Pick and Choose Bylaws – The Calgary Smoking Ban

February 16, 2007 · By

Max Mitchell, a guest blogger over at wernerpatels.com, sheds some light on the stupidity of the smoking bylaws passed by Calgary city council,

I think it’s ridiculous how mentally clouded we have become in Calgary. The only continuing debate about the smoking bylaw now regards which establishments should be given the omnipotent nod from city council for an exemption. Sensibly enough, Shisha Bars have been given the O.K. to continue to allow smoking (on the basis that their entire clientele patronize the place to smoke), but why is the question still not being asked: why is there a ban in the first place?

Comments

4 Responses to “Pick and Choose Bylaws – The Calgary Smoking Ban”

  1. Ryan on February 16th, 2007 3:41 pm [#]

    The bans are being put in place because second hand smoke is a proven work place hazard. People that work in establishments that allow smoking are being exposed to something that may have adverse health consequences. The rights of smokers are not more important than the right of employees to expect a reasonably safe work environment.

  2. Manuel on February 16th, 2007 11:34 pm [#]

    I think this exemption status crap has gone on far to long, all the business’ without exemption cry it’s not fair the other places have it, so here’s the fix no exemptions period. But Calgary is full of elected Liberals afterall. Municiple of course, and the mayor himself ran as a Liberal MP in the 2000 election.

  3. Sick of Tory Ranting on February 20th, 2007 3:35 pm [#]

    Ryan, save your breath. You know you’re right. I know you’re right. But given the recent posts here on climate change, the bloggers here will drag up some scientist who denies that smoking is at all helpful. Talking science here just doesn’t work.

  4. Greg Farries on February 20th, 2007 4:42 pm [#]

    Ryan, I agree the smoking is a workplace hazard, I just disagree that in order to address this issue, governments have to ban smoking in private establishments.

    Rather than banning smoking, why couldn’t governments require establishments, which allow smoking, to have adequate ventilation to minimize the hazard?

    Talking science here just doesn’t work.

    This isn’t about science, it’s about liberty.

    We all make choices – to smoke, or in this case, to work in a establishment that contains smoke.

Got something to say? (Read the rules first)