Toronto landlords could be forced to install A/C

[David Warde-Farley]

Given that today set some records for heat in this city, some good news
on the horizon for those of you who rent:

http://tinyurl.com/7qxjo

For those of you who don't like clicking things...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Landlords could be forced to install air conditioners

Toronto renters could get a break from the extreme heat in the future,
if City Hall brings in a law requiring cooling systems for too-hot
apartments.

The City of Toronto is considering a plan to set maximum temperature
standards for landlords that could require the installation of air
conditioning units in rooms or apartments that tend to overheat in the
summer.

There's already a minimum heat requirement in the winter that makes
landlords responsible for installing heating systems such as furnaces or
baseboard heaters.

For maximum temperature standards to be set, Toronto Public Health must
first decide whether extreme heat is as potentially deadly as extreme cold.

Michael Shapcott of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee said it's
obvious that extreme heat can be a killer, pointing to at least three
deaths that have been attributed to heat this summer alone.

"The fact that people are dying and that lives are affected clearly
deems it a heath hazard," said Shapcott.

Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health, agreed that
extreme heat is a health hazard and that new maximum standards for
landlords may be needed.

He'd like to see a coroner's inquest called into the recent heat-related
death of a man who lived in a rooming house.

"Given what we know about vulnerable people, especially in tenancy
situations, it's a reasonable thing to look at," said McKeown.

-----------------------------------------------------------


I think this is definitely a positive thing. Some apartments are
positively sweltering in the summer, and people who can't afford a
window unit shouldn't have to suffer in this manner.


This story rings particularly clear with me. A few years ago I walked
into a convenience store where a man had collapsed of heat stroke in
front of the counter, where the panicking clerks had me call 911 for
them (they did not speak much English). Despite my own efforts and the
subsequently arriving paramedics, he died shortly afterward. He had
stopped into the convenience store with the intention of buying a 1.5 L
bottle of water, and collapsed after taking out his wallet.

Make no mistake, heat is dangerous, and potentially deadly on a day like
today. Stay cool everybody.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Adrian Horodeckyj]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
...
> I think this is definitely a positive thing. Some apartments are
> positively sweltering in the summer, and people who can't afford a
> window unit shouldn't have to suffer in this manner.
...

While I agree that people ought not to
suffer from this, I don't think this is
necessarily a good law to have.
Landlords, like any other business, will
not be willing (or even always able) to
give people something for nothing. It
will likely be paid for by rent
increases to cover the units themselves
and electricity to run them. Evictions
may result where landlord cannot afford
installing air conditioning. Also,
landlords have the right to evict
tenants for the purpose of making
improvements to the building.

-- AMH

[David Warde-Farley]

Adrian Horodeckyj wrote:

> While I agree that people ought not to suffer from this, I don't think
> this is necessarily a good law to have. Landlords, like any other
> business, will not be willing (or even always able) to give people
> something for nothing.

Rent in this city is exorbitant anyway, shaving a small sum off the top
of their profits wouldn't lose me any sleep. Such a law would probably
include rent control provisions. Of course, air coniditioning becomes a
tax deductible expense in this case.

Let's not forget that this would only be invoked where the heat was
deemed to be a health hazard; folks with "uncomfortable" temperatures
would likely be out of luck, but people in seriously hazardous
situations (especially the elderly & infirmed) would have legal recourse

Let's hope that they phrase this law delicately and take into account
the possibility of tenants being harmed by it. Hopefully, it will be
jointly penned by a group of people who can consider all the angles,
perhaps the rental comissioner and the chief medical officer (or at
least folks more nuanced and considerate than that double-dealing
neanderthal David Miller </cheapshot>).

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

>
> Landlords could be forced to install air conditioners
>
> Toronto renters could get a break from the extreme heat in the future,
> if City Hall brings in a law requiring cooling systems for too-hot
> apartments.
>
> The City of Toronto is considering a plan to set maximum temperature
> standards for landlords that could require the installation of air
> conditioning units in rooms or apartments that tend to overheat in the
> summer.
>
> There's already a minimum heat requirement in the winter that makes
> landlords responsible for installing heating systems such as furnaces or
> baseboard heaters.
>
> For maximum temperature standards to be set, Toronto Public Health must
> first decide whether extreme heat is as potentially deadly as extreme cold.
>
> Michael Shapcott of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee said it's
> obvious that extreme heat can be a killer, pointing to at least three
> deaths that have been attributed to heat this summer alone.
>
> "The fact that people are dying and that lives are affected clearly
> deems it a heath hazard," said Shapcott.
>
> Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health, agreed that
> extreme heat is a health hazard and that new maximum standards for
> landlords may be needed.
>
> He'd like to see a coroner's inquest called into the recent heat-related
> death of a man who lived in a rooming house.
>
> "Given what we know about vulnerable people, especially in tenancy
> situations, it's a reasonable thing to look at," said McKeown.

This is just more hippie drivel from Miller's lackeys. Yes it would be
nice if everyone could have air conditioning, but some things are just
not economically feasible. Unfortunately, in the real world we have to
worry about nagging problems like the existence of only finite resources.

Imagine a person who is now just barely making ends meet, without any
objection to the heat (or at least an ability to tolerate it). Obviously
cost of living will increase to pay for these new air conditions and the
electricity they use. The point is obvious.

This is what happens when you vote for a guy holding a broom in his
campaign pictures.

> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think this is definitely a positive thing. Some apartments are
> positively sweltering in the summer, and people who can't afford a
> window unit shouldn't have to suffer in this manner.

It would be a positive thing, and it is unfair for someone to suffer
with the heat while I'm comfortable with an excess of cold air and
fluids. Unfortunately, life isn't fair.

The city offers many 'cool down' locations for people who can't afford
A/C. Anyone concerned that the heat is putting them at risk should show up.

>
> This story rings particularly clear with me. A few years ago I walked
> into a convenience store where a man had collapsed of heat stroke in
> front of the counter, where the panicking clerks had me call 911 for
> them (they did not speak much English). Despite my own efforts and the
> subsequently arriving paramedics, he died shortly afterward. He had
> stopped into the convenience store with the intention of buying a 1.5 L
> bottle of water, and collapsed after taking out his wallet.

If he was so dehydrated, why didn't he just drink it instead of waiting
to pay first? (this is puzzling, since heat stroke is very rarely fatal)

It's unfortunate that he died, but there are countless other preventable
causes of death we should be worrying about. This sounds callous, but if
only three people die a year from the heat in a city of millions, we
have bigger things to worry about. Especially when the cost of
implementing the 'air conditioners for all' idea is so high.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> This is just more hippie drivel from Miller's lackeys. Yes it would be
> nice if everyone could have air conditioning, but some things are just
> not economically feasible. Unfortunately, in the real world we have to
> worry about nagging problems like the existence of only finite resources.

While I agree that Miller is a bumbling jackass, the article pretty
clearly states that the law would probably only cover cases where the
heat was at such extremes that it could pose a health risk.

> Imagine a person who is now just barely making ends meet, without any
> objection to the heat (or at least an ability to tolerate it). Obviously
> cost of living will increase to pay for these new air conditions and the
> electricity they use. The point is obvious.

Or we could force the landlords to pay for it, and let them pocket
slightly less ridiculous amounts of money every month. This law would
especially target the elderly and infirmed who are at the greatest risk
from the heat, and coincidentally are often on a fixed income. Rent
increases would be unacceptable, and I have confidence in the CMOH to

> This is what happens when you vote for a guy holding a broom in his
> campaign pictures.

Heh. Lots of things happen: http://www.wychwoodbarns.com/ . Check out
the videos of (then Councillor) David Miller telling the residents of my
neighbourhood that we need therapy. Reaaaaal slick.

> It would be a positive thing, and it is unfair for someone to suffer
> with the heat while I'm comfortable with an excess of cold air and
> fluids. Unfortunately, life isn't fair.

Yeah, that argument is a real brilliant parry when the consequence is death.

> The city offers many 'cool down' locations for people who can't afford
> A/C. Anyone concerned that the heat is putting them at risk should show up.

And what about people who aren't mobile (hint hint: elderly), and can't
afford taxis, electric wheelchairs, and the like?

> If he was so dehydrated, why didn't he just drink it instead of waiting
> to pay first? (this is puzzling, since heat stroke is very rarely fatal)

Because that's the normal thing to do? Heat stroke is, in fact, quite
often fatal if left too long untreated. Most likely even if he'd taken
a drink a few minutes earlier, he'd still have collapsed.

> It's unfortunate that he died, but there are countless other preventable
> causes of death we should be worrying about. This sounds callous, but if
> only three people die a year from the heat in a city of millions, we
> have bigger things to worry about.

Indeed there are, like smoking! Thankfully the province is taking action
to stem this reckless behaviour that costs Ontario taxpayers millions.
You should be thrilled.

> Especially when the cost of
> implementing the 'air conditioners for all' idea is so high.

It'd be a tax-deductible cost incurred by private property owners, and
limited to situations where the heat was deemed a health hazard. To
continue with the example above, the costs of smoking-related illnesses
burden the entire tax-paying public in the form of increased health care
costs from smoking and second-hand smoke related ailments.

Yet you seem to have a huge problem with anti-smoking legislation,
despite the fact that the cost of the "letting people smoke" idea is so
high. Do I smell a hypocrite? :)

There are plenty of things that property owners need to do/spend money
on in order to rent their property; a large part of that involves
meeting safety standards. We don't consider furnaces a luxury, nor an
apartment free of gas leaks. It's completely reasonable for a tenant to
expect an apartment that is habitable, with an ambient temperature in
the "non life-threatening" range.

Are there bigger things to worry about? Sure. But this is a fairly
simple measure that will improve quality of life for (especially
elderly) tenants and make self-sufficient living safer and more feasible
for many.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[David Warde-Farley]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Rent increases would be unacceptable, and I have confidence in the CMOH to

take this into account.

[Mike C]

> Indeed there are, like smoking! Thankfully the province is taking action
> to stem this reckless behaviour that costs Ontario taxpayers millions.
> You should be thrilled.

