Funny they didn't mention the part about restaurants and bars having to pony up $300.00 per year for them to ALLOW smoking.
This is nothing short of legalized extortion and the city council needs to be hung!!
Posted on 02/19/2004 11:48:22 AM PST by SheLion
Toledo bar owners find loophole to let patrons light up
TOLEDO — James Pierson sat at the corner of the bar with a cigarette in his hand and a court summons in his coat pocket.
The retired autoworker was charged about a month ago with violating the city’s ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
That wasn’t stopping him from a beer and another cigarette.
"In reality, I’m breaking the law right now," said Pierson, 62, of Temperance, Mich. "Everybody should stand up for their rights."
Defiant smokers and tavern owners in cities where smoking has been outlawed are rising up to protest, staging "smokeins" and filing lawsuits to overturn clean-air ordinances.
"We’re trying every angle we can to get everyone on our side," said Jerry Zaspel, owner of Barb’s Westgate Inn, in Tacoma, Wash.
Driving smokers away will put him out of business, Zaspel said. "It’s not a smoking issue. It’s a survival issue," he said.
Some bar owners in Tacoma refused to put away their ashtrays before a judge threw out the ban Jan. 23. Supporters of the ordinance plan to appeal.
A husband and wife who ran a truck-stop restaurant in Tampa, Fla., wouldn’t kick out the smokers when a statewide ban on smoking began in July.
The stand won the hearts of smokers, but they lost their restaurant when the plaza’s owner evicted them in September for flouting the law.
Nonsmoking ordinances started becoming popular in the mid-1980s as grocery stores banned smoking and restaurants put in seating areas for nonsmokers.
A California law banning smoking in bars and restaurants in 1994 led to another surge in clean-air legislation.
There have been only a handful of victories for smoking-ban opponents.
City council members in Austin, Texas, overturned a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in October after business owners said it could have a devastating economic impact.
Toledo bar owners have taken the fight against smoking bans a step further by creating a charity to take advantage of a loophole that allows smoking in private clubs and at private social functions.
"Usually it’s a very, very small minority who stands in defiance and it usually lasts about a month," said Josh Alpert, spokesman for Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.
"What’s happening in Toledo is probably the most creative," he said.
About 40 bar owners formed a nonprofit charity called "Taverns for Tots." They charge patrons $1 for a lifetime membership and promise to donate the fee and 1 percent of their gross receipts to children’s charities.
"It’s a very innovative, creative way of doing a charity, and yes, we can still allow smoking," said bar owner Bill Delaney. "Being innovative and creative — that’s the American way."
A federal judge has put a temporary stop to their plan and is expected to decide by the end of the month whether it can continue, but some of those trying to sidestep the ban still were allowing smoking.
LOL!!!!!
Hey, we'd love to have you come visit!!!
Funny they didn't mention the part about restaurants and bars having to pony up $300.00 per year for them to ALLOW smoking.
This is nothing short of legalized extortion and the city council needs to be hung!!
Many years ago, Oklahoma went form being a 'dry' State (3.2 beer only) to legalizing hard liquor. Open saloons were banned. It was illegal to serve liquor by the drink, a customer had to bring his own bottle and he could be served mixed drinks from that bottle for a service fee. There was a provision that allowed private clubs to serve from a 'club' bottle (since, technically, each member of the club was the owner of the bottle). It didn't take long for bars to declare themselves private clubs and start allowing membership at the door: all you had to do was sign up, pay the daily membership fee (usually a buck or so), and you could have any mixed drinks you wanted.
This is probably a solution that would allow everyone to have most of what they want. Of course, no legal solution ever makes everyone happy; frequently everyone ends up somewhat unhappy.
It's the "trickle down effect." I had forgotten about the delivery people and the linen companies, etc. It's affecting everyone.
Then, to make it easy, they just throw the blame on the President. Oh sure. Makes sense to me. ~not!
It's that bull chit the Clinton's started: It takes a villiage to raise a child?" Remember that?!
We'd have fun!!
I choose to try and forget that.
All kidding aside, I do not believe it is up to the state legislature to determine what should be socially acceptable when it comes to such things as personal responsibility and non-harmful behavior.
I wear my seatbelt - because I choose to, not because the state says I should. My husband wears his because the state says he must. It's pretty hard to explain to a bright child why she has to be strapped into the dreaded car seat when daddy is not strapped in, but mommy is.
My 5 year old perfectly understands there are things that grown ups do that are not for children to do.........and that extends beyond the obvious discussion here of alcohol and tobacco. Everyday things like power tools, lighting a fire in the woodstove, the lawn tractor, driving a car, even voting.
I just can't make her understand that when she is old enough to vote she will not be able to vote for President Bush..............
You're welcome. And thank you.
I've already called it a truce (although I was never angry to begin with), but I make it a practice to stay away from people who'd rather call me names than discuss the issues.
I've clearly found one of those people on this thread, so I won't be back........ I DO appreciate your understanding of the issue, however, so thanks again.
I don't know that it will do much good, but I do appreciate your vote of confidence.
Apparently she doesn't WANT me on her side. So be it. I'll leave her alone.
You may not smoke, but you still stink!
Right out of the gate, you insult me. Not exactly proper manners from someone with sooo much knowledge and experience on the Internet.
Why you felt compelled to ping me with this remark is beyond me.
You posted the original article. Often times people use the original post to post their follow up opinions and/or responses. But I would have thought you understood that basic concept.
Keep your nasty opinions to yourself, please.
This one was good and truly indicative of the fact that you totally failed to grasp the meaning of what I stated. I was agreeing with you, that smoking should not be banned.
By the way, cigarettes do stink, so do diesel and other exhaust fumes. I do also believe that all people who smoke would benefit immediately from quiring. But inside you know that as well.
What I do not believe is in the power of the government to dictate personal choices to people.
You insulted me first, with that stink comment. I don't have to justify myself with you. But I do refuse to be stereotyped just because I smoke.
By the way, cigarettes do stink, so do diesel and other exhaust fumes. I do also believe that all people who smoke would benefit immediately from quiring. But inside you know that as well.
At least I am not obese. I'd rather smoke then eat myself into a cream puff.
What I do not believe is in the power of the government to dictate personal choices to people.
And that is what we are trying hard to do............let the general public realize what is going on with the bans and the control and the restrictions put upon smokers and business owners for using a legal product.
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.