They can open their own fucking private club, brainiac. Or is it your contention that all recovering alcoholics who do not smoke are too stupid to do what Mr. Charbonneau did?
You know what I would do?
I’d put locks on the doors, tell everyone to smoke anyway, and then dare them to come looking. I wouldn’t let them in, and if they broke the door down I’d sue them for invasion of privacy, any civil rights violations I could come up with, and destruction of property. It’s a private club, for Pete’s sake. If I held a meeting at my house would I be allowed to have smoking? Yes. It should be the same at a club that I own. Period.
These anti-smoking zealots need to be stopped, and if it comes down to civil disobedience, I’ll be the first in line to light up, right in front of the police station if needs be.
There’s a new nonsmoking AA clubhouse here, but in this day and age of most meetings happening in churches that no longer allow smoking, the clubs are some of the last places for smokers to go. And they’re often the places newcomers – who often have drunk themselves out of gainful employment – hang out, so to allow smoking there makes a lot of sense. In most U.S. cities now, the vast majority of meetings are nonsmoking so the nonsmokers are not going to be inconvenienced by a smoking club at all.
Personally, as a recovering alcoholic, I think it’s a hoot. A great example of how cunning alcoholics are, whether they’re drunk or sober!
MsRobyn, congrats on collecting a pile of blue chips. Its good to see a few other friends of Bill W. out there 
The primary AA group (fronted by 24hours Inc.) has its own building and has both smoking and non-smoking meetings. Out of courtesy, most smoking AA members take it outside before and after the meetings, and only endulge in one inside if any at all. The non-smoking members don’t mind either way, as we’re all travelers on the road to maintaining sobriety, and whatever helps, helps.
To address the article, though, when the Premier of a Canadian province calls one of its laws stupid, maybe the legislature ought to look into it being, well, a stuipd law?
It’s not part of the legislatures jurisdiction. This is a municipality by-law not a provincial law. Meaning if we really wanna go smoke over our dinner we can drive out to the Road King at the nearest, a 20 minutes drive at least for me, we can go sit and smoke there. Though IIRC Strathcona County is also working on passing a similar by-law. The provincial governemnt didn’t pull this one through it was Mayor Bill and our aldermen.
Obsidian Flutterby,
Thanks, I stand corrected. Geeze, you guys are the Santa Monica of Canada, ay?
Santa Monica of Canada?
If you mean that we are different from the rest of Canada I wouldn’t say so. Vancouver IIRC has a similar by-law as well only I don’t think it goes as far as ours does. And they’re working on making it harsher!! Bars and bingo halls are next…
That’s crazy talk! As far as I’ve seen, (and I’ve done some heavy drinking in my short life) there are bars where you can smoke, bars where you can’t, and bars with both smoking and non-smoking sections. If you’re a smoker, its not hard to go to any of these bars. Same if you’re a non-smoker, and willing to tolerate the smokey atmosphere. If you DON’T want to suck my second-hand smoke, then go to another bar. Why is this such a difficult concept? I mean, seriously, why is it a legislative measure. Why not let businesses do what their clients wish them to do (eg, set smoking rules) and leave it at that? Is the anti-smoking wing (not non-smoking, as I know of many non-smokers who are ok with the habit, and simply refrain from it themselves) that fucked up that they want to hurt other businesses, simply because they allow a habit that they are against?
Anyway, if I were attached to this KISS club, I’d take it to ‘Mayor Bill’ and shove a lit one under his seat.
Oh goody! Now we have pro-smokers’ fallacy #2: “It’s MY property so I should get to do whatever I want.”
Un, no - the “proprietor” does not have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he feels like. I can’t operate a club where I smack all the patrons’ heads with a 2x4 - not even if it IS my property.
There are hundreds if not thousand of things a proprieter can’t do, such as:
Allow his place to be infested with vermin
Serve spoiled food
Fail to comply with fire codes
Provide unsafe or unsanitary facilities
Use child labor
Discriminate against certain races
Not even if it’s HIS property, and he really, really wants to do that stuff.
We covered this issue in depth awhile back in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189164
FUCK YOU, manhattan. No wonder you get pitted about every 5 seconds, you fucking cock.
That fucking cock is right this time.
Of course there are some things it’s illegal to do on your own property… banning smoking in businesses isn’t breaking new legal ground, it’s just newer and far far dumber than the things you listed.
OK, recovering addict and former smoker checking in.
I live in the great state of Califor-Nye-Aye! Where you cannot smoke in any public building, even bars. Yes, many recovering addicts are smokers, as I used to be. At meetings, we have to set up a butt can outside (sometimes several) and smokers will go right outside the door to smoke.
Now when I was a smoker, I thought this was very unfair to smokers.
As a non-smoker, I really don’t care. It’s not like it’s a hardship to step outside for 5 minutes to smoke or anything.
Personally, I believe it should be up to the owner, responding to the wishes of his/her clientelle, to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their place of business.
Standing on my chair, clapping until my palms get raw.
And it takes a lot to get me to post in the Pit, too.
