Would You Believe a Smoke-Filled Tent?

According to the Sacramento Bee's Daniel Weintraub, Gov. Schwarzenegger's office denies that he has any designs on the Capitol's roof and is demanding a retraction of the Washington Times report to that effect. The governor has put up an outdoor smoking tent, however.

Comments

[GoonFood]

I'm not sure about the whole retraction demand, but that outdoor smoking tent sounds like a great idea. I wonder how long until the anti's start crying foul because "the point of making people go outside to smoke is to make them suffer in the elements!"

A politician enacting a simple yet workable solution to a problem? Maybe there is hope for Arnold yet...

[Mark Fox]

From arguments in the earlier thread, that tent represents taxpayer dollars used to provide a special privilege for smokers, and further proves that The Oak is a tool of the tobacco lobby.

If the politicos get a tent, then shouldn't every employee have that right? Let's make a law requiring all businesses to provide a separate building for their smoking employees/patrons.

Maybe we're only one piece of legislation away from Utopia!

[dj of raleigh]

"the point of making people go outside to smoke is to make them suffer in the elements!"

until one day the smokers do blow the roof off the place.

[lockjaw02]

Heck, Winnipeg is even tougher. No smoking on the bus parked outside.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1072662849627_4?hub=CTVNewsAt11

As you can see from the story, Winnipeg was the place where the original law merely banned smoking where children were allowed. The owner of a donut shop with counter service and a drive thru window banned children from coming inside to avoid losing his coffee crowd. A lawyer up there complained that it was discrimination and a human rights violation against children. No matter that a nation-wide donut chain (Tim Horton's?) had stores in the town and had voluntarily banned smoking in their stores country-wide.

[chthus]

Is a tent considered outdoors? If so, is this a loophole that has been exploited by any bar owners in CA or elsewhere with smoking restrictions? In Baltimore, there is a bar that is a series of bar and dance areas with nothing more than a tent over it. Sides get dropped down in bad weather. I suppose each locality has it's own rules on what is outdoor, but I'm specifically curious about CA, given this development, the fact that the ban has been in place for a number of years, and also the warm weather.

[Jon H]

He should just let people smoke in his Hummer.

[Ken Hagler]

chthus asked, "Is a tent considered outdoors? If so, is this a loophole that has been exploited by any bar owners in CA or elsewhere with smoking restrictions?"

In my neighborhood (Koreatown, in Los Angeles) many restaurants and clubs are located in strip malls. At first, they just ignored the smoking restrictions. Then a few years ago, they started simply removing the front wall from their businesses, thus converting an entire restaurant from "indoors" to "outdoors." Newer places have "patios" that have at least as much space as the indoor area.

[Pedro]

Different cities in Ontario, at least, have created different by-laws in each juristiction. In some cities, tents are allowed, so some restaurant/bars have set them up with natural gas-fired heaters inside. Here in London. Ontario, a bar recently created a half-tent (two walls and a roof) over their entrance, but was then told (after it was put up) it was too enclosed to allow smoking.

The litmus test of these laws in Ontario will be whether Toronto falls in line in the next few years. They scrapped the law five years ago, after bars simply ignored it - patrons were allowed to smoke, they just couldn't use ashtrays. But they're due to go non-smoking again in the next two years.

[ewilliam]

You know, I find this whole issue a bit whirlwindish. I can't figure out if people care about the principles of personal freedom, or are simply against any and all smoking curtailment. Another poster, above, mentioned their disgust at Motorola refusing to let people smoke on their property. However, principles of individual liberty (including property rights) dictate that Motorola should be able to prohibit things like smoking on their property if they see fit.

Conversely, people seem to be up in arms over the fact that smoking is prohibited in the CA State Capitol Building. This is where it really puzzles me; I strongly oppose governmental bans on smoking in businesses, etc. It is not their place to come onto people's property and force them, at gunpoint, if necessary, to prohibit smoking.

However, at the same time, if the government has the right to prohibit smoking anywhere, it's in their own HQ! Just as a restaurant owner should be allowed to determine the smoking rules for his property, the government should be allowed to determine the smoking rules for theirs.

If you guys are going to fight city hall re: anti-smoking legislation, at least stick by some semblance of principals. Give em hell for banning smoking down at Charley's Bar & Grill, but let them do as they please on their own doorstep. It's only consistent...

[Jean Bart]

Chris Matthews says America's anti-smoking attitude is a sign of progress in comparison to Europe and that you need more laws to enforce this attitude.

[MK]

Well then, Chris Matthews for President!

[JimInNoVA]

Because we all know that the French don't smoke, and they're the model of civilization we should aspire to.

Oh, sorry, this isn't the Harvard Club message board? My mistake.

[Gordon Shumway]

"...their own doorstep." Seems to me that city hall is just as much my doorstep as any one of the pols.

[shane]

LOL. A tent?! I picture Arnie with a stogie dreesed in a general's outfit conferring with his officers....uhmm....administrators.

Ve are goween do take baaack San Vrancisco.