OT: The Newer OT Thread III and Lounge

[joestevens29]

pop is ****in garbage

except for blackberry ginger ale, and pomegranate san pellegrino

but seriously though pop is terrible

I kinda agree. I don't even know the last time I drank pop without booze

 

[SK13]

Someone has set my apartment building on fire three times in the last two months. Good times. And by good times, I mean what the ****.

If nothing else, this post will be an interesting experiment to see if any other HFOil member lives in my building

 

[Gord]

Someone has set my apartment building on fire three times in the last two months. Good times. And by good times, I mean what the ****.

If nothing else, this post will be an interesting experiment to see if any other HFOil member lives in my building

wow. that's brutal.

 

[joestevens29]

Someone has set my apartment building on fire three times in the last two months. Good times. And by good times, I mean what the ****.

If nothing else, this post will be an interesting experiment to see if any other HFOil member lives in my building

Well I don't leave in that building. My question is what sort of fire are we talking about? Not that any fire is good

 

[Replacement*]

Someone has set my apartment building on fire three times in the last two months. Good times. And by good times, I mean what the ****.

If nothing else, this post will be an interesting experiment to see if any other HFOil member lives in my building

Case of serial arson?

I'd consider moving or have already been packed up by then. Why stay? Or do you own this?

The reason I ask the first question is that some individuals have a pathological will to start fires and can often get fixated on targets. Not sure how security cameras would not have picked up more on the perp(s) if it is indeed arson.

 

[joestevens29]

Case of serial arson?

I'd consider moving or have already been packed up by then. Why stay? Or do you own this?

The reason I ask the first question is that some individuals have a pathological will to start fires and can often get fixated on targets. Not sure how security cameras would not have picked up more on the perp(s) if it is indeed arson.

Not having them could be the issue. The other issue is even with cameras all you have is a picture which sometimes means nothing. We had an issue with people leaving garbage in the elevator. Took 3 months to figure out who the person was as no one knew who the guy was.

And that was for someone who lived in the building.

 

[Replacement*]

Random observation.

Robert Downey;

"I'll kill braincells with any drug and narcotic I can get my hands on for decades and then be perfectly suited for any comic pablum movie requiring no thought or acting ability for the rest of my career". Every script will sound good, I'll refuse none, I'll be a big star..

Downey playing any character. Sound serious, twitching eyes and face, drums oddly playing in background everytime I talk, try not to have too many flashbacks, kill it on comic book portrayals for the rest of eternity. Especially ones with annoying internet adds..

 

[SK13]

Well I don't leave in that building. My question is what sort of fire are we talking about? Not that any fire is good

First two were pretty minor. We all left the building, but we were let back in within an hour.

Last one was dangerous. Medics had to treat some people for smoke inhalation, they had to clear the building, they ran hoses in, etc.

It was a while before we got let back in this time and it still smells smokey.

Case of serial arson?

I'd consider moving or have already been packed up by then. Why stay? Or do you own this?

The reason I ask the first question is that some individuals have a pathological will to start fires and can often get fixated on targets. Not sure how security cameras would not have picked up more on the perp(s) if it is indeed arson.

Well, there's some doubt that it's an arsonist.

The first fire was an accidental apartment fire, which only severely damaged one apartment. The second fire was someone throwing a lit cigarette down the garbage shoot and causing a fire that was isolated in the garbage room. This last one was far more serious. I haven't heard yet what exactly caused it. I suppose the most damning fact is that all three fires happened at about midnight.

I was planning on moving in the fall. I may have to think about leaving in June or July instead.

 

[Replacement*]

First two were pretty minor. We all left the building, but we were let back in within an hour.

Last one was dangerous. Medics had to treat some people for smoke inhalation, they had to clear the building, they ran hoses in, etc.

It was a while before we got let back in this time and it still smells smokey.



Well, there's some doubt that it's an arsonist.

The first fire was an accidental apartment fire, which only severely damaged one apartment. The second fire was someone throwing a lit cigarette down the garbage shoot and causing a fire that was isolated in the garbage room. This last one was far more serious. I haven't heard yet what exactly caused it.

I was planning on moving in the fall. I may have to think about leaving in June or July instead.

Sorry to hear about this needless hardship.

Unintentional smoking arsonists. Almost the worst kinds..


