German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are humili

German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are humili

http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/

Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:

"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
revenues due to the smoking ban"

Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their eyes.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
>
>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
>
>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
>revenues due to the smoking ban"
>
>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their eyes.

Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money? Which is it?
You can't have it both ways. Somebody is lying.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>
>> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
>>
>>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
>>
>>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
>>revenues due to the smoking ban"
>>
>>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
>>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
>>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their eyes.
>
>
> Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money?

Good question Bwucie!

The answer is YES!

At least you're admitting that smoking adversely affects business.

As for the false dichotomy you think you have found - try not
generalizing so much that EVERYTHING either goes one way or the other


Which is it?
> You can't have it both ways. Somebody is lying.

And that someone is....BWUCIE!!!

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <do-dnW_i5_UZuuTVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>>> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
>>>
>>>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
>>>
>>>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
>>>revenues due to the smoking ban"
>>>
>>>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
>>>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
>>>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their eyes.
>>
>> Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money?
>
>Good question Bwucie!
>
>The answer is YES!
>
>At least you're admitting that smoking adversely affects business.

If smokers are routinely violating the ban and bars are
losing money, it's obviously not from the smoking ban.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu


"not much of anyone" <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote in message
news:do-dnW_i5_UZuuTVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast,com ...
> Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>>> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
>>>
>>>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
>>>
>>>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
>>>revenues due to the smoking ban"
>>>
>>>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
>>>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
>>>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their
>>>eyes.
>>
>>
>> Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money?
>
> Good question Bwucie!
>
> The answer is YES!
>
> At least you're admitting that smoking adversely affects business.

Yes asswipe, smoking does adversely affect business ... and humans.

Now do pay attention next time, you stammering imbecile.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

Reality Check© wrote:
> "not much of anyone" <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote in message
> news:do-dnW i5 UZuuTVnZ2dnUVZ ozinZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
>>>not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
>>>>
>>>>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
>>>>
>>>>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
>>>>revenues due to the smoking ban"
>>>>
>>>>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
>>>>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
>>>>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their
>>>>eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money?
>>
>>Good question Bwucie!
>>
>>The answer is YES!
>>
>>At least you're admitting that smoking adversely affects business.
>
>
> Yes asswipe, smoking does adversely affect business ...

Then why would you aunties need to rely on the government to enforce
smoking bans?

Why wouldn't smart businesspeople simple prohibit smoking in their own
establishments and rake in the dough?

Oh - that's right - because the only people who are offended by smoking
in bars are those of you who only have a life on usenet.

Oh, I'm sorry - you probably have a wonderful myspace page too.

> and humans.
>
> Now do pay attention next time, you stammering imbecile.
>
>

Is that what your mother called you this morning? I often wonder how
people like you come up with the names you call adults on usenet.

Now be quiet - adults are talking.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <FNGdnejLb8JH2OHVnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:

> Reality_Check© wrote:
> > "not much of anyone" <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote in message
> > news:do-dnW_i5_UZuuTVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast,com ...
> >
> >>Bruce Watson wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <uM2dnX3WTI9tj-XVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast,com >,
> >>>not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> http :// www .thelocal.de/13007/20080711/
> >>>>
> >>>>Subject pretty much says it all, but note this quote:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Bars and restaurants across the country have been reporting decreased
> >>>>revenues due to the smoking ban"
> >>>>
> >>>>Once again, the reality of smoking bans is that it adversely affects
> >>>>private businesses - but as some aunties here have repeatedly pointed
> >>>>out, they don't like people drinking either so this is "good" in their
> >>>>eyes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Are bars violating the ban or are they losing money?
> >>
> >>Good question Bwucie!
> >>
> >>The answer is YES!
> >>
> >>At least you're admitting that smoking adversely affects business.
> >
> >
> > Yes asswipe, smoking does adversely affect business ...
>
> Then why would you aunties need to rely on the government to enforce
> smoking bans?
>
> Why wouldn't smart businesspeople simple prohibit smoking in their own
> establishments and rake in the dough?

