Discussion:
To the House
(too old to reply)
Bruce Watson
2005-05-03 01:56:48 UTC
Permalink
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today that would
ban smoking across Colorado.

An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by Representative Mark
Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The amendment exempts casinos
outside eating areas, the smoking lounge at Denver International
Airport, bingo parlors, hospices and cigar bars.

The bill now moves to the full House for debate.

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/1535827.html
L Sternn
2005-05-03 02:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today that would
ban smoking across Colorado.
Bruce, if you're going to snip articles, be honest enough to show your
snips.


<snip restored>
|The proposal had been watered-down in the Senate to apply only to
|restaurants that don't serve liquor.
|

When was this article published? There is no date.

In the previous article you posted, that was the MISUNDERSTANDING of
some legislators. In fact, it would have affected some businesses
that served alcohol.

Are your news sources confused, or just out of date?

|Colorado Restaurant Association president Pete Meersman said the
|changes were a mistake and asked lawmakers today to "level the
|playing field."
Post by Bruce Watson
An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by Representative Mark
Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The amendment exempts casinos
outside eating areas, the smoking lounge at Denver International
Airport, bingo parlors, hospices and cigar bars.
You didn't like this next paragraph, Bruce?

|The House Health and Human Services Committee approved the amendment
|and the bill, ******despite objections from a lobbyist for the Colorado
|Licensed Beverage Association *******
|who says the bill would create an elite group of exemptions.

(emphasis mine)

So who did the casinos and the airport pay off?

And why did they pay them off if they didn't think the smoking ban
would hurt them?
Post by Bruce Watson
The bill now moves to the full House for debate.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/1535827.html
Note, many airports only allow smoking in bars. The bars don't let
you just come in and smoke - you're supposed to order something.

If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
Cirque
2005-05-03 04:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?

Keep yer pollution out of MY air!

Drink till you puke, but NOT in my lap!
L Sternn
2005-05-03 05:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.

If you don't like something, stay out.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-03 15:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will
DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
If you don't like something, stay out.
Don't work that way, society ALWAYS forces the lowlife drug addicts
to modify their behavior to suite society, not the other way around.
Cirque
2005-05-03 19:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a place of public
business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.

Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
L Sternn
2005-05-03 23:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a place of public
business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal responsibility.

Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to choose taken
away?
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
If you want a non-smoking bar, open one.
Post by Cirque
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
I'm not ruining anyone's health, including my own.
Cirque
2005-05-04 00:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will DEFINITELY
be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a place of public
business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all.
My healthy lungs are.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
If you want a non-smoking bar, open one.
Sorry, WE are the 75% majority - not you huffers!
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
I'm not ruining anyone's health, including my own.
ROFLMAO!

Denial.
PRSmith
2005-05-04 01:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The only thing
being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-04 02:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The only
thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
That's a good one PR, even if you are a scumbag RepugniKKKan swine.
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
And there are 100s of laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, etc that
restrict what Businesses can and can't do when it comes to
the health, safety and welfare of the PUBLIC.
PRSmith
2005-05-04 03:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The
only thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
That's a good one PR, even if you are a scumbag RepugniKKKan
swine.
Opinion noted.
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees
from a dangerous environment.
And there are 100s of laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, etc
that restrict what Businesses can and can't do when it comes to
the health, safety and welfare of the PUBLIC.
AND workers (e.g. safety helmets, breathing apparatus, fire/chemical
retardant clothing, asbestos free, ventilation hoods over chemical baths,
etc.)
Cirque
2005-05-04 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The only thing
being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
Do you have free acess to a steel mill's foundry floor if you walk in?
PRSmith
2005-05-04 03:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The
only thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees
from a dangerous environment.
Do you have free acess to a steel mill's foundry floor if you
walk in?
Never tried but I would guess no. I would also guess that there is a
plethora of rules, regulations and laws governing what you can and can't do,
what you can and can't ask an employee to do and what a visitor can and
can't do in such an environment. No question that's a dangerous place.
OTOH, I'm quite sure that every possible precaution is taken to protect
workers and visitors. Restaurants and bars (private or otherwise) should
work under similar rules - everything possible should be done to protect
workers and visitors alike.
Cirque
2005-05-04 03:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The
only thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees
from a dangerous environment.
Do you have free acess to a steel mill's foundry floor if you
walk in?
Never tried but I would guess no. I would also guess that there is a
plethora of rules, regulations and laws governing what you can and can't do,
what you can and can't ask an employee to do and what a visitor can and
can't do in such an environment. No question that's a dangerous place.
Yup.

