Smoking Bylaw

[Halcohol]

Doesn't matter. It is my choice as an employer. Just as it is my employee's choice not to work for me. I'll give them a letter of recommendation, a pat on the back for their convictions and send them on their way. I'm not lording over them with a whip making them work for me. It is their choice. If the smoke bothers them go somewhere without it. I've worked at places with company policies that I hate, should I petition the government to remove them? Hell no, I quit and went somewhere else (and eventually opened my own business).

Ok, I'm going to be rude because I've said it a million times and you ignore it.

IT IS NOT ENDANGERING THE WELL-BEING OF THE MAJORITY. THE MAJORITY CAN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY ARE NOT BEING TIED DOWN AND HAVING SMOKE BLOWN IN THEIR FACE

IT DOESN'T MATTER! I should be the one who makes the choice. Not the government, not the voters. It is MY, I repeat MY private property and therefore MY choice. If the customers would be happier they can hightail it to another bar that forbids smoking and be happy there, but my bar is staying the same.

It's also MY right to stand here on the sidewalk swinging an axe around. If I get arrested for being a danger to the public, how can I complain that my rights are being violated? YOU are promoting smoking and, despite what you may believe, the public's right to walk into your bar without breathing smoke takes precedence over your right to expose them to it.

Where I live there is no smoking in restaurants and bars, you can smoke on the patios. The most ludicrous thing to me is exemptions for casinos and strip clubs. If you accept that second hand smoke is a health issue defined by law then there should be no exemptions. What have you got here? Burgers and wings? NO SMOKING!!! What is going on over here? Gambling and boobies? Smoke if you got 'em!

That's been the major problem here, that restaurants and bars are forced to abide by this while casinos and strip clubs are exempt. It's ******ed, they should have gone city-wide all at once, or next year. But staggering it over gambling income is just stupid.

 

[Addendum]

It's also MY right to stand here on the sidewalk swinging an axe around. If I get arrested for being a danger to the public, how can I complain that my rights are being violated? YOU are promoting smoking and, despite what you may believe, the public's right to walk into your bar without breathing smoke takes precedence over your right to expose them to it.

But Matt has a right to allow smoking in his bar.

If someone enters Matt's bar, sees people smoking, what is stopping that person from turning around and go to another bar that doesn't have smoke?

It's pure simplicity. Go to another bar. There isn't a city in the world that has a one ****ing bar.

 

[Matt]

It's also MY right to stand here on the sidewalk swinging an axe around. If I get arrested for being a danger to the public, how can I complain that my rights are being violated? YOU are promoting smoking and, despite what you may believe, the public's right to walk into your bar without breathing smoke takes precedence over your right to expose them to it.

So the public can just walk into my house and have the right not to have smoke blown in their face? Wrong! My bar is my property. While in it, my rules take precedent. I permit smoking. They have a right to not have it blown in their face, and to use that right all they have to do is stop giving me their money and walk out of my bar. No one is forcing them to be there. Nor do I have an obligation to serve them as you claim. You said the public has the right to walk into my bar, there you are wrong. It is my property, I do not have to let anyone into it. No one has a right to be in my bar, but me. And your analogy is faulty. You swinging an axe around on the sidewalk is public property, my bar is private. If you want to swing around in axe in your own home, it is your right, but on a public street it is not.

Do you really not get this point?

 

[Kritish]

Yeah, we've got anti-smoking laws here.

 

[Halcohol]

But Matt has a right to allow smoking in his bar.

If someone enters Matt's bar, sees people smoking, what is stopping that person from turning around and go to another bar that doesn't have smoke?

It's pure simplicity. Go to another bar. There isn't a city in the world that has a one ****ing bar.

the public's right to walk into your bar without breathing smoke takes precedence over your right to expose them to it.

Because the whole point of voting to make a city non-smoking is so that you can go wherever you want without breathing smoke.

