The Red Sox and the Mets! Oh my overworked nerves!

I need a pithy catch-phrase for the Dion implosion.

Paying the down the debt is a waste of time -- the money should have been left in the hands of Canadians. Over time, gradual inflation and a quicker growing economy will render the debt meaningless. Imagine if we had our hands on _half_ the 100 billion dollars extra the federal government takes in annually in the last decade. Worst case scenario, the provinces could actually tax extra to pay for items such as infrastructure, schools and better directed medicare.

Jay's 100% right about the hooka thing. How in any way can this be good, having another way to divide Canadians into castes. Why can't Legion 755 workers consent to working in a smoke-not-free environment; are they not better informed than minority workers to the personal dangers? (actually, "dangers", but never mind). Should we be protecting the most vulnerable, etc. etc.

More on royalties.

"Will the Liberals Dion the Next Hill?"

H'm. Not pithy enough.

"Dion the next hill!"?

I would like surpluses more if they were used to pay off the debt. These surpluses, and indeed government budgets in general, are too often regarded as windfalls. Pay off the damn debt and then reduce taxes.

It has to encapsulate that Stephane has managed to achieve placing someone else in the first position as "the least liked person called Dion."

Just another thought on Jay's thing: hasn't the created a whole new class of exception to equality rights -- that of (non-protected) culture.

"Di-on another day"?

Well, it is an exception to a municipal bylaw with equal status as to the excepting out of bingo halls that is sometimes seen. I don't think that is a particularly high level of recognition of a right. Unless it is based somehow on a tribunal ruling that Jay has not noted.

"Not the hill to Di-on, the Liberals say"?

"Di-on principle"?

Where? There's exceptions in some provinces for smoking rooms, but I assume staff are not allowed in there.

The smoke police out here in God's country have moved well beyond the "smoking room" and "bingo hall" exemptions.

In Vancouver the bylaw contemplates a complete ban on smoking, even outside on a patio. (This is already the case here in the PR of Victoria.) In fact, it is contemplating a complete ban in areas zoned "commercial" which is being seen as banning smoking on the street in commercial areas.

There is no "bingo hall" exemption left. So what this bylaw would do is give hookah smokers a total pass and none for the rest of us.

The Legion might bring an interesting Charter s.15 challenge, then. Definitely a difference of treatment. Is there a detriment that can be associated to not being able to smoke? Hmmm...worth a run.

The "implo-dion"?

<i>It's not about the right to smoke, after all, but the right to be freed from smoke at your job.</i>

If it bothered them that badly, would they not be searching out alternative forms of employment?

"A Kiss Before Di-on"

Temujin, you made my night with "A Kiss Before Di-on"

I'm going out for a smoke.

Fortunately, we live in a post-1890s world, Temujin, and public health is a reality. No one should have to leave their job because the employer insists on imposing illegal harms upon the worker. Hallelujah!

But good try on the Dion. There is something about "dee-yawn" that is too far from "dying" to my ear. I am thinking more of a "eee-ing" end to a word like "fleeing" or seeing.

<i>No one should have to leave their job because the employer insists on imposing illegal harms upon the worker. Hallelujah!</i>

No one should "have to" do anything, which is entirely my point, I guess.
The answer seems obvious to me but perhaps I'm missing something, my mind is still focussed on coming up with something better that "a kiss...".

All this thinking about Stephane Dion cannot be good for my health.

"Illegal harms" -- explain? Do you just mean "harms"?

No, David. Wrongs that are not illegal are not in the same class as illegal ones. An employer can do wrongs which are not illegal - interrupt my snack breaks, that sort of thing.

Temujin: that is the problem with libertarianism. It is all about "should" - the great untested and unwarranted "should" foisted upon us all by that whack-job Rand.

I'm trying to figure out what you're meaning (i.e. not just being a pendantic prick (anymore than usual)).

