Montreal Goes Non-Smoking: Good or Bad?

EvilGentleman: 13th May 2006 - 09:53 GMT

Sounds good, but unfortunately, in the downtown core, the bars and nightclubs are packed so heavily, that soon there will be nowhere to go for those who wish to escape the smoke. If you move 5 feet, you will be standing by different smokers. If you keep moving, you will be passing smokers everywhere you go. And if you try to pass the areas where the trendy bars are, they already have huge lines clogging up the sidewalks. Imagine how it will be once you start getting people who were inside the bar popping out for a smoke, then going back inside. We are looking at total sidewalk gridlock here.

But as far as coming home not reeking of cigarettes goes, I suppose that would be true. You will still have to pass a gauntlet of smoke to get into the bar, but at least the smoke has a chance to disperse, so maybe less of it will soak into your clothing.

But for those who are allergic to cigarette smoke, the difference will be noticeable, and potentially deadly. I am a smoker, and I can tell you from personal experience, a lot of people on the sidewalks are already bothered by the smoke. And since I have an allergy to many perfumes (usually the cheaper ones), I can appreciate how difficult it is to walk down a sidewalk that is poisonous to me. Sometimes I have to walk on the other side of the street, or I will black out from respiratory problems caused by perfumes. That stuff does linger, and I imagine cigarette smoke is no different.

EvilGentleman: 13th May 2006 - 17:45 GMT

Huh? Where did the first comment go? They did not agree with me, but it seemed fine...

EvilGentleman: 13th May 2006 - 17:48 GMT

I bet I know... It got caught up in between the spam posts for the other pages, didn't it? But now my reply makes no sense. Darn. It had the makings of a good mature debate, too.

C.: 14th May 2006 - 10:00 GMT

Recap: I don't want to smell cigarettes while I enjoy a cold beer. I'm more concerned with my already far from pristine sidewalks. I think the elements and the fact that it is an open space will help disperse the smoke.

All fixed.

C.: 14th May 2006 - 10:04 GMT

But from the "Pedestrian Gridlock" thing, I can understand the problem. Same with the allergies. I live in Calgary, and it's far smaller that Montreal. I've never had a problem with moving away from the smokers on the train platforms as our population is far less than that of Montreal.

Personally, I like the idea of smoke free establishments. I like how restaurants in Calgary are non-smoking, but have a closed off smoking section. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well in bars.

Does the by-law include patios? Granted it's useless in the winter/rain, it's still better than nothing.

EvilGentleman: 14th May 2006 - 10:55 GMT

There has been some confusion as to defining exactly what constitutes an outdoor structure or patio. I have heard that any structure enclosed on more than two sides will be considered to be indoors, and the roof is counted as being a side.

Basically, what I think will survive is the smoking areas on the terraces of the sidewalk cafe type bars. Unfortunately, that will still be part of the problem involving the sidewalks. And once people start complaining about the smoky sidewalks, I am sure the first thought the government will have is that it must be due to the terraces, so those will become smoke-free as well.

This will definitely have a major effect on how people drink, especially among groups of smokers. Since smoking is very much a social addiction, groups of smokers will probably head out together to puff away. Unfortunately, someone will have to stay behind to watch the table.

As far as the restaurants go, I say goodbye and good riddance to smoking sections. Even a smoker such as myself does not want to smell cigarette smoke while eating, that is just plain gross. Who the heck wants filet mignon with a touch of Camel? As much as I enjoy a smoke after a good meal, it feels better to enjoy it outside.

Believe it or not, I do not mind smoking outdoors, since I already do that here at home. I never smoke in my house, ever. The way I see it, my kids should not have to suffer poor health just because I'm dumb enough to smoke. I won't even smoke near an open window.

The litter on the sidewalks may be a major headache, but I wonder whatever became of all those stone ashtrays with the white gravel that used to be found in every shopping mall in North America 15 years ago? They sure would be handy on the sidewalks today.

My reason for opposing the ban on smoking in bars is not really about me being able to smoke while having a beer. That is a mere inconvenience, nothing more. What I am worried about is how angry the nonsmoking public will be at smokers when they have to smell smoke a lot more than they used to, because the smokers are exiled to the public sidewalks.

