“I don’t understand if he was trying to protect me from myself or what.”
|
|
She may not be aware of it, but she just defined "liberal". |
Posted on 09/25/2005 9:27:16 AM PDT by elkfersupper
The city’s smoking ban never sleeps.
Tiffany Hurter, a bartender at Conroy’s, found that out the hard way this week.
Hurter became the city’s first nonbusiness owner or manager cited under the city’s workplace smoking ban early Wednesday.
Police officers received a tip that the bar was serving drinks after the legal cut-off time of 2 a.m. on Wednesday. A police officer went to the bar, 3115 W. Sixth St., and found no drinking but discovered Hurter smoking a cigarette while talking with a fellow employee and a couple of other friends Hurter had agreed to give a ride.
Hurter said she wasn’t aware she was breaking the law and said she didn’t think the ticket was justified.
“From my understanding, this was put in to protect employees,” Hurter said. “I don’t understand if he was trying to protect me from myself or what.”
Hurter said the one other employee in the establishment also was a smoker, who happened to not be smoking at the time.
City Prosecutor Jerry Little, though, said the law seemed to be clear on the matter.
“It is like I told her, it is a 24-hour ban,” Little said.
Photo by Courtney Kuhlen
Tiffany Hurter, a bartender at Conroy’s, holds the citation she received from a police officer Wednesday for smoking after the bar had closed. Hurter is the first smoker to receive a smoking citation. Hurter said she was unaware that the ban was still enforced after hours. Hurter said Little offered her a plea bargain that would reduce the maximum $100 fine down to $25. She also would have to pay $42 in court costs.
Little said this was the first time the city had issued a ticket to someone other than a business owner. Typically, the city issues tickets to business owners or managers who have allowed illegal smoking to occur in their businesses. Smokers typically aren’t ticketed.
But Little said the ordinance always has allowed smokers to be ticketed. This situation was different from normal because a police officer was on the scene. Normally, Lawrence firefighters respond to smoking complaints. They typically do not issue tickets to patrons because city officials have determined that they do not have the necessary training to issue tickets to members of the general public.
David Corliss, the city’s director of legal services, said Hurter’s case did not signal a change in the city’s enforcement policy.
Hurter is scheduled to appear in Municipal Court on Oct. 12. She said she was considering taking the case to trial.
A Lawrence nightclub owner, Dennis Steffes, has filed a lawsuit in Douglas County District Court alleging that the city’s ban is unconstitutional. That case is awaiting a trial date.
yes, I could have chosen different words to make my sarcastic comment.
Time to start shooting - this is TYRANNY!
No - I do NOT smoke.
Time to start shooting - this is TYRANNY!
No - I do NOT smoke.
?
I support restrictions in public places which are produced by local officials (that can be removed if we disagree with them). But what a business owner or employee chooses to do after closing is not the governments concern (mostly). The local cops went way overboard with this one.
"What a disgusting police state we have created."
What a disgusting police state liberals have created. / corrected
If there is somthing I can't stand it is somthing I don't like.
Lawrence is like Austin. A group for lefties make it a blue speck in a red state. It is not how most of Kansans think.Q.
Just like all Leftist intrusion on private conduct.
Jerry Little.
Descriptive on so many levels.
Hey, Big Brother knows best!
It is about infringement on personal rights, about the erosion of our personal freedoms to make our own decisions.
First it's smoking, and if we accept that as okay, don't be surprised when the powers that be decide what you eat, or make you participate in exercise programs at work, or how much you can weigh, or whether you can drink a beer . . .
After all, it's for "the common good", right?
“I don’t understand if he was trying to protect me from myself or what.”
|
|
She may not be aware of it, but she just defined "liberal". |
Perhaps, but these kinds of restrictions should NEVER be imposed on private property owners.
What is the difference between them telling you what you can do in a restaurant that you own, vs. telling you what you can do in your home? Both are private property.
That is why laws like this are so frightening. Once established as precedent that the gubmint can control what happens on your property, whether it is residential or commercial, there will be no stopping the socialists.
What smells worse to smokers? The prissy nosed anti-smokers. I can smell them a mile away. It's like the smell of death.........the death of freedoms.
Good one, SB! I'm snarfing a copy of that one. :o)
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.
