non-smoking laws in Waterloo Region
Ray Butterworth
cred...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) wrote:
Subject: Daily Bulletin, Friday, January 14
...
> A new smoking policy has been adopted by campus pubs, designed to
> appease both smoking and non-smoking students.
As a avid non-smoker who likes the intended effect of the new bylaws,
I'd recommend that other similarly minded people start visiting
businesses that they previously avoided because of the smoke,
and letting the manager or waiter know that the reason they are
now there is because of the lack of smoke. That might change
the minds of some owners that are fighting the bylaw, and might
even lead to new sources of food or entertainment.
For instance, I recently visitied Morty's (King and University)
for the first time (since he ran the "Pizza Pig" in the 1970s)
and discovered that they have an excellent Montreal smoked meat
sandwich and salad (even if it does have fake rye bread).
When I mentioned why I was there to the waiter when I paid the
bill, she said "Yes, isn't it great! I'll let them know.".
On the other hand, I must sympathize with some of the owners
over the way this thing has been implemented.
First, I'd say it should have been done not at the local level,
but at least at the provincial level.
Secondly, I'd say that there might have been much better ways
of achieving more or less the same effect.
There are some establishments whose patrons always will
be people that are heavily into smoking (or whatever).
And it's very unlikely that most people would ever patronize
them regardless of the air quality (e.g. a dingy strip bar
with greasy unflavourful food).
Two, not necessarily exclusive, alternatives, would have been
to require that all smoking establishments restrict access
(including staff) to people over the age of 19 (or 21 or whatever),
and to license smoking establishments the way that liquor-serving
businesses are now licenced.
Almost all restaurants and other similar places would likely
adopt a non-smoking policy as a result, either to preserve their
under-age patrons and their parents, or to avoid paying the
exorbitant licencing fee. But this would allow places that are
designed for the smoking crowd to continue operating (the bylaw
drafters claim that they aren't trying to drive anyone out of
business).
Certainly some such solution would have been far more acceptable
to everyone involved. Most places that most people care about
would become smoke-free (with their managers still being able
to apologize to their smoking patrons by blaming it on the
government). Those places that decide to allow smoking would
perhaps lose a small number of minors or have to pay more taxes,
but, since age restrictions and sin-taxes are established things,
these are things they can accept and grumble about without feeling
that their rights have been infringed or that they have been given
no choice in the matter.
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
food service industry are 50% more likely to get lung cancer than the
general population, so as I see it, smoking shouldn't be allowed in any
workplace whatsoever, and especially in restaurants, etc.
--
Russell O'Connor roco...@uwaterloo.ca
<http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Greg Fenton
>
> The problem as I see it is one of health of the employees. People in the
> food service industry are 50% more likely to get lung cancer than the
> general population, so as I see it, smoking shouldn't be allowed in any
> workplace whatsoever, and especially in restaurants, etc.
>
I completely support the non-smoking by-laws. However, I must question
this statistic. I have heard it repeated in the press time and again,
but I have never heard the statistic comparing the percentage of the
waiters which smoke. In my 10 years experience in the wait-world, I
can say that a much larger proportion of restaurant workers smoke than
in any other industry that I have worked. So the 50% cannot be directly
attibuted to workplace exposure to second-hand smoke, IMO.
[Of course, I wonder how many 14 & 15 year olds start smoking because
it is an "accepted" (expected?) habit in the restaurant industry...I
know that a bunch of my friends and I started that way...]
gregf.
--
Greg Fenton, Team Web Integrity, MKS Inc.
Email: gr...@mks.com
Opinions expressed herein are mine.
Rose McClanahan
> cred...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) wrote:
> On the other hand, I must sympathize with some of the owners
> over the way this thing has been implemented.
First, I want to say that I agree with a no-smoking bylaw, but not the way
that this one has been handled.
I am a smoker and have non-smoking friends. Some of those friends are
allergic to cigarette smoke. It was difficult to find a restaurant that had
a totally smoke free area. I also enjoy having dinner with my smoking
friends. Now that has become impossible, except at home.
Some restaurant owners which I have become aquatinted with have said that it
should be up to the owners. They should be made to chose one or the other.
What is next?
I have a real problem being around people who are drunk. For that reason I
do not frequent bars. My friends are going out to see and enjoy great bands
and they know that I cannot. Should that be the next quest? It is
dangerous to my mental health. Should they be forced to stop selling
alcohol in bars? Not.
This is just my opinion but food for thought.
Chris Redmond
Rose McClanahan <McCla...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2000 14:05:04 GMT,
>> cred...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) wrote:
>> On the other hand, I must sympathize with some of the owners
>> over the way this thing has been implemented.
Just to clarify -- I did not write that. I wrote the original
Daily Bulletin item, which contained no expression of opinion
or sympathy. The lines quoted are from someone's subsequent
comment.
CAR
Chris Buchanan
Rose McClanahan <McCla...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2000 14:05:04 GMT,
>> cred...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) wrote:
>> On the other hand, I must sympathize with some of the owners
>> over the way this thing has been implemented.
>
>that this one has been handled.
>
>I am a smoker and have non-smoking friends. Some of those friends are
>allergic to cigarette smoke. It was difficult to find a restaurant that had
>a totally smoke free area. I also enjoy having dinner with my smoking
>friends. Now that has become impossible, except at home.
>
>Some restaurant owners which I have become aquatinted with have said that it
>should be up to the owners. They should be made to chose one or the other.
>
>What is next?
>
>I have a real problem being around people who are drunk. For that reason I
>do not frequent bars. My friends are going out to see and enjoy great bands
>and they know that I cannot. Should that be the next quest? It is
>dangerous to my mental health. Should they be forced to stop selling
>alcohol in bars? Not.
>
>This is just my opinion but food for thought.
The difference is that the live entertainment in a bar is designed to
encourage people to come to that bar and drink; food is not served in a
restaurant to encourage people to come out and smoke.
--
Chris Buchanan, B.Math
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Ray Butterworth <rbutte...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>For instance, I recently visitied Morty's (King and University)
>for the first time (since he ran the "Pizza Pig" in the 1970s)
>and discovered that they have an excellent Montreal smoked meat
>sandwich and salad (even if it does have fake rye bread).
>When I mentioned why I was there to the waiter when I paid the
>bill, she said "Yes, isn't it great! I'll let them know.".
Interesting you should mention Morty's. It is the one place I have
been deliberatly avoiding, because I just don't like the smoke. And
have been planning on visiting again, once I am sure the bylaw is being
enforced.
Nick
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Haoyong Zhang <h2z...@hopper.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>As far as I remember, Morty's was always packed. In fact, there was once
>I had to wait for 40 minutes to get in. That's before the bylaw. So, I
>can't see how this bylaw will help their business.
Bonus! No smoke, and less wait!!!
Seriously though, I can't imagine there will be any long
term impact from this new bylaw. I'm sure those who have
nothing better to do than spend their nights in a bar, will
not suddenly find anything better to do. And surely some
of us who couldn't stomach the smoke, may join them.
