# Smokers Rights



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I happen to be a pipe smoker and have been for a very long time. I also happen to have done a lot of travelling in my time. Even back when you were allowed to smoke cigarettes on airplanes, you couldn't smoke pipes or cigars and so I've always been used to not having a smoke on the plane. I also understand why non-smokers do not want to be subject to second hand smoke. 

But as public opinion has changed over the last few decades, as with many things, it seems the pendulum must always swing from one extreme to another. Why can we never seem to adopt policies that make sense for all? Why must we always go to an extreme? There are places now where municipal governments are banning smoking pretty much everywhere and in some cases even including in someone's own home!

On a recent return to Canada from Europe, I had a 2 hour layover at Toronto Airport after a 8 1/2 hour flight from Europe. At our departure airport in Europe, there were smoking rooms available in the departure area where smokers could have a last puff before boarding. Enclosed rooms with fans and filters venting the air to the outdoors. To me, that is a sensible approach that accommodates both smokers and non-smokers needs. 

I had no objection to not being able to smoke on that 8 1/2 hour flight, I understand and accept why non-smokers would not want me to light up on the flight and subject them to my smoke. But do the non-smokers have any objection to my using a controlled environment room in an airport when I have a 2 hour layover between that flight and my final flight to my home airport? I wouldn't think so, so why then do the airports and the laws they must adhere to, object to my doing so? 

In Europe, they provide such accommodation for smokers but here in N. America, we do not. It's easy to have a law that bans all smoking everywhere but harder to have a law that treats everyone smoker and non-smoker alike, fairly. So I am asking those here who are non-smokers to respond and tell me what you think is fair. Should I have no rights whatsoever to smoke if I choose to do so? Where is a fair balance in your opinion?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Don't think current laws in Canada allow any smoking indoors? 
You could always go outside during your 2 hr layover right?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Don't think current laws in Canada allow any smoking indoors?
> You could always go outside during your 2 hr layover right?


Its provincial, basically to smoke in Ontario it has to be outdoors, exposed to the elements.
Funny thing is that there are no vaping protections.

You can smoke, just don't do it near me, and don't smoke then be close to me, you stink and the offgassing is unhealthy.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Its provincial, basically to smoke in Ontario it has to be outdoors, exposed to the elements.
> Funny thing is that there are no vaping protections.


Ah, wasn't aware of that ... thought the feds banned it everywhere indoors but provincial laws work too. 
I know a while ago it was banned on patios at restaurants here.

I think vaping is banned here as well ... is there need from protection from that?
All I know is what I've seen ... some people output those huge clouds of vape.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Ah, wasn't aware of that ... thought the feds banned it everywhere indoors but provincial laws work too.
> I know a while ago it was banned on patios at restaurants here.
> 
> I think vaping is banned here as well ... is there need from protection from that?
> All I know is what I've seen ... some people output those huge clouds of vape.


Vaping is an interesting one.

Various, Unknown, untested substances being dispersed as fine particles in the air.
I'm not saying it should be banned, but.
If you're going to discharge this into the atmosphere near me, it should be researched and proven "likely not harmful".

As it is you can put any chemicals in a vape, so we're not talking about a single thing.
So which vape is the person using, does it have a properly documented supply chain, our food and pharmaceuticals do, vapes do not.
Now assuming we know what is in vapes, and it's actually what they say it is. 
Note many supplements don't actually contain what they say, even fish in stores is often mislabelled, and we have thousands of flavours, each with several chemicals.

But lets assume we know what the chemicals are. (even though for most vaped product we don't)
Lets look at the testing, were any of these chemicals tested for inhalation? If so was it plain inhalation or as a vapour, because this matters.
Think about cinnamon, it's generally safe, unless you inhale it, then you can die.
In short, for many of the chemicals we don't have exposure data, definitely not prolonged acute exposure to the wide mix of chemicals being used.

I don't think the safe usage data exists.

Finally my rights to not breath this. I think I should have a near unlimited right to not be exposed to noxious chemicals. This is why we have environmental pollution laws.

We're literally talking about taxing and regulating CO2 as a pollutant, the argument that we should be able to vape with impunity is ridiculous.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> don't smoke then be close to me, you stink and the offgassing is unhealthy.


A lot of smokers chew some gum after a butt...nice considerate gesture but trust me it doesn't help.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

I won't be surprised if "second-hand vaping" becomes a thing. I would try to avoid it, even though there is not much known about it yet.

Some vapers have already come down with severe lung diseases. With smoking, similarly, the effects were first found in smokers but after many years of smoking. In some ways, vaping seems to be worse.

I do agree with the OP that there should be facilities in public places for smokers. One problem is that the smoke and the odor it causes can seep into other parts of the building or indoors from outside. There needs to be a negative pressure chamber setup to contain it. 

Preferably, smokers will pay for it through cigarette taxes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> In short, for many of the chemicals we don't have exposure data, definitely not prolonged acute exposure to the wide mix of chemicals being used.
> 
> I don't think the safe usage data exists.
> 
> ...


Understood, if you don't know what's in there it is hard to say what effect it will have. Just did a quick read on it, tried to find unbiased reports but .... anyways, seems the general consensus is vaping creates less polution than smoking. Of course it's not like we need a replacement for smokes but it seems to be a "lesser" of two evils.

As far as unlimited right to breath ... well, that went away with internal combustion engines and industry.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

Funny when you see a whole bunch of people huddled by the front blowing smoke into people walking in, right underneath the no smoking sign. Why? Because the smoking shelter is so far away in the parking lot. 

Gay marriages, freedom of speech, etc are all basic human rights. Sucking on hundreds of toxins, killing yourself and everyone around you is not.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I can give credit to the ban of smoking in offices circa 1990 as the driver to motivate me to finally quit after a few failed attempts in the '70s and '80s. I think it is the right step to progressively make it harder for anyone to smoke (or vape for that matter) anywhere in public places. Until vaping took off, there had been a steady decline in smoking but am surprised the trend has not been more pronounced, e.g. a percentage point per year https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00006-eng.htm

I am agnostic about vented smoking rooms in designated airport areas. True, it would not hurt anyone else in theory, but smokers still stink like hell and tobacco taxes likely don't make up for the health costs associated with smoking.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

It's a little sad that this question is even being asked.

2nd and 3rd hand smoke. Now that we understand the dangers, etc. employers can not expect any of their employees to expose themselves to these so called controlled environments. Unsafe work environment, law suits, etc.

Considering the negative health consequences, etc. asking smokers to smoke outdoors away from others is not asking too much. That's more than fair. 

Look at all the money spent on education, health care costs, etc. not including lost productivity. The money could be going to a lot better use.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> A lot of smokers chew some gum after a butt...nice considerate gesture but trust me it doesn't help.


