Calgary's Smoking By-Law - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Mccree · 07-24-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

All the BPs have their lounge separated - I wonder of those will qualify?

I was wondering the same thing.

Hakan · 07-24-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mccree

I was wondering the same thing.

No smoking in the lounge.

Mccree · 07-24-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakan

No smoking in the lounge.

That is music to my ears

Grunt · 07-24-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Denny's, the corner of McKnight & Edmonton Trail build an addition on. I know the Humpty's on 36th NE has a sign saying "Smoking Room".

Although there is a room there that -was- used as a smoke room, I think it's just used for extra seating now. The last time I was at that Denny's we (as non-smokers) were seated in that area and no one else in the room was smoking, nor were there any ashtrays on tables.

Bobblehead · 07-24-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

Although there is a room there that -was- used as a smoke room, I think it's just used for extra seating now. The last time I was at that Denny's we (as non-smokers) were seated in that area and no one else in the room was smoking, nor were there any ashtrays on tables.

Which one was that?

I know the Tim Hortons at McKnight & 19th used to have an enclosed smoking room. They took it out a few years ago.

calculoso · 07-24-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Denny's, the corner of McKnight & Edmonton Trail build an addition on.

This smoking room is no more. Now it is a non-smoking room that has the lingering smell of smoke.

I believe that the Jack Astors down by Southland and MacLeod has a separate bar/smoking room, and they look like they spent a pretty penny on that.

I don't see many businesses rushing out to build a smoking room to get around this. They'd only get a year of use out of the room and, with construction costs through the roof right now, they wouldn't get their money's worth.

@theCBE · 07-24-2006, 05:10 PM

Moxies on 17th has a smoking room. Keeps the smell of smoke out of the rest of the resturant pretty well. Brutal if you are a non-smoker accompanying a friend in there though.

atb · 07-24-2006, 05:27 PM

Can't think of any bars on 17th, or any of the big clubs that have a smoking room.

KevanGuy · 07-24-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atb112

Can't think of any bars on 17th, or any of the big clubs that have a smoking room.

Me neither. Guess it is mostly restaurants that did the smoke room thing? It will be interesting to see if smokers congregate at these places.

flamingchina · 07-25-2006, 03:30 AM

Tipperany's (or something) on 16th ave NW, next to home depot has a smoking area, and the main area's already non smoking.

trew · 07-25-2006, 10:46 AM

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...01346-sun.html

It is starting to sound like the restaurant and bar associations will try to find a legal loophole. I hope the language is sufficiently clear in the by-law to make this a fruitless effort. It would have to be very badly written for someone to construe that their entire premises is a ventilated smoking room.

I particularly like how the restaurant lobbiest in the article makes it sound like they would have been in favour of a ban and just wanted to help out with the language of the deal.

Puh-leeze. These are the same people who pushed for the smoking room concept in the first place, and their goal is to get bylaw support to indefinately extend the usage of seperate ventilated smoking rooms. (As per the restaurant assoc. website).

In absense of this achievement, their mandate has always been delay, delay, delay. They know once the ban is in place, the public won't allow smoking to return. The city was pushing for 2003 non-smoking everywhere. The associations got involved, kicked up such a fuss, that the city rolled over and conceded 2008.

I love how this guy argues on one had that places with ventilated rooms have an unfair advantage to the public, yet on the other hand, his association advocates the very same playing field be extended indefinately.

Links:

http://www.crfa.ca/aboutcrfa/boardofdirectors.asp (AL Browne, Board Member, CRFA)

http://www.crfa.ca/issues/bytopic/sm...egulations.asp (CRFA's position on Smoking)

Quote: CRFA's position on smoking regulations... Permit designated smoking rooms (DSRs) . The most effective way to safeguard air quality in hospitality establishments is to use designated smoking rooms that control exposure to second-hand smoke .

I like how they claim, "For the record - CRFA is not affiliated with tobacco growers, tobacco manufacturers or any pro-smoking group." Guess they must get accused of this often, huh?