The difference in this case is that I am _choosing_ to fill my lungs
with smooth, rich yet toxic tobacoo smoke. I am consciously deciding as
an adult in a free society to do myself harm with (arguably) no harm to
others. The government has no business interfering with this.

If public healthcare is the justification for our MPPs trying to
eliminate smoking, then the idea of public healthcare needs to be
re-examined. When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
we would be paying for our future hopsital use.

My point, smoking isn't costing the government money. Some claim that
second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous. It takes an
entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of second hand
smoke. Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes
on cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.


> It'd be a tax-deductible cost incurred by private property owners, and
> limited to situations where the heat was deemed a health hazard. To
> continue with the example above, the costs of smoking-related illnesses
> burden the entire tax-paying public in the form of increased health care
> costs from smoking and second-hand smoke related ailments.

> Yet you seem to have a huge problem with anti-smoking legislation,
> despite the fact that the cost of the "letting people smoke" idea is so
> high. Do I smell a hypocrite? :)

I don't see your point. The two are entirely disconnected by a matter of
choice. And as I explained above, smoking isn't costing taxpayers money.

> There are plenty of things that property owners need to do/spend money
> on in order to rent their property; a large part of that involves
> meeting safety standards. We don't consider furnaces a luxury, nor an
> apartment free of gas leaks. It's completely reasonable for a tenant to
> expect an apartment that is habitable, with an ambient temperature in
> the "non life-threatening" range.
>
> Are there bigger things to worry about? Sure. But this is a fairly
> simple measure that will improve quality of life for (especially
> elderly) tenants and make self-sufficient living safer and more feasible
> for many.
>

Yes, but extreme cold is much more dangerous than extreme heat. The
climate we evolved in allows us a higher temperate tolerance. 20 degrees
above room temperate is not nearly as dangerous as 20 degrees below room
temperate. My point, it's just not that big of a safety issue.

I don't like the idea of a landlord having to bear the expense. If the
city wants to donate air conditioners to those at extreme risk, I might
not object.

[Laura MacDougall]

> Some claim that
> second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous. It takes an
> entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of second hand
> smoke. Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra
> taxes on cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.

What about wait staff who work in bars and restaurants full of smokers,
exposed to it every time they go do their job? Will it be a comfort to
the person dying of cancer from second-hand smoke that you have
volunteered to pay their bills? It is by no means ridiculous that
second hand smoke causes harm; this from Health Canada:

"If you are a non-smoker, exposure to second-hand smoke increases your
chance of lung cancer by 25%, heart disease by 10%, and cancer of the
sinuses, brain, breast, uterine cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and
lymphoma."
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/health_facts/second_hand.html

You are certainly free to fill your lungs with rich delicious tobacco
(heck, fill your veins with heroin for all I care), but not when other
people have to be around you. Laws are put in place to protect people;
you shouldn't be allowed to smoke wherever you want any more than I
should be allowed to punch you in the groin, or landlords to charge
people to live in dangerous conditions.

-$0.02

~Laurie



Mike C wrote:
>
>> Indeed there are, like smoking! Thankfully the province is taking
>> action to stem this reckless behaviour that costs Ontario taxpayers
>> millions. You should be thrilled.
>
>
> The difference in this case is that I am _choosing_ to fill my lungs
> with smooth, rich yet toxic tobacoo smoke. I am consciously deciding as
> an adult in a free society to do myself harm with (arguably) no harm to
> others. The government has no business interfering with this.
>
> If public healthcare is the justification for our MPPs trying to
> eliminate smoking, then the idea of public healthcare needs to be
> re-examined. When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
> was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
> we would be paying for our future hopsital use.
>
> My point, smoking isn't costing the government money. Some claim that
> second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous. It takes an
> entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of second hand
> smoke. Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes
> on cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.
>
>
>> It'd be a tax-deductible cost incurred by private property owners, and
>> limited to situations where the heat was deemed a health hazard. To
>> continue with the example above, the costs of smoking-related
>> illnesses burden the entire tax-paying public in the form of increased
>> health care costs from smoking and second-hand smoke related ailments.
>
>
>> Yet you seem to have a huge problem with anti-smoking legislation,
>> despite the fact that the cost of the "letting people smoke" idea is
>> so high. Do I smell a hypocrite? :)
>
>
> I don't see your point. The two are entirely disconnected by a matter of
> choice. And as I explained above, smoking isn't costing taxpayers money.
>
>> There are plenty of things that property owners need to do/spend money
>> on in order to rent their property; a large part of that involves
>> meeting safety standards. We don't consider furnaces a luxury, nor an
>> apartment free of gas leaks. It's completely reasonable for a tenant
>> to expect an apartment that is habitable, with an ambient temperature
>> in the "non life-threatening" range.
>>
>> Are there bigger things to worry about? Sure. But this is a fairly
>> simple measure that will improve quality of life for (especially
>> elderly) tenants and make self-sufficient living safer and more
>> feasible for many.
>>
>
> Yes, but extreme cold is much more dangerous than extreme heat. The
> climate we evolved in allows us a higher temperate tolerance. 20 degrees
> above room temperate is not nearly as dangerous as 20 degrees below room
> temperate. My point, it's just not that big of a safety issue.
>
> I don't like the idea of a landlord having to bear the expense. If the
> city wants to donate air conditioners to those at extreme risk, I might
> not object.

[Mike C]

Laura MacDougall wrote:
> > Some claim that
> > second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous. It takes an
> > entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of second hand
> > smoke. Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra
> > taxes on cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.
>
> What about wait staff who work in bars and restaurants full of smokers,
> exposed to it every time they go do their job? Will it be a comfort to
> the person dying of cancer from second-hand smoke that you have
> volunteered to pay their bills? It is by no means ridiculous that
> second hand smoke causes harm; this from Health Canada:

Just like I decide to smoke, someone who chooses to work in a
smoke-filled bar chooses to accept the health hazard associated with it.

> "If you are a non-smoker, exposure to second-hand smoke increases your
> chance of lung cancer by 25%, heart disease by 10%, and cancer of the
> sinuses, brain, breast, uterine cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and
> lymphoma."
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/health_facts/second_hand.html

Wow, if the government says it, it must be true.

> You are certainly free to fill your lungs with rich delicious tobacco
> (heck, fill your veins with heroin for all I care), but not when other
> people have to be around you. Laws are put in place to protect people;
> you shouldn't be allowed to smoke wherever you want any more than I
> should be allowed to punch you in the groin, or landlords to charge
> people to live in dangerous conditions.

Again, I say that all "victims" (with the exception of children) of
second hand smoke are consenting.

Dangerous conditions, please. Quoting the article, three people a year
die from excessive heat. Do you propose that any factor which results in
three deaths a year be labeled hazardous, and the owners of properties
where these "hazards" might exist be required to make expensive
modifications to accommodate these very few people?

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> Just like I decide to smoke, someone who chooses to work in a
> smoke-filled bar chooses to accept the health hazard associated with it.

Actually, we have health and safety standards laws in this country. And
not everyone has the luxury of choosing the job they take.

> Wow, if the government says it, it must be true.

Health Canada isn't the government. Health Canada is a government agency
with the mandate of providing accurate

> Dangerous conditions, please. Quoting the article, three people a year
> die from excessive heat.

One is too many.

> Do you propose that any factor which results in
> three deaths a year be labeled hazardous, and the owners of properties
> where these "hazards" might exist be required to make expensive
> modifications to accommodate these very few people?

Yes. The risk is not *that* remote, and we take precautions against
risks far more remote when there is potential for fatality.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> Just like I decide to smoke, someone who chooses to work in a
>> smoke-filled bar chooses to accept the health hazard associated with it.
>
>
> Actually, we have health and safety standards laws in this country.

So working in a mine should be illegal? Similar air conditions, with
similar health effects.

> And not everyone has the luxury of choosing the job they take.

Oh well, it's not my fault they goofed off in high school. And because
of this I can't enjoy myself in a bar?

>> Wow, if the government says it, it must be true.

>
> Health Canada isn't the government. Health Canada is a government agency
> with the mandate of providing accurate

... information on health related matters, yes. But still on our liberal
governments dime. Which seems to have the mandate of deciding how I'm
going to live my life.

[Ilan Muskat]

> So working in a mine should be illegal? Similar air conditions, with
> similar health effects.

The mine company had bloody well better give you a breathing mask and
regulate the hours you spend in there. Not to do that is quite reasonably
illegal.

> Oh well, it's not my fault they goofed off in high school. And because of
> this I can't enjoy myself in a bar?

You are demonstrating staggering naiveté. People lose their jobs all the
time, and often need to get back on their feet. You may learn this one day.

> ... information on health related matters, yes. But still on our liberal
> governments dime. Which seems to have the mandate of deciding how I'm
> going to live my life.

Check out the "non-interferent" policies of conservative governments
sometime. Honestly, your hypocrisy, if intentional, is galling. If
unintentional, is risible. You clearly have a bone to pick with somebody
left-wing that beat you in an argument when you were young and
impressionable, or you watch too much Fox News.

Either way, you've my pity.

Ilan

[Mike C]

> Check out the "non-interferent" policies of conservative governments
> sometime. Honestly, your hypocrisy, if intentional, is galling. If
> unintentional, is risible. You clearly have a bone to pick with somebody
> left-wing that beat you in an argument when you were young and
> impressionable, or you watch too much Fox News.
>
> Either way, you've my pity.

Hypocrisy?

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) pronunciation
n., pl. -sies.

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Please explain how I have been a hypocrit.


It's good to know I have your pity. It's also good to know you assume
that I'm conservative because I don't want the government involved in my
life.

Galling? Risible? You must have your thesaurus handy today.

If I'm so "galling", why are you talking to me?

[Ilan Muskat]

> Hypocrisy?
...
> 2. An act or instance of such falseness.
> Please explain how I have been a hypocrit.

"... information on health related matters, yes. But still on our liberal
governments dime. Which seems to have the mandate of deciding how I'm
going to live my life."

