Hoopeston bar first to get smoking fine

Hoopeston bar first to get smoking fine

There are 48 comments on the The Commercial-News, Danville, IL story from Oct 13, 2009, titled Hoopeston bar first to get smoking fine. In it, The Commercial-News, Danville, IL reports that:

A Hoopeston bar has earned a less-than-respectable first in the state of Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Commercial-News, Danville, IL.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
MissTheMainStInn

United States

#1 Oct 14, 2009
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!
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#2 Oct 14, 2009
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.
Brett

United States

#4 Oct 15, 2009
I think it's funny the idiot owner tried to fight it. I hope they catch them again and again.
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#5 Oct 16, 2009
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.
MissTheMainStInn

United States

#6 Oct 16, 2009
I totally agree!
just candid

AOL

#7 Oct 16, 2009
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.
tdssa2002

United States

#8 Oct 16, 2009
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".
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#9 Oct 16, 2009
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...
Freedom

Niles, MI

#10 Oct 16, 2009
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
MissTheMainStInn

United States

#11 Oct 16, 2009
cant believe they posted a sign..... idiots!
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#12 Oct 16, 2009
MissTheMainStInn wrote:
cant believe they posted a sign..... idiots!
Hey, it's a bar, it's the Midwest--what's not to believe?
2funny

Waterloo, Canada

#13 Oct 18, 2009
Think the sign was hilarious. The bars fun too

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#14 Oct 18, 2009
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.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#15 Oct 18, 2009
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.
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#16 Oct 19, 2009
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.
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#17 Oct 19, 2009
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.
Mazed

Campbellsville, KY

#18 Oct 19, 2009
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.
2funny

Waterloo, Canada

#19 Oct 19, 2009
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
Freedom

Niles, MI

#20 Oct 19, 2009
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.
BiGtIME

Waterloo, Canada

#21 Oct 19, 2009
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hoopeston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kayla Petty Aug '17 You think you know 1
Dead beat Father Martin Varela (Jul '16) Aug '17 You think you know 3
Brad Clifford (May '13) Jul '17 anomyous 5
narc of watseka (Sep '12) Jul '17 anomyous 31
Milford Teacher Mr. Johnson (Sep '12) Jul '17 anomyous 46
New McDonalds (Jul '11) Dec '16 Abc 19
Election Who do you support for Sheriff in Illinois (Ver... (Oct '10) Oct '16 Cruppenink aka Mu... 187

Hoopeston Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hoopeston Mortgages