The smoke is in their clothes, chewing gum doesn't do [email protected]#.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Well two points I would like to comment on. First, limiting smoking to the outdoors. That is fine if the choice exists in a practical sense but anyone who has flown through Toronto airport probably knows that for me to exit from a departure area to the outdoors and then return to that departure area would take up a considerable amount of time. It's not a simple walk out the door, walk back in procedure. I also suspect that when coming back in, I might run into some hassle from security as to why I exited the airport at all when I was connecting to another flight. I don't see why having a dedicated vented room for smokers would not be a fair solution. 

I have no problem with it being paid out of cigarette taxes. Mentioning that just brings to my mind the question of where are all the taxes people already pay on tobacco going? It certainly isn't just to smoking related programs of any kind. The reality is if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, resulting in zero tax being received from smokers, the government revenue would have a big hole to fill from taxation elsewhere. 

Second, the objection to tobacco smell. Well, I suppose for some that is a real objection, just as I object to those with bad body odour or whose clothes reek of curry, etc. etc. But the tobacco smell is no worse than any of those others and I don't see anyone suggesting a law to stop people stinking of curry.

Funnily enough, as a pipe smoker I have received numerous positive comments about the smell of pipe tobacco. I've had many people say they liked the smell of a pipe and many who have said seeing and smelling a pipe reminded them of someone in a positive way. Maybe there are some people out there who have positive thoughts when they smell curry, I don't know. Anyone have fond memories when they smell 'fish breath'?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^^ Unfortunately, the smokers can't smell it (aka the lingering stink on them) ... they're only fooling themselves with the gum/breath masking. :ghost:

Smokers' have rights ... and non-smokers have rights too so I keep a distance (like a mile away) from them.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ^^ Unfortunately, the smokers can't smell it (aka the lingering stink on them) ... they're only fooling themselves with the gum/breath masking. :ghost:


Two different things, breath and clothes smell ... obviously the gum isn't going to help with the smell on the clothes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Well two points I would like to comment on. First, limiting smoking to the outdoors. That is fine if the choice exists in a practical sense but anyone who has flown through Toronto airport probably knows that for me to exit from a departure area to the outdoors and then return to that departure area would take up a considerable amount of time. It's not a simple walk out the door, walk back in procedure. I also suspect that when coming back in, I might run into some hassle from security as to why I exited the airport at all when I was connecting to another flight. I don't see why having a dedicated vented room for smokers would not be a fair solution.
> 
> I have no problem with it being paid out of cigarette taxes. Mentioning that just brings to my mind the question of where are all the taxes people already pay on tobacco going? It certainly isn't just to smoking related programs of any kind. The reality is if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, resulting in zero tax being received from smokers, the government revenue would have a big hole to fill from taxation elsewhere.
> 
> ...


I think we're at a point that smokers don't need further enabling ... as in smoking rooms. Yup, troublesome to go outside but that's the price you pay.

As to the smell aspect, I find most perfumes (maybe more of the amount of it?) to be way worse than tobacco smoke smell on clothes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem with smoking rooms is that employees are forced to go in and clean them up.

The local casino has an attached covered patio equipped with gas heaters. The smokers tend to congregate at that end of the casino and play the games nearby.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

cainvest said:


> As to the smell aspect, I find most perfumes (maybe more of the amount of it?) to be way worse than tobacco smoke smell on clothes.


The office I used to work in banned smoking at least 25 years ago. They made scent sensitivity an issue about 10 years ago. They didn't specifically ban perfume were mostly able to reign in the worst offenders.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

cainvest said:


> As to the smell aspect, I find most perfumes (maybe more of the amount of it?) to be way worse than tobacco smoke smell on clothes.


No doubt, most perfumes are disgusting, especially when bathed in it. A number of facilities such as arts theatres make it clear on their websites and tickets, being a fragrant free facility. In our music school, we revised our handbooks to be fragrant free... staff, faculty and students.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I do like the smell of many pipe tobacco's in small quantities. I don't like the smell of used pipes and the pipe smoker though.


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

sags said:


> The problem with smoking rooms is that employees are forced to go in and clean them up.


In a similar context, I often wonder about the staff manning Drive-Through windows. It can’t be healthy breathing exhaust fumes in close proximity, for hours at a time.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> *No doubt, most perfumes are disgusting, especially when bathed in it*. A number of facilities such as arts theatres make it clear on their websites and tickets, being a fragrant free facility. In our music school, we revised our handbooks to be fragrant free... staff, faculty and students.


 ... that too, especially in a confined area such as an elevator. Sometimes I feel like passing out from holding my breath so as not to whiff the stink.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The problem with smoking rooms is that employees are forced to go in and clean them up.
> 
> The local casino has an attached covered patio equipped with gas heaters. The smokers tend to congregate at that end of the casino and play the games nearby.


Ontario solved that by banning smoking rooms.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Dilbert said:


> In a similar context, I often wonder about the staff manning Drive-Through windows. It can’t be healthy breathing exhaust fumes in close proximity, for hours at a time.


This is what I mean by the pendulum swinging to an extreme. Smoking ban laws proliferate while no one is suggesting a law to ban automobile air pollution to such extremes. In Switzerland for example, if you stop your car at a red light, you must by LAW turn of the engine and then restart it when the light turns green. Idling in a parking lot is against the law as well. Any idling is basically a fineable offense. 

Where are the non-drivers rights to not have to inhale car exhaust fumes and the laws limiting how car drivers must respect the non-drivers rights? That is much the same as second hand smoke after all.

Another related issue is plastic particles in the air. A recent study shows we consume the equivalent of a credit card of plastic every WEEK in the air we breath. Yet every time I go to the supermarket I see people using plastic shopping bags rather than re-usuable shopping bags. Where are the non plastic shopping bag users rights to not have those who do use them, pollute the air they breath? Why do we allow bottled water in plastic containers? Why do we not legislate for the common good, against all 'single use' plastic containers of any kind? 
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/you-consume-a-credit-card-a-week-of-tiny-plastic-study-1.4462854

https://sloactive.com/plastic-pollu... Pollution – the,in ocean and coastal surveys.

I fully appreciate non-smokers rights to not have to breath second hand smoke but at the same time, I have to question why they don't want to appreciate my rights both to smoke and to not have to be exposed to their own versions of pollution that they ignore while comdemning smokers.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Why can we never seem to adopt policies that make sense for all? Why must we always go to an extreme?
> 
> So I am asking those here who are non-smokers to respond and tell me what you think is fair. Should I have no rights whatsoever to smoke if I choose to do so? Where is a fair balance in your opinion?


The actual question is what is the intent of the smoking laws put forward? The laws are put forward to reduce the number of smokers. It's not about being fair, the government is trying to get people to stop smoking for many reasons. If the intent of the laws are to reduce the number of smokers, then smokers rights are secondary if there at all.

