[Topaz]

The Premier said after a government polling, people of Ontario said they wanted the law. I agree. Smokes are so addicted to the nicotine they can't make see what they are doing to themselves or their kids. One way around this and still get your nicotine boost is to wear the patch while in the car.

[guyser]

Topaz, on Mar 5 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

. One way around this and still get your nicotine boost is to wear the patch while in the car.

Or open the window.

[Topaz]

guyser, on Mar 5 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Or open the window.

That doesn't always work because it blows it right back in the back of the auto.

[Wild Bill]

Topaz, on Mar 5 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

That doesn't always work because it blows it right back in the back of the auto.

You should learn some basic science, starting with Bernouli's Principle. You could be right only if the car wasn't moving. Air moving past a window opening creates a low pressure area. Air moves from higher to low pressure areas. It can't help it! Physics doesn't care about being politically correct.

[AngusThermopyle]

Thank you WB, I was hoping someone would would mention that principle, also known as the venturi effect. It's very interesting actually and is also the same principle that fire hose nozzles and jet engines are based upon, among many other things. It is interesting how so many people state "facts" when the "facts" have zero basis in scientific principle.

[guyser]

Wild Bill, on Mar 5 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

You should learn some basic science, starting with Bernouli's Principle. You could be right only if the car wasn't moving. Air moving past a window opening creates a low pressure area. Air moves from higher to low pressure areas. It can't help it! Physics doesn't care about being politically correct.

Thank you. I was sick on that day in science, glad you made it in.

[seabee]

Smokers have known for decades that if you stop smoking, you get fat. So after a lot of propaganda, the percentage of smokers have drastically gone down, and obesity is now an epidemic. And it costs a fortune to the health system. Who profits? The pharmaco-medical complex. First, patches, pills and what not to stop smoking; none works at more than 20% efficiency, so you have to try them all. Next, as you get fat, all sorts of diets, pills, etc., whose benefits are at best temporary. Then you develop high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, all of which require medicaments and regular visits to your m.d. for renewals. fpr which he gets paid. The pharmaco-medical complex makes billions a year out of the anti-smoking propaganda. Far more than it used to make before, since smoking causes no lifelong problems, but rather short-lived serious problems, frequently mortal, which are just a one shot money-making opportunity, while high blood pressure, diabetes or cholesterol bring small revenues every year, but for several decades.
Also, as smoking has decreased, smog has increased and is a serious health problem; you certainly can't blame smokers for that. Asthma has risen, especially juvenile asthma. Could it be that lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking?
And road-rage has appeared.

[blueblood]

I don't see the difference b/w smoking in the car and smoking in your home, it's both the smoker's property, if they can't smoke in the car then they can't smoke in the home and kids are present in the home as well. Hell some people live in cars for God sakes. What about RV's? This is a bogus law if you ask me, that person is not smoking in a public place.

[Leafless]

blueblood, on Mar 5 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

This is a bogus law if you ask me, that person is not smoking in a public place.

I agree.

Smoking is legal and the province has no right dictating a law relating to smoking in your own car regardless of who is in it.

This will probably only frustrate smokers and they will do it all the more.

I think eating a hamburger while driving is more dangerous to someone elses health relating to an inattentive driver eating that hamburg causing a head on collision and killing someone.

Why does Mc.Guinty just ban living and get it over with.

This post has been edited by Leafless: 05 March 2008 - 10:49 PM

[eyeball]

Its about time the state finally started treating ALL druggies like they were 2nd class citizens. Of course we'll also need a TIPS hot-line and lots of roadchecks to ensure this law is enforced and these dangerous criminals are brought to justice.

Its just a good thing we're also investing in thousands of new police. They'll have their work cut out for them. God bless that thin blue line.

[kuzadd]

eyeball, on Mar 5 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

Its about time the state finally started treating ALL druggies like they were 2nd class citizens. Of course we'll also need a TIPS hot-line and lots of roadchecks to ensure this law is enforced and these dangerous criminals are brought to justice.

Its just a good thing we're also investing in thousands of new police. They'll have their work cut out for them. God bless that thin blue line.

someone is being facetious??