Let's assume, for the sake of brevity, that smoking is harmful to staff working at bars. Therefore, authorities decide, it should be illegal for patrons to smoke at bars. Thus, we rise to the level of "illegal harms" which you have specified.

But if they didn't make it illegal to smoke in a bar even though it's harmful (as per our earlier assumptions), you'd be all cool because I could strike out the word "illegal" from "No one should have to leave their job because the employer insists on imposing illegal harms upon the worker"?

It still seems far better to me for folks to make up their own minds - employers, employees, patrons - they can all make up their own minds about who they wish to employ, where they desire to work, and in what places they want to spend their money and time. It's not an untested and unwarranted "should" at all, because it happen all the time with all sorts of people making all kinds of decisions.

And David, I like where you're going with that thought. As an example, it's a potential "harm" for my employer to request of me to climb a twenty foot tall ladder with no supports or ropes in place to protect me if I have an accident. It's not an illegal harm (though it would not surprise me to see a ladder-banning initiative!), but as one who has fallen off a ladder and suffered a serious (imo) accident, I have no desire to put myself in that position again. And I have made it clear that I will not put myself in that position without certain safety protocols. I didn't need a government agent to tell me that, nor do I need someone to mandate ladder climbing as illegal or unsafe.

David: good point. There are illegal activities and common sense freedoms that are not prohibited. In the middle are matters that will one day no longer be prohibited (18/19-21 US drinking) and things that yet may well be prohibited (lawn pesticides).

Temujim: if I have a job, I can sue for unjust firing or constructive unjust firing. Employers are accountable. If conditions are unhealthy, like with smoke, I should not be forced to make the choice with no real choice. Without a government, though, you will not get hired as a ladder climber who refuses to climb shit ladders any more than you will get hired as a waitress who refuses to breath shit. There is no choice, just forced self-compromise that is unwarranted. But that really is the libertarian way - a percentage of humans are forced to breathe, eat or live in shit so that others benefit...the others that self describe themselves as an elite. Fortunately, the majority simply refuses to put up with that elitism of the greedy and thoughtless and does it through government.

As the evolutionist said to the creationist - you lose.

As to the let everyone decide for themselves regarding whether to smoke/work in a place that smokes thing, the problem is that the lcd is to be a smoking resteraunt/bar. It gives the establishment the most flexibility/money making potential to be that way. In a group of 5, statistically, one is a smoker. Hence, a group out for a Fri carouse will wind up going to a bar that allows that one to smoke.

On the otherhand, nobody makes anyone be a waitress. One could make the argument that being a waitress is exactly like beinga ladder climber(just 'cause it's shitty doesn't mean you can get out of it), goes with the job. I'm not saying I would, but I know one can. (I wouldn't because I know in small towns oft times there is no other work to be had, or in seasonal resorts there's none other to be had; so there is a form of coercion involced. work and eat while breathing smoke, or refuse to work in a smoke invironment and starve.).

Which is really why I'm a conservative with liberatarian tendencies, and not the otherway around. The least amount of gov't putting its hand on the scales as possible, and only when necessary.

And I think you're a bit on shakey ground with the 'without gov't' thing, Alan. Collectives existed long before Unions came around to protect workers. Guilds did that when feudalism was still around and there was only a burgeoning merchant/middle class. Just a touch off. So, methinks you need to pick up the QED card you played(As the evolutionist said to the creationist - you lose.).

No way. You are not buying into the libertarian fantasy that everyone will be a business man or professional. There will be citizens who are in the service industry. And guilds only protected their own. Time to beef up on your civic republicanism.

I have to admire the way Al you've artfully recast the extremists in the workplace smoking issue as the sensible ones and the normal position as the extremist one (the "libertarians"). If 20 years ago you suggested to the average person the lengths society will go through to punish smokers ... and I use the word "punish" quite deliberately .... they'd think you'd had a nut popped loose in your braincase. The folks pushing the workplace ban aren't workers, they're the little health fascists and carrot-juice drinking lifestyle judgers that gravitate to positions where they can boss around people who aren't optimizing their lives to a simulation generated chart.