Well, it is a hardship when you’re in Edmonton, and it’s January, and the high temp is still below zero.
blowitoutyourass, are you familiar at all with the concept of “freedom of choice”? People who are perfectly happy with the current situation (who may or may not be smokers) don’t care if there’s smoking or not. Those who absolutely don’t want to smoke can go off and form their own club. Hell, that’s all you need to start a splinter group. Two drunks, a coffeepot, and a resentment. 
No one’s twisting anyone’s arm to do anything. In any event, forcing people to do something they don’t want to do for the benefit of others (who again, are perfectly free to go off and do what they want to do) isn’t very democratic. It’s their club, let them do what they want to.
Robin
Oh, and fellow Friends of Bill… we do have a separate Yahoo e-mail group for sober Dopers… e-mail me for information.
Robin
Ireland is going to ban smoking in the workplace in January.
This is ANYBODY’S workplace. It means bars, hotels, offices, schools, private clubs, restaurants, and, more controversially, prisons, hospices and psychiatric in-patient units.
Smoking is already banned in hospitals, but patients well enough to leave their beds are able to go outside and smoke, psychiatric patients in locked wards and prisoners are in a different situation. They are physically well, but prevented from going outside.
Patients in hospices, are physically so unwell they can’t leave their bed, and smoking may be their last remaining pleasure. Although most health professionals are strongly anti-tobacco, few would deny a bedridden, dying person a last cigarette in a hospice.
Most psychiatric patients smoke, possibly to self-medicate their distress (it has been shown that tobacco smoke actually reduces a symptom of schizophrenia). If somone is in a locked ward, they may not be able to go outside for a smoke, and very few nursing staff feel that the risks to their health from passive smoking are greater than the risks to their health from nicotine deprived patients.
As for prisons, the prison officers union is pro the ban, because of the risks to officers health from passive smoking. However, the prison welfare organisations are anti, on the grounds of maintaining prisoner morale (imagine several hundred people all in nicotine withdrawal in a confined space), and that a black market based on tobacco currently operates, and to wipe this out could lead to rioting and anarchy.
While I’m in favour of smoke free working environments, I think that when that environment is also someone’s residence, the resident’s right to smoke should also be respected, and compromises or exceptions made where necessary.
Obviously compromises shouldn’t include a liquor licence for a 12-step organisation.
In AA groups, there is whats called a “group consciunce (sic)” where about once a month the members of the group come in an discuss the rules of the meetings. Where I went to meetings, there were two groups in the house, an upstairs group and a downstairs group. The upstairs group was more conservative than the downstairs bunch. The upstairs group talked about alcohol only, no talk about drugs. I violated that rule and was kindly (it was kind) chewed out by the “oldtimers” for talking about crack cocaine. The liberal downstairs group did not care about the mention of crack and other drugs (mainly crack) because many of us were coke users with booze as a secondary circumstance. To the liberal group, booze, cocaine, other drugs, sex and pain were a common denominator with a common solution in the 12 steps.
The conservative group banned smoking upstairs. if you wanted a smoke, go out in the hallway or downstairs. The liberal group banned smoking Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The smokers hated those days, but that is democracy in action. We smoked in the hallways. And yes, good fellowship and love occured between people who blew their lungs out.
Most “recovering people” smoke. It is a holdover from their using days. My sponsor smoked. I knew a born again Christian, who loved Jesus but loved a Camel too. That is the way it is.
Yes, this club is getting screwed by a bureaucracy who does not care and is a stickler for rules, even if this is against common sense. A majority of early sobriety people smoke. The person in charge of his club should be allowed to lay his own ground rukles of what is good and what aint. Yea, serving spoiled food is bad. Blocking fire exits is bad. Smoking is not illegal (yet). If something is not illegal in the society at large, a government entity should not tell you that it should be.
Golly gee willakers! Now we have pro-right-wing fundie’s fallacy #1: “I’ve found a lifestyle that works so well for me, that I will impose it in the most draconian and rigid way on the rest of the population. For their own good, don’t ya know. Oh, and don’t bother me with facts, because I have all the answers.”
I’m not sure what’s more amusing, the idea of blowero as a right wing fundie, or that fact that tdn has a valid point that the logic involved is similar.
It is ridiculous that members of a private club should not be allowed to smoke inside that club. And to require a liquor license in order to smoke in a club aimed at providing a safe place for alcoholics to socialize is one of the greatest ironies I’ve encountered in my life. It’s laughable and, since the city council seems to have no interest in making an exception to the bylaw for the club, the owner and the patrons are probably going to have to engage in civil disobedience. I hope they have the balls for it.
Now, in the interests of fighting ignorance – reading this thread I found it might be easy for someone unfamiliar with Alcoholics Anonymous to confuse membership in AA with membership in clubs run by people who might happen to be members of AA.
I’d like to point the Keep It Simple club (and all similar places) mentioned in the OP is not an AA group. It is a private concern operated by a person who happens to be a recovering alcoholic to provide alcoholics with a place to go between meetings where they can socialize with others who suffer from their disease without the immediate temptation of alcohol being a factor.
The private club asks for (probably) nominal dues from its membership. There are no dues or fees for membership in Alcoholics Anonymous.
The building the club is in may be owned by the club. AA groups may have meetings at specific times within that building. But the groups themselves are not the club; they pay rent in order to have meetings in the building.
I refer people to traditions 3, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of Alcoholics Anonymous.