I don't disagree on truly private clubs.

Post #244,705 by admin 2/15/06 3:32:41 PM Reply	I don't disagree on truly private clubs. But you see the loophole, don't you? "Sir, before you enter the Main Street Pub you have to complete this short 'Member Application Form'... yes, just sign, the rest is filled out for you." Banning smoking in cars is just plain stupidity. Although I'm torn on smoking with kids in cars, because they can't just get another ride or whatever. It's also more complicated than a simple vote swing. The differential is in part based on who cares about the health effects and who does not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,713 by drewk 2/15/06 4:00:21 PM Reply	Works for after-hours clubs "Sir, before you enter the Main Street Pub you have to complete this short 'Member Application Form'... yes, just sign, the rest is filled out for you." There was an after-hours club in Indianapolis back in the mid 90s. It was technically a private club, that was the way to stay open past 2. Membership cost $1. They gave you a card for your wallet that you had to sign. You showed it with your ID. How is it a loophole to take affitmative measures to ensure everyone there wanted to be there? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,750 by admin 2/15/06 5:06:15 PM Reply	It's a loophole if... ... the law was intended to make sure that establishments with a reasonable expectation of public use can reclassify themselves without substantially changing the nature of their business. A walk-in is a walk-in, not a member. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,733 by bepatient 2/15/06 4:35:58 PM Reply	That loophole can be closed by simple requirements and registration. And you could even fix the number of private clubs to make sure that some places would have to stay non-smoking. As I said, smokers are now a minority and should expect to be treated as such. There are good science studies that show the 2nd hand effect is overstated...but that doesn't change the fact that there are folks like you who cannot be around the stuff and should, by all measure, have establishments to frequent that don't allow smoking. Imric's point is also valid, it should NOT require a complete ban by legal means. It can and should be accomplished within the framework we have already established. Perhaps a reduction in license fees and taxes for those places that go smoke free and a hike in those same fees for those places that don't. It would create the niche areas for each without such a broad stroke. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #244,761 by admin 2/15/06 5:20:34 PM Reply	I don't disagree with any of that. Skip didn't say squat about alternatives until quite a ways into the conversation. He spent all of his time disagreeing with the premise that it was necessary to do anything at all in the first place. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Welcome to IWETHEY!