I think the best solution would be to have self-serve bars designed for smokers. The bartending staff would be in a separate room that has windows overseeing the drinking area. A system could be devised where drinks are deposited in a sliding windowbox, much like the ones seen at gas stations in American inner-cities with high crime rates. a slightly lower air pressure in the drinking area would help ensure the employees are not exposed to smoke. You want your ashtray emptied, you will have to do it yourself. You want a second drink, you have to bring the empty from the first one back before you can order again. If there is a fight in the bar, offer free drinks to whoever breaks it up.

Since this sort of system would be quite complicated and expensive, many bars would just opt to be non-smoking, which would allow non-smokers to have a beer in peace. But smokers could still have places to go, besides on the public sidewalks.

Time will tell whether or not the ban will be good or bad.

EvilGentleman: 14th May 2006 - 10:59 GMT

By the way, thank you for re-commenting. It was very kind of you.

Metoo: 14th May 2006 - 18:21 GMT

I like the idea about free drinks for those who break up the bar fights!! Where can me and my Bros find such bars, so we can start and stop fighting all night long, and drink for free!!
Hic!

EvilGentleman: 14th May 2006 - 19:17 GMT

LOL, that idea had come to me as I was typing that comment, but I thought I better not say anything. I think the free drinks would only work if the fighters are actually kicked out. But if that system would not work, the government will just have to hire more cops. Police breathing smoke in the workplace is nothing new, they have to go into smoke-filled homes all the time, and not all of that smoke is tobacco smoke.

chiamattt: 17th May 2006 - 04:00 GMT

More bylaws. I have a novel idea! A Capitalist, living in a free market economy, comes up with a great idea to open a non-smoking bar. All those who like a non-smoking atmosphere while sipping on a beer go to the bar and make the business a success. Why on earth do we need a bylaw to make a restaurant non-smoking? A lot of restuarants have been non-smoking environments for a long time.

Soon there will be a bylaw requiring us to wear sunscreen.

Mirela: 18th May 2006 - 18:34 GMT

I am an not smoker. I am glad I won't get smoke in my face at a concert or in restaurant during lunch time or in a plain when I played 1000$ and it's a none smoking sit but just in front of me starts the smoking area... So bravo for that! Doesn’t mean we'll be safe from mannerless people who smoke even if it's forbidden. Unless, maybe..., they start give penalty for smoking in a non-smoking place as BELL CENTER!

As for the sidewalk I see is as a public place too. So if you ask me where a smoker could smoke after this law, well a smoking bar could work where even the workers there are smokers but I like to have the choice as a total non-smoking bar, and at your home if they like. At work they can create a "fumoir” kind of place.

I don't think the bars will close their doors if the go non smoking. I have friends which already quit smoking to prepare for the non-smoking law and they'll still go to a bar to watch hockey and hang out and I might even go because it's free from smoking. So some of them they might even increase their business. They should maybe just re-orient their business a little bit, to offer more then a place to smoke and to drink to attract the public. Society evolves, they will evolve with. It's always difficult to change...

EvilGentleman: 18th May 2006 - 19:26 GMT

I think the concept of smoking and non-smoking bars would work, until some militant non-smoker files a lawsuit saying their rights are being infringed by denying them the right to work in a smoking bar. But if such foolishness does not occur, then I would think both types of bars would be quite successful, with the non-smoking bars probably getting a bit more of the business, as the trendy crowds would be more likely to go there.

Your point about the sidewalks being a public place is exactly why I oppose the ban. Right now, I can smoke on the sidewalks. Soon, it will be the only place I can smoke, which is fine by me, although hopefully a few places will think to install awnings to make life a little drier for their smoking customers on rainy days.

But I know darn well that as soon as the smokers are pushed out of their hidey-holes onto the public sidewalks, that people will be horrified to see the majority of people on the sidewalks puffing away (I say the majority since most non-smokers will be hiding indoors to stay away from the smoky sidewalks).

The complaints against smoky sidewalks will eventually lead to a total ban, and since I do not care for drugs, I will no longer be able to smoke. I know not smoking would be better for my health, but I feel quitting should be my decision, not the government's.

But overall, the only indoor public places I feel smoking should be permitted is in some bars, and in tobacco shops. They can ban it everywhere else, I do not care.