Same holds for the paint booth in a body shop.
Post by PRSmith
OTOH, I'm quite sure that every possible precaution is taken to protect
workers and visitors.
Correct!
Post by PRSmith
Restaurants and bars (private or otherwise) should
work under similar rules - everything possible should be done to protect
workers and visitors alike. So it should.
But if the want to provide a service, even smoking, or nudity, to
members only, that is their call.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 00:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The
only thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their
employees from a dangerous environment.
Do you have free acess to a steel mill's foundry floor if you walk in?
Never tried but I would guess no. I would also guess that
there is a plethora of rules, regulations and laws governing
what you can and can't do, what you can and can't ask an
employee to do and what a visitor can and can't do in such an
environment. No question that's a dangerous place.
Yup.
Same holds for the paint booth in a body shop.
Yup. And you can't get rid of the fumes because they're required in order
to get the paint on the car -- so -- you provide breathing equipment to
protect workers. In the case of tobacco smoke, it's FAR easier simply to
remove the useless smoke than it is to get workers and patrons to wear gas
masks.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
OTOH, I'm quite sure that every possible precaution is taken
to protect workers and visitors.
Correct!
That's all we're asking -- protect workers and visitors.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Restaurants and bars (private or otherwise) should
work under similar rules - everything possible should be done
to protect workers and visitors alike. So it should.
But if the want to provide a service, even smoking, or nudity,
to members only, that is their call.
In some places. In others, it isn't. In all it won't be.
Cirque
2005-05-05 02:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
You're not excluded at all. Personal choice, personal
responsibility.
Just like you aren't excluded from ETS free businesses. The
only thing being excluded is smoke and smoke has no rights.
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their
employees from a dangerous environment.
Do you have free acess to a steel mill's foundry floor if you walk in?
Never tried but I would guess no. I would also guess that
there is a plethora of rules, regulations and laws governing
what you can and can't do, what you can and can't ask an
employee to do and what a visitor can and can't do in such an
environment. No question that's a dangerous place.
Yup.
Same holds for the paint booth in a body shop.
Yup. And you can't get rid of the fumes because they're required in order
to get the paint on the car -- so -- you provide breathing equipment to
protect workers. In the case of tobacco smoke, it's FAR easier simply to
remove the useless smoke than it is to get workers and patrons to wear gas
masks.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
OTOH, I'm quite sure that every possible precaution is taken
to protect workers and visitors.
Correct!
That's all we're asking -- protect workers and visitors.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Restaurants and bars (private or otherwise) should
work under similar rules - everything possible should be done
to protect workers and visitors alike. So it should.
But if the want to provide a service, even smoking, or nudity,
to members only, that is their call.
In some places. In others, it isn't. In all it won't be.
True, commuinity standards, zoning, etc.
L Sternn
2005-05-04 03:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Never tried but I would guess no. I would also guess that there is a
plethora of rules, regulations and laws governing what you can and can't do,
what you can and can't ask an employee to do and what a visitor can and
can't do in such an environment. No question that's a dangerous place.
OTOH, I'm quite sure that every possible precaution is taken to protect
workers and visitors. Restaurants and bars (private or otherwise) should
work under similar rules -
Er - restaurants and bars are not comparable to steel mills
Post by PRSmith
everything possible should be done to protect
workers and visitors alike.
L Sternn
2005-05-04 03:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
If that's the standard you're going to use, you're opening up the
floodgates for a deluge of frivolous workplace lawsuits.
Todd Benson
2005-05-04 03:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
If that's the standard you're going to use, you're opening up the
floodgates for a deluge of frivolous workplace lawsuits.
I can't wait for construction workers to start suing because they weren't
provided with sun block. :)
L Sternn
2005-05-04 05:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Benson
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees from a
dangerous environment.
If that's the standard you're going to use, you're opening up the
floodgates for a deluge of frivolous workplace lawsuits.
I can't wait for construction workers to start suing because they weren't
provided with sun block. :)
They should provide some sort of shade for all construction projects -
giant tarps suspended from tall poles or whatever it takes.

