digamma.net - notes

In the last week, it seems like every libertarian-leaning blog has covered the story of the Edmonton “dry bar” for recovering alcoholics that needed a liquor license in order to allow smoking, but was denied a liquor license for not selling liquor. You’ve probably also read this line, which should be on the Bureaucracy’s Greatest Hits CD:

“They weren’t looking for a liquor licence, they were looking for a smoking licence,” said Alberta Gaming spokeswoman Marilyn Carlyle-Helms.

Well, I decided to investigate further. I won’t post it here, but the email address for Ms. Marilyn Carlyle-Helms wasn’t that hard to find using a certain search engine named after a big number. So I contacted this woman, and asked her, first of all, if the story were true, and, second of all, how she felt forcing a bar for recovering alcoholics to sell alcohol benefited anyone at all.

And I got a reply.

It appears to be a form letter, but I’m the only address in the To: header, and it’s cc’ed to two people who also appear to work for the Alberta Gaming License Commission, so maybe I really am the only person who thought to email her. I expected her to be deluged with angry email, like Nicholas “A Million Mogadishus” de Genova was.

Without further ado, the text:

Mark
Thanks for following-up. This is really an issue surrounding the City’s new smoking bylaw.

* Edmonton city council approved a smoking bylaw on March 25, 2003 that will ban smoking from all public places that allow minors.

* Restaurants and minors permitted establishments had until July 1, 2003 to comply with the bylaws and become 100 per cent smoke-free. Restaurants may decide to apply for a class A minors prohibited liquor license in order to maintain a smoking establishment.

* All areas that allow smoking will need a physical barrier between any area that allows public access.

* Class A minors prohibited establishments such as bars, casinos, and bingo halls will have until July 1, 2005 to comply with the bylaw and become 100 per cent smoke-free.

The Keep It Simple group has indicated they don’t want to sell or consume liquor because of the nature of their group. As indicated in their comments in the media they really only want to be able to continue to smoke in their club. It is the City that now requires a Class A Minors Prohibited Liquor License in order that this group may continue to smoke in their club in order to comply with their new smoking bylaws.

If they did proceed to apply for a liquor license they wouldn’t qualify. According to the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, a Class A Minors Prohibited License may be issued for the sale and consumption of liquor on premises that are open to the public.

Hopefully this explains the situation and context for my comment.

Marilyn Carlyle-Helms
Communications Director
Alberta Gaming

It sounds like she’s trying to paint a conflict between smoking laws in the city of Edmonton and liquor laws in the province of Alberta. I understand that, to a certain extent, her hands are tied. However, there is still no sympathy here for Keep It Simple - and it’s that lack of sympathy, that “sucks to be you I guess” attitude only a government bureaucrat can master, that has people so upset over this story.