open letter to Dave Bronconnier.....

[J pold]

Originally Posted by troutman

You should see Greece. Everyone smokes all the time, everywhere. On the plane, at the bank, etc. It will be a long time before Europe is non-smoking.

Yeah it’s the exact same in Italy, everyone smokes all the time, and there is no signs of slowing things down, I would like to see the number of people with lung cancer and smoking related diseases In Europe

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by J pold

Yeah it’s the exact same in Italy, everyone smokes all the time, and there is no signs of slowing things down, I would like to see the number of people with lung cancer and smoking related diseases In Europe

Italy is behind Canada by one in terms of Life Expentancy with the average age being 79.81. See part of the mentality in Europe is to not worry about health and somehow it works just as good and sometimes better (U.S.) than us North Americans.


Looked it up, The United States has 0.06% of its citizens diagnosed with Lung Cancer, while Italy has the exact 0.06 percent of its citizens diagnosed.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Make sure you speak with your wallet. Start going to places that are non-smoking.
.

frankly, i agree with this ... i dont agree with state sanctioned laws (like what the OP suggest).

first off, i dont smoke and i hate the smell of it, especially on my clothes. that being said, if you dont like, too bad. its not your business, vote with your wallet.

the only parties who have a bone to pick in this issue are the workers who shouldnt be subjected to second hand smoke hazards on the job. so from that angle, i would support a ban on smoking, but otherwise i prefer to err on the side of personal liberty over state sanctions.

same goes for drug laws, sex/marriage laws and gun laws.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Flame On

They've been testing it on a select group for quite a while. Then debating results and going back and doing it again and debating yawwwwn.
Its a plastic bin, in front of your house or development, that dudes with gloves pic up and dump in a truck how hard can it be!?
I hear they're going to not include "multi family residences" either. Only single family dwellnigs, i.e. houses.
Sorry for off topic rant.

why cant you bring your own recylcing to the bins at most of the safeway / coops in town? i would rather pay for one pick up there then to have a bunch of overpaid city working union grunts going around to each and every house.

[Sharpen 'Em]

Don't forget this is a very pro business city we live in. When a bunch of businesses all complain that there profits will drop to city council...they give them a few years to prepare for it. Yet if someone sprays graffiti on the side of your building and you don't clean it up right away, they fine you. I love this city but it's so backwards in certain ways. Why don't we have recyclying bins the size of dumpsters all over the place like Vancouver does? It's obviously not because Calgary is a poor city. I really wonder about city council. What about the smoking not allowed on patios bylaw!?! Keep the smokers inside?!?! Wtf?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

I really wonder about city council. What about the smoking not allowed on patios bylaw!?! Keep the smokers inside?!?! Wtf?

Yeah that's a bit of an odd one. A few years back when I did such things I was on the patio at the Ship and I didn't know the rules and was told to go inside and smoke. There I was standing by the door inside, with all the other smokers and the staff. That made a lot of sense. Well I guess it made a lot of sense to the capri-pant/tan-chino crowd walking from their Navigator over to Rubaiyat. Those people hate pollution.

[ken0042]

What is so hard for people to grasp about the patio law?

When they were looking at the smoking laws; they looked at what other cities did. For example most of California has been smoke free since the 90's, so there was a lot of history in other cities. What had been banned there was smoking on streetside patios. The problem those cities faced was defining what a streetside patio was. How far from the street? Let's say 10 feet. You then have a guy who is 9.5 feet away asking for a variance, and then by-law inspectors need to take measurements, and it ends up costing the city all kinds of money in enforcement.

If you make the law simple; "No smoking on patios" then it is black and white, and easy to enforce.

Add to that the city knew eventually there would be no smoking anywhere within a few years, and it becomes a no brainer.

I find it funny; the city wastes money and it becomes an issue. This time the city found a way to save some money, and everybody jumps all over them.

[snappyk]

Deleted By Mod

[calculoso]

I love the patio law. When I'm sitting there enjoying a beverage and the sun, I don't need to have smoke blowing into my face (whether from someone blowing it or the wind blowing it).

[ken0042]

I think we'd need some more medical tests on the effects of second hand ass crack on non-ass crack sweaters.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

frankly, i agree with this ... i dont agree with state sanctioned laws (like what the OP suggest).

first off, i dont smoke and i hate the smell of it, especially on my clothes. that being said, if you dont like, too bad. its not your business, vote with your wallet.

the only parties who have a bone to pick in this issue are the workers who shouldnt be subjected to second hand smoke hazards on the job. so from that angle, i would support a ban on smoking, but otherwise i prefer to err on the side of personal liberty over state sanctions.

same goes for drug laws, sex/marriage laws and gun laws.

