Smoking banned on open air patios starting Jan 1 2015

Discuss beer or anything else that comes to mind in here.

Moderators: GregClow, Cass

Publican
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Mississauga

Postby Publican » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm

I don't think this bar relies on just the FA Cup and other footie matches as they regularly have live bands and that's when it seems to be packed. I've just noticed that most of the patrons are smokers. Perhaps they will be heading out the front door of this bar to smoke when the law changes.
User avatar
lister
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby lister » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:36 pm

The gloom and doomers proclaimed the world was ending when the smoking bans came in (the short one then the current one) and we're all still here. Smokers adjusted. They still want to go out. Those of us smoker haters came out more. Same will happen with the patios.

Besides, they need to quit, it's all bad for you.

Sad to see people light up immediately after exiting public transit or the airport, etc. :roll:
lister
User avatar
MatttthewGeorge
Bar Fly
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm
Location: Woolwich, ON
Contact:

Postby MatttthewGeorge » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:04 pm

I'm concerned about rights. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. As soon as you place even one restriction on property rights, you are against property rights.

I'm all for banning smoking in public places. No parks, hospitals, etc. Have a campaign against it, it's gross and it's anti-life. And I believe property rights (as with all rights) end where the next persons property rights begin. But if I guy wants to run a bar and allow his patrons to smoke in or out of it, on his property, then he should have the right to. Let the customer decide if they want to patronize the bar, not the government.
untappd/tweetbox/facebitch/snapitychat/etc: @matttthewgeorge
User avatar
Belgian
Bar Towel Legend
Posts: 9824
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:15 pm
Location: Earth

Postby Belgian » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:10 am

Pondering this ^ do we still have the right to build with asbestos or Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation? Does that ban offend our sacred property rights?

If (it may be argued) getting rid of smoking in bars has no more effect on business than getting rid of lead in gasoline or getting rid of CFC's in refrigerant systems, then that's not an infringement on useful privileges. It's providing a cleaner healthier space to live in.

I honestly think a lot of us today would still HAVE to breathe others' 'rightful' second hand smoke in a lot of places we had to go or work each day if they didn't slowly ban it over the last 25 years. Used to be cars, bars, workplaces, restaurants, airports, taxis, malls, people's homes, concerts, bus shelters... and you as a child or an adult just had to deal with The Smoking Class, like they were some kind of royalty... while the rest of us endured a constant toxic stress.

What about the right to not smoke? I sure would miss it.
In Beerum Veritas
Kel Varnsen
Bar Fly
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 8:25 am
Location: Ottawa

Postby Kel Varnsen » Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:54 am

Belgian wrote:Pondering this ^ do we still have the right to build with asbestos or Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation? Does that ban offend our sacred property rights?

If (it may be argued) getting rid of smoking in bars has no more effect on business than getting rid of lead in gasoline or getting rid of CFC's in refrigerant systems, then that's not an infringement on useful privileges. It's providing a cleaner healthier space to live in.

I honestly think a lot of us today would still HAVE to breathe others' 'rightful' second hand smoke in a lot of places we had to go or work each day if they didn't slowly ban it over the last 25 years. Used to be cars, bars, workplaces, restaurants, airports, taxis, malls, people's homes, concerts, bus shelters... and you as a child or an adult just had to deal with The Smoking Class, like they were some kind of royalty... while the rest of us endured a constant toxic stress.

What about the right to not smoke? I sure would miss it.


I am sort of thinking the same thing. I mean a bar or a restaurant still has to meet health code requirements, and fire code/building code requirements. MatthewGeorge would you be ok with a restaurant that doesn't have a hand washing policy, doesn't have the correct number of fire exits or a fire alarm system or has electrical outlets that may shock people or doesn't have a clean kitchen? Because to me that is the exact same thing as far as property rights. You can't just put up a sign that says "enter at your own risk" and ignore all laws.

And that doesn't even factor in the health of the employees. I mean a construction company can't just say "our workers aren't going to wear hard hats, if you don't like it you don't have to work here". So why should a restaurant be any different?
User avatar
MatttthewGeorge
Bar Fly
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm
Location: Woolwich, ON
Contact:

Postby MatttthewGeorge » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:21 am

Where do you draw the line? What restrictions do you think should be imposed on a property owner? And what about your neighbour, what if he think's your restrictions don't go far enough? And what about his neighbour? And so on?

Once you start telling people what they can and cannot do with their property, or with their lives for that matter, you start a chain reaction. First it's only a few restrictions, some things that really make sense. Until you end up forcing people with businesses on 2nd floors to put in an elevator or close up their business... which is what's is being mandated by 2025.