You've decided that liberal governments are trying to manipulate the data so
that they can more thoroughly convince you that you need to be protected
from yourself, apparently. It implies that you think that an alternative is
preferable. Of course, Health Canada is a part of the coalition-ruled
federal government, and the municipal legislation on the table is from the,
well, municipal government. It's also "small-L" liberal, if you want to
lump it into that category because the mayor belongs to the NDP.

> It's good to know I have your pity.

I just don't like you confusing these things, and for example walking into
the trap of cheerleeding the Harris/Eves governments as "protectors of
individual rights".

> It's also good to know you assume that I'm conservative because
> I don't want the government involved in my life.

The government's involved in your life no matter what, sorry to say. The
extent to which it is, is apparently what you're concerned with. I
guarantee that you won't find a government uninvolved with your life, but
some are worse than others*.

> Galling? Risible? You must have your thesaurus handy today.

I just know long words, which I think is still okay to do.

> If I'm so "galling", why are you talking to me?

I'm not so much talking to you as addressing your fallacious reasoning.

Ilan

------------------------------------
* Turkmenistan. "Paris-based Reporters Without Frontiers has said President
Niyazov's only use for the media is to "promote his own glory".' Though,
Niyazov (Turkmenbashi) has also banned smoking in the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1298497.stm

[Mike C]

Ilan Muskat wrote:
>>Hypocrisy?
>
> ...
>
>> 2. An act or instance of such falseness.
>>Please explain how I have been a hypocrit.
>
>
> "... information on health related matters, yes. But still on our liberal
> governments dime. Which seems to have the mandate of deciding how I'm
> going to live my life."
>
> You've decided that liberal governments are trying to manipulate the data so
> that they can more thoroughly convince you that you need to be protected
> from yourself, apparently. It implies that you think that an alternative is
> preferable. Of course, Health Canada is a part of the coalition-ruled
> federal government, and the municipal legislation on the table is from the,
> well, municipal government. It's also "small-L" liberal, if you want to
> lump it into that category because the mayor belongs to the NDP.


You're accusing me of accusing the government of manipulating data.

Simply put, I don't trust information from the government (I should say,
any government, be it liberal or otherwise), especially when it's clear
they have an agenda of interfering with my personal decisions related to
the matter.

I didn't say the information was intentionally false, I said it wasn't
trustworthy. You can draw whatever conclusions you like.

Even if it was my belief, I don't see the hypocrisy. What alternative do
I think is preferable?

>
>>It's good to know I have your pity.
>
>
> I just don't like you confusing these things, and for example walking into
> the trap of cheerleeding the Harris/Eves governments as "protectors of
> individual rights".

And because I oppose our Liberal government that means I must be a
conservative. Because political values is a boolean expresion, you must
be either Liberal or conservative. Can't I adopt principals from all
parts of spectrum without being seen as a heretic?

The problem with modern conservative governments, is that they aren't
conservative. One only need look south of the border, or even listen to
Harper speak. Harris' agenda was most certainly not conservative, and
even less is Bushes.

>
>>It's also good to know you assume that I'm conservative because
>>I don't want the government involved in my life.
>
>
> The government's involved in your life no matter what, sorry to say. The
> extent to which it is, is apparently what you're concerned with. I
> guarantee that you won't find a government uninvolved with your life, but
> some are worse than others*.
>

I should have said, I want to minimize the government involvement in my
life. Obviously a small amount is unavoidable.

Interesting reference, your resorting to American tactics. "What we're
doing isn't right, but at least we aren't doing it like _______ (insert
name of country)"

Another government doing something worse is not justification for what
we are doing.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> Simply put, I don't trust information from the government (I should say,
> any government, be it liberal or otherwise), especially when it's clear
> they have an agenda of interfering with my personal decisions related to
> the matter.

You're insinuating that the government would be dishonest about the
health risks of smoking in order to stop you from smoking for some
other, unknown reason. Yet you fail to quantify this reason. Thus it
comes down to you sounding like a crackpot.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> Simply put, I don't trust information from the government (I should
>> say, any government, be it liberal or otherwise), especially when it's
>> clear they have an agenda of interfering with my personal decisions
>> related to the matter.
>
>
> You're insinuating that the government would be dishonest about the
> health risks of smoking in order to stop you from smoking for some
> other, unknown reason. Yet you fail to quantify this reason. Thus it
> comes down to you sounding like a crackpot.
>

The reason is for them to save money on future health care expenses.

[Mike C]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> The reason is for them to save money on future health care expenses.
>
>
> ... which wouldn't be a problem if people weren't idiotically and
> intentionally making themselves, and others, sick. And it isn't only an
> economic issue, as we've said, even if you cover your own healthcare
> costs and the healthcare costs of second hand smokers you affect,
> affecting them in the first place is too much. That kind of bandaid
> solution might work if you destroyed someone's car and then offered to
> replace it, but you can't undo the damage to someone's health or
> compensate them for their shortened lifespan.
>

We're going in circles.

Like I've said, it's my belief that second hand smokers choose to accept
the risks associated as much as first hand smokers.

If you, like Alan P, honestly believe now that people smoking outside is
a threat to your health, then I can't even imagine what other concerns
you might have.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> The reason is for them to save money on future health care expenses.

... which wouldn't be a problem if people weren't idiotically and
intentionally making themselves, and others, sick. And it isn't only an
economic issue, as we've said, even if you cover your own healthcare
costs and the healthcare costs of second hand smokers you affect,
affecting them in the first place is too much. That kind of bandaid
solution might work if you destroyed someone's car and then offered to
replace it, but you can't undo the damage to someone's health or
compensate them for their shortened lifespan.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> ... information on health related matters, yes. But still on our liberal
> governments dime. Which seems to have the mandate of deciding how I'm
> going to live my life.

Horseshit, since no doctor in good conscience is going to falsify
information, and no government in good conscience is going to employ
doctors for that purpose.

Also, the anti-smoking legistlation currently affecting us is a
provincial-level thing, whereas Health Canada is a federal institution,
and we all know how well they play together. And the Liberal Party of
Canada is not the Liberal Party of Ontario, despite having an overlap in
their membership and bearing the same name.

But let's suppose you're right, that second-hand smoke isn't neaaaarly
as bad the politicians and the physicians of this country are conspiring
against smokers. Most good conspiracy theories involve the perpetrators
having something called a *motive*. What's the motive here, Mike? And
why is Major League Baseball spying on us?

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Smith Timothy James]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Laura MacDougall wrote:
> "If you are a non-smoker, exposure to second-hand smoke increases your
> chance of lung cancer by 25%, heart disease by 10%, and cancer of the
> sinuses, brain, breast, uterine cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and
> lymphoma."
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/health_facts/second_hand.html

The WHO performed a seven-year study on the effects of passive (second
hand) smoke in the 1990s. While the study found that there was a 16-17%
increase in risk of lung cancer among people exposed to second-hand smoke,
the study was inconclusive due to having an increadable margin of error:

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html


An analysis of the report:
http://www.edcallahan.com/web110/articles/smoking/cato.htm

My favorite part:

---
The press release went on to report that WHO researchers found "an
estimated 16 percent increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking
spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk
was 17 percent." Remarkably, the very next line warned: "Due to small
sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant."
Contrast that conclusion with the hype in the headline: "Passive Smoking
Does Cause Lung Cancer." Spoken often enough, the lie becomes its own
evidence.

The full study would not see the light of day for seven more months, until
October 1998, when it was finally published in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. News reports omitted any mention of statistical
insignificance. Instead, they again trumpeted relative risks of 1.16 and
1.17, corresponding to 16 and 17 percent increases, as if those ratios
were meaningful. Somehow lost in WHO's media blitz was the National Cancer
Institute's own guideline: "Relative risks of less than 2 [that is, a 100
percent increase] are considered small. . . . Such increases may be due to
chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are
sometimes not evident." To put the WHO results in their proper
perspective, note that the relative risk of lung cancer for persons who
drink whole milk is 2.4. That is, the increased risk of contracting lung
cancer from whole milk is 140 percent -- more than eight times the 17
percent increase from secondhand smoke.
---

This is also fun:
---
What should have mattered most to government officials, the health
community and concerned parents is the following pronouncement from the
WHO study: After examining 650 lung cancer patients and 1,500 healthy
adults in seven European countries, WHO concluded that the "results
indicate no association between childhood exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk."
---


Put that in your pipe and... never mind.

Cheers,
Tim

[Alan Grosskurth]

Smith Timothy James wrote:
> http://www.edcallahan.com/web110/articles/smoking/cato.htm
>
> [...]
>
> "What should have mattered most to government officials, the health
> community and concerned parents is the following pronouncement from the
> WHO study: After examining 650 _lung cancer_ patients and 1,500 healthy
> adults in seven European countries, WHO concluded that the "results
> indicate no association between childhood exposure to environmental
> tobacco smoke and _lung cancer_ risk." (Emphasis added.)

The tobacco industry always focuses on cancer because it's always
difficult to prove. In fact, it's difficult to prove _anything_ causes
cancer, even smoking itself; this is just the nature of
epidemiological research.

For years the tobacco industry denied any link between active smoking
and lung cancer in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
they are simply using the same tactic now with passive smoking.
However, as the amount of solid, credible research finding links
between second-hand smoke and numerous, diverse forms of cancer
continues to grow, it is becoming increasingly apparent just how
absurd the tobacco industry's stance is.

That said, cancer aside, the impact of second-hand smoke on the
_respiratory system_ is absolutely undisputed, and this alone is cause
for serious concern.

Alan
--
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~g1gros

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> The difference in this case is that I am _choosing_ to fill my lungs
> with smooth, rich yet toxic tobacoo smoke. I am consciously deciding as
> an adult in a free society to do myself harm with (arguably) no harm to
> others. The government has no business interfering with this.

Next you'll be telling me that mandatory seatbelts are a bad thing.

The government has every right to interfere; if someone tries to kill
themselves in one of the more direct manners, we lock them up to prevent
them from doing themselves harm. The same logic (with less drastic
manifestations, obviously) should apply to committing suicide by cigarette.

> If public healthcare is the justification for our MPPs trying to
> eliminate smoking, then the idea of public healthcare needs to be
> re-examined. When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
> was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
> we would be paying for our future hopsital use.

Public healthcare, not so much, but the public health, definitely (and
the environment, but that's another barrel of monkeys). Sorry, but I
doubt the amount that even a lifetime smoker pays in tobacco taxes would
cover it. The taxes are their own kind of detterrent.

> My point, smoking isn't costing the government money. Some claim that
> second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous.

My personal experience indicates otherwise, as several doctors have told
me that my respiratory problems are almost certainly the result of
childhood exposure to secondhand smoke. Show me your medical degree and
doctor's license and maybe I'll buy it. But of course M.D.'s are
probably "hippies" in your view too.

> It takes an
> entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of second hand
> smoke. Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes
> on cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.

Have you run the numbers on this?

> Yes, but extreme cold is much more dangerous than extreme heat.

I would disagree.

> The climate we evolved in allows us a higher temperate tolerance. 20 degrees
> above room temperate is not nearly as dangerous as 20 degrees below room
> temperate. My point, it's just not that big of a safety issue.

We are warm-blooded, and thus have the ability to automatically
self-regulate our body temperature, but this only goes so far. At above
40C, you can barely sweat fast enough to cool you off. Not only does
this not cool you off much, it dehydrates you quite severely.

By the way: today, we have the 4th heat-related death in a week.

> I don't like the idea of a landlord having to bear the expense. If the
> city wants to donate air conditioners to those at extreme risk, I might
> not object.

As I said, it is the landlord's responsibility to provide a safe
apartment/house to the tenant. It's a business-related expense like any
other.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> The difference in this case is that I am _choosing_ to fill my lungs
>> with smooth, rich yet toxic tobacoo smoke. I am consciously deciding
>> as an adult in a free society to do myself harm with (arguably) no
>> harm to others. The government has no business interfering with this.
>
>
> Next you'll be telling me that mandatory seatbelts are a bad thing.
>
> The government has every right to interfere; if someone tries to kill
> themselves in one of the more direct manners, we lock them up to prevent
> them from doing themselves harm. The same logic (with less drastic
> manifestations, obviously) should apply to committing suicide by cigarette.
>

[siren goes off in my head]
I don't even know where to begin with this. It seems we have a very
different opinion on what the role of government in society should be.
It's role is most certainly not to protect the foolish from themselves.
So, should we outlaw fatty foods to prevent obesity? Should we outlaw
alchool to prevent liver disease? Should we outlaw religion to prevent
stupidity?

Part of being in a free society is being free to make your own decisions
about your own life. If someone chooses to be wreckless without harming
anyone*, then it's none of our business.

*as I've said, anyone putting themself around second hand smoke is
consenting just like a first hand smoker, with the exception of children.

>> If public healthcare is the justification for our MPPs trying to
>> eliminate smoking, then the idea of public healthcare needs to be
>> re-examined. When cigarette taxes started getting out of control,
>> there was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning
>> was that we would be paying for our future hopsital use.
>
>
> Public healthcare, not so much, but the public health, definitely (and
> the environment, but that's another barrel of monkeys). Sorry, but I
> doubt the amount that even a lifetime smoker pays in tobacco taxes would
> cover it. The taxes are their own kind of detterrent.
>
>> My point, smoking isn't costing the government money. Some claim that
>> second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous.
>
>
> My personal experience indicates otherwise, as several doctors have told
> me that my respiratory problems are almost certainly the result of
> childhood exposure to secondhand smoke. Show me your medical degree and
> doctor's license and maybe I'll buy it. But of course M.D.'s are
> probably "hippies" in your view too.

I said this in my previous posts, exposure to children is wrong. A
parent exposing their child to smoke should be illegal.

[Ilan Muskat]

> I said this in my previous posts, exposure to children is wrong.

I know, they're dangerous little buggers.

Also, I take exception to most of what you've written, except for the last
bit about parents exposing children to smoke.

Governments should protect people -- or at least provide legal tools for
people to protect themselves -- from dangerous things, such as unsafe work
conditions, products which can harm you (hence safety standards on things
like cars and hockey helmets) and people attempting to scam you (hence
anti-spam and anti-fraud laws).

You are still free to *harm yourself* in any way you see fit. Such as by
smacking yourself in the head with a hockey stick, drinking lighter fluid or
posting really dumb things to newsgroups.

Ilan

[Mike C]

Ilan Muskat wrote:
>>I said this in my previous posts, exposure to children is wrong.
>
>
> I know, they're dangerous little buggers.

I dont get this at all.


> Also, I take exception to most of what you've written, except for the last
> bit about parents exposing children to smoke.
>
> Governments should protect people -- or at least provide legal tools for
> people to protect themselves -- from dangerous things, such as unsafe work
> conditions, products which can harm you (hence safety standards on things
> like cars and hockey helmets) and people attempting to scam you (hence
> anti-spam and anti-fraud laws).

If you decided to read my post you might notice I oppose governments
protecting people from themselves. Someone buying a defective hockey
helmet under the guarantee it will keep them safe is entirely different
from someone deciding to smoke with full knowledge of the health risks.

> You are still free to *harm yourself* in any way you see fit. Such as by
> smacking yourself in the head with a hockey stick, drinking lighter fluid or
> posting really dumb things to newsgroups.

Nice cheap shot.

[Allan P]

For the first quote: I agreed with his point of view, why is it
necessary that I add something?

For the 2nd quote:
The view of many people who are opposed to you isn't about the
government controlling what you do to yourself, its the end result of
what most smokers do, which is getting smoke into the lungs of
non-smokers. Unfortunately, to stop that, they have to enforce rules
for *all* smokers -- even the ones who don't put smoke into non-smoker's
lungs. If you do so in a way that it is not around children or any
human being for that matter, then fantastic. You can do what you want
to yourself. The problem is that not everybody does that, many non Mike
C's out there cause other non-willing people to breathe in second hand
smoke. Even if it didn't cause cancer, its still annoying and
unpleasant to breathe it in just like how you wouldn't want someone
spilling a drink on you when you walk passed them. Lastly, exposure to
second hand smoke isn't always in a places like bars as you refer to. I
take in lots of it when I walk in&out of any building (mall, shops,
office buildings, etc).

Since this is about enforcing A/C, just because it causes very few
deaths per year doesn't mean those are the only negative effects. Its
possible that excessive heat causes or worsens some other condition, or
something simple like making it next to impossible for someone to sleep.
Little things can add up to big problems and they don't have to
include death.

Mike C wrote:
> Very nice.
>
> Easy way to score cool points, just agree with the majority without
> adding anything.
>
> Allan P wrote:
>
>> Well put.

Mike C wrote:
>
> If you decided to read my post you might notice I oppose governments
> protecting people from themselves. Someone buying a defective hockey
> helmet under the guarantee it will keep them safe is entirely different
> from someone deciding to smoke with full knowledge of the health risks.
>

[Mike C]

Allan P wrote:
> For the first quote: I agreed with his point of view, why is it
> necessary that I add something?

Because then the newsgroup would be flooed with messages everytime
someone posted something, if everyone responded with an empty
agreement/disagreement.

I disagree with your agreement, why dont I reply to your message with
just that?

> For the 2nd quote:
> The view of many people who are opposed to you isn't about the
> government controlling what you do to yourself, its the end result of
> what most smokers do, which is getting smoke into the lungs of
> non-smokers. Unfortunately, to stop that, they have to enforce rules
> for *all* smokers -- even the ones who don't put smoke into non-smoker's
> lungs. If you do so in a way that it is not around children or any
> human being for that matter, then fantastic. You can do what you want
> to yourself. The problem is that not everybody does that, many non Mike
> C's out there cause other non-willing people to breathe in second hand
> smoke. Even if it didn't cause cancer, its still annoying and
> unpleasant to breathe it in just like how you wouldn't want someone
> spilling a drink on you when you walk passed them. Lastly, exposure to
> second hand smoke isn't always in a places like bars as you refer to. I
> take in lots of it when I walk in&out of any building (mall, shops,
> office buildings, etc).

I also find it unpleasant when people fart, or when a car drives by me.

If you are claiming that walking into a mall causes you distress because
of people smoking outside, then clearly a lot of other things must
bother you. Do you want to make cars illegal, so that the exhaust can't
hurt you?

> Since this is about enforcing A/C, just because it causes very few
> deaths per year doesn't mean those are the only negative effects. Its
> possible that excessive heat causes or worsens some other condition, or
> something simple like making it next to impossible for someone to sleep.
> Little things can add up to big problems and they don't have to include
> death.
>

Do you want to buy everyone an air conditioner? In fact, would you buy
one person other than yourself an air conditioner? Yes the effects of
heat are terrible, but everyone wants someone else to take
responsibility for it. Go buy some poor old lady you've never met an air
conditioner, and then I'll listen to your elitist nonsense.

[Allan P]

Mike C wrote:
> Allan P wrote:
>
>> For the first quote: I agreed with his point of view, why is it
>> necessary that I add something?
>
>
> Because then the newsgroup would be flooed with messages everytime
> someone posted something, if everyone responded with an empty
> agreement/disagreement.
>
> I disagree with your agreement, why dont I reply to your message with
> just that?
>
Such a big fuss for such a small comment about how one person supports
what someone else said.

>> For the 2nd quote:
>> The view of many people who are opposed to you isn't about the
>> government controlling what you do to yourself, its the end result of
>> what most smokers do, which is getting smoke into the lungs of
>> non-smokers. Unfortunately, to stop that, they have to enforce rules
>> for *all* smokers -- even the ones who don't put smoke into
>> non-smoker's lungs. If you do so in a way that it is not around
>> children or any human being for that matter, then fantastic. You can
>> do what you want to yourself. The problem is that not everybody does
>> that, many non Mike C's out there cause other non-willing people to
>> breathe in second hand smoke. Even if it didn't cause cancer, its
>> still annoying and unpleasant to breathe it in just like how you
>> wouldn't want someone spilling a drink on you when you walk passed
>> them. Lastly, exposure to second hand smoke isn't always in a places
>> like bars as you refer to. I take in lots of it when I walk in&out of
>> any building (mall, shops, office buildings, etc).
>
>
> I also find it unpleasant when people fart, or when a car drives by me.
>
> If you are claiming that walking into a mall causes you distress because
> of people smoking outside, then clearly a lot of other things must
> bother you. Do you want to make cars illegal, so that the exhaust can't
> hurt you?
Wouldn't you like it if people can fart somewhere else such that it
doesnt bother people? It would certainly be very courteous, just like
how smokers should enjoy their cigarettes somewhere where it won't annoy
and harm others. How can you disagree with that?