But I would be extremely happy if the anti-stink police would also start going after heavily scented products such as perfumes and hair gels that cause so much distress to so many people.

chiamattt: 18th May 2006 - 22:41 GMT

OH. MY. GOD. You want the government to go after 'heavily scented products'? dude! go live in the mountains. I cannot understand that at all. To use the word 'distress' with regard to perfume and hair gel is a bit extreme don't you think? The world is not, and shouldn't be a bubble of pristine perfectness.

While this site exposes users to beautiful, thought provoking, and sometimes controversial content, I find that it also displays how different people are and how these differences are non-negotiable.

What happened to being able to choose? What happened to being taught to make your own decisions? What happened to concepts like the 'free market', 'supply and demand', and 'the natural evolution of public opinion'? These concepts seem to have been lost. Perhaps there is a Bylaw.

ANYONE CAUGHT CHOOSING COULD FACE A $500 FINE OR IMPRISONMENT - BYLAW 136,175,982,543B Article 56 Section 4000.

EvilGentleman: 19th May 2006 - 01:39 GMT

Make light of it if you want, Matt. My health is not negotiable. The reality is, I have had to actually get off of an aircraft because some idiot thought perfume would be a suitable replacement for soap and water. The symptoms of my allergic reaction to perfume are shortness of breath leading to hyperventilation, which results in my becoming weak as a kitten, to the point of blacking out. I have not actually fainted from it as of yet, but I have been so badly affected that I fell to my knees, and was unable to get back up. That has happened to me a few times. Others suffer even more, as seen here: www.safety-council.org/info/OSH/perfume.html It also explains why modern perfumes are more dangerous than the perfumes of old.

I may be immune to pepper spray, but if a cop ever gives me a shot of Axe cologne in the face, I'm gonna be out like a light. I think if someone went around force-feeding peanuts to everybody, someone else would call the police right away, to make sure nobody's health would be put at risk. Why the hell are we forced to breathe the dangerous fumes of perfume, then?

There are a heck of a lot more people who are sensitive to perfume than there are people with peanut allergies, but because perfumes and cosmetics are a much bigger industry than Planters Peanuts is, perfume sufferers have no relief in sight. I suppose the only reason that tobacco is now becoming illegal is because smoking is costing the insurance companies and the big companies who pay benefits to their employees too much money, even more money than the tobacco companies make. Suffering does not seem to matter, only money.

And what is this crap about free choice? What the hell are you talking about? Get real, you corporate hack. All you ever talk about is free market, capitalism, and the evil of laws. If you had your way, we would no longer live in nations, but corporate spheres of influence, with no laws except those that allow the fat cats to avoid paying taxes, while the rest of us poor schmoes are expected to foot the bill for them. If you want to live in a pure capitalist society with no laws but the law of supply and demand, go buy an island and start your own country. Having money is nice, but life is so much more than that.

And as far as what this site shows, I don't get what you mean. What does my making a comment about my perfume allergy have to do with what citynoise does? It is just one comment out of thousands posted here every month. Are you that sensitive? You, who feels that the concerns of others is meaningless? Your concept of free choice also extends to what you read. If you don't like what I personally have to say, don't read it. I will not comment about you personally unless you start something, so you have nothing to fear.

Sorry to say, but you seem very selective about how you apply your values. Dare I say, even hypocritical? Or is just your frustration coming out, because the rest of us are not doing what you want us to do?

Maybe you have a point, we have too many laws. Maybe we should live under survival of the fittest. I personally would love the chance to express my freedom by shooting those who cause me problems. But darn, we have laws, so I can't. That's life. I just gotta live with it. So do you.

chiamattt: 19th May 2006 - 02:32 GMT

I am by no means a 'corporate hack', and while you said you would not attack me personally, you did. Whatever man, I just feel that these matters can be handled outside the realm of government or bylaws.

When have I said corporations should not pay taxes? You are putting words into my mouth.

You linked a website. It says:
"If there is a need for a workplace policy, start with a survey of employees to establish a basis for a policy appropriate to the workplace. An effective policy will address the identified problems and will win compliance. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Web site offers practical advice on how to develop and implement a workplace scent-free policy.

A workplace policy, not a bylaw that marginalizes an entire city.

With regard to my comment about comments, a few posts have had to be closed due to the irrational and often vicious comments made by others. That was my point.

