Some hookah bars ignoring NC smoking ban

Originally posted by Finn1916
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I completely understand the point you are trying to make about unemployment and how a on smoker should be able t get a job in a smoke free enviroment. The last thing we need is unemployment. Now, take away a cigar bar or hookah bars right to have smoking in them(whic is the entire point of said establishment) and not only are you gonna have more workers unemployed(the shop would have to close) but now you have the owner of said bar unemployed. All they will do is make a bigger unemployment mess. That being said, yes the idea works in theory, but if you don't want to be around soke then you are NOT qualified to work at a cigar bar or hookah bar.

Other than that i agree with you.

Look. Basically I agree with you. I think it would be great if I could run any kind of business I wanted on my private property as long as it presented no detriment to the community. There are many things I wish I could "get away" with. The problem I see is that laws are all over the place, criss crossing and screwing up the legal system itself. In theory I am with you on the freedom thing and the business owners and all that. I should be able to open a place and be the only employee and let people do all kinds of things. I guess I just look around and see all the crap really going down. When I think about the 20 steps to the heated, lit, comfy lean-to on the side, I just do not see it as a right to smoke issue. I can smoke. I can go out. I just cannot blow smoke in the face of someone working in the places I choose to go out to. I can live with that. Don't think I am all for more government control and more laws. I am not. It just seems silly to me for people to cry that their right to smoke is being taken away because they have to go outside to do it.

Everyone should ignore these trash laws. The way I see it is no level of government has any authority to tell me what I can or can't do in my own building.

If I want to smoke and allow smoking, the customers that don't like it can go somewhere else, that is why we have competitive markets.

This is a violation of rights and discrimination towards smokers. When I go to a bar, I choose a bar that lets me smoke. If I were a non-smoker I wouldn't care or I would choose a non-smoking bar.

Originally posted by xstealth
If I want to smoke and allow smoking, the customers that don't like it can go somewhere else, that is why we have competitive markets.

See, that is just it. They tried that here. Many bars, including my local fav tried to buck the ban. One they racked up fines and that was going to hurt no matter what. What made it worse was they lost business to the establishments that supported the ban and added outdoor smoking areas. The dollar voted and non-smoking won. Maybe where you live, that would work out. If you lived here, you would either be a non-smoking establishment or broke from loss of business. I am sure there are communities that would have different results. Just trying to relate the struggle that already went down here.

recently quit smoking,retired bartender who smoked 22yrs.
I will argue as a smoker because i believe they are in they right.

the problem i have with the nonsmoker pantywaist movement is the hypocrisy of it.

I no longer own a car,found it easier to travel without them.
what about the exhaust from the car you drive?it will KILL YOU in one sitting.my cigarettes wouldn't do that.

I can't expose you to cigarette smoke but it's just fine for you to expose me to something much more toxic?

try to notice the retards who want to force perfect health on everyone then complain about overcrowding,you'll get a laugh.
unless you are one of the retards,then you'd be confused.

To all the idiots who support anti smoking laws, you can't complain about the MSM, PTB or any other Big Brother conspiracy for the rest of your life. ROFL

reply to post by UcantBserious


What about people who do not support them but also think it is stupid to claim it is taking away your right to smoke. I keep looking over the constitution and I cannot find "Right to smoke in Perkin's Family Restaraunt" in there anywhere. I am not real supportive of a bunch of laws. I just find it harder to support grown men who cry because they have to step outside for a smoke. It was -17 last week and I went outside for a smoke. It did not hurt me(outside of the harm from smoking). I lived. I guess I am made of tougher stuff than some of the boys around here.

With me, it is not about supporting the law as much as it is choosing the law over whining about freedoms that you use to encroach on other people's freedoms. Which one do I find the least detestable? Hmmm having to go outside to smoke or men who cry about it? Hmmmmmmm... tough call.

So I guess you will allow me to complain about the MSM then?



