Good debate going on in the forums on the smoking bylaw started by FreeCanada.
At this point I am very concerned about the city’s new smoking bylaw. I should say for the record I am not a smoker and I have some health issues that make me more sensitive than the average person to cigarette smoke. I do not go to the bars/casinos/bingos anyways nor will I start to go after the bylaw is passed. My issues with it is one of personal freedom and the legal authority of our municipal gov’t. Whether we smoke or not the fact is smoking is a perfectly legal activity. The gov’t(fed and prov.) likes us to think they are against it but they in fact endorse the habit and profit hugely off of it(gov’t makes 7 times as much off smoking as the tobacco companies). People should have the right to enjoy this perfectly legal habit without undue limitations. Business owners have the right to decide if they want this perfectly legal habit in their business of not. Unfortunately, our municipal gov’t has once again decided it knows best for us and has decided we need protecting from a perfectly legal activity.
The part of the bylaw I really have a problem with is its broad definition of where one cannot smoke. It reads that smoking is prohibited in any building and it defines a building as a permanent or temporary structure or any part thereof, placed on, in, over or under land into which an individual can enter. The only exception I see is a Private living accommodation(i.e a house). This goes to far as it makes no references to private clubs, controlled smoking areas for employees or even places of businesses where the public has no access. What is next for city council in its quest to control our lives?
The non smoking bylaw, what do I think of it? I think it will be one of the best things the city council is trying to do. Smoking should be banned in all public areas including bars and bingo halls. My guess is that the people will not stop coming just because there is no smoking. As far as smoking around children, that is totally disgusting, making someone who does not even have a choice, subjecting them to second hand smoke. Totally inappropriate and selfish.
If non-smokers were all that “eager” to have a “smoke free” bar or bingo hall then the sheer demand for it would have precipitated someone opening “non-smoking” establishments. I guess the capitalist model for opportunity just fails us poor non-smokers.
Recreational establishments that limit age and post notice that they cater to “smoking” customers should be able to conduct their businesses free from government interference and fanatical control freaks.
The rationale of why people feel the need to abdicate their personal freedoms in favor of governmental control completely eludes me. Unless of course it makes it easier to cry victim when their own self control and personal judgment fails them.
What about my personal freedom to not have cancer causing substances around me or my children? What about my right to not have a greater chance for asthma attacks or other related problems? Your personal freedom to smoke causes ME harm. How fair is that?
Some issues brought up:
1. Hart, how does the bylaw protect children and the other truely innocent people affected by second hand smoke?
2. Sally, you have the freedom to choose not to enter a business. You in no way have the right to enter it, the owner does have property rights though. If your children are being exposed to cigarette smoke in public places I would suggest some serious lifestyle choices.
3 Anarchenisis, nice to see another non smoker stand up for invidual rights and personal accountabilty.
Hart: how do children not have a choice? Are they mindless automatons? They cannot learn that smoking is bad and ask someone not to do it, just as any adult could?
My children are not exposed to cigarette smoke in public places because there is a bylaw preventing that. Although if we choose to go to Smitty’s or Humpty’s they are exposed anyway. You can’t tell me that the door when it is wafting smoke into the rest of the restaurant every time a waitress walks into the smoking section!
By saying that I don’t have the right to enter a business are you suggesting myself (and all other non-smokers) should be banned from places that have smoking allowed? That sounds like segregation to me. What’s next, a tattoo or an armband identifying me as a non-smoker?
Sally, nobody has the right to enter a private business.
If non-smokers were all that “eager” to have a “smoke free” bar or bingo hall then the sheer demand for it would have precipitated someone opening “non-smoking” establishments.
Before Tim Hortons came out people used to line up their cars in “sheer demand” for their coffee - thats why a hockey player and friend decided to open drive through coffee service. - Actually thats not how business works - which entirely explains why it didnt happen as you ask. Non smokers vote with their absence and almost all of the consumer industries have bent to the sheer will of this large consumer group. The movie theater industry took exactly this stance in the 70’s, hotels, airlines and then restaurants and shopping malls. In fact sheer demand IS the driving force behind this proposed smoking ban. When dealing with issues of smoking there is little doubt we are referring to minority rights. Remeber smoking was so ingrained in western culture and society, so heavily backed by advertising and lawmakers and lobby groups that it has been a demonstration of sheer consumer and public will to bring about the kind of smoking changes we have seen in the last 25 years. There is certainly demand from non smokers to utilize a business currently blocked to those who dont tolerate ETS and its harmfull effects. Harvard did a study on bars and businesses when Massachusetts went smoke free. They found that indeed demand was higher than before the ban.
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | April 4, 2005
Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.
Other than consumer demand, and grassroots support for a political process - a movement that sprang up out of no where, motivated not by profit, but by health and wellness and demanded clean air - how much more sheer will can there possibly be?