To answer your question of what is fair. I am former smoker, who does not smoke now, and gets sick in smoky rooms. I am extra sensitive to the smoke, probably because I smoked for so long. I am fine if there are well ventilated smoking rooms. If the person beside me stinks, which they often do, even pipe smoke, I would probably air freshen the air around them if possible, and take an allergy med. As some said, it's not different than some one else who smells bad for another reason.

As a former smoker, I am aware that it is an addiction. So when I run meetings more than a couple of hours, I adequately put in short breaks for people to allow the smokers to get their fix. I would prefer their would be smoking any where, but as long as I don't have to inhale their smoke, then I am fine.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> I think we're at a point that smokers don't need further enabling ... as in smoking rooms. Yup, troublesome to go outside but that's the price you pay.
> 
> As to the smell aspect, I find most perfumes (maybe more of the amount of it?) to be way worse than tobacco smoke smell on clothes.


OK cainvest, I'll accept I have to go outside to smoke regardless of how inconvenient it is. Now, will you accept that you cannot use any 'single use' plastic and that you cannot idle your car at a traffic light? 

My point being, people are quite happy to say what someone else should do but are perhaps not so quick to agree to something that affects them personally. No more plastic bags at supermarkets, no more plastic bottled water, no more plastic lids on a drink cup, no more plastic straws, no more plastic bottles of pop, etc. etc. If I do my part for the common good of not smoking near other people, I think it only fair that they do their part to not pollute MY AIR in other ways. 

Do you see people who use plastic bags at a supermarket check-out, being given dirty looks for doing so or having people say, 'why don't you quit that disgusting habit.' When you see someone idling their car in a parking lot in summer to keep the air-conditioning running or in winter to keep the heater running, do you go over and say to them, 'hey, you're polluting the air I breath, turn it off.'


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Plugging Along said:


> The actual question is what is the intent of the smoking laws put forward? The laws are put forward to reduce the number of smokers. It's not about being fair, the government is trying to get people to stop smoking for many reasons. If the intent of the laws are to reduce the number of smokers, then smokers rights are secondary if there at all.
> 
> To answer your question of what is fair. I am former smoker, who does not smoke now, and gets sick in smoky rooms. I am extra sensitive to the smoke, probably because I smoked for so long. I am fine if there are well ventilated smoking rooms. If the person beside me stinks, which they often do, even pipe smoke, I would probably air freshen the air around them if possible, and take an allergy med. As some said, it's not different than some one else who smells bad for another reason.
> 
> As a former smoker, I am aware that it is an addiction. So when I run meetings more than a couple of hours, I adequately put in short breaks for people to allow the smokers to get their fix. I would prefer their would be smoking any where, but as long as I don't have to inhale their smoke, then I am fine.


Thanks for a sensible response Plugging Along. I hadn't thought of the laws being about stopping smoking, only about controlling where you can smoke. I'm not sure if your view is right or not but it is certainly a point worth thinking about.

You may be right but I think the laws come about as a result of public opinion more so than sound medical/scientific reasoning. In other words, voters influence law makers and whatever the 'flavour of the month' happens to be, gets the most attention. If that were not the case, single-use plastic would have as many laws banning it as smoking does. I personally happen to think we should ban plastic in as many things as we possibly can as I see that as a far bigger global problem than second hand smoke is. The difference of course is that the majority of the public likes using plastic bags and bottles etc. 

The good news on that front of course is that there is a growing awareness of the harmfulness of plastics and Canada is moving towards bans.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ics-ban-what-we-know-so-far-and-what-you-can/


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> OK cainvest, I'll accept I have to go outside to smoke regardless of how inconvenient it is. Now, will you accept that you cannot use any 'single use' plastic and that you cannot idle your car at a traffic light?


Actually I could easily accept not using plastic bags, I so rarely use them and never ask for them. 
Also my car automatically shuts off at traffic lights 



Longtimeago said:


> My point being, people are quite happy to say what someone else should do but are perhaps not so quick to agree to something that affects them personally. No more plastic bags at supermarkets, no more plastic bottled water, no more plastic lids on a drink cup, no more plastic straws, no more plastic bottles of pop, etc. etc. If I do my part for the common good of not smoking near other people, I think it only fair that they do their part to not pollute MY AIR in other ways.
> 
> Do you see people who use plastic bags at a supermarket check-out, being given dirty looks for doing so or having people say, 'why don't you quit that disgusting habit.' When you see someone idling their car in a parking lot in summer to keep the air-conditioning running or in winter to keep the heater running, do you go over and say to them, 'hey, you're polluting the air I breath, turn it off.'


I do get your point BUT all these things take time to change. Plastic bags are already getting a negative association, also may places charge for them here. I do see a fair number of people bring their own (non-plastic) bags in for grocery shopping. 

Vehicle emissions are also targeted, electric / hybrid are slowly making their way into mainstream autos and emission standards keep increasing.

It's easy for government to target smoking as it serves no real purpose (other than personal pleasure) and has proven negative effects on the population.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Am I the only one that brings his own used plastic bags in my back pocket? So much easier than dragging those large reusable bags around. 
Anyway I hope someday you can quit that pipe habit,I know its hard...perhaps with edibles coming to market you could imbide and maybe forget to light up altogether lol.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> ... I also suspect that when coming back in, I might run into some hassle from security as to why I exited the airport at all when I was connecting to another flight.


I'm not sure why as I know several people who regularly do this. Unless you stood out for some other reason.

There's also some airports I've been in where to switch to/from the international terminal to the domestic one means leaving the secured area to go through a separate security check.


Cheers


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cainvest said:


> It's easy for government to target smoking as it serves no real purpose (other than personal pleasure) and has proven negative effects on the population.


Then one has to wonder about the point of making mj legal. Unless eaten, it produces smoke. Apparently government and mj smokers believe that, unlike all other types of smoke, the composition of marijuana smoke is beneficial, it's positively therapeutic. The particulates from mj smoke will help you live longer. And passers-by will enjoy the fragrant aroma in addition to the therapeutic benefits they are receiving at no charge.

And now we are hearing stories about how "organized crime" (as distinguished from not-so-organized, chaotic, haphazard and half *** crime) has not left the marijuana sales building. Who would expect that? I just went and looked at online prices for that crap. The cheapest I found was $200 if bought by the ounce. That comes to $3,200 a pound. With prices like that, there should be a vibrant black market, organized or not.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Mukhang pera said:


> Then one has to wonder about the point of making mj legal. Unless eaten, it produces smoke. Apparently government and mj smokers believe that, unlike all other types of smoke, the composition of marijuana smoke is beneficial, it's positively therapeutic.


I believe the thinking is that you don't smoke 20-30 joints a day, every day, like a cigarette smoker does, so the effect on lungs is minimal.

But man, does it ever smell strong. 

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> Then one has to wonder about the point of making mj legal.


I think everyone can agree the government doesn't always make purely forward steps. 

From their point of view ... it's a positive thing.
- Increases tax revenue
- Buying votes
- Less deaths from "bad weed"
- Takes away some of money from the illegal sales.

