Scott County bar's 'theatrical' smoking case goes to court

The hippie chick wants a loophole in the statewide smoking ban to persist. So do the "Cabana Girl," the "Kung Fu Ninja," Garth Brooks and Julia Roberts.

[Thomas F]

Finally, a day in court where this loophole can be decided. The Letter of the law is clear though, this case is going to be a lose for the anti-smoking crowd.

It's not the intent though? Well, we need our laws written to the letter, leaving laws open to interpretation of intent is a very poor way to conduct our government. Anytime you start talking intent of law vs letter of law, you call ALL of our laws into question and leave them open to interpretation.

[Going Broke]

MDH says the theatrical productions do not resemble traditional theatre. I wonder if the government can now define traditional art so as to disallow offensive art from all public funding or display in public places.

[The Lab Rat]

Going Broke wrote:

MDH says the theatrical productions do not resemble traditional theatre. I wonder if the government can now define traditional art so as to disallow offensive art from all public funding or display in public places.

Of Course They Can!

Once the Camel's nose is under the tent..........

The Lab Rat

[Bob from ALAMN]

Are you aware of how other legal challenges to ordinances and laws regulating smoking in indoor workplaces have fared in Minnesota, Thomas?

We have been through this sort of thing before, you know.

[just me]

The Rock in Maplewood was doing great with it's theater nights until the department of health came in and threatened to take their liqueur license away if they did not stop. They caved in and stopped. I thought blackmail was against the law too, but i guess its ok as long as its the government doing it.

[satmfs]

"District Judge Jerome Abrams seemed willing to entertain the idea that the performances — where patrons from the suburbs to the Iron Range have bought buttons, dubbed themselves actors and lit up in bars — fall within a hastily added exception to the statewide ban originally intended to apply to venues such as the Guthrie Theater.

"I'm very accepting of ... Shakespeare in the Park," Abrams said at one point. "I don't think you need a proscenium arch or a thrust stage to call it 'theater.' "

This restores some of my faith in the legal system. It appears the judge will base his decision on the law as written as opposed to what the MDH and the anti-smoking lobby say it is or want it to be.

[satmfs]

Bob from ALAMN wrote:

Are you aware of how other legal challenges to ordinances and laws regulating smoking in indoor workplaces have fared in Minnesota, Thomas?
We have been through this sort of thing before, you know.

This is new territory Bob. Let's sit back and see how it comes out.

[The Lab Rat]

just me wrote:

The Rock in Maplewood was doing great with it's theater nights until the department of health came in and threatened to take their liqueur license away if they did not stop. They caved in and stopped. I thought blackmail was against the law too, but i guess its ok as long as its the government doing it.

Again! Of Course It Is!

Don't you recall the nation wide 55 MPH speed limit? The FEDs blackmailed ALL the states into it, by threatining to cut off federal highway funding!

The Lab Rat

[Sconnie Brian]

At least there are a few free thinkers left in the state! Way to buck the system!!!

[Julie]

"Don't you recall the nation wide 55 MPH speed limit? The FEDs blackmailed ALL the states into it, by threatining to cut off federal highway funding"!
That's exactly what the Feds did with the DWI .08 limit (signed into law by Bill Clinton). Not exactly a bad deal for the state which has now turned the lower BAC into a huge cash cow! What happened to state and individual rights in our land? I hope the bar owners win this battle because it is just the beginning of the war on personal property rights. Go ahead a keep voting Democrat, Minnesota... Besides the huge tax increase you just got crammed down your throat, you'll have Al Frankin to deal with next.
Good luck to all the bar owners in this fight and thank you for standing up for the individual rights of us all!

[Thomas]

If smoking bans are not about health, then what is the 'truth' about smoking bans

[Blah]

Julie wrote:

"Don't you recall the nation wide 55 MPH speed limit? The FEDs blackmailed ALL the states into it, by threatining to cut off federal highway funding"!
That's exactly what the Feds did with the DWI .08 limit (signed into law by Bill Clinton). Not exactly a bad deal for the state which has now turned the lower BAC into a huge cash cow! What happened to state and individual rights in our land? I hope the bar owners win this battle because it is just the beginning of the war on personal property rights. Go ahead a keep voting Democrat, Minnesota... Besides the huge tax increase you just got crammed down your throat, you'll have Al Frankin to deal with next.
Good luck to all the bar owners in this fight and thank you for standing up for the individual rights of us all!