But then of course, the people who put those up will have to wear
Haz-Mat suits to protect them from the sun.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 00:19:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:53:32 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
Why should 100% of business owners have their freedom to
choose taken away?
Because otherwise they are failing to protect their employees
from a dangerous environment.
If that's the standard you're going to use, you're opening up
the floodgates for a deluge of frivolous workplace lawsuits.
The floodgates are already open. Hang in there -- you're going to see
some high dollar lawsuits right before you see every employer in the nation
rush to close that hole in their legal armor (much too late of course).
PRSmith
2005-05-04 01:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will
DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a place
of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law. Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
Cirque
2005-05-04 02:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will
DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a place
of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
PRSmith
2005-05-04 03:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will
DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks
going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose between a job and
their health. Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Cirque
2005-05-04 03:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars will
DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.

Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks
going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose between a job and
their health. Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs would
attract smoking workers.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-04 03:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars
will DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Wrong again shiteater. The Elks, like everyone else,
must still comply with ALL the Health, Safety and Welfare
laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc that EVERY commercial
enterprise must comply with.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose between a
job and their health. Therein lies the basic argument for
eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs would
attract smoking workers.
Or people like your toothless crack-whore mom, who are so desperate they'll
suck on ANYTHING for a few $$.
-
2005-05-04 06:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Wrong again shiteater. The Elks, like everyone else,
must still comply with ALL the Health, Safety and Welfare
laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc that EVERY commercial
enterprise must comply with.
Likewise I would assume a gay ***@M club would not allow tea-bagging
with the exotic dancers because of the Health, Safety and Welfare
laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-04 14:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by -
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Wrong again shiteater. The Elks, like everyone else,
must still comply with ALL the Health, Safety and Welfare
laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc that EVERY commercial
enterprise must comply with.
with the exotic dancers because of the Health, Safety and Welfare
laws, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc.
Is that why Sam Bam has been so cranky lately?
Cirque
2005-05-04 23:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Cirque
It's not a public place of commerce.
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Wrong again shiteater.
Oh, The Elks Clubs are places of public commerce???