With respect to cars and exhaust, from you point of view... I agree, but
which is easier and realistic? a) forcing smokers to butt out in public
places? or (b)Taking all polluting cars off the road?

>
>> Since this is about enforcing A/C, just because it causes very few
>> deaths per year doesn't mean those are the only negative effects. Its
>> possible that excessive heat causes or worsens some other condition,
>> or something simple like making it next to impossible for someone to
>> sleep. Little things can add up to big problems and they don't have
>> to include death.
>>
>
> Do you want to buy everyone an air conditioner? In fact, would you buy
> one person other than yourself an air conditioner? Yes the effects of
> heat are terrible, but everyone wants someone else to take
> responsibility for it. Go buy some poor old lady you've never met an air
> conditioner, and then I'll listen to your elitist nonsense.

LOL. How does my comment change this into me being responsible for
solving this problem with my money?

Heat related deaths and illnesses are simply a newer problem that face
landlords, and just because it can't be solved straight up with them
paying for AC units out of their pockets doesn't mean this problem can't
be solved over time. Your biggest assumption is that if this becomes
law, then landlords must pay 100% of it or raise rent significantly.
Its very possible that it could be phased in with gov money.

[Mike C]

>> I also find it unpleasant when people fart, or when a car drives by me.
>>
>> If you are claiming that walking into a mall causes you distress
>> because of people smoking outside, then clearly a lot of other things
>> must bother you. Do you want to make cars illegal, so that the exhaust
>> can't hurt you?
>
> Wouldn't you like it if people can fart somewhere else such that it
> doesnt bother people? It would certainly be very courteous, just like
> how smokers should enjoy their cigarettes somewhere where it won't annoy
> and harm others. How can you disagree with that?

When I fart, I usually step outside. I extend the same courtesy in
buildings labeled as non-smoking (unfortunately now, they all are). If
outside isn't out of the way enough, what is?

> With respect to cars and exhaust, from you point of view... I agree, but
> which is easier and realistic? a) forcing smokers to butt out in public
> places? or (b)Taking all polluting cars off the road?

Neither is realistic at all, that was my point.

>> Do you want to buy everyone an air conditioner? In fact, would you buy
>> one person other than yourself an air conditioner? Yes the effects of
>> heat are terrible, but everyone wants someone else to take
>> responsibility for it. Go buy some poor old lady you've never met an
>> air conditioner, and then I'll listen to your elitist nonsense.
>

> Heat related deaths and illnesses are simply a newer problem that face
> landlords, and just because it can't be solved straight up with them
> paying for AC units out of their pockets doesn't mean this problem can't
> be solved over time. Your biggest assumption is that if this becomes
> law, then landlords must pay 100% of it or raise rent significantly. Its
> very possible that it could be phased in with gov money.

Thats what I've said, countless times. If anyone should pay for this,
it's the government (be it any level). I wouldn't mind knowing a portion
of my taxes are helping keep an old lady from dieing in the extreme
heat. But as for Joe 20 year old in good health, he doesn't need it.

[Allan P]

Mike C wrote:
>
>>> I also find it unpleasant when people fart, or when a car drives by me.
>>>
>>> If you are claiming that walking into a mall causes you distress
>>> because of people smoking outside, then clearly a lot of other things
>>> must bother you. Do you want to make cars illegal, so that the
>>> exhaust can't hurt you?
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't you like it if people can fart somewhere else such that it
>> doesnt bother people? It would certainly be very courteous, just like
>> how smokers should enjoy their cigarettes somewhere where it won't
>> annoy and harm others. How can you disagree with that?
>
>
> When I fart, I usually step outside. I extend the same courtesy in
> buildings labeled as non-smoking (unfortunately now, they all are). If
> outside isn't out of the way enough, what is?
So if smokers are courteous enough to not smoke inside the building
(ignoring the fact that its the law), then all they're doing is getting
them as the non-smokers exit the doors.

>
>> With respect to cars and exhaust, from you point of view... I agree,
>> but which is easier and realistic? a) forcing smokers to butt out in
>> public places? or (b)Taking all polluting cars off the road?
>
>
> Neither is realistic at all, that was my point.
butting out is very realistic and can easily be done.


>
>>> Do you want to buy everyone an air conditioner? In fact, would you
>>> buy one person other than yourself an air conditioner? Yes the
>>> effects of heat are terrible, but everyone wants someone else to take
>>> responsibility for it. Go buy some poor old lady you've never met an
>>> air conditioner, and then I'll listen to your elitist nonsense.
>>
>>
>
>> Heat related deaths and illnesses are simply a newer problem that face
>> landlords, and just because it can't be solved straight up with them
>> paying for AC units out of their pockets doesn't mean this problem
>> can't be solved over time. Your biggest assumption is that if this
>> becomes law, then landlords must pay 100% of it or raise rent
>> significantly. Its very possible that it could be phased in with gov
>> money.
>
>
> Thats what I've said, countless times. If anyone should pay for this,
> it's the government (be it any level). I wouldn't mind knowing a portion
> of my taxes are helping keep an old lady from dieing in the extreme
> heat. But as for Joe 20 year old in good health, he doesn't need it.
If only all rules/regulations could apply to those who need/deserve it.
Its either everybody or nobody, thats just how it works.

[Ilan Muskat]

> If you decided to read my post you might notice I oppose governments
> protecting people from themselves. Someone buying a defective hockey
> helmet under the guarantee it will keep them safe is entirely different
> from someone deciding to smoke with full knowledge of the health risks.

They're actually pretty serious risks. And I'd be surprised if members of
the 15-year-old target demographic* were fully aware of the consequences of
their decision to start smoking.

I suppose you may not consider 15-year-olds "children", but how many of them
are likely to have read medical data describing cigarette's physiological
effects? "Full knowledge" is an unrealistic phrase to be using, and I think
it's misleading. Buying equipment that doesn't describe the full
consequences of its use, or guarantee that it's not unsafe to use in the
manner in which it's supposed to be used, is not an informed choice.

And those big black labels on the side of cigarette packs are only the tip
of the iceberg when it comes to "smooth, rich and toxic" smoke. Does it say
"if you try to quit, you will get nic-fits"?

To get back to the discussion involved in the thread, in weather like this
it's dangerous -- in some cases, fatal**, and to live in an apartment where
air conditioning is not an option may well be as bad as selling them a
helmet that doesn't protect them from a collision with the boards.

Ilan

-------------------------------------------------------------

*" For the generation born in 1975, both males and females started smoking
at just over 15."
Source: CBC, http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/stats.html

Yes, that is "government" research, from a StatsCan survey in June '03, but
I don't know what a *more* reliable source for smoking statistics would be:
corporate marketing data, perhaps, but I don't think they'd be very willing
to share.

** " "We've got hundreds of deaths that can be attributed to air pollution
and the combined effects of air pollution and extreme temperature. Those are
deaths that are potentially avoidable," said Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's
Medical Officer of Health."
Source: National Post,
http://www.canada.com/toronto/soundoff/story.html?id=afe27b80-0755-4a5b-94e5-51bf00f97b3c

[Mike C]

Ilan Muskat wrote:
>>If you decided to read my post you might notice I oppose governments
>>protecting people from themselves. Someone buying a defective hockey
>>helmet under the guarantee it will keep them safe is entirely different
>>from someone deciding to smoke with full knowledge of the health risks.
>
>
> They're actually pretty serious risks. And I'd be surprised if members of
> the 15-year-old target demographic* were fully aware of the consequences of
> their decision to start smoking.


> I suppose you may not consider 15-year-olds "children", but how many of them
> are likely to have read medical data describing cigarette's physiological
> effects? "Full knowledge" is an unrealistic phrase to be using, and I think
> it's misleading. Buying equipment that doesn't describe the full
> consequences of its use, or guarantee that it's not unsafe to use in the
> manner in which it's supposed to be used, is not an informed choice.

That's why it's a crime to sell them to children. Because they aren't at
an age to make an informed decision. By children, I mean anyone under 18.

"If you smoke, your kids will be mutants, your dick will fall off, your
teeth will turn black, also, you will die." is basically what the new
warning labels say. If that doesn't provide "full knowledge" I don't
know what does.

> And those big black labels on the side of cigarette packs are only the tip
> of the iceberg when it comes to "smooth, rich and toxic" smoke. Does it say
> "if you try to quit, you will get nic-fits"?

I think it says 'cigarettes are addictive'. Any 18 year old should be
able to understand that.

> To get back to the discussion involved in the thread, in weather like this
> it's dangerous -- in some cases, fatal**, and to live in an apartment where
> air conditioning is not an option may well be as bad as selling them a
> helmet that doesn't protect them from a collision with the boards.

Jesus Christ. I'm not against air conditioners, nor do I want people to
die needlessly. You people seem to assume that everyone who isn't very
left-wing is Hitler. I was merely pointing how this plan, although
having positive effects, is not feasible.

In a thread between me and dave, he clarified that the plan was being
targeted at those at extreme risk from the heat.

The article seemed to suggest that every rental unit in Toronto should
be fitted with an air conditioner. More bothersome was Dave's Robin Hood
attitude that the wealthy, evil landlords should foot the bill.

I say if the city wants to protect people at risk from the heat, fine.
Just so long as they provide the air conditioners and the electricity
they use. Despite everything that has been said, I still see air
conditioners as a luxury.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> Jesus Christ. I'm not against air conditioners, nor do I want people to
> die needlessly. You people seem to assume that everyone who isn't very
> left-wing is Hitler. I was merely pointing how this plan, although
> having positive effects, is not feasible.

Godwin'ed! You lose.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law )

> In a thread between me and dave, he clarified that the plan was being
> targeted at those at extreme risk from the heat.