There's lots of dangerous jobs -- _real_ dangerous jobs. Underwater welding I seem to remember gives a very low rate of long term survival. So what? People get the job, make the cash and move on. The risks of smoking to third parties (in terms of cancer) is trivial: below the statistical noise floor. But lets say there's a real risk associated it -- why do you think waitresses are incapable of judging the risks vs. rewards. And don't forget the rewards are quite substantial: (an illegal) tax free income and a lifestyle, if you're in to that. Meanwhile, we have the head of the public health here in Toronto saying Sean Penn _is endangering lives_ by smoking a cigarette at a press conference. WTF? Sean Penn caused more risk to Torontonian's healths by flying over the city in his private plane (and by going near photographers...).

Do you think these people are going to be sated when they're done with smoking and lawn chemicals (known deaths: 0)? Think carefully: we're both over 200 pounds.

That is hilarious - "extremists"...BOO! <p>If this was 1885, you'd be complaining about the do-gooders who wanted to put in safe water and other forms of sanitation. You're more contrarian than libertarian.

750 Sunday to Saturday. Start all over again.

If this was 1985 and we were in a bar, people would be blowing smoke in your face and laughing at you.

What's your criteria for banning stuff? You know, _before_ it's illegal. Then let's play let's pretend and see what else should be illegal.

I just can't follow you there. I haven't got the anti-authority, anti-science, anti-everything that is takes to get the libertarian mindset. If this was 1985 and someone lit up in appropriately, you will recall, the response was "do you mind if I fart on you?" We were well aware of the dangers of second hand smoke then. You may be talking about 1935.

Crazy issue that puts me on the same side as Sean Penn...

PArty foul: skimming, boo on Al.

I did say this Al,
"(I wouldn't because I know in small towns oft times there is no other work to be had, or in seasonal resorts there's none other to be had; so there is a form of coercion involced. work and eat while breathing smoke, or refuse to work in a smoke invironment and starve.)."

Me thinks my civic republicanism is okey-dokey. Pick up the QED card, it was misplayed(says so in the Magic the Gathering rulebook).

Yes, Guilds protected only their own. That's kind of the point, ain't it? There were groups other than gov't that changed things and that peripheral effects were teh result. That some non-gov't entity looked out for a constituency instead of relying on on gov't? That the gov't isn't the *only* means by which change such as this can be had? Couldn't a union of waitresses and bar workers be able to force the change rather than requiring Big Gov't to do it for them(without the attendant power grab that is impossible to make Gov't return to the people)?

And the implication seems to be that gov't protects all. Sorry, not buying that one. Abuse is often done using gov't power(immenant domain, Byzantine speech laws, etc, heck we can even look at the more odious obscenity and sedition laws if we have to for gov't abuse). What has Gov't done to the inner-city? To protect rich, gray haired old women they've instituted laws that keep people from doing a business they know how to do, is a market for, and would allow them to work their way out of poverty. There's some of that gov't looking out for the people you're so high on while hammering away at libertarianism(s) (many) faults(while blissfully leaving out the faults of gov't regulation that libertariansim highlights and names as evil, properly).

I dislike the gov't making the ban, and not the ban itself. Asthma runs in the family.

Mr. Janes:
I cannot trully express how wrong you are with this, "But lets say there's a real risk associated it -- why do you think waitresses are incapable of judging the risks vs. rewards." "Ack," will just have to suffice.

Sure, I can judge the risks(and so can many), of such a choice. BUt you fail to see the coercion. Work and eat, don't work and starve. Very simple. That also has to be included in the judging. The very real and near term costs, the rewards, and the long term potential costs. Fail to do that, and, well, you're not being accurate or fair.

There you go again Al, off with the libertarianism. I remember that 1998ish the Toronto city council had to back off a smoking ban because the city wouldn't accept it.

