It's NOT Different... The LIMITATIONS that exist, are invented by the Owner.

I was referring to PRIVATE business's, and your suggestion that if they allow TOBACCO SMOKING ZONES at all, then medical marijuana patients should be aloud to medicate cannabis in those zones, which by definition makes the ONLY spot to smoke your medical cannabis on private business's property is tobacco smoking zones.

Of course Steve Gibson can smoke at all his friends houses, a dozen other bars and restaurants, on 90% of the land mass of Canada, is his shed, BUT not in his own house, and not in front of Ted Kindos Business...



This was supposed to be about Private Business's, specifically Licensed Bars and Restaurants, Not experimental disobedient retail revolutionaries. And I've given you tones of proof that many of them allow tobacco smokers to puff outside the door, but have RULES AGAINST smoking cannabis outside the front door.

Plus, your first suggestion that med-necessity pot users can smoke now in the tobacco friendly places is wrong. The fact that BYOB cafes & Vapor Lounges are your only example of a private business speaks volumes to everyone here.

When I read "certain" compassion clubs I figured I'd have to say something, but it seems obvious... and then you say "residences where people don't like tobacco" as if only people who don't like tobacco let med-necessity pot users can smoke in their homes...

I would suggest that any business owner should be able to decide if they have smoking zones at all, both indoors and out, and can limit or allow tobacco, cannabis, cigars, coltsfoot, etc, as they wish...

"I keep telling you what Szasz has to say about that, that the tyranny of the doctors will make us yearn for the good old day when we had the tyranny of the priests. "

Gibson isn't arguing for doctors as gatekeepers ... he's arguing for doctors as buffers for cold-hearted cops and shopkeepers.

"This was supposed to be about Private Business's, specifically Licensed Bars and Restaurants, Not experimental disobedient retail revolutionaries."

The way you asked the question did not make that obvious. The way you asked the question made it seem like tobacco smoking zones would be the only places and no other places would be allowed.

"I would suggest that any business owner should be able to decide if they have smoking zones at all, both indoors and out, and can limit or allow tobacco, cannabis, cigars, coltsfoot, etc, as they wish..."

If business owners can't tell a nursing mom to put her tit back in her shirt, what makes you think he or she can tell a med-necessity pot user to walk thirty meters away?

Business owners are not ALL-POWERFUL. Their power has LIMITS.

And if that tit is in a business owners smoking zone? “We’ve had reports of women breastfeeding in smoking areas,” says Saloojee health24.com

"And if that tit is in a business owners smoking zone? “We’ve had reports of women breastfeeding in smoking areas,” says Saloojee health24.com"

The difference between Gibson smoking his pot and a breast-feeding mom subjecting her baby to second-hand smoke is that Gibson is harmless and the mom is placing her baby at risk of cancer unnecessarily.

None of that subtracts away from the argument that property owners who open businesses to the public are NOT all powerful.

They can't limit breast-feeding moms. Or black people. Or homosexuals. Or Jews. Or medical necessity cannabis users.

Women have the right to walk down the street showing their tits all the time if they like. They won that right too.

But just because they have the right does not mean that it is the right thing to do.

Forcing someone to look at your tits because you choose to feed your baby in public is an ugly thing to do too. That doesn't stop some women from having to flash their tits every time they get a chance just to satisfy the exibitionist in them.

Most women do not bare their tits in public no matter how hungry the kid is. The kid will not starve in whatever time it takes to find somewhere private.

Women should not have the right to show their tits on someone else's private property and you are making the case that Human Rights Commission do nothing except destroy private property rights as well as freedom of association.



That is absolutly true. Their "power" extends only on the property they own. Gator Ted could care less what Steve Gibson does on public property or on his own property.



Well, throught the magic of the Commercial Properties Act, the King of England can blow through that tenement any old time he pleases with an army of bureaucrats that can dictate pretty well every aspect of what behaviors are and are not permitted.

The power of the property owner has always been limited.

It is the power of the state that has no limits and some people called libertarian socialists like it that way.

