Doughnut shop bans children to allow customers to smoke

Doughnut shop bans children to allow customers to smoke

Winnipeg bylaw prohibits use of tobacco in public locations frequented by minors

By KRISTA FOSS

Saturday, January 5, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A4

WINNIPEG -- When she was refused service at a Winnipeg doughnut shop yesterday, Karen Jonasson's eyes widened then rolled upward.

"I don't believe this," the flustered woman said aloud before turning on her heel and making a quick exit.

Beside her were the two reasons Ms. Jonasson couldn't get coffee and a cruller to go -- her children, 7 and 8.

The busy mother had inadvertently waltzed into one of six Coffee Time locations in the city that have put puffing customers ahead of pint-sized ones in an effort to get around a new bylaw meant to ban smoking in places minors frequent.

The half-dozen doughnut shops and a handful of other restaurants and delicatessens in the city have chosen to ban children under the age of 18.

As a result, the location where Ms. Jonasson stopped yesterday had laid off three employees who are minors, according to the manager, Susan, who withheld her last name. One former employee will return in March when she turns 18.

Besides raising eyebrows, the clash over the antismoking bylaw that became effective Jan. 1 has raised concerns about infringement of human rights.

"The irony is that the bylaw was meant to protect children, not harm them. The way it is being applied has the exact opposite result," said David Matas, a Winnipeg immigration lawyer who works on human-rights issues. "Children are a vulnerable minority. But you can't discriminate against them simply because you want to make money."

Yet this is the crux of Winnipeg's great doughnut divide -- whether catering to smokers is better for business.

According to Susan, it is -- although under provincial guidelines half of her store has to be set aside for non-smoking adults.

"We tried to obey the bylaw for one day and we lost half our business," she said. "But now that we've allowed smoking and banned minors, our business has doubled today. We're getting calls from across the city."

Vern Ducharme, who helps manage four Winnipeg Tim Hortons stores -- all of which have been smoke-free for three years -- chuckled.

"It's absurd . . . kids live for doughnuts," said Mr. Ducharme, a smoker who doesn't indulge during work hours. "Our business hasn't been hurt by going smoke-free at all."

City councillor Mark Lubosch, who chairs the committee that pushed for a ban on smoking indoors, called the businesses choosing to ban children "laggards."

"Those businesses that are putting smokers ahead of youth are shortsighted and grossly irresponsible," he said. "They are putting profits ahead of employees and customers. This issue has always been about health."

For Ms. Jonasson, the idea that a place dedicated to jelly-filled confections would allow parents with children to use only the drive-through window is insulting.

"I will never come back here," she said outside the store. "There are plenty of places in this town where I can buy coffee with my kids -- and they're smoke-free, too."

But inside the Coffee Time, smokers puffed away, unrestrained and happy. "Viva la Coffee Time," one puffer shouted.

Personally, I'd go out of my way to visit a kid-free, smoking donut shop.

So would I. I see nothing wrong with this. People gripe about smokers but they willing take the revenue that the taxes on the cigarettes generate.

..."Those businesses that are putting smokers ahead of youth are shortsighted and grossly irresponsible," he said. "They are putting profits ahead of employees and customers. This issue has always been about health."...

Most people who possess a functioning brain see it as an issue of business and profits. Democratic Socialists see it as an issue of children's health. When the stores that comply go out of business, where will the children go then?

Judging by the path this idiocy is taking they'll sue the stores that ban children for age discrimination.

Howlin,

I posted a link to this thread over at smirkingChimp. Here's a sample of what your post has engendered over there:

I've spent little time over at FR, but as others on this site have mentioned, it really is a nasty place. How could someone actually think it would be fun to see stacks of frozen children or to eat a donut in front of someone who wanted one, child or not? This is the kind of petty cruelty I would expect from sociopaths. Why all the hatred at soccer moms? I suspect it has to do with misogyny or a frustration because the world doesn't understand that it owes them merely because they're white men. Is that what the bulk of Freepers are like? If so, they really are nasty, selfish little people and hope I never have the displeasure to meet one. Yucky, yucky, yucky.

Just thought I'd share...they're really quite humorless over there.

gundog

City councillor Mark Lubosch, who chairs the committee that pushed for a ban on smoking indoors, called the businesses choosing to ban children "laggards."

Someone should give city councillor Mark Lubosch a class on what the main motive of businesses are. If its not making a profit, I don't know what it is.

If that's the basis for their objection, then they are obviously not familiar with the case in which a homeless man's right to smell bad was upheld, on 1st Amendment grounds, against a public library which had banned him for the aforementioned smell.

That's why its become a "health issue" with 3,000, 12,000, 50,000 (pick your crap figure) deaths from passive smoke.

When you look behind the health facade, you see a bunch of people who don't like the way we smokers smell.

So, you can protect the rights of the 0.001% of the population who are homeless and smell bad, but you can't protect the rights of 20-30% of the population who some non-smokers think smell bad.

And anti-smokers think we are inconsiderate, when what they are really saying to us is, "You stink!"

Well, goodness me, I wonder why we give them the Marlboro King Size finger?

When you look behind the health facade, you see a bunch of people who don't like the way we smokers smell.

I think those people are just the useful idiots employed by those that would make everything a public health issue, and thus, under a socialized system of medicine, a matter for the State to deal with. Tobacco, alcohol, firearms, auto emissions, diet, exercise...the list of things is endless...but it's for our own good, you know. Or at least for the good of the children.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.