Also, I believe the laws are more stringent on the areas one can light up compared to tobacco.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I've noticed some positive changes in smoking behavious over the years. Smokers generally don't smoke in buildings, not even in their own home. Also they don't smoke around their children, even if outside. They don't want their kids to even see them smoking as it is a bad example. 

I think the ill heath effects of second hand smoke is over blown, as if some one will die getting a whiff of smoke from outside smokers. Its kind of neurotic to get all hyped up about that. 
And speaking of health, it is far more unhealthy to be over weight, and not exercise, compared to smoking. Plus, lots of overweight people with a a poor diet, who don't exercise think nothing of exposing children to their bad habits. The priorities should be to focus on weight, exercise, and a good diet. Smoking should be lower on the priority list as its not that big of a deal anymore compared to weight and exercise.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The MJ situation is interesting as it appears many Canadians still buy marijuana on the black market. I saw some stats on the news, forget them right now but the black market price was much lower than the legal product.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A few issues with MJ. Not nearly enough retail stores yet in most provinces. Think only AB has hundreds of stores. No edibles yet (who really wants to smoke?). Retail price way too high at $10/g or more when black market is about $5, at least locally.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> A few issues with MJ. Not nearly enough retail stores yet in most provinces. Think only AB has hundreds of stores. No edibles yet (who really wants to smoke?). Retail price way too high at $10/g or more when black market is about $5, at least locally.


The government's handling of the rollout for legalized marijuana has been quite poor. The supply chain, the number and location of outlets, delivery problems, quality problems, too high pricing compared to illegal pricing, shortages, and a cornucopia of confusing rules depending on the province.

Honestly, if there ever was a slam dunk business that makes money, it's selling drugs, and the Liberals can't even get that right.

ltr


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> Honestly, if there ever was a slam dunk business that makes money, it's selling drugs, and the Liberals can't even get that right.
> 
> ltr


Agree, but I think the bungling has been at the provincial level, not the federal.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

nobleea said:


> Agree, but I think the bungling has been at the provincial level, not the federal.


Perhaps, but what a mess. And just as Alta says, "who wants to smoke?". Smoking anything is taboo today, so the first thing we legalize is smoking? It's crazy. I would no more draw smoke into my lungs than shoot myself in the head.

Everyone wants edibles, CBD oils, etc, etc. Why are we waiting over a year before that becomes legal? What a stupid idea. Governments, whether federal or provincial have completely messed up this rollout.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> The MJ situation is interesting as it appears many Canadians still buy marijuana on the black market. I saw some stats on the news, forget them right now but the black market price was much lower than the legal product.


I predicted this before it was made legal. The black market follows the same rule of supply and demand as legitimate businesses follow. As soon as the government set a price the black market responded with a lower price.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> I predicted this before it was made legal. The black market follows the same rule of supply and demand as legitimate businesses follow. As soon as the government set a price the black market responded with a lower price.


I don't think they had to drop their prices. As I recall, the white market price was set above the black market price with the assumption that people would pay extra for legality. Maybe they have dropped their price after the necessary price differential was figured out.

I think CBD oils have been legal from the get go. Honestly, I think the biggest growth is going to come from this. Correction, maybe not legal from the get go. I know many people buy this online.

I didn't even think about edibles at legalization. It might be a bigger market, long term. It's probably more likely to generate new customers for MJ than the smoke part is.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are lots of edible products available in Ontario. There is lots of choice available in Ontario.

The problem is the price. People can buy better weed pretty much anywhere for less than half the legal price.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

An underlying theme in this thread is legislating utopia. there oughta be a law against this or that. The nanny state ought to save everyone and make everyone happy via laws. Its a fools errand that ends in a totalitarian society. Whatever happened to individual responsibility and consideration for others? With smoking, originally, smokers were segregated. After dinner the smokers would go off by themselves and have a cigar. I think what happened is the tobacco companies, motivated by profits, chipped away at convincing people smoking was healthy and promoted people smoking almost anywhere. Now, we are going back to the way thngs were originally: segregating smokers out of consideration for others. Nothing wrong with that, although you shouldn't have to have a law for it. 

Recent developments are going further than just segregating smokers: its trying to eliminate smoking via legislation; trying to legislate utopia, one law at a time. I'm more interested in personal responsiblity and personal choice. I think the nanny state idea of legislating utopia is a bad idea. Amazing how many people fall for it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Pluto said:


> An underlying theme in this thread is legislating utopia. there oughta be a law against this or that. The nanny state ought to save everyone and make everyone happy via laws. Its a fools errand that ends in a totalitarian society. Whatever happened to individual responsibility and consideration for others? With smoking, originally, smokers were segregated. After dinner the smokers would go off by themselves and have a cigar. I think what happened is the tobacco companies, motivated by profits, chipped away at convincing people smoking was healthy and promoted people smoking almost anywhere. Now, we are going back to the way thngs were originally: segregating smokers out of consideration for others. Nothing wrong with that, although you shouldn't have to have a law for it.
> 
> Recent developments are going further than just segregating smokers: its trying to eliminate smoking via legislation; trying to legislate utopia, one law at a time. I'm more interested in personal responsiblity and personal choice. I think the nanny state idea of legislating utopia is a bad idea. Amazing how many people fall for it.


That would be nice, but for people to take personal responsibility, they have to be held accountable for their decisions, which simply isn't going to happen.
People want legislation to lower cell phone bills that run into thousands a year. 
If people can't even accept responsibility for clicking on a video on their cell phone, what hope is there for all the other bad decisions they make?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

For once I am in agreement with MrMatt. People these days seem to accept less responsibility for their own actions than they ever did in the past. Asking people to use common sense only works if common sense is indeed common. ie. most people have it. Unfortunately, we now live in a world of 'me' and most people have little interest in acting based on what is best for most rather than what they think is best for themselves.

So while I agree with Pluto that what WOULD be best is personal responsibility and personal choice, given how most people act, that just won't work. If it did, we would all be driving electric cars already, demanding renewable energy sources by used rather than fossil fuels, refusing to buy anything in a plastic container, etc. 

Look at Alberta and yesterday's election. No surprise there, voters don't care about the environment as much as they care about their individual job prospects. Here is an article on why Albertans are angry. It's easy to understand but it also clearly omits any thought as to whether we SHOULD be continuing to exploit natural resources that contribute to Climate Change. It's an article about 'me' and what's best for 'me', not what's best for all.
https://theorca.ca/visiting-pod/why-albertans-are-angry/

It talks about 'activists killing resource projects' and that's as close as it gets to mentioning Climate Change which of course are dirty words in Alberta obviously. A world without oil production? No, never, can't be allowed to happen to ME.

