Comments:Calls for bottled water bans grow in Canada

Thank You Canada!

Critic article
An article I read making critique of the move, stating that people won't have portable water available at work, because they won't have any empty bottles to fill from their water taps. It's true that so far we get the bottles from these companies. I don't think of a bad future with no bottles, I think these same companies will focus on making bottles more eco friendly, they will respond to demand, simply. Logictheo (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I buy crates of mineral water in GLASS bottles, return them when they are empty and buy a new case. I avoid drinking tapped water, which usually has a bad taste of chlorine. There are countries where you can´t drink tapped water anyway. SAVE THE BOTTLED WATER ! As long as it is in glass bottles.

Rainer Ziegowski, Munich

This is ridiculous because it's the insane nanny-state at work. I Can't ride a bicycle on the sidewalk, can't drink bottled water, tell me not to smoke, tell me not to drink above X amount before I go home, etc.. Even if you accept utilitarian arguments, I heavily doubt the argument that states that the people who do these things are evil enough to warrant outright ban. Get a grip, stop being so childish, and live with the fact that some people may not want to do what you want to do. Fephisto (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting aside a ban on bottled water &mdash; which I think is stupid in the extreme &mdash; I'd like to see you say that about drunk drivers if one of them killed someone you loved while driving home. Or about bikers on pedestrian-only pathways when one of them makes a mistake and shoves you into the mud, or runs over you (cause the path wasn't designed for bikers + pedestrians, and is too narrow to accommodate both). If I get lung cancer because of YOUR smoking, am I allowed to kill you right back, any way I want? Cause you did it to me. Tit for tat, right? All that aside, I think that people should be able to do whatever they want, provided that they aren't interfering with others. If you want to smoke in your HOUSE (not apartment - house), then do so. It's no skin off my back, provided that you are banned from having health insurance so that you don't drive up my premiums. That affects me, therefore *I* have a say in it, as I should in everything that affects me.


 * I think what you're forgetting is that we live in a group. If you live by yourself, with no contact with anyone else, then sure, you can do whatever you want. But if you choose (and it is a choice) to live in a city, town, or village, instead of off in the middle of a forest somewhere (eating bark), then you have to compromise your will with that of everyone else. All relationships are made up of give and take, and a municipal relationship (or a national relationship), is no different than a marriage, a friendship, or even a roommate in this regard. You give and you take. And you compromise, cause that's what living with other people means. You let them squeeze the tube of toothpaste however they want even though it is annoying, cause it really doesn't have an effect on you. But if they don't wash their dishes? Then you can get mad, cause that affects you. And you have a right to a voice in anything that affects you. If you can't handle this, the compromising nature of the reality in which we live, then you truly have no place in the world. You have no choice except to become a hermit and live in the middle of nowhere. Gopher65talk 15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that people are starting to see the impact they can make and they have made on the environment as individuals. I know in the past that I've used my share of plastic water bottles, but from now on I'll do my very best to be like those people in London, Ontario who have agreed to forgo plastic water bottles for re-usable water bottles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.227.159 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This makes total sense. We've definitely reached the point where we need to put environmental issues above our own minor conveniences. Use a water filter at home to fill a re-usable water bottle. This will save money as well the environment in the long run and you still have safe water in a bottle. It's just that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.249.60 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to take in to account the fact of the fluoride in major cities drinking water. It is un-natural and does damage to the brain in doses. Yes there is very few ppm (parts per million)but after an extended period of time that intake of fluoride will cause harm to the body. If they ban bottled water which in some cases is the only source of pure water then we should also leave fluoride out of the drinking water aswell.
 * uhh... hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of bottled water is just water straight from the taps of major cities like London, England. It isn't any more "pure" than city water cause it *is* city water. Gopher65talk 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous precedent
This is a dangerous infringement on personal freedoms. What's next, no more milk in plastic bottles, no more soda? No more single servings of any kind? Limits to how many pairs of jeans it "reasonable" for one person to own? Should I be barred from drinking French wine, since wine is also made in other places closer to where I live? Should I buy an inferior digital camera just because it is made in my home country and has a smaller "ecological footprint"? These people should just recycle the plastic bottles and venture less into authoritarianism. --SVTCobra 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. If they are really anxious to do something about the waste caused by shipping water around the world for no good reason they can just slap a tax on it. Things shouldn't be banned unless they cause direct, measurable harm to other people on an individual level. Cause really, everything causes harm on a societal or planetary level. Just living does that. You can't ban things for spread-out damage. Gopher65talk 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning point
The next turning point will be when these governments fairly ban all bottled and canned beverage containers. Why discriminate against water?? At least their bottles have twist off tops and are frequently re-filled and reused by the consumer. But these wasteful cola cans and beer bottles are one time use with a throw away mentality. Hurry Canadian legislators, ban all canned and bottle beverages. Make the citizens truly green and require them to collect all their liquids in gourds!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.80.109 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bottled Water Fascism
I think it is wrong for government to ban bottled water. Where will it end? Perhaps soda pop will be banned because it is little more than sugared water. If I were a government official I would find out why customers like bottled water then I would try to produce tap water with the same qualities as the demanded bottled water. Maybe people want to avoid fluoride, chlorine, and waste medicines in the water. If you're a city official who fluoridates the city water, and people are buying unfluoridated bottled, then I would take the fluoride out of the water. But forcing people to drink tap is wrong, and I fear for what else the government will force upon us.

bottled water
never bought it never will. we use reusable cuntainors and a inhouse filter. way to go canada

Water bottle ban
I do agree that plastic water bottles are not the way to go, and am anxious to give mine up. I've just not found a substitute (where I am). I tried a metal car mug - then realized it has a plastic lid, went with a thermos but it was not practical to use. So, can anyone recommend an all metal water bottle (not aluminum)? Biking weather is hitting and I'll need a water bottle for long rides.