Calgary's Smoking By-Law

[DuffMan]

So, if I have this right, in 2001 they decided to implement a ban on smoking by 2008. Man, if that isn;t giving people time to prepare, I don't know what is.
Calgary really is one of the last places to go smoke free. It's been that way in all of BC for years. I was in Ottawa about 3 years ago and it was smoke free. Edmonton has been that way for a year now I think.
But then again, I was in Switzerland last year, and you could still smoke anywhere, on trains, workplaces, indoors, anywhere.

[MacDougalbry]

Check out the article in today's Sun. You've got Alderman Maciver basically saying he doesn't care that polls show most Calgarians favour a ban, and then the president of the restaurant association making some weird comments about Alderman Burrows... "But he says the gloves are now off, adding Burrows has proven himself a turncoat. "

[Nehkara]

Some watering holes, he alleges, receive major support from tobacco companies, which they use for booking bands and even renovations in return for promoting cigarettes on their premises.
Tobacco companies fight tooth and nail for the right to sign contracts with bars, worth easily $100,000 a year, he says.

It's a charge echoed somewhat by smoking opponents in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, who say tobacco firms made large donations to a hospitality industry group there that sprang up to block an anti-smoking bylaw.

----------

In any case, says Hagen, Calgary's current bylaw forcing restaurants to choose between tobacco and minors while leaving bars unfettered has left the city the butt of black humour among the health conscious across the country.

"Calgary is considered a Chernobyl among smoke-free circles in Canada -- people are constantly bringing it up," says the Edmontonian, noting the city is the last larger centre in Canada not to institute a comprehensive ban.

----------

"Protection delayed is protection denied," he says.

----------

Three years ago, his concern over the fate of mom and pop operations had him favouring the 2008 deadline.

Since then, however, business owners have told him their fears of a financial hit from a cigarette ban have gone up in smoke, says the alderman.

"They're saying now things have changed. They're doing fine," says Burrows. "It would have been one thing if we'd changed our minds six months after, but now it'll be four years.

The ability to be flexible and admit one might have been mistaken is more valuable than misplaced loyalty, he adds.

And bowing to the demands of the majority, which includes the 80% of Calgarians who are non-smokers, says Burrows, is just plain intelligent.

"Do what the majority says and you'll have a long life in politics," he says.


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...87370-sun.html

[pepper24]

Emailed Alderman King who luckily supports the motion. I have buddies who smoke who are in favor of the ban and it is a treat going to a bar without smoke filled clothes in the morning.

Bars complain that it could be bad for business but other cities have reported increased business after the ban takes place meaning that tons of people stayed away due to smoking. Calgary bar owners should take notice.

[EVERLAST]

I applaud EVERY BAR OWNER that has simply decided that there will be NO smoking in thier establishments.

MOre bar owners should just ban smoking. I recently noticed NICKS has become smoke free and advertise as doing so.

I also dont buy the ...tabacco companies paid for my renovations BS. NAme me one restarant in Calgary which has publicly stated this.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

I also dont buy the ...tabacco companies paid for my renovations BS. NAme me one restarant in Calgary which has publicly stated this.

I don't think any of them will state it. One former bar manager was quoted in the paper (anonymously, so I'm not sure how much credability he has) that some bars get big money for allowing signage and remaining 'smoking friendly'.

[J pold]

I herd a report a couple of weeks ago about the smoking issues in Montreal, it would seem that they are of a very different opinion, the story was about how bar owners are upset that it is illegal for there customers to smoke, they had one bar owner that said he still lets people smoke despite the by-law, claiming the fine is worth the amount of extra business he gets by letting people smoke

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by J pold

I herd a report a couple of weeks ago about the smoking issues in Montreal, it would seem that they are of a very different opinion, the story was about how bar owners are upset that it is illegal for there customers to smoke, they had one bar owner that said he still lets people smoke despite the by-law, claiming the fine is worth the amount of extra business he gets by letting people smoke

Quebec's public smoking ban is only a few weeks old. These type of complaints are typical in any jurisdiction that has recently introduced a public smoking ban. Over time bar and pub owners will discover that business is not as drastically affected as they may fear.

[Bobblehead]

I've read that there is initially drop in business. Then the smokers discover it is more fun to actually go where there are other people, and business recovers. The only ones that don't are the ones where people discover the stink wasn't actually a result of the smoke.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by MacDougalbry

Check out the article in today's Sun. You've got Alderman Maciver basically saying he doesn't care that polls show most Calgarians favour a ban, and then the president of the restaurant association making some weird comments about Alderman Burrows... "But he says the gloves are now off, adding Burrows has proven himself a turncoat. "

What ward is Maciver in? I would suggest EVERYONE write/call him and ask him if he likes his job? To not even consider what the majority of Calgarians want is just crazy and should be political suicide.

[ken0042]

Unfortunately he is in my ward; so the area around McKenzie Towne.

[Bill Bumface]

Notice how we have 28 votes saying we should wait until 2008, yet not one post providing some insight as to why?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Notice how we have 28 votes saying we should wait until 2008, yet not one post providing some insight as to why?

Thats because there is no good justification.......i voted to wait ..........i know..........I was just hoping we could dely the inevitable

Fact is, even as a smoker i can say this should be banned ASAP in all public places, I am making a choice that may kill me, but others shouldnt have that choice made for them. I really think the only real oppostion is not from the public, but rather "big buisness"

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Fact is, even as a smoker i can say this should be banned ASAP in all public places, I am making a choice that may kill me, but others shouldnt have that choice made for them. I really think the only real oppostion is not from the public, but rather "big buisness"

You couldn't have said it any better being a smoker.

[Mccree]

When does this go to a vote? I know it is today but at what time?

[MissTeeks]

Originally Posted by Mccree

When does this go to a vote? I know it is today but at what time?

Looks like we have to wait until tomorrow.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...7/1689313.html

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Sun Article

But some business owners have argued overturning the deal finalized in December, 2002 would be a betrayal, adding they're not yet ready for the change.

Let me give you a hint:
1) Post $1.69 worth of "No Smoking" signs
2) Remove ashtrays
3) Breathe fresh air

These bar owners are so full of crap that it's hard to believe we've elected 8 city councillors who are stupid enough to listen.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Notice how we have 28 votes saying we should wait until 2008, yet not one post providing some insight as to why?

Well, someone could say that a promise made should be a promise kept. The government chose a date of 2008, and should stick with that date.

I don't support smoking, but I can see how if you said you were going to hit a deadline, and shortly before said deadline people were trying to push it back, you might fight to maintain what you had originally planned.

It is simply following through on your original intention.

As for "they should change it because it is what the majority wants", it is a sound argument, but not infallible. The classic counterpoint is civil rights in the south in the 1960's, where the white majority did not want integration.

All that said...I hope Cgy goes smoke free sooner rather than later!

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

As for "they should change it because it is what the majority wants", it is a sound argument, but not infallible. The classic counterpoint is civil rights in the south in the 1960's, where the white majority did not want integration.

Smokers are not a "minority" in the classic sense...they're simply the small proportion of the population that's stupid enough to burn weeds and inhale the smoke. That ain't a civil right in a civil society.

Yes, smokers are stupid. So am I, because I ingest copious amounts of a substance that impairs my judgment, kills brain cells, and damages my liver. So maybe they should make legislation to prevent me from disturbing (or killing) others with my drunkenness? OH WAIT! They already have!

[Hakan]

Said it before, saying it again.

The smoke free bars here in Vancouver are awesome. It really is not a big deal for the smokers. Most bars have a smoking patio and the other ones you just step outside for a second.

EVERYONE wins.