Let's look at it another way: Joe Blow, the owner of the bar we've been talking about, hates the new smoking ban. He tells his customers "Go ahead and smoke, it's my property and I say it's ok". His customers go smoke on the patio and Joe Blow gets a fine for allowing it. Are we ok with this? I'll assume you guys are ok with it. But what if Joe doesn't pay? What if he refuses because he thinks the law is unjust? Are you ok with Joe being taken to jail because he didn't pay? Is that a fair price to pay for wanting to allow your customers to smoke on your property? And what if Joe refuses to go to jail? What if is resists arrest? Do we shoot Joe? Does Joe die because he refused to go to jail, because he refused to pay his fine, because he refused to support a law which he felt was unjust and against his rights?

An extreme example, maybe, but that's only because Joe will likely go with the ban at the expense of his business, not because it's the right thing to do, but because paying a fine, jail or death are worse options. If Joe did not go with the ban, my example would be exactly how it would work. The ban you support is not moral, it is force. You force Joe with what he can do with his property and if Joe refuses, you use force against Joe as punishment. This is fascism at it's core: government control of private property.

I'm not advocating a lawless society. I'm actually pro-government, however I want government to do what it is suppose to do: govern. This means government should protect our rights, not impose on them. This means government should act as an arbiter in disagreements, a referee if you will, not a player. This means government should have the sole allowable use of force (self-defence excluded) to protect it's citizens from those that would do it harm. But it does not mean using said force to impose it's will on the people. I'm for a government that wants to defend it's citizens, not defeat them.
untappd/tweetbox/facebitch/snapitychat/etc: @matttthewgeorge
User avatar
lister
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby lister » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:42 am

MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker. This is kind of like arguing with religious people about their beliefs, pointless as whatever ludicrous examples get brought up to support them.

You talk about rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same goes for smoke. There are rules that govern our society mostly for our protection whether it's public, private-public and truly private (like your home) spaces. Do you seriously advocate a free-for-all do-whatever-you-like fuck-you-and-everyone approach?
lister
User avatar
Craig
Seasoned Drinker
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:23 am

Postby Craig » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:56 am

MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm concerned about rights. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. As soon as you place even one restriction on property rights, you are against property rights.


MatttthewGeorge wrote:Where do you draw the line? What restrictions do you think should be imposed on a property owner? And what about your neighbour, what if he think's your restrictions don't go far enough? And what about his neighbour? And so on?

Once you start telling people what they can and cannot do with their property, or with their lives for that matter, you start a chain reaction. First it's only a few restrictions, some things that really make sense. Until you end up forcing people with businesses on 2nd floors to put in an elevator or close up their business... which is what's is being mandated by 2025.


Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic? Just off the top of my head, we've had a national building code since the 60s and provincial ones since the 70s. An absolutist stance on property rights is awfully antiquated and not particularly relevant to a smoking ban.
User avatar
Kish84
Bar Fly
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:41 pm
Location: Kitchener

Postby Kish84 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:45 am

lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker.


MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm all for banning smoking in public places. No parks, hospitals, etc. Have a campaign against it, it's gross and it's anti-life.

I guess you can think it's gross and still do it, but...
"There's always money in the banana stand."
User avatar
lister
Beer Superstar
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby lister » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:50 am

Kish84 wrote:
lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker.


MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm all for banning smoking in public places. No parks, hospitals, etc. Have a campaign against it, it's gross and it's anti-life.

I guess you can think it's gross and still do it, but...


Alright, I missed that. Early morning, caffeine not doing it's magic, etc.
lister
jrenihan
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:36 am

Postby jrenihan » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:55 am

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Let's look at it another way: Joe Blow, the owner of the bar we've been talking about, hates the new smoking ban. He tells his customers "Go ahead and smoke, it's my property and I say it's ok". His customers go smoke on the patio and Joe Blow gets a fine for allowing it. Are we ok with this? I'll assume you guys are ok with it. But what if Joe doesn't pay? What if he refuses because he thinks the law is unjust? Are you ok with Joe being taken to jail because he didn't pay? Is that a fair price to pay for wanting to allow your customers to smoke on your property? And what if Joe refuses to go to jail? What if is resists arrest? Do we shoot Joe? Does Joe die because he refused to go to jail, because he refused to pay his fine, because he refused to support a law which he felt was unjust and against his rights?