People are perfectly willing to ignore the scientific evidence of what we are doing to our planet and do NOT accept responsibility for how they as an individual are contributing to it.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Seriously?...a pro smoking thread becomes anti Albertan as well. You can continue to suck on your pipe while accusing others of ignoring scientific evidence?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

Longtimeago said:


> When you see someone idling their car in a parking lot in summer to keep the air-conditioning running or in winter to keep the heater running, do you go over and say to them, 'hey, you're polluting the air I breath, turn it off.'


My wife has actually done this:cocksure:. There really should be a law here against idling, and greater incentives to move toward the purchase of zero emission vehicles. Idling really serves no purpose other than to add pollution and CO2 to the atmosphere.

My wife and I also use reusable bags whenever possible, or just don't get a bag at all if we buy just a handful of items. We also skip the plastic straw and lid at fast food places, and do whatever else we can to avoid single use plastics.

LTA, I agree with you that there are many things that we all need to do to protect our shared environment. For our own collective health and well being, we all need to reduce our use of fossil fuels, avoid single use plastics, and stop killing ourselves by vaping and smoking.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I had no objection to not being able to smoke on that 8 1/2 hour flight, I understand and accept why non-smokers would not want me to light up on the flight and subject them to my smoke. But do the non-smokers have any objection to my using a controlled environment room in an airport when I have a 2 hour layover between that flight and my final flight to my home airport? I wouldn't think so, so why then do the airports and the laws they must adhere to, object to my doing so?


OK, so you asked your question and essentially it was Why are they legislating you to behave responsibly? 

They told you why in the thread: its unhealthy and you need help to not smoke. 
My response was obesity and lack of exercise is even worse than smoking, but they aren't legislating obesity out of existence. So it isn't really about health, something else is at work here. partly its about the nanny state getting more and more bloated itself. 

Then in post #45, you did a switcheroo, and undermined your own position. You support the nanny state view, and agree that they should not provide you with a segregated smoking area in airports. 

I stick with my position: the laws concerning smoking are not about health. If they were they would start with outlawing factors that contrubute to obesity because obesity is worse for your health than smoking. 

There ought to be a balance between nanny state and individual responsibility. You create a 100% nanny state, and you will be in a totalitarian state. since that's what you ask for, you answered your own question - There's no smoking at airports for your own good. At some point hiking might be banned because you might slip and fall and hurt yourself. The state will be everywhere and your taxes will be heavy so they can afford to take care of you.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Pluto said:


> There ought to be a balance between nanny state and individual responsibility. You create a 100% nanny state, and you will be in a totalitarian state. since that'w what you ask for, you answered your own question - There's no smoking at airports for your own good. At some point hiking might be banned because you might slip and fall and hurt yourself. The state will be everywhere and your taxes will be heavy so they can afford to take care of you.


For sure, but if an expensive lung cancer treatment is covered by tax payers, where is the individual responsibility? If one had to opt out of healthcare coverage for smoking related illnesses just to purchase cigarettes, then that would line up well with taking individual responsibility.


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

smokers should be treated harshly as well as penalized for not only contaminating the lives of other's around them but contributing to disgusting pollution. those who smoke cigarettes are exempt from so much scrutiny that it annoys me.
1. smoke breaks at work: allowance for those who smoke to go for a smoke break at any time and no additional compensation for those who do not smoke is given.
2. cigarette butt littering. Throwing half a cigarette or the cigarette butt on the ground is the most commonly accepted form of littering which is utterly ridiculous and should be treated with extreme punishment. You can easily see the tar build up in one's lungs from smoking them, that **** then seeps into the ground, gets eaten by animals, etc. filth.
3. smoking while driving; the gov wants to crack down on distracted driving and listed activities such as drinking and eating yet no aim is at those idiots smoking up a chimney in their car? first off, nicotine is a drug which would mean these drivers are all impaired.

There should be no such things as "smoker's rights" kick the habit and do something productive.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

nobleea said:


> For sure, but if an expensive lung cancer treatment is covered by tax payers, where is the individual responsibility? If one had to opt out of healthcare coverage for smoking related illnesses just to purchase cigarettes, then that would line up well with taking individual responsibility.


Well that's part of my point. Obesity which apparently contrubutes to a type of diabeties is epidemic and worse than smoking. Its more of a burden on the health system than smokers. But you don't focus on what's worse. So health isn't the underlying issue, is it? 

Moreover, we either have a universial health system or we don't. If you indivudialize it by arbitrarily singling out smokers to have to pay their own way, its no longer a universial system. What if you like hiking, and while you are out in the wilderness you get caught in an unforseen blizzard. After they find you, at great expense to the tax payers, and get you to hospital your are informed your toes and fingers have to be amputated due to frost bite. You are not going to say, 'I'll pay for it out of my own pocket due to my foolish decisions'. Nope, you are going to say, do what you have to do to save me and don't send me a bill cause we have universial health care. Then, apparently, when it is convenient for you, you will argue that smokers have to pay taxes for the system and get sent a bill for their foolish decision. Too, if you are going to individualize it, you have to make the obese pay for their own heart attack and stroke treatment. But interestingly, you only single out smokers. 

I stick to my point: its isn't about health. Its about arbirarilly singling out one group. 

So your question is, where is the indiviudal responsiblity? it was taken away by the nanny state that created the universial health care system. Universial health care is a nanny state type of program. I happen to agree with it. I'm not about eliminating all nanny state types of programs. I want balance between the nanny state and individual responsiblity.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Pluto said:


> There ought to be a balance between nanny state and individual responsibility ... At some point hiking might be banned because you might slip and fall and hurt yourself.



funny!

i think i would probably agree w pluto if i would get around to reading the dark planet's argument (usually very well thought out i have noticed)

but i haven't read pluto here because all the comments from everybody else are falling so overwhelmingly on one side. Don't Smoke!

my sewing kit from way back when i was first married is still the same small Dunhill tobacco tin. Hubs smoked a pipe. I'm one of the people that liked the aroma.

my Dunhill sewing kit - small though it is, for travel i can cram tiny embroidery scissors, safety pins, midget screwdriver, 2 emergency buttons, little spools of black & white thread into it, along with the pins & needles - it's been everywhere with me. Sojourned years in the US & europe. Tin looks good as new.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Pluto said:


> I stick to my point: its isn't about health. Its about arbirarilly singling out one group.


For those that are consciously making the poor decision, it's somewhat about health and somewhat about cost recapture (ie trying to recoup the future cost of treating the smoking related illnesses). For those that did not make the decision (second hand smoke), then it's a risk mitigation strategy again to reduce costs and reduce bad health outcomes as a whole society.

Getting caught in an unforeseen blizzard - the rescue costs should be borne by the rescuee. Many would agree with that.

