| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Huey
- FB Fan -
28 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2003 : 12:25:19
|
| anyone know the name and location of this place? thanks. |
|
|
ProverbialCereal
- FB TabMaster -
USA
2953 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 18:08:38
|
It is somewhere in the Eastern part of the USA. This was discussed a while ago. Maybe it's in Delaware or something. Or Connecticut. Maybe Vermont.
 "Join the Cult of Mr. Potato Head / And You'll Have Buckets of Fun" |
 |
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
|
|
Noah Nelson
- FB Fan -
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2003 : 10:02:24
|
Is Erol an older brother of Frank's?
Noah |
|
|
|
mark t
- FB Fan -
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2003 : 18:45:05
|
no
feel pain , get gain |
|
|
|
guy_nolan
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2003 : 12:33:13
|
I found this on the barnstable patriot site. If you follow the link there's a tiny little picture too.
http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/04-13-00-news/smoke.html
Here's the aritcle...
Patrons still smoking at the Quarterdeck
Bar's owner says it's not his job to enforce new smoking regulations
By David Pratt
At the entrance to the Quarterdeck Lounge in Hyannis, there's a "no smoking" sign outside the door. Go through that door and directly to your left stretches a bar with ashtrays strategically placed at every other stool, each accompanied by a "no smoking" sign.
And yes, inside the ashtrays are extinguished cigarette butts, and the practically all of the people sitting on the bar stools are puffing away.
"People are smoking in my bar still," said Errol Thompson, owner of the Quarterdeck. Still smoking, even though Thompson said he's following the town's new smoking ban to the letter.
"It's really not up to me to police it," he said. "I'm going to let the customers decide whether they're willing to incur the wrath of the board of health."
He added that his isn't the only establishment where people continue to smoke, despite the ban.
The week the ban went into effect, Thompson, along with The Windjammer's Peter Feeney, retained a lawyer to secure an injunction. First Barnstable District Court Judge Gary Nickerson decided against the bar owners' argument that any board of health decision had to be approved by the town council to be valid.
While the town council has the authority to overturn a board of health decision, Town Attorney Robert Smith said, that board can implement regulations independent of council approval.
But Thompson said Nickerson did agree with the argument that it is not the business owners' responsibility to enforce the ban.
"I'm not going to be an agent of the board of health," Thompson insisted.
He said he's obeying the ban. He does not allow his employees to smoke and has instructed them to tell patrons that smoking is no longer allowed and could result in a fine. The bar has easy to see "no smoking" signs all over the place...but then there's the ashtrays and the people smoking beside them.
Thompson said the ashtrays are purely pragmatic, available so people who light up unknowingly will have a place to put out their cigarettes.
But then he began talking about civil disobedience and personal freedom, saying that if his customers choose to ignore the smoking ban, that's between them and the board of health. Thompson stresses that he is not defying the smoking ban, but neither is he going out of his way to ensure it is followed.
"I'm going to be as obstinate as I can," he said. "I'm certainly making a statement, but by no means am I encouraging smoking or telling people this is a smoking bar."
The board of health won't need Thompson to enforce the smoking ban even if its request for grant money to hire tobacco control officers is turned down.
The county's tobacco control program is already in the process of hiring two people, whose primary responsibility will be to make sure establishments and the people in them are obeying the various towns' smoking regulations. Salaries will be paid from money the state received as part of the settlement with tobacco companies.
Stetson Hall, director of the county's health and environment department, said people with law enforcement backgrounds are being sought for the positions. Exactly how they will carry out their duties in each town will be determined by that town's board of health, he said.
The county's tobacco control program deals mainly with education and with sting operations that use minors to illegally buy tobacco products from local stores.
Hall added that there is state money available to hire school tobacco monitors, who would sniff out smokers at the Cape's high schools and provide anti-tobacco education as well. Nine schools on the Cape, including Barnstable High School have expressed an interest in having such a monitor.
Errol Thompson finds the idea of "smoking policemen...absurd." He noted that one of the first things the Nazi party did in Germany was ban smoking.
"If you look at history and if you look at organizations that do this type of thing, you see it's all about control," he said. "This is truly about more than just smoking."
Thompson adds that the board of health decision was arbitrary, based on personal opinion and "junk science." The board of health doesn't have any hard numbers proving second-hand smoke is actually a public health threat because no such proof exists, he said, pointing out that the federal Environmental Protection Agency's study on second-hand smoke has already been "shot down in court."
David Wood, owner of the town's only allowed smoking bar, Puff the Magic, agrees. At last Thursday's town council meeting he spoke against the ban, characterizing the board of health as a "volunteer, one-third senile board being manipulated by special interest groups fueled by the tobacco tax."
Although his business, where smoking is still allowed, is likely to benefit more than any other, Wood told the council he is "bitter" about the smoking ban, saying it infringed on peoples' rights and promoted separation, intolerance and hatred.
"No positive effects should ever outweigh the evils of governmental intrusion," he warned.
Thompson said civil disobedience is the norm when it comes to smoking bans. He said he just returned from Cambridge and that people continue to smoke in bars and restaurants despite the ban there. He said the same thing is going on in California, which has a state-wide ban, as well as many other places where smoking regulations are not being enforced.
"People realize the absurdity of these types of regulations," said Thompson. "Breaking the law is not always the wrong thing."
Give 1000 monkey's 1000 typewriters and you're gonna be reading bullshit for the rest of your life. |
|
|
|
Old Neptuna
- FB Fan -
Ireland
200 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2003 : 08:54:09
|
They're starting that smoking ban here in January - I think there will be civil unrest and, or, people going to bars wearing dozens of nicotine patches.
 "I have seen the neighbours dog, and I was not afraid..." |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 15:25:12
|
| Dunno if people smoke differently in other countries, but it's gone over very well here in Victoria, BC. Been non-smoking for several years..it's great. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 22:21:21
|
<rant removed>
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
noexx
= Cult of Ray =
361 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 00:30:25
|
| non-smoking is ok here in california...though some bars are "cool" and let people smoke still...... |
|
|
|
benwin
- FB Fan -
21 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 10:03:06
|
Errol's right... banning smoking is fascist...
benwin |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 10:34:34
|
| Is the ban on public urination facist? |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:06:58
|
| Smoking on public streets threatens no nonsmokers. Smoking in public establishments "threatens" only those who enter voluntarily. An absolute ban on either constitutes fascism in that a fanatical portion of the population imposes unwarranted restrictions on the otherwise free behavior of others. The fascist demands that others behave as though they adopt the belief structure of the fascist. All the smoker wants is to be left alone. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:40:39
|
| We've been down this path before. To me the world is a much better place since smoking bans having gone in place. Airplanes, restaurants, movie theaters, coffeehouses are much nicer now for me. Is it fascist to ban smoking? I don't think so, but I don't really care. It's better for me and I don't worry about the rights of people that imposed their bad habits on other people. Let's also ban loud cell phone conversations, and SUVs that clog up parking lots. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:54:43
|
| The world would also be a better place if half its human population were killed. Or, if you prefer, justice has no scale. |
|
|
|
DruggedBunny
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:55:01
|
I don't smoke, but a bar just isn't a bar without smoke.
|
|
|
|
marcusb
= Cult of Ray =
USA
308 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:57:17
|
| It should be up to each place of business to place a ban on smoking.. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 12:01:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by marcusb
It should be up to each place of business to place a ban on smoking..
Ah, but that would involve freedom, and the goosestepping left just can't abide that. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 12:22:29
|
Next time i go to the US, i'm gonna bring along a nice long tube. I'll attach one end to the exhaust of my car, and bring the other end into the restaurants i go into.
If anyone complains, i'll tell them they chose to enter the restaurant, and go somewhere else.
Or maybe i'll spray Lysol continuously in a smoking establishment. They can spray their chemicals, why not my own?
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 12:29:28
|
| And if the proprietor permits your car exhaust or your Lysol, I support your right to so express. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 12:43:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by marcusb
It should be up to each place of business to place a ban on smoking..
Ah, but that would involve freedom, and the goosestepping left just can't abide that.
Tired old jargon. Goosestepping, fascist, pinko liberals! They hate freedom! Which side is pushing the Patroit Act I and II?
The right wing deregulation sure has gone well. Watch our phone and utility bills grow higher and higher while the infrastructure falls to pieces. "Don't worry the market will work it all out." Hello Enron. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 12:47:58
|
They're going to ban smoking in Bingo halls here pretty soon.
I guess they might as well just shutem down then. |
|
|
|
a man with no little toe
- FB Fan -
Ireland
14 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2003 : 06:12:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by DruggedBunny
I don't smoke, but a bar just isn't a bar without smoke.