I'm starting to find it hard to believe that you are being serious. The bar owner "resists arrest", gets shot and dies, all because of a smoking ban?

Even playing along for a moment, it is the business that gets fined, not the ultimate shareholder. The bar may get shut down/lose licenses, etc, but nobody is being arrested.

More to the point, this absolutist interpretation of property rights you are advancing (all or nothing, any infringement of any sort any you may as well embrace communism, etc) is absurd and not reflective of any modern society. I cannot turn my house into a convenience store due to zoning laws. I am similarly prohibited from adding five more stories to it. A bar is not permitted to refuse entry to certain classes of people. A property designated as a heritage building cannot be tampered with. Building codes require permits and approvals before certain works can be done. If you rent your living space, there are certain obligations you must comply with. There are countless ways in which we regulate and restrict property rights. In no way does this lead to the total erosion of peroprty rights or people getting shot.

In any event, this is not a property rights issue so much as a labour rights issue. The primary justification for the initial smoking ban is the health of workers. People who have to work in a smoke-filled environment are at risk of serious health consequences. To suggest that they are free to work elsewhere if they choose ignores the reality that, for many people, there is limited freedom to choose where you work. It is (necessarily) as coercive a choice as any.

The real question is whether extending the ban to open patios (smoking is already prohibited on patios with awnings or other coverings) is similarly justified. Not having any insight into the subject, I don't know whether working in an outside environment in the presence of tobacco smoke poses any health risk. If it does not, there is a good argument that the regulation is unjustifiably harsh.
Ren
Masterplan
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:00 am

Postby Masterplan » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:30 pm

People still smoke?
toweringpine
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: Etobicoke

Postby toweringpine » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:15 pm

I think we are doing it the right way. Smoking rates have gone from around 50% at one time gradually down to the 17% they are at now. Eventually smoking will be banned outright. We cannot do that now as there would be too much outcry but in the not too distant future smokers will be no more than a fringe group and too small to be concerned about. There will be a fight for people who are opposed to government interference on principal but they will be ignored. Gradual steps to discourage people from smoking, gradual increases on prices making today's smokers pay huge amounts to cover the health care costs of the old time smokers are the right way to do this. Rarely do I think the government gets anything right but they finally managed to do it.

It blows my mind that parents go to the park with their kids and stand around smoking while pushing a swing. If they can't figure out on their own that this is bad then thankfully the government is telling them directly.
User avatar
MatttthewGeorge
Bar Fly
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm
Location: Woolwich, ON
Contact:

Postby MatttthewGeorge » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:09 pm

lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker. This is kind of like arguing with religious people about their beliefs, pointless as whatever ludicrous examples get brought up to support them.

You talk about rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same goes for smoke. There are rules that govern our society mostly for our protection whether it's public, private-public and truly private (like your home) spaces. Do you seriously advocate a free-for-all do-whatever-you-like fuck-you-and-everyone approach?


Since you were corrected on your first point (I am not a smoker), I will comment on the second:

MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm not advocating a lawless society. I'm actually pro-government, however I want government to do what it is suppose to do: govern. This means government should protect our rights, not impose on them. This means government should act as an arbiter in disagreements, a referee if you will, not a player. This means government should have the sole allowable use of force (self-defence excluded) to protect it's citizens from those that would do it harm. But it does not mean using said force to impose it's will on the people. I'm for a government that wants to defend it's citizens, not defeat them.


Right here I've stated that I'm not for a lawless society, or as you've put it, a "free-for-all do-whatever-you-like fuck-you-and-everyone approach". As a matter of fact, you're saying "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." is something I say all the time and goes directly to support my argument. The government has swung it's big iron fist and it's smacked bar owners who wish to use their private property as they see fit, right in the face.
untappd/tweetbox/facebitch/snapitychat/etc: @matttthewgeorge
User avatar
MatttthewGeorge
Bar Fly
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:45 pm
Location: Woolwich, ON
Contact:

Postby MatttthewGeorge » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:20 pm

Craig wrote:Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic? Just off the top of my head, we've had a national building code since the 60s and provincial ones since the 70s. An absolutist stance on property rights is awfully antiquated and not particularly relevant to a smoking ban.


Property rights are extremely relevant to the smoking ban. The ban tells the owner what they can or cannot do with their property. I'm all for government banning smoking in public places. It seems crazy to me that we allow people to smoke on public sidewalks and in public parks but we ban smoking on people's private property.
untappd/tweetbox/facebitch/snapitychat/etc: @matttthewgeorge

Return to “Random Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest