Comments on: Vancouver Muslims Smoke, Canucks Don’t

By: BIG TOBACCO

BIG TOBACCO — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:36:09 +0000

Dear antismokerIt’s yer old buddy, Big Tobacco. I just wanted to thank you for making smoking cooler to kids than ever. Hiding them in the stores, that is brilliant. I would have never thought of that. When I was a kid I remember how badly i wanted to see the hidden magazines vs. the regular magazines. Also, I really appreciate you getting all the smokers to join together and smoke outside so they get to be seen ten times more often. I would personally like to thank all the quit smoking companies such as niccorette for reminding smokers who wish to quit that they cant do it by themselves. Possibly the smartest form of advertising i have seen since we got hollywood to smoke in movies. Hey if you are interested we now offer all sorts of candy flavored cigarettes for the little ones. Ooh and just to top it all of, they are really expensive so you have to be rich to smoke them. Hey kids, don’t you want to be rich? Then invest in big tobacco. We are getting more free advertising then ever! Yay! luv big tobaccop.s. yer all a bunch of minion sheep.

By: Nihat

Nihat — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:03:42 +0000

“Nobody is telling a smoker they can’t smoke…they’re just telling them to do it outside away from non-smoker’s lungs.”

Definition of ‘outside’ is expanding, too. Some non-smokers are predisposed to classify as ‘inside’ places they walk by. E.g., patios, sidewalks, parks… And smoking is not allowed in some such open-air places. I’ve been to a such a park in San Fransisco. The Vancouver ordinance is quoted above to be banning it in taxis passing through the city. Whover this may be protecting from whatever, I sure hope the taxis there are zero-emission vehicles, and traffic is never congested in Vancouver. Or, there is a lot of toxic exhaust fumes to be inhaled by innocent people.

By: Xel

Xel — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:51:08 +0000

“As I said in my previous comment, I don’t see this law as carving out an exception for Muslims or Arabs so much as carving out a reasonable exception for establishments for which smoking is clearly the principal raison d’etre, and in which neither employees nor customers can have any reasonable expectation of a smoke-free environment.”

Tell that to our very own “correspondent to the world”, Mark Steyn…

By: Matt Eckel

Matt Eckel — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:05:27 +0000

Taking the philosophy aside for a moment, it’s also worth pointing out that, at least in my experience, plenty of non-Middle-Easterners go to hookah lounges. I lived in Montreal for a time, where hookah lounges are relatively common, and they were frequented by people of every imaginable religious/ethnic/cultural background. Patrons tended to be a bit younger (these places tend to be popular with college students) but other than that there was no “typical” customer. As I said in my previous comment, I don’t see this law as carving out an exception for Muslims or Arabs so much as carving out a reasonable exception for establishments for which smoking is clearly the principal raison d’etre, and in which neither employees nor customers can have any reasonable expectation of a smoke-free environment.

By: Interested

Interested — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:29:41 +0000

It’s not about your wallet, or choice for patrons…it’s about protecting our workers from breathing in toxic smoke while they’re on the job. All workers should be free from deadly secondhand smoke. Nobody is telling a smoker they can’t smoke…they’re just telling them to do it outside away from non-smoker’s lungs. Simple as that. Why don’t people get it? It’s not about rights. It’s about HEALTH.

Ummm,
No it’s not.

Workers freely look for jobs in those establishments, just as workers freely use subway stations or train stations or bus stations with various toxic fumes in abundance. A non-smoker has no right to order where a smoker can be in a public place. Both are taxpaying, law abiding citizens.

To further expound, if business were allowed to decide to either section their establishment, or retain it smoking or retain it non-smoking than customers choose to visit it or not.

That’s where it so simple - you have the power to choose, you do not have the power to force your views on someone else.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:26:21 +0000

“That’s not people’s, but non-smoking people’s expectation. They can stay away from places that has a “This is a smoking establishment” on the door, can they not? Given the steady decline in smoking, they should have no worries about not finding a non-smoking establishment for themselves.”
It’s not about your wallet, or choice for patrons…it’s about protecting our workers from breathing in toxic smoke while they’re on the job. All workers should be free from deadly secondhand smoke. Nobody is telling a smoker they can’t smoke…they’re just telling them to do it outside away from non-smoker’s lungs. Simple as that. Why don’t people get it? It’s not about rights. It’s about HEALTH.

By: Xel

Xel — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:19:00 +0000

I think Vancouver should change the law so that it does not apply to businesses that either rely on a clientele that want a place to smoke or lounges that are only geared towards smoking. However, if a tobacco-lounge or equivalent starts selling drinks there could be a problem.

I mean, there is no legitimate reason to provide an exemption based only on the geographical origin of the establishment/general clientele, is there?

Once again I find myself not disgusted with a Steyn opinion (the other agreement is a distaste for the war on drugs). That’s another seal of the apocalypse rupturing right there.

By: Michael van der Galiën

Michael van der Galiën — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:02:32 +0000

I’m not sure in how far it’s legislating morality and in how far it’s protecting other citizens from unnecessary harm inflicted upon them because research has shown that passive smokers inhale a lot of harmful substances.

In a way, you could say that it’s more moral legislation to make it illegal for people to use cocaine, because cocaine users are the only true sufferers, while with smoking the surrounding as a whole suffers.

By: Nihat

Nihat — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:24:50 +0000

Marc, to follow your angle (which, if valid, is important enough), let me ask. What would you have said about Muslim immigrants’ adaptation pains if smoking bans weren’t a popular indulgence of governments today? I don’t know how hookah lounges look like in Vancouver, but they are probably better compared to smoke specialty stores, where people actually smoke and no non-smoker is found (it is so at least where I live in the States). Matt Eckel has already made this point, and I doubt if this really is an example of pandering to Muslims.

By: marc moore

marc moore — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:18:03 +0000

I presume the premise is that 1 smoker can easily ruin the meals of 50 people. From that perspective smoking bans make sense.

However, I think that most of us agree that’s not a proper function of government.

I vote with my wallet; I won’t eat anywhere that allows smokers’ discharge to foul my air.

To me the interesting angle is the all-to-common pandering to Muslims. Why is the city doing that when it’s counter-productive?