“I guess the capitalist model for opportunity just fails us poor non-smokers.“
huh? it isnt an issue of how the free market isnt catering to non smokers as you presented it, but how the free market is harming consumers and employees by exposing them to dangerous cancer causing agents in order to consume a product (bars and bingo halls) Our society is chalk full of examples where we legislate safety and wellness for the consumer and worker and in those instances the measurable damage is far less than exposure to ETS.
and its not as though the capitalist model for opportunity never has to be reigned in. Like it’s a proven purifier of society. Capitalism has long been balanced by laws that protect workers and society as a whole – without them industrialization was sort of an ugly place. Under pure capitalism there were unsafe working conditions in factories, human rights abuses on our National rail road. Children working 18 hours a day for a nickel (I am sure they could always quit if they didn’t like it)
Civilized society recognizes that the capitalist model for opportunity does not alone safeguard the worker or society from harm. The government’s main job is to balance personal freedom with causing harm.
In fact the very issue of smoking itself demonstrates that “capitalist opportunity” doesn’t have a very clean track record in ensuring public or employee safety. The Tobbacco industry continues to sell a product, that when used exactly as advertised, has a significant chance of killing you and the people around you – all for their capitalist opportunity.
So yes capitalist opportunity did indeed fail consumers …except in delivering the cool and sophisticated taste of a Winston.
Its an issue of health and safety not of personal freedom your statement always ignores that point– no matter how you try and dress it up differently It will always boil down to this: Your argument for personal freedom is rendered invalid by the fact smoking harms OTHER people –Rights to Personal freedom stop where they are proven to harm and interfere with another’s health and safety.
“Sally, nobody has the right to enter a private business“
You seem to confuse private property with private business alot. Why do you think they need a business licence and the CITY gets to inspect them and demand compliance with bylaws and regulations? When you open your business to the PUBLIC it becomes a PUBLIC place. If they wanted to remain private property and never allow the public inside that would be their right.
however they still dont have the right to expose their employees to harmfull chemicals and carcinogens - even if the public doesnt have access.
One would Assume Sally is talking about going to public places not private ones according to her statement.
/Wow the bolding is out of control again
Dangermouse:
A)You shouldn’t speak for Sally and if you do you should at least read the statement she made, here it is:
“By saying that I don’t have the right to enter a business…”
Seems to me she is like one of the many who are confused about her rights.
B)As the duly authorized agent acting upon the behalf of the owner of a business on a piece of property I have the right to walk up to you in this place of business and tell you that I am banning you from this place of business for a duration of my choosing up to and including permanant without giving any reason at all. Why can I do this, because you, nor anybody else, have the right to enter this business.
i guess my concerns were when i read things that did not specifically say it was in regards to businesses,,, i read a passage in the newspaper that said it would be banned in outdoor public places as well such as balconies and patios… okay so is that really supposed to mean a business (such as a restaurant) that has a balconey/patio.. because the wording in the paper made it sound like ANY area like that. technically, if i am in my own back yard smoking on my patio, it can still blow into the neighbours yard, so is it possible i would be fined for that?
or like at my workplace, we cannot smoke on the premisis because its a childcare centre, totally understandable and i never have, but if i go out the back gate and stand in the alley, is that a public place and i cant do it there either? if i was sitting inside my car with the window rolled down, the smoke goes out, so would i be smoking in a public place then too? i just think that there are many open questions that people do not understand, not everyone has a legal mind and can work their way through the jargon of these proposed plans, and then when its over-simplified like saying ‘no balconies or patios’, it causes confusion as well.
but i do agree that there are many places people should not smoke. i have seen a medicine hat transit driver smoking INSIDE the bus shelter at london drugs several times in the morning. there is a fresh new No Smoking sign stuck to the glass of the shelter, lists a fine amount,,, and yet the city’s own driver stands in there and smokes… what is that all about? i decided if i see him again im going to wait and see which bus he is driving and then call their office and report it.
Dangermouse claims:
“Civilized society recognizes that the capitalist model for opportunity does not alone safeguard the worker or society from harm. The government’s main job is to balance personal freedom with causing harm.”
Who made you the spokesman for civilized society? Secondly gov’t main job is not to balance personal freedom with causing harm. Gov’t exists exclusively as the agency with the monopoly on the legal use of force. This gives it three functions in society:
1. Protecting us from criminals.
2. Protecting us from foriegn attack.
3. Settling civil desputes between individuals when voluntary arbitration has failed.
Telling people what to do on thier property is not on that list.
“Who made you the spokesman for civilized society?”
Snap! what a great statement …you got me there - oh wait, Nowhere did I make any claim of being a spokesman for any society. I think thats twice you have done that in this discussion - kinda disrespectful isnt it? whatever.
“Secondly gov’t main job is not to balance personal freedom with causing harm. Gov’t exists exclusively as the agency with the monopoly on the legal use of force.”
Sorry you’re going to have to learn to distinguish facts from opinion. Its my opinion government has to balance freedoms with restricting that freedom in the name of the societal protection. I guess its yours that it does not. In point of fact our system of government is a tad more complex than your 3 point list.
