Smokers welcome - and legal - at shop / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, September 8, 2006

September 8, 2006

Despite the city's smoking ban, it still is possible to open a business in Lawrence where indoor smoking is allowed.

City leaders have agreed to allow the Lebanese Hookah Bar to open at 730 Mass., even though traditional bars and restaurants have been banned from allowing indoor smoking for the past two years.

The bar's primary business is the selling of Lebanese tobacco, which is then smoked on premises in a water-pipe device called a hookah.

"When we came here from the Middle East, we really wanted to open something for the Lawrence people, but by the time we were ready, the smoking ban came along," said Bassem Chahine, who owns the business with his mother, father and brother. "We had to make sure we could still do it."

The city has said yes, and Scott Miller, a city attorney, said the reason why is simple: The business isn't a bar. It actually is a tobacco shop, and those establishments are exempt from the ban.

"No matter what its name is, the way the business is organized makes it a tobacco shop," Miller said.

The business does not serve alcohol. The only nontobacco products that are sold are chips, hummus, soda, coffee and tea. But Chahine said very few of those products will be sold because customers receive a free drink and order of hummus with each $10 tobacco purchase.

The small amount of nontobacco sales allows the business to still be considered a tobacco shop, because the definition of a tobacco shop allows for an "incidental" amount of nontobacco sales.

Photo by Mike Yoder

Smoking is allowed indoors at the Lebanese Hookah Bar, 730 Mass., where, from left, Hussain Alhai, Aqeel Almer and Ali Ahmed, all Kansas University freshmen from Saudi Arabia, enjoy a smoke of some flavored tobacco and some hummus dip. The new business opened September 7, 2006, and is exempt from the smoking ban for public places in Lawrence because most of its sales are from tobacco.

What constitutes incidental, however, is not specifically defined by the city, Miller said. He said if the business began selling a significant amount of nontobacco products, it could be reclassified as a restaurant or coffee shop that would be required to comply with the ban.

Some Lawrence bar and restaurant owners were bewildered by the decision.

"I thought the whole idea behind the smoking ban was to protect employees," said Doug Holiday, who is an owner of Bigg's BBQ Sports Bar, 2429 Iowa. "I've never really understood the rationale behind allowing it in tobacco shops anyway. I think it should be all or nothing."

Allowing tobacco shops to permit smoking is fairly common with smoking bans across the country.

Chahine said he wasn't trying to find a loophole to the city ordinance, and he doesn't want to get wrapped up in a debate about the smoking ban.

"I think it is a good chance for people to really learn a lot about our culture and how we treat people," Chahine said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

8 September 2006
at 2:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nbnozzy (Anonymous) says…

More hypocritical thinking from the city commision and city attorneys. I hope you folks are seriously ready for a change in city government and city administrators. If not, you'll be getting more of the same abuse from them and more.
8 September 2006
at 7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

irishblues (Anonymous) says…

This is so bogus I can't believe it. The whole point was the “safe work enviroment for employees” wasn't it? If someone there is drawing a paycheck and paying taxes, then they are “an employee” and should be subject to the same darn rules as everyplace else. What a hypocritial system!
But now, will “tobacco shops” be popping up everywhere? Couldn't bar owners have a humidor instead of a hookah? They could include a cheap cigar with every cocktail? (Just kidding)
8 September 2006
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Wait for the Kansas Supreme Court to decide. Surely some of the Commissioners have had lunches with members of the “Supreme's” to influence thier vote. If it works for education, hey, why not tobacco?
8 September 2006
at 7:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

This is a large steaming pile of hummus !
8 September 2006
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kung_pao_chicken (Anonymous) says…

Hookahs? I thought prostitution was illegal!
8 September 2006
at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Posted by irishblues (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so bogus I can't believe it. The whole point was the “safe work enviroment for employees” wasn't it?

bwahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, that was what it was about, sure it was. It had absolutely nothing to do with the “smoke smells icky, whine whine” coolition. Nothing to do with it at all.

At any rate, it requires a certain high percentage of sales (80%, if I remember from the article the other day) to come from only tobacco, so the idea of tobacco shops popping up like weeds (oops, pun) is sort of ludicris. The market wouldn't support more than a few of them, especially since you can't get liquor at any of them.

A government policy that allows for variance, and some degree of self-initiative? How frighteningly sensible. Who would have ever thought to treat different types of businesses as, well, different?
8 September 2006
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

Mmmmmm, flatbread and hummus dip. I miss that about Saudi. Come to think of it, that's the ONLY thing I miss about Saudi. Oh, and the fresh dates. Mmmmmm… (tummy grumbles)

8 September 2006
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

I say good for them….irregardless of the smoking element, the cultural exposure is great. I hope they are successful, though I doubt Lawrence has a big calling for that type of smoke shop.
8 September 2006
at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Kung pao that remark made me laugh out loud! Thanks for helping to make my day!

Hookahs…Honestly this hookah isn't mine!
8 September 2006
at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Nice to know that muslims get preferential treatment in Lawrence.
8 September 2006
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Good joke, animal. I'm assuming you're joking. It was highly amusing, but we prefer jokes about hookahs and how cheap they are :)
8 September 2006
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Kung Poh - Lebanese Hookers?

Good for these guys.
8 September 2006
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljlook (Anonymous) says…

Why are you people crying and worrying about the employees? If they apply for a job at a smoke shop, they know what they are getting into. No one is forcing them to work there. I actually doubt if anyone other than family will be hired there anyway. Do you people always need a reason to cry?
8 September 2006
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pike (Anonymous) says…

Now could a bar pull off what liquor stores do? I mean how they sell “non alcohol” items in a separate store? They could have the regular bar in one shop the right next door a tobacco shop for the smokers.
8 September 2006
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

This one is not hard to figure.

Although have I lots of respect for the tack the shop owners have taken on this matter and applaud them for successfully scamming City Hall in the manner that they have, I will also comment on a couple of other things here.

First, there is no way that this shop will meet any sort of tobacco sales requirement without seriously cooking the books.

When I had my shop on Mass I kept up tobacco sales (Which only broke even!) simply because I smoked, my employees smoked and most of my customers smoked.

I sold nothing else at retail in the shop but instead sold at wholesale to a company that I also owned which sold the other products to other dealers; therefore, no retail sales were taking place in the shop other than those of tobacco products.

Heh, heh.

The pawn shop paid money OUT and had NO retail on-premise sales and therefore contributed in no way to the verifiable retail sales figures.

Drove Wildgen and Corliss crazy but there was nothing that they could do!

These Lebanese guys have done a better job than I did but my location lacked the physical plant for a bar or I would have done that as well!

Now I will write what is being danced around here; running the very serious risk of getting banned.

This licence has been granted soley because the owners are Lebanese and the City is afraid to offend Middle Easterners, instead. respecting “multiculturalism”. Kind of like the defence the Asian fellow put up that it was OK in his culture to kill those five or six hunters because he thought that they were going to kill him!

At any rate, the plan has worked with the City being so astonishingly ignorant of the facts that it has now most likely sunk its own boat as far as the smoking ban is concerned.

The City has granted the licence ONLY out some sort of “respect” for a different culture and political correctness, NOT because it seriously believes that any sals quotas can be met.

Most of what is smoked in hookahs is NOT any sort of tobacco product but flavoured and aromatic charcoal however I guarranty you that such sales will be written up as tobacco sales!

If the product does not carry a tax stamp or speficed by the Treasury Department as a tax-exempt tobacco product, it is NOT a tobacco product.

I wish that I were with Steffies and his lawyers right now as they are probably busting the lid on a bottle of really good champagne because if he and his lawyers ever needed more ANY proof-positive of the vagueness of a law, unequal enforcement of a law or discriminatory enforcement of a law, they have darned certain got it now!

Even The Provincials on the Supreme Court in Topeka will recognise this!

Bye, bye Smoking Ban; at least in its present form!

Oh, this is too funny!

My ribs hurt.

Thanks.

Marion.

8 September 2006
at 9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ForThePeople just proved my point on “multiculturalism”:

ForThePeople wrote:

“Posted by ForThePeople (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say good for them….irregardless of the smoking element, the cultural exposure is great. I hope they are successful, though I doubt Lawrence has a big calling for that type of smoke shop.”

It just doens't get any better than this!

Thanks.

Marion.

oh

it's “regardless”, not “irregdless”.
8 September 2006
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Smoking a hookah is a completely different thing in KC, MO. It'll land you in jail on a murder charge. Beware!!!
8 September 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Calm down, everyone. Please.

If you like the idea, then bully for you.
If you don't like it, then don't go there.

This is a simple story. Quit trying to make it complicated.
8 September 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fcraig (Anonymous) says…

Well this means that all the other bars in Lawrence have to do is just sell tobacco or flavored ciggs. and they can smoke in the bar. I think the city just set precedence for other bar owners.
8 September 2006
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

Foreign types with the hookah pipes say, Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh…Walk like an Egyptian
8 September 2006
at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

On the multicultural excuse…

So, if I opened up the American Smoke Shop in Riyadh and sold Marlboro Lights and Bud Light that'd be considered American tradition and hailed as multicultural? Didn't think so.

I hope these guys do well, but I don't think too many folks are going to buy the whole, “it's cool, it's what we do in Saudi Arabia” angle.
8 September 2006
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DeeK (Anonymous) says…

“He said if the business began selling a significant amount of nontobacco products, it could be reclassified as a restaurant or coffee shop that would be required to comply with the ban.”

“Chahine said he wasn't trying to find a loophole to the city ordinance, and he doesn't want to get wrapped up in a debate about the smoking ban”

***** This is his F***ing Loop hole! *****
“customers receive a free drink and order of hummus with each $10 tobacco purchase.”
8 September 2006
at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

“I thought the whole idea behind the smoking ban was to protect employees,”

Yes, I have to scream “double-standard” here. Either this was to protect people or it wasn't. I also think it's amazingly hypocritical for our civic leaders to allow this because of it's cultural value. What if I think cigar smoking is a part of American culture? Like Marion said, all an attorney has to do now is say “Such-and-such bar is suing for right to allow smoking on the basis of cultural discrimination. Beer drinkers have a long history of smoking, so its part of their culture to smoke. This law infringes on the cultural heritage of Americans everywhere.”

I wonder if 7th Heaven's attorneys will get on the bandwagon as well. I mean, isn't this hookah bar making money by providing BONGS?

8 September 2006
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Dad - Good point. Perhaps 7th Heaven can rename itself the Lebanese Hookah Supply Store.
8 September 2006
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Then did The Progressives raise on high the Holy Smoking Ban of Lawrence, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst preserve the health of the employees and cutomers who are otherwise engaging in unhealthy behaviour; the drinking of mead and rotten grapes, in thy mercy.”

And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals …

Now did the Lord say, “First thou enacteth The Ban.

Then thou must exempt the Lebanese.

Lebanese shall be the Exemption and the Exemption shall be the Lebanese .

The Harbour shalt thou not exempt, neither shalt thou exempt Louise's, excepting that Louise's shall be owned by the Lebanese.

Teller's is right out.

Once the lebanese, being the Exemption, be permitted, then lobbest thou the Holy Smoking Ban in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”

Apologies to Monty Python.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Marion: hilarious.
8 September 2006
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Oh Marion….me thinks it's time for your smoke break! I was under the impression that you're all for small business and since you dislike those in the city government so much, I would think you'd be happy that they found a way around the current ordinance. Or is your racism getting in the way?
8 September 2006
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

A hookah is not a bong. A bong is not a hookah. That's like calling a cigarette holder a pipe.
8 September 2006
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

How dare people smoke in a smoke shop?
How dare people drink in a bar?
How dare people buy gas at a gas station?
8 September 2006
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

ksmoderate - I think Dad's intent was using the generality that both are used for wacky tobaccie. And that analogy you used is a bit off.
8 September 2006
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

ksmoderate

While your at it…..how dare anyone other than blue eyed, blonds own a business in the US of A!

8 September 2006
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ForThePeople wrote:

“Oh Marion….me thinks it's time for your smoke break! I was under the impression that you're all for small business and since you dislike those in the city government so much, I would think you'd be happy that they found a way around the current ordinance. Or is your racism getting in the way?”

Marion writes:

If you read my earlier post, you will find that I applaud the way that these guys have found around the ban.

They could be Urdus, Latinos, Ukrainian, Eskimos, Germans or Canadians for all I care.

I have not made ANY 'racist” comments here, nor have I elsewhere.

I am pointing out the unequal application of a law based on multiculturalism.

I did not write the law nor am I the one determining the application.

I will state that a case might be made for “reverse iscrimination” as a “culture” is being singled out and allowed to do things that other “cultures” are not allowed to do and don't get all wound up becsuse that is not a “racist” comment either.

Bye, bye Smoking Ban.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Fair enough on the analogy, Bob. My bad.

But, even though it may have been Dad's intention to bring up the point that some people use bongs and hookahs for smoking pot….it was in poor taste. The last thing we as a society need is for people to believe the misconception that hookahs are for pot smoking.

Plus, this article is about a business that sells products to be smoked in hookahs. Their hookahs will not be used for pot, so why bring it up?
8 September 2006
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lynnd (Anonymous) says…

The thing that bothers me about this is what Scott Miller says about why this was approved: “It isn't a bar.”

That statement right there says to me that something about this smoking ban targeted bars all along, not just the idea of saving people from cigarette smoke.
8 September 2006
at 9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Lynnd:

By George, I think you've got it!

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

heather5 (Anonymous) says…

Most of the time and I did say most not all, hookahs are going to be used for smoking pot don't try and say its not. I personally do not smoke, but I know more than one person who owns a hookah and they all use them for smoking pot. Don't be in denial about they are only used for tobacco because I think we all know that's BS. And I am glad that Lawrence is smoke free because I do not like walking around smelling like an ash tray everytime I leave a restaraunt. Or the smell of it while I am trying to eat my food its not appetizing to me to smell smoke while I eat. Also if I wanted to damage my lungs with smoke I could do that myself I wouldn't need anyone elses help. It's called respect and people who don't smoke don't want people blowing it in their faces all the time.
8 September 2006
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DeeK (Anonymous) says…

Posted by offtotheright:
“Ya Deek, I believe the Key word here is 'FREE'!”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I know, & this is why the sales of food & drink will be lower, because he's going to hide them.

Hypotheticaly speeking, in a way unrealistic comparrison, say a car dealer can not sell cars, & if records show that he is profiting on car sales he will get in trouble, well how about he just sells car Keys for 20K & tosses in a free car, but no sale of cars on the books. This is a loophole!

bad example, but just trying to make things clear.
8 September 2006
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

To allow one business owner to smoke in his shop and another based on the language of the ordinance is a prima facie example of poor draftsmenship of legislation.

Also, from a logical standpoint, the intent of the original ordinance is contradicted by the exception. That is, if the intent of the legislation is to protect from the ills of smoke inhalation, then the grounds for allowing a smoke shop exempt because they have a high quantity of business from smoking is contradictive to a degree in proportion to the amount of smoking going on in the business. Someone screwed up and are now trying to pass their mistake off as a cute technical exception. A screw-up is a screw-up is a screw-up is a screw-up.
8 September 2006
at 10:11 a.m.

Permalink

kujeeper (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

8 September 2006
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

DeeK, you have it so right!

Bar owners should sell cigarettes for $5 or $6 apeice, and include a free beer or drink with the purchase.

They could even have “happy hours,” under this arrangement, discounting the cost of the cigarettes from 4 to 7 or something.

This is great news for the bars.
8 September 2006
at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

I'm almost certain that it is against the law in Kansas to give away beer/booze at a bar.
8 September 2006
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“I'm almost certain that it is against the law in Kansas to give away beer/booze at a bar.”

But it won't be a bar. It will be a smoke shop.
8 September 2006
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Louise's Smoke Shop - has a nice ring to it.
8 September 2006
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

I'm with you Godot. Right on. I think if someone tried to serve free booze at a smoke shop it would awaken the Overlords of the Commission and there would be many a ban to be handed down.
8 September 2006
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThomasJefferson (Anonymous) says…

After the novelty wears off, this business will close its doors post haste.
8 September 2006
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“It is illegal to give away free alcohol.”

You must seek the “greys” in the law and exploit them to your advantage - it is just a matter of semantics, as our Lebanese Hookah Bar owners have so ably demonstrated.

I see only men in the photo of the hookah bar. Are women allowed?
8 September 2006
at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

As the Bard said: “Much ado about nothing.”

8 September 2006
at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Heather5:

Remember, please, that the hookahs in question are part of a business. They will not be used for smoking pot.

(At least during business hours?… HA HA HA)
8 September 2006
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Next
41-722
Chapter 41.—intoxicating liquors and beverages

Article 7.—certain prohibited acts and penalties

41-722. Giving or selling liquor to evade law declared unlawful. The giving away or delivery of any alcoholic liquor for the purpose of evading any provision of K.S.A. 41-721 or taking of orders or the making of agreements, at or within any governmental subdivision, while such sales are prohibited, for the sale or delivery of any alcoholic liquor, or other shift or device to evade any provision of this act, shall be held to be an unlawful selling.

History: L. 1949, ch. 242, Â§ 85; March 9.

41-729
Chapter 41.—intoxicating liquors and beverages

Article 7.—certain prohibited acts and penalties

41-729. Retail sales at less than cost; permit required. (a) No retailer shall sell, directly or indirectly, any alcoholic liquor at less than the acquisition cost of such liquor without first having obtained from the director a permit to do so.

(b) The director may issue to a licensed retailer a permit authorizing the retailer to sell alcoholic liquor at less than the acquisition act of such liquor if:

(1) The retailer is actually closing out the retailer's stock for the purpose of completely discontinuing sale of the item of alcoholic liquor for a period of not less than 12 months;

(2) the item of alcoholic liquor is damaged or deteriorated in quality and notice is given to the public thereof; or

(3) the sale of the item of alcoholic liquor is by an officer acting under the order of a court.

History: L. 1987, ch. 182, Â§ 137; April 30.

41-803

Chapter 41.—intoxicating liquors and beverages
Article 8.—misdemeanors and nuisances

41-803. Open saloon; definition; prohibition. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, maintain, operate or conduct, either directly or indirectly, an open saloon.

(b) As used in this section, “open saloon” means any place, public or private, where alcoholic liquor is sold or offered or kept for sale by the drink or in any quantity of less than 100 milliliters (3.4 fluid ounces) or sold or offered or kept for sale for consumption on the premises where sold, but does not include any premises where the sale of liquor is authorized by the club and drinking establishment act or, on and after January 1, 1988, any microbrewery or farm winery, if authorized by K.S.A. 41-308a or K.S.A. 41-308b, and amendments thereto.

(c) Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and by imprisonment for not more than 90 days.

History: L. 1949, ch. 242, Â§ 92; L. 1978, ch. 187, Â§ 2; L. 1978, ch. 189, Â§ 13; L. 1979, ch. 152, Â§ 4; L. 1986, ch. 185, Â§ 6; L. 1987, ch. 182, Â§ 56; April 30.
8 September 2006
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

41-805

Chapter 41.—intoxicating liquors and beverages

Article 8.—misdemeanors and nuisances
41-805. Nuisances; places and properties operated or used in violation of act; lien for fines and costs; leases void; procedure for seizure and sale of vehicles and airplanes; appeals; stay of proceedings. (1) Any room, house, building, boat, vehicle, airplane, structure or place of any kind where alcoholic liquors are sold, manufactured, bartered or given away, in violation of this act, or any building, structure or boat where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors, in violation of this act, or any place where such liquors are kept for sale, barter or gift, in violation of this act, and all such liquors, and all property kept in and used in maintaining such a place, are each and all of them hereby declared to be a common nuisance. Any person who maintains or assists in maintaining such common nuisance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding $25,000, or by both. If the court finds that the owner of real property knew or should have known under the circumstances of the maintenance of a common nuisance on such property, contrary to the liquor laws of this state, and did not make a bona fide attempt to abate such nuisance under the circumstances, such property shall be subject to a lien for, and may be sold to pay all fines and costs assessed against the occupant of such building or premises for any violation of this act; and such lien shall be immediately enforced by civil action, in any court having jurisdiction, by the county or district attorney of the county wherein such building or premises may be located, or by the attorney for the director, when ordered by the director.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A very lengthy statute, so go here:

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-s…

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

hehe. you could of just posted the link in the first place.

I think I remember back in the day (10 years ago) bars couldn't even have happy hour in Kansas.
8 September 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prospector (Anonymous) says…

T_O_B

At that time, a party of two could not be served a pitcher of beer. Pitchers only for parties of three or more.
8 September 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BlondeTiger (Anonymous) says…

So, you all are complaining that this is an unsafe work environment, this business was opened by a family and the people that work there are family and they are all over the age of 18 and they CHOSE to work there. So your argument about it being unsafe to the workers really doens't work there. This is a Hookah bar and hookah's are a tabacco smoking accessory so it makes sense. You can't bring your kids in there, or anyone under the age of 18 for that matter, so screw your argument over the fact that your kids life is in danger. This is a haven for ADULTS that smoke tobacco, and if you don't like it then don't go because you really have no reason to.
8 September 2006
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prospector (Anonymous) says…

My blow up doll found another purpose, “drinkin' buddy”.
8 September 2006
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

prioress (Anonymous) says…

Happy hour, Hells Bells……..they argued for years in the legislature before they would allow stores to sell cold beer. Most of the midwestern states (where folks tend to drink as much as anyone else but like to play the “we're purer than thou game”) are silly about this as well. I was in Oklahoma a while back. One could buy a 40oz but not a quart of beer (illegal in the store but available for purchase across the street at 7-11) and the little airline bottles (another long debate in KS) were legal, but had to be purchased in six packs and couldn't be sold individually.

8 September 2006
at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

No everyone wouldn't be cool with it swbsow, because Lawrence is full of the whiniest people in the world. You can give them everything they want and they would still piss and moan about how this person is offending them or that person is smoking near them or that roundabout in in their way and they're not smart enough to navigate around it, blah blah blah. What a bunch of whining babies. I say you go for it, Lebanese dudes. Next time I'm on Mass I'm going to stop by that place and give them some business.
8 September 2006
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Propsector - Ye gods. Dark days. I guess that would be a good way to meet new people.

Prioress - In Oklahoma, doesn't beer have to be sold warm in 7-11 type places?. Utah has some screwy laws as well. Have to buy liquor from a state run liquor store but beer from 7-11.
8 September 2006
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

So, you can have a Lebanese but not an American smoke/snack bar? What about the Irish,German,Italian,Mexican,French,British,Canadian….?
Now its a legal can of worms that was opened.
8 September 2006
at 11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

ACG - I think you meant to say WATB's.
8 September 2006
at 11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

730 Mass is in a suite upstairs, above Vermont Street Bar B Que, sharing the same lobby with Cafe Beautiful. I wonder what arrangements have been made to contain the smoke so that it does not foul the air in the lobby or cafe upstairs, into the stairwell or into the restaurant downstairs?

How is this arrangement any different than having a separate smoking room in a bar?
8 September 2006
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Since they area not serving alcohol they may be good to go according to the ABC and the City Of Lawrence.

They could be in trouble if they permit customers to carry in their own booze.

The Smoking Ban is still applied unequally and will undoubtedly be overturned.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

Godot, they use a door that has seals and a threshold i imagine.
I'd like to check this place out, sounds interesting. I don't smoke, but maybe i'll tell some friends(smokers) and i'll drink some coffee and soak it in. I don't think this kind of tobacco is that same as those “chemically enhanced” tobacco's that you'd find in your Marlboro pack. I imagine the smell is a little more wholesome, like a cigar.
8 September 2006
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

This is completely in-line with the smoking ban. This shop has nothing to do with the smoking ban, except that it does not fall into the category of businesses covered by the ban. No loopholes… nothing. It's like claiming that a bar is violating a law that prohibits the sale of liquor without a license. They found a loophole in that law… they got a license. If a bar can maintain tobacco as 80% of its sales, and still not violate the laws pertaining to the sale of liquor as cited by Marion above, good for them. Good luck though.

8 September 2006
at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rodentgirl16 (Anonymous) says…

The_Original_Bob:
So, if I opened up the American Smoke Shop in Riyadh and sold Marlboro Lights and Bud Light that'd be considered American tradition and hailed as multicultural? Didn't think so.

Actually, if you went to the Middle East with Marlboro Lights, you'd be a hero (The Bud Light, not so much). Almost every male in the Middle East smokes and they love American cigarettes, especially Marlboro lights, as my brother found out when we visited there. They are kind of pricey though. In Egypt, for example, Cleopatra cigarettes, the most popular brand, cost about 2 Egyptian pounds (=$0.32) whereas Marlboro lights in Egypt cost about 16 Egyptian pounds (about $2). In a country where the average Egyptian makes about $30 a month, those are a little expensive. However, as an American, if you offer someone in Egypt a Marlboro Light, you will be their friend for life. This holds true for pretty much all of the Middle East. If the U.S. wants there to be peace in the Middle East, rather than exporting democracy, export cigarettes. Maybe everyone would relax. Cigarettes for oil, there's an idea.