How am I hypocritical? I just don't think government is responsible for every single aspect of life and how we live it.

Time and time again I hear people say we live in a "democracy" "free market" "capitalist" country. I use those terms because that's what everyone claims the country to be. Yet I see more and more laws/bylaws restricting what we can do and say that I don't feel those terms apply anymore.

If there was a referendum and the majority of the majority of Canadians / Torontonians / Montrealers...whatever voted to ban smoking in a bar, I would agree with the law. But that is not happening. Democracy has not evolved with technology.

You talk about corporate power and say that if I had my way there would be no nations and we would be living in corporate spheres of influence. Aren't we already? People are so lazy they just hand the responsibility of holding corporations accountable to their elected representative. Oh yeah, most people are too lazy to vote. When the people do not care, do not mobilize, do not try to change things themselves, does that not mean society is broken?

hool: 19th May 2006 - 04:30 GMT

i lived in ottawa when the smoking ban came into existence. toronto as well. i love everything about it.

EvilGentleman: 19th May 2006 - 15:15 GMT

Matt, if I have offended, in part it was intended, but I know I was overreacting. I felt that being mocked over my objection to products that cause harm to myself and even 72% of athsmatics (I'm not athsmatic, by the way) was a bit much. I linked the address so you could see that you could see just how serious perfume allergies can be. You missed the topic I was talking about in the first place, and dove right into the commercial workplace aspect.

None of us see things in an unbiased manner, but you seem to be in denial about your own biases. I know I am biased when it comes to native issues or when anyone tries to defend a male that I feel had disrespected women. I am probably biased in regards to smoking due to the fact that I steadfastly refuse to quit smoking, for no logical reason I can determine (Duh - maybe nicotine addiction? Naaaah....) My bias against drunk driving could stem in part from the fact that I lost a few classmates that way. But these are all things that make us who we are. We are often defined by our perceptions of the world, and how we react to them. Our biases are not neccesarily something to be ashamed of, and we are better off if we can acknowledge them. By following your comments for a while, a distinct bias towards the corporate view of the world emerges.

I have found that your comments on the whole are rational and balanced, but recently have been more confrontational in nature. I think I have been travelling the same path myself. Perhaps we tire of debates that we will never finish, since neither can sway the other. Whatever the cause of the dispute may be, I find it a negative reflection on both of us that we are focusing not on the main points of each other's comments, but rather on the parts we seem to be defensive about. In this thread, we are even arguing about the government arbitrarily imposing a law on people, yet you are opposed to the arbitrary imposition of laws, and I am opposed to smoking being forced to intensify in places the public cannot escape. We are kind of arguing the same side of an argument for opposing reasons.

I am fully aware that in the greater scheme of things, this smoking ban coming up in Montreal is a pretty small issue, and that the arguments will most likely fade away into obscurity in a relatively short time. But the whole point of this article is to bring about debate in that short window of time where the debate may be relevant. I can see the writing on the wall, and I know that the days of smoking in bars are numbered. But I can at least take this opportunity to express some opinions and stir up some thoughtful debate.

But I must say, this style of debate we are using is neither effective nor useful. All we are doing is sidetracking the issue at hand. Shall we return to the actual issue at hand, you do not tell me to go live in the mountains, I do not call you a corporate hack? I enjoy debating with you, but only if there are points to be made. Oh, and by the way, I would agree with the results of a smoking-isuues referendum, no matter which side the results favoured. Nice idea.

chiamattt: 20th May 2006 - 00:43 GMT

I like our debates.

I have problems with government because I don't think they serve the people. I think they use issues like a sweeping smoking ban to make people think they care, when in fact they don't. I think people should be given a choice, and I think the concept of the free market economy can provide people with those choices. Of course there should be laws and regulations, but I don't agree with them always saying "can" and "can't". Why not a law requiring a business that wants to have a smoking section to put a sign outside warning customers that there is smoke present, or a requirement that businesses that do have a smoking section install air filters, ventilation systems, etc. I just don't see the point of a sweeping law like that.

Now all the cigar clubs can't be cigar clubs anymore. It isn't like non-smokers hung out at cigar clubs.

Laws like this remind me of something hillarious.

When the Canadian government set new laws with regard to firearms. They neglected to write into law sections that allowed for museums to display historic weapons. I went to the war museum and asked "why are those guns plastic" and the man beside me said "politics".

EvilGentleman: 20th May 2006 - 01:17 GMT

Serious? Holy crap, that is both hilarious and disgraceful. I think our war vets deserve a chance to bring their grandkids to at least look at a real gun, like "...what Granddad used in the war", and such. That is history, and should never be rewritten (although it always is).

I like our debates, too. And to think we have been agreeing more than disagreeing? Kind of funny, when you think about it. It sort of reminds me of an ex-girlfriend who got drunk and had a fight with her sister over their father (they have different mothers). They actually started having a full-blown fistfight while yelling "He's MY Dad!", which drew a response of "No, **MY Dad!" from the other one. And so on and on and on it went. Dumbest fight I ever saw.

I liked the silly legal stuff arising from the GST when it first went into effect. Hot doughnuts were considered to be restaurant food, and therefore taxable, while cold doughnuts were considered to be groceries, and no-taxable. People were lined up at Tim Horton's waiting for the doughnuts to cool off. I think all laws should be allowed to have a "test run", so the stupid stuff can be corrected or deleted.

chiamattt: 21st May 2006 - 02:18 GMT

Test run? I thought there were "readings" and "debate" before a law was enforced. The fact is, politicians are NOT doing their jobs, while corporations work long hours figuring out how they can confuse and twist issues. While I argue the benefits of a 'free market' I do not agree with corporations being treated as individuals.

Salted peanuts, GST yes.
Unsalted peanuts, GST no.

haha

EvilGentleman: 21st May 2006 - 08:25 GMT

I guess the salt makes it a confection...

Yeah, what I meant by a "test run" is that I think laws should be given a chance to be experienced by the people before being mad final. Readings and debate are intended as safeguards, but the inherent problem with that part of the system is they are still in the hands of the politicians, who are not usually in touch with reality. If the laws were able to pass all the hurdles to be able to go into effect, there should also be an added chance to fine-tune them say, 3 or 6 months down the road, once the people have had a chance to see how well the law actually functions in practice. This could help get rid of the annoying little quirks that make many laws ineffective. And if they wrote the laws simply and clearly enough, we would not need so many of the damned things.

Respect: 22nd May 2006 - 02:57 GMT

This law is long over due, which I am sure most health conscious white tooth marathon running people in Montreal will agree. The question of freedoms of rights on this issue can be considered analogous to the right of not whipping your butt after you have taken a number two or for that matter if you don't like to wash your hands. Yeah sure these are freedom's of right as well, however in the former scenario of not using toilet paper you are likely to create an immediate disatisfaction based on your smell presuming smell of course. In the later scenario of not washing your hands you create a health hazard. Thus the both the cons of not using toilet paper after a number two and not washing your hands apply to a cigarette smoker. First, the smell to many is unbearable and requires taking a shower upon coming home second there is no question that smoking as well as not washing your hands can have dire health hazards to those you are around. Thus, plain and simple smoking should be prohibited and the old lizardy people with yellow teeth and leather skin can continue to smoke in their own cars.

Thankyou!: 25th May 2006 - 19:39 GMT

All I have to really say is thanks. I read somewhere above about a smoker who said he's allergic to perfume. Imagine then that your cigarettes (as a bottle) and your smokey by-product (as a cheap ass rancid perfume--whereby inhaled in large amounts can give certain sensitive people cancer).

Now do I even need to elaborate on this crap!? There's a big lot of you who think you can go around squirting your s#!7 in peoples faces and think that for eternity those of us who don't want it can deal.

Well theres some great news for you jerkoffs. Get out on the sidewalk with the trash.
I'm an ex-smoker of about 5 years in total. I'll join you there when I'm drunk for one sometime--all the while knowing I won't be a fixtured example of (on some level) a fascist.

This is about rights. AND YOU DON'T HAVE THEM. I'm glad someone finally smacked you in the face about it. Too bad its all about money, but hey, whatever, atleast the bottomline worked in my favor for once.

Go read Jeremiah 31:32. Its hilarious. The whole thing is somehow analogous to you smokers and the government--I mean god.

Yesssss. Screw your smoker rebuttle too, there ain't nothin' but a whole lotta smoke up your a$$ and a giant corporate hand in your pocket...