[edit on 1/11/10 by Lillydale]

Reply to Lillydale

Obviously...since I went to a great deal of trouble to explain exactly what the "right to peaceful assembly" means and you have completely chosen to disregard the fact that it means the right to gather in a PUBLIC place in order to undertake any legal activity in a peaceful manner...there is no point in discussing the issue with you any longer.

Smoking is a legal activity and there is absolutely no reason why smokers should not have places to legally gather and smoke together.

As for you smoking in Ontario legally in a private club? You breaking the law Sir! In exactly the same manner as the hookah clubs.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca...

Section 9 (1) Prohibition

9. (1) No person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any enclosed public place or enclosed workplace. 2005, c. 18, s. 9.

and further to the act itself and speaking in regards to enforcement of the Smoke-Free ONtario Act:

I will refer you at this time to a website where you may read about a man who opened a private club in Smith Falls Ontario - where only smokers were invited to attend and where there were no employees.

www.libertarian.on.ca...

He was charged and convicted under the smoke-free ontario act. He appealed to the Ontario Superior Court under the grounds that is private members only club was not a public place and he lost.

The case is now being appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court.

Quite frankly Lillydale - you are either one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever run across because you publically support smoking bans while privately admitting to committing offences of the same smoking bans or you are possibly simply a liar - claiming that you freely smoke in a private club in Ontario Canada.

BTW - I live in Toronto but I have studied the laws in both our countries.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Lillydale

Obviously...since I went to a great deal of trouble to explain exactly what the "right to peaceful assembly" means and you have completely chosen to disregard the fact that it means the right to gather in a PUBLIC place in order to undertake any legal activity in a peaceful manner...there is no point in discussing the issue with you any longer.

...and yet you go on. I did not disregard it. You are talking about Canada denying smokers the right to assemble for the purpose of smoking. I told you I go to a place in Canad and smoke. I disregarded your entire idea as I am not Canadian and could not begin to understand how what you are explaining is true when I can go to a place in Canada that lets me smoke. Everyone in there is usually smoking. Are just upset that the sign out front does not say "Assemble to smoke?" Sorry, not Canadian. I already made it clear I can really only speak for MY COMMUNITY. Please go on not bothering to discuss it.

Smoking is a legal activity and there is absolutely no reason why smokers should not have places to legally gather and smoke together.

Heroin use is legal, are you upset there is no place for them to gather to enjoy heroin together?

Anyway, your argument is flawed. Smokers can gather and smoke all they want. What do you think smokers do when they are at my house? We all smoke together and no one has ever attempted to stop that. I am sorry but it seems you are confusing the right to smoke together with the right to smoke together anywhere you want.

There are many legal activities you cannot do ANYWHERE you want. Try masturbating on the train sometimes and come back and tell us how free you feel. Masturbation is a legal activity right? You can smoke with your friends in some places. You can shake hands with your friend in some places.

As for you smoking in Ontario legally in a private club? You breaking the law Sir! In exactly the same manner as the hookah clubs.

What part of Ontario are you from? Not only is the place legal, it is rather well attended at any time of day or night 7 days a week. Hardly a secret hidden behind all the NF casinos. Better call the mounties.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca...

Section 9 (1) Prohibition

9. (1) No person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any enclosed public place or enclosed workplace. 2005, c. 18, s. 9.

and further to the act itself and speaking in regards to enforcement of the Smoke-Free ONtario Act:

I will refer you at this time to a website where you may read about a man who opened a private club in Smith Falls Ontario - where only smokers were invited to attend and where there were no employees.

www.libertarian.on.ca...

He was charged and convicted under the smoke-free ontario act. He appealed to the Ontario Superior Court under the grounds that is private members only club was not a public place and he lost.

The case is now being appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court.

Fine, like I said. I am no expert on Canadian law. I can go there tomorrow and enjoy a nice smoke. Want the address so you can call the police?