I'm sure there are a few whining. And a few will be shouting
about lost business, and impending bankruptcy. But these
types of places go under every day. How many previous re-incarnations
did East Side Marios have in University Plaza? Or Mongolian
Grill. Or whatever is now on that third block of the second phase (at
the east end of the block with Curry in a Hurry, etc.) None
of those went down because of smoking regs. If that plaza is
empty two years from now, with tumbleweeds rolling through it
then I'll be wrong, but I bet that it will still be colse to
a 0% vacancy rate!
Nick
Haoyong Zhang
As far as I remember, Morty's was always packed. In fact, there was once
I had to wait for 40 minutes to get in. That's before the bylaw. So, I
can't see how this bylaw will help their business.
--
Haoyong Zhang, Graduate Student, Computer Science, U of Waterloo
h2z...@uwaterloo.ca, http://www.grad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~h2zhang
Karateka
"Ray Butterworth" <rbutte...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:85o17e$h3f$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
> ...
I am a non-smoker and the new law makes me puke. Even your logic totally
fails if you think about it. Most people are pretty much set in their ways
and they already have places where they go or don't go selected. By going to
places that used to allow smoking, they just don't spend the money in the
old non-smoking place so no matter how you cut it, someone loses their
business.
By making a single or couple of visits to places you have not visited
before, you are not changing anything, even the fact that some places will
have to close down.
One way people might compensate for inability to smoke is to drink more
alcohol. That surely makes everything much better.
K
Viktor Haag
> [Of course, I wonder how many 14 & 15 year olds start smoking
> because it is an "accepted" (expected?) habit in the restaurant
> industry...I know that a bunch of my friends and I started that
> way...]
Or how much easier it is to get addicted to cigarettes, when you
work in the food service industry and are constantly inhaling
that second hand smoke....
--
Viktor Haag Senior Technical Writer, RIM
"Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses." -- Richard Gabriel
My opinions are my own, only.
Viktor Haag
> The difference is that the live entertainment in a bar is
> designed to encourage people to come to that bar and drink;
> food is not served in a restaurant to encourage people to come
> out and smoke.
One could also argue that another difference is this: when you go
to a bar and you choose *not* to drink alcohol, you don't have
the guys at the next table who *are* drinking alcohol pop you
onto your back and force some of their beer down your throat...
Viktor Haag
> Seriously though, I can't imagine there will be any long
> term impact from this new bylaw. I'm sure those who have
> nothing better to do than spend their nights in a bar, will
> not suddenly find anything better to do. And surely some
> of us who couldn't stomach the smoke, may join them.
I'm pretty sure that I heard on the CBC that there were actual
economic studies done from the west coast, where no-smoking laws
actually had a positive economic impact on the food service
industry, and not a negative one.
Viktor Haag
> I am a non-smoker and the new law makes me puke. Even your
> logic totally fails if you think about it. Most people are
> pretty much set in their ways and they already have places
> where they go or don't go selected. By going to places that
> used to allow smoking, they just don't spend the money in the
> old non-smoking place so no matter how you cut it, someone
> loses their business.
Excuse me? Your making assumptions here! For example, how many
folks are there like me, with a young child, who don't
particularly want to go out to a restaurant with that child and
subject *them* to second hand smoke. As a result, we stay home
and contribute no money to *any* restaurant (to say nothing of
contributing money to a babysitter).
I'm sure there are plenty of people whose choice is not
non-smoking restau v smoking-restau, it's non-smoking restau or
nothing.
Ray Butterworth
nf...@granite.sentex.net (Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:
...
>Interesting you should mention Morty's. It is the one place I have
>been deliberatly avoiding, because I just don't like the smoke. And
>have been planning on visiting again, once I am sure the bylaw is being
>enforced.
What happens at night, I don't know,
but it was definitely smoke free during luch time.
Ray Butterworth
"Karateka" <vjan...@home.com> wrote:
...
>By going to
>places that used to allow smoking, they just don't spend the money in the
>old non-smoking place so no matter how you cut it, someone loses their
>business.
>before, you are not changing anything, even the fact that some places will
>have to close down.
But there are a lot of people (e.g. I) who often decide not to go
somewhere, or if they do go decide to leave early, all because of
the smoke.
Now, when someone says "want to join us at ...", I'll be much more
likely to say "yes".
So, businesses will eventually get more customers like me,
and the smokers can choose to sit at home alone crying in
their beer while I enjoy the entertainment and company.
But more likely, most of them will choose to butt out and
join in.
Yes, some places will lose customers, even in the long run,
and many of them will fail; but most such places are the kind
of place that most people wouldn't frequent anyway, regardless
of whether or not they were smoky.
But remember my original point was that I *do* think that some
places should have been allowed to remain smoky, but with
extra restrictions on the age of their customers and with
extra taxes for the privilege of providing the smoky atmosphere.
Far fewer people would have been upset by such a change,
even if it would mean that some places end up charging double
for their drinks.
Matt Corks
>I'm pretty sure that I heard on the CBC that there were actual
>economic studies done from the west coast, where no-smoking laws
>actually had a positive economic impact on the food service
>industry, and not a negative one.
Many studies have been done of the economic impact of this law in BC and in
California. Since this is a heated issue, many of these have a clear bias,
but the one done by the Worker's Compensation Board of BC-- the government
body there which was the force between the law change-- seems the most
objective to me. There have been other studies, but of these have been done
by either smoking or non-smoking advocacy groups.
Anyway, the WCB study concluded that bar revenues went down for a month or so,
but then went above where they had been before the ban. Their study also
corrected for the fact that many of the bars affected were near the US border,
and the US dollar was quite strong at the time the ban was put in place. For
details, see the full-page ad which the Council for a Smoke-Free Waterloo
placed in the Waterloo Chronicle. (The text of the ad is rather poorly
written, but if you read it carfully you can glean some interesting
statistics.)
Here's hoping no asshole gets to give me lung cancer tonight.
--
Matt Corks, congenital pessimist; 3rd year Math, U. Waterloo
Email: <mvc...@uwaterloo.ca>, Web: <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/mvcorks/>
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." - Bertrand Russell
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Ray Butterworth <rbutte...@pythagoras.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>enforced.
>
>What happens at night, I don't know,
>but it was definitely smoke free during luch time.
Great! How are their wings these days. Anything good on tap?
Nick
Jack Cooper
I think there is probably some confusion about cause and effect
in bar and restaurant spending patterns. I don't think smokers
necessarily go to bars to drink, or drinkers necessarily go to
bars to smoke- I think that people who tend to fit certain patterns
of extroversion and socializing tend to frequent bars, no matter
what the atmosphere is.
I don't think that people who currently smoke at bars will stop
going to bars, because the object isn't smoking and drinking- it's
getting socially stimulated. I don't think most people who don't
like bars will change their patterns because of the change in
smoking laws. There will be some effect, but I don't think it
will significantly effect long-term bar sales.
It would be interesting to see a study done on the factors affecting
bar and/or restaurant sales. I imagine there have been numerous market
research studies conducted on behalf of the big chains, but these
aren't the type of studies that become publically available...
--
== Jack Cooper - IST, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
== Statistical and Decision Support Applications
Bc 264
Hey Vik!
Any time that you want to stay home with your child and not drive your car
around is OK by me.
Your exhaust is probably better than cigarette smoke for the little one though.
