A step in the right direction?

Nonskimmer · 09-29-2005, 08:10 PM

Tobacco companies can now be held liable for smoking related illnesses in British Columbia. This will no doubt spread all across Canada in no time. If you ask me, it's about time.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...o20050929.html

evangilder · 09-29-2005, 08:18 PM

I am mixed about that. If you know it's bad for you and you do it anyway, how can they be liable? Unless of course they are holding a gun to your head. I know if I drive my car at 100 MPH into a turn and I crash, I wouldn't sue the car company.

Medvedya · 09-29-2005, 08:22 PM

I'm sure it will only apply for people who started in the 50's when the dangers weren't known.

evangilder · 09-29-2005, 08:26 PM

Now that I guess I could see. But the problem with that is if no one knew, then how can they be liable. I know I may be playing devil's advocate here, but I have seen so much litigation living in California, alot of it frivilous. I might be getting jaded to the judicial process.

Nonskimmer · 09-29-2005, 08:38 PM

Possibly Med, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it were across the board though. BC is trying to offset some of their health-care expenditures by making the tobacco companies chip in. Now keep in mind that this is the same province that made it perfectly legal to smoke weed for medicinal purposes. It seems a bit f*cked up. Why don't they just outlaw smoking entirely then? I think they recognize that it just wouldn't work. They all but outlawed it in Nova Scotia some years back, and cigarette smuggling took off.

Even though I'm a smoker myself I really don't have a big problem with this, but I do see where you're coming from evan. People do dig their own graves by making the decision to start smoking, especially nowadays with all of the education out there on the dangers of it. But governments are still bound to make things as difficult for smokers and the tobacco companies as they possibly can. What they're saying is, you can continue to smoke if you wish, but now you're really going to have to pay for it and the companies are going to find themselves in the bind too. They're trying to basically force them out. It's kind of win-win for the governments at the moment, because they already collect big taxes from tobacco sales. Tobacco prices are going to soar because of this, but then maybe I'll finally wise up and quit smoking.

Erich · 09-29-2005, 09:53 PM

Skimmer I wish you well if you indeed stop. It will be hard but remember fortitude

funny we actually have a community that is propsing a clean bill of health and banning all smokers from public buidlings and not just restaurants

they tried it overall here in my spot but did not work. Weird as two restaurants have a special enclosed glass area for smokers thinking this will help. It is so bizarre as you walk into both these places the special purpose spot is on the left and it is almost as if you were visiting a zoo. Oh mommie come look at the smokers ! ............ strange that is all I can say or describe it

E

Nonskimmer · 09-30-2005, 04:35 AM

Most of the provinces, including mine, have already banned smoking in public areas, and even the glass booths aren't allowed anymore.

evangilder · 09-30-2005, 06:37 AM

It's a sticky situation here because the tax the daylights out of cigarettes, so to ban it altogether would mean a loss of tax revenue. I can see them upping the tax in Canada to pay for the healthcare.

The only glass booth I can recall is one at the airport in Dallas/Fort Worth. At the time, I was a regular smoker (I do still like one occasionally). I remember walking into the glass enclosure and was overwhelmed with the smoke that was in there. I damn near didn't need to light up, there was plenty to go around!

trackend · 09-30-2005, 01:11 PM

The tax situation is probably totally different in the states Eric but over here I think a pack of 20 snouts is about £4.50 and most of it is tax.
The amount of money that is lost to the economy either through early retirement or sickness due to Emphysema, heart diseases etc as well as the amount of money it costs the national health service in treating the complaints far out weighs the money received in tax.
The wife who specializes in CO PD says some of the mothers bring in their babies and they stink of smoke, then they tell her that the kid has a bad cough when she points out it may be something to do with passive smoking she gets a load of abuse.

evangilder · 09-30-2005, 01:26 PM

I hear where you are coming from, Trackend. But still, does it make the people who make them responsible? What about the farmers that grow them, or the people that sell them? It's a tough thing. I agree totally that it is bad for you and all, but until they are made illegal, there will always be this problem.

Nonskimmer · 09-30-2005, 01:56 PM

It's been effecting the growers in south-eastern Ontario already, where the bulk of Canadian tobacco is grown. It's gotten so bad for the tobacco farmers that most of the few who remain are saying that this may well be their last season. It isn't worth their while anymore. They can barely turn a profit as it is.