Business people are not always so smart. Invariably, they will go for
short-term profit without looking at long-term costs every time.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

Shawn Hirn wrote:

>>
>>Why wouldn't smart businesspeople simple prohibit smoking in their own
>>establishments and rake in the dough?
>
>
> Business people are not always so smart. Invariably, they will go for
> short-term profit without looking at long-term costs every time.

Spoken like a true dumbass.

Sure, some business-people are shortsighted, but by and large they go
for the long-term profits.

Have you not noticed the plethora of huge chain-bars? Tell me places
like Old Chicago or Rock Bottom Brewery are not run by businessmen with
long-term profits in mind and are not successful.

And while those places are not exactly my cup of tea, they are popular
and do provide yuppies and shluppies like you with a place to go if you
don't want to smell any smoke. They are more than happy to be smoke-free.

Me? I'd rather go to Joe's Bar (that is an actual place) or The Last
Concert Cafe (another actual place where it's not unheard of for someone
to pass you a joint) or even The Mucky Duck (where they sometimes used
to have non-smoking nights until the city took that right away from them
and forced to ALWAYS have non-smoking nights) or M?????'s V????? (not
the yuppie place, but a good old neighbordhood bar where they locked the
doors after 2AM just so the regulars could drink in violation of the
laws of Texas) or El R?????? which was a bit more dodgy but served
drinks all night long without locking their doors? (Last time I left
there it was about 4:30 AM and they were still serving despite the fact
that the law required them to stop serving at 2AM).

You won't see any yuppies or anti-smokers at those places and so what if
a couple of them flout the law? The laws should be changed. Why should
the state dictate that I can't order a beer in a bar after 2AM (or 1AM
as it used to be in another state I lived in)?


Do they know what hours I work? Should it be their responsibility to
keep me "in line" if I choose to be irresponsible and drink too much too
late?

Of course in your opinion, it should be - you believe in the nanny
state. You probably believe that restaurants should be banned from
serving foods with "trans-fats".

OTOH, I just believe they should be required to disclose certain facts -
like "We allow smoking here - some people believe that is dangerous -
enter at your own risk".

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <ZfWdnbgyvayjEeDVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Why wouldn't smart businesspeople simple prohibit smoking in their own
> >>establishments and rake in the dough?
> >
> >
> > Business people are not always so smart. Invariably, they will go for
> > short-term profit without looking at long-term costs every time.
>
> Spoken like a true dumbass.
>
> Sure, some business-people are shortsighted, but by and large they go
> for the long-term profits.

The shortsightedness is they go for the perceived profit of allowing
smoking on their premises rather than look at the long-term costs of
smoking, which are considerably higher.

Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
things such as ...

force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
not allow prostitution on their premises?
not allow slot machines on their premises?
not allow loud live music?
not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
the place?
not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?

The reality is that smoking bans in bars are just one of several
restrictions that government places on businesses. If you are screaming
about smoking being banned in bars, why are you quiet on the subject of
that same bar not being allowed to have a few video poker machines
there? After all, that bar owner could rake in some serious profit off
the fools who are willing to pump money into that machine? What about
prostitution? Who cares if a bar owner wants to sell some love and
affection to his customers who need it?

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:

>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>things such as ...
>
>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>not allow loud live music?
>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>the place?
>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?

Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are different because
they control what customers can do.

Those all reflect a state interest in protecting people outside the bar. Smoking is
confined within the bar. It was until antis 'discovered' long term effects of second hand
smoke.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <fdrr74pgvi82hcbf27e0m51su243olvo7j@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>>things such as ...
>>
>>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>>not allow loud live music?
>>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>>the place?
>>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?
>
>Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are
>different because
>they control what customers can do.

Many smoking bans don't place the burden on the smoker at all--
they are not fined. But the business owner is.

