Revoke Smoking Ban In Toronto?

[james t kirk]

What's worse is they DID pass a law that said that an establishment COULD allow smoking with a separate smoking room. But after all these places spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building these rooms, 6 months later they passed an outright ban.

I remember at the time there was a 60% attrition rate for bars and restaurants and coffee shops who went broke after spending all that money.......

Nonsense, you're pulling that statistic out of your ass.

Please post a link to back up your assertion.

Smoking rooms didn't work because they were not properly constructed, ventilation was not installed. Some places ran glass partitions up to the false ceiling but there were air returns in the ceiling that led to the same make-up air units. Air quality tests showed that the air inside the restaurant was still being contaminated by the smokers regardless of whether or not the smoking was being done in a special room or not.

Wanna smoke - go outside.

 

[james t kirk]

Using this logic, why do we have health & safety standards in place for any industries?

Employers in other industries are not allowed to put their employees at undue risk. For example, we have railings when workers are on roofs, hard hats and safety boots for situations that call for them. Air quality readings are done in different factories, and breathing apparatus are used when necessary.

The Ontario Health & Safety Act gives any worker the right to refuse work in an unsafe environment. I'd say air filled with cigarette smoke is unsafe. Are restaurant/bar employees lesser workers than those in other businesses.

Exactly.

Show me where in the constitution it guarantees the right of businesses to operate as they see fit without any sort of regulation and you can smoke all you like in a restaurant or bar.

 

[tboy]

It's sad to see people still defending smoking. To all the smokers out there: You can play down the heath issues all you want, but they're still there. You can pretend it's a habit all you want, but it's an addiction and you know it. You know you want to quit, but you think you can't. You can. It's hard, but you can.

If you have the right to force your second hand smoke on me, then by the same logic I should be allowed to drink and drive. It's my car, my right! If you don't like me driving drunk then you should get off the road. See how stupid that sounds?

I see people comparing car exhaust to smoking. Ok, let's. Almost every activity we humans do in our modern world creates some sort of pollution. That's the trade off we're willing to make in order to achive something else. Transportation, food supply, all goods and services we consume, create pollution.

Cigarettes are required by nobody. Nobody needs them to live. They offer no positive side. They're created to deliver a drug that nobody needs, just so you'll continue to buy more. That's it.

Not quite the same thing as driving a car.

Break the addiction and you won't waste your time trying to defend the very thing that's trying to kill you.

Cheers.

This is the PERFECT example of how well the brainwashing techniques have been applied:
1) you're right, there are health issues. You're also correct, there are health issues with just about every human activity. So why dump ONLY on smoking and not the others? Because it was far easier to get people to think "no smoking" than "no driving".
2) Your comparison to drinking and driving is ludicrous. NO where in this thread or any other has ANYONE said "we want to expose people to our second hand smoke". We are simply asking for the option to smoke in a bar with OTHER smokers. To be accurate, your drinking and driving analogy would be: we want to drink and drive with other drinkers and drivers on a private track. See the difference?
3) Air pollution caused by vehicles: I didn't compare smoking to trucks, trains, planes did I? No one NEEDS a car. That's bullshit. We WANT cars. There are plenty of alternatives and sooner or later the good old government will step in and put a stop to it. The writings on the wall with the recent problems at GM and CHrysler. People do NOT need to drive 40 60 or 100 kms to work. To the mall, to the store. There's buses, taxis, car pooling.
4) Cigarettes are required by nobody: Same goes for alcohol, wine, fast food, restaurants, bars, strip clubs, chocolate, $700 jeans, $400 running shoes, fur coats, MEAT, shark fin soup, SEAL skin, WHALE blubber, CARS, TVs, stereos, cellphones, airplanes, bungee jumping, hang gliding, I could go on and on.

Heed my words: sooner or later they'll come for something YOU enjoy and then, and ONLY then, will you see our point......