Actually, I said that the campaign would be targeted at houses where
extreme heat was present. Though, myself and the Chief Medical Officer
agree, the matter is of most pressing concern to those at particular
risk (elderly, etc.).


> The article seemed to suggest that every rental unit in Toronto should
> be fitted with an air conditioner. More bothersome was Dave's Robin Hood
> attitude that the wealthy, evil landlords should foot the bill.

We're men, we're men in tights!

I said nothing about the landlords being evil, though they are making a
assload if they own property and rent it in Toronto. And as a landlord,
they have responsibilities. One of those is to provide a safe
environment in the rented property. As has been established, extreme
heat is a health risk. Ergo, they pay. It's not rocket science. As for
their wealth, I said that the extra expense won't be that much of a
problem for them given the rents they charge. Boo hoo, we'll cut into
their profit margin a bit, cry me a river. To echo your line of thinking
on the issue to begin with, the city has bigger problems to worry about"
than Joe Landlord making slightly less exorbitant amounts of money off
of his tenants.

> I say if the city wants to protect people at risk from the heat, fine.
> Just so long as they provide the air conditioners and the electricity
> they use. Despite everything that has been said, I still see air
> conditioners as a luxury.

The city isn't profiting from renting people houses & apartments that
are too hot, except indirectly through property taxes. The landlord is
the one turning a profit, the responsibility for making it safe falls
squarely on his shoulders.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

>
>> In a thread between me and dave, he clarified that the plan was being
>> targeted at those at extreme risk from the heat.
>
>
> Actually, I said that the campaign would be targeted at houses where
> extreme heat was present. Though, myself and the Chief Medical Officer
> agree, the matter is of most pressing concern to those at particular
> risk (elderly, etc.).

So then target the plan at those at risk. Theres no argument here.

>
>> The article seemed to suggest that every rental unit in Toronto should
>> be fitted with an air conditioner. More bothersome was Dave's Robin
>> Hood attitude that the wealthy, evil landlords should foot the bill.
>
>
> We're men, we're men in tights!
>
> I said nothing about the landlords being evil, though they are making a
> assload if they own property and rent it in Toronto. And as a landlord,
> they have responsibilities. One of those is to provide a safe
> environment in the rented property. As has been established, extreme
> heat is a health risk. Ergo, they pay. It's not rocket science. As for
> their wealth, I said that the extra expense won't be that much of a
> problem for them given the rents they charge. Boo hoo, we'll cut into
> their profit margin a bit, cry me a river. To echo your line of thinking
> on the issue to begin with, the city has bigger problems to worry about"
> than Joe Landlord making slightly less exorbitant amounts of money off
> of his tenants.

And you don't think Joe Landlord will raise rental rates to pay for
these new units? Also, they consume a shitload of electricity, I guess
he'll have to bear that expense as well, along with their maintenance.
Seems like a bit of a pipe dream to do for free.

Since we've established that extreme heat is as bad as extreme cold,
should we eliminate the portion of ones rent that goes to paying for
heat? The owners already have enough money, its unfair that the tennants
should have to pay for natural gas.

>> I say if the city wants to protect people at risk from the heat, fine.
>> Just so long as they provide the air conditioners and the electricity
>> they use. Despite everything that has been said, I still see air
>> conditioners as a luxury.
>
>
> The city isn't profiting from renting people houses & apartments that
> are too hot, except indirectly through property taxes. The landlord is
> the one turning a profit, the responsibility for making it safe falls
> squarely on his shoulders.

Warde-Farleys law? Profit -> responsibilty?

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> So then target the plan at those at risk. Theres no argument here.

And have them elderly fixed-income folks pay for it, right?

The article made no such claim that the planned law would make 'every
rental unit be outfitted with an air conditioner'. It was to establish a
maximum allowable temperature, with air conditioners to be required
where rental units exceeded that temperature. "Those at risk" would be
anyone living in such a

>>> The article seemed to suggest that every rental unit in Toronto
>>> should be fitted with an air conditioner. More bothersome was Dave's
>>> Robin Hood attitude that the wealthy, evil landlords should foot the
>>> bill.

By the way, article made no such claim that the planned law would make
'every rental unit be outfitted with an air conditioner'. It was to
establish a maximum allowable temperature, with air conditioners to be
required where rental units exceeded that temperature. "Those at risk"
would be anyone living in such a place.

> And you don't think Joe Landlord will raise rental rates to pay for
> these new units? Also, they consume a shitload of electricity, I guess
> he'll have to bear that expense as well, along with their maintenance.
> Seems like a bit of a pipe dream to do for free.

Unless otherwise arranged, the landlord usually pays for the furnace,
what's the difference? I'm not suggesting he do it for free, but what it
would cost even to maintain/run an air conditioner (running it when
necessary, of course) would be dwarfed by the amount he makes off the
tenant.

> Since we've established that extreme heat is as bad as extreme cold,
> should we eliminate the portion of ones rent that goes to paying for
> heat? The owners already have enough money, its unfair that the tennants
> should have to pay for natural gas.

Your argument is incoherent. All I'm saying is that considering the
relatively slim cost (proportional to profit margin) of adding an air
conditioner and turning it on when the heat exceeds the allowable
threshold shouldn't affect the current rent, which already incorporates
plenty of services afforded to the tenants.

> Warde-Farleys law? Profit -> responsibilty?

It's an accepted tenet of western society that if you're in business,
you have a certain responsibility to the public to make sure that the
products or services you offer are safe, that you don't misrepresent the
true product or service when selling it, etc. These are usually
enforced by means of law, to prevent unscrupulous businessmen from
running amok without consequences.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> So then target the plan at those at risk. Theres no argument here.
>
>
> And have them elderly fixed-income folks pay for it, right?
>
> The article made no such claim that the planned law would make 'every
> rental unit be outfitted with an air conditioner'. It was to establish a
> maximum allowable temperature, with air conditioners to be required
> where rental units exceeded that temperature. "Those at risk" would be
> anyone living in such a
>
>>>> The article seemed to suggest that every rental unit in Toronto
>>>> should be fitted with an air conditioner. More bothersome was Dave's
>>>> Robin Hood attitude that the wealthy, evil landlords should foot the
>>>> bill.
>
>
> By the way, article made no such claim that the planned law would make
> 'every rental unit be outfitted with an air conditioner'. It was to
> establish a maximum allowable temperature, with air conditioners to be
> required where rental units exceeded that temperature. "Those at risk"
> would be anyone living in such a place.
>
>> And you don't think Joe Landlord will raise rental rates to pay for
>> these new units? Also, they consume a shitload of electricity, I guess
>> he'll have to bear that expense as well, along with their maintenance.
>> Seems like a bit of a pipe dream to do for free.
>
>
> Unless otherwise arranged, the landlord usually pays for the furnace,
> what's the difference? I'm not suggesting he do it for free, but what it
> would cost even to maintain/run an air conditioner (running it when
> necessary, of course) would be dwarfed by the amount he makes off the
> tenant.
>
>> Since we've established that extreme heat is as bad as extreme cold,
>> should we eliminate the portion of ones rent that goes to paying for
>> heat? The owners already have enough money, its unfair that the
>> tennants should have to pay for natural gas.
>
>
> Your argument is incoherent. All I'm saying is that considering the
> relatively slim cost (proportional to profit margin) of adding an air
> conditioner and turning it on when the heat exceeds the allowable
> threshold shouldn't affect the current rent, which already incorporates
> plenty of services afforded to the tenants.
>

(sorry for the delay, been kinda busy)

My argument is flawless, you're just choosing not to understand it.

Since its a maximum temperature law, unless the limit was set below the
hottest possible outdoor air temperature, every apartment would have to
be fitted with air conditioning units, since they would be required at
least once.

Let's say that this idea comes to law, and our wealthy, heartless
landlords are forced to buy a bunch of air conditioners out of their own
wallets (since they can't raise rent). Your entire reasoning for this is
'they have enough money'. Well my friend, that's commie talk (at best, 2
steps left of NDP).

Communism aside, this reasoning could be seen to imply that a property
owner is required to keep a proper air temperature, at no extra fee to
the tennant. I'm sure a portion of a tennants bill is devoted to
heating. If they get free air conditioning, why shouldn't they get free
heat?

In fact, why should they be paying rent at all? The owner already has
enough money, hey he was able to pay for the building right?

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> Let's say that this idea comes to law, and our wealthy, heartless
> landlords are forced to buy a bunch of air conditioners out of their own
> wallets (since they can't raise rent). Your entire reasoning for this is
> 'they have enough money'. Well my friend, that's commie talk (at best, 2
> steps left of NDP).

Wow, that's brilliant. Yell "commie"

My point, in a sentence, is that a tenant shouldn't be charged extra in
order to live in an apartment that isn't one gigantic health hazard.
Furthermore, existing rents (and corresponding profit margins) in this
city are high enough for this to come at no additional cost to the
tenant. Knowing these clowns (Miller and the gang at City Hall), they'll
probably throw some of my tax money at this problem to help bail them
out, but I sure wouldn't, especially not for the installation of the A/C
unit itself.

Finally, it doesn't mean that every single apartment building should be
installing air conditioners, but it does mean that the landlords should
be figuring out how hot it gets in their rental units on the hottest of
days (i.e. last week). From there they have a choice: install the air
conditioning, or be prepared to put their tenants up in a hotel room on
those days that the apartment reaches hazardous temperatures.

Fin.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Manu Kapal]

David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
> Finally, it doesn't mean that every single apartment building should be
> installing air conditioners, but it does mean that the landlords should
> be figuring out how hot it gets in their rental units on the hottest of
> days (i.e. last week). From there they have a choice: install the air
> conditioning, or be prepared to put their tenants up in a hotel room on
> those days that the apartment reaches hazardous temperatures.
>
> Fin.
>

I apologize if this has been brought up before but:
1. buy fan
2. drink cold water
3. stay out of the sun

THE END

I know a few people without air conditioners, in apartments no less!
The poor bastards. They seem to be fine with my radical system.