Too bad so sad, said persons don't seem to like it when these same government bureacrats come down to his property and dicate what he can and cannot do on that property because he does not believe others should be able to inflict their morals on him.

But the hypocrisy of supporting those very same government officials dictating what goes on on someone else's property is just fine.

You are getting a taste of your own medicine.

It is either going to be you who is master over your own property or it will be the state.

When the state can tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property then you are a serf.

The Commercial Properties Act is the Orwellian legislation that creates a third class of property.

The Incorporations Act is the Orwellian legislation that creates a person out of companies.

If you support the commerical properties act then you should keep your mouth shut when other support incorporation act.

The state either has the right to dictate what you do with your property or they do not.

I support the state not having the power to legislate lies into truth.

You support the state legislating lies into truth when it sqaures with your morals.

Your no better than the other statists who worship at the altar of the state.


I would urge anybody reading along to be very suspicious of people who strongly support having no freedom of association.

I already know what kind of a world with no liberty that you support.

It is good that you show your true colors as a total statist with no respect for liberty or a single one of it's tenets.

Is it worth destroying the freedom of association so women can show their tits in Gator Teds? (they already have the right to walk around bare breasted in public so that is not a concern)

Is it worth destroying the freedom of association so that Steve Gibson can force himself on Gator Ted?

We can separate the wheat from the chaff by having you answer this one question,

1) is the state your master or your servant?

Everything you write would indicate you want the state to be your master. Well the state is your master and is criminalizing you for things that are not crimes.

The state would make a criminal out of Gator Ted too.

What can I say? If you support the state making a criminal out of Gator Ted, then you are also supporting the state making a criminal out of you.

What can I say? The state passed a law and made a crime out of things that are not crimes in both cases in my opinion.

That you can support the criminalization of Gator Ted is beyond hypocrisy.

Do you think Gator Ted ought to be criminalized for refusing Steve Gibson?

I don't think Steve Gibson has a case at all. Steve Gibson is a medical serf and he likes being a serf and wants to see everybody else be a serf too.

What I don't understand is why you are fighting for serfdom for Gator Ted while fighting for liberty for yourself?

Question 2.

2) Those drugs the police took away from the Herb school David, who's property were they? The governments? Yours? The owners of the herb school?

The courts most certainly will be interested in who's property that cannabis was.

Whoever claims that property will be criminalized.

So like it or don't like it what you are fighting for is your right to own those drugs as the valuable property that they are.

Property rights must be absolute for liberty and justice to rule.

The owners of the Herb school ought to be the masters of what goes on on that property just as Gator Ted ought to be master of what goes on on his property.

You have no problem seeing that everything the Incorporation Act supports is a lie.

How can you be so blind as to believe that the Commerical Properties Act is somehow truth?

"But just because they have the right does not mean that it is the right thing to do."

As long as we both agree that property owners can't force harmless people to alter their activities because the owners or their customers are "offended", then that's the point I was trying to make. I'm glad to hear you've come around to my way of thinking.

"1) is the state your master or your servant?"

Currently the state is my servant in theory and attempts to be my master in practice.

In an ideal world, I would be co-governing along with 30 million or so Canadians.




"Question 2. 2) Those drugs the police took away from the Herb school David, who's property were they? The governments? Yours? The owners of the herb school?"

I'll answer as if you asked me about the Harm Reduction Club and the pot that was stolen by police, as the Herb School trial is upcoming and I do wish to force the state to make it's case.

The drugs the police stole from me in 1996 and again in 1997 were mine.

That is silly. In every reply to you I would mention many other places Gibson can smoke. BUT not in his own house, and not in front of Ted Kindos Business...



What? you just contradicted your own argument, by using mine... That's not fair... lol...

So just to be clear, your answer was YES, A business owner can tell a nursing mom to put her tit back in her shirt, if that tit is in a business owners smoking zone?

I got it now...

Gibson is subjecting himself to second-hand smoke and placing himself at risk of cancer unnecessarily on private property.