Exactly! It is my right to drive drunk! It's not my problem that others may be killed by my actions. If I want to do it then I should be able to. It's my right after all. Get outta my way here I come!

[Heywood Ja]

Blah wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! It is my right to drive drunk! It's not my problem that others may be killed by my actions. If I want to do it then I should be able to. It's my right after all. Get outta my way here I come!

Alas, another clueless Soul. Nothing to add, so let me just spew nonsense.

I can't believe some people are so blinded by their wants, that they can't see their freedom to choose how to live being slowly taken away from them. Do you really want the gonvernment to tell you what is good for you and what's not?

I sure as he11 don't!! That's why I'm against this smoking ban! It's not about smoking people, wake up!

[Free America]

Thomas wrote:

If smoking bans are not about health, then what is the 'truth' about smoking bans

http://www.smokescam.com/liberty.htm

[The Lab Rat]

Thomas wrote:

If smoking bans are not about health, then what is the 'truth' about smoking bans

One Word: Control

The Lab Rat

[Julie]

Blah wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! It is my right to drive drunk! It's not my problem that others may be killed by my actions. If I want to do it then I should be able to. It's my right after all. Get outta my way here I come!

I didn't advocate drunk driving in my post! You fail to see the larger picture. It is a proven fact that .08 is FAR less impaired than talking on the phone while driving. Add to that, most fatal crashes occur at a BAC of .18 and higher. Your snotty, judgemental reply is exactly the reason the state has been allowed to trample on individual rights. Just wait until big brother comes after YOU! All I'm saying is Pandora's box was opened with the .08 limit, which then opened the door for the smoking ban. What could be behind door number three?

[Thomas F]

Bob from ALAMN wrote:

Are you aware of how other legal challenges to ordinances and laws regulating smoking in indoor workplaces have fared in Minnesota, Thomas?
We have been through this sort of thing before, you know.

With the economic downturn, and the fact that we are "saving" employees only to ***FIRE*** them, this is not the same battle as the previous fights. If you think it's so secure, then you should endorse opening the original FTBA in order to close this loophole. Why do you think the 100% anti-smoking legislators are leaning on the MDH to do their dirty work? They don't want to open the bill, they're afraid of what will happen.

Now, the information is coming out that all over the world, the anti-smoking movement is starting to fall out of favor. The Germans repealed it, the wave to repeal it is starting to build in European countries as well. In our own country, the legislators in Ohio are trying to get as FAR AWAY from the smoking ban movement as they possibly can.

Why do you suppose all this is? Do you suppose this is all localized? Citizens of ALL governments are starting to see these bans for what they TRULY are. It's not about health at all, it's about control. Controlling what we think, do, put in our bodies, etc. It's cigarettes now, the big mac tomorrow, next it will be our hunting, and since we can no longer hunt, there's no reason for our citizens to have guns.

We see the slippery slope for what it is. You think that because smokers are a minority you can get away with it. Well, we've got news for you, we're actually in the majority when you count the non-smokers that are afraid of where this is heading and willing to stand up and fight to stop this before it hits their doorstep.

[justice for all]

What about concerts? Does this ban smoking at concerts? I know if the Rolling Stones came into town most of the bleading heart non-smokers will not bat an eye at Keith or Ron on stage smoking.

[Old yeller]

Hey DFL, can you tell me what I can do?

Besides pray to AL Gore and put mercury in my homes with your stupid florecent compact light bulbs.

[Whew]

Julie wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't advocate drunk driving in my post! You fail to see the larger picture. It is a proven fact that .08 is FAR less impaired than talking on the phone while driving. Add to that, most fatal crashes occur at a BAC of .18 and higher. Your snotty, judgemental reply is exactly the reason the state has been allowed to trample on individual rights. Just wait until big brother comes after YOU! All I'm saying is Pandora's box was opened with the .08 limit, which then opened the door for the smoking ban. What could be behind door number three?

What about warrantless wiretaps of American citizens? That's not a problem?

People get all up in arms about their "right to smoke" (though none exists) but willingly concede their actual rights (the 4th amendment) under the guise of "national security" and "the government knows best." After all... if you're not a criminal or terroist you have nothing to worry about! Yep, just like if you're not a smoker you have nothing to worry about....