I've even had friends I had to scold not to discard cigarette butts in my deck planters as they wouldn't listen and would scoff everytime it was mentioned. AS if it isn't noticed after they leave. One guy I finally said fine, you don't want to respect my place or wishes about my property then good bye then.

Its to the point where non smokers should probably get rent and household insurance deductions.

 

[joestevens29]

Sorry to hear about this needless hardship.

Unintentional smoking arsonists. Almost the worst kinds..


I've even had friends I had to scold not to discard cigarette butts in my deck planters as they wouldn't listen and would scoff everytime it was mentioned. AS if it isn't noticed after they leave. One guy I finally said fine, you don't want to respect my place or wishes about my property then good bye then.

Its to the point where non smokers should probably get rent and household insurance deductions.

I can't wait for the day that they ban smoking from apartment complexes. If people really are this stupid then they should have their privileges taken away.

 

[The Head Crusher]

Was it at least enclosed in amber or formaldehyde or was it a rotting smelling pustule to really freak the kids out.

I'm betting it was in formaldehyde.


Anyway. This leads to the following hypothetical interview questions;


Principle; So what makes you qualified for this position as High School shop teacher?

Teacher: I cut my thumb off on a tablesaw because I wasn't looking at what I was doing.

Principle: We're you testing to see if the blade was sharp..

Teacher: Um, no, I have ADHD, my mind wanders, and I started thinking about happy hour.

Principle: Oh. We have a half position teaching the CALM course and supervising lunchroom.

Formaldehyde. We are also talking about the 1960's when my Dad had his as a teacher, ADHD wasn't a thing back then. Plus from what I recall this guy lost it in one of the old lumber camps back in the 20's or 30's where these types of injuries were alot more common.

 

[SK13]

We just had to clear out again. The anti-contamination devices the firefighters use to clear a building of smoke overheated the generator and caused a small fire.

Let the fun times roll!

I can't wait for the day that they ban smoking from apartment complexes. If people really are this stupid then they should have their privileges taken away.

Smoking in this building is technically not allowed, but how do you enforce that? You can't.

 

[harpoon]

Sorry to hear about your troubles SK13. I hope no one was seriously injured.

I can't wait for the day that they ban smoking from apartment complexes.

Wow. I'm glad I don't live in Canada anymore.
People so concerned about what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes.

If people really are this stupid then they should have their privileges taken away.

So now its a privilege to enjoy a smoke in your own home?
Here's a thought, perhaps the person who caused the fire was drunk as a ****ing skunk. I have never in my life heard of a sober person starting a fire with a cigarette.
Can't wait till they ban drinking from apartment complexes.

 

[joestevens29]

Sorry to hear about your troubles SK13. I hope no one was seriously injured.

Wow. I'm glad I don't live in Canada anymore.
People so concerned about what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes.
So now its a privilege to enjoy a smoke in your own home?
Here's a thought, perhaps the person who caused the fire was drunk as a ****ing skunk. I have never in my life heard of a sober person starting a fire with a cigarette.
Can't wait till they ban drinking from apartment complexes.

Maybe because you don't live in Canada anymore that's why. People are just morons, they don't realize that putting a cigarette out in a potted plant is a horrible idea.

And yes I'm concerned about what people do in their own homes when it can cause me to lose my home. There have been a lot of these fires in Edmonton the past bunch of the years and a lot of severe ones.

 

[Gord]

Sorry to hear about your troubles SK13. I hope no one was seriously injured.

Wow. I'm glad I don't live in Canada anymore.
People so concerned about what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes.
So now its a privilege to enjoy a smoke in your own home?
Here's a thought, perhaps the person who caused the fire was drunk as a ****ing skunk. I have never in my life heard of a sober person starting a fire with a cigarette.
Can't wait till they ban drinking from apartment complexes.

well if they are renting, it isn't their own home, really. I see no problem with a building owner setting the rules regarding smoking. you don't like it, leave and find a smoking apartment.

and I've seen idiot sober people put out their smokes in things like planters. inconsiderate ignorant people are not always drunk.

 

[harpoon]

well if they are renting, it isn't their own home, really. I see no problem with a building owner setting the rules regarding smoking. you don't like it, leave and find a smoking apartment.

