Fargo Smoking Ban

[Sioux-cia]

[quote name='DaveK' date='Jun 26 2008, 12:19 PM' post='344373'

Having said all of that, if that's the reason why you dislike me... then you're only making yourself out to be a petty and spiteful b!tch. Yeah, I said it. I treat people the way they treat me. You'll never ever see me being mean to somebody who doesn't first do or say something to spite me. I'm sorry that you can't take it as well as you can dish it out.

[Slamdance]

Yes and no. She can still use the phone and drive but there is a caveat applied, she needs hands free technology to do it.

It's still legal to drink and smoke. The caveat is it cannot be in a public establishment.

I see the point about the bar owner. BUT, the bar is PUBLIC. I would not oppose smoking in PRIVATE drinking establishments.

The "hands-free" caveat doesn't prevent her from doing anything.

The "smoke-free" caveat prevents me as a bar owner from legally allowing smoking or as a smoker to legally smoke. That is the infringement on personal freedoms.

How do you qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment?

BTW, can't you two (DaveK and Sioux-cia) play nice or just effin' ignore each other?

[LeftyZL]

It's nice to know five of the nine Supremes are still upholding the 2nd Ammendment.

And, starting July 1, it will be illegal to use your cel-phone while driving without a hands-free device in the State of Kalifornia. (Yes, I voted for this one. I'm so over soccer moms driving their oversize SUV's, juggling a phone and a Starbucks triple pump vanilla frappachino and shrieking at their spoiled brats texting their spoiled brat friends trying to turn me into a red smear.)

Also, it is illegal in California to smoke in your vehicle if a child is present. You can be pulled over and fined.

The whole 2nd ammendment case is also rediculous.

Lastly and Completely off topic as well:

Just when you thought people couldn't get offended by license plates on vehicles, you were wrong:License Plate Story

I can't wait to see what other letter combinations people can come up with to be offended by. More wasted state money. Eventually we will be down to "Wingdings" font from Microsoft Word to make license plates.

Back to your regularly scheduled tobacco debate

[Slamdance]

Also, it is illegal in California to smoke in your vehicle if a child is present. You can be pulled over and fined.

The whole 2nd ammendment case is also rediculous.

Lastly and Completely off topic as well:

Just when you thought people couldn't get offended by license plates on vehicles, you were wrong:License Plate Story

I can't wait to see what other letter combinations people can come up with to be offended by. More wasted state money. Eventually we will be down to "Wingdings" font from Microsoft Word to make license plates.

Back to your regularly scheduled tobacco debate

I'd love to tell you what I got away with on my plate, but some bluenose would probably dime me off to CA DMV.

[Sioux-cia]

The "hands-free" caveat doesn't prevent her from doing anything.

The "smoke-free" caveat prevents me as a bar owner from legally allowing smoking or as a smoker to legally smoke. That is the infringement on personal freedoms.

How do you qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment?

It certainly does. She is not allowed to use her cell phone in her PRIVATE vehicle without first paying a hundred bucks to comply with the law.

A bar owner can provide for an outdoor environment on his property for his smoking clients thereby complying with the law.

I would qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment as an establishment open to members only. The general public cannot enter the premises or participate in activities on the premises with being invited by they owner of said establishment. I believe that private clubs are regulated differently in most states but don't know if ND has such regulations in place.

[Slamdance]

It certainly does. She is not allowed to use her cell phone in her PRIVATE vehicle without first paying a hundred bucks to comply with the law.

A bar owner can provide for an outdoor environment on his property for his smoking clients thereby complying with the law.

I would qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment as an establishment open to members only. The general public cannot enter the premises or participate in activities on the premises with being invited by they owner of said establishment. I believe that private clubs are regulated differently in most states but don't know if ND has such regulations in place.

Paying a hundred bucks for what? A hands-free device? I got mine as part of the phone package and it wasn't a hundred extra.

An OUTDOOR environment is not INSIDE, which was previously legal. Not to mention environmental issues.

Where do we find these private smoking/drinking clubs that aren't regulated by ABC laws? Good luck with that.

[Sioux-cia]

Paying a hundred bucks for what? A hands-free device? I got mine as part of the phone package and it wasn't a hundred extra.

An OUTDOOR environment is not INSIDE, which was previously legal. Not to mention environmental issues.

Where do we find these private smoking/drinking clubs that aren't regulated by ABC laws? Good luck with that.

Ok, you don't have to pay extra for a hands free device. The point is you are not allowed to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle in a manner you choose. You are regulated by law to use a hands free device. Your personal rights are being infringed upon. Before this law was passed, it was previously legal to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle without a hands free device.

I don't understand where you're going with 'Not to mention environmental issues.' There are less environmental issues smoking outside versus smoking indoors.

It was a suggestion. I don't know of any private smoking clubs in ND, because I don't care to go to one, but perhaps someone will open one. If a bar owner is going to lose business because smoking is no longer allowed indoors, it would stand to reason (that reasoning) that same bar owner will make more money by changing his public establishment to a private smoking bar. I will keep a lookout for news of bars switching to private smoking clubs.