Since when?
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Cirque
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs would
attract smoking workers.
Or people like
You need to kill yerself - now.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 00:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars
will DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
The sell products. They hire workers and pay wages. Same thing.
Post by Cirque
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Because you're not a member. So what? Workers at the Elks Lodge have a
right to the same protection as the workers at Ben's Beer & Pool Hall.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health. Therein lies the basic
argument for eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs
would attract smoking workers.
Maybe - maybe not. Either way it's irrelevant. Smokers get all the tar and
nicotine they need from their smokes. They don't need 8 to 10 hours of
exposure to other smokers' toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic effluent as
well.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 01:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
The sell products. They hire workers and pay wages. Same thing.
You've never been in a club, have you?
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Because you're not a member. So what? Workers at the Elks Lodge have a
right to the same protection as the workers at Ben's Beer & Pool Hall.
But at Sternn's Iniquity Club, they have the right to decline
membership in the club.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health. Therein lies the basic
argument for eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs
would attract smoking workers.
Maybe - maybe not. Either way it's irrelevant. Smokers get all the tar and
nicotine they need from their smokes.
Who are you to say how much we should be allowed to ingest?
Post by PRSmith
They don't need 8 to 10 hours of
exposure to other smokers' toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic effluent as
well.
And you don't need to ever go out to an establishment where smoking is
allowed again.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 01:40:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:23:24 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
The sell products. They hire workers and pay wages. Same
thing.
You've never been in a club, have you?
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Because you're not a member. So what? Workers at the Elks
Lodge have a right to the same protection as the workers at
Ben's Beer & Pool Hall.
But at Sternn's Iniquity Club, they have the right to decline
membership in the club.
Employees generally aren't members but it doesn't matter one way or the
other. If they are an employee, member or no, they deserve the same
protections.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the
risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health. Therein lies the basic
argument for eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs
would attract smoking workers.
Maybe - maybe not. Either way it's irrelevant. Smokers get
all the tar and nicotine they need from their smokes.
Who are you to say how much we should be allowed to ingest?
You're allowed to ingest as much or as little as you want. As an employee
however, you should not have to work in a dangerous environment (nor even
have that choice - i.e. you MUST wear a hard hat in a construction area, you
don't get a choice.
Post by PRSmith
They don't need 8 to 10 hours of
exposure to other smokers' toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic
effluent as well.
And you don't need to ever go out to an establishment where
smoking is allowed again.
I certainly do not. That is my choice. It has nothing to do, however, with
the 8 to 10 hours an employee must work in a dangerous environment.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 02:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
And you don't need to ever go out to an establishment where
smoking is allowed again.
I certainly do not. That is my choice.
Personal choice, personal responsibility.
Post by PRSmith
It has nothing to do, however, with
the 8 to 10 hours an employee must work in a dangerous environment.
Define "dangerous" in such a way as to not single out your pet peeve.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 04:44:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:40:35 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
And you don't need to ever go out to an establishment where
smoking is allowed again.
I certainly do not. That is my choice.
Personal choice, personal responsibility.
Wow. You're quick.
Post by PRSmith
It has nothing to do, however, with
the 8 to 10 hours an employee must work in a dangerous
environment.
Define "dangerous" in such a way as to not single out your pet
peeve.
Why?
L Sternn
2005-05-05 23:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:40:35 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by L Sternn
And you don't need to ever go out to an establishment where
smoking is allowed again.
I certainly do not. That is my choice.
Personal choice, personal responsibility.
Wow. You're quick.
When will you get it?
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
It has nothing to do, however, with
the 8 to 10 hours an employee must work in a dangerous
environment.
Define "dangerous" in such a way as to not single out your pet peeve.
Why?
QED
Cirque
2005-05-05 02:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars
will DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
The sell products. They hire workers and pay wages. Same thing.
Yes and no, they're not open to the "general public".
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Because you're not a member. So what? Workers at the Elks Lodge have a
right to the same protection as the workers at Ben's Beer & Pool Hall.
If they want to make it smoking allowed it doesn't bother me.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health. Therein lies the basic
argument for eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs
would attract smoking workers.
Maybe - maybe not. Either way it's irrelevant. Smokers get all the tar and
nicotine they need from their smokes. They don't need 8 to 10 hours of
exposure to other smokers' toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic effluent as
well.
If they want a club, more tar to 'em!
PRSmith
2005-05-05 04:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
If they force smokers outside, business at those bars
will DEFINITELY be hurt.
You're not getting it are you?
Keep yer pollution out of MY air!
Nobody is forcing you into those bars.
Why should 75% of us who DO NOT smoke be excluded from a
place of public business if we prefer clean air?
Post by L Sternn
If you don't like something, stay out.
If you want a private membership smokers club - start
one. Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish
addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the
"private club" exclusion to get around the law.
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
It's not a public place of commerce.
The sell products. They hire workers and pay wages. Same
thing.
Yes and no, they're not open to the "general public".
They hire workers and pay wages. Same thing. The have to toe the line on
health and safety standards, rules, regulations, etc. just like any other
business.
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Just like I can't get in to say...the Elks Lodge.
Because you're not a member. So what? Workers at the Elks
Lodge have a right to the same protection as the workers at
Ben's Beer & Pool Hall.
If they want to make it smoking allowed it doesn't bother me.
True but what has that to do with the price of tea in China?
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the
risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health. Therein lies the basic
argument for eliminating environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace.
Not disagreeing in principle, but it seem likely smoke clubs
would attract smoking workers.
Maybe - maybe not. Either way it's irrelevant. Smokers get
all the tar and nicotine they need from their smokes. They
don't need 8 to 10 hours of exposure to other smokers' toxic,
mutagenic and carcinogenic effluent as well.
If they want a club, more tar to 'em!
Agreed. If, OTOH, they hire workers, then they'll fall under the ETS bans
just like everybody else.
L Sternn
2005-05-04 03:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks
going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose between a job and
their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to perform the
necessary duties?
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-04 03:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
So Sam's Club, Costco, etc shouldn't have to comply with
any of the Health, Safety and Welfare laws, codes, ordinances,
statutes that other commercial enterprises must comply with,
simply because they "have memberships"?
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose between a
job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to perform the
necessary duties?
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 00:26:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:11:22 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Brilliant observation. Clubs also have employees.
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to
perform the necessary duties?
They could and that would put them beyond the reach of the laws. How much
of YOUR time are you willing to volunteer in a smoky bar or restaurant?
Good luck maintaining adequate staffing.
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 01:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:11:22 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Brilliant observation. Clubs also have employees.
Not necessarily.
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to
perform the necessary duties?
They could and that would put them beyond the reach of the laws. How much
of YOUR time are you willing to volunteer in a smoky bar or restaurant?
Gee - one where I hung out and played pool and drank?