Obviously people are responsible to live by the rules that are stipulated within their lease. If you sign a non-smoking lease you don't get to smoke.

What we have above is quite different though. Someone is making the hysterical suggestion that smoking should be 'banned from apartment complexes'. That sounds like the kind of thing that would infringe on a lot of people's rights, if smokers had any rights left that is. I guess enjoying a smoke in the privacy of your own home is really more of a 'privilege' nowadays in Canada.

Don't worry though, a few more years and I'm sure Canadians will be able to sleep soundly knowing that nobody in their building is enjoying their right to inhale the smoke of their choice. And of course that will mean that everyone's home is now safe from damage or destruction due to fire. Because we all know that only inconsiderate smokers cause fires.

ignorant people are not always drunk.

Not always, but I'd lay down money that the large percentage of fires started by careless smoking also involved someone who was too drunk to even see the difference between a potted plant and an ashtray.

 

[Replacement*]

Sorry to hear about your troubles SK13. I hope no one was seriously injured.

Wow. I'm glad I don't live in Canada anymore.
People so concerned about what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes.
So now its a privilege to enjoy a smoke in your own home?
Here's a thought, perhaps the person who caused the fire was drunk as a ****ing skunk. I have never in my life heard of a sober person starting a fire with a cigarette.
Can't wait till they ban drinking from apartment complexes.

With all due respect you are wrong on this one. Cigarettes sold in Canada contain an accelerant that causes them to continue to burn and they don't go out even if the cigarette is left unattended, the person falls asleep, forgets about the cigarette etc. Even cigarette butts thought to be put out sometimes continue to smoulder. Certainly cigarettes just flung away, as seemingly 50% of smokers here do be it whether they are walking, driving a car, etc, are going to continue to be burning.

Anytime I rake my lawn in the spring I find 50 cigarette butts. Most of them looking like they haven't even been put out. (not even crumpled butts) just left there, as any other homeowner contends with the garbage left each spring. We go walking commonly in the river valley and parks. Virtually any park bench in Edmonton you see 100 cigarette butts within a one yard vicinity.

now note that the local climate has changed significantly. Central Albertas precipitation has been alarmingly low for decades now and with increasingly dry conditions. Grass fires, forest fires (often caused by discarded cigarettes) started in March this year. Because for one thing there hasn't been snow cover since February here. Until some recent rain grasses have been so dry they are tinder waiting to catch fire. Its this element that the average smoking ignoramus feels is a perfectly fine substrate in which to toss their cigarette. Which in the case of my front lawn happens to be my property. Which I don't want set on fire.

Now maybe its not all smokers that are like this, and no one is saying it is the case, but a large proportion of smokers here consider the world as their own personal ashtray. Maybe if people stopped doing that others wouldn't be moved to want to licence their behavior.

Now I have actually lobbied to have accelerant in tobacco banned in Canada. Because that's a real issue. But nothing gets done on it and the tobacco companies don't want that. They want cigarettes that self burn right to the butt whether they are being smoked or not. Which is a large part o the fire hazard.

 

[Replacement*]

well if they are renting, it isn't their own home, really. I see no problem with a building owner setting the rules regarding smoking. you don't like it, leave and find a smoking apartment.

and I've seen idiot sober people put out their smokes in things like planters. inconsiderate ignorant people are not always drunk.

Yep. This is not at all unsubstantiated either. Smokers cause a lot of fires around the world. They start a lot of fires around the world. This being just one of the very harmful aspects of smoking, For any society to be concerned about that is valid.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000807064005.htm

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...he-most-deadly-cause-of-house-fire-fatalities

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/smoking-materials


Maybe if smokers don't want their *rights* impinged on they should not be such a notable hazard to themselves and others.

 

[joestevens29]

With all due respect you are wrong on this one. Cigarettes sold in Canada contain an accelerant that causes them to continue to burn and they don't go out even if the cigarette is left unattended, the person falls asleep, forgets about the cigarette etc. Even cigarette butts thought to be put out sometimes continue to smoulder. Certainly cigarettes just flung away, as seemingly 50% of smokers here do be it whether they are walking, driving a car, etc, are going to continue to be burning.

Anytime I rake my lawn in the spring I find 50 cigarette butts. Most of them looking like they haven't even been put out. (not even crumpled butts) just left there, as any other homeowner contends with the garbage left each spring. We go walking commonly in the river valley and parks. Virtually any park bench in Edmonton you see 100 cigarette butts within a one yard vicinity.