Maybe we should have exhaust free zones.
I'll bet that a lot of non smoking drivers don't particularily like that idea
but they love telling someone else what to do.
Rose McClanahan
Ray Butterworth <rbutte...@pythagoras.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:85vh90$v9$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000
>
> and the smokers can choose to sit at home alone crying in
> their beer while I enjoy the entertainment and company.
> But more likely, most of them will choose to butt out and
> join in.
Not me. I just don't linger. I eat out often and the restaurant doesn't
get the amount that I usually spend.
> But remember my original point was that I *do* think that some
> places should have been allowed to remain smoky, but with
> extra restrictions on the age of their customers and with
> extra taxes for the privilege of providing the smoky atmosphere.
> Far fewer people would have been upset by such a change,
> even if it would mean that some places end up charging double
> for their drinks.
I fully agree with this comment. As a smoker, I'm willing to pay increased
prices for this service.
Also, I would like to comment about cigarettes causing cancer. I come from
a family that have been smokers for many generations. NO ONE in my blood
line has ever developed cancer of any kind, smokers and non-smokers. I
wonder if a study has ever been done for families like mine? Why are some
people more inclined to develop cancer than others?
Viktor Haag
> Hey Vik!
> Any time that you want to stay home with your child and not
> drive your car around is OK by me.
Who said we drove? 8-)
> I'll bet that a lot of non smoking drivers don't particularily
> like that idea but they love telling someone else what to do.
I wasn't telling anyone else what to do -- I was objecting to the
original posters claim that people moving to a now-now-smoking
restaurant were taking money out of another restaurant owner's
pocket... (at least then, one's choices would be based on the
quality of the food and the service, and not the quality of the
air in the room).
Viktor Haag
> Great! How are their wings these days. Anything good on tap?
That depends on what you mean by "good". Last time I was there (a
few months back) for me, I would answer a solid "no" to that
question...
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
>nf...@granite.sentex.net (Nicholas Fitzpatrick) writes:
>
>That depends on what you mean by "good". Last time I was there (a
>few months back) for me, I would answer a solid "no" to that
>question...
Well generally I'd say anything with Labatt's or Molson attached to the
name would be bad. (not quite sure how these two companies stay so
big, when their product tastes so poor compared to everyone else ...
but perhaps people now won'd be smoking in bars, they will notice how
bad their beer tastes! :-)
Nick
Andy
recommend? Why not just let the establishment owners know that you're not
there because of the smoke? Let them decide for themselves whether they want
to cater to smokers or non-smokers. Why do I not have the right to do what you
are doing? Why can I not go to an establishment and let them know that I'm not
there because they don't allow smoking?
What's next, no garlic breath in a public place?
In article <85o17e$h3f$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, "Ray Butterworth"
<rbutte...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2000 14:05:04 GMT,
>cred...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) wrote:
>Subject: Daily Bulletin, Friday, January 14
>....
>> A new smoking policy has been adopted by campus pubs, designed to
>> appease both smoking and non-smoking students.
>
>As a avid non-smoker who likes the intended effect of the new bylaws,
>I'd recommend that other similarly minded people start visiting
>businesses that they previously avoided because of the smoke,
>and letting the manager or waiter know that the reason they are
>now there is because of the lack of smoke. That might change
>the minds of some owners that are fighting the bylaw, and might
>even lead to new sources of food or entertainment.
>
>For instance, I recently visitied Morty's (King and University)
>for the first time (since he ran the "Pizza Pig" in the 1970s)
>and discovered that they have an excellent Montreal smoked meat
>sandwich and salad (even if it does have fake rye bread).
>When I mentioned why I was there to the waiter when I paid the
>bill, she said "Yes, isn't it great! I'll let them know.".
>
>
>On the other hand, I must sympathize with some of the owners
>over the way this thing has been implemented.
>
Andy
>
>So, businesses will eventually get more customers like me,
>and the smokers can choose to sit at home alone crying in
>their beer while I enjoy the entertainment and company.
>But more likely, most of them will choose to butt out and
>join in.
>
Did you say choose?
Ray Butterworth
Let's see ... yup, twice.
i.e. before, I could choose to sit at home crying in my
beer while others enjoyed themselves, or I could choose
to join in (and be uncomfortable); while now, smokers can
choose to sit at home or to join in (and be uncomfortable).
From my perspective, it's better that now you have that choice
instead of me.
Andy
offended. My wife's a non-smoker, so we usually sit in the non-smoking
section anyway. Even at home, I banish myself to the basement to smoke. The
victim here is the establishment owner. I don't mind at all being told I can't
smoke. In fact, I wholeheartedly respect the request, as long as it's the
OWNER telling me HE doesn't allow smoking in HIS establishment.
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>The
>victim here is the establishment owner. I don't mind at all being told I can't
>smoke. In fact, I wholeheartedly respect the request, as long as it's the
>OWNER telling me HE doesn't allow smoking in HIS establishment.
No, the victims here are the employees who are required to inhale toxic
fumes at their place of work. Such a heath risk should have never been
acceptable.
--
Russell O'Connor roco...@uwaterloo.ca
<http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Eric Boyd
> No, the victims here are the employees who are required to inhale toxic
> fumes at their place of work. Such a heath risk should have never been
> acceptable.
>
Many will agree that there is scientific support to show heavy smoking
impacts on the health of smoker's but the issue of tobacco smoke
affecting a non-smokers health is very dubious and is not supported by
clear evidence. Since you'll ask - NEJM Aug. 26, 1999. It deals with
heart disease but there are similar doubts for every 'small association'
claimed by those opposed to tobacco use.
Since tobacco smoke does irritate some people we need to find ways to
accommodate both smoker and non-smoker while preserving the fundamental
freedom of choice for all of us. Waterloo's bylaw fails on both counts.
Eric
Andy
No one is obliged to work in a smoke filled establishment anymore than anyone
is obliged to work in Nuclear power plant, coal mine, landfill site, chemical
plant, communicable disease research centre, gas station attendants, etc. etc.
etc.
Many jobs entail risks, ergo the cliche "hazards of the trade".
I just don't understand why we can't let the market forces do their work,
rather than paying legislators to draft laws that make decisions for people.
Not to mention the ongoing costs of enforcing the bylaw. It seems there are
enough people interested in smoke free environments to make it a viable
strategy for any restaurant or pub owner. Look at Tim Horton's, they
introduced smoke free locations and isolated smoking sections long ago. They
sure show no signs of going out of business, and they didn't need legislation
to do it.
I simply cannot accept, in a so-called free society, that you have the right
to open a smoke-free restaurant, but I don't have the right to open a smoker's
lounge. There's something fundamentally wrong about that.
>No, the victims here are the employees who are required to inhale toxic
>fumes at their place of work. Such a heath risk should have never been
>acceptable.
>
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Eric Boyd <eb...@library.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Many will agree that there is scientific support to show heavy smoking
>impacts on the health of smoker's but the issue of tobacco smoke
>affecting a non-smokers health is very dubious and is not supported by
>clear evidence. Since you'll ask - NEJM Aug. 26, 1999. It deals with
>heart disease but there are similar doubts for every 'small association'
>claimed by those opposed to tobacco use.
