Hoopeston bar first to get smoking fine

maybe that health inspector needs to walk in there on a fri or sat night! poor guy would prob get cancer! the snooty foo foo's think they can get away with everything! n WHY argue over payin a $100 fine??? they know they allow smoking in there! idiots!

I can't believe the line about 2 people smoking and inability to detect it at more than 2 feet away. The suction needed to pull that off would have the customers experimenting with weightlessness.

When 10% of the customers are smoking, there's no way it isn't noticeable unless the place is absolutely huge and the employees never leave the bar at the far end from the smokers.

A single cigarette OUTDOORS puts out particulates that remain significantly above background levels for over 20 feet, as measured in a study on a college campus a few years back.

I think it's funny the idiot owner tried to fight it. I hope they catch them again and again.

Brett wrote:

I think it's funny the idiot owner tried to fight it. I hope they catch them again and again.

I would much prefer it if the owners shaped up and became role models. Better for everyone. No need for vindictiveness.

I totally agree!

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
I would much prefer it if the owners shaped up and became role models. Better for everyone. No need for vindictiveness.

Time will tell if they learned anything. I for onem hope they did.

Well, do not think they learned anything. Drove by there the other night and they had put a sign in the window saying "First in the State".

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.

This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.

The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.

A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.

http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s...

Mazed wrote:

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.
This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.
The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.
A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.
http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s...

History knows your kind....

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis

cant believe they posted a sign..... idiots!

MissTheMainStInn wrote:

cant believe they posted a sign..... idiots!

Hey, it's a bar, it's the Midwest--what's not to believe?

Think the sign was hilarious. The bars fun too

I hope the owners of the bar are aware of this decision by the Appeals Court in Ohio, Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch
Bar owners who try to keep their customers from smoking can't be penalized under the state's anti-smoking law just because a patron disobeys, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
This precedent is helpful for bar owners in every state.

Mazed wrote:

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.
This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.
The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.
A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.
http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s...

Dr. Mengele is trolling again with this repetitive post.

Sheri wrote:

I hope the owners of the bar are aware of this decision by the Appeals Court in Ohio, Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch
Bar owners who try to keep their customers from smoking can't be penalized under the state's anti-smoking law just because a patron disobeys, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
This precedent is helpful for bar owners in every state.

A peculiarity of the Ohio law is sure to be useful in Illinois, yup, yup yup.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Dr. Mengele is trolling again with this repetitive post.

Oh, please. Given the history of you and others in this forum, content can't really be considered "repetitive" during the first couple dozen postings.

Once again, for those with selective comprehension, IF PROVEN EFFECTIVE AND SAFE, the vaccination approach could prove useful in reducing recidivism, saving everyone the trouble of continual enforcement and incarceration.

The preliminary information sounds much more efficient and effective than methadone clinics for heroin addicts.

Oh yes let's give them a shot those horrible smokers. Mazed you should change your name to confused. I don't think we should vaccinate people for NON CRIMINAL acts lmao. Rather if I don't like something I avoid it. A bar is a place that no one has to go if they don't like it. Likewise a grocery story is a place people must go. Therefore don't smoke while selecting the donuts that clog your arterys. But don't go have a beer at the local pub if you don't like smoke. GET IT

Mazed wrote:

Once again, for those with selective comprehension, IF PROVEN EFFECTIVE AND SAFE, the vaccination approach could prove useful in reducing recidivism, saving everyone the trouble of continual enforcement and incarceration.
The preliminary information sounds much more efficient and effective than methadone clinics for heroin addicts.

You are one frightening nutcase.

On another thread you claimed the right to kill smokers who blew smoke at you.

Now you wish to force them to get a shot to "fix" them.

When they come up with a shot for narcissism...please be the first in line to give it a try.

The idiot owners appealed so they could go to the legal proceeding and so to speak face their accusers from what I hear and that's what they got. They got to see the email from a certain bar owner and the other 2 people who complained. If that's true they don't sound like idiots to me LOL. Sounds like they're keeping their enemy closer!

Brett wrote:

I think it's funny the idiot owner tried to fight it. I hope they catch them again and again.