Now maybe its not all smokers that are like this, and no one is saying it is the case, but a large proportion of smokers hear consider the world as their own personal ashtray. Maybe if people stopped doing that others wouldn't be moved to want to licence their behavior.

Now I have actually lobbied to have accelerant in tobacco banned in Canada. Because that's a real issue. But nothing gets done on it and the tobacco companies don't want that. They want cigarettes that self burn right to the butt whether they are being smoked or not. Which is a large part o the fire hazard.

I don't know what kind smokes they are but my one buddy who smokes something in a gold package said they changed their smokes to go out sooner. He's constantly lighting his cigarette as he isn't a very quick smoker. With that being said I don't know that it's 100%, just they will go out quicker than other brands.

 

[Avenger*]

Not only that but as tax payers a large chunk of health care goes to aid in completely preventable illnesses and diseases caused by smoking. I get that it's a personal freedom to decide to smoke but smokers should have to by law purchase a special type of health insurance to cover these costs if/when they are needed. Similar to legally mandated car insurance. I don't see why I should have to help foot a bill that is completely preventable due to someone's personal decision while knowing the consequences in advance.

 

[harpoon]

With all due respect you are wrong on this one. Cigarettes sold in Canada contain an accelerant that causes them to continue to burn and they don't go out even if the cigarette is left unattended, the person falls asleep, forgets about the cigarette etc. Even cigarette butts thought to be put out sometimes continue to smoulder. Certainly cigarettes just flung away, as seemingly 50% of smokers here do be it whether they are walking, driving a car, etc, are going to continue to be burning.
Now I have actually lobbied to have accelerant in tobacco banned in Canada. Because that's a real issue. But nothing gets done on it and the tobacco companies don't want that. They want cigarettes that self burn right to the butt whether they are being smoked or not. Which is a large part o the fire hazard.

OK. Not a scientist so I'll just stipulate to all of that even though I have no idea if its true or not. Bad bad Big Tobacco.

Anytime I rake my lawn in the spring I find 50 cigarette butts. Most of them looking like they haven't even been put out. (not even crumpled butts) just left there, as any other homeowner contends with the garbage left each spring. We go walking commonly in the river valley and parks. Virtually any park bench in Edmonton you see 100 cigarette butts within a one yard vicinity.

Again, agreed. The whole world has a littering problem, why would smokers be any different? Its disgusting.

None of that has anything to do with my post at all, so I'm not sure on which parts you think I was 'wrong'. I was very specific in addressing only the part of joe's post that I disagreed with - the part that says 'enjoying a smoke in your own home is a privilege'. I don't even disagree with your earlier comment that non-smokers should receive a discount on homeowners insurance because a discount would reflect a reasonable view of the (slightly) disproportionate risk in insuring a smoker vs a non-smoker.
Its another thing altogether to infer that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in their own homes, assuming they haven't signed a non-smoking lease. Are you in favor of that? Not potted plants, your lawn, etc. Should a Canadian have the right to smoke in their own dwelling without fear of persecution by the anti-smoking police.

Maybe if people stopped doing that others wouldn't be moved to want to licence their behavior.

Don't you find it interesting that everyone is getting more rights, and society is becoming more relaxed on almost every front, except for the smokers (in NA) who just keep getting hammered. I mean its still OK to advertise alcohol on HNIC ffs but not the demon weed, that shiot has to be wrapped in black and hidden under a counter somewhere. Hell no.

Go talk to a cop and ask them which substance causes more problems, deaths, damage etc as observed by him/her in the course of performing his/her duties. Its not even close. And now weed is going to be legal too. Its just a matter of time. Well, most people smoke weed, so isn't that just going to increase the number of dangerous smoking accidents in apartment complexes? And if we are really serious about the reasons most people dislike smoking (bad smell, bad air quality, bad health) then why in the **** would Canada be rushing headlong to sign everyone up to weed smoking?

I mean its as consistent as NHL refs, which is to say

 

[Replacement*]

OK. Not a scientist so I'll just stipulate to all of that even though I have no idea if its true or not. Bad bad Big Tobacco.
Again, agreed. The whole world has a littering problem, why would smokers be any different? Its disgusting.