Poor health decisions resulting in obesity. I believe there should be more nanny state in place to address this. Obviously there's genetics and hereditary traits at play which make some more/less likely to be obese.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> For those that are consciously making the poor decision, it's somewhat about health and somewhat about cost recapture (ie trying to recoup the future cost of treating the smoking related illnesses). For those that did not make the decision (second hand smoke), then it's a risk mitigation strategy again to reduce costs and reduce bad health outcomes as a whole society.
> 
> Getting caught in an unforeseen blizzard - the rescue costs should be borne by the rescuee. Many would agree with that.
> 
> Poor health decisions resulting in obesity. I believe there should be more nanny state in place to address this. Obviously there's genetics and hereditary traits at play which make some more/less likely to be obese.



but why stop with obesity when there's vape, mj, edibles, street drugs, hard drugs, prescription drugs, eggs, butter, cream, cheese, datura stramona, blowfish, killer mushrooms & now there are said to be toxic phytochemicals in every vegetable?

the solution is to dissolve the public health care systems. You smoke something, you izz on you own.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Seriously, who really smokes anymore? When you look around it's usually lowlifes and teens who think they are cool.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> funny!
> 
> i think i would probably agree w pluto if i would get around to reading the dark planet's argument (usually very well thought out i have noticed)
> 
> ...


Well I don't advise or promote people to smoke. I advise people to not arbitrarily single out one risky behaviour and not other risky behaviours. Like dumping on smokers, but not on riskier behavious like no exercise, and eating potatoe chips and dip as staples. No exercise and over eating is more unhealthy compared to smoking. A nurse I was yakking with said her boyfriend uses tobacco and said his tobacco cost 6 x's more in Canada than USA for the exact same product due to taxes. But potatoe chips, dip and soda is not taxed like tobacco eventhough it contributes to obesity and hence diabetes, heart attacks and strokes. Why does the nanny state tax smokers but not the obese who are more of a burden on the system? Why not tax people according to how much they are overweight? and according to how much crap they eat? and how much exercise they don't get? Smokers are actually pulling their weight financially due to the taxes they pay, but the obese get a free ride.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

nobleea said:


> For those that are consciously making the poor decision, it's somewhat about health and somewhat about cost recapture (ie trying to recoup the future cost of treating the smoking related illnesses). For those that did not make the decision (second hand smoke), then it's a risk mitigation strategy again to reduce costs and reduce bad health outcomes as a whole society.
> 
> Getting caught in an unforeseen blizzard - the rescue costs should be borne by the rescuee. Many would agree with that.
> 
> Poor health decisions resulting in obesity. I believe there should be more nanny state in place to address this. Obviously there's genetics and hereditary traits at play which make some more/less likely to be obese.


Smokers pay for the cost in advance due to taxes on the product, so no need to recapture. 
I think you should also consider that the people who live the longest who cost the system more, not the ones who die. For instance, suppose you go on your hike in a remote area get caught in a blizzard and die young, say age 35. (Meanwhile some 55 year old smokers are just in the yard having a barbecue in a safe place.) Now you, the 35 year old who engaged in risky behaviour is dead, and you can not recapture what you paid to CPP. Nor can you recapture what you paid so other people could have OAS. Too, you are not going to live to 100, and see doctors every week like the elderly do. And lots of elderly live in subsidised old age homes as well. 
The point is that the long lived cost more, while the dead paid into the system, but were not a burden financially on the system. So if it is really about cost for you, do your part, be responsible, and die young.

When you think about it, its possible smokers, due to their short life, and the taxes they pay, cost the system less than others because they don't collect pensions and don't live in subsidized care homes. I know some try to gain moral superiority on the cost issue, but I think the long lived cost more so the smokers really are the morally superior ones here.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Pluto said:


> The point is that the long lived cost more, while the dead paid into the system, but were not a burden financially on the system. So if it is really about cost for you, do your part, be responsible, and die young.
> 
> When you think about it, its possible smokers, due to their short life, and the taxes they pay, cost the system less than others because they don't collect pensions and don't live in subsidized care homes. I know some try to gain moral superiority on the cost issue, but I think the long lived cost more so the smokers really are the morally superior ones here.


You now say smokers have a short life. Earlier in this thread you said:



Pluto said:


> And speaking of health, it is far more unhealthy to be over weight, and not exercise, compared to smoking. Plus, lots of overweight people with a a poor diet, who don't exercise think nothing of exposing children to their bad habits. The priorities should be to focus on weight, exercise, and a good diet. Smoking should be lower on the priority list as its not that big of a deal anymore compared to weight and exercise.


You suggested smoking is not much of a health issue, while obesity is. In that case, the fatties should be the short-lived class who die young and don't collect pensions, etc. 

I happen not to know too many who have had strokes or heart attacks, but the handful that come to mind were actually somewhat on the svelte side. Also, you mention the elderly making weekly trips to doctors. That's perhaps a bit of an exaggeration in most cases, but it sure as heck is not just the elderly. 

Some time back my work required me to read a goodly number of WCB files. One item routinely included in those files were extensive medical records of individual claimants. That would include the chart notes of family physicians. I was always amazed by how many doctor's visits the average person was making. And I sure don't mean old people. I mean just ordinary workforce members in their 20s to 60s. It was quite an eye-opener. The notes would reveal that a common cold would warrant a couple of visits over its course. A bit of back pain would need a visit or series of visits. A headache. A tummy ache. A sore knee. A patch of dry skin. A slightly unusual menstrual period. Anything. And, of course, any doctor with a medical services plan billing number is not going to tell you that you don't need a visit for every little thing. Armed with that licence to hunt, of course, frequent visits are to be encouraged. Good thing I am not in charge, or there would be at least some co-pay requirement. At the same time, it's gratifying to know that, if in future I feel the need to get more in touch with my feminine side, the BC plan will pay for my "gender reassignment" surgery. Mirabile dictu. How close to Utopia can one get?

If we are on about pollution, climate change, and all that kinda' stuff, why not address the real problem? Too damn many of us. Population is the problem. But no one wants to say that. We act as though we are a species dying out and reproducing like bunnies will be our salvation. In Canada, we pay people to have kids and, if they don't make enough, we bring in mercenaries. We vote for those who want to bring in 300,000 or so more people every year. Do you think those people will not drive cars, use plastic, consume consumables and things that will pollute? The number permitted entry is equivalent to whole big city full of people yearly. At the same time, we say we want to save our salmon, our whales, our caribou, our forests, our clean air and water, our way of life where some vestiges of nature remain. Is endlessly expanding our population the way to do it? Does it make sense to say we have reduced per capita carbon emissions, while recruiting more "capitas"? I'd like to see a Canada with a population of about, say, 20 million, the US with about 50 million and the rest of the planet pared down pro rata. Then we are much less likely to contribute to any climate change. On on that topic, it seems that those who howl most about climate change are the biggest offenders. How 'bout that nut job Greta flying all over the planet to spew her nonsense? Can't she at least stay home and videoconference? Perhaps she travels by solar-powered aircraft. Even then, we are admonished that solar panels are a horrible polluter. And more people will use more of 'em. Oh my, que faire?