Quite frankly Lillydale - you are either one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever run across because you publically support smoking bans while privately admitting to committing offences of the same smoking bans or you are possibly simply a liar - claiming that you freely smoke in a private club in Ontario Canada.

Um...nope. I have been going there for about 20 years. Suddenly one year it was a private club. I asked why and they explained that was the only way they could allow smoking. I said fine and bought my membership(price of admission + 10 bucks for a year). I have been there every year up until last year. If they are breaking the law, they are doing it quite openly. It does not make me a hypocrite because I was not bucking any ban. I was patronizing a private club. I would have to assume that such a well known establishment would be up on the law. They cut out the prostitution years back when they were told to. I just kind of trusted the place to let me know what was legal. Calling me a hypocrite for that is pretty unfair and rather low.

BTW - I live in Toronto but I have studied the laws in both our countries.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS.

That is great. I have a case for you then. I never claimed to be any kind of expert on anything Canadian. That is not my home. I do not care what they do. If they give me a place I enjoy going to visit, I will. Not my home, not my business. Here you claim to be so knowledgable about both countries and yet...your argument is what again? Smokers are not allowed to assemble. I have 3 people coming over later that all smoke. I believe we will be assembled. I will see to it that we all acknowledge that our purpose for assembly is to smoke. I will alert the authorities as well so that proper action can be taken. If no one comes to stop me, then you are wrong. Fair?


[edit on 1/11/10 by Lillydale]

I have a large 34 inch tall, 4 hosed, diffused and inverted funneled hookah named the Black Monsta. I smoke it once or twice a week and never touch cigarettes. The amount of microparticles released by essentially vaporizing the glycerin/sugar coating on the tobacco is quite negligible. My lungs are perfect and my throat never hurts when I smoke my hookah. This is because of the constantly evolving preparative methodology that I employ. However, I can't tolerate hookahs at the bars because of the inferior quality of the smoke and the amount of chemicals involved in their cheap ingredients. Also, their negligence causes the hookah to produce cigarette-like harshness.
I sit around with my fellow knowledge seekers on the floor, we light up the hookah with a different flavor every time, and we discuss an arsenal of topics with the social impetus that this device provides. Tobacco water pipes have been used for social gatherings in the middle east and in Asia for a long long time. Further modernization of the water pipe has allowed for increased filtration, larger chambers for further absorption of harmful byproducts, and a noticeably smoother experience.
If the hookah makes you cough or feel sick, this means that there are many factors that are contributing to health risks and you should discontinue the use of the pipe.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
ERGO: Smokers are being deprived of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly for the purpose of engaging in a legal activity.

nobody is stopping them meeting outside in the local park... so they are not being deprived of a constitutional right!

Dereks and Lillydale

Peaceful assembly also implies a public place - NOT A PRIVATE HOME. This is for the obvious reason that private homes are limited in capacity.

The constitutions of both our countries garantee the right of ;eaceful assembly to all peoples. Including smokers. That is why the case of Mike Kennedy's private club is going to the Supreme Court!

Heroin is an illegal drug. It has been for about 70 years. Therefor the right to peaceful assembly for the purposes of sharing the experience of heroin use is not a guanteed right. However, the same public health that will not allow smokers to gather do provide safe rooms for heroin addicts.

As for smokers' gathering outside - in case you don't know or haven't heard...in every jurisdiction where an indoor smoking ban is successfully launched, the next step is an outdoor smoking ban - from parks and sidewalks all the way to a total ban within city limits (see Belmont california).

Lillydale - I repeat - it is illegal to smoke in a private club in Ontario Canada at this time and has been since 1006.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Dereks and Lillydale

Peaceful assembly also implies a public place - NOT A PRIVATE HOME. This is for the obvious reason that private homes are limited in capacity.

As Dereks said, we can gather in a park.

The constitutions of both our countries garantee the right of ;eaceful assembly to all peoples. Including smokers. That is why the case of Mike Kennedy's private club is going to the Supreme Court!

