The city of Calgary has just gone smoke-free as of the New Year. Restaurants and bars are no longer allowed to permit smoking on the premises. There are some establishments that have temporary exceptions. But based on what I've seen on the news, the whining has begun in earnest. I heard one (smoking) customer complain, "This is a free country, as long as it's legal and I can buy them, I should be allowed to smoke them where I want."Let's use that logic to extend the argument. Drinking alcohol is legal. You can still buy it. Yet it is against the law to consume alcohol in a public space (unless it's licensed). Why is that? Music is legal. I can buy that too. But it's against the law to play it full blast at 2am. Communist oppressive bastards!
Don't get me wrong. I feel their pain. I used to be a smoker and I often felt oppressed whenever people attacked my habit too. It's all about perception. For the record, I know many don't agree with me. It's only my opinion.
The facts of the matter are simple. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it is legal and it doesn't put lives at risk. Smoking affects the people in the immediate area. You are free to smoke - at your home, in your car or at any outdoor place that is not a controlled public space.
Or let's put it another way. I'll agree with your position on the no smoking bylaw if you agree that anyone can play music really loud and get drunk on the sidewalk in front of your house - any time they want.....
17 comments:
I could not have put it better.
Thanks Karl
JM
I'll drink to that.
The state of Washington passed no smoking laws and the whining commenced, that was a couple of years ago, and for the most part, it's business as usual now. WA also passed early last year that smokers can't smoke within 25 feet of any doorway, the whining escalates. Now they want to legislate whether smokers should smoke in their cars or homes, if they have children. hmmm
We have the "no smoking in public places" thing too. Restaurants were forced to set up outside accomodatins if they wanted to attract smokers. And in Florida summers, with 99 percent humidity even.
One of my favorite restuarants went into early compliance anyway. Yay for them!
Maxflex said...
Not the best example Karl, both instance (loud music/ smoking ban) are being impose on a person or group against their whishes. Anyone want to tell me where society is going? What happen to freedom of choice? What happen about being responsible for your action / choices in life? If I don’t like an establishment for what ever reason (smoking, bad service, prices...) I don’t go there, simple hey! It is not to me or anyone else to impose my way of life on any other person or group.
My question is, what will be illegal next, for the good of our society
Sieg Heil
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is, against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
(I knew this would stir things up)
Maxflex - I cannot argue against that.
But it sure will be nice to go to a bar with some friends and not choke.
Maxflex said...
Drink slowly and you will not choke! No seriously now, I would applaud and support any pressure from non smoker’s group, that apply pressure on bar owner(s)to provide a non smoking establishment, the more choices for everybody the better our society will be. As soon as we start playing with law/bylaw, well intention or not, to please a segment of our society, I will always raise the flag of freedom, mine and yours
It's not about freedom...it's about HEALTH!
Nancy
Maxflex said...
On the contrary Nancy, when you start talking about legislation, it is all about freedom and people’s rights. Health and the purity of the German race, was the reason why Nazi Germany brought euthanasia legislation for the mentally handicap and others deviant from the “normal people”. If it was about health, they should also go after all the fast food and all the other garbage that is available to people. Why not legislate that each company must allow time for their workers to go to the gym during working hours, we all know that exercise is good for us. No Nancy, it is not about health, it is about many things and health is at the bottom of that list.
I don't know if anyone watched the news last night, but many owners of establishments are complaining because guess what: Casinos haven't had to go smoke free. Somebody tell me how that works?? Looks like whats going to wind up happening is that all an establishment is going to have to do is install Vicious Loser Terminals (VLT's) to be able to have a smoking establishment. We're going to wind up seeing a lot more bars with vlt's, if not all of them, and I don't think gambling is much better than smoking. It's definitely more expensive.
I'll bet you didn't expect this post to go this far huh Karl? :>
Anonymous: Yes - actually I expected this post to generate much interest and hopefully some debate. I was under the impression that casinos only had a one year reprieve. Am I mistaken? It doesn't seem worth it to spend money on a one year exemption. If casinos are exempt permanently, that is not fair to other establishments and they have a right to complain.
Maxflex: If you choose to participate in most un-healthy activites, it doesn't directly affect me. I can't get fat if you eat a Big Mac. But I am (so the health officials tell me) affected if someone smokes near me. So in this particular case, I see it as a health issue. Also, there is a non-smoking group in the city already that has tried to lobby establishments to accomodate non-smokers and many said "no way". So based on what I've seen, they did try for a diplomatic solution.
Maxflex said...
Well Karl you have 2 choices, one, ask the smoker not to indulge in your presence or stay away from that person. As for the non smokers group that was unsuccessful in changing the minds of bar owners, they could have spent their money and time, opening one non smoking club or 2 or a dozen if they whish. It sound to me that they want it their way, but without the risk of starting a business to cater to their group. Bar owner are business people and as such, will only change their ways (on their own) if they know they can make a profit. So it is for us the non smoker to prove to them that they can make a comfortable living by catering to the non smoker crowed. Like I said before, more legislation is not the answer to all our problems.
So if I understand you correctly, my only recourse as a non-smoker is to stay away from all smoking establishments. I have no right to suggest that businesses should strive for the healthier environment. I believe this has worked up until now.
But what about the employee of the bar? As an employee, I get to work in a healthy environment because smoking indoors is not permitted. The smokers don't seem to have a problem with that. But if I worked in a bar, I must deal with smoke. So what that says to me is, all workers have rights to a smoke-free environment - except bar workers.
BTW Maxflex - I'm not picking on your argument, I just want to see where this discussion goes.........
Maxflex said...
I’m fine Karl we are all adult. Ok now we go from customer to employee. If we truly live in a free society (and the jury is still out on this one), It would be the owner of the company (bar or whatever) that would decide if it is ok to have a smoking environment. It would be up to the worker to decide to work in such place. People as far as I know, are not force to work anywhere, they can say shove it I’m going to work somewhere else. Living free is all about choices, sometime we make the right one, some time we mess up, live with it. Having choices is what make us free after all.
We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us
Francois de La Rochefoucauld, Maximes (1678)
All I can say to maxflex (his real name is Norm btw) is thank you for participating in the discussion and giving us something to think about.
He's right you know. Often the government gets involved in our private lives using bogus information to prop up their agenda. It's helpful when we buy into the bogus data and this is what I was hoping someone would have illuminated the discussion with. Because - surprise - all this hoopla is based on a study that suggested that second hand smoke causes lung cancer. Except their own numbers indicate 12.5 people dying of lung cancer when exposed to second hand smoke versus 10 people who were not. Seriously. The courts in the US lambasted the producers of the study as fostering a conclusion based on insignificant data.
Can this be true? Have they exaggerated all along? Who knows. More food for thought.
Thank god we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship. If you don't like what the government is legislating you should get involved and rally up to fight for your rights and freedoms. In this case I think, study or no study, majority rules. If you don't like what the government does you have no one to blame but yourself.
Nancy
Maxflex quote...
But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.
Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862), Civil Disobedience
Post a Comment