WEll, cigarettes are more disgusting because they start countless fires.

None of that has anything to do with my post at all, so I'm not sure on which parts you think I was 'wrong'. I was very specific in addressing only the part of joe's post that I disagreed with - the part that says 'enjoying a smoke in your own home is a privilege'

But taken in context, and with the OP already identifying that one of the fires started in his apartment was specifically due to a smoker tossing a butt and you responding with never having known of a smoker not drunk starting a fire your rebuttal was open to criticism. Was your own personal anecdote of never knowing a fire started by a sober smoker wrong? Well, not technically, but the inference one can take from your post in the context it was posted was it seemed you were using that as a pretext argument, to a conclusion that would be wrong. Not saying you did that or any intent, just a natural response in context to what you wrote.

I don't even disagree with your earlier comment that non-smokers should receive a discount on homeowners insurance because a discount would reflect a reasonable view of the (slightly) disproportionate risk in insuring a smoker vs a non-smoker

. Thanks for clarifying.

Its another thing altogether to infer that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in their own homes, assuming they haven't signed a non-smoking lease. Are you in favor of that? Not potted plants, your lawn, etc. Should a Canadian have the right to smoke in their own dwelling without fear of persecution by the anti-smoking police.

I'm too libertarian for lack of better words to be in favor of that. But with the already stated proviso that if a smoker is a smoker they've agreed to be statistically associated and dealt with on that basis. For instance landlords potentially saying no, payng extra rent, being required to pay not only home insurance but Public liability insurance if renting in a communal abode. I'm also a fan of progressive taxation and people having to pay their share, health care costs etc.

Don't you find it interesting that everyone is getting more rights, and society is becoming more relaxed on almost every front, except for the smokers (in NA) who just keep getting hammered. I mean its still OK to advertise alcohol on HNIC ffs but not the demon weed, that shiot has to be wrapped in black and hidden under a counter somewhere. Hell no.

I think I've stopped trying to see society as a logical imperative long ago. I somewhat suspect you have as well

Really the only presumption I can make is that people find second hand weed smoke more palatable than second hand smoke. I'm almost not even joking. Further, one is viewed as cool, one is viewed as lame, something your grandma does and with all the age related associated prejudice. Maybe if more grannies smoked weed the kids wouldn't want to...

Go talk to a cop and ask them which substance causes more problems, deaths, damage etc as observed by him/her in the course of performing his/her duties. Its not even close. And now weed is going to be legal too. Its just a matter of time. Well, most people smoke weed, so isn't that just going to increase the number of dangerous smoking accidents in apartment complexes? And if we are really serious about the reasons most people dislike smoking (bad smell, bad air quality, bad health) then why in the **** would Canada be rushing headlong to sign everyone up to weed smoking?

Well, your preaching to the choir here. I have the same purview in my profession as police and know well the concerns you speak of. Where goest though? Yeah, pandoras box is opening. Wonder how long before opium dens and fentanyl free depots and such exist. you know my opinion on the pharmaceutical cartels as well, lol. Not just illegal narcotics that are a problem.

I mean its as consistent as NHL refs, which is to say

lol A microcosm of society. Modern day leaders placating the public with whatever they deem will be popular in a Trump universe. I want to change the world channel. AT least the US or Canadian channel. How do I do that?

 

[harpoon]

Maybe if smokers don't want their *rights* impinged on they should not be such a notable hazard to themselves and others.

I'm not 'for' smoking. I'm for fairplay.

By any metric you want to select, booze costs society more than tobacco does. So until you and joe and Gord are willing to make the same statements about alcohol that you make about tobacco, then ... well you see my problem.

As for the oft repeated fallacy that smokers cost the healthcare system money, it couldn't possibly be true. First of all, nobody pays more tax than smokers - especially in Canada. Even a pack a day habit in Canada would equal several thousand dollars in tax over a single year. It is not the fault of smokers that the tax revenue derived from their consumption of a legal product is wasted by the government instead of being used to offset any medical costs created by the taxpayer. Have a look at these numbers. Most articles that claim smokers cost the system money make no effort at all to take into account the tax revenue generated by tobacco. Government isn't stupid though ... they see what a cash cow tobacco is. Why do you think they want to go ahead an legalize pot?