The problem is that from a business standpoint why would they want to eliminate smokers from their customer base when non-smokers have demonstarted they will frequent smoking establishments. They'll complain - but they'll come back.

Smokers won't frequent a business that doesn't permit them to light up.

Few businesses will make the decision to go non-smoking. So the end result is the same.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I love the patio law. When I'm sitting there enjoying a beverage and the sun, I don't need to have smoke blowing into my face (whether from someone blowing it or the wind blowing it).

I remember the whole patio law as being somewhat "17th Avenue" driven. As in a lot of pedestrians were bitching about having to walk past cigarette-smoky patios on 17th. Maybe elsewhere, I don't know, but I remember 17th being a focal point. I can understand that people don't like cigarette smoke, but isn't it a pretty minor (practically non-existent) thing compared to all the other pollution you are inhaling on that street?

Diesel buses, gravel trucks, belching SUVs, traffic jams, literally thousands of stinking cars driving past within spitting distance of a patio while you have a couple beers but it's the guy smoking a cigarette that is offensive?

[calf]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The problem is that from a business standpoint why would they want to eliminate smokers from their customer base when non-smokers have demonstarted they will frequent smoking establishments. They'll complain - but they'll come back.

Smokers won't frequent a business that doesn't permit them to light up.

Few businesses will make the decision to go non-smoking. So the end result is the same.

what we're also not looking at is how many non-smokers will start going to establishments that they have been avoiding because of all the smokers. There's no way to really estimate that at this point, but judging by how full pubs and clubs I've been to in cities where smoking has been banned, I don't think they're exactly hurting

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by calf

what we're also not looking at is how many non-smokers will start going to establishments that they have been avoiding because of all the smokers. There's no way to really estimate that at this point, but judging by how full pubs and clubs I've been to in cities where smoking has been banned, I don't think they're exactly hurting

Ah but there they have no choice. What we have seen in Calgary is a number of bars try to go non-smoking and fail (with some exceptinos).

Its my experience (purely anecdotal evidence) that if you have a group of people going to a bar/club - it takes but one smoker and the group will go to a smoking establishment. They will impose their will on the rest of the group because ultimately they care more about smoking, then the rest do about going somewhere that doesn't allow smoking.

Ban it!

And ban olives too. I hate those.

Edit: Wait I see the point now you are making. That the bars will attract new customers that have avoided them because of the smoke. Interesting. Could be true.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

They will impose their will on the rest of the group

Clearly then smokers are superior people. Influential, powerful, able to impose their will on the rest of the group for purely selfish reasons.

All hail the cigarette smoker, for he is the true leader of men.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Clearly then smokers are superior people. Influential, powerful, able to impose their will on the rest of the group for purely selfish reasons.

All hail the cigarette smoker, for he is the true leader of men.

Naw. Just cares more.

Typically the conversations I've been in go something like this.

Group: Let's go to Non Smoking Bar XXX
Smokey McCoughsalot: Naw I wanna smoke
Group: OK

And then its done.

Perhaps non-smokers just need to grow a pair and stand up for themselves better.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The problem is that from a business standpoint why would they want to eliminate smokers from their customer base when non-smokers have demonstarted they will frequent smoking establishments. They'll complain - but they'll come back.

Smokers won't frequent a business that doesn't permit them to light up.

Few businesses will make the decision to go non-smoking. So the end result is the same.

yup ... so?

i would rather suffer with either not going to places cuz they stink or going to them and stinking than to have the govt decide for me.

i just dont like the govt telling consenting adults what to do. if you dont consent to second hand smoke, dont go to the establishment. sure might suck for you (and I) but too bad. life aint always fair.

[nuckles]

It's cause Calgary and Hellberta in general , are backwards , too da max!!

Redneck power!!

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

yup ... so?

i would rather suffer with either not going to places cuz they stink or going to them and stinking than to have the govt decide for me.

i just dont like the govt telling consenting adults what to do. if you dont consent to second hand smoke, dont go to the establishment. sure might suck for you (and I) but too bad. life aint always fair.

Fair enough but why should someone smoking dictate that.

Smoking is one act that directly harms other people. Why is it allowed? Nothing else is in that regard.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The youngsters in the crowd here probably don't remember how long a fight it was to get fluoride in the water here. Most (if not all) major municipalities in Canada had it, but it took 3-4 plebecites over 12 years to get it through here. A little afraid of change...