What are you on???? |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2003 : 08:13:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by a man with no little toe
quote:
Originally posted by DruggedBunny
I don't smoke, but a bar just isn't a bar without smoke.
What are you on????
Sounds like he is on "life". You people who want everybody else to be like yourselves ought to try it. |
|
|
|
mun chien andalusia
= Quote Accumulator =
Italy
2139 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2003 : 11:07:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by a man with no little toe
quote:
Originally posted by DruggedBunny
I don't smoke, but a bar just isn't a bar without smoke.
What are you on????
Sounds like he is on "life". You people who want everybody else to be like yourselves ought to try it.
well said.
frank's brother rules.disobedience is the only way to resist stupidity.they are trying these stupid anti smoke rules in europe too and it's absolutely stupid and fascist.i agree to ban smoke from public spaces that you cannot evit to visit such us hospitals,planes,trains and whatever but bars and pubs are not in this category.you can choose NOT to go to a bar if smoke disturbs you.and if it's all about health they should ban alcoholic drinks too 'cause they damage your health too.i respect non smokers by non smoking in offices,airports,cars or whatever and i want my right to smoke respected in a pub where no one has to enter if he doesn't want to.in my opinion the decision should be taken by the owner,to make a non smoking or smoking bar so one can decide either to enter or not.
i'm sick and tired of these health-nazists who want to force people into their mentality.live and let live(or die if one decides to do so)that's how it's gotta be.
P.S did you health nuts out there know that jogging kills thousands of people,and causes serious damage at even more?why don't they ban jogging?
 presented in mind control\where available
www.munchienandalusia.too.it |
Edited by - mun chien andalusia on 10/29/2003 11:07:59 |
|
|
|
a man with no little toe
- FB Fan -
Ireland
14 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 06:13:23
|
Please, I like to spend as much time as the next person in a pub, but I don't see why that means I should have to come home stinking of smoke. Don't get me wrong, feel free to smoke, that doesn't bother me....I was merely observing that to say a bar just isn't a bar without smoke is like saying a bar isn't a bar without a jukebox full of the latest "chart hits".
Its still a bar.
The forthcoming smoking ban in Ireland is not a smoking ban in bars, its a ban on smoking in workplaces.
Fascist? Tsch.
Jogging kills thousands? No doubt. So does drink driving - do you object to governments controlling that? Probably.
Rock on rebels!!!! |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 06:24:40
|
They're thinking of starting a public smoking ban in London now. Anyone who lives here will probably attest to the fact that there definitely will be civil unrest, violence and not a little bloodshed. I usually support Red Ken, and I don't even smoke myself, but I can't see it ever working. Then again, the congestion charge has worked out fine...
"I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid"
|
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 07:16:16
|
I hadn't heard about these plans for London...is it Livingston's idea? Like you Cheeseman i normally support Ken but this does doesn't please me at all.
|
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 07:29:09
|
Yeah, its still potential at the moment, but apparently there's a reasonably high chance of it going through. I'd have to agree with those boarders saying that the smoke adds to the atmosphere of the pub, so this bill would suck.
"I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid"
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 11:13:53
|
Carcinogens floating through in air really brighten up a bar. Give it that homey feeling.
Why do people object to the government (elected by the people) banning smoking in bars, but think it is okay if the bar owner bans smoking? I can see legitmate arguments for that view, but I think largely reflects an anti-government viewpoint. Doesn't it boil down to the freedoms of 4 groups?
1) the bar owner - to allow what they want in their establishment
2) the smokers - to smoke where and when they want
3) the non-smokers - to enter any establishment and not have to encounter smoking
4) employees - to work at any establishment and not worry about the negative effects of second hand smoke
I don't think either side (ban smoking in bars vs leave it up to the owner) can claim to be strictly for freedom, because either position limits the freedoms of 2 out of the 4 groups. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 11:24:40
|
| Seems maybe this is two arguments going on here. pluralism or capitalism > human rights or personal freedom |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 13:36:25
|
Now I REALLY have to go to that bar. I love Errol's take on the whole thing.
I have never been a smoker, but, the business owner owns his business the same way any of us own a home. Let him make a choice. Non-smokers who dislike 2nd hand smoke will be able to tell the moment they walk in the bar it is a smoking establishment. As long as they are free to leave, why in the hell should they tell the bar owner how to run his business?