Ry: parsing what you wrote, I'm guessing that you believe waitresses _aren't_ capable of judging risks and rewards? That's mighty white o' you to look out for them. Asthma runs in my family too; ones affected avoid smoking bars.

Hey - you said what would happen in 1985 if someone blew smoke in my face, not what Toronto would have been doing.

And you still haven't explained who will serve the food when everyone is executive director of the Randian institute. How will this economy 2.0 work?

I have a mild asthma that is induced by playing sports in coal burning towns and smoky bars. The latter is quite better these days due to the law. Too bad your family is so discriminated against.

And there you go with the Rand stuff ... what's up with this Al?

Not so deep down, most university educated people believe that non-"professionals" are failures: they're losers who didn't make the cut. For some reason, this leads to some sort of sense of entitlement to "help them out" my making decisions for them because, of course, they're not capable of making their own decisions -- they're coerced, they have to work or starve, they can only make near term judgments.

As a person who hangs around in bars for no good reason and have had talked to bar staff about this (and not the 22 year old paying for college type of bar staff):

- every one of them likes not having to breathe smoke, not having to quarantine clothing after work, etc.
- every one of them _hates_ the smoking ban _because there's fewer shifts to be had_. Bars are closing earlier , or just closing. I guess that makes the "starve" decision for them, eh Ry?
- every one of them wants to have smoking back in bars _so they can have more work_

Now, I didn't do a particularly scientific poll or anything, but if you have the inclination go to your neighborhood bar at 9 or so on a workday and slide up to the bar and start a chat. Just don't have a smoke!

You know -- you have to know -- that the reason for the ban is puritanism. Staff face far more dangerous from out of control patrons and driving home late at night prove to be far more of a greater statistical risk than smoking does. Excepting the asthmatics of course, but there's other job opportunities for non-university educated women who don't want to be Libertarian Anne Randian Captains of Industry besides waitress, lapdancer and nun, no matter what you've been told.

That's it: I have been "told" - the last line of defense of the libertarian. All disagreement has brainwashing at its root.

You and Ry have been making that argument, not I.

<blockquote>
and you still haven't explained who will serve the food when everyone is executive director of the Randian institute
</blockquote>

Forget it then.

No, you have to be grown up about this. You are the one who is saying there are sheeple out there who regulate and accept regulation based on undergrad teachings. I am merely making fun of you (but only as a example of a larger issue in discource) through perhaps an over-used illusion to Randians.<p>But where is that egalitarian economy that exists with, one the one hand, everyone living and succeeding without regulation? There has to be one example for this to be at all a viable concept. On my side of the ledger, I have the western world since, say 1880, when it became apparent that unregulated market forces were devastating to a society and the consequent incredible unimaginable boom in wealth and stability when regulation and capitalism started to walk hand in hand.

All I'm trying to find out is where does it stop? What's reasonable and what's unreasonable.

You started this subthread by saying employees shouldn't be forced to harmful+illegal things. I countered by saying that before it becomes illegal it's just a harmful thing; so I asked which _harmful_ things should be made illegal? I then said or implied that basically it's just health fascism being the criteria, because there's lots of things which are harmful that aren't bad. You countered that by saying libertarians have poopy pants. I then said things that you consider extreme -- i.e. my opinion -- were just normal opinions a few years ago. You countered that by saying that I want to have sex with Ann Rand. I then offered evidence that you're not doing any favors for people you claim to be wanting to help and you said I was brainwashed by aliens drones doing experiments on behalf of Elvis and Ronald Reagan.

But let bygones be bygones.

If you thing healthism is a reasonable standard for banning stuff, above the wishes of the people involved, where does that go. For example, to bring in another thread, knowing that "we know" that fat persons have fat kids, and fat is ever so bad for you, should "morbidly obese" people (i.e. those weighing over 185 pounds) be able to adopt kids? I bet you in a decade's time they won't.