 

[oldjones]

As per usual your an idiot.
If you read what I said, I would never smoke in a car when a youngster is in the vehicle.…edit…

OK. I quote your precise words:

I would not smoke in a car with a youngster in it, but LET ME make that choice (its my car and my child (theoretically))

What you said was: That you wanted (in caps) the right—which you presumably also wanted for others as well—to smoke in your car with a child. Although you said you wouldn't (since adding "never"), no one cannot offer that assurance about anyone else. Without in any way doubting your good intention, if you reserve that 'right' for yourself, we then have no assurance about you either. But such a law can give society at least a little confidence that children are not subject to abuse by smokers, who might choose differently than you.

For generations we took good intentions by smokers as good enough. It didn't work.

 

[tboy]

"The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices continues to fight the smoking ban by asking that Ontario’s bars, pubs and lounges receive the same opportunity as government-run casinos to build smoking shelters. Real sales in Ontario’s bar, tavern and nightclub sector have dropped by 8% or $21 million in the first five months of the provincial smoking ban that was implemented on June 1 of last year, according to Statistics Canada. Since 2001, the bar, tavern and nightclub sector has suffered a 24% or $182-million drop in real sales, and an 18% drop in the number of establishments, due in large part to municipal smoking bans and the province-wide ban.xiv

18% in five months. So, let's extrapolate that to 3% per month, that's 36% in the first year.

Yeah, I'm dislexic, instead of 63% it is 36%........my bad. But that only talks about bars pubs and lounges NOT coffee shops. I personally know of 3 around the place I worked that closed due to the ban. Considering at the time there was only about 6 or 7, that's about 50%

 

[blackrock13]

This is the PERFECT example of how well the brainwashing techniques have been applied:
1) you're right, there are health issues. You're also correct, there are health issues with just about every human activity. So why dump ONLY on smoking and not the others? Because it was far easier to get people to think "no smoking" than "no driving".
2) Your comparison to drinking and driving is ludicrous. NO where in this thread or any other has ANYONE said "we want to expose people to our second hand smoke". We are simply asking for the option to smoke in a bar with OTHER smokers. To be accurate, your drinking and driving analogy would be: we want to drink and drive with other drinkers and drivers on a private track. See the difference?
3) Air pollution caused by vehicles: I didn't compare smoking to trucks, trains, planes did I? No one NEEDS a car. That's bullshit. We WANT cars. There are plenty of alternatives and sooner or later the good old government will step in and put a stop to it. The writings on the wall with the recent problems at GM and CHrysler. People do NOT need to drive 40 60 or 100 kms to work. To the mall, to the store. There's buses, taxis, car pooling.
4) Cigarettes are required by nobody: Same goes for alcohol, wine, fast food, restaurants, bars, strip clubs, chocolate, $700 jeans, $400 running shoes, fur coats, MEAT, shark fin soup, SEAL skin, WHALE blubber, CARS, TVs, stereos, cellphones, airplanes, bungee jumping, hang gliding, I could go on and on.

Heed my words: sooner or later they'll come for something YOU enjoy and then, and ONLY then, will you see our point......

Tb, your first comment is just nuts, there's not brainwashing here. Personally i've been affected by smoking since i was little. I asked my dad to put out his cigarette when we were sitting in the dining room and he, a two pack a day man at 35, did and later in life said thanks. I was slightly allergic to cigarette smoke, as found out by doctors later, but never imposed myself on others at social gatherings growing up. I went to a high school that said 'if you wanted to play sports, no smoking'. That cut it down, not out, but down. I've got enough of a background in the sciences to see what's happening and enough close personal experiences with the ravages of smoking to know it's not a conspiracy cooked up in some Star Chamber in the government.

I do believe the government handled the 'smoking room' regulations badly, but it's now behind us and for the better. The short term loss of business was in large part because of the smoking ban, but I know as many people who say they like going to restaurants more now because of the ban. The long term drop in business has been a result of a number of complex things, resulting in many mainstream lending institutes won't lend money to open up bars or restaurants in TO, except on the Danforth. So your extrapolation is weak.

 

[Vincent Chase]

I value my lungs and health...

No thanks!

 

[oldjones]

…edit…NO where in this thread or any other has ANYONE said "we want to expose people to our second hand smoke". We are simply asking for the option to smoke in a bar with OTHER smokers.…edit…

Actually the OP said

I think we should allow indoor smoking in bars/clubs/strip clubs at the very least.......otherwise people do it anyway..

You're making a different argument.

If anyone can invent a smoker's club that didn't subject the unwilling to second-hand smoke I'd be all for it. But so far no one I know of has. What I've heard of are proposals and attempts to do "separate but equal" retrofit partitioning in existing places, that as james t. kirk pointed out were failures at confining the smoke and subjected one or both groups to reduced circumstances. Neither separate nor equal.

The other clubs I've heard of used paid staff, who then had to accept second-hand smoke as a condition of employment. Even if they were smokers themselves and enthusiastically willing, imagine an employer making no fall arrest harness a condition of employment. Or no blade gurds on the table-saw. You just can't write safe-workplace laws that way. It's hard enough to keep workplaces safe as it is. But do make a proposal.

The only way I can imagine such a place run by and for smokers actually working—and even then the law might hafta be changed—would be as an all volunteer club, restricted to signed up members only.

But, like the ocasional unlicensed, 'but we have teapots', restaurant, and cannabis cafe, the radar doesn't go all the way to the ground. Just don't make me choose between going to my favourite titty bar or going to the smoke police and we'll all get along.

 

[james t kirk]

"The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices continues to fight the smoking ban by asking that Ontario’s bars, pubs and lounges receive the same opportunity as government-run casinos to build smoking shelters. Real sales in Ontario’s bar, tavern and nightclub sector have dropped by 8% or $21 million in the first five months of the provincial smoking ban that was implemented on June 1 of last year, according to Statistics Canada. Since 2001, the bar, tavern and nightclub sector has suffered a 24% or $182-million drop in real sales, and an 18% drop in the number of establishments, due in large part to municipal smoking bans and the province-wide ban.xiv

18% in five months. So, let's extrapolate that to 3% per month, that's 36% in the first year.

Yeah, I'm dislexic, instead of 63% it is 36%........my bad. But that only talks about bars pubs and lounges NOT coffee shops. I personally know of 3 around the place I worked that closed due to the ban. Considering at the time there was only about 6 or 7, that's about 50%

The restaurant and bar industry has always been a place where they come and go on a regular basis. Owners always cry the blues. Your statistics are very old and frankly, there's no back up so at best they are anecdotal. I HIGHLY doubt that any restaurant federation undertook ANY serious scientific / statistical study on the issue. (For that matter, how would you - you would need to compare data before the ban went into effect, short term after, long term after, etc. You would then have to rely on restaurant owners and their own biases. (AND you could never count on their books being accurate since they all skim cash anyway.) Further, since the smoking ban is literally cross country wide - the only choice smokers have is to stay at home, or not smoke in bars and restaurants. I highly doubt that smokers are staying at home.

A friend of mine in the restaurant service industry will tell you that business is down 25% in the last year due to the recession. I would argue that the economy has more effect on the restaurant business than any smoking ban.

 

[tboy]

Actually OJ, the op did NOT state that he wanted to smoke where others were. He simply said we should allow smoking in clubs and bars. Totally different statements there my friend.

No, the law does NOT allow anyone to smoke anywhere in a "public" place or private club. That's the draconian law that was written.

As I keep alluding to: just wait until they make drinking, eating fast food, etc etc illegal. We'll see what tune you sing then.

 

[james t kirk]

Drinking and eating fast food affects the eater. Not the guy sitting 10 feet away 2 tables over.

Improper comparison.

 

[oldjones]

Fixed the misquote tboy, and if we're to believe he had no interest in smoking there if it was allowed, I've got a suspension bridge to sell you.

How can I make it clearer than I have that I'd favour private smoking clubs, but that no one has suggested a plan for one that will work?

The stuff about fast food is irrelevant and anyway it was all controlled and legislated by pure food and product safety laws long before the smoking ban. Where was the Voice of Freedom from the smokers then?

Smokers who didn't give a damn about the people around them—or freedom—dug their own grave, ashtray by ashtray.

 

[afterhours]

if they outlawed fast food I would not be too upset about it; it is responsible for fat ass unfuckable population which increases competition for slim girls

 

[tboy]

Fixed the misquote tboy, and if we're to believe he had no interest in smoking there if it was allowed, I've got a suspension bridge to sell you.

How can I make it clearer than I have that I'd favour private smoking clubs, but that no one has suggested a plan for one that will work?

The stuff about fast food is irrelevant and anyway it was all controlled and legislated by pure food and product safety laws long before the smoking ban. Where was the Voice of Freedom from the smokers then?

Smokers who didn't give a damn about the people around them—or freedom—dug their own grave, ashtray by ashtray.

You don't need any complex "plan" just change the laws to allow it. EOS.

Guy A purchases a building, converts it to a club/bar calls it "smokers united".
Rules are: you can smoke here. Know this before entering or before applying for a job.
What more needs to be done?

This whole thread is solved very simply and reminds me of a shop I worked at: when new people applied to work there the FIRST thing the owner said was: This is a smoking shop. I smoke, my foreman smokes, and 2 of the workers. If YOU want to work here, you have to deal with it. Otherwise? No job.

Same thing with a smoking "club". If you know ahead of time what the club is about, you have NO beef later.

Just like thousands of other jobs where there are dangers and hazards explained before you get hired......

As for James and the validity of the stats:
It is pretty easy to compare data. No recession, No other change in rules or regulations other than a ban on smoking. Clubs closed at a high rate in the months following the ban. You can close your eyes, cover your ears but there is NO denying that the immediate effect of the ban was that patrons stopped going to clubs for a time.

The studies were carried out by the restaurant association NOT individual owners.

 

[Vincent Chase]

Drinking and eating fast food affects the eater. Not the guy sitting 10 feet away 2 tables over.

Improper comparison.

I was thinking the same thing!

Unless they start making drinks and food that literally expose harmful fumes to the guy/girl sitting or standing next to you, lol.

 

[nolabel]

Guy A purchases a building, converts it to a club/bar calls it "smokers united".
Rules are: you can smoke here. Know this before entering or before applying for a job.
What more needs to be done?

Not much. This is such a good idea. I have a similar one. I am going to start a Club called 'kill a stranger today'. Rules are: you can kill strangers here. Know this before entering or applying for a job (especially because, statistically, you are likely to meet strangers in this bar, whether a patron or staff). Nothing else needs to be done. Let's kill.

Lest it is not obvious, this is called a reductio ad absurdum. One proves the falsity of something by following its logic to an absurd conclusion.

Sometimes, and Clubs where citizens can smoke and kill are instances of such, Governments pass regulations (ie: health and safety, and so on) to stop citizens from doing stupid things to themselves. Paternalistic, I know, but anyone whining about not being able to do precisely what they want wherever they want are just misunderstanding 'Rights'. One does not have a right to smoke wherever, for instance. Rights are always aimed at individuals, but they are meant to regulate how individuals relate to each other and how they pursue their political interests. The ban on smoking is just one example of rights being regulated in the common interest. One needs a better case than 'tobacco is cool' and 'I should be able to do as I please' to seek an exemption (such as a Club).

But at least this is an interesting thread!

 

[oldjones]

Your plan doesn't work, and if you can't do a better job of selling, it's hopeless. Like the Final Solution of your shop owner, it depends on unfair unsafe practices being imposed on others. Not on choice, rights or freedoms.

You want to smoke, you have every right to, as long as the place is not public and as long as no employment standards apply. That'd be a club. But when you hire the first humidor-tender, it's a workplace.

Do please name a couple of those "thousands of other jobs where there are dangers and hazards explained" AND the employer expects you to let her get away with flouting the laws that regulate them. We call such people offenders, and we do what we can to shut them down, so your list will be interesting. Are you really saying "…you have NO beef later" as long as the boss warned you there were no fire exits, and the solvents stored by the stove were all highly flammable?

You're referring to a james t. post after mine. If you meant to counter his post that I referred to, it's this:

Smoking rooms didn't work because they were not properly constructed, ventilation was not installed. Some places ran glass partitions up to the false ceiling but there were air returns in the ceiling that led to the same make-up air units. Air quality tests showed that the air inside the restaurant was still being contaminated by the smokers regardless of whether or not the smoking was being done in a special room or not.

Sure you can make a million specs and standards to fix every one of those failings and hire a raft of inspectors to enforce them, but that would be "…a complex plan". Since you say 'we' don't need one, at least let's drop the now-dead topic of separate smoking rooms.

Leaving your Simple United Smokers Club as the only topic still on the table. All for it, get together, buy a building and open one.

But don't try to make agreeing to an unsafe workplace a job requirement. That is far from simple.

 

[blueflame]

honestly its pretty bullshit. soon enough people wont be allowed to smoke in their own homes at this rate.

 

[oldjones]

Just not around your staff.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

It's simple.

Of course smoking is a health hazard to the smoker and and can also be a risk to non-smokers depending on the degree to which they are exposed. Sitting in a room full of smokers will expose all the occupants, smokers and non-smokers alike, to additional second-hand smoke. Some have (incorrectly) claimed that second-hand exposure is more hazardous than being a smoker. Anyone that has actually read the studies (or has a modicum of common sense) knows that this is total crap, however, second-hand smoke IS a legitimate health risk and people have a right not to be exposed to it.

So, what's a reasonable approach to protecting the rights of non-smokers while still treating people who choose to smoke as citizens under the law? Remember, tobacco is not only legal in this province, the provincial government is de facto in the tobacco business because of the huge revenues they receive from every sale of these products.

One reasonable answer would be to enforce a ban on smoking in indoor public areas such as government buildings, retail establishments, theatres, places of work, and places of worship. After all, many non-smokers don't like to be around smoke and they should not feel excluded from these public spaces because of smokers. Similarly, children don't always have the power to make and enforce decisions about where they go and what t hey do. It, therefore, makes sense that smoking should not be permitted in the presence of minors because it is unfair to expose them to second-hand smoke without giving them any choice. Therefore, schools, restaurants where children are admitted, indoor play areas, and such places should certainly have a non-smoking policy enforced.

However, what if people want to get together socially and smoke as part of their gathering? What if people want to go to a club or bar that allows smoking? What's the big deal about having bars, clubs, or other establishments, that allow smoking? If there is no obligation for a non-smoker to go there, who's rights are being violated by letting smokers smoke amongst themselves? There could still be bars and clubs that don't allow smoking (assuming anyone would want to go there) but why not allow business to make the choice to cater to smokers if that is the demographic they want to attract?

Ahh...what about the poor employees who are forced to work in a smoky bar? They're rights are in jeopardy if we let smokers have their own clubs. This is the specious argument for banning ventilated smoking areas, private smoking lounges, and other reasonable accommodations that would and could make this issue be handled fairly.

The argument is specious because we are extending a form of "protection" to wait-staff in (formerly) smoking bars that we do not extend to any other workers in our society. When factories deal in smelly or hazardous substances, the employees there are given appropriate protection (masks, gloves, breathing apparatus (whatever it takes) to allow them to work in that environment. However, even with all these protections, some of these jobs still carry risk and employees have to decide if they want to take that risk in return for paid employment. Hydro workers climb poles and live power standards (often) in high winds to ensure that our lights stay on. Sure, they have protective gear, safety lines, and special boots but their job still carries some danger; it's their choice whether or not to take the job and we don't suggest that electricity should be banned because it is dangerous for some of the workers.

Many people are allergic to perfume (or just find it unpleasant) but no one has banned perfume in government offices, workplaces, or bars. I guess it's OK to protect a non-smoking waitress from the smell of tobacco but if she were strongly allergic to perfume we'd just say "sorry, I guess you can't work here".

What is the matter with this society?

I could go on at length with examples but the point is that there are many. Some among us have decided that smokers no longer deserve the right to smoke and the non-smoking laws (which were very reasonable at the beginning) have gone too far overboard.