It's a control of what the owner can do.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

On 16 Jul 2008 14:54:43 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <fdrr74pgvi82hcbf27e0m51su243olvo7j@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>
>>>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>>>things such as ...
>>>
>>>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>>>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>>>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>>>not allow loud live music?
>>>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>>>the place?
>>>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?
>>
>>Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are
>>different because
>>they control what customers can do.
>
>Many smoking bans don't place the burden on the smoker at all--
>they are not fined. But the business owner is.
>
>It's a control of what the owner can do.

Those bans make the owner an agent of the state, a policeman. Doing so is unprecedented
and would not stand up in court if challenged. The owner has no training in law
enforcement. His insurance probably doesn't cover injury lawsuits resulting from his
police work. Yes, some bars employ bouncers, but they're not required to by law. They're
supposed to call local police to eject persons non grata.

I cannot think of another situation where a business owner can be fined for permitting an
illegal activity to which he is not a party. Granted, a bar owner can lose his liquor
license for permitting drug dealers or prostitutes to frequent his bar. That's not a
punishment; that's revocation of a privilege. Smoking bans apply to places that are not
licensed, for example shopping malls. How is a mall owner expected to enforce a smoking
ban?

A more general question -- if you see a crime committed, are you REQUIRED to report it to
the police? Can you be fined if you don't? The general answer is NO. There are only a few
extreme cases where the answer is yes. One is finding a corpse and failing to report it.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <jbas749cshmb97qhp42j8pprcdoqbkd3tt@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2008 14:54:43 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <fdrr74pgvi82hcbf27e0m51su243olvo7j@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>>>>things such as ...
>>>>
>>>>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>>>>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>>>>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>>>>not allow loud live music?
>>>>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>>>>the place?
>>>>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?
>>>
>>>Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are
>>>different because
>>>they control what customers can do.
>>
>>Many smoking bans don't place the burden on the smoker at all--
>>they are not fined. But the business owner is.
>>
>>It's a control of what the owner can do.
>
>Those bans make the owner an agent of the state, a policeman. Doing so
>is unprecedented
>and would not stand up in court if challenged.o

Yet it does. Every time.

Every citizen is required by law to report a crime. Not
doing so is a crime. Abetting a crime is a crime.

>The owner has no training in law
>enforcement. His insurance probably doesn't cover injury lawsuits
>resulting from his
>police work. Yes, some bars employ bouncers, but they're not required to
>by law. They're
>supposed to call local police to eject persons non grata.

>I cannot think of another situation where a business owner can be fined
>for permitting an
>illegal activity to which he is not a party.

Where there is a ban, smoking indoors is not a legal activity.

>Granted, a bar owner can
>lose his liquor
>license for permitting drug dealers or prostitutes to frequent his bar.
>That's not a
>punishment; that's revocation of a privilege. Smoking bans apply to
>places that are not
>licensed, for example shopping malls. How is a mall owner expected to
>enforce a smoking
>ban?

Yet they do.

>A more general question -- if you see a crime committed, are you
>REQUIRED to report it to
>the police? Can you be fined if you don't? The general answer is NO.

You're wrong. It may not be uniformly enforced, but it is a crime.

>There are only a few
>extreme cases where the answer is yes. One is finding a corpse and
>failing to report it.

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

On 16 Jul 2008 18:29:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>In article <jbas749cshmb97qhp42j8pprcdoqbkd3tt@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 16 Jul 2008 14:54:43 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fdrr74pgvi82hcbf27e0m51su243olvo7j@4ax,com >,
>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>>>>>things such as ...
>>>>>
>>>>>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>>>>>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>>>>>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>>>>>not allow loud live music?
>>>>>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>>>>>the place?
>>>>>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?
>>>>
>>>>Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are
>>>>different because
>>>>they control what customers can do.
>>>
>>>Many smoking bans don't place the burden on the smoker at all--
>>>they are not fined. But the business owner is.
>>>
>>>It's a control of what the owner can do.
>>
>>Those bans make the owner an agent of the state, a policeman. Doing so
>>is unprecedented
>>and would not stand up in court if challenged.o
>
>Yet it does. Every time.

Cite one appellate court case in which failure to enforce a smoking ban resulted in a
criminal conviction, either misdemeanor or felony. If there are so many (every time),
finding one should be easy.

Here's one from the NY Supreme Court that vacated an administrative fine.

New York Lawyer
October 26, 2004

A trio of Suffolk County tavern owners have defeated the state law that outlaws smoking in
bars - sort of, the New York Law Journal reports. Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley
Jr. ruled this month that the Clean Indoor Air Act (Public Health Law Art. 13-E), requires
bar owners to post "no smoking" signs in their establishments and to admonish people who
light up in defiance of those laws. The statute does not, however, require the bar owners
to enforce the law by ordering patrons to stub out their cigarettes or otherwise refuse to
serve them. To read such a requirement into the law grafts on to it "an onerous,
substantive enforcement requirement that the law itself does not impose," Justice Baisley
wrote in an Oct. 13, decision. Patricia Ann Cottage Pub Inc. v. Mermelstein, No.
005806-2004. Accordingly, the judge vacated and annulled rulings, including the imposition
of $650 fines, by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services against three different
establishments.
http :// www .nylawyer,com /news/04/10/102604f.html


>Every citizen is required by law to report a crime. Not
>doing so is a crime. Abetting a crime is a crime.
>
>>The owner has no training in law
>>enforcement. His insurance probably doesn't cover injury lawsuits
>>resulting from his
>>police work. Yes, some bars employ bouncers, but they're not required to
>>by law. They're
>>supposed to call local police to eject persons non grata.
>
>>I cannot think of another situation where a business owner can be fined
>>for permitting an
>>illegal activity to which he is not a party.
>
>Where there is a ban, smoking indoors is not a legal activity.
>
>>Granted, a bar owner can
>>lose his liquor
>>license for permitting drug dealers or prostitutes to frequent his bar.
>>That's not a
>>punishment; that's revocation of a privilege. Smoking bans apply to
>>places that are not
>>licensed, for example shopping malls. How is a mall owner expected to
>>enforce a smoking
>>ban?
>
>Yet they do.
>
>>A more general question -- if you see a crime committed, are you
>>REQUIRED to report it to
>>the police? Can you be fined if you don't? The general answer is NO.
>
>You're wrong. It may not be uniformly enforced, but it is a crime.

No, you are wrong. The common law term for failure to report is Misprison Of Felony.
It is not necessary to go into the differences between 50 state laws. It is sufficient to
point out that smoking ban violations are misdemeanors, not felonies.
There is no such thing as Misprison of Misdemeanor.

Misprison is, itself, a misdemeanor. It it were a felony, failure to report misprison
would also be a felony, which could lead to an infinite recursion loop. A saw the smoking
and neglected to report it; B saw A witness the smoking; C saw B watching A, C told D
about it the next day, D wrote about it in a newsgroup, ...

Re: German bars flouting smoking ban by calling themselves smoking clubs - once again aunties are hu

In article <cp3t74di05mbhtvbije61cv0eb5jrqobtk@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2008 18:29:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <jbas749cshmb97qhp42j8pprcdoqbkd3tt@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 16 Jul 2008 14:54:43 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <fdrr74pgvi82hcbf27e0m51su243olvo7j@4ax,com >,
>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:57:18 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Where is your outrage that private businesses are required to do other
>>>>>>things such as ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>force some bigoted white bar owners to serve black customers?
>>>>>>not allow prostitution on their premises?
>>>>>>not allow slot machines on their premises?
>>>>>>not allow loud live music?
>>>>>>not serve food and/or booze without some government stooge inspecting
>>>>>>the place?
>>>>>>not serve alcohol without paying a huge fee to the state?
>>>>>
>>>>>Those are all controls on what the owner can offer. Smoking bans are
>>>>>different because
>>>>>they control what customers can do.
>>>>
>>>>Many smoking bans don't place the burden on the smoker at all--
>>>>they are not fined. But the business owner is.
>>>>
>>>>It's a control of what the owner can do.
>>>
>>>Those bans make the owner an agent of the state, a policeman. Doing so
>>>is unprecedented
>>>and would not stand up in court if challenged.
>>
>>Yet it does. Every time.
>
>Cite one appellate court case in which failure to enforce a smoking ban
>resulted in a
>criminal conviction, either misdemeanor or felony. If there are so many
>(every time),
>finding one should be easy.

Violation of a smoking ban is rarely a misdemeanor and never a
felony. It's nearly always an infraction.

There hasn't been a conviction because 1) it hasn't gotten that
far because smoking bans are obeyed far before it gets serious,
and 2) an infraction would never result in a conviction.

The owner is fined because he failed to serve as an agent of
the state. In every case, so far, the owner pays the fines
and begins to serve as an agent of the state.

>Here's one from the NY Supreme Court that vacated an administrative fine.
>
>New York Lawyer
>October 26, 2004
>
>A trio of Suffolk County tavern owners have defeated the state law that
>outlaws smoking in
>bars - sort of, the New York Law Journal reports. Supreme Court Justice
>Paul J. Baisley
>Jr. ruled this month that the Clean Indoor Air Act (Public Health Law
>Art. 13-E), requires
>bar owners to post "no smoking" signs in their establishments and to
>admonish people who
>light up in defiance of those laws. The statute does not, however,
>require the bar owners
>to enforce the law by ordering patrons to stub out their cigarettes or
>otherwise refuse to
>serve them. To read such a requirement into the law grafts on to it "an onerous,
>substantive enforcement requirement that the law itself does not
>impose," Justice Baisley
>wrote in an Oct. 13, decision. Patricia Ann Cottage Pub Inc. v. Mermelstein, No.
>005806-2004. Accordingly, the judge vacated and annulled rulings,
>including the imposition
>of $650 fines, by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
>against three different
>establishments.
> http :// www .nylawyer,com /news/04/10/102604f.html

"Sort of"?

I can't access it. It requires registration. Is the ruling
really based on something other than your point?

>>Every citizen is required by law to report a crime. Not
>>doing so is a crime. Abetting a crime is a crime.
>>
>>>The owner has no training in law
>>>enforcement. His insurance probably doesn't cover injury lawsuits
>>>resulting from his
>>>police work. Yes, some bars employ bouncers, but they're not required to
>>>by law. They're
>>>supposed to call local police to eject persons non grata.
>>
>>>I cannot think of another situation where a business owner can be fined
>>>for permitting an
>>>illegal activity to which he is not a party.
>>
>>Where there is a ban, smoking indoors is not a legal activity.
>>
>>>Granted, a bar owner can
>>>lose his liquor
>>>license for permitting drug dealers or prostitutes to frequent his bar.
>>>That's not a
>>>punishment; that's revocation of a privilege. Smoking bans apply to
>>>places that are not
>>>licensed, for example shopping malls. How is a mall owner expected to
>>>enforce a smoking
>>>ban?
>>
>>Yet they do.
>>
>>>A more general question -- if you see a crime committed, are you
>>>REQUIRED to report it to
>>>the police? Can you be fined if you don't? The general answer is NO.
>>
>>You're wrong. It may not be uniformly enforced, but it is a crime.
>
>No, you are wrong. The common law term for failure to report is
>Misprison Of Felony.
>It is not necessary to go into the differences between 50 state laws. It
>is sufficient to
>point out that smoking ban violations are misdemeanors, not felonies.
>There is no such thing as Misprison of Misdemeanor.
>
>Misprison is, itself, a misdemeanor. It it were a felony, failure to
>report misprison
>would also be a felony, which could lead to an infinite recursion loop.
>A saw the smoking
>and neglected to report it; B saw A witness the smoking; C saw B
>watching A, C told D
>about it the next day, D wrote about it in a newsgroup, ...

Violation of a smoking ban is not a felony.

Failing to report a smoker violating a ban is abetting.