Sounds like Mike could use a good walk in a nice park.

Heroin is an illegal drug. It has been for about 70 years. Therefor the right to peaceful assembly for the purposes of sharing the experience of heroin use is not a guanteed right. However, the same public health that will not allow smokers to gather do provide safe rooms for heroin addicts.

Nope. Heroin is a controlled substance. So is tobacco. Tobacco is just on a different schedule. You have to be 18 to smoke here. You have to have a license to posess heroin. I guess either way, 17 year olds are really getting screwed?

Heroin and Tobacco both require you to be or achieve some certain level of something before you can legally purchase either one. So...

As for smokers' gathering outside - in case you don't know or haven't heard...in every jurisdiction where an indoor smoking ban is successfully launched, the next step is an outdoor smoking ban - from parks and sidewalks all the way to a total ban within city limits (see Belmont california).

Yup I head. I heard Bush was instituting Martial Law as well. I decided to worry about things really happening.

Lillydale - I repeat - it is illegal to smoke in a private club in Ontario Canada at this time and has been since 1006.

Tired of Control Freaks

TOCF - I repeat, TELL THE CLUB THAT! What do you want from me?

edit to add, I also stated I had not been there since last year. Let me be real clear. I have not been there since 2008. If something changed since then, cool. I am not arguing with you about the law. Just telling you what I do when I go to Canada. If you do not want to believe me, hop in the car and go check.

[edit on 1/11/10 by Lillydale]

Although I understand the idea of an employee being due to right to a smoke free environment, I still don't get where the government can make you employ these people.

If you have a hookah store/cigar room/smoking club etc. could you not (a) put a great big sign on the door that says, "There's smoking in here. Please do not enter if you don't like that!!" or (b) have prospective employees sign a waiver, "I realise there's smoke in here, and the assumed risk is all mine."? I thought employment was at will, and you can employ who you like.

reply to post by Lillydale

This is the way they put it here. It is not about you knowing where you are going to work. It is about business allowing that opportunity to all qualified people. They were saying that every business MUST offer the opportunity for a smoke free work environment. It did not matter if you wanted to work in a smoky room. They were trying to say the unemployed person next to you that needs a job but does not need lung cancer deserves the same opportunity as you for that job.

Well I know this much, no matter how much I would like it, as a man I can not get a job at a Strip club as an erotic dancer.

Where is my equal opportunity for employment?

reply to post by Lillydale


Again, I agree with the "Right to smoke" issue as far as it should not interfear with people working, I am merely pointing out that since in North Caronlina, if you build a special room for smoker, and since a cigar or hookah bar is technically a room for smokers, then they shoud stil be allowed to smoke there as that is the entire purpose of said establishment. It is, for all intense and purposes a place meant solely for smoking, so the ban should not apply.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Well I know this much, no matter how much I would like it, as a man I can not get a job at a Strip club as an erotic dancer.

Where is my equal opportunity for employment?

LOL. Must be in the same place as the alcoholics right to drive whenever they wish. I never EVER claimed it was perfect or even right. All I did was try to relate how it went down where I live and the results. This was an issue I was paying very close attention to, AS A SMOKER MYSELF. I did not think that the OP would have the exact same experience as myself. I was just attempting to relate what happened here and the reasoning behind it and the result. I am so sorry that is upsetting people so much. The argument only comes from people claiming this somehow takes away your right to smoke. You can not EAT anywhere you want. You cannot be NAKED anywhere you want. Communities are complicated. Some things are limited when you leave your home. Like I said, how about all the poor heroin addicts? They are discriminated against too. Yeah it sucks that you cannot dance.

Let me just try and dumb it down for you a little.

You not smoking in my restaraunt will help keep my kids from becoming ill from your smoke.

If you get to strip at a female strip club...how does that provide a better world for us?