I can support my opinion with several examples (and I have) The freedom to drink and drive is restricted because it harms the community. In our society we give people freedom of speech - yet when that speech is proven to be harmful we restrict it - for example
Sec 319 of the criminal code of Canada states that:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As we discussed in the CAPCS thread - people are allowed to sell sexually explicit material, its their right, unless it can be proven that the material is harmfull to the community in which case its deemed Obscene and is illegal.
Which is to say that there are MANY examples in our society were freedoms are tempered when measured against a standard of HARM. In my view thats entirely appropriate and is indeed the role of the government. You may disagree with the process, but it is one that seems to hash its way through our democracy with regularity. In my view thats the role of government and the courts, to measure the harm on the community and take the appropriate measures to protect it.
Thank you for your opinion though.
Anyway - afterall of that it appears that indeed City Hall has the authority to implement a more stringent smoking bylaw.
http://www.health.gov.ab.ca/SmokeFree/smokefree_bylaws.html
“Municipal Bylaws
The Smoke-Free Places Act implemented on January 1, 2006, sets the minimum standard for all of Alberta. All municipalities are required by this provincial law to prohibit smoking in all public places and workplaces where minors are permitted.
Municipalities have the ability to implement municipal bylaws that are more restrictive than the provincial legislation. These bylaws are defined as gold standard bylaws or 100 per cent smoke-free bylaws. These bylaws prohibit smoking in all public places and workplaces.
Municipal smoke-free bylaws that restrict smoking in all areas, take priority over the provincial act. If bylaws provide less protection from second-hand smoke than the new Smoke-Free Places Act, the act will prevail as the local policy. It is the responsibility of individual businesses and organizations to find out what the current/pending smoking bylaws are in their municipality.
There are 18 Alberta communities that have passed or implemented 100 per cent smoke-free bylaws: Beaumont, Cardston, Edmonton, Strathcona County, St. Albert, Stettler, Banff, Airdrie, Sundance Beach, Jasper, Devon, Red Deer, Calgary, Cochrane, Canmore, Whitecourt, Lethbridge and Lloydminster.”
“Civilized society recognizes that the capitalist model for opportunity does not alone safeguard the worker or society from harm. The government’s main job is to balance personal freedom with causing harm.”
Did you not post this? Sounds to me like you are speaking for society. My stance at least has valid standing in the history of democracy and free societies, you’re just rehashing social liberal propaganda.
“There are 18 Alberta communities that have passed or implemented 100 per cent smoke-free bylaws: Beaumont, Cardston, Edmonton, Strathcona County, St. Albert, Stettler, Banff, Airdrie, Sundance Beach, Jasper, Devon, Red Deer, Calgary, Cochrane, Canmore, Whitecourt, Lethbridge and Lloydminster.”
This is the big lie, the misrepresentation repeated and repeated and repeated. By your repeating it, it is just showing me you are blindly rehashing proganda spewed out by the anti-smoking lobby.I cannot state for every communities but I have read bylaws for Calgary and Edmonton and they are both in fact, not 100% smoke free. This interesting fact makes the entire a statement a lie though. Check this out:
http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/cityclerks/57m92.pdf
Take note of page five when it talks about Designated Smoking Area. Hmmmm….. if there are regulations for designated smoking areas in Calgary, I guess it is not 100% smoke free.
As for Edmonton:
http://www.edmonton.ca/bylaws/13333.doc
Check out section three, EXCEPTIONS again another community that is not 100%
This is the problem, this is my original point. The proposed Medicine Hat bylaw goes to far in its regulation of smoking. Are you so irrational that you think its wrong to set up a safe smoking room for staff or that its wrong for a private club to decide to smoke in its building? The city’s legal authority is not absolute and it is debatable. You ask why nobody puts up a fight, well I know there are legal challanges in Quebec and I guess there is some truth to the statement that you can’t fight city hall. If the bylaw is as I interpret it I will register my objection on the terminology and broadness of the bylaw, but I, and like most people, do not have the resources to fight the bylaw. I would guess most smokers are unwilling to as smokers are the treated lower than scum in our society and I would think they do not want to rock the boat. But remember, just because a law goes unchallanged, it does not make it right or just.
Have you even read the bylaw?
So what we are actually discussing then is the governments responsibility/obligations in exercising its legal authority in protecting consenting adults from themselves by limiting personal freedoms with respect to access to “legal” substances?
This given the premise of course that we are talking about an “Adult” only place of business, where access is controlled and restricted to adults, and of course; where the employees are not slaves and do “choose” to be employed at said establishment.
I would argue that we are actually discussing the governments responsibility/obligation in exercising its legal authority to protect citizens from OTHERS, not themselves by limiteing exposure to a dangerous and harmful substance.
Legal doesnt imply safe. Its legal to fire a rifle, its unsafe to do so in town so there is a bylaw restricting that.
Why should adult access businesses be exposing their patrons to Class A carcinogens?