How much work is there to do?

Restock the bar, vacuum or mop the floor, clean the bathroom, and
perform general maintenance on the building.

Considering that such chores would be split among all members, and
discounts on dues could be used as incentive for people to volunteer,
I don't see this taking much effort at all.

How much of YOUR time do you spend taking care of the place you live?
Post by PRSmith
Good luck maintaining adequate staffing.
That won't be a problem at all. It's a club, we don't need someone
standing behind the bar the whole time just waiting for drink orders.

Have you ever been to a party?

If so, did you notice the host(s) enjoying the party too?

Did you ever go to one where guests actually pitched in and helped
with cleaning up afterwards?
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating environmental
tobacco smoke in the workplace.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 01:50:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:26:10 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:11:22 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Brilliant observation. Clubs also have employees.
Not necessarily.
Nope, not necessarily. Any decent club (i.e. any club worth belonging to)
will, however. If they don't - no foul. What's the big deal?
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the
risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to
perform the necessary duties?
They could and that would put them beyond the reach of the
laws. How much of YOUR time are you willing to volunteer in
a smoky bar or restaurant?
Gee - one where I hung out and played pool and drank?
How much work is there to do?
Depends on the popularity of the bar and the greediness of the management.
If your 'club' is in your family room and consists of half a dozen friends,
then probably not much.
Restock the bar, vacuum or mop the floor, clean the bathroom,
and perform general maintenance on the building.
Cook the food. Serve the drinks and the food. Tend the bar. Seat the
patrons. Collect the cash. You know, the typical duties performed in any
business that serves alcohol & food. If your 'club' doesn't do all that and
there are no employees, again no foul.
Considering that such chores would be split among all members,
and discounts on dues could be used as incentive for people to
volunteer, I don't see this taking much effort at all.
People don't join clubs to volunteer their time tending bar. It might work
for a week or a month or even a year but the membership will get mighty
tired of working (a second or third or fourth job) when they're supposed to
be relaxing at their club enjoying a cold one or two.
How much of YOUR time do you spend taking care of the place
you live?
Not much. I hire people to do that kind of work (and before you ask, I pay
by check and report taxes).
Post by PRSmith
Good luck maintaining adequate staffing.
That won't be a problem at all. It's a club, we don't need
someone standing behind the bar the whole time just waiting
for drink orders.
Right. Not much of a club but if it works for you, go for it.
Have you ever been to a party?
You bet. I've tended bar at a few also.
If so, did you notice the host(s) enjoying the party too?
Yep. Done it myself many times. Works best when the servers wear French
maid outfits and you know the bartenders well.
Did you ever go to one where guests actually pitched in and
helped with cleaning up afterwards?
Yep, been to those as well. I don't do it every day after work, however.
That's what the hired help is for.
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating
environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 02:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:26:10 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:11:22 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Brilliant observation. Clubs also have employees.
Not necessarily.
Nope, not necessarily. Any decent club (i.e. any club worth belonging to)
As Groucho Marx once said, "I would never join a club that would have
me as a member".

At any rate, whether YOU think a club is worth joining or not isn't
relevant.