_bad_ -> banned in the previous.

Well, should people weighing over 450 lbs who eat pogos and Coke for breakfast get to foster (a necessary step towards adoption)? I would think that is a factor against them. I do weight maybe 50 lbs too much but do have a good diet. But I do not think that is a huge factor in our favour...yet we have caught a "trouble kid" who was only lactose intolerant. And we would not have done that unless we were somewhat anti-bad food.

Well, no they shouldn't -- but on the BMI scale we're all the same: "morbidly obese" (or obese depending on who's doing the talking). You and I with our 50 extra pounds, reasonable diets and exercise regiments look more or less the same as the 450 pound couch potato to health fascists.

check yourself out. Now, when the people who are responsible for banning smoking in bars "to protect the staff, who have no options in life" get around to looking at adoption, what do you think they'll be doing. You know, to protect the children.

Yet there is a clear relationship to the health of a growning child and smoking in the household. So I do not care.

But there is no such direct relationship between being a beer blogger and the health of a growing child. Plus, there is a difference between BMI as a factor and smoking. the better comparator is Vachon cake consumption and smoking.

'health fascists and carrot-juice drinking lifestyle judgers' Hoo hoo, David! I've never had carrot juice myself. Hey, kick it up a notch, 'fascists' is so passe and old school, don't conservatives and right-wingers like the term 'terrorists' when you want to put somebody down who diagrees with you? Try it: 'carrot drinking terrorists'. Run for the hills!

BMI is, like it or not, a proxy for Vachon cake consumption. And there's almost certainly a correlation between fat parents and fat children. And there's certainly a relationship between people trying to stomp out smoking by indirect means and people who are just generally interested in healthism and will use indirect means to enforce that.

The simple question is: do you think it's a crazy idea to stop stop "obese" parents -- BMI 30+ -- from adopting children.

When did you make up or get introduced to the concept of "healthism" - it's one of those "sheeple" words that you see at places who believe Saskatchewan lacks the oil royalty revenues that Albertans get because Saskatchewan is socialist. That is a simple question, too. But you will respond that it is actually more complex. Because questions are complex as long as you do not see the world inhabited by sheeple. And simple questions. You may also say that BMI is a bad indicator of anything and I would agree, especially given all the caveats that accompany it. Smoking as no such caveats.

[And which consultant is getting paid for every time "healthism" gets used. I want those two nickles back, please.]

I'm not sure I'm following the sheeple thing.

Healthism is a reasonable concept to talk about -- an obsession with an immediate optimization public health outcomes to the exclusion of all else. For example, healthism says that everyone must wear a bike helmet BUT we should ignore evidence that forcing everyone to wear a bike helmet reduces the # of people who ride bikes. Healthism says that all playgrounds should be ripped out of Toronto schools because they're unsafe BUT we should ignore the fact that having active fun-enjoying kids is important in and of itself. Healthism says that play grounds shouldn't have all the fun shit we had as kids BECAUSE someone might get hurt. Healthism says that we should do something about fat people EVEN THOUGH eating tasty food might be one of the few little joys some people have. Healthism says that we can't make choices whether we want to work in a smoking bar EVEN THOUGH if we don't have smoking bars I won't have a job.

Excuse the upper case; I mean it more as a break between sentence halves than shouting.

You are using "empowering language" - that's all. A feminist concept that the neo-cons co-opts when they, too, wanted to make things up. I want to know more about healthism because I do not know that it is a thing...and I have a low theshold for "thing".<p>And anyway, bike helmets are safer and play ground equipment kills because we let it sit around and do not maintain them. And bars are closing because cable TV is too good - in the US in 1980 75% of beer was drink in bars and in 2005 or its down to 25%. These things live in complex matrices (thank you) of factors. It is how society shifts and society always shifts...except in Burma.

Perhaps you are playing out the role of old man smithers in Scooby-Doo (the original). That was one amazing piece of progressive propaganda, by the way.