It seems that many like to talk about these things. But most, like most cmfers, are too busy trying to accumulate more wealth so they can "retire" at age 30 and spend 50 years flying around the planet. That's the near-universal goal, endless travel. Only a few like me find travel tedious and boring after awhile. But, if the world population was down to about 10% of its present volume, which would be plenty, then burning fossil fuels and a great many other things now on the no-no list would not seem so inimical to our survival. But to get to that 10% would be bad for economies, would it not? All about money, as that charming Greta reminds us.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> If we are on about pollution, climate change, and all that kinda' stuff, why not address the real problem? Too damn many of us. Population is the problem. But no one wants to say that. We act as though we are a species dying out and reproducing like bunnies will be our salvation. In Canada, we pay people to have kids and, if they don't make enough, we bring in mercenaries. We vote for those who want to bring in 300,000 or so more people every year. Do you think those people will not drive cars, use plastic, consume consumables and things that will pollute? The number permitted entry is equivalent to whole big city full of people yearly. At the same time, we say we want to save our salmon, our whales, our caribou, our forests, our clean air and water, our way of life where some vestiges of nature remain. Is endlessly expanding our population the way to do it? Does it make sense to say we have reduced per capita carbon emissions, while recruiting more "capitas"? I'd like to see a Canada with a population of about, say, 20 million, the US with about 50 million and the rest of the planet pared down pro rata. Then we are much less likely to contribute to any climate change. On on that topic, it seems that those who howl most about climate change are the biggest offenders. How 'bout that nut job Greta flying all over the planet to spew her nonsense? Can't she at least stay home and videoconference? Perhaps she travels by solar-powered aircraft. Even then, we are admonished that solar panels are a horrible polluter. And more people will use more of 'em. Oh my, que faire?


I have been chastised on forums in the past for saying almost the exact same thing. Too damn many of us. Trouble is, gov'ts don't live within their means and require more bodies to generate more GDP and more taxes to keep the fiscal deficits from getting out of control. Seems no nation has found a way to increase GDP with shrinking populations. Consider the countries with essentially zero or negative population growth here http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ 

OTOH, also look at the ones with exploding population growth. Lots of basket cases there too....


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

The world's problems are all quite well known and various solutions for different problems can be found. However, the ONE thing that always screws things up is PEOPLE. Not people in terms of numbers as Mukhang Pera is talking about, but people in terms of human behaviour. 

You can educate, legislate, dictate, or do whatever else you want to fix things but you will still lose because we can't control people and their behaviour. Don't believe me? OK, make the average Canadian stop speeding in their car. Go ahead and try. And someone wants to control population? Umm, make them stop having sex? Yup, that law will work.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> If we are on about pollution, climate change, and all that kinda' stuff, why not address the real problem? Too damn many of us. Population is the problem. But no one wants to say that. We act as though we are a species dying out and reproducing like bunnies will be our salvation. In Canada, we pay people to have kids and, if they don't make enough, we bring in mercenaries. We vote for those who want to bring in 300,000 or so more people every year. Do you think those people will not drive cars, use plastic, consume consumables and things that will pollute? The number permitted entry is equivalent to whole big city full of people yearly.
> 
> At the same time, we say we want to save our salmon, our whales, our caribou, our forests, our clean air and water, our way of life where some vestiges of nature remain. Is endlessly expanding our population the way to do it? Does it make sense to say we have reduced per capita carbon emissions, while recruiting more "capitas"? I'd like to see a Canada with a population of about, say, 20 million, the US with about 50 million and the rest of the planet pared down pro rata. Then we are much less likely to contribute to any climate change. On on that topic, it seems that those who howl most about climate change are the biggest offenders.




well, a while ago the soldier on here said that the herd needs thinning

he's laconic; but later he briefly mentioned that hi level military strategists in the US are expecting a major war fairly soon. Among the historic global problems w no solution they're observing are soaring populations of refugees & speedup in the rate of species loss.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> You now say smokers have a short life. Earlier in this thread you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I always enjoy your well written stories and diatribes. Its important to me to have articulate critique to make me rethink my views. 

I do think smoking is unhealthy, but comparitively, according to the medical profession, obesity contributing to overly high blood sugar, apparently a type of diabeties that can be controled with diet and exercise, is currently a worse problem compared to smoking. 

Apart from that, another aspect of this issue of unhealthy habits is cost of treatement and burden on the system. Some who claim to not have bad habits claim moral superiority and claim they are victimized financially by the unhealthy who require expensive health care. I believe that is mitigated by very high taxes on tobacco products, for example. But no high taxes on usless edibles that contrubute to obesity and a type of diabetes. Moreover, if it is true that smokers and the obese live shorter lives, it stands to reason they are no longer using system after they are dead, and so not a finacial burden. 

As you point out, many healthy people go to doctors for trivial reasons. That supports my perspective that the long lived use the system more than the dead smokers and obese are less of financial burden on the system.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Thanks Pluto. I try to keep more on the side of "stories" and less on the side of "diatribes", but sometimes I drift over the line and sometimes the distinction gets a bit blurry. A touch of presbyopia perhaps.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The odds of a smoker being dangerous is some what high. 10% of the North American population smokes. Over 90% of alcoholic & drug addicts smoke. Over 90% of domestic violence is alcohol & drug related as well as in prison.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> The odds of a smoker being dangerous is some what high. 10% of the North American population smokes. Over 90% of alcoholic & drug addicts smoke. Over 90% of domestic violence is alcohol & drug related as well as in prison.


LOL, such amusing logic lonewolf By a similar logic, John wears a hat, John is a man, therefore, all men wear hats. But yeah, as a smoker, you should realize that it might not be a good idea to cross me at all, there's no telling how I might react. I mean, I'm a smoker after all. That's about as bad as saying I'm a Hells Angel or Satan's Choice member.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> LOL, such amusing logic lonewolf By a similar logic, John wears a hat, John is a man, therefore, all men wear hats. But yeah, as a smoker, you should realize that it might not be a good idea to cross me at all, there's no telling how I might react. I mean, I'm a smoker after all. That's about as bad as saying I'm a Hells Angel or Satan's Choice member.


 Most people do not understand that getting addicted to drugs has to do with genetics not environment


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> Most people do not understand that getting addicted to drugs has to do with genetics not environment


What planet do you live on? So someone 'genetically' susceptible to drug addiction who comes from a 'decent middle class family' is going to become a drug addict while someone who grows up in social housing with parents who are both on welfare and alcohol and drug abusers, will be fine, provided s/he is not genetically prone to drug abuse? Really?

Environment has a great deal to do with alcohol and drug addiction. Don't write such obvious nonsense it simply makes you look uneducated.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001522.htm

And what does the causes of substance abuse have to do with what I wrote about your other ridiculous comment about percentages of a smoker being dangerous? Your comments here are making no sense whatsoever. Communicating clearly is obviously not your strong suite.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

lonewolf :) said:


> Most people do not understand that getting addicted to drugs has to do with genetics not environment


Don't care about the cause. 
I want to protect myself and my family from harm and I want to help them take control of their lives. 