See why I think it is a stupid argument? Job requirements are an ecroachment on equal opportunity for the uneducated and unskilled. Life sucks that way. You not blowing smoke in my families face...eh. Get over it.

Originally posted by Finn1916
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Again, I agree with the "Right to smoke" issue as far as it should not interfear with people working, I am merely pointing out that since in North Caronlina, if you build a special room for smoker, and since a cigar or hookah bar is technically a room for smokers, then they shoud stil be allowed to smoke there as that is the entire purpose of said establishment. It is, for all intense and purposes a place meant solely for smoking, so the ban should not apply.

I get ya. I really have no argument with your particular argument at all. Just thought I would tell you how it happened here and why is all. The only argument I have is that this is taking away people's rights to smoke. It is just such a paranoid blanket statement that makes no sense in the context of the real world.

Hey, I originally thought that they should compromise and let people decide what kind of establishment to have as long as they could show they were fully staffed with willing participants. I still think there is probably some room for compromise. I just thought I would share the justification for it here and what happened. More job opportunities and business that supported the ban grew instead of shrank. The only downside is apparently some men cannot walk as far as a door to smoke. I thought the net gain was positive and therefor was no longer against it. Apparently I was wrong.

Reply to Lillydale

I understand that you were trying to explain the whys: Unfortunately you have not done sufficient research.

The why of these laws is not based on public health at all! It is based on a document called the Godber Policy. You see: puritans decreed that all smokers should quit smoking. They set about to educate the public on the risks of smoking. But in spite of all their good intentions, people still chose to smoke.

Godber was of the opinion that the only way to stamp out smoking was to "spoil their identity" to make them into dirty, disease-causing objects of derision and scorn. To accomplish this goal, a plan was developed to convince the population that exposure to smoke was disease causing.

Quite a feat, considering that mankind has been exposed to smoke from the day we crawled out of the ooze and used fire to cook our food and heat our homes.

Smoking bans that deny smokers any outlet of social participation, plans to deny smokers the right to a livelyhood and even the right to places to live are all in place in order to coerce the population into quitting smoking.

In time, and as can be now easily observed, the same tactics will be used to discipline "eaters" meaning those who are obese or insist on eating a diet that does not meet the approval of the puritans, drinkers, smellers (those who wear perfumes), the lazy who don't exercise sufficiently or anyone whose behavior in any way does not meet the approval of the neo-puritans.

You are a perfect example. You are ashamed of being a smoker and believe that punishments for your behavior are perfectly acceptable. You have bought into a vision of your own identity that you are in some way abnormal.

Enjoy the feeling. Once you quite smoking, you will still not experience any peace. You will only be subjected to another round of shame for some other behavior that the neo-puritans don't agree with.

www.freedom2choose.info...


Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Lillydale

I understand that you were trying to explain the whys: Unfortunately you have not done sufficient research.

The why of these laws is not based on public health at all! It is based on a document called the Godber Policy. You see: puritans decreed that all smokers should quit smoking. They set about to educate the public on the risks of smoking. But in spite of all their good intentions, people still chose to smoke.

Seriously? You just want to argue with me and I have no idea why. Why are you not protesting for the freedom of drinkers or pot smokers or heroin users? Research? I do not need to do any research. I live here. I am/was involved. I know what was said, what happened, and the results.

If you want to blame the origin of the plan on something, go for it. I could care less about some archaic link to whatever. I am telling you what happened here. You are looking to fight. I am telling you the community net gain was positive and you have no argument against that. Why? You are not even attempting to actually make the point for smokers freedom. You are trying to argue with me about the "true origin" of the plan and whether or not I smoked in Canada.

This is getting ridiculous. Either prove to me that this is really taking away the right of people to smoke and that right needs to be defended or leave me be. I did not come here to argue about the finer details of nefarious plots. I could care less if Al Gore was somehow getting rich off of this. People are healthier and there are more job opportunities than before. Something severely needed at this time. You cannot make an argument that really defends the point you began with so you are running off with this nonsense. Whatever.