 

[Matt]

Because the whole point of voting to make a city non-smoking is so that you can go wherever you want without breathing smoke.

But they do not have the right to dictate my private property. People can not vote to amend someone else's privately owned property. That is the fundamental constitutional flaw with smoking bans. That is like the people have the right to "vote" to change my checking account or the right to "vote" and change my bar's dress code. That is not a free market. They have power over my business, and that is the ability to stop giving my business money. They do not have the right to change my policies how ever, that my friend, is socialism.

 

[Kritish]

I wouldn't even care that much if it was a country wide law.

 

[Matt]

I wouldn't even care that much if it was a country wide law.

Think beyond smoking, because I sure as hell am not a smoker. Do you want the government being able to tell a private business what they can and cannot do on their private property? How long until it extends to the private citizen?

 

[Halcohol]

But they do not have the right to dictate my private property. People can not vote to amend someone else's privately owned property. That is the fundamental constitutional flaw with smoking bans. That is like the people have the right to "vote" to change my checking account or the right to "vote" and change my bar's dress code. That is not a free market. They have power over my business, and that is the ability to stop giving my business money. They do not have the right to change my policies how ever, that my friend, is socialism.

I'll concede the point to you, but I will say that it's the "me-first" mentality that makes me support these decisions even more. I'm far more concerned with the health and well-being of myself and those around me than with my right to live and work in clouds of toxic smoke.

This is HARDLY the demise of the free-market system, it's simply a liberal approach to moving society forward. Clearly, some people will go into the future kicking and screaming (and coughing and hacking).

 

[Halcohol]

Think beyond smoking, because I sure as hell am not a smoker. Do you want the government being able to tell a private business what they can and cannot do on their private property? How long until it extends to the private citizen?

I fail to see how it can be considered private property when it's open to anyone over 21. If it's the city that gives you the right to serve alcohol in your "private" property, who's to say that they can't take away your right to permit smoking?

 

[Addendum]

It's not a me-first mentality. It's a choice issue.

A bar has the right to allow smoking or not. A customer has a right to smoke or not. Since there are a multitude of bars in every city, there is no need for a smoking ban, since a customer can choose where to spend their money.

If they don't like that a bar has smoking, guess what? A couple feet up or down the sidewalk is ANOTHER BAR!!!!

 

[Kritish]

Think beyond smoking, because I sure as hell am not a smoker. Do you want the government being able to tell a private business what they can and cannot do on their private property? How long until it extends to the private citizen?

The government tells people everyday what the can and cannot do in their stores and homes.

Tobacco kills twenty times more people than murder.

 

[Addendum]

The government tells people everyday what the can and cannot do in their stores and homes.

Tobacco kills twenty times more people than murder.

And the government makes a killing on the taxes from the sales of tobacco.

 

[Kritish]

And the government makes a killing on the taxes from the sales of tobacco.

The only reason it isn't banned already is due to that.

 

[Halcohol]

It's not a me-first mentality. It's a choice issue.

A bar has the right to allow smoking or not. A customer has a right to smoke or not. Since there are a multitude of bars in every city, there is no need for a smoking ban, since a customer can choose where to spend their money.

If they don't like that a bar has smoking, guess what? A couple feet up or down the sidewalk is ANOTHER BAR!!!!

It is a me-first mentality. It's also a choice issue. It's that MY right to choose to kill you is more important than YOUR right to choose to be killed.

It's murder. Slowly and expensively, and there's people defending their right to permit it.

 

[Hades]

I wish there were bans on farting in public

I'm sick of inhaling everybodies ass air.

 

[Addendum]

Which he has every right to do so, because it's his property that he bought with his money!

Can't you grasp the simple fact that you have legs and that they work perfectly fine? If so, go. to. another. bar. if you don't like the smoke. in a particular bar.

 

[Halcohol]

Which he has every right to do so, because it's his property that he bought with his money!

It's the city council that gives him the right to serve alcohol, and to remain open for business. Who says the city council can't take away his right to permit smoking in his bar?

