A glimpse of things to come
A few days ago, inspectors descended upon my favourite watering hole to berate its owners for offering too generously sized a smoking section. Under the threat of fines, the owners dutifully reserved the front two-thirds of the establishment for non-smokers. This is what the place looked like at 11:45 PM last Friday night:
What the picture doesn’t show is that the remaining third of the bar was standing room only.
Related posts:
May 31st is going to be…
Strange on how when you go to cabarets, bars and shows in New York or in Toronto, you can breathe, and here you cannot. I can’t wait to be able to go to “watering holes” and not smell like I smoked 2 packs myself.
Makes me wonder how many smokers in a groups would be enough for the whole gang to move to the moving section?
I can’t wait for May 31st.
funny thing about this whole deal (one of many actually) :
http://huskessem.blogspot.com/2006/05/le-qubec-respire-mieux-mais-les-arbres.html
Smoking Bans are always facist. Why be reasonable about things, when really, what you want is for other people to see the world as you do? Next you’re going to say that people shouldn’t smoke outside the doors of the bar, because you have to walk through it to get in. then you’re going to start complaining about the noise, and people loitering on the street. Then it’s going to be illegal to stand and smoke outside, so forgot the terrace, you have a right to sit out there too, without being irritated. For you it’s not even a health issue, you are so intolerant that you cannot differinate between what might be a nuisance to you and what constitutes an actual health risk. And really, if you were really all that health conscious, you probably wouldn’t be going to a bar in the first place. But then again, who can argue with you anyway, when really, you’re so concerned about your community, and everyone else, because you care so much, and are so respectful of other people and living creatures, and may even toss the homeless change every once in a while.But then, you won’t want to argue about it, or compromise, because you know you are right.
You’ll smirk and say, “I don’t know why you’re being so mean about this, why don’t we just agree to disagree?” Yet, still feel as though you have won.
In fact, why does anyone smoke in the first place? What don’t we just make it illegal? And after this, what about all of those fat people, why do they eat so much? Arent’ they, just like the smokers, costing the public health system way too much?
Yup, it’s definitely fat people next. Note especially the part about treating obesity “like a communicable disease.”
what appears to be concern for health risks for overweight individuals is actually a drug/medecine industry initiative/exclusive deal — the governmental weight decree is comin’, one distraction at a time ;)
The main reason for the smoking ban is not necessarily the welfare of the patrons that are there by choice but for the people who have to work in bars five days per week.
If you want facism, it’s quite simple. Just drive south for about 45 min.
HEY!!! We’re not all bad south of the border. We have… um.. we… have… I think of something.
I still really like that idea floated out there about smoking bars. It’s a bit segregated, but it would be better than this and allow smokers some freedoms. Let the market demand whether bars that are designated for smoking would flourish or disappear.
Ah, you mean this one! :-) This argument is at the core of the legal challenge that bar owners have filed against Bill 112, and which, after two attempts by the provincial government to have it dismissed, will now be heard by the Quebec Superior Court. Whether by means of private clubs or smoking licenses, it does seem to present the most rational alternative to both the current system and the considerably more draconian one that will come into effect on May 31st.
As for the health and safety of bar staff, I feel compelled to point out that service industry workers, as non-unionized employees, make less than the minimum wage; receive no pension benefits or health insurance; and deal with the threat of alcohol-induced violence every time they go to work. Although I have no doubt that some would prefer to work in a smoke-free environment, you’ll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about “pro-worker” arguments.
Our taxes at work : Anti-Tabacco spies being recruted at this moment (fining smokers in a way to gain losses from eventual quitters) : http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060517/CPACTUALITES/60517004&SearchID=73244933681371
As someone who has lived in both california and Canada, I can tell you what the road of the smoking ban looks like-the point is that a blanket ban turns customers, bar workers and bar owners into children who can’t find civilized solutions on their own. In this smoking ban just doesn’t end with not being able to smoke inside, it expands into all social and political spheres, until one day, you find yourself ticket for smoking on a street corner(as I was in Davis, California) and read an article that links crime to the poor nutrition of the poverty stricken.