Well “dumber” is a matter of opinion - It’s not really a matter of which is factually correct. You think having clean air for people to breathe is “dumb”, whereas I do not - a simple difference of opinion. I didn’t flame manhattan for his opinion; I flamed him for calling me a childish name. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
Blowero, you are a moron. Are you honestly supporting a policy that requires recovering alcoholics to drink in order to enjoy the same rights that drinkers enjoy? It’s not about the second hand smoke, you stupid fuck. Your ideology has made you blind. It is perfectly legal to smoke in private clubs in Edmonton…… provided the club sells liquor. The Keep it Simple club simply wants parity. You are defending a policy that effectively denies recovering alcoholics the rights that drinkers enjoy. It is discriminatory and morally repugnant.
Incidentally, MsRobyn didn’t make that up. Almost 85 percent of people who are in alcohol recovery smoke, compared with 25 percent of the general public http://www.aafp.org/afp/980415ap/980415c.html]cite
Similar, but not identical. It’s a big leap between cancer/emphysema/asthma, which are real, painful, and life-threatening, and Hell, which has never been proven to exist.
IMO, waitstaff who choose not to smoke should not be forced to breathe other’s smoke, especially after hearing Heather Crowe’s story. I am firmly anti-smoking, and I have issues with an item that was once considered sacred being abused by millions of people.
In my hometown in Ontario, smoking is banned in all public buildings, including bars and restaurants - EXCEPT FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. One sportsbar/restaurant called Jimmy The Greek’s decided to print up “membership cards” to pass out to clientele, and became a private club where smoking continues to be allowed. People/employees who don’t want to breathe smoke don’t have to eat/work there, and there are plenty of 100% guaranteed smoke-free places for them to go all over town. I think that’s an ideal situation.
I don’t know why Edmonton didn’t just go that way. It would have been so much easier on the KIS club.
blowero, you’re probably not aware of this, but the vast majority of AA meetings are non-smoking. I imagine it’s much the same in Canada as in the US, where most meetings are held in churches that don’t allow smoking inside the building. So your whole “right to breathe clean air” argument is ridiculous, since it’s actually the smokers who have to go out of their way to find a place where they can smoke.
Hey blowero, why don’t you answer MsRobyn’s excellent argument? Here 'tis again:
Well color me confused. How come in the last part of your post you’re happy with saying that employees who don’t want to be around smoke don’t have to work there, but that’s not an acceptable resolution of the issue without a smoking ban in place? I’m sure it’s not the case that without a smoking ban in place 100% of all bars and restaurants permitted smoking. What gives?
Congrats on pouncing on manhattan’s insult and ignoring his opinions, thus giving the impression that you can’t rebut his opinions. Which I’ll bet is precisey the reason manny threw that bit in (aside from it being both funny and accurate, that is). He knew you were such thin-skinned little whiner you’d blow a gasket over a minor insult and give him the appearance of the stronger argument. Seriously, does it bug you at all that you’re such an easy mark?
That was the case, actually. Sure, there were such things as non-smoking sections, but without seperate ventilation systems, they’re not much good. And they’re no good to waitstaff who can’t pick and choose which section they serve.
Ad hominen.
Strawman.
Ad hominem #2.
Ad hominem #3.
The13thUnicorn already debunked all that. I’ll repost it for convenience:
Like I said before, I doubt that they want people to smoke in bars; it sounds like it was a compromise to not phase it in immediately but rather after 2 years. So, as I said before, the argument “It’s not fair 'cuz drinkers get to smoke” is really disingenous.
The link’s not working, but FWIW, I don’t think it would hurt to give the club an exception if there truly is nobody who objects to the smoke. But I don’t think you should assume that. Just because nobody complains doesn’t mean it’s not bothering them. Back when all bars around here were smoking bars, I used to hate going to them, but I knew it wouldn’t do any good to complain, so I didn’t say anything. I just think that a lot of times, smokers reason that since nobody is complaining, that the smoke isn’t bothering them, which of course isn’t necessarily true.
Also, kung fu lola is right on - it used to be that non-smoking bars and restaurants were virtually nonexistent. And I’d even go one further and say that not only were the seperate sections inadequate in restaurants, bars didn’t even have non-smoking sections at all.
By the way, does nicotene make you angry? You seem like an awfully hostile bunch.
Monkey, I got your link to work; I guess it was a local problem. Ironically, it actually contradicts some of what MsRobyn was saying:
But from Monkey’s link:
What I read was a lot of conditional language. “Can” and “may” do not mean “will”. My own experience, which is admittedly unscientific, is that people who quit all of their bad habits at once, including smoking and overeating, set themselves up for relapse. I’ve seen that too many times in my personal sobriety to rely on statistics alone.
In any event, you’re missing the point of the thread. The city of Edmonton is refusing to make an exception in a case where an exception is necessary. It defeats the purpose of having an alcohol-free recovery clubhouse to have a liquor license and sell liquor. So the club is trapped between its sense of mission, which is to help recovering alcoholics stay sober, and the law.
Finally, can you answer this question: If one person comes forward and says that the smoke bothers them, does this mean that the whole club should go smoke-free to accommodate them?
Robin
I don’t smoke. I don’t understand why you just can’t seem to get that sometimes, people like to smoke. That’s their choice. I personally hate it, but I’m not full of hatred like you seem to be.
No, morons make me angry. I don’t know what nicotene does to me, I’ve never tried it.
What an insane thing for you to say.
I love clean air, and I know just where to find it: The great outdoors. If I don’t want to be around smoke, I don’t go into rooms where people are smoking. Simple as that.
And no, I don’t smoke. I’ve had 3 cigarettes in my life and nicotine doesn’t do a thing for me.
A club where the owner smacks all the patrons’ heads with a 2X4 (OK, a whip. But still). Warning: Kinky, non-work-safe, probably-screened-by-Websense and guaranteed to set off your IT guys’ alarms link, even if everyone on the first page is fully dressed.
Such a compelling argument.:rolleyes:
Again, a difference of opinion. You think that those who want to breathe clean air should have to go outside; I think it makes more sense for the ones who are polluting the air to go outside. Honestly, is that really such a horrible, grevious hardship to have to take 2 steps out the door to have your cigarette?
Honestly, is it that much of a hardship to take your ass to a place where the owners decide not to allow smoking? Most places are smoke-free anyway, so you have an extensive choice. In the meantime, leave the few places that permit smoking alone.
Well I don’t understand why you just can’t seem to get that sometimes, people don’t want to choke on other people’s smoke. That is THEIR choice. If cigarettes did not produce smoke, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, so it’s not about the smoker’s choice - it’s about the nonsmoker’s choice. If you smoke next to me, I HAVE to breathe your smoke, so while you have acted on YOUR choice, you have ELIMINATED mine. Your right to swing your fists stops where my head begins.
Let’s see - I’ve been called a braniac (sarcastically), moron, stupid fuck, blind, etc.
Yeah, I’m the one who’s full of hatred.:rolleyes:
Yeah, they are NOW, but only because of legislation. Back before they had any laws about it, when they “left them alone”, you couldn’t even go out for fucking PANCAKES without having to breathe smoke. The choice to which you refer is only available because the laws are enforced.
And so, you would deny that choice to others. Brilliant reasoning: “I want to have this choice, because having choice is a good thing. Therefore, I will deny others a choice, because they might disagree with me, and wouldn’t that be unfortunate.”
Honestly, it’s because this sort of egocentric tripe passes for logical reasoning amongst a distressingly large fraction of the population that I despair of this world ever actually solving any of the problems facing it.