[Alan Grosskurth]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:13:24 GMT, Mike C <***@cdf> wrote:
> Since its a maximum temperature law, unless the limit was set below the
> hottest possible outdoor air temperature, every apartment would have to
> be fitted with air conditioning units, since they would be required at
> least once.

False.

1. Set the maximum indoor temperature limit to be the ``hottest possible
outdoor air temperature'', say 35C.

2. The majority of apartments are well-situated, shaded, or
well-ventilated. Due to these factors, their indoor temperatures
are always less than the outdoor air temperature, _without_ air
conditoning. Hence, the indoor temperature for these apartments
never exceed the temperature limit, even on the hottest
days. Hence, they will _never_ require an air conditioner.

3. Consider an apartment which is south-facing, has sunlight strongly
reflected into it from outside structures, has poor ventilation, or
has walls which insulate heat well. Due to these factors, its
indoor air temperature can be significantly greater than the
outdoor air temperature, _without_ air conditioning. Hence, the
indoor temperature for these apartments will exceed the temperature
limit on the hottest days. Hence, this apartment requires an air
conditioner on these days.

I realize you don't feel landlords should be responsible for
apartments whose indoor temperatures often exceed the outdoor
temperature. However, you can't deny the fact that these apartments
will _definitely_ exceed a certain limit (say, 35C) without air
conditioners, while other apartments (the majority) will _never_
exceed that same limit without air conditioners.

Alan
--
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~g1gros

[Mike C]

> False.
>

Fine, some or even most might not require cooling units. My point is
still valid if even one is required.

> I realize you don't feel landlords should be responsible for
> apartments whose indoor temperatures often exceed the outdoor
> temperature. However, you can't deny the fact that these apartments
> will _definitely_ exceed a certain limit (say, 35C) without air
> conditioners, while other apartments (the majority) will _never_
> exceed that same limit without air conditioners.

Actually I do feel they should be responsible, they just shouldn't have
to do it for free.

[Mike C]

Allan P wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>
>> Fine, some or even most might not require cooling units. My point is
>> still valid if even one is required.
>>
>>> I realize you don't feel landlords should be responsible for
>>> apartments whose indoor temperatures often exceed the outdoor
>>> temperature. However, you can't deny the fact that these apartments
>>> will _definitely_ exceed a certain limit (say, 35C) without air
>>> conditioners, while other apartments (the majority) will _never_
>>> exceed that same limit without air conditioners.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually I do feel they should be responsible, they just shouldn't
>> have to do it for free.
>
>
> Is the idea that they *would* or *should* do it out of their own pockets
> one of Mike C's? or from the article?

I don't know, someone suggested it somewhere.

[Allan P]

Mike C wrote:
>
>> False.
>>
>
> Fine, some or even most might not require cooling units. My point is
> still valid if even one is required.
>
>> I realize you don't feel landlords should be responsible for
>> apartments whose indoor temperatures often exceed the outdoor
>> temperature. However, you can't deny the fact that these apartments
>> will _definitely_ exceed a certain limit (say, 35C) without air
>> conditioners, while other apartments (the majority) will _never_
>> exceed that same limit without air conditioners.
>
>
> Actually I do feel they should be responsible, they just shouldn't have
> to do it for free.

Is the idea that they *would* or *should* do it out of their own pockets
one of Mike C's? or from the article?

[Alan Grosskurth]

Assume landlords pass the _entire_ cost along to their tenants. Since
the air conditioner unit is an asset, its cost should be depreciated
over its useful lifespan. Assume the cost of a 5000 BTU air
conditioner is $175, and its lifespan is 5 years (although I have seen
estimates up to 15 years). This means an added cost of $35 per year
for the tenant (or about $3 per month).

Assume the air conditioner requires 500W to run. Assume the cost of
electricity is $0.10/kWh. This means there is an added cost of 5 cents
to run this air conditioner for one hour.

Mike C wrote:
> Actually I do feel they should be responsible, they just shouldn't have
> to do it for free.

Is it then correct to say that you believe landlords should, for
exceedingly stuffy apartments, be required to buy an air conditioner,
install it, and increase the rent of exceedingly hot apartments by $3
per month in order to give the tenant the option of turning on the air
conditioner (and incurring an additional cost of 5 cents for every
hour it's on)?

Alan
--
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~g1gros

[Mike C]

Alan Grosskurth wrote:
> Assume landlords pass the _entire_ cost along to their tenants. Since
> the air conditioner unit is an asset, its cost should be depreciated
> over its useful lifespan. Assume the cost of a 5000 BTU air
> conditioner is $175, and its lifespan is 5 years (although I have seen
> estimates up to 15 years). This means an added cost of $35 per year
> for the tenant (or about $3 per month).
>
> Assume the air conditioner requires 500W to run. Assume the cost of
> electricity is $0.10/kWh. This means there is an added cost of 5 cents
> to run this air conditioner for one hour.
>
> Mike C wrote:
>
>>Actually I do feel they should be responsible, they just shouldn't have
>>to do it for free.
>
>
> Is it then correct to say that you believe landlords should, for
> exceedingly stuffy apartments, be required to buy an air conditioner,
> install it, and increase the rent of exceedingly hot apartments by $3
> per month in order to give the tenant the option of turning on the air
> conditioner (and incurring an additional cost of 5 cents for every
> hour it's on)?
>
> Alan

Yes.

It's a matter of principal, not financing. Whether it costs $.01 or
$1000 is irrelevant to my point. My objection was to the mentality that
if someone has 'enough money' we can simply place more responsibilities
onto them.

I would like it if no one ever had to bear with the heat, but I would
like it to be done properly.

[Lloyd Smith]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mike C wrote:
> Ilan Muskat wrote:
> >
> >>I said this in my previous posts, exposure to children is wrong.
> >
> > I know, they're dangerous little buggers.
>
> I dont get this at all.

Having suffered firsthand the effects of chronic exposure I agree with
Ilan; the neurotoxicity alone merits government regulation, and yet they
come without so much as a warning label.

;-)
lloyd

[Alan Grosskurth]

Mike C wrote:
> When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
> was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
> we would be paying for our future hopsital use.

No, the reasoning was that smokers would purchase cigarettes on the
black market, avoiding the taxes and contributing nothing to health
care costs.

> My point, smoking isn't costing the government money.

False. According to a 1991 Health Canada study, smokers cost society
$15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.

<URL:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html>

> Some claim that second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to claim the _contrary_. The international consensus
on cancer research conducted over the past decade has confirmed that
second-hand smoke is a direct cause of lung cancer:

<URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/lungcancer.html>

Newer studies also identify a causal association between second-hand
smoke exposure and breast cancer:

<URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/breastcancer.html>

Many other diseases such as heart disease, sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS), and nasal sinus cancer have also been linked with
second-hand smoke.

> It takes an entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of
> second hand smoke.

Please explain what you mean by ``willful exposure.'' Perhaps you are
referring to the 2.8 million Canadian children (almost half of all
Canadian children) who are exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular
basis (1991)?

<URL:http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm>

The notion that it takes an entire lifetime of exposure to cause harm
is absurd -- many of these children are already having adverse health
effects.

> Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes on
> cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.

How very generous of the smokers!

Alan
--
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~g1gros

[Allan P]

Well put.

Alan Grosskurth wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>>When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
>>was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
>>we would be paying for our future hopsital use.
>
>
> No, the reasoning was that smokers would purchase cigarettes on the
> black market, avoiding the taxes and contributing nothing to health
> care costs.
>
>
>>My point, smoking isn't costing the government money.
>
>
> False. According to a 1991 Health Canada study, smokers cost society
> $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.
>
> <URL:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html>
>
>>Some claim that second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous.
>
>
> It's ridiculous to claim the _contrary_. The international consensus
> on cancer research conducted over the past decade has confirmed that
> second-hand smoke is a direct cause of lung cancer:
>
> <URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/lungcancer.html>
>
> Newer studies also identify a causal association between second-hand
> smoke exposure and breast cancer:
>
> <URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/breastcancer.html>
>
> Many other diseases such as heart disease, sudden infant death
> syndrome (SIDS), and nasal sinus cancer have also been linked with
> second-hand smoke.
>
>
>>It takes an entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of
>>second hand smoke.
>
>
> Please explain what you mean by ``willful exposure.'' Perhaps you are
> referring to the 2.8 million Canadian children (almost half of all
> Canadian children) who are exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular
> basis (1991)?
>
> <URL:http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm>
>
> The notion that it takes an entire lifetime of exposure to cause harm
> is absurd -- many of these children are already having adverse health
> effects.
>
>
>>Even if it did, smokers wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes on
>>cigarattes to pay for their future healthcare.
>
>
> How very generous of the smokers!
>
> Alan

[Mike C]

Very nice.

Easy way to score cool points, just agree with the majority without
adding anything.

Allan P wrote:
> Well put.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:
> Very nice.
>
> Easy way to score cool points, just agree with the majority without
> adding anything.

Easy way to come off as a petty, obnoxious troll who is distressed that
he's losing the argument. ;)

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

Petty? Obnoxious? A troll?

I usually take name calling to be a sign from someone who is distressed
that he's losing the argument.

Alan P was weclome to join the discussion, but by responding with one
line of agreement, well, it looked like he was just trying to be cool.


David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>> Very nice.
>>
>> Easy way to score cool points, just agree with the majority without
>> adding anything.
>
>
> Easy way to come off as a petty, obnoxious troll who is distressed that
> he's losing the argument. ;)
>

[Allan P]

I have my U of T degree for trying to look cool :)

My one line of agreement was because I was too lazy to dig up all the
articles and numbers to refute your argument. I could've pretty much
said the same thing but what is the point in doint that?

Mike C wrote:

> Alan P was weclome to join the discussion, but by responding with one
> line of agreement, well, it looked like he was just trying to be cool.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:
> Petty? Obnoxious? A troll?

I call 'em as I see 'em, friend.

> I usually take name calling to be a sign from someone who is distressed
> that he's losing the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Seems like pretty accurate description of that post. :)

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In the context of the Internet, a troll is a message that seems to at
least one user to be inaccurate, inflammatory or hostile, which by
effect or design causes a disruption in discourse. The word is also
often used to describe a person posting such messages.

