NationStates Jolt Archive

This article caught my eye, and may spark some discussion if something similar is happening where you live. Here is the background: Recently in Edmonton, Alberta, where I live, the bars and restaurants went entirely smoke-free under a city bylaw. The new bylaw has created a crisis for some bar owners, who have suffered financial loss because a good number of their patrons came to the bar only to smoke and have a casual drink. Those customers are the ones bar owners are targetting (trying to please) in order to re-establish their solid customer base.

Now, having the smokers step outside to have a smoke might be a solution in a warmer climate, but is a very undesirable alternative when you live in an area that regularly reaches temperatures of -20C or colder in the wintertime. Complicating matters is that the city granted leniency to a private club for recoving alcoholics to ensure that its customer base remains secure.

Edmonton pub told to get rid of smoking bus; different pub's bus allowed to stay

EDMONTON (CP) - A pub owner who has parked a used school bus outside his bar so patrons can smoke is being told he has to get rid of it because it hasn't been approved.

Tony Burke of TB's Pub in Edmonton says he parked the bus so his customers would have somewhere warm to smoke since a city bylaw prevents them from doing so inside. Two bylaw enforcement officers delivered a letter to him Tuesday citing a number of concerns. The letter claims the bus has been modified to be used exclusively as a gathering place for patrons and is an unapproved structure that does not have a proper permit.

But a defiant Burke had words for the officers when they arrived.

"See the door, get out," a visibly upset Burke told the pair.

He said it's not fair he's being pestered about his butt bus when an inner-city private club for recovering addicts has been granted an exemption from the bylaw that bans puffing in public places.

Officials from the private club challenged the ban and argued it could serve to drive their customers back to regular bars and drinking.

Burke suggests the city has a "two-tiered" smoking bylaw. He pointed out he's trying to live up to the smoking ban and has removed all of the ashtrays in his bar.

The bus is his private vehicle and he's not going to take it off his property, he added. "I'm not going to shut it down. That bus is going to stay," he said.

"No one is taking that bus off my property and if they do, I'll have them charged with stealing."

The bus has proved popular with patrons, one of whom has dubbed it "Puff the magic wagon."

The owner of another bar with a smoking bus on the other side of the city isn't facing the same problems Burke is.

The city has ruled that the bus owned by Wally Zack of the Borderline Sports Club is a legitimate vehicle.

"The vehicle is licensed and insured and I drive it every day," said Zack. He does leave it parked outside of his bar for patrons to smoke in, however.

Both buses were targeted by the city to make sure they did not violate the intent of the smoking bylaw, said John Wilson of Edmonton's complaints division.

"An active investigation is underway into the use of the bus at TB's Pub," he said. "Right now were are going to wait for the owner of the business to respond to us."

No deadline has been set because of the holiday season, Wilson said. "We're going to give him plenty of opportunity for him to get back to us and let us know how he's going to proceed."

The regulars at TB's weren't impressed by the bylaw department's ruling. "How can they call a bus like that a structure?" asked Charlie Easton.

Those thoughts were echoed by Howard Benson. "There's no such thing as a mobile structure. They're grasping at straws," he said.

Burke said there's no compromise.

"The next step is to go to my lawyer and fight this all the way through the courts."

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=ab_home&articleID=2125191&lid=today+box
Personally, I think the city went a bit too far with its bylaw. I am not a smoker, and I ordinarily would approve of them having to butt out as being better for their health, but I do sympathise with the bar owners and those patrons who feel they should be able to smoke with friends in a familiar public atmosphere away from the home. (I have nothing in the way of constructive criticism to offer, though.)

I really see the only considerations as:

Are other customers explosed unwillingly to smoke?

Are employees ever required to enter the smokey atmosphere?

In this situation they both seem to be answered "no". Therefore I see no reason why they would give this guy all this trouble.

This does seem a bit harsh. A full smoking ban is coming in here in NI in April 2007, which is pretty much based on the one in the Republic of Ireland. For the most part, that seems to have worked well, but similarly to your part of the world, some bars have reported a considerable drop in business (especially those that don't have the room for big outside areas with heat lamps) while off-licences saw a surge in business with people just taking their booze home to where they could smoke.

I thought the by-law Toronto seems to have passed was a fair compromise. The smoking area either has to be completely sealed off from the rest of the bar/restaurant or outside. When we were there, in most cases it was outside, but in one bar we went into they had a specific smoking area indoors. The argument is that staff working in said area will be subjected to the smoke, but the barmaid told us that she was given the option of not working there but chose to nonetheless. So, if you have staff that are willing to do it, this seems like the best solution to me.

This does seem a bit harsh. A full smoking ban is coming in here in NI in April 2007, which is pretty much based on the one in the Republic of Ireland. For the most part, that seems to have worked well, but similarly to your part of the world, some bars have reported a considerable drop in business (especially those that don't have the room for big outside areas with heat lamps) while off-licences saw a surge in business with people just taking their booze home to where they could smoke.

I thought the by-law Toronto seems to have passed was a fair compromise. The smoking area either has to be completely sealed off from the rest of the bar/restaurant or outside. When we were there, in most cases it was outside, but in one bar we went into they had a specific smoking area indoors. The argument is that staff working in said area will be subjected to the smoke, but the barmaid told us that she was given the option of not working there but chose to nonetheless. So, if you have staff that are willing to do it, this seems like the best solution to me.
That (the TON by-law) is the way it was here before this new, stricter law was enacted. I am not sure what prompted such extreme stickiness, though, that moves the city to declare one bus (that's operational) a legal place to park and smoke and another not legal because it is not operational. This is really going too far.

This article caught my eye, and may spark some discussion if something similar is happening where you live. Here is the background: Recently in Edmonton, Alberta, where I live, the bars and restaurants went entirely smoke-free under a city bylaw. The new bylaw has created a crisis for some bar owners, who have suffered financial loss because a good number of their patrons came to the bar only to smoke and have a casual drink. Those customers are the ones bar owners are targetting (trying to please) in order to re-establish their solid customer base.

Now, having the smokers step outside to have a smoke might be a solution in a warmer climate, but is a very undesirable alternative when you live in an area that regularly reaches temperatures of -20C or colder in the wintertime. Complicating matters is that the city granted leniency to a private club for recoving alcoholics to ensure that its customer base remains secure.


Personally, I think the city went a bit too far with its bylaw. I am not a smoker, and I ordinarily would approve of them having to butt out as being better for their health, but I do sympathise with the bar owners and those patrons who feel they should be able to smoke with friends in a familiar public atmosphere away from the home. (I have nothing in the way of constructive criticism to offer, though.)It's a good idea and a nice compromise, unfortunatly tho , (I don't know if it's the same in Canada) the street isn't part of the Pub's property. it's acutally public land. Now if the Bus was parked on the pub's property, then he might beable to get away with it.

It's a good idea and a nice compromise, unfortunatly tho , (I don't know if it's the same in Canada) the street isn't part of the Pub's property. it's acutally public land. Now if the Bus was parked on the pub's property, then he might beable to get away with it.
Nah, he indicates in the article that it is parked on his property.

From what I can tell the issue is wether or not you can have an intended structure that allows for smoking, which is why the dude with the bus that he registered and moves is cool but the bus that is unregistered (I'm guessing) and not moving is really just a structure-thus part of the bar thus falls under the smoking ban.

So he actually needs to allow himself to get arrested for the bus (fined, probably, but so he can challenge) and get it cleared up. If you allow structures be built for smoking, then in essense you have smoking sections and you've pretty much ignored the ban.

However, if you can't get service in the smoking structure and it's little more than a place warmer than outside then why the hell not? So it kinda has to be pressed, because under the statute I can see the city's point, but also the bar owners. A middle ground needs to be met.

Nah, he indicates in the article that it is parked on his property.
again, I don't know the property laws in Canada, but it sounds like the pub is in the city. the article states that it's parked infront of his pub. now in the US, for it to be on his property and not on city property, it has to be off of the street and sidewalk (if any) and within his property lines. so if his pub has a front/side/back yard within his property line then yes, it's on his property. if it is (as the article states, parked infront of his pub) on the street infront of his pub (as he drives it/them every day) then it's on city property.

again, I don't know the property laws in Canada, but it sounds like the pub is in the city. the article states that it's parked infront of his pub. now in the US, for it to be on his property and not on city property, it has to be off of the street and sidewalk (if any) and within his property lines. so if his pub has a front/side/back yard within his property line then yes, it's on his property. if it is (as the article states, parked infront of his pub) on the street infront of his pub (as he drives it/them every day) then it's on city property.
It is probably parked on his parking lot.

It is probably parked on his parking lot.
Probably... I hope.

that really is a good Idea tho.

This problem could correct itself. That is of course if we invade Mexico and take it over again. Then all these companies that export cheap labor can set up shop right here in the good ole "New" America. Hell I would even build a worthless crap factory in old Mexico.

Ban smoking in "public" means you can only smoke in "private."

This means more smoking indoors, around family members and such, causing more secondhand smoke related problems.

But hey, it makes average joe feel safer, since we all know that a man smoking a cigarette in a park causes at least ten incidents of cancer with each butt.

:headbang: There is no pleasing some people

Bars can still built smoking rooms for their patrons, as can restaurants. Or if they have a patio area, their patrons can smoke there.

It's called second-hand smoke. When someone smokes in a crowded area, he or she is not only harming him or herself, but all other around him or her.

I don't buy into that "smoker's rights" crap. If you want to smoke, do it in the privacy of your own home, or in a private establishment where the patrons have decided smoking to be permissable.