Businesses dont have the freedom to leak Carbon Monoxide from their furnace into the air, City Inspectors would shut them down if they did - why should they be allowed to operate with Carbon Monoxide and particulate matter pollution at dangerous levels in the air from cigarettes? Health and Safety is not a “Freedom” issue. Its a safety issue.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was shown to be a much higher source of pollution than an ecodiesel engine in regard to particulate matter (PM) emission. In fact three cigarettes smouldering in a room of 60 m3 with a limited air exchange, a setting commonly encountered in everyday life, were able to produce PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the engine’s emissions, and up to 15-fold PM10 and PM2.5 outdoor limits, in agreement with previous data on ETS pollution observed in the hospitality industry.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15333875]
Thats 3 smokes. Bars and pubs will expose employees and patrons to what 1000s per evening taken over the crowd.
Businesses dont have the freedom to use asbestos for insulation either. Even if they put a sign up that warns people they are being exposed to a carcinogen. We have standards to restrict freedoms in cases where it causes undo harm to the public. I think the smoking ban people have made a very compelling argument that smoking does indeed pose undo harm to others.
and employers have a legal obligation to provide healthy and safe working conditions - lets face it most hospitality workers arent in their “dream job” serving food in smokey pubs for the love of it - they are doing because they need the work. Its absolutly taking advantage of them to expose them to noxious fumes and cancer causing carcinogens so they can make the big bucks of minimum wage + tips. Chinese workers could quit the railway in 1862 as well, (had no other job prospects, but it was their right) but we have since decided that wasnt an acceptable way to do business in this country. Following that example and countless others where employee health and safety overrides business freedoms - its reasonable to restrict smoking in publica places and workplaces.
What bylaw restricts the use of fire arms in the City of Medicine Hat? It doesn’t really matter the point is the over-regulation of a legal activity. If the gov’t believes tobacco smoke to be so hazardous then perhaps they should try and ban it outright. If you are so opposed to tobacco smoke then why are you not arguing for it to be banned outright? That would remove lots of factors from the equation and make the debate much more simple.
“In 1992 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially labelled ETS a “class A,” or “known human carcinogen.” (A carcinogen is a cancer-causing agent. Class A carcinogens, to which there is no known level of safe exposure, are considered the most dangerous carcinogens.)” This is CathySmith cutting and pasting again. Had he actually researched the subject he would know a few things about it:
1. The EPA announced its results before the study was finished.
2. Here are some facts from a US legal decision on the study:
In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.
3. In addition the Congressional Research service was highly critical of the methods and conclusions of the reports.
“If the gov’t believes tobacco smoke to be so hazardous then perhaps they should try and ban it outright. If you are so opposed to tobacco smoke then why are you not arguing for it to be banned outright?”
I really dont see your point. Why arent you arguing for the mandatory blowing of ETS into all babies faces? How would my not advocating a more extreme position invalidate the one I am presenting?
People are allowed to harm themselves they arent allowed to harm others. Why is it so hard for you to differentiate the two?
Smoking at home only harms the smoker (and perhaps the family, but hey its their house)
Smoking in Public harms the public, smoking at work harms the workers. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Smoke at home if you want, dont smoke where it harms others.
So, CathySmith aka Dangermouse, you don’t care about the innocent children subjected to second hand smoke in the home?
“This is CathySmith cutting and pasting again. Had he actually researched the subject he would know a few things about it:”
What a “John Hamil” thing to say (what they have to do with this discussion is beyond me) Someday when you are a mature adult you will realize that slinging insults doesnt validate your point.
I stated that the US EPA classifies ETS as a known human carcinogen. And guess what - they do.
The federal ruling you are refering to was overruled on appeal on Dec 11, 2002 citing that “It is beyond dispute that second hand smoke is a known carcinogen” - A point I notice you conviently leave out. Why would I mention a blip in the process thats 4 years old and completly irrelevant?
So as it stands today - the EPA in the USA still classifies ETS as a known Class A carcinogen for which there is known safe level of exposure. (exactly as I said it did) What I stated was completly accurate. To quote you: Maybe had you researched the topic you would have known a few things about it
So just to clarify - which losing battle are you trying to defend:
A) that the US EPA classifies ETS as a known Class A carcinogen? (a point of absolute fact and really un “debatable”) or
B) that ETS causing harm to those exposed to it.
On either of those topics the ship has sailed. We protected smokers rights so long as there was doubt, years after all reasonable scientists and Dr’s (read all those not directly funded by big tobacco) concluded it was unsafe. Medicine Hat has waited 13 years since the original determination of ETS danger was adopted by major governmental agencies. Any argument that ETS or smoking might not be harmful to those around it is completly exhausted at this point. The municipality has the authority, responsibility and overwhelming scientific and medical evidence to restrict the use of Tobacco in this city so as not to harm its citizens and workers. Its past time to use it.
So, CathySmith aka Dangermouse, you don’t care about the innocent children subjected to second hand smoke in the home?
Do you have any capacity to carry on a civil discussion?