EvilGentleman: 25th May 2006 - 20:41 GMT

If you took the time to read, you would have noticed that I am a smoker who wishes to be able to continue to indulge in my habit indoors in a location sequestered away with other smokers. I have no wish to poison the rest of you, only those who smoke and those non-smokers who really mean it when they say that smoke does not bother them.

As far as the biblical quote goes, I have no desire to go looking stuff up in some religious text. I already know smoking is bad, thank you very much. That is why I do not smoke in non-smoking homes, with the exception of one friend who has reassured me that he truly does not mind. (I suspect he misses it sometimes)

I have found that I have a very low tolerance threshold for the stupidity that spews from the mouths of the rabid reformed smokers (as opposed to those who simply quit and enjoy the freedom from smoking in peace). I place radical former smokers in the same category as religious fundamentalists and the tobacco lobby. I seldom hear anything logical from any of those groups.

Congratulations on being able to quit smoking, and if you should encounter a smoker whose smoke bothers you, try politely asking them to put it out or move downwind or something. You might be surprised how many respond favourably. Smokers are human too, even if we are addicted to nicotine. Are you going to tell me you were a rude ignorant person when you smoked? I highly doubt it. Why should the rest of us be any different? Your message is important, but if you say it in an aggressive manner, most people will tune you out. Mellow out, yo.

anon (wnpgmb01dc2-25-214.dynamic.mts.net): 31st May 2006 - 15:36 GMT

Attention Smoking Cessation

Re: Smokers Edge

There is no question more Canadians are anxious to quit smoking as a result of anti-smoking regulations and by-law’s in effect throughout Canada. Many smokers who once thought about quitting are getting serious this time. With the price of cigarettes, the difficulty finding a place to smoke, and with non-smokers demanding their right to cleaner air, smokers need help like never before to quit or reduce their nicotine dependency.

Smokers Edge is a safe product to help alleviate the craving that comes with giving up cigarettes. Smokers Edge is a cigarette-like alternative. But you don't light it. It contains no nicotine or tar. When used, Smokers Edge imitates the feeling of inhalation and that addictive hand-to-mouth motion that smokers crave. But Smokers Edge isn't harmful to the ex-smoker or to those nearby. And Smokers Edge contains only natural herbs and essential oils. It also comes in two flavors: citrus and mint that leave your breath totally refreshed. Smokers Edge saves the consumer money - one package can last as long as an entire carton of cigarettes.

Essentially 3 markets have been identified. First, there are those people who are looking for a safe alternative to reduce their smoking habit for personal health reasons as well as for concern for those around them. Secondly, we have customers use Smokers Edge in conjunction with other stop smoking aids such as Zyban, nicotine patches, nicotine gum, acupuncture, hypnotism and cessation programs. The third market is among those confirmed smokers who have found that Smokers Edge helps them in the ever shrinking world of places where they can enjoy there cigarette smoking.

I believe that this would be valuable information as so many people are still unaware of Smokers Edge. Please feel at ease to contact us for further information or for locations near you toll free at 1-888-762-8887. Please view our website at www.smokersedge.com

Regards,

Customer Service

Smokers Edge

EvilGentleman: 31st May 2006 - 20:32 GMT

Well, as of midnight this morning, the ashtrays were pulled out of the bars and smoking is no longer permitted. Due to the late hour, it was hard to determine if the smoke is filling up the sidewalks or not, but there were definitely a lot of barflys on the sidewalk last night. Many shenanigans that used to happen only in the dark corners of the bars are now happening out in public on the sidewalks. I can only imagine what the scene must be like on the trendy blocks full of nightclubs. And the strippers in bathrobes clustered on the sidewalks add a bit of bizarreness to the whole scenario.

The ones I feel bad for are the smoker employees of small mom and pop bars, who are often working alone, and now have no place to go for a smoke break. I imagine a good number of them will now look for other jobs.

Many bars allowed their patrons the chance to smash the ashtrays at midnight, while others just quietly removed them and tossed them out, or gave them away.

Myself, I now have 4 new ashtrays. Too bad I don't smoke at home.

EvilGentleman: 5th Jun 2006 - 23:51 GMT

The first week of non-smoking bars is drawing to a close, and most people are accepting the changes thus far. Except when it rains. Rain and smoking really suck when mixed together. I am actually finding myself enjoying bouncing back and forth between the main area of the bar, the sidewalk out front, and the alley out back.

The only problem is, I feel really badly for the owners of the bars, since so much of the socialization associated with the bars has moved outside, where they cannot make sales. It is so ironic that the smoking ban is resulting in the reduction of drinking while increasing socialization.

I am currently noticing the following pros and cons of the smoking ban:

PROS:
- Healthier air for non-smokers inside bar
- Much better view of the interior of the bar (see also cons)
- Socialization is greatly increased on sidewalks, resulting in us meeting many new and interesting people (only applies when weather is good)
- Drinking has decreased
- Bar staff no longer have to clean ashtrays at every table

CONS:
- Smokier sidewalks
- People who live near bars now have a lot more noise on the sidewalks at night
- Better view inside bars (some things, we did not want to see)
- Increased theft from tables left unattended while patrons go outside to smoke
- Cigarette butts everywhere

EvilGentleman: 26th Jun 2006 - 15:13 GMT

Yesterday's paper had an article about how there are bylaws coming into force to make bars put ashtrays outside their entrances. The city estimates that 600,000 people use the downtown core each weekday (not counting the Grand Prix, holidays, or the never-ending street festivals). If 200,000 of them leave 2 cigarette butts a day on the sidewalks (a very low assumption, most leave a lot more than that) then there will be 2 million cigarette butts left in the downtown core during an uneventful working week. That is 100 million per year.

Now at this point, I imagine jack might mention that he had a lot of service buddies who smoked filterless Camels and Lucky Strikes, and that filterless cigarettes may be harder on the lungs, but at least the stubs of the unfiltered cigarettes are biodegradable. Isn't progress a wonderful thing?

I still wish I could smoke in the bar, where all cigarette butts eventually found their way to the trash.

JG to AH: 23rd Jul 2006 - 21:25 GMT

Report from the front 2006.

Looks like our new plans are working mein Fuhrer. Now with America destroyed it won't be long before the whole of the free world is obliterated again once and for all!!!

"We can divide the people and work on building our support among the most intolerant critical mass which at only twelve percent of the population will mimic our corporate supporters and drown out all other voices. This critical base that will support us will do so because we identify with them according to what they most hate, which are their worst biases: smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, gambling, guns, politics, sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, ideological bigotry etc., whatever is there way down in the deepest abyss of the hatred of the human heart can be reached out to, to inspire the worst in people and it can and will work in favor of Nazism for the worst in people will destroy the very democracy and the freedom that so many claim to love and defend."

Hermann Göring
Western Allied Zone Of Occupation.
Nuremberg, Germany. 1946.
Said while on trial for war crimes, mass murder, and crimes against Humanity and International order.

EvilGentleman: 23rd Jul 2006 - 21:50 GMT

Democracy is a myth. So is socialism. Of all the political systems, only despotism is pure.

Cosmo: 29th Aug 2006 - 01:34 GMT

I'm a bit late on this discussion but I want register my agreement that these kinds of laws are a clumsy answer to the problem. Yes, I believe that smoke is harmful, and that people should not smoke unless they are in an environment where no one else has to breathe it. But these laws don't answer the problem. I am regularly and thoroughly peeved every time I enter or leave any large building because there is always a group of employees right near the door puffing away. I have to pass through a smoke cloud going in and coming out. Silliness!

I guess if a society wants to change the health and lifestyle of its citizens such laws have to be tried. It's a dilemma when there is general agreement among scientists and doctors that something is harmful to society: how do you enforce behaviour changes without trampling on basic freedoms? Smoking laws. Helmet laws. Speeding and gun laws. All are intended to enhance the lifestyle of everyone, but they all impinge on someone's freedoms.

One thing I know: living in a large city and being around millions of humans and their machines all my life...there is always something somewhere that is potentially harmful to me. It's part of the territory, part of the exchange I've accepted in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a metropolis.