But hey, it makes average joe feel safer, since we all know that a man smoking a cigarette in a park causes at least ten incidents of cancer with each butt.
These smoking bans typiocally don't apply in outdoor areas. At least it does not in Ireland. I like that pubs are now pretty much smoke free indoors, though I think that most of the claims about the dangers of second-hand smoke are exaggerated. I am certainly not on the "omg smoking=Satan" bandwagon.

These smoking bans typiocally don't apply in outdoor areas. At least it does not in Ireland. I like that pubs are now pretty much smoke free indoors, though I think that most of the claims about the dangers of second-hand smoke are exaggerated. I am certainly not on the "omg smoking=Satan" bandwagon.

I've seen it argued, though - that they should be banned in any place thats "public" including outdoor areas.

And I still say that pubs should choose whether they want to be smoke-free or not. It's good that you're not one of the zealots though. :)

If you want to smoke, do it in the privacy of your own home, or in a private establishment where the patrons have decided smoking to be permissable.

Good idea, but not a possibility in some places with a smoking ban. Here in Florida, they passed an indoor smoking ban a few years ago and it has crippled the restaurant industry, and driven many small businesses out of operation. You can't have a private establishment where smoking is permissable at all. Restaurants have of course been affected the most, several of which have closed right down the street. You can still smoke in bars, as long as they do not serve food at all. They are even petitioning to make bar employees get "hazard pay" for working around smoke.

People complain about second hand smoke, as a patron or as an employee. Here's my solution: Several companies and restaurants already didn't allow smoking, go to them. It should be the business' decision wether smoking is allowed on the premisis or not. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, don't work there. Pleanty of restaurants don't allow smoking regardless. But for people who want to smoke when they eat or have a drink, they should not be prejudiced against- they should have a place to go other than their kitchen. Bars, and restaurants who choose to allow smoking should have that option. There was a study in the paper that stated that restaurants with bars in them have lost an average of 50% of their business since the ban. ( I will provide a linky when I can find the article on the Florida-Times Union website) Here in Jacksonville, there was a proposal to allow bars to stay open til 4 am instead of 2, as long as they banned smoking. The bar owners laughed at it, saying that with smoking being banned, they could stay open 24-7 and still have to close the doors because it would destroy business.

Smokers are the newest, and most prejudiced minority. We gave you non-smokers the airplanes years ago. You got the movie theaters, and you got the entire airport now. Here in Florida, like in New York, you got all the restaurants too. Even a lot of businesses forbid smoking OUTSIDE in their parking lots! Not just for employees, but for patrons and guests. I know it is bad for me and I don't care. I'll be damned if I'm going to let the "man" (that's you, the majority, you oppressive non-smokers) tell me I can't smoke around other smokers in public.

I hate being made to use designated smoking areas. And I hate smoking around other smokers. I always end up reeking of tobacco to a far greater extent than I do smoking on my own.

People complain about second hand smoke, as a patron or as an employee. Here's my solution: Several companies and restaurants already didn't allow smoking, go to them. It should be the business' decision wether smoking is allowed on the premisis or not.

I 100% agree.

A lot of people are talking about how they're "forced" to breathe in smoke. Apparently they're forced to go to restaraunts and bars that allow it, too. Shit, who's forced to go to a bar in the first place?

There was a study in the paper that stated that restaurants with bars in them have lost an average of 50% of their business since the ban.

This shows that social and economic freedom are closely related. Not that most anti-smokers care about either.


Smokers are the newest, and most prejudiced minority.

Yep, it's true. What do you expect when the government feeds junior high schoolers propaganda saying how evil smoking is?

But it's not new. From the time someone first lit a cigar in Spain, having discovered the Indian's habit of it, and got thrown in prison, to when Hitler and the Soviets under Stalin banned it, cluck-clucking at smokers has been a hobby of authoritarians for hundreds of years.

I know it is bad for me and I don't care.

Ah, but the argument is that its bad for other people. Apparently there is a way to tell if someone gets lung cancer from cigarettes smoked in public (as opposed to second hand smoke like living with a smoker who smokes in inclosed areas), or lung cancer from automobile and industrial pollution? I don't see how, but the way people paint it, you'd think each time you lit a cigarette 10 babies are killed in their sleep.

I'll be damned if I'm going to let the "man" (that's you, the majority, you oppressive non-smokers) tell me I can't smoke around other smokers in public.

Same here. If it ever gets banned in public I'll continue to smoke in public.

In fact, in California it's illegal to smoke within 10 or 15 feet of a building. I have NEVER seen this enforced. I guess the police have that little thing called real crime to deal with instead.

*bump* for more comments

Ban smoking in "public" means you can only smoke in "private." To quibble, it's not illegal to smoke outside...the restrictions are within buildings (not including private residences), and you must stay a certain distance away from the door. Having a drag in the street isn't banned.

Edit: Nevermind, you've addressed this.