I agree with Leafless and Blueblood on this one, stupid law, waste of time.
making criminals of people who were not previouly is a bad idea.
cigarettes are not illegal.

This post has been edited by kuzadd: 06 March 2008 - 05:16 AM

[kimmy]

seabee, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Smokers have known for decades that if you stop smoking, you get fat. So after a lot of propaganda, the percentage of smokers have drastically gone down, and obesity is now an epidemic.

So, when I walk past a school and see morbidly obese kids, they're recovering smokers?

Maybe instead of gastric bypasses we should just start these lard-balls started on cigarettes.

I've never smoked in my life. You'd think I'd be huge by now.

Maybe the supposed obesity epidemic has less to do with the decrease in smoking and more to do with people adopting sedentary lifestyles and ramming fast food garbage down their faces instead of eating real food.

seabee, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

And it costs a fortune to the health system. Who profits? The pharmaco-medical complex. First, patches, pills and what not to stop smoking; none works at more than 20% efficiency, so you have to try them all. Next, as you get fat, all sorts of diets, pills, etc., whose benefits are at best temporary. Then you develop high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, all of which require medicaments and regular visits to your m.d. for renewals. fpr which he gets paid. The pharmaco-medical complex makes billions a year out of the anti-smoking propaganda.

Being obese causes high cholesterol? Fat people have high cholesterol for the same reason they're fat in the first place: either they eat the wrong stuff, or they're genetically predisposed.


Same thing with diabetes. People don't develop diabetes because they got fat. People develop diabetes either because of genetic predisposition, or because of bad eating habits: routinely high blood-sugar levels caused them to produce insulin at sufficient levels that their bodies became resistant to insulin.

seabee, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Far more than it used to make before, since smoking causes no lifelong problems, but rather short-lived serious problems, frequently mortal, which are just a one shot money-making opportunity, while high blood pressure, diabetes or cholesterol bring small revenues every year, but for several decades.

Smoking causes no long-term health problems until you get terminally ill and die? Wrong again, my wheezing friend.

Smoking causes a variety of chronic respiratory ailments, as well as heart problems and high blood pressure.

seabee, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Also, as smoking has decreased, smog has increased and is a serious health problem; you certainly can't blame smokers for that. Asthma has risen, especially juvenile asthma. Could it be that lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking?

Cancer is caused by many things. Smoking is one of them.

seabee, on Mar 5 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

And road-rage has appeared.

Road rage is caused by smokers who can't smoke while they drive? Even though there's not actually any law presently preventing them from smoking while they drive?

If even brief withdrawal from this drug causes episodes of berzerk raging, maybe this substance should be prohibited after all.

These arguments all fall under the category of correlation vs causation fallacy. That is, just because most crime is committed by people who eat bread is not evidence that eating bread causes crime.


-k
{Thanks for the chuckle, though.}

[kimmy]

Wild Bill, on Mar 5 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

You should learn some basic science, starting with Bernouli's Principle. You could be right only if the car wasn't moving. Air moving past a window opening creates a low pressure area. Air moves from higher to low pressure areas. It can't help it! Physics doesn't care about being politically correct.

Ok... so if just rolling down the window is so effective at removing smoke from moving vehicles...

...why is it that whenever I'm in a smoker's car, it smells like an ashtray?

-k
{and what happens when the vehicle stops at traffic lights?

"I'm sorry I ran the light, officer... but if I stopped, my kid might get sick!"}

[Drea]

I rarely smoke with the kid in the car. Not because doing so is criminal, but because he has stated how much he hates it. We smoke in our house but if he is watching a movie with us, for example, we will pause it and go elsewhere to smoke.
It's simple common courtesy, imo.

[AngusThermopyle]

Quote

...why is it that whenever I'm in a smoker's car, it smells like an ashtray?

Probably because they have an ashtray in the car. Or because they smoke with the windows up. All the why ifs in the world will not alter a cast in stone scientific principle proven millions upon millions of times over. Despite the fervent wishes of the societal nannies and busy bodies.