FWIW, I seriously doubt you would receive an offer of membership.
Post by PRSmith
will, however. If they don't - no foul. What's the big deal?
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the
risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to
perform the necessary duties?
They could and that would put them beyond the reach of the
laws. How much of YOUR time are you willing to volunteer in
a smoky bar or restaurant?
Gee - one where I hung out and played pool and drank?
How much work is there to do?
Depends on the popularity of the bar and the greediness of the management.
It would be managed by the club, dumbass.
Post by PRSmith
If your 'club' is in your family room and consists of half a dozen friends,
then probably not much.
There ya' go - and as we got more members, we might even buy a
building. But, with more members, the responsiiblities and expenses
would be shared among a larger set of people.
Post by PRSmith
Restock the bar, vacuum or mop the floor, clean the bathroom,
and perform general maintenance on the building.
Cook the food.
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not a
requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might want to bring
food or even organize a cookout.

People do that kind of thing all the time.

In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and people
open up their homes and invite musicians. There might be 20-30 people
who are all invited and pay a small fee to help pay for refreshments.

Nobody is paid a salary, and whether or not smoking is allowed inside
is up to whoever is opening up their home.
Post by PRSmith
Serve the drinks and the food. Tend the bar.
I covered that.
Post by PRSmith
Seat the
patrons.
Club members can find their own seats just fine.
Post by PRSmith
Collect the cash.
Yes, clubs generally do collect dues or other fees.
Post by PRSmith
You know, the typical duties performed in any
business
CLUB, Paul.
Post by PRSmith
that serves alcohol & food.
What's your fixation with food?

I know of another club, which actually spans the globe and a few
people will organize refreshments and drinks and everyone who shows up
will pay to help cover expenses. They meet anywhere they want to, and
some people spend a lot of time and effort doing things which you seem
to think they would have to hire people to do for them.

The club doesn't center around smoking, but smoking is not frowned
upon.
Post by PRSmith
If your 'club' doesn't do all that and
there are no employees, again no foul.
Why would you assume a club would have to do those things?
Post by PRSmith
Considering that such chores would be split among all members,
and discounts on dues could be used as incentive for people to
volunteer, I don't see this taking much effort at all.
People don't join clubs to volunteer their time tending bar.
Of course not, but people who do join clubs devote their time to the
club. Nor would you NEED to have someone sitting around on their ass
just waiting for a drink order.

Why don't you read a post in its entirety before you reply?
Post by PRSmith
It might work
for a week or a month or even a year but the membership will get mighty
tired of working (a second or third or fourth job) when they're supposed to
be relaxing at their club enjoying a cold one or two.
You've never had many friends, have you?
Post by PRSmith
How much of YOUR time do you spend taking care of the place
you live?
Not much. I hire people to do that kind of work (and before you ask, I pay
by check and report taxes).
Post by PRSmith
Good luck maintaining adequate staffing.
That won't be a problem at all. It's a club, we don't need
someone standing behind the bar the whole time just waiting
for drink orders.
Right. Not much of a club but if it works for you, go for it.
Your problem is you seem to equate "club" with "nightclub".