Maybe, I've heard that there is a 20-30% increase in risk of death from
ischemic heart disease or heart attack for nonsmoking spouses living with
smokers. Extrapolate.
But none the less the EPA in the US has classified second-hand smoke as a
Class A carcinogen of which there is no known safe level. I'm more apt
to trust the EPA than I'm am to trust you or me.
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>
>I just don't understand why we can't let the market forces do their work,
>rather than paying legislators to draft laws that make decisions for people.
I'm getting the impression that you'd prefer that we eliminate minimum
wage laws too. Given your political perspective, there is probably not
possible for us to agree on the issue.
Viktor Haag
> In fact, I wholeheartedly respect the request, as long as it's
> the OWNER telling me HE doesn't allow smoking in HIS
> establishment.
Or SHE and HER...
Andy
And that's fine, that's the essence of democracy. I still respect your
viewpoint. The trouble is, while we respectfully agree to disagree, your
viewpoint has become law. A private citizen running a private business on
private property paying taxes out of his private pocket and paying through the
nose for liability insurance in case of a private suit, is forced to do your
bidding. Remember, we're not talking about a public place.
Andy
for the hordes of people with no wages. And then workfare...what's that if not
a way to employ people for LESS than minimum wage?
In article <864tl3$kqv$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
roco...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor) wrote:
>I'm getting the impression that you'd prefer that we eliminate minimum
>wage laws too.
>
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>
>And that's fine, that's the essence of democracy. I still respect your
>viewpoint. The trouble is, while we respectfully agree to disagree, your
>viewpoint has become law.
I thought that the essence of democracy is for the majority to tryannize
over the minority, which seems to be what happened.
But I digress.
David Evans
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>
>private property paying taxes out of his private pocket and paying through the
>nose for liability insurance in case of a private suit, is forced to do your
>bidding. Remember, we're not talking about a public place.
>
Well, I recall reading that businesses are somewhat special. For example,
you can easily have someone removed from your residential property for the
offense of them just being there. However, you can't refuse someone business
for a wide variety of reasons. For example, I beleive that refusing to
serve people because of the "way they look" is illegal.
Yes, the above commentary is vague. But the point is that there is a
difference between what we commonly refer to as private property and the
type of private property that is used for commercial purposes.
--
David Evans (NeXTMail/MIME OK) dfe...@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Computer/Synth Junkie http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual
Adam Frank Nevraumont
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>is obliged to work in Nuclear power plant, coal mine, landfill site, chemical
>plant, communicable disease research centre, gas station attendants, etc. etc.
>etc.
>
>Many jobs entail risks, ergo the cliche "hazards of the trade".
>
>rather than paying legislators to draft laws that make decisions for people.
>enough people interested in smoke free environments to make it a viable
>strategy for any restaurant or pub owner. Look at Tim Horton's, they
>introduced smoke free locations and isolated smoking sections long ago. They
>sure show no signs of going out of business, and they didn't need legislation
>to do it.
It is called 'negative externalities'. Damage to worker's health, sweatshops,
etc. have impact on a modern society beyond that captured in the market
transaction between employer and employee.
(Sorta like the 'positive externalities' involved education, hence government
subsidized education. Mmmm. Market failures.)
In theory, the cost of the market correction (the bylaw) should not exceed
the damage caused by the market failure (or, more accurately, the amount of
damage caused by the market failure the market correction repairs).
--
Adam_Nevraumont at uwaterloo.ca
"My God's dad makes more money than your god's dad..." - Ethan
Hi. Im the signature immune system. Why dont you copy me into your .sig?
Joe Kovacs
except it's the other way.
Tobacco with nicotine is an empty narcotic, like cocaine or
heroin, with no redeeming virtues. I remember reading that,
indeed, it addicts people faster and stronger than cocaine.
The point is a tobacco drug addict has no choice. He _has to pay
to his master. Or mistress (thank you). He can't stop taking
the drug tobacco, like he can stop drinking milk if he wants.
He's hooked, he's a slave.
We've all heard of the old Chinese opium dens. Didn't you wonder
how they could ever go into such filthy places? You're looking
at it.
Joe Kovacs
Guelph Ontario Canada
Ray Butterworth
jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) wrote:
>Tobacco with nicotine is an empty narcotic, like cocaine or
>heroin, with no redeeming virtues. I remember reading that,
>indeed, it addicts people faster and stronger than cocaine.
One can easily develop a psychological craving for it,
but technically, cocaine isn't rated as addictive at all:
Tolerance does occur, but physical dependence has not been
conclusively demonstrated and there is no abstinence syndrome
when the drug is withdrawn.
-- "Dependence of the Cocaine Type", p. 1562
The Merck Manual, 16th edition, 1992
(This is the 3000-page cheat-sheet used by physicians
when they leave the room and say they'll be back in
a minute.)
There isn't a similar section for tobacco or nicotine addiction
(after all who would want to become addicted to a pesticide),
but there are sub-index entries for smoking-related topics:
amblyopia
arterial disease
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
effects on fetus
lung cancer
myorcardial infarction
oral lesions
peripheral vascular disease
poisoning
polycythemia
Joe Kovacs
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:55:19 GMT,
This poster would like us to think that tobacco as in
cigarettes and cocaine are not addictive and narcotics, and he
and his brethren really should be allowed to give them to our
children.
David Kennedy
Joe Kovacs <jako...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>This poster would like us to think that tobacco as in
>cigarettes and cocaine are not addictive and narcotics, and he
>and his brethren really should be allowed to give them to our
>children.
Um... no, I'm pretty sure that this isn't what he is trying to say.
I think that the point is that there are many drugs that are illegal
and that, in fact, many governments have waged a war on for which
there is little evidence that they are physically addictive. On the
other hand, tobacco, which is not only legal but also completely soccialy
acceptable and regularly pushed on children and young teens,
_is_ physically addictive.
David.
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
David Kennedy <dj2k...@hopper.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>I think that the point is that there are many drugs that are illegal
>and that, in fact, many governments have waged a war on for which
>there is little evidence that they are physically addictive. On the
>other hand, tobacco, which is not only legal but also completely soccialy
>acceptable and regularly pushed on children and young teens,
>_is_ physically addictive.
I agree. However this is all a bit of a red herring. Who cares
if it is addictive or not. Nothing is banned because it is addictive.
Caffeine is addictive, and no-one is suggesting that be banned or
restricted.
Nick
Mattias Hembruch
>rbutte...@pythagoras.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:55:19 GMT,
>
>cigarettes and cocaine are not addictive and narcotics, and he
>and his brethren really should be allowed to give them to our
>children.
Please follow standard usenet policy and lurk for a while before posting.
You can't be more wrong about Ray. Reading about 3 or 4 of his messages on
this forum should be enough to convince you. Of course, the fact that you
didn't quote his text at all makes it pretty obvious you're new at this.
We forgive you.
Mattias
--
Mattias Hembruch, BASc, MASc (mghe...@ece.uwaterloo.ca) E2-3343, ext 6165,
Software Support, Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Rob Borek
You can get small amounts of codeine over the counter, which is also
addictive.