Godber was of the opinion that the only way to stamp out smoking was to "spoil their identity" to make them into dirty, disease-causing objects of derision and scorn. To accomplish this goal, a plan was developed to convince the population that exposure to smoke was disease causing.

and...? It is disease causing. Why is it so terrible to put that message out there? Smoking kills people. Are you insane or stupid? Do you really think there is something evil about spreading the message that smoking is bad for you? Wow!

Quite a feat, considering that mankind has been exposed to smoke from the day we crawled out of the ooze and used fire to cook our food and heat our homes.

So you think all smoke has the same chemicals in it? You think standing around a fire exposes you to the same toxins that smoking a cigarette does? You are so losing my interest now. I thought maybe you actually had some insight and then you spill all this ignorant crap on me. A campfire is VERY different from smoking tobacco. The fact that you would even hint that that is equal makes me sad that I have spent this time talking to you.

Smoking bans that deny smokers any outlet of social participation, plans to deny smokers the right to a livelyhood and even the right to places to live are all in place in order to coerce the population into quitting smoking.

Can you back any of that up or is it just more AJ type paranoia? Prove they are going to take away smokers rights to a livelyhood and a place to gather. PROVE THAT IS HAPPENING. As far as coercing the population to quit smoking...are you really saying that would be bad?

In time, and as can be now easily observed, the same tactics will be used to discipline "eaters" meaning those who are obese or insist on eating a diet that does not meet the approval of the puritans, drinkers, smellers (those who wear perfumes), the lazy who don't exercise sufficiently or anyone whose behavior in any way does not meet the approval of the neo-puritans.

Alex Jones/David Icke. I am sure you do not listen to either of them at all. Again, some proof with your conjecture would really make your point seem valid.

You are a perfect example. You are ashamed of being a smoker and believe that punishments for your behavior are perfectly acceptable. You have bought into a vision of your own identity that you are in some way abnormal.

You have quite an imagination. I never once endorsed punishment for smokers. I am for the rights of nonsmokers. They have rights too, don't they? I have brought what into what? You certainly think much of your insight. Please do not attempt to analyze me when it is apparent you have very few marbles to shoot with.

Enjoy the feeling. Once you quite smoking, you will still not experience any peace. You will only be subjected to another round of shame for some other behavior that the neo-puritans don't agree with.

www.freedom2choose.info...


Tired of Control Freaks

Yup. I have several other habbits that are pretty bad too. Some are even illegal for me to do. If it benefits my comunity to not do those things in their establishments, I am fine with that. No one is coming to my home to stop me. Not even for the illegal things. When the cops come tell me I cannot smoke at my house, you will be the first one I alert!

Lillydale

I am not arguing with you. I am trying to educate you as your point of view is based on some very very shoddy misunderstandings.

Is tobacco smoke the same as wood smoke?

YES - there are some minor differences because the burning of nicotene renders it into Vitamin B3 (very important to stress relief and proper functioning of the nervous system), Solansol (used in the treatment of respiratory disfunction like asthma)

However wood smoke contains the same contaminants like particulate, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, metals, formaldehyde etc etc.

The burning of organic material all produces the same contaminants. This would include bbq's, wood burning stoves, oil burning stoves, fuel burning cars, candles, burning aromatic oils etc etc Any burning of organic material produces the same list of 4000 chemicals that burning tobacco produces.

Here is a link:

burningissues.org...

Of what value is it to ban smoking in a fancy restaurant and then burn candles on the table. Of what value is it to "protect the children" from tobacco smoke and then gather them around the fireplace or bbq for some family time.

I can tell you this: a candle weighs ounces, a log weighs pounds and cigarette weighs about 1/2 a gram. Guess what happens when you burn a pound of wood compared to 1/2 a gram of dried leaves?

Tired of Control Freaks