The problem with that is a nightclub caters to lots of people, most of
whom are probably strangers.
Post by PRSmith
Have you ever been to a party?
You bet. I've tended bar at a few also.
Has EVERY party you've ever been to had a bartender?
Post by PRSmith
If so, did you notice the host(s) enjoying the party too?
Yep. Done it myself many times. Works best when the servers wear French
maid outfits and you know the bartenders well.
Whatever floats your boat. You wouldn't discriminate against hiring
men to work as servers, would you? Odd that you'd want them in
French maid outfits, but then again, it's your party, it's your
choice.
Post by PRSmith
Did you ever go to one where guests actually pitched in and
helped with cleaning up afterwards?
Yep, been to those as well. I don't do it every day after work, however.
That's what the hired help is for.
And if you were in a club, you might not go there every day either.
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Therein lies the basic argument for eliminating
environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Cirque
2005-05-05 03:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not a
requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might want to bring
food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and people
open up their homes and invite musicians. There might be 20-30 people
who are all invited and pay a small fee to help pay for refreshments.
Nobody is paid a salary, and whether or not smoking is allowed inside
is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at whatever pace
y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer Bic.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 04:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not
a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There might
be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and whether or not
smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
Cirque
2005-05-05 15:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not
a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There might
be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and whether or not
smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
As long as it is not a place of *public* commerce...
"- Prof Jonez©"
2005-05-05 19:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not
a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There might
be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and whether
or not smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
As long as it is not a place of *public* commerce...
Nope, wrong again asshat.
Cirque
2005-05-05 23:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not
a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There might
be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and whether
or not smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
As long as it is not a place of *public* commerce...
Nope,
Yep.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 23:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is
not a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There
might be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and
whether or not smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
As long as it is not a place of *public* commerce...
. . .and there are no employees.
Cirque
2005-05-05 23:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is
not a requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might
want to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There
might be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments. Nobody is paid a salary, and
whether or not smoking is
allowed inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
I have no argument with this concept, live and let die, at
whatever pace y'all prefer and in whatever company flips yer
Bic.
I couldn't agree more -- so long as there are no employees.
As long as it is not a place of *public* commerce...
. . .and there are no employees.
...we're not talking OSHA here...yet....
PRSmith
2005-05-05 04:52:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:50:09 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:26:10 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
On Wed, 04 May 2005 03:11:22 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
And really it's their choice to form said.
So what's the difference between that and a business?
Clubs have memberships.
Brilliant observation. Clubs also have employees.
Not necessarily.
Nope, not necessarily. Any decent club (i.e. any club worth
belonging to)
As Groucho Marx once said, "I would never join a club that
would have me as a member".
At any rate, whether YOU think a club is worth joining or not
isn't relevant.
FWIW, I seriously doubt you would receive an offer of
membership.
Post by PRSmith
will, however. If they don't - no foul. What's the big deal?
Post by PRSmith
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
Post by PRSmith
Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like
that.
My suspiscion would be that they should be aware of the
risks going in.
And I'm sure they are but no one should have to choose
between a job and their health.
Why couldn't members of the club volunteer their time to
perform the necessary duties?
They could and that would put them beyond the reach of the
laws. How much of YOUR time are you willing to volunteer in
a smoky bar or restaurant?
Gee - one where I hung out and played pool and drank?
How much work is there to do?
Depends on the popularity of the bar and the greediness of
the management.
It would be managed by the club, dumbass.
Post by PRSmith
If your 'club' is in your family room and consists of half a
dozen friends, then probably not much.
There ya' go - and as we got more members, we might even buy a
building. But, with more members, the responsiiblities and
expenses would be shared among a larger set of people.
Then there's no freaking problem. What don't you understand about that? No
employees - no foul.
Post by PRSmith
Restock the bar, vacuum or mop the floor, clean the bathroom,
and perform general maintenance on the building.
Cook the food.
You said "restaurant". I said club, and serving food is not a
requirement for a club, although I'm sure someone might want
to bring food or even organize a cookout.
People do that kind of thing all the time.
Clubs also have restaurants and serve some of the best foods, wines and
liquors in the world. I expect you wouldn't know about clubs like that.
Never mind.
In fact, I know of one "club" that centers on live music and
people open up their homes and invite musicians. There might
be 20-30 people who are all invited and pay a small fee to
help pay for refreshments.
Nobody is paid a salary, and whether or not smoking is allowed
inside is up to whoever is opening up their home.
Post by PRSmith
Serve the drinks and the food. Tend the bar.
I covered that.
As did I -- several times.
Post by PRSmith
Seat the
patrons.
Club members can find their own seats just fine.
Post by PRSmith
Collect the cash.
Yes, clubs generally do collect dues or other fees.
Post by PRSmith
You know, the typical duties performed in any
business
CLUB, Paul.
No matter what you call it, if they hire workers, they will fall under the
ETS bans. If there are no employees -- once again {sigh} no foul.
Post by PRSmith
If your 'club' doesn't do all that and
there are no employees, again no foul.
Why would you assume a club would have to do those things?
It doesn't, you idiot. IF it doesn't, there's no problem. If it does, then
the rules apply.
Post by PRSmith
Considering that such chores would be split among all
members, and discounts on dues could be used as incentive
for people to volunteer, I don't see this taking much effort
at all.
People don't join clubs to volunteer their time tending bar.
Of course not, but people who do join clubs devote their time
to the club. Nor would you NEED to have someone sitting
around on their ass just waiting for a drink order.
You obviously don't belong to any real clubs. This is a waste of time.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 23:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
This is a waste of time.
So you'll quit your whining?