However, the point should be more along the lines of the other toxic
chemicals in a cigarette, including arsenic, cadmium, mercury, numerous
other heavy metals, and quite a few other chemicals. There are numerous
known carcinogens in a cigarette. This is what is toxic.
I am a non-smoker. I support the new by-law. I _hate_ coming home from a
bar, restaurant, etc. smelling like someone who hasn't had a shower for a
week, due to the smoke. The smoke also doesn't do anything for my lungs.
Those of you who are smokers: the by-law doesn't violate your
"constitutional right" (in fact, it _protects_ my constitutional right to
life): you can still go outside and smoke.
Rob Borek
"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <nf...@granite.sentex.net> wrote in message
news:86cvsa$1g4$1...@granite.sentex.net...
donald tees
David Kennedy wrote in message <86cfog$slu$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>...
>In article <c1.2b8.2Tjc6r$0...@CAST.GRID.SENTEX.NET>,
>Joe Kovacs <jako...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>This poster would like us to think that tobacco as in
>>cigarettes and cocaine are not addictive and narcotics, and he
>>and his brethren really should be allowed to give them to our
>>children.
>
>and that, in fact, many governments have waged a war on for which
>there is little evidence that they are physically addictive. On the
>other hand, tobacco, which is not only legal but also completely soccialy
>acceptable and regularly pushed on children and young teens,
>_is_ physically addictive.
>
Rob Borek
other such drugs. Most people who are alcoholics have a genetic disposition
to it. Most people (95%+) who consume alcohol don't become physically
addicted to it. However, those who begin smoking have a very strong physical
(biochemical) addiction to nicotine, in virtually all cases.
Rob Borek
"donald tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote in message
news:86dhul$hi8$1...@news.igs.net...
donald tees
>Alcohol is _not_ physically addictive on the same level as nicotine and
>other such drugs. Most people who are alcoholics have a genetic disposition
>to it. Most people (95%+) who consume alcohol don't become physically
>addicted to it. However, those who begin smoking have a very strong
physical
>(biochemical) addiction to nicotine, in virtually all cases.
>
Physical addictions of all sorts vary by genetic disposition, including
those of tobacco, and the various narcotics. That does not make them
non-addictive. Of all the addictions and methods of substance abuse,
alcoholism is probably the worst in term of effects on the body.
Andy
are being violated are a private business person's right to run his business
in the way that he sees fit!
Now follow that bus, and be sure not to drink the water!
In article <reoi4.36274$Dv1.8...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Andy
chance of being born alcoholics. Perhaps that's what you mean by a genetic
predisposition.
Still, these issues are irrelevant to the issue at hand. If the region wants
to show it's stuff, they should ban drinking in restaurants too. I'm sick and
tired of boisterous beer-breathed drinkers getting aggressive and ruining my
dinner.
In article <cfti4.37152$Dv1.8...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
<rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>Alcohol is _not_ physically addictive on the same level as nicotine and
>other such drugs. Most people who are alcoholics have a genetic disposition
>to it. Most people (95%+) who consume alcohol don't become physically
>addicted to it. However, those who begin smoking have a very strong physical
>(biochemical) addiction to nicotine, in virtually all cases.
>
Rob Borek
business in the way that he sees fit!" has numerous flaws.
- Should a business owner be able to serve alcohol without a licenses?
- Should a business owner be able to serve alcohol without serving food?
- Should a business owner be able to ignore alcohol regulations (such as no
drink containing more than 3oz of alcohol)?
- Should a business owner be able to ignore health regulations?
- Should a business owner be able to skimp on washrooms?
- Should a business owner be able to set up shop wherever he wants?
Your argument has _many_ flaws. The above regulations are in place to
preserve a healthy working environment, and preserve the health of others.
The no smoking bylaw is one of these (it would fall under "Health
Regulations": it is protecting the health of the patrons in the
establishment, much like other health regulations such as washing hands
before serving food, having to clean the kitchen, etc.)
Rob Borek
"Andy" <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:yZGi4.40368$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The rights
that
> are being violated are a private business person's right to run his
business
> in the way that he sees fit!
>
> Now follow that bus, and be sure not to drink the water!
>
>
> In article <reoi4.36274$Dv1.8...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Andy
a cozy fireplace and lush lazy boy chairs. I want this to be a place where
cigar smokers can come relax, sip a sherry, and enjoy a cigar with other cigar
smokers.
Can't do it. It's against the law. How fascist is that.
In article <97Ni4.41786$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Andy
concede. I certainly don't see any being pointed out here.
Ray Butterworth
jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) wrote:
>In <867ukc$knt$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, rbutte...@pythagoras.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:55:19 GMT,
>
>cigarettes and cocaine are not addictive and narcotics, and he
>and his brethren really should be allowed to give them to our
>children.
I'm having some trouble understanding that sentence, but however I
parse it, I think you've missed what I said. Your original message
was:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:55:19 GMT,
jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) wrote:
>I remember reading that,
>indeed, it addicts people faster and stronger than cocaine.
and I provided medical references supporting what you said.
i.e. nicotine is extremely addictive, and many people can become
physically addicted after a very small number of doses, while
cocaine isn't physically addictive at all (but it is physically
and socially harmful and some people can become psychologically
dependent upon it).
P.S. The seventeenth edition (1999) of Merck's Manual has a new
section on treating tobacco addiction. And the first edition
(1899) lists tobacco as a medicinal treatment for a disease
known as "nymphomania". As their introduction says, the
medical profession has come a long way in the last 100 years.
Rob Borek
possible rezoning, PST number, GST number... and that's just _some_ of the
government stuff required.
And you can't open up shop without a liquor license. Minimum 4-6 months (I
think), plus costs of $1000-$2000. Unless you want to eliminate the sherry.
The same thing is being done in _all_ of BC. When the no smoking by-law was
put into effect in Victoria (I think it was Victoria... or was it
Vancouver?), a study showed that business actually went UP, with more people
buying food and liquor.
Rob Borek
"Andy" <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:0fZi4.45314$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Now let's say I have a business idea. I want to open a nice little lounge
with
> a cozy fireplace and lush lazy boy chairs. I want this to be a place where
> cigar smokers can come relax, sip a sherry, and enjoy a cigar with other
cigar
> smokers.
>
> Can't do it. It's against the law. How fascist is that.
>
Andy
would be illegal for me to open a cigar bar in Waterloo Region, regardless of
all the other paperwork.
As for business going up when smoking is banned...once again...entirely not
the point. That's a great reason for a business owner to consider making his
establishment smoke free, but it still doesn't explain why we need the
legislation. I mean, please! Did you read the record this weekend? We have
male "inspectors" going into women's washrooms TO CHECK FOR THE PRESENCE OF
ASHTRAYS!!!!!
Is it 2000 or 1984, I'm confused.
In article <590j4.45657$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The rights that
>are being violated are a private business person's right to run his business
>in the way that he sees fit!
Business owners should not endanger the health of their employees.
Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
Haoyong Zhang
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roco...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <yZGi4.40368$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>>I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The rights that
>>are being violated are a private business person's right to run his business
>>in the way that he sees fit!
>
>Business owners should not endanger the health of their employees.
>Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
>
What if it is a family business? Should smoking be allowed at the
restaurent if they don't hire anyone else? I used to live at a place
(Montreal) near a restaurent that was operated by a couple. Should
smoking be allowed at those kind of places?
--
Haoyong Zhang, Graduate Student, Computer Science, U of Waterloo
h2z...@uwaterloo.ca, http://www.grad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~h2zhang
Andy
In fact, in my experience with people in the food service industry (granted,
it's been a while) a very high percentage of them were smokers.
In article <86ibbv$fq0$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
roco...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor) wrote:
>In article <yZGi4.40368$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>>I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The rights that
>
>>are being violated are a private business person's right to run his business
>>in the way that he sees fit!
>
>Business owners should not endanger the health of their employees.
>Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
>
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>You're assuming all employees don't smoke. I know for a fact that's not true.
>In fact, in my experience with people in the food service industry (granted,
>it's been a while) a very high percentage of them were smokers.
I don't care who smokes and who doesn't. Just because someone is
reckless at home, doesn't mean that the employers can let safety slide on
the job.
``It was an accident your honour. Besides, he was very clumsy. If he
didn't trip on the job, he would have probably tripped at home and injure
himself there. So really we aren't responsible for what happened''.
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Rob Borek <rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
>The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
>procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
>inspector have been made.
Don't forget, that even in this case, an ashtray was found in the
washroom! Seems to me, that it is a little much sqawking about
this, when they were guilty. It's only a washroom. They DO have
stalls inside .... And the inspector claims he knocked first, and
never heard anything. If I was to phone the Record, every time
the cleaning staff at work, walked into the bathroom, after they
knocked, and I shouted, it would get dull fast.
Nick
David Canzi
>roco...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor) wrote:
>>Business owners should not endanger the health of their employees.
>>Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
In article <qY4j4.46439$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>You're assuming all employees don't smoke.
It looks to me like he's only assuming that *some* employees don't
smoke. "All" isn't necessary; "some" is sufficient.
Besides, "danger to health increases with amount smoked," as it says on
some cigarette packs. A customer's smoking can even be harming the
employees that smoke.
--
David Canzi
Adam Frank Nevraumont
You know, that might work...
/-------------------------\
| Smoking has been listed |
| in a medical manual as |
| a cure for nymphomania. |
\-------------------------/
Rob Borek
are going to smoke in the bathrooms! Since it is part of the establishment,
it is covered by the by-law.
The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
inspector have been made.
Legislation has been put in to protect the non-smoker, such as myself, as
well as the people who work in the establishments (this is the major reason
for the smoking ban in BC: the WCB of BC stated that all employees,
regardless of profession, must be in a non-smoking environment to protect
their health.)
Other cities are making their way to a total ban on smoking, including
Toronto, Stratford, Guelph, and others. Ten years from now, you will
probably not be able to smoke in a restaurant, bar, etc. anywhere in
Ontario.
Rob Borek
"Andy" <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:KA1j4.45843$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Of course, these points are all moot, since, if I understand it correctly,
it
> would be illegal for me to open a cigar bar in Waterloo Region, regardless
of
> all the other paperwork.
>
> As for business going up when smoking is banned...once again...entirely
not
> the point. That's a great reason for a business owner to consider making
his
> establishment smoke free, but it still doesn't explain why we need the
> legislation. I mean, please! Did you read the record this weekend? We have
> male "inspectors" going into women's washrooms TO CHECK FOR THE PRESENCE
OF
> ASHTRAYS!!!!!
>
> Is it 2000 or 1984, I'm confused.
>
> In article <590j4.45657$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
> >> In article <97Ni4.41786$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
> >> <rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
> >> >Looking at your argument of "a private business person's right to run
his
> >> >business in the way that he sees fit!" has numerous flaws.
> >> >
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to serve alcohol without a licenses?
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to serve alcohol without serving
food?
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to ignore alcohol regulations (such
as
> >no
> >> >drink containing more than 3oz of alcohol)?
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to ignore health regulations?
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to skimp on washrooms?
> >> >- Should a business owner be able to set up shop wherever he wants?
> >> >
> >> >Your argument has _many_ flaws. The above regulations are in place to
> >> >preserve a healthy working environment, and preserve the health of
> >others.
> >> >The no smoking bylaw is one of these (it would fall under "Health
> >> >Regulations": it is protecting the health of the patrons in the
> >> >establishment, much like other health regulations such as washing
hands
> >> >before serving food, having to clean the kitchen, etc.)
> >> >
> >> >Rob Borek
> >> >
> >> >"Andy" <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:yZGi4.40368$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >> >> I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The
> >rights
> >> >that
> >> >> are being violated are a private business person's right to run his
> >> >business
> >> >> in the way that he sees fit!
> >> >>
> >> >> Now follow that bus, and be sure not to drink the water!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <reoi4.36274$Dv1.8...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob
Borek"
Andy
in the washroom! Quick, hide the children.
Puh-lease people. We're not even talking about smoking anymore. They had a
blessed ashtray in the washroom, and we're assigning that with the word GUILT!
I give up. Go ahead and engineer your Orwellian society. Just don't come
crying to me when they ban newsgroups.
In article <86j0l8$mde$1...@granite.sentex.net>, nf...@granite.sentex.net
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:
>In article <ft7j4.48411$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>Rob Borek <rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>>
>>The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
>>procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
>>inspector have been made.
>
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>Are you listening to yourself? They were guilty. OH MY GOD! There's an ashtray
>in the washroom! Quick, hide the children.
>
>Puh-lease people. We're not even talking about smoking anymore. They had a
>blessed ashtray in the washroom, and we're assigning that with the word GUILT!
The law forbids this. Why should non-smokers be forced to suffer from
people smoking in a washroom? Why do you think this is different from
any other public place?
(and best of all, what are your childred doing in a bar! :-)
Nick
Andy
smoking in the washroom. They weren't even looking for smoking in the
washroom. They were looking for ASHTRAYS! A receptacle that can easily be used
for trash! Now we're fining people for their taste in refuse containers! Do
you see what my whole argument is getting at? Where will it all end? My god,
we're fining people for having an ashtray! Am I really the only one who has a
problem with that?
In article <86jfio$ehn$1...@granite.sentex.net>, nf...@granite.sentex.net
donald tees
Rob Borek wrote in message ...
>The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
>procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
>inspector have been made.
Not deliberate? What the hell does *that* mean? Talk about double speak.
Can you actually say anything with meaning? How does the second hand smoke
in the women's toilet affect your health again?
This is politics, not health. And fanaticism, not reason.
Jack Cooper
Haoyong Zhang <h2z...@hopper.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <86ibbv$fq0$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>In article <yZGi4.40368$Dv1.9...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>>Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>>>are being violated are a private business person's right to run his business
>>>in the way that he sees fit!
>>
>>Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
>>
>
>restaurent if they don't hire anyone else? I used to live at a place
>(Montreal) near a restaurent that was operated by a couple. Should
>smoking be allowed at those kind of places?
>
>
My dad operated a retail store in Toronto for twenty years.
