibly start a fire....right ???

Oh please. You're better than this.
The news does not get it right, all the time. The news also doesn't report on the ignition source, all the time. There is a sizable portion of cigarette caused fires in the "Human caused fire" category. Everyone knows this to be true.

[Sparki55]

No, I didn't say they had to provide a health benefit. and most of those activities do no cause harm, or don't cause much harm. So balance of good vs. harm, means you consider both, not just one or the other.Not many activities that cause so little good and yet such great harm, as cigarettes. Even video games, you could say might provide some good (boredom relief, keeping children and adults occupied when they might otherwise get into trouble, social interaction even if online). And not much harm, not towns or homes burning to the ground, respiratory illness. WE accept a fairly high level of risk for some activities that we consider necessary such as driving, or heart surgery, because on the balance there is a fair amount of good (ability to get groceries, go to the doctor, get to work, even go on holiday, for driving, perhaps extending life for surgery). So the benefit of smoking (feeling good due to nicotine ingestion is perhaps the only one) can be had in other less risky ways that don't cause as much heart disease, respiratory illness, burned homes, towns, forests. Wrt to camping and cooking, we need to cook some things to reduce bacteria and illness, but we don't have to have open burning of logs to do that, we can have a small propane campstove (i think those are permitted). STill some risk, and if that was still causing wildfires, perhaps that would have to be stopped as well. IN the meantime, the good of not having food born illness, outweighs the harm but not in the case of campfires, which people frequently seem to leave unattended or burning when they leave (many people can attest to that).

If cigarettes become banned, the next most dangerous thing will come on the radar and hit the media which will be over debated and people will side with banning it.
This happens to be a case of a few idiots tossing butts ruining it for the majority of smokers.
Let's ban them! Time to move onto the next issue.

[Fancy]

This happens to be a case of a few idiots tossing butts ruining it for the majority of smokers.
Let's ban them!.....

A few? Hardly. Any reason why you avoid the questions?

[neilsimon]

This happens to be a case of a few idiots tossing butts ruining it for the majority of smokers.
Let's ban them!.....

A few? Hardly. Any reason why you avoid the questions?

Can you show that the financial cost of fires and related damage caused by smoking is significantly greater than the $600,000,000 contributed in taxes?

[Fancy]

Can all of the posters accusing smokers of being responsible for the loss of lives and property...please enlighten the rest of us as to exactly which fires have been caused by smokers thus far ????

Too many to list - don't forget it's not just forest fires that are started by cigarettes (McClure for one).
Not from this year but just to prove it can happen:

WEST KELOWNA–A late afternoon grass fire on Old Okanagan Highway was sparked by a dropped cigarette.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1247578/west- ... cigarette/

[Fancy]

Clowes says she lives on Gellatly Road and has been regularly watching people enter the park. She said her neighbours share the same concerns and last week one of the neighbours reported a man for being in the park and smoking.

https://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/pub ... -closures/

Parks are closed for a reason - same as cigarettes are banned in parks for a reason. There's more than just a few idiots ruining it for the rest of people.

[Silverstarqueen]

Can you show that the financial cost of fires and related damage caused by smoking is significantly greater than the $600,000,000 contributed in taxes?

I don't think it's just the financial cost of fires. I don't know how you evaluate the cost of a life lost, or a person seriously burned and scarred and traumatized for the rest of their life, or even the trauma of losing a home, farm, or business to fire.


http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/re ... _final.pdf

A few points from an earlier study:
"What We Found
In that time, 14,030 fires were started in Canada by smokers' materials. These fires killed 356 people, injured 1,615 and cost more than $200 million in property damage. This works out to about 70 deaths per year. The victims of these fires tended to be the most vulnerable members of our society, including children, the elderly and the poor.

We also found that:

Cigarettes are the number one known cause of fire-related fatalities in Canada;
Cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fires in Canada; and
Fires started by cigarettes tend to result in more deaths and more property damage than fires started by other sources."

[rookie314]

Cigarettes kill someone in North America every minute and a half.

[Woodenhead]

You just need to vote in a politician who will ban smoking, pretty simple.

[neilsimon]

...
A few points from an earlier study:
"What We Found
In that time, 14,030 fires were started in Canada by smokers' materials. These fires killed 356 people, injured 1,615 and cost more than $200 million in property damage. This works out to about 70 deaths per year. The victims of these fires tended to be the most vulnerable members of our society, including children, the elderly and the poor.
...

So, that's like 8 deaths/year, 40 injuries/year, and $5,000,000/year in property damage in BC. Assuming $10,000,000 for each death (at the high end of what US agencies assign) and $1,000,000 for each injury (generous considering that many will have relatively minor injuries), that works out to $125,000,000/year. That leaves a net contribution of $485,000,000/year from smokers after paying for harm done to third parties (and this assumes all of the deaths and injuries are of non-smokers). That goes a long way to paying for healthcare, etc.

[Fancy]

Small comfort to those that have lost loved ones, having to go through rehab, and never mind the loss of wildlife and livestock. Doesn't seem to me all tax money goes straight into health care nor rebuilding.