I am sure this speaks to the question, too.

You're no fun gr. Perhaps you should try carrot juice -- I'll mail you a bunch in the mail (home grown!) and you can hand squeeze yourself.

"empowering language"?

Perhaps they've just gotten into the spirit of things.

I think you meant to write "empowering language"?!?!?

Gosh, thanks David! Bet it is high fiber and low fat, mmm mm good!
Speaking of old school political put downs: 'commie pinko!' Yeah, 'commie pinko anti-smokers!'.

Yawn.

See! See!

See - you and Zork. All the way with Zork. True leadership with Zork. Nothing personal to the guy but his name sounds like the laundry soap on the Jetsons.

And David Hutcheon for the Tories? He should learn to dress.

I've learned a lesson here. Just stand back and Al will hurl pie at Mr. Janes instead of me. I think a strategy is forming...

Lets look at California. The first, as far as I know(since it enacted it in about 1994), place in N. AMerica to go non-smoking. Has the bar scene picked up again? You bet.(http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ749626&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ749626)"Results showed that revenues for alcohol-serving restaurants dropped by about 4% immediately following the establishment of the indoor smoking ban. However, this reduction was temporary because revenues for alcohol-serving restaurants quickly returned to normal levels. Findings also revealed that the indoor smoking ban had little observable impact on the revenue rate for restaurants overall and for nonalcohol-serving restaurants. (Contains 3 figures and 3 tables.)"

"None of the regression models for restaurant, bar, or mixed-beverage revenues or for such revenues as percentages of total retail revenue over time showed any statistically significant changes after the smoking ban was implemented (Table). In addition, the results did not change when revenues were adjusted for inflation, and adjusting for changes in price did not change the results (8). In all models, the variance inflation factors had values of <2 for each of the independent variables, indicating that multicollinearity was not present, and the Durbin-Watson statistics indicated that none of the autocorrelations was statistically significant (Table). " (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm)

But, hey, what would I know about it being a Californian who lived thru all the ups and downs of smoking bans before the rest of y'all get around to doing it? I'm such a fool. So arrogant and ill informed.

The market readjusted. Some people were pushed out of course, but were replaced by other people who had previously been pushed out. Again, I didn't like that gov't did this(The problem with 'Leviathan', Al, is that it always kicks the disenting minority in the nads and then dares them to try do anything about it.). Action by the workers was the way to do it. Then there'd be choice, real choice, instead of just defaults. That way you could have people who smoke being the servers/bartenders at establishments where smoking is allowed and people who don't smoke would be wise to go to where smoking isn't allowed if they worry about it. Everyone is served and everyone is happy instead of having one constituency perpetually frozen out and pissed off over it.

At some point I do agree with Mr. Janes. Where do we stop trying to save people from themselves? How can we say we need to provide universal care and that we'll pay for it, and then bitch that it costs too much because someone likes to eat ho-hos and drink Code Red? What about the jackasses who go out and bungie jump or base jump? THeir injuries are insane costs wise. Hell, 'fatsos' we can just pump with cholestrol pills, of which there are many cheap and effective types. But a quadropalegic? Ay carumba. Where does it end? Why is it okay to demonize one thing, that's in fashion to get a real mad-on for, but not something else? Hell, veganism has been shown to be bad for kids(UC Davis research that Sir Paul McCartney was livid over, coupled with the kid who freakin' DIED because his nitwit parents held him on a vegan diet that shorted him vital nutrients that directly lead to his demise), can we ban that too since it is a threat to the welfare of The Children? Why this and not that?

Basically, we want rational policies and rule of law instead of rule by the mob that's gotten its panties in a twist because of some 5 minute plug a story got on the nightly news. Libertarianism, at times, promises this. Sometimes. Which is why I'm conservo-droid with some libertarianism code written into the OS.

And now, it is time to Do The Dog(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTK2MVY4CQ).

"Healthism"