Does the cause being genetic really change the concern?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

lonewolf :) said:


> Most people do not understand that getting addicted to drugs has to do with genetics not environment


I'll try this out if I get a speeding ticket ... "But Mr police officer, I have a genetic predisposition to speeding, it's not my fault!"


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> I'll try this out if I get a speeding ticket ... "But Mr police officer, I have a genetic predisposition to speeding, it's not my fault!"


Actually if you happen to be male, you DO have a genetic drive to more risky behaviours.

Genetic/Environmental factors shouldn't remove personal responsibility.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> Don't care about the cause.
> I want to protect myself and my family from harm and I want to help them take control of their lives.
> 
> Does the cause being genetic really change the concern?


 Yes genetics does change the concern the first encounter can make them addicts for 10% of the population.

For example: The human body converts alcohol into poison. Acetaldehyde (sp?) & then into acetate both of which find their way into the brain. With the former substance making the drinking feel good. The latter causes feeling of nausea hangover & sleepiness.

If a person experiences a quick conversion into acetate he feels lousy or sleepy & is unlikely to keep drinking. If on the other hand the body blocks or slows the conversion of acetaldehyde into acetate the former substance works it magic & he feels good. It should not be surprising if the person experiencing a build up of the former substance & little or no increase of the latter continues to drink.

The speed @ which the body converts alcohol into acetate determines a persons predisposition to alcoholism, it is as simple as that

Alcoholics tell us they triggered alcoholism their very first drinking episode. looking back they realize that alcohol did something different to them. Then they say they , I felt powerful, The feeling is described in almost heavenly terms as a glow or a lift. Addicts act like they feel they are gods. If they act this way they must think it even only on a subconcious level. If you felt god like, your feeling glowing & powerful too you would not stop drinking either.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> What planet do you live on? So someone 'genetically' susceptible to drug addiction who comes from a 'decent middle class family' is going to become a drug addict while someone who grows up in social housing with parents who are both on welfare and alcohol and drug abusers, will be fine, provided s/he is not genetically prone to drug abuse? Really?
> 
> Environment has a great deal to do with alcohol and drug addiction. Don't write such obvious nonsense it simply makes you look uneducated.
> https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001522.htm
> ...


 LTA I do not conform to the norm I do my own thinking. The so called ivory tower intellects often have no idea what they are talking about i.e., it was not that long ago everyone thought the world was flat, Now they think they can control the climate to with in a half a degree.

Smoking is a poison & it does not give everyone the feel good high & can effect certain people in a very negative feel bad low. Poison is poison & the effects on the body are negative for all though.

There are a lot of people on this site that play the market & since most lose money playing regardless of what the experts say. If you want to increase your odds of winning do not conform to the norm.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> LTA I do not conform to the norm I do my own thinking. The so called ivory tower intellects often have no idea what they are talking about i.e., it was not that long ago everyone thought the world was flat, Now they think they can control the climate to with in a half a degree.
> 
> Smoking is a poison & it does not give everyone the feel good high & can effect certain people in a very negative feel bad low. Poison is poison & the effects on the body are negative for all though.
> 
> There are a lot of people on this site that play the market & since most lose money playing regardless of what the experts say. If you want to increase your odds of winning do not conform to the norm.


LOL, people who say they do not 'conform to the norm' always make me laugh. It's like a kid who wears a baseball hat front to back. Why does he do that, 'because it is the opposite of the norm'. Or someone who refers to themselves these days as a 'hipster' who grows a beard and wears checked lumberjack shirts. What are they all doing 'conforming to the norm' of a 'non-norm'. 

Every kid who went through school in N. America has probably been a non-comformist who conformed. Look at a goth conforming to 'gothdom' or a geek conforming to 'geekdom'. You name it, someone will conform to it and that includes YOU Lonewolf.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> LOL, people who say they do not 'conform to the norm' always make me laugh. It's like a kid who wears a baseball hat front to back. Why does he do that, 'because it is the opposite of the norm'. Or someone who refers to themselves these days as a 'hipster' who grows a beard and wears checked lumberjack shirts. What are they all doing 'conforming to the norm' of a 'non-norm'.
> 
> Every kid who went through school in N. America has probably been a non-comformist who conformed. Look at a goth conforming to 'gothdom' or a geek conforming to 'geekdom'. You name it, someone will conform to it and that includes YOU Lonewolf.


 Here are a few examples of how i do not conform to the norm. I have charted my strength workouts & based on the charts I have found that the precise amount to reach my genetic potential is once every 29 days & that is how often I strength train. Do not know of anyone else that has figured this one out. Gravity & time are in direct relationship to each other since gravity can not be screened & future becomes present becomes past the accumulation of gravity from the moon through the lunar cycle perhaps is causing the timing of this bio rythem with in the body. I do not try to strength train every 29 days to be different I do it because it is most practical

I spend a lot of time skiing & the movements I use are the complete opposite of that which is taught in ski school. I do not use different movements because they are different I use them because they are more efficient.

Most people that have made money playing the market have made it playing the long side. I have made most of my money playing the short side. It just fits my personality better.

As for dressing I do not dress to be different I just dress to be practical.


If the norm is practical I have no trouble to conform to the norm. When conforming to the norm causes me to not achieve my goals & I understand conforming to the norm will cause me to fail I do my own thing when it is practical.

I m old enough to have received enough pain from not doing my own thinking to understand more pain can be received from trying to take comfort in the herd. The herd is dumber then the dumbest person in the herd which is why it is best to do your own thinking.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

lonewolf :) said:


> Alcoholics tell us they triggered alcoholism their very first drinking episode. looking back they realize that alcohol did something different to them. Then they say they , I felt powerful, The feeling is described in almost heavenly terms as a glow or a lift. Addicts act like they feel they are gods. If they act this way they must think it even only on a subconcious level. If you felt god like, your feeling glowing & powerful too you would not stop drinking either.


Like nearly every teenage boy as they experiment with speed and high risk behaviours.
I remember the thrill of my first bicycle, taking off training wheels, mountain bike, and driving a car.
Very similar to the thrill people get from racing bikes and other death defying stunts.


I'm not saying that alcoholics or drug users should stop.
Many addicts of all types (drug, adrenaline, sex/porn, work) live in pursuit of those, many others decide that isn't what they really want.
I believe it is their choice. However I also believe I should not have to suffer the consequences of their choice.

Thirdly I believe that we have a moral obligation to provide support to help them live a better life, should they want to have one, but most people don't share my (or others) view of a "better life".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

*Conformity*

Humans are social animals, there needs to be a certain level of adjustment, conformity and agreement to successfully socialize.

Cookie cutter "non-conformists" are always a hilarious subset.


----------