Cathy, why refuse to answer the simple question? Let me ask a slightly different one. Why are you more concerned about a person’s rights who voluntarily enters a smoke filled building than a completely innocent child whose parents smoke?
You have to become alot more civilized for me to continue any discussion with you. People can have a discussion without the petty name calling - up till then good discussion can be had. It seems you arent interested in civil discussion.
I guess you won’t like the fact when I point out you where the one who started the name calling, I guess you had no choice as you have no real points to make. Fact is you and Cathy are almost exactly the same person the only two differences is Cathy is not in denial and Cathy is a morality zealot and you are a antismoking zealot. I know the truth hurts, that is why I pointed it out.
Have a nice day Cathy!
CathySmith,
Are you refusing to answer the question because you know you have been painted into a corner?
In regards to post 23:
“The EPA appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a unanimous decision on December 11, 2002, the court ruled that the EPA report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that there were “no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action.” In other words, because the EPA report had no legal or regulatory function and was rather advisory, Judge Osteen’s judgment was dismissed.”
So his decision was overturned because he never should of made the decision as the reality of it is the EPA opinions doesn’t matter. The report, although somewhat true, is still junk science and anybody quoting it should be questioned.
Sticking to my guns on this.
People have “freewill” in deciding whether or not to access a “designated” smoking establishment, which is properly advertised as such, where minors are restricted from entry.
The arguments of protecting people from themselves could easily be applied to all “high risk” behavior. I am in no way opposed to protecting the public at large from breathing second hand smoke, but I draw the line at governments superseding personal freedoms.
>>>”Why should adult access businesses be exposing their patrons to Class A carcinogens?”
It is actually the “Patrons” not the business that are exposing themselves to the cigarette smoke. There in lies the flaw in your arguments about legislating businesses as non-smoking. The “establishment” is not the source of the Class A carcinogens, merely a venue for which the “smokers” gather to socialize. If they gathered at someone’s home there would be no less Class A carcinogens being inhaled by the occupants. Is the next legislation to be enacted to include people in their own homes?
I don’t think that anyone is arguing or disputing the facts that smoking is bad for you, (no more study data needed… really…) A group of consenting adults with common interests wanting to get together to socialize in a “lawful” manner should NOT be illegal.
Why people are so darn preoccupied with controlling the lives of others is beyond me. If they have that much energy and time available to champion a cause how about homelessness, or child poverty, or aids or just pick something off of the list for those that want and need help.
Anarchenisis, excellent points. I however dispute the current existing studies on second hand tobacco smoke. This EPA report says one thing, this pro-tobacco thing says another. Personally I think they are both full of crap and the truth is somewhere in between. If people want second hand smoke regulated as a health hazard they at least need to know the facts about how harmful it is.
To all that thinks your second hand smoke does not affect people choices in where they go. Let me tell you I Have a very good friend who recently moved here from Victoria who is unable to go out dancing or enjoying live music or just get out of the house and socialize with friends in a pub enjoying a hockey game due to asthma. Now this is a gal whose choices have been taken away by second hand smoke. Is this rite I hardly think so.
When are you all going to accept change? Bottom line is it is not acceptable to smoke in public anymore just as it is illegal to dump your used motor oil in the ally. If you don’t think this bylaw is coming I have some beach front property in Regina for sale.
Must have missed that part of the constitution where Karaoke and dancing was an inherent right of each person…
Could you imagine if we banned everything that caused a negative health reaction for “all” people? Anyone ever had to work in a “fragrance free” workplace? There is nothing more disgusting or offensive to me then spending 9 hours amongst a couple hundred people smelling of B.O. and bum sweat! All this for the 3 people that have chemical allergies. Rather than seeking government assistance though in legislating mandatory deodorant usage though, I exercised my “free will” and found a new place to work that suited “my” lifestyle and personal preferences for a suitable work environment.
It’s kind of like those parents that send their children to public school that have peanut allergies and expect every other family to change their dietary habits to suit their “child’s” health problems. When your paying my food bill then you can dictate to me what I do and I don’t, feed my child. If little Johnny has a condition that may cause his death by being exposed to something then why the heck would you push little Johnny in front of that speeding train?
People cannot and should not be allowed to abdicate their own personal responsibility for their well being by having government protect their selves by legislating them, from themselves.
As for beach front property in Saskatchewan, if the sea level continues to rise as they are then given their elevation, there could be quite a bit available for sale.
>>>”It is actually the “Patrons” not the business that are exposing themselves to the cigarette smoke. There in lies the flaw in your >>>arguments about legislating businesses as non-smoking. The “establishment” is not the source of the Class A carcinogens, merely >>>a venue for which the “smokers” gather to socialize.”
How is that relevant let alone “the flaw” in my argument. If those same toxins came from the furnace the bar would be shut down in an instant. ETS is unsafe,therefor it will be restricted (and its about time) They cant excercise “free will” to pack a bar beyond its occupancy limit either - because its unsafe. Free will never extends to harming the public. You might not like it, but thats how it is.