"to at least one user"

by that definition, I can say that you are a troll.

[David Warde-Farley]

Mike C wrote:

> "to at least one user"
>
> by that definition, I can say that you are a troll.

Perhaps, but a response to a troll yelling "Troll!" is a much less
likely candidate for being considered trolling.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Mike C]

Alan Grosskurth wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
>
>>When cigarette taxes started getting out of control, there
>>was little outcry from the smoking community, as the reasoning was that
>>we would be paying for our future hopsital use.
>
>
> No, the reasoning was that smokers would purchase cigarettes on the
> black market, avoiding the taxes and contributing nothing to health
> care costs.
>
>
>>My point, smoking isn't costing the government money.
>
>
> False. According to a 1991 Health Canada study, smokers cost society
> $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.
>
> <URL:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html>

So then they should raise taxes on cigarretes. I wouldn't object so long
as I was convinced the money was going to healthcare.

>>Some claim that second hand smoke causes harm, but that is ridiculous.
>
>
> It's ridiculous to claim the _contrary_. The international consensus
> on cancer research conducted over the past decade has confirmed that
> second-hand smoke is a direct cause of lung cancer:
>
> <URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/lungcancer.html>
>
> Newer studies also identify a causal association between second-hand
> smoke exposure and breast cancer:
>
> <URL:http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/breastcancer.html>
>
> Many other diseases such as heart disease, sudden infant death
> syndrome (SIDS), and nasal sinus cancer have also been linked with
> second-hand smoke.
>
>
>>It takes an entire lifetime of _willful_ exposure to mass amounts of
>>second hand smoke.
>
>
> Please explain what you mean by ``willful exposure.'' Perhaps you are
> referring to the 2.8 million Canadian children (almost half of all
> Canadian children) who are exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular
> basis (1991)?
>
> <URL:http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm>


> The notion that it takes an entire lifetime of exposure to cause harm
> is absurd -- many of these children are already having adverse health
> effects.

Yes, smoking around children is bad. That doesn't mean every restraunt
has to be smoke free because a stupid parent might bring their child
into it.

[Alan Grosskurth]

I wrote:
> Mike C wrote:
> > My point, smoking isn't costing the government money.
>
> False. According to a 1991 Health Canada study, smokers cost society
> $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.
>
> <URL:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html>

Mike, I apologize for characterizing your statement as ``false.'' You
have, in fact, made a good point: There does seems to be significant
evidence indicating that smoking doesn't cost the _government_ money.
(Tim, thanks for pointing this out.)

Smith Timothy James wrote:
> By this logic, hippies, the wealthy, and people who live on communes
> should all be outlawed, since they don't make net fiscal
> contributions to society at large (that is, society is not profiting
> off of them).

Tim, I agree that an activity should not be _outlawed_ solely because
it makes a negative net fiscal contribution to society; however, it
does seem like this could be reasonable grounds for _discouraging_
such an activity among the population (taking into account other
factors as well).

Cheers,
Alan
--
http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/~g1gros

[Smith Timothy James]

Hi Alan,

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan Grosskurth wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Mike C wrote:
> > > My point, smoking isn't costing the government money.
> >
> > False. According to a 1991 Health Canada study, smokers cost society
> > $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.
> >
> > <URL:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html>
>
> Mike, I apologize for characterizing your statement as ``false.'' You
> have, in fact, made a good point: There does seems to be significant
> evidence indicating that smoking doesn't cost the _government_ money.
> (Tim, thanks for pointing this out.)

Just doing my part to spread science :)


>
> Smith Timothy James wrote:
> > By this logic, hippies, the wealthy, and people who live on communes
> > should all be outlawed, since they don't make net fiscal
> > contributions to society at large (that is, society is not profiting
> > off of them).
>
> Tim, I agree that an activity should not be _outlawed_ solely because
> it makes a negative net fiscal contribution to society; however, it
> does seem like this could be reasonable grounds for _discouraging_
> such an activity among the population (taking into account other
> factors as well).

If you recall, the "negative net fiscal contribution to society" was in
the form of some $10.5 billion in "lost future income caused by premature
death". The study makes no mention of who would be making this "lost
future income" had the smokers not met their premature end; in my humble
opinion it is most likely sum of the future contributions to the GDP that
persons dying of smoke-related factors would have made had they not died
before the average age of mortality in Canada (rather than go through life
on an assumption, I have e-mailed the author of the report, and pasted the
text of my e-mail below. We may know for sure real soon now.) If this is
the case, it once again becomes a matter of personal choice, as far as
fiscal contributions to society is concerned.

My point here is, the fiscal cost of smokers to "society" is _not_
reasonable grounds to ban or discourage smoking amongst the populace. As
has been shown (by the very source you originally cited) smokers make a
_net_ financial contribution to the government, even after paying for
government programs that discourage smoking.

The reality of the situation is that smoking is _already_ highly
discouraged. The potential damage to the non-smoking populace (which is,
as of yet, still somewhat unproven by any serious study) is mitigated by
our current no-indoor-smoking laws. Persons who cite "costs to society" as
an argument for a complete smoking ban (a group to which you thankfully do
not belong) are actually attacking the concepts of personal freedom and
personal responsibility. How could anyone reconcile such a motive with
"advancing your best interests", whether you smoke or not?

Here's the text of my e-mail to Mr. Kaiserman, the author of the 1997
study:
=========
Dear Mr. Kaiserman,

An interesting discussion has arisen on one of my university's discussion
boards regarding your 1997 report, "The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991"
(found on the WWW at
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html). In it, you
state that "In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were
[...] $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death."

There seems to be some confusion as to how you arrived at this $10.5
billion figure. If you would be so kind as to clarify your methodology, I
would like to post your reply (unedited, and with your permission) to the
board to settle this part of the dispute.

With gratitude,

Tim Smith
Student, Computer Science
University of Toronto
========

Cheers,
Tim

[Smith Timothy James]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, David Warde-Farley wrote:
[snip]
> Indeed there are, like smoking! Thankfully the province is taking action
> to stem this reckless behaviour that costs Ontario taxpayers millions.
> You should be thrilled.
[snip again]
> Yet you seem to have a huge problem with anti-smoking legislation,
> despite the fact that the cost of the "letting people smoke" idea is so
> high. Do I smell a hypocrite? :)


I thought it had been shown (although ignored by the anit-smoking
movement) that the "smokers cost more to society" argument had no merit:
people with smoking-related health problems tend to die off earlier in
life, and hence don't require old-age/health care/social assistance to the
extent required by their non-smoking companions. So, while smoking may
"[cost] Ontario taxpayers millions", leading a healthy life costs them
more. Once again, the law on unintended consequences rears its head.

Cheers,
Tim

[David Warde-Farley]

Smith Timothy James wrote:

> I thought it had been shown (although ignored by the anit-smoking
> movement) that the "smokers cost more to society" argument had no merit:
> people with smoking-related health problems tend to die off earlier in
> life, and hence don't require old-age/health care/social assistance to the
> extent required by their non-smoking companions. So, while smoking may
> "[cost] Ontario taxpayers millions", leading a healthy life costs them
> more. Once again, the law on unintended consequences rears its head.

If Health Canada is to be believed, then this doesn't amount to "evening
out" - see Alan Grosskurth's earlier post for details.

--
David Warde-Farley
CSSU Vice-President
david dot warde dot farley at utoronto.ca

[Smith Timothy James]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> If Health Canada is to be believed, then this doesn't amount to "evening
> out" - see Alan Grosskurth's earlier post for details.

I went to the site Alan cited:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html

It turned out to be quite a chuckle. In the first paragraph of the
Abstract, the study says:

"In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5
billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion
for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million
due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by
premature death."


$10.5 billion due to lost future income! So, out of the "about $15
billion" that smokers cost society, $10.5 billion of it is imaginary
money? How very scientific.

If the paper were truely going for accuracy, it would also take into
account "gained future social insurance savings caused by premature
death", or have to admit that the hard facts show that smokers are
actually responsible for a $4-5 billion-a-year profit to society.
Unfortunately, accuracy does not seem to be a goal of Health Canada or the
anti-smoking movement.

Tim

[Smith Timothy James]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Smith Timothy James wrote:
> If the paper were [truly] going for accuracy, it would also take into
> account "gained future social insurance savings caused by premature
> death", or have to admit that the hard facts show that smokers are
> actually responsible for a $4-5 billion-a-year profit to society.
> Unfortunately, accuracy does not seem to be a goal of Health Canada or the
> anti-smoking movement.

I read through the end of the paper, and found that it does take into
account "avoided costs":

"Nevertheless, had there been a tobacco-free society, the smokers who had
died in 1991 would have lived longer, on average, and ultimately would
have cost society for such services as pensions, medical care and
residential care. Except for pensions, these "avoided" costs were
estimated to be about $1.5 billion. Thus, overall, smokers cost Canadian
society just under $15 billion in 1991.

These estimates are, of course, neither totally accurate nor complete.
For example, future costs of pensions are not included because current
federal government policy to make pensions self-financing makes their
inclusion in this calculation uncertain."


What's more, the paper deals with the cost to Canadian "society", not the
Candian government. Near the end of the paper, it admits:

"Excluding lost income (which costs individuals and not governments) and
disability (which incurs costs for the employer), the cost of smoking for
governments was about $2.3 billion in health care costs (including
residential care) and an additional $96 million in lost income taxes from
smokers who died in 1991. The latter number is estimated by assuming that,
on average, those smokers who died in 1991 earned one half of their income
at a tax rate of 19.8%. Even with this latter amount included, the
result is that smokers paid in more than they took out by about $5.4
billion."

That's $5.4 billion in one year, folks.

So, what the paper is really saying is that "society" as a whole loses
out when smokers die (because dead people don't buy anything), and
therefore people should stop smoking (ironically, it's common to hear
anti-smokers say "I don't care if you kill _yourself_ smoking, but...").
By this logic, hippies, the wealthy, and people who live on communes
should all be outlawed, since they don't make net fiscal contributions to
society at large (that is, society is not profiting off of them).


Cheers,
Tim