Being good little serfs and boot lickers will get you everywhere.
< /sarcasm >
This is another outrage against property rights and the right of free association!
One could even argue that it is a logical extesion of the War on Some Drugs.
Amazing, simply amazing. I guess they show slides of lungs of 80 year old smokers and try to pass them off as the lungs of 30 year olds that walked past an ashtray when they were 23?
Even more amazing when you consider that the "science" behind the "2nd-Hand" smoke is only exceeded in its bogus rating by global warming.
And if they choose jail time instead?
Say... 20 at a time?
200?
Banning smoking in bars.... isn't that kind of like barring heroin junkies from crack houses?
The next infraction costs $800 and...
A third infraction costs $1,000 and...
A fourth infraction could cost the business its liquor license......
And what's the punishment for the fifth infraction, being drawn and quartered? You know, somehow I get the feeling that the Founding Father didn't bring about the American Revolution for this.
As for the customers caught smoking, the city will fine them $100.
So for 400 bucks I can put my favorite tavern out of business. Maybe competing bars are looking to hire a "smoking" gun.
If only we were as free as the Russians.
Who won the race to the phone: minnie or cinnie?
Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with this picture.
These bans do not apply to only bars and restaurants and bowling alleys - they apply everywhere, yet it is only places with liquor licenses that will be shut down for repeated violations?
Can anyone say selective PERSECUTION??????? Not prosectution (that too) but persecution.
I've been dealing with this same question with the state ban in Delaware, and even though I no longer live there I am still working with the folks there.
Here's the deal, whether in Delaware or Toledo or New York, you hvae a coffee shop on one corner and across the street is a bar, neither one is enforcing the ban, after the 4th violation (in Delaware it is 3rd) the bar faces a hearing regarding it's liquor license, if it loses its hearing the license is yanked - no liquor license = no bar. The coffee shop just pays another fine and continues on it's merry way.
Some time back I brought up this scenario, on a different forum, with a rabid supporter of the Delaware ban. Even he agreed that is wrong. Punishment (for lack of a better word) should be equal across the board. Yanking the liquor license of a bar is the equivalent of yanking the business license of any other business, yet no other businesses face that possibilty.
And while I am on this tirade I may as well continue........
Beside the insidious problem of selective prosecution, there is another sinister problems with these bans (as I believe most are similar in this manner to Delaware). The use of anonymous snitch lines, which leads to the establishment having to prove it's innocence rather than the state having to prove guilt.
I have attended some hearings in Delaware, which unlike Toledo, does not use police to enforce the ban and does not fine the smoker, just the owner. The "enforcement agents" are not permitted to confront a person smoking in a bar and do not make themselves known to the bartender or manager. In other words if they see someone smoking in a bar through the window, they do not know if the "reasonable" measures were taken to have the person stop the activity. the owner just gets a letter stating they have been cited and they either pay the fine by a certain date or request a hearing.
The hearings are farcical. The first one I attended, which was the first one held in the state, the agent first admitted to consuming alcohol (to fit in) and then said he did not notice the particular club being cited utilized a "fog" machine, admitted it was rather dark, yet claimed he saw 2 people in a dark alcove smoking cigarettes because he could see the smoke. The club lost.
Another case was a bit different. The violation claimed the enforcement agent observed not only several patrons, but the bartender smoking. The Delaware ban language defines smoking as the use of a lighted product containing tobacco. This particular establishment sells herbal cigarettes that contain no tobacco - they won the case.
The gnatzies in Delaware are now going to try to amend the definition.
The owner of the establishment that beat the fine is announcing next week his run for office - I'll get the link to the website that is going up to you all ASAP.
Being good little serfs and boot lickers will get you everywhere.
< /sarcasm >
Mr. Ford needs his ass kicked.
Just a suggestion, anyway.
L