Message of Support

from: Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba

to: Victoria Freedom of Choice Coalition

I thought I'd take a moment out to share in your frustration regarding this movement to ban smoking in various establishments.

From a personal level our own firm owns hotels, restaurants, bars etc., so we do not have any favoritism of one enterprise over the other at a corporate level. We are also in the business to succeed and are responsive to market demand.

As you know, from a corporate level, as well as an Association level, we feel exceptionally strongly regarding any regulation that would ban smoking from age restricted environments... namely bars. There is much data and recent court cases which dispute the claims and faulty data of the non-smoking lobby. Conceptually we are somewhat more flexible with restrictions in a restaurant environment than we will ever be regarding bars but still feel the marketplace should dictate. If the odor is offensive, then that is a separate issue that we likely suspect fuels much of the support of this movement with many people under the guise of a health concern. If you are telling us that there is a substantial health risk from second hand smoke, then we (and much learned others) have legitimately put this data into serious question. Even the Cancer Society has dropped it's stance regarding any relation second hand smoke and cancer .

Our argument is this. Allow restaurants the advantage of being non-smoking environments (some are) and if the demand is great, they will profit from the exercise. This is more in tune with the variety of clientele and the primary purpose which is the service of food. Let bars stay fully open to smoking... thus an option exists without a total disregard for freedom of choice... especially in an age restricted environment where patrons can make a choice whether to enter the smoke friendly environment or not. Even now, restaurants have had the opportunity to experiment with different versions of non smoking laws and adjust their clientele base and patterns. In general, bars would need the time to adjust if such ludicrous laws became a reality. Even so, we would suggest that having both as non-smoking environments would put restaurants at an unfair advantage by the inherent nature of each business and their operational patterns. Primary usage and patron movement and activities within each environment dictate this. What is primary purpose of each license and how does the room flow from an energy and conceptual level?

This brings us back to the offensive odor theory. In a bar environment especially, ventilation is key as separate sections don't work well with the transient flow, movement, rhythm and interaction that takes place in a bar. This is a simple reality. We are not talking about a sit down dining experience that is over in 1 to 2 hours. By it's own nature it becomes somewhat easier to isolate. We are talking about constant movement and an evening that could involve several hours of dancing and socializing.

Such a law in bars is pointless, unenforceable to that segment of clientele, and not a health issue that it is being hung on. Smoking is an emotional hot button, and that is the premise that is fueling much of this movement. Emotion!

Anyway, though I'd throw a little support out to our colleagues out west! Good Luck!

Ron Ledohowski
President
Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba