(AP) HARRISBURG, Pa. Senators have carved loopholes into legislation to ban smoking in many public and work places in Pennsylvania. After two hours of debate, they voted 29-to-21 to insert partial or complete exemptions for slot-machine parlors, private clubs, bars and cigar bars. That vote sets up the newly changed bill for a final vote as early as Tuesday. Debate on the bill revolved around protecting public health versus preserving individual liberties. Opponents of the exemptions criticized them as watering down the legislation. It would also upend the smoking ban put in place last year in Philadelphia, which banned smoking in casinos, restaurants and most bars.
Maybe they noticed how well Champaign's system is working. Hopefully it's a trend.
I am confused at why some people on this site are upset about smoking in bars, but not upset over changes the city wants to do in 'happy hour' laws and other various types of 'what and how much they can serve' type of rules. Most people argue it should be up to the bar owner to do what he want in this capitalist society to run a business legally. So are people on this site arguing for individual freedom or business freedom, when it comes to smoking? What is Queen of Memphis' opinion on the happy hour laws as far as restricting her business?
Happy hour type regulations for bars provide citizens city streets that are safer to drive on. You will be less likely to be hit by a (college) young drinker who has been overserved. The regulations are aimed at campus bars. When was the last time you chugged a test tube of Jager you bought from some young lady wearing hot pants? In the bar you usually frequent?
Many people have to drive a car. Driving a car is a risk. Going up against a drunken driver makes it more risky.
No one has to enter a building they consider unsafe because it contains tobacco smoke. Entrance to these buildings is voluntary. Not entering the unsafe place eliminates any risk.
Of course, some still insist that they must enter these dangerous places because it is their right.
Eggs, you insult anons and registered users. You are no different that wenalway. Hide behind the computer with your rudeness. It is people like you that ruin this site.
crusader1, how was he insulting in this thread? i really don't see it. the closest i could tell was the Jager shot, waitress with hot-pants remark, and that was fairly sarcastic to me, not routinely insulting like the most recent banned user.
I seriously want to know what you found insulting about his post. I just don't see it...
HG
Eggs, you insult anons and registered users. You are no different that wenalway.
Huh? 'splain that to me, Lucy. I gave you my take on the regulations that were being discussed by the council.
Hide behind the computer with your rudeness.
I am available to discuss any questions you may have face to face at MOM on most Tuesdays. Meet you next week?
"Eggs, you insult anons and registered users. You are no different that wenalway. Hide behind the computer with your rudeness. It is people like you that ruin this site."
Crusader,
I don't see any insults in Eggs' post or comments on this thread - please elaborate.
What is Queen of Memphis' opinion on the happy hour laws as far as restricting her business?
I suppose I should be incensed on principle. It is, as you say, further intrusion into business owners' rights.
But it's hard to get too excited about things that have minimal impact on us, personally. I don't see much of anything proposed there that addresses anything we actually do; and even if it did, I can't imagine losing any of our customers due to stricter happy hour laws. And alcohol sales have been closely regulated for far longer than I've even been alive. It's just a standard part of the equation when you get into this biz.
Fact is, I think the good sense of bar owners and managers should have made any such "happy hour" laws unnecessary; but there you go.
Smoking bans are a whole 'nother story... but I think everyone here has heard more than enough from me on that front. :)
But it's hard to get too excited about things that have minimal impact on us, personally.
That's how the slippery slope gets started. Today it's test tube shots from women in hot pants, tomorrow it's hard liquor in those tiny bottles, the next day it is bottled beer. All we heard during the debate about the smoking ban was how the government was intruding on private property rights and individual business owner's rights. Now the council is talking about restricting, even further, the actual product that bars are allowed to sell and how bars are allowed to market them and the response is that it is good for public safety, (eggs's response) and it doesn't effect my bar?
Unbelieveable!
But it's hard to get too excited about things that have minimal impact on us, personally.
But this does have impact on you, it impacts your entire industry. The basis of the anti-ban's argument the entire time is that it infringes on business and property rights. By not fighting this with even a quarter of the effort that went into fighting the smoking ban, you are proving that the entire "business rights" argument was false, the fight had nothing to do with protecting those business rights, and it was all about the smoking addiction. Where is the indignation from Mr. Eggs because they're controlling his right to ogle at young flesh serving shots in test tubes? Why is he ok with controlling actions in bars he doesn't patronize in the name of "safety"?
Putting the blatant hyprocricy aside, how about the unfair advantage this gives Urbana bars over Champaign bars? Maybe as a compromise, some of those bars could voluntarily give up having shot girls because they're more concerned with safety than profits. Oh, and nobody *has* to drive a car. If you don't like driving and putting yourself at risk against possible drunk drivers, you are free to take steps to limit your individual risk like not being out on the roads while alcohol sales are allowed, public transportation, working from home, buying a bigger vehicle with more safety options, etc.
The hypocricy of the pro-smoking mindset is absolutely mind-blowing, yet at the same time completely expected. FWIF, I support this just as much as I supported the smoking ban, which was wholeheartedly. Too bad so many others are horribly inconsistent with which part of "private business rights" they really believe in.
Much as I hate quoting myself, I did start out by saying in my previous reply, I suppose I should be incensed on principle. It is, as you say, further intrusion into business owners' rights.
If Big Head Ed is right about this particular slippery slope, I'll come out fighting when a ban on bottled beer is proposed. And I'll kick myself soundly for not getting all riled up today.
Reasonable regulations are a facet of any business. And there are always going to be regulations we feel are not so reasonable, but we follow them anyway because some things just aren't worth battling.
When regulations cut at the core of doing the business a business is in, that's when I start a-fussin'. If I were hearing from other bar owners that having no shot girls is going to put them under, and if I felt there was a reasonable rationale behind the necessity of having shot girls, I'd be happy add my voice to the vote against prohibiting them. I just don't see that coming, and I have only so much energy to put into fighting. I don't much care to fight, anyway. So I think I'll just save my next round of impassioned pleas for the bottled beer thing.
I thought I made a good comment pertaining to owners rights, which in turn was legitimatized by the city council vote tonight. Sarcasm is fine, but why direct it at a fellow blogger, especially a registered one. Wenelway was kicked off for making personal attacks at people instead of debating the issue. I was just responding to the second post being responded to with personal sarcasm, and was trying to not have a thread trading sarcastic personal comments. If I portrayed Eggs as making a bitter comment (still hanging to that smoking issue sasrcasm) than my apologies. But unless you know me, and unless provoked, please let's not make it personal. Blog on!
Are you saying Arvid that no one is allowed to have conflict within themselves over anything? Could a person be Pro-Choice on abortion, and Pro-Ban on smioking. Couldn't a person be Anti- Abortion, and Pro-Choice at the same time?
I don't mean to insult you Arvid, I just think your statement over simplifies real-life..
Some bars are not fighting this because it is already in keeping with their own policies. Some are not fighting it because they believe there is no way the city could enforce it.. Some because they don't like being backed into crazy specials by the lure or loss of a decent sized party, by scheming party promotors, And some are just OK seeing a certain bar owner get hoisted on his own pitard. Personal botlles of wine, is disgraceful. That's like handing someone a 6 pack of beer(assuming the wine is %15 and 750 ml). But shot girls are no big whoop, as long as those serving are responsible enough to cut people off.
These rules do over-reach but they would not be brought up if a certain majority campus bar owner, would quit trying to skirt the rules, or reasonability at all turns.. Just because you are allowed some leeway on some issues, doesn't mean you should push it all the time. And just tell those party promoters to "Shove It". If everybody refuses to do business that way then it's no longer a problem.
But make no mistake, there will be found new ways to skirt the law, that will require further tying the hands of responsible business owners...so long pitchers of Marguarita's at the Mexican Restaurants...so long litre mugs at Oktoberfest time, because SomeCharacters won't be resposible... no one else is allowed to try....
That's really SAD!!!
But in their defense I would add that it must be very difficult when you biggest competitor and greatest enemy is yourself.
I'm not really sure what these new regulations affect. Shot girls in hot pants? MOM have you been holding out on us?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock, next time you're at MOM, walk down the hall to the restrooms, but pass the restrooms and keep going a few steps to the next (unmarked) door on the left. Knock one long and two shorts on the door. Someone behind the door will ask you a secure question, "What is one of the world's most perfect things?" and you answer "eggs."
There's a whole lot more than shot girls behind that door. Don't tell anyone about this. And bring extra cash.
There's a whole lot more than shot girls behind that door. Don't tell anyone about this. And bring extra cash.
Eggs, I thought this was supposed to be our little secret.
I'm not saying that someone can't have conflict within themselves, I know we all certainly do on many things. Being Pro-Choice on abortion and pro-ban on smoking isn't as much of a dilemma, but I do see where you are coming from, and honestly do appreciate the civil response. When the approach to being against the smoking ban was "because it's restricting my private property rights", but yet when the city council actually does something to restrict the direct business of a bar (selling spirits in a fun atmosphere), the response is "eh, we're regulated all the time, and it doesn't really bother me"....I then find the "property rights" defense against the smoking ban a whole lot harder to believe.
I've been saying that I'd have a lot more respect if the people who are vehementy against smoking bans but perfectly ok with this (failed) set of ordinances would just come out and say, "I'm against the ban because I deserve to be able to smoke wherever I want and tough **** if you don't want to be around it." It wouldn't change my mind to support their opinion, but at least we wouldn't be kidding eachother about our real motivations.
As to the bars that prompted the latest set of (failed) ordinances, I wish that the liquor commission would grow a pair and take one or two of these bar owners to task and start suspending and/or revoking licences for multiple offenders, and none of this "we'll let you serve your suspension in the summer or whenever else is convenient for you" crap. It just makes the city look like a joke, and certainly led to the development of everyone's favorite bar-sponsored spring "tradition"...
There's an old piano, and they play it hot behind the green door.
It just makes the city look like a joke, and certainly led to the development of everyone's favorite bar-sponsored spring "tradition"...
Not to get off topic, but I always found it contradictory that part of the City's reason for the 19 year old entry age was to provide 19 and 20 year olds with a safe, supervised environment to socialize. Yet it was those same establishments, who are supposed to provide the safe and supervised environment, who created, "Unofficial St. Patrick's Day", which is the antithesis of responsible drinking.
"When the approach to being against the smoking ban was "because it's restricting my private property rights", but yet when the city council actually does something to restrict the direct business of a bar (selling spirits in a fun atmosphere), the response is "eh, we're regulated all the time, and it doesn't really bother me"....I then find the "property rights" defense against the smoking ban a whole lot harder to believe."
I was opposed to the smoking ban because it was completely unnecessary legislation - anyone who wants to avoid secondhand smoke can easily do so through individual action, and doesn't need government protection from it.
In that sense, there's no logical reason I should be opposed to these latest changes in the liquor laws. But in reality, I haven't even read the article closely enough to see what the changes are. My days of doing anything that would annoy the liquor commissioner are, I'm afraid, long since past. :-)
I'll weigh in on the proposed LAC amendments that were brought before the Council. They were approved by the LAC which is represented by bar owners and others. That commission had studied these proposals for almost a year. They were not restricting the sale of drinks, just stating the size of drinks to be served at any one time. That was so the employees could have more frequent contact with the patrons in order to determine intoxication levels. No one would have been denied a "shot". Just would have to order one, like any other drink, instead of being brought on a tray. The smoking ban prohibited a legal activity within an establishment that infringed on the business owners' rights. I see a distinct difference here. But that is just my opinion and why I supported the LAC recommendations.
The smoking ban prohibited a legal activity within an establishment that infringed on the business owners' rights.
Selling drinks is a legal activity in a bar and the LAC restrictions would infringe on the business owner's rights on how to market and sell his/her product. Why is there a distinct difference between the two? In fact, the LAC restrictions infringes even more, becuase it directly effects the inventory which is sold, whereas the smoking ban says nothing about the product being sold. Would the city consider restricting the number of pills a doctor is allowed to prescribe so a pharacist would have more frequent contact with the prescribee?
Why is there a distinct difference between the two?
One difference, that Ms. Foster noted, is that that bars can still sell drinks, while they cannot allow smoking.
In fact, the LAC restrictions infringes even more, becuase it directly effects the inventory which is sold
I might be missing something here, but I don't see where you're getting that interpretation. Here's a link to the amendments as proposed:
http://archive.ci.champaign.il.us/archive/dsweb/Get/Document-5217/SS%202007-045.pdf
I see nothing that would affect the inventory, just how product is delivered. For bars that make a sincere effort to not overserve their customers (as is already required by law), there may be some slight inconvenience; but any impact on the actual product sold should be minimal, if any.
I see nothing that would affect the inventory, just how product is delivered. For bars that make a sincere effort to not overserve their customers (as is already required by law), there may be some slight inconvenience; but any impact on the actual product sold should be minimal, if any.
Maybe, "directly effects the inventory which is sold", was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant is that the LAC restrictions impacts how some, (not all), bars choose to market their products. Queen, you've stated that it doesn't effect you because you don't market your products that way, but why should the city be allowed to infringe on how some bars decide to market their products? Your big thing with the smoking ban was choice. Let the property owners decide. Why should the city be allowed to take away the marketing practices which work for some bars? Isn't that infringing upon the individual property owner's rights? and isn't individual property owner's rights one of the platforms upon which Ms. Foster ran her campaign? Why is smoking the only individual property owner's right which can't be infringed upon, but all other individual property owner's rights, (i.e. hours of operation, marketing of drinks, etc.), are fair game for restriction by the city?
Additionally, did anyone consider all the women in hot pants who's tips would have been virtually eliminated if the restrictions had passed? ;-)
Big Head, maybe the city needs to get involved when the marketing practices of a bar include things like selling individual magnums of wine (that's 10 glasses worth in one serving ) and that result in 45 kids being taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, as Sgt. Friedein told the city council had happened last winter.
I know there's a hate government cult here, but there are times when government needs to regulate the excesses of the market.
"I know there's a hate government cult here, but there are times when government needs to regulate the excesses of the market."
I don't think Big Head Ed is part of the "hate government" cult - he's asking why those opposed to the smoking ban aren't similarly exercised about this. He sees inconsitency there, while I (and some others) don't.
And I think I'm part of what you call the "hate government" cult. Just to be clear - I don't "hate" the government. I actually like it, but I know it well enough to know that when it gets involved in something, frequently it just makes things worse, and often the unitended consequences of well-meaning government action are worse than the original problem. I just want government to operate efficiently and effectively, and be limited to those instances where government action is actually necessary to improve society, rather than the many, many unnecessary instances.
Ah, Big Head Ed, I guess I really can't argue with you on that. Sometimes I wish I had the time and energy to fight for my principles in the purest sense. Though I suppose that would require me to actually hold principles in the purest sense. Alas. my world is painted in a vast array of colors; it's rare to find any pure black or white in my peculiar schema.
Government interference.... Yeah, sometimes I wish I could own my own island and live entirely by my own rules and principles. But I live in a society marked by diversity--which means some of the things I feel are "obviously right" may be viewed as "obviously wrong" by others who hold my respect. Or at the very least, by others among whom I must peacefully live and work. :)
I think most of us recognize that some level of governmental oversight and regulation is necessary in order to prevent chaos. So I think these debates really come down to questions of where such regulations are appropriate and to what degree.
Many of us also have to choose which issues to focus on, as we're trying to fight for what we believe to be right while at the same time meeting our responsibilities to work, family, etc. So I spent a lot of time and energy on the smoking ban (and continue to do so in trying to catch an ear at the state level), because it affected us directly and profoundly, as it did so many bars.
If anyone had called or e-mailed me to say, "The proposed LAC amendments are going to kill us. Please help!" I'd have jumped in to help out our fellow bar owners in any way I could. In a heartbeat. I'm just not inclined to try to start a movement on behalf of folks who aren't even asking for help. Don't know where that puts me on the political scale; it's just how I feel I can manage best in this crazy world. :)
Queen, I hear you, I feel your exhaustion in your post and I respect how you fight for the principles in which you believe. I guess what bothers me is how quickly Ms. Foster seems to have become a flip flopping politician. I appreciated her campaign, which highlighted individual private property rights, but as soon as she is in office, she flip flops and is very quick to explain away how she voted for something, which in my opinion contradicts her campaign promises.
Just my opinion, but that's how I see it.
Look, everything discussed above is related to the almighty dollar and hyprocritical actions. Let's talk about "binge drinking" first.
This is a college town and underage drinking has been going on since the start of time. Do the math, Freshman 18-19, Sophmore 19-20, Junior 20-21...so for 1-1/2 years, students could drink. Right, I didn't know a soul that drank earlier than that. But before the almighty dollar was driving changes, the local governments had it right.
You could not get anything but beer, wine and Malt Liquor in a campus bar. Those all have about 1 shot or so of alcohol. College students have a lot of time on their hands, so they are gonna drink, period.
When I was in college you could pound down 4 or 5 beers in 10-15 minutes then you had a quart and a half of liquid in you and more was harder because of the volume. Hell you could drink yourself sick in an hour or more on about 10 beers. You got sick from volume and alcohol not from alcohol poisoning. That is about 6 shots of hard liquor.
age + time + beer = Bad time, but not deathly
Then because the cities saw the huge source of tax revenues from allowing sales of hard liquor they did, and the above happened. Students can now pound down 6 shots of hard liquor in about 5 minutes and by God that is dangerous. It is an invitation to addiction, an invitation to alcohol poisoning and really bad health problems at an early age.
age + time + hard liquor = Very Bad Results.
So now, in an attempt to fix a problem they have created, the cities are saying the students are to blame and we are going to take them to raise. If the original policy was left in place, we certainly would not have the terrible problems associated with hard liquor.
It used to be if you were caught underage at a campus bar, you paid a Bail of $25 and the officer did not show up to the court. You lost your bail and no charges were on record against you, they were dropped.
Here is the cold hard fact. This is a College town with 30,000 people having a lot of time on their hands. They will drink.....They will drink...... Maybe the old way was not such a bad idea.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
The city and a lot of the bar owners have been trying very hard for a long time to keep minors and people of age from over drinking and injuring themselves and others, by regulation or by throwing them out of their bars' there is nothing new here. The Smoking Ban however as has been stated was new and ended a legal practice in the bars.
I've been saying that I'd have a lot more respect if the people who are vehementy against smoking bans but perfectly ok with this (failed) set of ordinances would just come out and say, "I'm against the ban because I deserve to be able to smoke wherever I want and tough **** if you don't want to be around it." It wouldn't change my mind to support their opinion, but at least we wouldn't be kidding eachother about our real motivations.
That's exactly what we WERE saying. Legal product + private property = none of your business or to put it another way, who are you to tell me I can't (assuming you are not the property owner).. I appologize, but I don't see the difference.
As to the bars that prompted the latest set of (failed) ordinances, I wish that the liquor commission would grow a pair and take one or two of these bar owners to task and start suspending and/or revoking licences for multiple offenders, and none of this "we'll let you serve your suspension in the summer or whenever else is convenient for you" crap. It just makes the city look like a joke, and certainly led to the development of everyone's favorite bar-sponsored spring "tradition"...
Just FYI. The Liquor Advisory Commission has no authority to suspend or revoke anyone's license. They are an advisory commision. Your complaint would be with the Liquor Commissioner (The Mayor) but he is also tied by state law. If a bar gets a suspension from the city, they can appeal to the State.Liquor Control Commission. So the Mayor has to rule much more by precedence and law, than by his benevolent wisdom. So I can understand the City's connundrum: Leave it be because most players play it safe, OR reign it in cuz a few can't seem to resist playing "catch me if you can".
I don't have a solution to this.
As far as the serving of suspensions...the days of being allowed to take them in the Summer have been over for some time. Now you have to serve suspensions on "like days". So: violation on a Saturday when school is in session; suspension on a Saturday while school is in session.
I hope that clears a few misperceptions.
"I appreciated her campaign, which highlighted individual private property rights, but as soon as she is in office, she flip flops and is very quick to explain away how she voted for something, which in my opinion contradicts her campaign promises."
I get the impression she weighs both sides of an issue and reaches a decision. Novel, I know.
At the very least, she explains why she did what she did. How many of the rest do that?
"I get the impression she weighs both sides of an issue and reaches a decision."
From watching the council meetings on the tv, "reaching a decision" consists of asking Jerry which way she is supposed to vote.
"From watching the council meetings on the tv, "reaching a decision" consists of asking Jerry which way she is supposed to vote."
Please elaborate. I've never even seen her talk to Jerry on TV.
Please elaborate. I've never even seen her talk to Jerry on TV.
I assume the poster is referring to Ms. Foster's decision making process, which was quoted as, "I'll follow the mayor's lead", when asked how she would vote on the repeal of the smoking ban.
That would be rather an obtuse reference, since the poster referred to watching a council meeting on TV.
Mrs Foster's comment " I'll folow the Mayor's lead " was in responce to a reporter involving her stance on weather the smoking ban would be brought back up by her. If you think she will follow the Mayor lead you obviousley have never met Karen to really understand her independence.