*Continued from the Quarters thread*

One more thing,
the idea about the sheesha lounge is brilliant.
You can actually have sheesha because there is no tobacco in it. A lot of resturants do this because the coal is simply flavour.

Originally Posted by pinkshuniza

One more thing,
the idea about the sheesha lounge is brilliant.
You can actually have sheesha because there is no tobacco in it. A lot of resturants do this because the coal is simply flavour.

I don't think they would allow it even though it doesn't have any tobacco in it, it's the smoke aspect. It will irritate a lot of people who do not smoke/ do not like a smoky atmosphere. For me personally it would be a huge deterrent, I have allergies and asthma, the last thing I would want is to sit in a restaurant filled with smoke, whether it's tobacco related or not.

As long as you don't smoke under anything.

Oh Smoke Free Ontario Act, how little sense you make.

Smoking under something can prohibit the smoke/odour from dissipating into the air. It will also retain the smell.

Originally Posted by Alex McColl

As long as you don't smoke under anything.

Oh Smoke Free Ontario Act, how little sense you make.

How does it not make sense? What's wrong with prohibiting smoking within closed in areas?

Have you read the act?

Read it... the things your governments pass might shock you.

My personal favourite is the Government White Paper that comes with the Act which references a WHO report as to the risks of Second Hand Smoke. Funny thing, the WHO report says that 2nd hand smoke is not a statistically significant increase in cancer risk. But who needs to actually read reference material. We all just pad our Bibliographies right?

No I haven't read it, I don't have the time to, which is why I asked you to explain your opinion further.

You don't mean The White Paper. You mean governmental white papers (i.e. government reports). There is a difference.

There are difference between "The White Paper" in Canada compared to the US as well; theirs involves emergency medicine while ours can be seen as some as a pro-assimilation report.

I think it's clear which paper I was talking about. As for "White Paper" this and that, every branch uses the term 'White Paper' for reports.

Here are two from DND:

http://www.ombudsman.forces. gc.ca/...rap-01-eng.asp

http://www.strategicstudiesi nstitu...iles/PUB43.pdf

Or you can wikipedia the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper

Are we really having a debate about semantics?

Is no one shocked that Sabrina supported an Act with no understanding of its details? Is anyone shocked that the Act is designed to keep us safe from a dramatic increase in risk which flies in the face of the WHO report, which is in fact the reference they site as proof of this risk?

C'mon people, you're in University. Is it too much to ask that you Read something before you vehemently throw your support behind it?

Don't take my word for it:

A short form can be found here:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

The WHO has taken the document off their website (for obvious reasons) but you can still find the report here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409

"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."

If it's a typo then you make a lot of those. University is not spelt with a capital when in the middle of a sentence like yours. If you insult my intellect I shall insult yours, it's as simple as that.

By capitalizing 'Governmental White Paper'/'White Paper' you end up referring to the the pro-assimilation policy paper from 1969, whether you intended to or not.

White Paper. Assimilation. Hense the capitalization and irony...

Also, since when was Wikipedia a credible source?

Originally Posted by Alex McColl

Common people, you're in University. Is it too much to ask that you Read something before you vehemently throw your support behind it?

Don't take my word for it:

Oh Alex! You're a graduate with a degree! You should know the difference between "Common" and "C'mon". It's a sad world we live in isn't it?

And I support anything that allows me to BREATHE in any given restaurant that I choose to dine in, if that's a crime then lock me up.

Originally Posted by kokosas

Oh Alex! You're a graduate with a degree! You should know the difference between "Common" and "C'mon". It's a sad world we live in isn't it?

And I support anything that allows me to BREATHE in any given restaurant that I choose to dine in, if that's a crime then lock me up.

Oops, evidently typos matter. I fixed it, if you care.

Pointing out a typo is hardly a rebuttal to my criticism of your way of thinking. I also find it odd that you so value your freedom to choose to dine in a smoke free restaurant (smoke free restaurants existed before the Smoke Free Ontario Act... the owners made them smoke free to attract patrons like yourself) while you would deny the owner of say a smokers bar, or a cigar club, the same freedom of choice.

As for "White Paper" DND beats you again, (and Wikipedia actually got this one right) The White Paper on Defence (1964) called dibs on the tittle. So if anything, I was talking about unification of the Canadian Forces... well unless you count the British White Paper of 1922. Then I guess Churchill gets the credit and we're talking about Palestine.

I enjoyed the "smoking free" section in restaurants but for someone who has asthma it doesn't really make much of a difference. It's in the same building and often it isn't separated by a closed door, so I had trouble breathing in them nonetheless.

Strangely enough, restaurants and bars have not gone under because they stopped allowing people to smoke in their establishments so what's your point? It doesn't effect the owners directly, it's all on the smokers. And I'm sorry but when someones actions endanger another (like second hand smoke) then that person has the responsibility to stop what they are doing. I'm not saying they don't have the right to smoke, I'm saying they don't have the right to make me inhale that smoke when I am indoors.

"Mike Kennedy has been fighting smoking bans for several years. When Ontario introduced the Smoke Free Ontario Act, it did not included private clubs. So Mike decided to establish a private club for smokers known as “Smokers Choice/Non Smokers Choice” in a pub that was going out of business thanks to the Act.
Mike went to great lengths to ensure his club qualified as a "private" club. He established a Charter consisting of a set of mandatory rules, regulations and constitution that specified things like how members would elect a board of directors There are no employees, only volunteers. Members must pay monthly dues, not a fee per visit. A Doorman ensures that only registered members are allowed into the club. Mike was in the process of establishing a computer system with photos of members to help ensure only members are admitted. Members must sign an agreement that they are prepared to accept the hazards of second hand smoke and keep an eye on the entrance to ensure no one but members enters, among a few other things. Advertising for the club was directed at smokers and not to the general public. "Guests" are not allowed.

On September 8, 2006 two inspectors from the Health Unit of the Ontario Government arrived at the club to investigate a complaint that the club was permitting smoking on site. Mike allowed them to enter the club for observation, and they observed ashtrays. Mike assured him this was a private club and in compliance with all regulations. One of the inspectors returned on September 13, 2006 to obtain more information. He asked Mike to post No Smoking signs, but Mike refused. Mike explained the membership requirements and fees, but the inspector would not agree to the rules of the club, especially the one were he would have to agree not to jeopardize the enjoyment of other members. Mike refused to allow him entry, since he was not a member. He returned again on the occasion of the grand opening three days later and was again refused entry. He returned once more on September 20 and took photographs, and was once more refused entry.

In spite of all of the above, Mike Kennedy was charged under the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Justice of the Peace Bartraw, after hearing all of the above and more, convicted Mike of allowing smoking in an enclosed public place!"

- http://www.libertarian.on.ca /ann/S...n_appeal.ht m

It's actually not that hard to find Businesses that went under because of the act. Then again, I guess I could have asked you to prove your negative... that could have been interesting.