L Sternn
2005-05-04 03:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law. Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days. Bigger
government, fewer freedoms, fewer property rights.
Cirque
2005-05-04 23:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law. Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
L Sternn
2005-05-05 00:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law. Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
he has often said so.
Cirque
2005-05-05 02:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private club" exclusion
to get around the law. Even private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they
should not have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
he has often said so.
Then I guess he is, we have a suspect Rep. down here named Ken Smith -
sounds more like a leftist to me though.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 04:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by L Sternn
Post by Cirque
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:49:50 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the
"private club" exclusion to get around the law. Even
private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they should not
have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
he has often said so.
Then I guess he is, we have a suspect Rep. down here named Ken
Smith - sounds more like a leftist to me though.
Opinion noted.
PRSmith
2005-05-05 00:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:49:50 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law. Even private clubs
must hire wait/bar staff and they should not have to work in
a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
Yes, he did.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-05 01:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:49:50 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law. Even private clubs
must hire wait/bar staff and they should not have to work in
a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
Yes, he did.
Lowlife scumbag swine.
L Sternn
2005-05-05 01:24:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:11:36 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:49:50 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the "private
club" exclusion to get around the law. Even private clubs
must hire wait/bar staff and they should not have to work in
a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
Yes, he did.
Lowlife scumbag swine.
LOL - I love it when aunties attack aunties
PRSmith
2005-05-05 01:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:49:50 GMT, "PRSmith"
Post by PRSmith
Post by Cirque
If you want a private membership smokers club - start one.
Meanwhile, quit ruining peoples health you selfish addict.
Careful, Cirque, smokers are increasingly using the
"private club" exclusion to get around the law. Even
private clubs must hire wait/bar staff and they should not
have to work in a dangerous environment like that.
This is what passes for a "Republican" these days.
Did he say he was Rep?
Yes, he did.
Lowlife scumbag swine.
Opinion noted.
Mother Superior
2005-05-03 03:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today that
would ban smoking across Colorado.
YAYYYYYY!!!!!
Post by Bruce Watson
An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by
Representative Mark Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The
amendment exempts casinos outside eating areas, the smoking
lounge at Denver International Airport, bingo parlors,
hospices and cigar bars.
The bill now moves to the full House for debate.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/1535827.html
Yay!
--
Mother Superior
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-03 14:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today that would
ban smoking across Colorado.
An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by Representative Mark
Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The amendment exempts casinos
outside eating areas, the smoking lounge at Denver International
Airport, bingo parlors, hospices
Hospices?
How fucking ironic.
Post by Bruce Watson
and cigar bars.
The bill now moves to the full House for debate.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/1535827.html
Ken Smith
2005-05-03 18:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Bruce Watson
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today that would
ban smoking across Colorado.
An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by Representative Mark
Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The amendment exempts casinos
outside eating areas, the smoking lounge at Denver International
Airport, bingo parlors, hospices
Hospices?
How fucking ironic.
They're essentially dead already -- might as well let them have LSD,
too. Let them die in dignity ... and enjoy all the benefits of modern
chemistry. Wasn't it Aldous Huxley that went that way?
PRSmith
2005-05-04 01:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Bruce Watson
State lawmakers restored tough provisions to a bill today
that would ban smoking across Colorado.
An amendment to broaden the bill was introduced by
Representative Mark Larson, a Republican from Cortez. The
amendment exempts casinos outside eating areas, the smoking
lounge at Denver International Airport, bingo parlors,
hospices
Hospices?
How fucking ironic.
They're essentially dead already -- might as well let them
have LSD, too. Let them die in dignity ... and enjoy all the
benefits of modern chemistry. Wasn't it Aldous Huxley that
went that way?
If it weren't for the hospice workers who spend 8 to 10 hours a day in that
environment, I'd agree.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...