If smoking only harmed the smoker it would be a matter of PERSONAL responsibility as you claim
But ETS clearly harms others - in spite of free canada’s assertion, thus it becomes a matter of PUBLIC safety.
I get that you dont like it, but our society has been pretty consistant on this as I have pointed out.
“You have to become alot more civilized for me to continue any discussion with you. People can have a discussion without the petty name calling - up till then good discussion can be had. It seems you arent interested in civil discussion.”
Isn’t that sort of a cop-out, DM? Why can’t you ignore the insults and focus on the ideas, being an example of the virtues you champion. To say that someone is uncivilized is making the same mistake they did. At least, to me, it seems like a gross contradiction.
I think that the debate about whether or not ETS and smoking is harmful is one thats been exhausted and decided. Virtually every medical and governmental agency in the western world supports the view that its harmful. I dont think anyone needs to spend any time debateing the fact that it causes harm when exposed.
That said Free Canada raises some interesting points however (I am paraphrasing so forgive me if I misrepresent them)
1) He points out that other municipalities that have enacted the “gold standard” or 100% smoke free public and work place standards have made consessions for the following situations:
1) Residences (as they all do)
2) Non public places, designated for smokers, with no shared common area, no forced exposure to any employee, proper and seperate ventalation etc. In short an employer providing a place for smokers to smoke
He mentions a 3rd example that I disagree with, but just to refocus the discussion I think those are valid points. If the employer did create such a space, and it indeed did not affect the clean air of the workplace for non smokers (say a seperate building just for smokers)
I think if someone can demonstrate that no 3rd party is being harmed by the location of the activity, that it falls outside the justification for the ban and should be considered a reasonable exception to the bylaw.
/in my view private clubs are another matter.
“Isn’t that sort of a cop-out, DM? Why can’t you ignore the insults and focus on the ideas, being an example of the virtues you champion. To say that someone is uncivilized is making the same mistake they did. At least, to me, it seems like a gross contradiction.”
not really - I think there is a base standard of civility that should be extended to any serious discussion about civic issues. That sort of behavior wouldnt be accepted in a town hall meeting so if this is the 21st century equivalent we wont allow for it here either.
There is no “idea” being presented in that particular exchange, just insults it wasnt fair to Cathy Smith, it was off topic and it debased what was a reasonable discussion.
Everybody on the blog is welcome to say their point of view, you are all welcome to disagree with anyone if you want - we encourage discussion and debate, but we dont allow profanity or insults. Its hard to have a serious discussion if it goes down that path. See this thread for an example http://www.medhatblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=345&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Its just a pissing contest now, no meaningfull discussion can come out of that.
Sometimes on a forum people say things they would NEVER say to a persons a face - and the discussion just goes downhill. Out of respect for the leaders of this community, and our readers we dont condone or accept that sort of thing here.
Free Canada is an articulate person with some valid points, we corrected the discussion and I know the discussion can be much better than it was, but I wont acknowledge statements that are just disrespectful to me and in this case to Cathy Smith. If someone really thinks there is a credible argument in all of that warranting further discussion - re-present the information in a more appropriate manner and i would be happy to discuss it.
“I get that you don’t like it, but our society has been pretty consistent on this as I have pointed out.”
Really sad DM but it’s true, just like sheep, the masses merrily flock together in order for other to look after them and take responsibility for their lives. I guess it’s just easier being a victim in todays world. This way you never have to accept any responsibility for the “choices” you make in “your” life.
Baaaaaaa
It is sad when you know you are going into a discussion championing the underdog with no chance of winning. Seems that anything having to do with personal rights and freedoms lately is a losing argument.
DM, not to argue, but I am trying to understand your point of view here, why do you think a private club is another matter?
Private clubs is more complicated to me.
While I understand your point about a cigar club meeting privatly. If you excluded organizations under the smoking ban simply for selling a membership all the pubs would become clubs. Many of those private clubs sell their services and membership benifits to the public They fall under the same scope of inspection as a business for all other services (food, occupancy etc)
Would COSTCO represent a “private club”?
I guess the definition of private club would need to be sharpened for me to be supportive of it. I dont have a problem with a cigar club meeting in a non public place with no employees.
at the same time It makes sense to me that if the nieghbourhood pub has to go smoke free that a place like the Moose would have to as well.
“It is sad when you know you are going into a discussion championing the underdog with no chance of winning. Seems that anything having to do with personal rights and freedoms lately is a losing argument.”
When those personal rights and freedoms spread disease to the public at large - yeah its a losing argument these days. I guess the difference is that you lament that fact, and I celebrate it.
