Or is it just more anti-anti-smoking propaganda?
I mean, Sun media is so far to the right you have to use your peripheral vision to read it*, so what did I expect? But this is just an outrage. If it’s true.
Here is an actual news item on the story, not just an editorial.
*[size=1]Thank you, This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
This is why you don’t kiss your girlfriend while posting. Because then you press “submit” instead of “preview”. :smack:
Hot, kissable girlfriends: a hazard to the SDMB. The more you know…
So say the Keep it Simple Club buys a liquor license. Do they have to buy liquor, too?
Are liquor licences expensive?
If an exception won’t be made, why doesn’t the owner of the club just buy the liquor license? A license doesn’t require you to sell alcohol, does it?
Generally speaking, reading the article helps.
According to the editorial, the city wouldn’t issue a liquor license unless the club actually agreed to sell liquor.
From the editorial:
This, my friends, is a Catch-22 in action. The club can’t fulfill its mission without allowing smoking. The city says, “Well, you can smoke, but you have to buy a liquor license, but we won’t sell you a license unless you want to sell liquor.” Selling liquor at a club for recovering alcoholics defeats the purpose of having a sober club in the first place. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As a sober alcoholic, I am damn grateful for clubs like these. They open their doors to whoever wants to stay sober and provide a refuge from the temptation to drink.
IMO, there should be an exemption for clubhouses such as these. Re-write the ordinance to include a special class of “smoking license” to non-profit entities such as the Keep It Simple club, whose mission, by definition, does not allow drinking. For the city and provincial governments, it’s really a good idea: Clubs such as these take some of the pressure off the budget by providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The city would get income from selling these licenses, and the club could stay open legally to continue providing support.
Of course, such a thing is an easy, simple solution. I don’t think that the aldermen of Edmonton will get it.
Robin
What about the recovering alcoholics who don’t want smoke blown in their face? I noticed nobody interviewed any NON-smokers who want to frequent the Keep it Simple Club. But that’s typical of the pro-smoking camp - just gloss over the fact that a lot of people DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO BREATHE CIGARETTE SMOKE. They always make it sound as if jack-booted anti-smoking Nazis are going around yanking cigarettes out of people’s hands just for spite. They always seem to forget that for every smoker happily puffing away, there are probably several NON-smokers who are choking on their poison.
The gripe seems to be that smoking is only allowed in bars and casinos. Well that was most likely a concession to the heavy pro-smoking lobby. If they don’t want the ironic situation of only being allowed to smoke where liquor is served, then how about not allowing smoking in bars EITHER? It sounds to me like the legislature threw the pro-smoking lobby a bone by allowing smoking in bars, so now people want to cry, WAAAAAH! It’s not fair - they get to smoke, so we should, too.
Reading kung fu lola mention “hot, kissable girlfriends” is conjuring up all sorts of images in my mind.
Yum.
Considering that (anecdotally speaking) the majority of recovering alcoholics are smokers, I don’t think there is an overwhelming number of people who are clamoring for a completely smoke-free club. In any event, most of the clubs I’ve attended have had rooms for both smokers and nonsmokers, so it’s a moot point anyway.
Robin
Considering that (anecdotally speaking) the majority of recovering alcoholics are smokers, I don’t think there is an overwhelming number of people who are clamoring for a completely smoke-free club. In any event, most of the clubs I’ve attended have had rooms for both smokers and nonsmokers, so it’s a moot point anyway.
Robin
Ummm, but what they don’t tell you…
is that by 2005 all bars, bingo halls, etc. ie. everything that is a public place will have to be nonsmoking, so even if they could get a smoking liscense, in two years it wouldn’t matter.
As well it is not a private club but an ordinary business that caters to specific clients, it is not non-profit or anything elselike that. Also included in the bylaw were all the legions, but you don’t here them whining, even though they are vets and could also make a case for special treatment.
Considering that (anecdotally speaking) the majority of recovering alcoholics are smokers, I don’t think there is an overwhelming number of people who are clamoring for a completely smoke-free club. In any event, most of the clubs I’ve attended have had rooms for both smokers and nonsmokers, so it’s a moot point anyway.