Where will the smokers end up?: 2nd Oct 2006 - 04:03 GMT

It has been a few months since the bill 112 came into effect in Québec and I have to say that I do not see how ¨Québec is breathing any easier¨as the government funded propaganda promised. What I do see is very full sidewalks (full of butts), alleys, balconies, and just about everyone smoking in their cars. The going out drinking & socializing dynamic has changed. The smokers have not quit, or decreased in numbers, they are still over 50% of patrons of restaurants, pubs and bars and they are now outside on the sidewalks: talking more and drinking less. A funny anecdote: our local tavern in a suburbian burrough of Montreal, always skinly frequented by regular loyal customer made up of local blue collar workers who look for a relief and a place to play lotto video poker machines (run by the government to pay for all sorts of public works and investment into our infrastructure and social services) is now even more empty than before. I was recently walking past this Tavern and noticed that patrons of the establishment, including the staff, had taken out some chairs onto the sidewalk as they sat, outside and smoked. When I looked inside the pub I noticed there was NO ONE inside. It felt like a scene from the X-Files! If the non-smokers are not patrons of these places, and the workers are smokers (out of free will) why should they be sitting outside leaving an empty bar that they own and love? I think this defies logic in my mind. These are private establishments and they are forced to apply a law that does not protect or benefit them. It does not benefit them in the economic sense, in the social sense, in teh equal rights sphere and even in the health sense (what will these patrons health have to endure in harsh, arctic conditions of the unforgiving Montreal winters? Will the smokers and their sympathetic non-smoking friends who dare to step outside in the winter, end up cramming our hospitals also afflicted with flus, colds and other viruses caused by a weakened immune system due to sudden and sharp changes in temperature? To tell you the truth, I prefer to have them indoors, in smoking bars and restaurants than loitering in the streets and catching colds and cramming the hospitals and clinic waiting rooms! PLUS, it's a matter of personal choice: I am a smoker, and I will choose to stay toasty warm, in my house, indoors in the winter by my fireplace, with a deadly combination: a drink in one hand, and a cigarette in the other, and a few more dollars in my pocket! Enjoy the EMPTY, smoke-free bars!

foo: 3rd Oct 2006 - 18:43 GMT

Well i dont know really all i no is that smoking is rubbish for ur health so if anyone is reading this then quit! It will save money time loosing friends and hospital opointments. You only live once so make it gd an dont smoke- plz/ ?

Stilsmellit: 1st Jun 2008 - 11:22 GMT

Spring of 2008...and still can't get away from Cigarette smoke in Montreal when just walking around outdoors...

Like living in the 70's: 19th Jun 2009 - 19:30 GMT

Spring of 2009...I agree with the above poster. The number of smokers clogging all the sidewalks and cafe terraces is very bad for those allergic (like me!). Anyone who thinks that 2nd hand smoke is not a serious health concern for all of us should see the latest studies that show how long the dangers of the residue left by 2nd hand smoke stay on clothes, walls, furniture, etc.

SadStateofAffairs: 9th Aug 2009 - 20:29 GMT

I found this site browsing to see whether Montreal is a "safe" place to visit for someone with allergy to smoke - especially knowing the how French are enamored with cigarettes. My husband and I both speak french and english (he's orignially from the French-speaking part of Belgium). We live in DC, which has just recently implemented a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, etc., and can now plan to eat out without first investigating an establishment's smoking policy. I have found no difference walking on the sidewalk, but dining at a terrace is a risk, although I have noticed fewer smokers overall lately. Just a comment, I've really never understood the pairing of dining with smoking, especially on the part of those who claim to know cuisine...smoking kills the taste of food, to say nothing of eventually killing your taste buds!
The vast majority of people DO NOT SMOKE, but nevertheless have had to fight for the right to breathe non-toxic air and not leave a restaurant smelling of stale smoke. And smokers have the nerve to act as if they are the ones being imposed upon...
As for the comments about an increase in smoke on the sidewalks, we have to start somewhere. I think most smokers are tired of spending a fortune on a nasty, toxic habit and standing out in the cold and rain to inhale carcinogens. We should give them all the encouragement and assistance they need.

stopkillingculture: 22nd Oct 2009 - 23:17 GMT

jesus christ, second hand smoke has got to be the most over exaggerated thing ever. first you try to kick smokers out to the street (which if non-smoking sections are accommodated for non-smokers, smoking sections should be accommodated for smokers), and now your mad that they'll be on the streets? Honestly, get a life. You can't just have one extreme. Everyone has to cooperate.