I do agree with your points on a private club. I would not want it to be there as a loophole for any business to use. Again this is the fault of the bylaw as it is so black and white in its regulation of places. This is where focus groups would of be useful but city council in its infinite wisdom choose to not consult with the public. In my opinion Costco would not be a private club. Although it would not be a conclusive definition I would say the first two aspect of qualification of a private club would be a not for profit organization and I think any rental of space or catering would also disqualify it.
umm, im not sure where the comparison earlier with people who have children with food allergies compares to the smoking bylaw. thats ridiculous and not comparable at all. first, i am a smoker and do not agree necessarily with all the parts of the bylaw (as in, being too general in parts, etc), but it has nothing to do with food allergies and not being able to send certain foods to school. my son’s school currently does not block peanut butter, but his old school did and i dealt with it. i would much rather know that i wasnt endangering another child’s life every day by refusing to conform to that rule. second hand smoke has its health problems, exposing others to it is probably not fair, but these are children who have proven life threatening reactions to certain foods, its not a guessing game like they may or may not have a reaction, some of them can literally die or go into anaphalactic shock in front of their friends just because someone else doesnt care and would rather send a peanut butter sandwich than think of other things to send instead. when my son went to his old school, all he wanted to eat was peanut butter but i said ‘too bad’ and sent him tons of other options. he survived, but the child in his class who had a severe nut allergy may NOT have if i stood on my soap box and ranted about how its my grocery bill, yadda yadda. no comparison im afraid.
Its kind of getting off topic but my little brother had severe nut allergies back in the days when personal responsibility still mattered. He had one severe reaction and as stupid as he was, he still learnt very quickly to be careful what he ate without any gov’t interference.
The two topics seem different but the thing in common is taking personal responsibility. Just like my brother took responsibilty for himself, people who don’t wish to be exposed to second hand smoke can take responsibilty and not enter buildings where smoking is allowed. Even if the bylaw passes as it stands, people will still have to take some responsibilty for thenselves when it comes to private residences.
that may be true for some, but i would find it hard to agree that 4 and 5 year old children should be responsible for their own lives. parents and other adults are supposed to look out for their welfare until they are of age to care for themselves. the amount of things these days that contain or ‘may contain’ nuts is huge. my friends daughter is allergic to tree nuts (severe) and was having a reaction to Dove soap and it was eventually discovered that it contains ground walnuts (which is not listed on the label or the website). etc etc. its difficult enough for people as it is to be aware of what they can or cannot eat.
compared to the smoking bylaw, you can physically see when people are smoking, you can smell it, and you are aware of what places allow people to smoke, so its not hard to figure out. i dont agree with people blowing smoke in other’s faces, i stand well away from doors when i do it, i dont exhale when people are walking by and try to move my smoke out of the way so its not curling up in their face. but i know a lot of people dont care in the slightest and they are the ‘bad apples that spoil the bunch’ and make it difficult for people who have this habit but still try to act responsibly and not subject everyone else to it. i only have one friend that smokes, i dont smoke in my other friends’ homes and i would never expect them to let me. even if they say i can sit and blow it out the door, i go sit outside. i dont even like to sit in a bar where the smoke is very heavy and i wont have many, i start to feel ill too. so i do understand why people that dont smoke would hate it even more. but there are some parts of the bylaw that dont really leave people many places to go or make them feel like leeches of society.
“When those personal rights and freedoms spread disease to the public at large…”
You still err on this point DM. It’s not the public at large but consenting adults that you are advocating against and restricting the freedoms of. Those that invite the government into their business shouldn’t be too surprised when governments set rules for their businesses that they may not agree with…
But hey, the only issue I have a problem with is the aspect of government and special interest interference, and since I am a Non-smoker, and not a business owner with my money invested in it, really the big picture is that it is no sweat for me. In fact, when i am working the charity bingos it will be all that more pleasant for me.
Cheers all
Smoking is a horrible habit and it was hard for me to stop. I no longer smoke. However, an out right ban on public smoking is draconic oversight.
I should be able to open a Smoker. A place that caters to smokers. Smoking is legal after all.
So why not licence smoking establishments?
Legal doesnt mean safe.
The smoking ban is specifically designed to ensure that employees arent subjected to cancer causing chemicals on the whims of smokers.
I think they make a good case that ETS is unsafe - we dont allow other employers to jeapardize the health and wellness of employees so why should the hospitality industry?
The same reason we dont liscence over crowded bars, or asbestos I suppose…the fact thats its proven unsafe seems like pretty sound footing to not allow it anymore.
which begs the question. Why are these smoking pruducts still legal?
This is why the cigarettes are still legal:
(From http://www.smoke-free.ca Doctors for a smoke free Canada:
Excluding any Sales Taxes the gov’t made $4.4 billion on tobbaco taxes in the year 2000 while in 2000 the pre-tax profits of the big three tobacco companies was about $1.3 billion. This is why the gov’t has not abolished tobacco.
And just for the record, asbestos, a dangerous substance, has now been banned from use virtually every?
I was trying to stay out of this one…but….
I am all for a ban on Tobacco related products altogether.
That said, as long as its a legal product, it should be my right to chose to expose myself to real or imagined dangers should I choose to open, patronize, or work in a location that has said dangers.
There are many, many, many jobs that are far more dangerous then exposure to second hand smoke. This includes jobs currently for the CMH that include potential exposure to carcinogens (from what I can tell there are studies that link nearly everything to cancer).