Robin
What does “anecdotally speaking” mean? Does that mean you just made it up? Even assuming it’s true (it may very well be, I don’t know), the problem would remain that the “minority” would have to breathe the “majority’s” smoke. See, you are assuming that since the article doesn’t mention non-smokers, that they don’t exist. I see no reason to make such an assumption. It’s often a clever deception by smokers to pretend that nobody objects to their smoking except busybody legislators.
The problem with smoking and non-smoking sections is that the smoke doesn’t know it’s supposed to stay in one place. You may have been in places that have seperate rooms; I’ve personally never seen a club like that. In every club that allows smoking that I’ve ever seen, there is no place to escape the smoke. The article doesn’t mention whether they have a seperate room in The Keep it Simple Club for smokers. I don’t think you should just assume that they do, though.
Besides which, I would question the wisdom of encouraging former alcoholics and drug-addicts to take up smoking. Seems like that’s just replacing one addiction with another.
I realize this would be giving in to the bullshit. But…couldn’t he just get a liquor license, stock some liquor, but sell it a such a high price nobody would buy it? $85 for a rum & Coke.:eek:
Or are there price controls?
How about letting the proprietor of the establishment decide what is and is not allowed on his property? You got a good reason for that, other than the fact that most of them would probably decide to allow something you don’t like?
They already smoke. Isn’t that the point?
And what’s to stop a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t smoke from opening his own KISS club that doesn’t allow smoking?
That wouldn’t work if the government actually requires some percentage of their sales to come from alcohol in order to qualify as a bar. (The opposite is true in many places… if more than X% of your revenue comes from food or nonalcoholic drinks, you’re a restaurant and you can allow minors.)
blowero, my anecdote comes from my ten-plus years of sobriety, during which time I’ve been a member of similar clubs all over the US. I’ve been a member of only one such club that did not allow smoking, and that was because the club’s landlord did not allow smoking in the building. (The clubhouse was owned by a church, and the building was on church property.)
In any event, no one’s suggesting that anyone start smoking. However, giving up all of one’s bad habits is not a good idea while the person is so new to recovery. Stress builds, and the person is left without any coping mechanisms. So something gives, and it’s not always cigarettes. I’ve met many people who were foolhardy enough to quit drinking, smoking and overeating all at once, hit a rough spot, and relapsed into drinking. That’s what the Keep It Simple club has a problem with. They want to be able to allow people to stay as long as they need to without being forced to send someone outside for a smoke.
All that having been said, the city of Edmonton has a number of non-smoking AA meetings on a daily basis. (I’m using this list, and it looks like it’s incomplete.) Nonsmoking alcoholics are perfectly free to attend any or all of these meetings.
Robin
kung fu lola I can honestly say that the story is true. It’s been all over the news up here, as well as the papers especially when the by-law went into effect on July 1st. (aside I have noticed that all our non-smoking by-laws seem to have gone into effect on July 1st… why is that? Unless I’m just mistaking my memory)
When the first one came through, no smoking in any establishment where there are people under 18, I agreed with it. I’m a smoker (actually working on being a former smoker… 2 days and counting) and I don’t like exposing children to my bad habits. When this came through places such as restaurants had the option of making a closed off smoking section, with proper ventilation for anyone who wanted to smoke or banning minors, or banning smoking.
Now they haved banned smoking in any restaurant. They say that it hasn’t affected any businesses but I can name for a fact at least one restaurant where they allowed smoking in that is going to be closing soon (if it hasn’t already) because it’s business has dropped off so drastically. Interesting thing is it’s in a government building too…
But really I think it’s stupid. Like it was said someone can open a KISS club for non-smokers… nothing stopping them at all. Our aldermen and mayor are just taking this a bit too far. Though some have protested it, but not enough.
Just sell liquor, but for $50,000 a glass. Everybody wins.
Oh and as I recall there are taxes on liquor… can’t remember exactly what or how much but there are. Same as with smokes and damn near anything else up here.