He smokes cigars. When the ban on smoking in retail stores
came, he quit smoking in the store. My mom (who also
worked in the store and is a non-smoker) was happy :-)
--
== Jack Cooper - IST, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
== Statistical and Decision Support Applications
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>Once again I find myself saying....that's entirely not the point. There was no
>smoking in the washroom. They weren't even looking for smoking in the
>washroom. They were looking for ASHTRAYS! A receptacle that can easily be used
>for trash! Now we're fining people for their taste in refuse containers! Do
>you see what my whole argument is getting at? Where will it all end? My god,
>we're fining people for having an ashtray! Am I really the only one who has a
>problem with that?
Didn't the law spell out 3 years ago, that people would be charged for
providing recaptacles for smoking? Seems to me, that if after three
years, the bar owner didn't notice he had an ashtray in the washroom,
then we are talking about an intelligence test here more than anything
else.
Nick
Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>I give up. Go ahead and engineer your Orwellian society. Just don't come
>crying to me when they ban newsgroups.
, You've got it all backwards. Smoking is banned. alt.sex.stories was
banned but isn't any more (at UW).
Tim Coleman
Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>Once again I find myself saying....that's entirely not the point. There was no
>smoking in the washroom. They weren't even looking for smoking in the
>washroom. They were looking for ASHTRAYS! A receptacle that can easily be used
>for trash! Now we're fining people for their taste in refuse containers! Do
>you see what my whole argument is getting at? Where will it all end? My god,
>we're fining people for having an ashtray! Am I really the only one who has a
>problem with that?
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this point. While we're at it,
why don't we search pockets for lighters?
Just because a washroom has ashtrays doesn't mean anything. However,
I don't think that that was the intent of the search...maybe it was
a poorly contrived cover to shrug off the flak from the media.
However, it is not hard to see that society becomes more and more
prohibitive with every passing day.
Tim
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
t i m ( d o t ) c o l e m a n ( a t ) u w a t e r l o o ( d o t ) c a
http://www.{undergrad.math|csclub}.uwaterloo.ca/%7Etrwcolem/
informix/oracle/db2 rdbms specialist -- un*x programming enthusiast
Andy
In article <86k54p$j91$1...@news.igs.net>, "donald tees" <don...@willmack.com>
wrote:
>
>Rob Borek wrote in message ...
>
>>The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
>>procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
>>inspector have been made.
>
Andy
>In article <%ybj4.49794$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>>Once again I find myself saying....that's entirely not the point. There was no
>
>>smoking in the washroom. They weren't even looking for smoking in the
>>washroom. They were looking for ASHTRAYS! A receptacle that can easily be used
>
>>for trash! Now we're fining people for their taste in refuse containers! Do
>>you see what my whole argument is getting at? Where will it all end? My god,
>>we're fining people for having an ashtray! Am I really the only one who has a
>
>>problem with that?
>
>providing recaptacles for smoking? Seems to me, that if after three
>years, the bar owner didn't notice he had an ashtray in the washroom,
>then we are talking about an intelligence test here more than anything
>else.
>
>Nick
"The law" is a not a deciding factor in the debate, it is THE ISSUE.
Rob Borek
the washroom with the woman in it. This was the entire issue: that the
inspector walked into the washroom while someone was in it.
And as someone pointed out, smoking in the washroom can be a fire hazard. If
you allowed smoking in the bathrooms, it would become the "smoking area",
causing additional problems (such as a REALLY smoky bathroom, and additional
problems with enforcement of alcohol regulations, as alcohol is not allowed
in bathrooms).
This IS health, not politics. Obviously you have _no clue_ about tobacco
smoke, and nicotine and its addictiveness. Tobacco contains numerous known
carcinogens, and is known to cause cancer. I don't want to inhale it when I
go out to a restaurant. Plus, it leaves me smelling like the garbage dump
out back.
Rob Borek
"donald tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote in message
news:86k54p$j91$1...@news.igs.net...
>
> Rob Borek wrote in message ...
>
> >The incident you described is unfortunate, but not deliberate. Changes to
> >procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
> >inspector have been made.
>
Andy
in Ontario, if not Canada, during summer months.
In article <x%jj4.50766$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Rose McClanahan
Rob Borek <rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
news:ft7j4.48411$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Legislation has been put in to protect the non-smoker, such as myself, as
> well as the people who work in the establishments (this is the major
reason
> for the smoking ban in BC: the WCB of BC stated that all employees,
> regardless of profession, must be in a non-smoking environment to protect
> their health.)
Wake up and smell the smoke. The legislation was put in place to calm some
of the whining. If the government really wanted to ban smoking in all
places across this country they could. Why haven't they? Loss of jobs!
Loss of taxes! For the government to place a proper no smoking ban would be
ludicrous and they know it.
Tim Coleman
Nicholas Fitzpatrick <nf...@granite.sentex.net> wrote:
>Didn't the law spell out 3 years ago, that people would be charged for
>providing recaptacles for smoking? Seems to me, that if after three
>years, the bar owner didn't notice he had an ashtray in the washroom,
>then we are talking about an intelligence test here more than anything
>else.
In rebuttal, I would just like to point out that there were other
provisions in the bylaw which were never or rarely enforced until
Jan 1. E.g. there were requirements that smoking areas not
exceed a certain percentage of the area, and that separate ventilation
systems be used, and so on, unless I'm mistaken.
Perhaps the bar owner didn't think that the law would be enforced
to such a draconian extent. Or perhaps he/she was hoping to
create a media spectacle.
This whole situation is a little bit perturbing to say the least.
Rob Borek
have an odour, and IS NOT a carcinogen. What it does do is create problems
breathing, especially in those with respiratory/lung issues (including
smokers). If I'm not mistaken, the ozone inflames the lungs, causing the
problems. Once the ozone is gone, the problems go away.
Rob Borek
"Andy" <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:Qnkj4.50777$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Ironically, so does the air in the KW region. We have the worst smog
problem
> in Ontario, if not Canada, during summer months.
>
> In article <x%jj4.50766$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Rob Borek"
Rob Borek
would cause massive problems (one, of course is loss of tax revenue. The
other big one is they lose control over tobacco sales.)
Rob Borek
"Rose McClanahan" <ro...@ionline.net> wrote in message
news:pzlj4.7404$W6.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
>
> Rob Borek <rbo...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
> news:ft7j4.48411$Dv1.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > Legislation has been put in to protect the non-smoker, such as myself,
as
> > well as the people who work in the establishments (this is the major
> reason
> > for the smoking ban in BC: the WCB of BC stated that all employees,
> > regardless of profession, must be in a non-smoking environment to
protect
> > their health.)
>
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Tim Coleman <tim.c...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>In rebuttal, I would just like to point out that there were other
>provisions in the bylaw which were never or rarely enforced until
>Jan 1. E.g. there were requirements that smoking areas not
>exceed a certain percentage of the area, and that separate ventilation
>systems be used, and so on, unless I'm mistaken.
Most restraunts have had very small smoking areas for a long time. I
think most of them were in compliance. I have not heard of the
legislation having seperate ventilation areas in. And logically,
it wouldn't make sense. Why would you force people to spend the
$$$ of putting in seperate ventilation systems, when you know it
would only be 3 years?
And the other thing that went in early, was making shopping centres
smoke-free, which seems to have been implemented without exception for
a while. (remember the old days, when you would try and walk past
the food fair in Conestoga Mall, without gagging).
>Perhaps the bar owner didn't think that the law would be enforced
>to such a draconian extent. Or perhaps he/she was hoping to
>create a media spectacle.
Draconian? If they were hauling away people by the dozen, every
night, it would be draconian. The last I heard, they hadn't
even laid any charges yet, after almost a month! The region had
made quite clear, they were going ahead with the law, and would
enforce it. Why does this surprise people?
>This whole situation is a little bit perturbing to say the least.
The only thing that is perturbing, is that society has put up with
smokers for so long. Never mind all the health aspects, etc. Do
smokers comprehend how utterly bad they smell? Why not just spray
themselves with a skunk every morning ... And why they are so
anti-social, to want to share their smoke with everyone, I don't
know.
Nick
David Kennedy
Nicholas Fitzpatrick <nf...@granite.sentex.net> wrote:
>Why would you force people to spend the
>$$$ of putting in seperate ventilation systems, when you know it
>would only be 3 years?
Of course, this would assume that there was some forethought involved here.
The way the business owners are now reacting, you would think that they
had absolutely no idea that this by-law was in the works.
David.
donald tees
Ken D. wrote in message <388DBBE3...@dognose.com>...
>donald tees wrote:
>>
>> Rob Borek wrote in message ...
>>
to
>> >procedures regarding inspecting the bathroom of the opposite sex of the
>> >inspector have been made.
>>
speak.
>> Can you actually say anything with meaning? How does the second hand
smoke
>> in the women's toilet affect your health again?
>>
>> This is politics, not health. And fanaticism, not reason.
>
establishment
>it is now an incredible and certain fire hazard to allow smoking in
washrooms.
>it's inevitable some idiot will toss a lit butt into a waste can of
>papertowels.
>
>extra enforment should be given to washrooms, not less.
>
> -ken, adding fuel :)
And you are going to fix it by banning ashtrays. Why not ban waste cans
filled with paper towels. It would be more to the point.
In fact, however, that was not the point of my post. The point of my post
was that some idiot said the search was "not deliberate", which is pure
bullshit. The inspector did not put a blindfold on and wander at random
until they woke up in the women's washroom. They quite deliberately entered
that washroom, for the specific purpose of checking it. The "not
deliberate" wording was a lie, pure and simple. Further, it was a lie in an
attempt to justify the action.
donald tees
Jack Cooper wrote in message <86kao5$83d$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>...
>In article <86igs1$ji4$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Haoyong Zhang <h2z...@hopper.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>In article <86ibbv$fq0$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roco...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:
>>>Andy <sys...@spamme.not.canoemail.com> wrote:
>>>>I haven't seen anyone proposing a constitional right to smoke. The
rights that
>>>>are being violated are a private business person's right to run his
business
>>>>in the way that he sees fit!
>>>
>>>Business owners should not endanger the health of their employees.
>>>Period. They souldn't do whatever dangerous stunts they want to do.
>>>
>>
>>What if it is a family business? Should smoking be allowed at the
>>restaurent if they don't hire anyone else? I used to live at a place
>>(Montreal) near a restaurent that was operated by a couple. Should
>>smoking be allowed at those kind of places?
>>
>>
>
>My dad operated a retail store in Toronto for twenty years.
>He smokes cigars. When the ban on smoking in retail stores
>came, he quit smoking in the store. My mom (who also
>worked in the store and is a non-smoker) was happy :-)
>
I work out my home. I have four employees. I do not smoke nicotine in the
house during work hours. Only pot. If an inspector comes to the door, they
had better bring a search warrant.
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
donald tees <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
>
>I work out my home. I have four employees. I do not smoke nicotine in the
>house during work hours. Only pot. If an inspector comes to the door, they
>had better bring a search warrant.
Then this bylaw doesn't impact you. The provincial "Smoking in the Workplace"
legislation does instead. As this hasn't changed for years, presumably
it is fairly non-contentious. Does this mean the Ministry of Labour
can visit your house without notice?
Nick
donald tees
Rob Borek wrote in message ...
>the washroom with the woman in it. This was the entire issue: that the
>inspector walked into the washroom while someone was in it.
Ah. So he expected to find someone smoking in an *empty* washroom. That
makes a lot more sense to me now. Perhaps he should have knocked, and found
out if someone was in it first. Of course then he could not have caught
anybody ...
>And as someone pointed out, smoking in the washroom can be a fire hazard.
If
>you allowed smoking in the bathrooms, it would become the "smoking area",
>causing additional problems (such as a REALLY smoky bathroom, and
additional
>problems with enforcement of alcohol regulations, as alcohol is not allowed
>in bathrooms).
>
>This IS health, not politics. Obviously you have _no clue_ about tobacco
>smoke, and nicotine and its addictiveness. Tobacco contains numerous known
>carcinogens, and is known to cause cancer. I don't want to inhale it when I
>go out to a restaurant. Plus, it leaves me smelling like the garbage dump
>out back.
>
Really? In fact, I did not say a word about nicotine. I commented on the
doublespeak. Raving bullshit seldom appeals to my sense of logic, or my
sense of fair play. Telling me I have _no clue_ as to the health hazards
of nicotine is typical of the bullshit ... it avoids the question, and
attacks on an entirely different subject so that the objection does not have
to be dealt with.
I repeat. The inspector deliberately entered the washroom. It was rude. It
was not an accident. It was a person in authority flouting their power, and
overstepping that authority. Being against smoking should not absolve
anyone from common decency. Claiming that it is OK because smoking is a
great evil is as wrong as "I was only obeying orders". Claiming it was not
deliberate is a lie.
Rob Borek
do an inspection. Refusing access to a labour inspector at a job site is
illegal. If the inspector smells pot, or sees it, he/she will most likely
close the job site and call in the police. Since a violation of the law has
occured, a search warrant is NOT required.
A search warrant is NOT required for a labour (or health) inspector to
inspect the job site for violations of labour and safety legislation. This,
AFAIK, has been upheld by the courts. If your home happens to be the
location of the business, too bad. Canada does not have the same rigorous
search and seizure laws of the US.
BTW: the smoking of pot could explain a lot of his replies.
Rob Borek
"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" <nf...@granite.sentex.net> wrote in message
news:86li8v$o96$1...@granite.sentex.net...
Rob Borek
in the bathroom. This is what was stated in the Record. Do you read the
newspaper? His intention was to inspect the washroom for ashtrays, but it
was not his intention to walk in on the woman (per his story). The woman's
story differs. The policy on entering washrooms of the opposite sex has been
changed. Read BOTH stories the Record did on the issue. The woman said he
knocked and entered before she could reply she was in the bathroom. The
inspector states he knocked loudly and called out before entering the
bathroom, but heard nothing. What he did was common decency, and is done all
the time by custodians cleaning bathrooms of the opposite sex. Regardless,
PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED!
Did you actually read the Record before you started spurting off about the
issue? The paper presented a good view of both sides.
Rob Borek
"donald tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote in message
news:86ljuh$o7a$1...@news.igs.net...