Here’s an article for y’all:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Strobel_Mike/2006/12/13/2770580-sun.html
Interesting article, however we are dealing with different issues. The way I read this article it was talking more about the property owners decision to ban smoking in his/her building( or a condo board but the principle is the same) as opposed to gov’t intervention. Based on my beliefs the land owner is just and right for banning smoking on his/her property for a variety of reasons.
One thing though, the anti-smoking zealots should use the same manipulated statistics: The article quoted 425 deaths a year in Ontario. The EPA claimed about 3000 US deaths a year and the local zealots I talked to claim 4000 Canadian deaths a year. Well anybody who can do the math, including myself, can tell you those numbers do not make sense when compared the population bases. I am not trying to say 2nd hand smoke is not dangerous, but they should not manipulate statitics, let everybody know how dangerous it actually is and when they are giving these statitics then maybe they should catagorize it by the primary area of exposure was(home, workplace, or recreation).
To update on what I have been doing, our deputy mayor, Julie Frieson, has not replied to any of my emails or calls to discuss the public services committee’s reasoning behind the parts of the bylaw that concerned me. I don’t know if its a coincendence but this week’s PSC was closed to the public so I guess if I have not heard from her by tommorrow at lunch I will go over her head in my request for information.
not coincidence ..PSC was in a closed door meeting with CAPCS - because apparently they weild the kind of authority (based on being unelected and self appointed?) to have whole meetings devoted to their pet issue.
Makes one wonder why they don’t want people to know what they were talking about. The MH News said the meeting was with the infrastructure and developement committee, but I guess I should know better than to believe the news.
Closed door meetings to discuss laws effecting the public are a violation to the democratic process and in my opinion something that is truly obscene.
Zealots to fricken funny.
I can not wait to see you all you zealots freezing your buts off outside the bar in minus 30C weather smoking your cigarettes (God you got to love that nicotine). While I am inside the warm bar enjoying a few cocktails and some quality non smoking ladies.
Zealots?
Scooterboy, no offence but its not that smoker’s love their nicotine, they are addicted to it.
Me, I like my caffeine and beer…
Just try to take those away from me.
Caffiene is next buddy. When smoking is done for they will make up statistics showing how dangerous caffiene is and then it will be herbal tea for all of us.
Nothing like a government imposed prohibition to open up revenue opportunities for those of an entrepreneurial mind.
Yup, it worked for the Kennedy’s.
the issue was never how dangerous it is for you but how dangerous it is for OTHERS. Caffiene doesnt meet that criteria.
I realize that DM, I was making a point as the antismoking groups throw out made up statistics about how dangerous 2nd hand smoking is an imaginary anti-caffiene group might make up statistics as well.
Those entering a “properly posted, and marked smoking establishment”, subject themselves to second hand smoke.
31 days and counting.
10 days to go and all is well.
Everyone must be just so happy with all the clean air around. Isnt it great.
what i am really enjoying is going to my local convenience store and having to walk through all of the inebriated people smoking on the sidewalk between the store and the pub that’s next door. it’s really great for my young children to have to weave their way through a dozen people that reak of beer, are stumbling and stuttering, and so on in the middle of the afternoon on saturdays and sundays. it was a really great idea to make everyone stand outside to smoke! weeeeeeee! we can of course avoid the sidewalk full of slightly tipsy revellers by walking in the road or in the middle of the parking lot, dodging cars and trucks.
what makes me laugh is that my coworker who said she couldnt go to bars or certain restaurants because of the smoke STILL HAS NOT gone to these establishments since the new bylaw came into effect….
Well that is your coworkers loss. The pubs that I frequent have never been busier, and I find it refreshing and very delightful that there is no smoke in my space.
i dont mind the no smoke thing, i smoke but i actually dont like breathing it in while in a closed space at all. i just know quite a few people who complained about it and still havent gone to any of the places where it has been changed lol. just a bit ironic. what im really disliking now are pubs in the communities like in strip malls where you now have to walk through all the people who are standing outside, especially when they have had a few too many to drink - but i guess pubs in places like that are a different issue altogether.
I do not like the smoke thing, like I said, especially in my space. The bar owners should make sure that the smokers are 3 meters from a doorway like the bylaw says. Even if they are around the doorway, a couple of seconds outside is better than an hour inside, yes.
Smoking bans imposed by governments are just plain wrong and unconstitutional. Government has no right to force businesses to ban something that isn’t illegal from their establishments. I’m not a smoker, I don’t like smoke but if smoke bothers me, I go else where. Businesses are having their right to make decisions for themselves trampled on and you’re ok with that? Governement taking small choices from us just the tip of the iceberg towards facism, don’t surrender your civil liberties. Also, if you don’t want to eat at an establishment that features smoking…. DON’T EAT THERE! If enough people cut into the places profit margin, they’ll change their tune. But it’s not up to the government to strip us of civil liberties.