[Slamdance]

Ok, you don't have to pay extra for a hands free device. The point is you are not allowed to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle in a manner you choose. You are regulated by law to use a hands free device. Your personal rights are being infringed upon. Before this law was passed, it was previously legal to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle without a hands free device.

I don't understand where you're going with 'Not to mention environmental issues.' There are less environmental issues smoking outside versus smoking indoors.

It was a suggestion. I don't know of any private smoking clubs in ND, because I don't care to go to one, but perhaps someone will open one. If a bar owner is going to lose business because smoking is no longer allowed indoors, it would stand to reason (that reasoning) that same bar owner will make more money by changing his public establishment to a private smoking bar. I will keep a lookout for news of bars switching to private smoking clubs.

However, you are still able to use your phone in your private vehicle. If you want to say that being forced to use a "hands-free" device is an infringement, so be it.

Environmental issues: outside in ND in winter is cold, inside, where smoking was previously legal, not so much.

I venture to guess that no bar owner in Fargo will change from a public "non-smoking" venue to a private club. I do not know how difficult it is to obtain a liquor license in Fargo, but here it is akin to translating Sanskrit. Going from public to private will more than likely cause the loss of said license.

Bottom line, the law passed in Fargo. I disagree with it on the principles I have already stated.

C'est la guerre.

And it is a "war".

"It's a war on personal freedom. Never forget that." -- Bill Hicks

[Cratter]

Nope, she still gets to use the phone while driving.

IF they OUTLAWED phone use while driving, THAT would be infringing on her personal freedom.

See the difference?

No, not at all.

You're not against driving and talking. Check.

So technically what you are really against is holding anything while talking.

Be it a phone to ear while talking, candybar to mouth while talking, soda pop to mouth while talking.

You're against holding something to your ear while talking. It is still a distraction to have to dial that hands free (because you are no longer watching the road) and takes concentration to have that convo and that other hand can now legally put their makeup on while commuting to work in the morning.....does that make you any safer?

Another Great Law!

[Cratter]

I see the point about the bar owner. BUT, the bar is PUBLIC. I would not oppose smoking in PRIVATE drinking establishments.

You're starting to get it.

The truth is a Bar is not public. It is indeed a Private Business that is why it has the right to serve only people it wants it has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Thanks to your new definition you are no longer against smoking in drinking establishments, just certain types. Gotcha ya ha

Here's the slippery slope that many have mentioned that has started. You are okay with a private business that allows smoking. You say something with "members". The owners say members simply pay a cover charge every time they enter as many bars already do. This is how many businesses "get around laws." And the reason those laws shouldn't exist.

[Sioux-cia]

Nope. Bar owners cannot refuse service to anyone for any reason. Gay>no, black (or any race you don't like)>no, fat>no, stupid>no, ugly>no. Drunk>yes (should be done more often) because of potential liablity, unruly>yes because it's against the law, underaged>yes because it's against the law.

My opinion of where you can and cannot smoke has not changed. The ban is for smoking in public bars, I agree. You can smoke outside, in a private setting, in your friend's home if they don't mind, go for it. But you can no longer smoke in a public bar.

[Slamdance]

No, not at all.

You're not against driving and talking. Check.

So technically what you are really against is holding anything while talking.

Be it a phone to ear while talking, candybar to mouth while talking, soda pop to mouth while talking.

You're against holding something to your ear while talking. It is still a distraction to have to dial that hands free (because you are no longer watching the road) and takes concentration to have that convo and that other hand can now legally put their makeup on while commuting to work in the morning.....does that make you any safer?

Another Great Law!

Actually what I'm against are idiot drivers being distracted by anything while I'm on the road. But hey, I'll take what I can get.

As Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) said in "Tombstone" - "My hypocrisy only goes so far..."

[Cratter]

Nope. Bar owners cannot refuse service to anyone for any reason. Gay>no, black (or any race you don't like)>no, fat>no, stupid>no, ugly>no. Drunk>yes (should be done more often) because of potential liablity, unruly>yes because it's against the law, underaged>yes because it's against the law.

Yes and no. I should have been more clear. It is against the law to discriminate mainly against certain groups/classes of people: race, color, religion or national original under the Federal Civil Rights Act and disabilities via Americans with Disabilities Act....after that its for the courts to decide.

They then can refuse the right to serve people. Just have to come up with a "valid reason." A court held that it had the right to refuse service to a "motorcycle gang" because it was preventing fights against rival club members. Another case was a person with "poor hygiene."

As in this case, it gets even more complicated when talking about a "nightclub" (or bar) because it caters to a specific clientele based on age/social status - hence the "bouncers" outside the clubs deciding who gets to go into the club.

I almost didn't get into a downtown Minneapolis club once because of "something with myshoes." But was able to enter because of the people I was with.

[Sioux-cia]

I almost didn't get into a downtown Minneapolis club once because of "something with myshoes."

Hmmm, maybe you should wear Jimmy Choo (shoes).