 

[Addendum]

Why do they have to take away his right to allow smoking in his bar? Have the other bars gone out of business?

 

[Matt]

I'll concede the point to you, but I will say that it's the "me-first" mentality that makes me support these decisions even more. I'm far more concerned with the health and well-being of myself and those around me than with my right to live and work in clouds of toxic smoke.

NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO WORK OR LIVE IN A SMOKE FREE ENVIROMENT! If you don't want to be around smoke, just do not live or work in a place that permits it. How do you not grasp that?

 

[Matt]

It's the city council that gives him the right to serve alcohol, and to remain open for business. Who says the city council can't take away his right to permit smoking in his bar?

The city council did not give the right to serve alcohol, the state did it. Which makes city ordinances all the more outrageous.

Secondly, I had to buy the "right" to serve alcohol off the state. The state recieved plenty of money in return. They are not simply giving it to me.

Third, no where on my liquor license does it say because I am allowed to serve alcoholic beverages, does it mean the state has the right to interfere with the day to day business of my bar or any business of my bar aside from the serving of liquor.

Fourth, the state gives people the "right to drive" as you would put it. Does that mean they can take my car whenever they see fit and tell me what radio stations to listen to?

Fifth, a liquor license is more of contract than anything It is the acknowledgment that I am a responsible adult and will only serve to responsible adults. It is an agreement more than anything. An agreement that I have lived up to. Therefore the state has no right to push me around unless I break said agreement.

So yeah, don't try to play cards you know nothing about. K?

 

[Halcohol]

Why do they have to take away his right to allow smoking in his bar? Have the other bars gone out of business?

Because he doesn't have a right to expose people to cigarette smoke. That's what these laws are telling the establishments. Smoke kills people. You are not allowed to kill people. Simple.

 

[Matt]

Because he doesn't have a right to expose people to cigarette smoke. That's what these laws are telling the establishments. Smoke kills people. You are not allowed to kill people. Simple.

I. AM. NOT. EXPOSING. ANYONE. TO. ANYTHING. PEOPLE. WILLINGLY. WALK. INTO. MY. BAR. KNOWING. I PERMIT. SMOKING. IF. THEY. DO. NOT. LIKE. IT. THEY. CAN. LEAVE.

 

[Halcohol]

The city council did not give the right to serve alcohol, the state did it. Which makes city ordinances all the more outrageous.

Secondly, I had to buy the "right" to serve alcohol off the state. The state recieved plenty of money in return. They are not simply giving it to me.

Third, no where on my liquor license does it say because I am allowed to serve alcoholic beverages, does it mean the state has the right to interfere with the day to day business of my bar or any business of my bar aside from the serving of liquor.

Fourth, the state gives people the "right to drive" as you would put it. Does that mean they can take my car whenever they see fit and tell me what radio stations to listen to?

Fifth, a liquor license is more of contract than anything It is the acknowledgment that I am a responsible adult and will only serve to responsible adults. It is an agreement more than anything. An agreement that I have lived up to. Therefore the state has no right to push me around unless I break said agreement.

So yeah, don't try to play cards you know nothing about. K?

Obviously things work differently than here. In the pub I work in all our permits are from the City of Calgary. So yeah, bite me, K?

My point is that the city/state regulates what occurs in places that they've licensed. Repeat offenders up here can be stripped of their licenses if they don't fall in line with the new bylaw. Nobody made a huge stink about it when open smoking was banned from restaurants, so why now?

Couldn't you just build a smoking room?

 

[Halcohol]

I. AM. NOT. EXPOSING. ANYONE. TO. ANYTHING. PEOPLE. WILLINGLY. WALK. INTO. MY. BAR. KNOWING. I PERMIT. SMOKING. IF. THEY. DO. NOT. LIKE. IT. THEY. CAN. LEAVE.

So, now you have all of the rights and none of the responsibilities? It's all on the public? Give me a break.