This is about government elites trying to tell the poor ignorant masses what is good for them. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 13:39:12
|
Dallas, what would be your take on equal opportunity employment standards?
Its a similar issue. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 13:44:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Carcinogens floating through in air really brighten up a bar. Give it that homey feeling.
Why do people object to the government (elected by the people) banning smoking in bars, but think it is okay if the bar owner bans smoking? I can see legitmate arguments for that view, but I think largely reflects an anti-government viewpoint. Doesn't it boil down to the freedoms of 4 groups?
1) the bar owner - to allow what they want in their establishment
2) the smokers - to smoke where and when they want
3) the non-smokers - to enter any establishment and not have to encounter smoking
4) employees - to work at any establishment and not worry about the negative effects of second hand smoke
I don't think either side (ban smoking in bars vs leave it up to the owner) can claim to be strictly for freedom, because either position limits the freedoms of 2 out of the 4 groups.
An elected government has no business telling private business people what behavior they may permit of consenting adults. To my mind such laws should be declared unconstitutional as forms of governmental theft. An absence of such laws in no way precludes business people or their clientele from exercising freedom to provide or frequent the environments of their preference, to include the freedom of an owner to proscribe activities on his privately owned premises. Both positions derive from property rights.
Regarding the four freedoms: 1) Certainly bar owners should retain such freedom, and even regain some similar freedoms that they have already surrendered due to intrusive laws. 2) The smokers don't insist upon freedom to smoke "where and when they want". All they ask is that no laws be passed that preclude a diversity of options which may include environments where they may drink, eat, recreate, and smoke. 3) Why should non-smokers be able to insist upon a freedom to "enter ANY establishment and not have to encounter smoking"? Why is it not enough, given the alleged demand for smoke-free drinking environments, that some proprietors will provide such environments? In a free society that is the way things would develop. How does that infringe upon the freedom of non-smokers? 4) Employees already possess the freedom to NOT work at any establishment. Why should the employee be allowed to dictate to the owner the nature of the environment when the employee retains complete freedom to work elsewhere? The owner should have the freedom to provide the opportunity to work on his own terms in his privately owned establishment.
If freedom actually reigned all parties could be satisfied. The market would meet diverse demands for a range of environments for owners, employees, and clientele. To my mind this is so obvious that I can only attribute antismoking laws to morally tyrannical arrogance, as is the case of most that arises through the Nanny State. I do not use such terms as tyrannical, fascist, and arrogance simply to be offensive but instead because I truly believe they accurately describe the situation. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 14:15:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
2) The smokers don't insist upon freedom to smoke "where and when they want". All they ask is that no laws be passed that preclude a diversity of options which may include environments where they may drink, eat, recreate, and smoke.
And if the market lead to no or very few restaurants that allowed for smoking, would smokers not lobby for government "intrusion" to allow their habit in those establishments?
Aside: I once lived up in Alaskan, which is filled with Libertarians. We once had a large wildfire that destroyed many homes and the evil Federal government arrived to give relief checks. Only problem was the Libertarians wanted the checks but they didn't want to sign anything because then the government would know where and who they are. They wanted one of the benefits of a government, but didn't want any of the costs. My point is (and it's a stretched one) people want the government out of the way, except when it is to their benefit.
quote:
4) Employees already possess the freedom to NOT work at any establishment. Why should the employee be allowed to dictate to the owner the nature of the environment when the employee retains complete freedom to work elsewhere? The owner should have the freedom to provide the opportunity to work on his own terms in his privately owned establishment.
So an employee who has breathing problems (or enjoys a lack of lung cancer) is provided with a smaller set of employment opportunities. Alternatively, employers can continue to allow smoking and employees can sue them if they develop health problems. To my eyes it is no different than any other unsafe working condition. In that case, civil lawsuits would lead to smokefree restaurants rather than government regulations. I don't know if that is any more diserable to Libertarians. |
|
|
|
mun chien andalusia
= Quote Accumulator =
Italy
2139 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2003 : 15:47:44
|
Originally posted by darwin
My point is (and it's a stretched one) people want the government out of the way, except when it is to their benefit.
i have to agree with that.
presented in mind control\where available
www.munchienandalusia.too.it |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
"I joined the Cult of Clops / If I were you, I'd sleep with one eye open."