The more I read about this issue, the more I wonder how much involvment "Big Tobacco" has. The loss of smoking will have a marginal impact on bar/lounge sales, but I get the feeling that the loss of revenue to tobacco would be much larger.

ken0042 · 07-25-2006, 11:04 AM

One bar owner on Global this morning was saying how could they take 12,000 signatures, it's just on paper. And here I thought putting things on paper was better than oral. I suppose it would have been better for the lobbyists to say they talked to 12,000 people?

Then he goes on to ask how many of those people actually live in Calgary. Yes, when I'm visiting another city I always take time to fill out petitions.

Then talking to people I work with, one guy doesn't believe that 80% of Calgary doesn't smoke, because "look around at any restaurant or bar, and you'll see all kinds of smokers." Then he goes on to use an analogy of an adult video store- that if I don't like it I should just not go there. I tried to ask what the two have to do with each other- the only thing at an adult video store is porn, so if I don't like porn I won't go. But a restaurant serves food and beverages. Why should I also have to ingest smoke?

Bobblehead · 07-25-2006, 11:23 AM

I saw an interview about how bingo halls were going to shut down because of this. OK, so if this had been delayed a year they wouldn't have been in the same situation? Many of the arguments I've read have nothing to do with why the deadline shouldn't have been moved up, only why there shouldn't be a ban at all; and I don't believe that was even up for debate.

And from the CalSun link trew posted:

Quote:

Restaurateur Al Browne, who negotiated the original 2008 deadline nearly four years ago, said if council had spent a week consulting with the industry, it could have gotten a clean smoking prohibition for 2007.

OMG. This is the same guy who has fought the ban every step of the way.

On another topic, I think I will send my alderman an email thanking her for her change of heart. I still don't think she is a very good alderman, but I do want to let her know that her vote was appreciated.

And finally, also from the Calgary Sun:

Quote:

Smoking on Olympic Plaza will soon be outlawed.

City council yesterday passed a bylaw forcing users of the downtown space to butt out, partly in recognition of the plaza's symbolic link to athleticism and health.

trew · 07-25-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trew

If the big sticking point is breaking promises to businesses that made capital investments, then why not put in a grandfather clause for those places that sunk money into seperate ventalation as a result of the previous bylaw?

I say give 'em a one year extension till the original smoke-free date. As far as I can tell they are in the vast minority of the remaining establisments that allow smoking. At least they offer non-smoking areas which is more than can be said for a lot of places.

So.... I posted this on Calgarypuck last week, and also fired off an email to Rick Bell at the SUN, asking him if he knew whether or not City hall was even discussing this as an option.

Funny thing happens today: I was checking my email and I get a couple emails from Mr. Bell...

It turns out that city hall hadn't discussed this as an option. However, because of me emailling Rick, and Rick asking them, well, they started talking about it. More importantly, this was enough of a compromise to get the swing votes to move over and the ammendment was passed.

I never would have gotten involved in this issue if it wasn't for this thread on Calgarypuck, and I probably wouldn't have read Rick's article if it wasn't linked here first.

Damn...Is there anything a Calgarypuck Jihad can't do???

atb · 07-25-2006, 08:34 PM

Haha trew, when I read the proposed amendment on the weekend the first thing I thought of was your post on CP.

Nice Job

Ironhorse · 07-26-2006, 09:08 AM

Good on you trew! Bravo!

KevanGuy · 07-26-2006, 10:56 AM

Wow, I gotta say trew, that is pretty amazing.

ken0042 · 07-26-2006, 11:04 AM

Yep, it's amazing what can be accomplished when people get together. One guy starts the conversation, another guy puts an idea forward, and the next thing you know something gets done on a grand scale.

Good job Trew!

Maybe we can convince one of the mods to change your description from "Draft Pick" to "Enforcer" or something.

Sharpen 'Em · 07-26-2006, 11:10 AM

You rule trew!!! Next January will be glorious.

FireFly · 07-26-2006, 11:20 AM

I have to say that as a reformed smoker, this is the best thing that could happen to someone like myself. The worst time for me is when I'm at a bar having a beer because what goes better with beer than a cigarette? (To a smoker anyways...) Now I won't have people in my face with their cigarettes tempting me to have one. I won't have the smell bothering me at all. It's great. It makes it so much easier to quit for good.