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

Second, many medical professionals now argue that smokers, drinkers and the obese actually save the system money by (in general) dying earlier and not becoming a long term burden on the system. A google search turns up many articles supporting this claim.

And finally, people have a right to smoke in their own homes because Canada is supposed to be a free country where the enjoyment of legal pursuits should not be infringed on by folks who think being a 'notable hazard' is reason enough.

 

[Replacement*]

I'm not 'for' smoking. I'm for fairplay.

By any metric you want to select, booze costs society more than tobacco does. So until you and joe and Gord are willing to make the same statements about alcohol that you make about tobacco, then ... well you see my problem.

As for the oft repeated fallacy that smokers cost the healthcare system money, it couldn't possibly be true. First of all, nobody pays more tax than smokers - especially in Canada. Even a pack a day habit in Canada would equal several thousand dollars in tax over a single year. It is not the fault of smokers that the tax revenue derived from their consumption of a legal product is wasted by the government instead of being used to offset any medical costs created by the taxpayer. Have a look at these numbers. Most articles that claim smokers cost the system money make no effort at all to take into account the tax revenue generated by tobacco. Government isn't stupid though ... they see what a cash cow tobacco is. Why do you think they want to go ahead an legalize pot?

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

Second, many medical professionals now argue that smokers, drinkers and the obese actually save the system money by (in general) dying earlier and not becoming a long term burden on the system. A google search turns up many articles supporting this claim.

And finally, people have a right to smoke in their own homes because Canada is supposed to be a free country where the enjoyment of legal pursuits should not be infringed on by folks who think being a 'notable hazard' is reason enough.

I understand the arguments and have probably been sensitive to various sides for sometime. I also understand the powers of lobby and interest groups and how powerful tobacco companies were. My take on the apparent imbalance between tobacco prohibition(if you will) and alcohol prohibition is of course time and space and with both industries being toppled at one time or another. I sense they both will remain and survive whatever societies latest finger pointing is.

Already acknowledging I'm a user pay advocate I don't mind more tariff for either habit. Excepting that tariffs so often end up as general revenue..

As far as the medical argument I've seen much more complicated analysis. One cannot simply state that because a person has died earlier they have cost society less in medical costs. In many cases, even perhaps most, that advent of significant medical cost and intervention just occurred earlier in life and with that person having worked less than a longer living person, paid less income tax, less CPP, less healthcare premium, etc.
Now add social costs of dying earlier through avoidable addiction and you have latent costs to society like what happens to the children of the deceased. What is the cost with them being reared without father/mother. What is the cost for society picking up the single parent livelihood tab or adoption or costs in quality of life for the smoker, drinker, and their loved ones.

Real costs vs just accounted costs. Viewing from those glasses nobody could argue that either smokers or drinkers pay their share.

 

[harpoon]

I said my piece. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just trying to fight that losing battle for consistency.

But taken in context, and with the OP already identifying that one of the fires started in his apartment was specifically due to a smoker tossing a butt

He stated that 'someone (threw) a lit cigarette down the garbage shoot (sic)'. That hardly sounds like a mistake. More like arson, or vandalism. I stand by my original assertion that the lion's share of accidental apartment complex fires caused by smoking would also involve alcohol as a contributing factor.

and you responding with never having known of a smoker not drunk starting a fire your rebuttal was open to criticism. Was your own personal anecdote of never knowing a fire started by a sober smoker wrong? Well, not technically, but the inference one can take from your post in the context it was posted was it seemed you were using that as a pretext argument, to a conclusion that would be wrong. Not saying you did that or any intent, just a natural response in context to what you wrote.

Is that the long way round to saying that I exaggerated? If so, yeah, I exaggerated. My bad. Obviously sober smokers sometimes cause fires. My coworker's wife burned their house to the ground about five years ago because she walked out for the day and left her oven on. Not a cigarette in sight. Accidents happen. I do not see why a lit cigarette should be considered any more of a hazard than any other item in a home that could potentially cause a fire.

I want to change the world channel. AT least the US or Canadian channel. How do I do that?

At this point I think there are no channels suitable for public viewing. But never mind that, if we can just stamp out those last few stubborn smokers enjoying the demon weed in the privacy of their own homes, imagine how much more of a shiny happy place Canada will be.