As for this hookah bar, they have some cool artwork, clothes, etc., and I love the idea of a hookah bar, but their location is atrocious. I seriously doubt it will last very long unless the atmosphere is fabulous and the prices are very reasonable, which I doubt.
8 September 2006
at 12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

TOB:
“So, if I opened up the American Smoke Shop in Riyadh and sold Marlboro Lights and Bud Light that'd be considered American tradition and hailed as multicultural? Didn't think so.”

There's a nice Harley Davidson outlet in Riyadh. Pretty popular place and gets a lot of business. It's hard do imagine a more “American” business than a HD dealership. So maybe an American smoke shop in Riyadh wouldn't go over as badly as you think. But, the Bud Light part of your idea would go over quite badly with the Mutawa.
8 September 2006
at 12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rpm (Anonymous) says…

So…if Free State Brewery had a tobacco shop and GAVE a couple of free beers to all who bought $10 worth of tobacco and smoked it on premises, that would be ok, right? I mean, their primary sales would come from tobacco not food or drink sales.

Hmmmmm…..?

Rememer that the ban states that smoking would be allowed indoors if the smoker was part of a skit in a play that required the character to smoke. So, why not hand out 'scripts' to bar patrons when they come in and have a stage area of some sorts, so when a 'character' feels like smoking they grab their script, head over to the stage area and have a smoke while reciting their character's lines?
8 September 2006
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

NO, rpm. Free beer is illegal. Please pay attention.
8 September 2006
at 1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Jeeper that'd be funny if Lebanon had an A.Q. presence. A better joke would have involved HZB or some other group. Nice try though, props.

Apparently smoking a hookah is not only legal, but encouraged! Those hookahs at 7th and Pennsylvania betta watch out! Hookahs are goin' down……town…
8 September 2006
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cmdln (Anonymous) says…

ljook:

Why are you people crying and worrying about the employees? If they apply for a job at a smoke shop, they know what they are getting into. No one is forcing them to work there. I actually doubt if anyone other than family will be hired there anyway. Do you people always need a reason to cry?

And before the ban people who applied to work in a restaurant or bar knew what they were in for. If the establishment allowed smoking they could be sure they would have customers smoking in close proximity to them. The ban makes no sense. now smokers have to open up a shop where basically all you can do is smoke (if they want to smoke in a public place other than outside). Yes they can get drinks and hummace but if sales of either go too high the bar will be re-classified and no longer will people be allowed to smoke in it. Maybe we should outlaw drinking in any place thats sales are not comprised of 80% alcohol. Or maybe outlaw sales of food in any place thats food sales do not comprise 80%. Wow we are on track to have a shop for everything you want to do! That is great until you want to do a couple things at one time like have a beer with dinner, or have a smoke with a beer at a bar (oh wait its already gone).
8 September 2006
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cmdln (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic:

Posted by logrithmic (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No smoking in bars and restaurants. I love it. I can listen to live music and not have poison blown in my face.
Let the addicts have their tobacco shop.

Posted by logrithmic (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Addicts addicts everywhere. Cigarette companies increasing the nicotine in your cigarettes and yet you still want the public to get hooked in the bars and restaurants - so we can all share your fate - coughing and hacking to death in a hospital, your lungs eaten up to the point they look like something you'd find in a toilet. Oh yeah!!!!

Hurmm, I don't like your nasty non-smoker friendly attitude. It is poison to my self esteem. Maybe we should ban you from being able to express anything in a public forum!
Seriously, If there are *soo* many people that *love* the smoking ban why not lift it and open up a couple (owner decided) restaurants and bars that are no smoking. You will make a killing because there will only be a few if the ban is lifted so all the non-smokers can have their restaurants and bars in which the owner decides it is a sound financial decision to create such an environment.
What you don't like separate but equal? At least with the *ban* lifted you can choose or not choose to separate yourself. However the smokers (at the moment) have to resort to opening a shop which must maintain 80% tobacco sales in order to stay clear of the ban, we don't have the choice of opening a restaurant that allows smoking.

Well I suppose I could open up a restaurant that only *sells* tobacco and gives away a meal with it. I wonder if the city would let me have a liqour license in a tobacco shop? Could I even get away with *giving* away alcohol with proper ID and purchase of tobacco?
8 September 2006
at 2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

For once Marion and I agree. The ban will be overturned by the Kansas Supreme Court. It is just a matter of time.

8 September 2006
at 2:13 p.m.

Permalink

fcraig (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 September 2006
at 2:22 p.m.

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 September 2006
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Sorry, folks but smoking is, by the wording of the neafarious Smoking Ban illegal in this place as well.

I must retract my earlier statement in which I said that the place is good to go!

The place MUST have a food service licence in order to sell or give away food.

From the ordinance 8-903:

“Food Service Establishment of any kind may not, according to the Smoking Ban, permit any kind of smoking:G) Food service establishments and licensed premises, excluding areas of a food service establishment or licensed premises that are not enclosed such as patios, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards.”

Food Service Establishment Defined; 9-801:

“Food Service Establishment shall mean any place in which food is served or is prepared for sale or service on the premises or elsewhere. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, fixed or mobile restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, grill, tea room, sandwich shop, soda fountain, tavern, private club, roadside kitchen, commissary and any other private, public or nonprofit organization or institution routinely serving food and any other eating or drinking establishment or operation where food is served or provided for the public with or without charge.”

More inconsistent, arbitrary and discriminatory applications of the ban.

There is more and I will get to that in subsequent posts.

The ban is being voided by the City itself and I find that hilarious!

Get on it Steffies!

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Defintion of “Service Line”; from the Ordinance, 8-902:

K) Service Line means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons are waiting for or receiving service of any kind, whether or not such service involves the exchange of money.

Smoking prohibited in Service Lines, from the Ordinance, 8-903:

“Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the City of Lawrence, including, but not limited to, the following places: (Ord. 7782)

(D) Service lines.”

'Nuff said.

The Smoking Ban is now a certainty to be overturned by The Provincials.

I shall comment further so have no fear.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

No fear. Ok. Gotcha. Nice to know you have found a new hobby since your doggie crusade is failing miserably.
8 September 2006
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Hey all! Just go to the bar over in Perry. Smoking is allowed and legal and indoors. That is if you can get in. I understand it is pretty crowded now. Somebody needs to put in a double wide and open a tavern over there. Expand that economy.
8 September 2006
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

The sketch:

A customer enters a bar.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(The owner does not respond.)

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

Owner: What do you mean “miss”?

Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Owner: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this smoking ban what prevents me from enoyin' my ciggy fag in this 'ere establishment.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Smoking Ban…What's,uh…What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'it's uh,…it's in force.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead smoking ban when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no it's not dead, it's, it's just unequally enforced! Remarkable thing, the Smoking Ban, idn'it, ay? Beautifully arbitratily enforced!

Mr. Praline: The enforcement don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'It's in force!

Mr. Praline: All right then, if it's force', I'll ask you this! (Lighting up and dialing the phone!) 'Ello, Mister Lebanese Hooka' Bar! I've got to know if I can smoke in your establishment! I can?

(owner hits the bar)

Owner: There, It's in force, it is!

Mr. Praline: No, it's not, that was you hitting the bar and I can smoke in the Lebanese Hooka' Bar!

Owner: I never! You can't smoke in 'here!

Mr. Praline: Yes, I can! The Smoking Ban's dead!

Owner: I never, never did anything…

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the bar repeatedly) 'ello smoking ban!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your smoke alarm call!

(Takes copy of Smoking Ban off the wall and thumps it onto the bar. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead Smoking Ban.

Owner: No, no…..No, it's stunned!

Mr. Praline: stunned?!?

cont'd:
8 September 2006
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

Owner: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was started to work! Smoking Bans stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um…now look…now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That Smoking Ban is definitely deceased, and when I'm tol' that I can smoke in the Lebanese Hooka' Bar as I was not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that it was in force 'ere as well but it can'be as it is unequally enforced, tired and shagged out!.

Owner: Well, it's…it's, ah…probably ONLY for the non-Lebanese bars.

Mr. Praline: Only for the NON_Lebanese BARS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, the Smoking Ban fell flat on its back the moment the Lebanese Hook'a Bar allowd smoking?

Owner: Oh but the City prefers keepin' on with the Smoking Ban in my bar! Not a Lebanese Hooka' Bar, ya know! Remarkable law, id'nit, squire? Lovely little Smoking Ban!

Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that Smoking Ban when I got it off the wall, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on the wall in the
first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that Smoking Ban down, it would have fallen apart of its own accord and all those bars and my place, why ther'd be people smoking in them, and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this Smoking Ban wouldn't “voom” if you put four million volts through it! 'It's bleedin' demised!

Owner: No no! 'It's in FORCE!

Mr. Praline: 'It's not in force! It's passed on! This Smoking Ban is no more! It's has ceased to be! 'It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'it to the wall 'it'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is legal processes are now 'istory! 'It's off the twig! 'It's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! this is an ex-smoking ban!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh,
we're right out of copies of it.

Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Owner: I got a slug.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, does it talk?

Owner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Praline: well it's hardly a bloody replacement, is it?!!???!!?

Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

Owner: (quietly) D'you…. d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

After I turn Lebanese!

Again, apologies to Monty Python.

Thanks.

Marion.

8 September 2006
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cutny (Anonymous) says…

Geezus Marion!!! Enough Already. Surely you do not flatter yourself by thinking that anyone reads your comments do you? The drivel, GAWD!!! Back in the day you were what's known as a “penny a liner.” Pat yourself on the back and call it a day. Ever thought doing some volunteer work or something? dude…get a hobby. Your devotion to educating the good people of Lawrence is misguided at best, and intolerable at worst.
8 September 2006
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

kujeeper - very insensitive remark….
I am sure the owner has enough problems with bigotry without you adding to it.
8 September 2006
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

as_I_live_and_breathe (Anonymous) says…

Posted by ksmoderate (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But, even though it may have been Dad's intention to bring up the point that some people use bongs and hookahs for smoking pot….it was in poor taste. The last thing we as a society need is for people to believe the misconception that hookahs are for pot smoking

**************************
I thought Hookahs were for smoking opium…..and hash er hashish, (not corned beef, you fry that)
8 September 2006
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BunE (Anonymous) says…

Jebus Marion,

Were you wronged by the Lebanese? Are you Israeli? Are you mad that Hezbullah handed the IDF their A$$? Did a beautiful Lebanese woman dump your pasty self? Do you hate Cedars? Do you you just want to get rid of the A-rabs? Are you Syrian? Did the lebanese plot to force you out of business?

Or are you just a sad old man?
8 September 2006
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Marion it's not a bar. It's a tobacco shop and tobacco shops are (ironically) exempt from the smoking BAN. This is perfectly legal, get over yourself.
8 September 2006
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blessed3x (Anonymous) says…

So the bars need to sell beer for $.05 and a pack of smokes (required with the beer purchase) for $3.00. Then the required amount of sales would come from tobacco and voila! its a tobacco store, not a bar. Simple. It works for ebay.
8 September 2006
at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

can't sell beer for $.05. that's illegal. keep trying….
8 September 2006
at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

madmatmax (Anonymous) says…

I do not see the big deal all of a sudden with tobacco shops allowing smoking and relating it to the hookah bar. It has already been done before in Lawrence. The “loophole” has already been exploited. Why this article received so much more attention than another is illogical. At Centro Cigars you can buy a membership or pay a daily fee to smoke cigars inside the club, “and overhead cabinets for members to stash their own scotch, brandy, Madeira or other spirits they might like to have around.” So you have the liquor covered too.

8 September 2006
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

The smoking ban has as much chance of being overturned as Marion has of running a successful business. Quit your whining already.

ottr: As I've said countless times before, just because you own a business does not mean you can do whatever you want within that business. I can just see you arguing to allow knife dodging contests in your bar — hey you are the owner and if people want to put their lives on the line to go there, why not? Games of bottle-rocket tag inside, why not? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I guess you will just have to convert to Islam and open a hookah shop.
8 September 2006
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

Sell cigarettes for 4 dollars along with the purchase of a beer for 5 cents.
8 September 2006
at 5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cmdln (Anonymous) says…

Posted by classclown (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sell cigarettes for 4 dollars along with the purchase of a beer for 5 cents.

Yeah its the happy meal for people who want to keep their rights!
Buy a value fix! One pack of smokes, 3 beers, and a burger. Smokes =10 bucks, Beer = 3 bucks, burger = hummace delivery from the Hookah Bar since apparently its the only place that can get around the serving food and smoking in the same place ordinance.
8 September 2006
at 5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Doesn't Lawrence have enough hookahs? I hate driving by a hookah with the kids in the car saying “Avert your eyes, children! It's a hookah!” They're so unsightly.

Not near as many hookahs as Topeka, believe you me *dangles Groucho Marx cigar*

Hookah is today's magic word.
8 September 2006
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and did I fail to mention how oh so cool those guys look sucking on those smoking sticks. Way way hip and trendy. Addicts are cool.
8 September 2006
at 6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

Ridiculous poppycock! Is anyone complaining about “Smoker Friendly” and “Tobacco Express”. They are smoke shops AND you can smoke in them. Shocking!

Put that in yer pipe and simmah down…..
8 September 2006
at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

And logicsound04, there is plenty of whining from the non-smokers as well……

You people are so hilariously entertaining!
8 September 2006
at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

Lastly, seventh paragraph down in the article, I believe….

“The business does not sell alcohol.”

End of argument. Maybe you all need a puff of something to untwist yer panties!

8 September 2006
at 6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

Whats next ? how bout a local opium den !
8 September 2006
at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

You DO get to eat in a smoke-free environment now. Lawrence is smoke-free.

These folks have a smoke-shop not a cafe. Are you gonna go in and order hummus and ask for the non-smoking section? You KNOW its a smoke-shop. WTF?
8 September 2006
at 6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

That is, Lawrence is smoke-free in bars and restaurants. But not in smoke-shops. Thus the term, s-m-o-k-e-s-h-o-p.
8 September 2006
at 6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

stophammertime (Anonymous) says…

Seriously, you smokers are some deluded folks. Never mind that whole CANCER thing that is a threat to smokers as well as non-smokers. Lawrence should open an asbestos bar…all the smokers can go hang out there.
8 September 2006
at 6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Carmenilla (Anonymous) says…

Let the whining begin…

No one is forcing ANY non-smoker to go to this smokeshop. So why does it matter so much that it exists?

I don't drink much alcohol. You don't find me b*tching about drunk people in bars. Heck they might kill someone with second-hand drunkenness (DUIs). Complaining about smokers when it won't even affect you is silly. We do still live in a free country, right?
8 September 2006
at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Temporary hijack alert….
Hey there stophammertime….glad to see you are back watching whats going on here in larryville. I suspect it won't be to long before there will be more news about, you know who/what. Keep watching…..would love to see you comment on some of that action again.
8 September 2006
at 7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Almost went there today…alas didn't have enough time…definately gonna check it out asap. Wonder if they will be open in the evenings….out for a beer, then hit the hookah bar for a smoke…LOL!
8 September 2006
at 8:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Beverly (Anonymous) says…

Diversity is our strength. We should not be so critical of other cultures and new ideas. American was built on innovation and open mindedness. Are you so insecure that you mush ridicule and innocent business. If the smoking offends you, use your legs and walk away. If a train was coming what would you do? A police society is doomed to extinction. Just ask George Orwell or former USSR. Have a good evening and please think before you speak or type negative karma.

8 September 2006
at 8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

OK.

I did not play the “race card”.

I did not specify that the people running this shop are Lebanese; the LJW did.

I have made NO “racist” comments in ANY of my posts in this thread.

I have said that the application of the smoking ban in this instance is deferential to a particular ethnic tradition and it is.

I have said in this thread, or at least implied that Scott Miller cannot read and understand the ordinances which he is hired to apply and enforce.

He cannot.

I have said that the Smoking Ban is being unfairly, arbitrairly, unequally and unfairly enforced and it is.

The manner of application in reference to the Hookah Bar is unconstituiional as all get out and I do not care what ethnic, political, social or sports group is running the place.

They serve food; NO Smoking.

People wait for service: NO Smoking.

The place is determined by city code to be a food service establishment; no Smoking.

I did not write the ban but I can sure as Heck READ it and the last time I looked, the Smoking Ban is written in english; a language in which I am reasonably proficient.

This arbitrary, unfair, unequal and pure darned wrong application of the smoking ban is enough to guarranty its unconstitutionality!

Or at least an oder from The Provincials that it must be equally and fairly enforced.

I do believe that special consideration has been given by the City to this place because the owners are Lebanese and because the use of the Hookah is so embedded in Arabic and Middle Eastern tradition but I have not chosen to go there; only to go with the specific and obvious mis-application of the law.

The Provincials will decide and I'll bet you that I am correct.

The Hookah Bar is illegal under current City Code.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

as_I_live_and_breathe (Anonymous) says…

Posted by macon47 (anonymous) on September 8, 2006 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

do hookrahs have hookers?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
everyplace has hookers, only the currency changes….
8 September 2006
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

funkdog1 (Anonymous) says…

OK, Marion, just so you know, there's a cigar shop in west Lawrence, on Wakarusa Street — Centro Cigars — and one can join their private smoking club there, and smoke in the shop. They've been operating for several months now. As far as I know, the place is owned by a couple 'o' white guys.

http://www.centrocigars.com/

Personally, i love, love, love the smoking ban. Thank you Commissioners! I don't have any problem, however, with a tobacco-only store being allowed to have smoking.

What bothers me about the hookah place is that they serve food. That seems iffy. (God forbid, I'm going to have to agree with Marion on something.)
8 September 2006
at 9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Does seem that some out of business restraurants (ie Hereford House to name one),one could have withheld alcohol and served food to smokers who at one time kept their business booming.Today is quite amusing,three steps forward;four steps back. Well, think I better start saving for the next city lawsuit.
8 September 2006
at 9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Funkdog1:

I am well aware that there is a cigar club operating in West Lawrence but I am not concerned with the ethnicity of the owners as ethnicity is NOT the primary issue here.

I do not care if the place is run by demented Venusian dwarves.

Although I do believe that the ethnicity of the owners of the Hookah Bar was a factor in determining that this special dispensation of law was to be given, that is not thte apporach that is necessary to cause the Smoking Ban to be declared unconstitutional.

Simply put, the ban either is or it is not.

The facts are that the place meets the City's own definition of a Food Service establishment.

The Smoking Ban prohibits smoking in a Food Service Establishment; end of story and no “iffy” about it!

Although the motives of the City in approving this may and should be subject to scrutiny at some point, consideration of those motives at this time are not necessary to demonstrate unequal application of the smoking ban.

The motives may well be the subject of future investigation but unnecesary to overturn the ban.

Every citizen should be concerned though that the City has indeed and in fact given special consideration to a paraticular business and it is in the public interst to have those motves explored and exposed.

The Smoking Ban is toast.

Thanks.

Marion.
8 September 2006
at 9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jofuss_malone (Anonymous) says…

how very typical..

i cant belive that people can be so threatend and scared of things they do not understand.

i know that this isnt really “smoker ban related”, but for all of you hookah-bashers, this ones for you.

hookahs are wonderful. if your a smoker, then do yourself a favor and go try one at the new shop. you will not be dissapointed. i myself do not smoke cigarettes, but hookahs are extreamly tasty.

if your not a smoker, then leave it alone. anyone smoking a hookah in that shop is not poisoning you in any way so why the heck are you even making an ordeal out of it? although i would still recomend you try a hookah before you talk down it, which sadly enough will probably never happen.

and a few things you need to know. being a hookah owner, i can definatly say that it is much cleaner then smoking cigarettes. this is because the tobacco is being heated by a coal, which doesnt burn nearly as much residue. your pretty much vaporizing the moistness of the “shisha”, which is the correct term for the tobbacco that is being smoked. they make shisha by soaking the tobacco in fruit molasses (sp?) and pretty much, yes you are smoking vapors. flames never touch the tobacco. its all heated from the coal that sits about half an inch away from the tobacco. that is why its not harsh when you smoke it. not to mention that you are also filtering the “smoke” through water which cleans the smoke even more. the smoke even evoparates and does not linger in the air, unlike cigarettes and the like.

it seriously doesnt hurt to research things yourself before you form an argument. otherwise you look stupid. and sadly enough, it appears that there are a great majority of stupid people in this world :P

thats all im going to say.

now begins the narrow-minded bashings of my post. yippiee!!
8 September 2006
at 10:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

holy crap! Carmenilla, where ya been?
8 September 2006
at 10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

jofuss_malone:

Child, I know what a hookah is and was smoking from them most likely before you were born and I was NOT smoking tobacco OR pot!

Nice try at SPIN there, jufuss_malone but it won't fly.

This issue is clearly about unequal, unfair and arbitrary application of law.

The Smoking Ban allows for no degrees of smoking; permits no special dispensation for interesting types of smoking paraphernalia; the ban says no smoking in any number of clearly specified locations and the Hookah Bar is without a doubt one of those locations.

The Smoking Ban is void and I sincerely hope that the lawsuits against the City of Lawrence, Kansas begin soon.

Thanks.

Marion.

8 September 2006
at 10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Marion, you are right on. I hope to see the lawsuits fly. But I don't want to pay, as a Lawrence taxpayer, to defend the suits that the City will, without a doubt, lose…..

Ah, cruel fate……
9 September 2006
at 7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

What's all this fuss I've heard about lesbian hookers?_Emily Latella
9 September 2006
at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

trinity (Anonymous) says…

roflmao@geekin's comment. love me some emily latella!
9 September 2006
at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

if this causes the ban to revoked the city comission can wash their hands and say they were just trying to broaden peoples cultural experience….If they would allow bars to be private clubs if they want smoking there would be no problem.
9 September 2006
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Keep the ban forever.

This place is legal, Marion, get over yourself. It's a tobacco SHOP, not a food service establishment!
9 September 2006
at 2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justsomewench (Anonymous) says…

i wanna go!

(sorry, stophammertime, i gave up worrying about whether i looked “cool” for other people some time back.)

too bad i quit smoking. damnitall.
9 September 2006
at 2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Tychoman wrote:

“Posted by Tychoman (anonymous) on September 9, 2006 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep the ban forever.

This place is legal, Marion, get over yourself. It's a tobacco SHOP, not a food service establishment!”

Marion writes:

Tychoman, I presume that unless you are having someone write and post for you that you speak and read English.

I would suggest that you very carefully read the Lawrence Smoking ban which may be found here; beginning with p-801, wherein you wll find all f the appropriate and aoolicable definitions and prohibitions:

http://web.ci.lawrence.ks.us/legal_se…

You will find that by even the most generous interpretaion of the law that I am correct.

The courts will uphold my interpretation of this law as it will for those who are as this is written, drafting pleadings for lawsuits in connection with this matter.

I do not write the laws but I can most certainly read and understand them.

Additionally, there are other laws which relate directly to this matter which are notdirectly related to the Smoking Ban but I will leave those references to the attroneys currently drafting the pleadings.

Like a chicken running around with its head cut off, the Smoking Ban is dead; it just doesn't know it yet.

I do not advocate for the closing of the Hookah Bar and wish it the best.

I only seek for other businesses in Lawrence to be free from the excess of the Smoking Ban.

It is time for the good citizens of this fair burg to Take Back Lawrence!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 September 2006
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

stophammertime (Anonymous) says…

Actually, the only reason I posted in the first place was because people were getting back into the bar/smoking issue again. I could care less about what people do in a smoke bar…I won't be attending a smoke bar because I don't smoke…and there are many wonderful places to eat hummus and chips in Lawrence and beyond. Besides all that business…If some dumba$$ that doesn't smoke wants to work ina smoke bar, they should be prepared for the consequences. Same goes for the fool that chooses to work in a bar where smoking is allowed and then decides to complain about the smoke. However, now that bars are becoming smoke-free (as they should have been as welll as all establishments…besides smoke shops) I can actually go and enjoy myself. I don't have to take 1,000,000mg's of Clariton the next day or cough of brown goo the next week…it's awesome. I'm not sure that smokers are aware of how bad it is for some non-smokers. That's all I'm saying.

9 September 2006
at 3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Marion it specifically lists tobacco retail stores in 802-J I believe, and how they're exempt even if they sell a little bit of food because the food is “merely incidental.”

They're in the clear, the ban should stay.
9 September 2006
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justsomewench (Anonymous) says…

no harm taken, stopham. when i quit worrying about looking cool to others was, concidentally, most likely when i lost the ability to. ha!
9 September 2006
at 9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

swbsow:

You are quite literally full of it.

Tychoboy:

You are sadly mistaken.

Were I in a good mood about this matter, I would file a Brief Amicus Curiae and assist to get all this straight.

Because I am not in a good mood about it and hope that the “Progressives” burn in Hades, I will let the real legal sharks deal with it.

This means that I prefer to let the “Progressives” and their counsels spend a ton of taxpayer dollars to defend this ordinance.

In this manner will the largest part of the voting population of Lawrence, Kansas get really SICK of the “Progressives” and their agenda, send the “Progressives” packing and the population at large will really be able to Take Back Lawrence!

I spoke with a respected Juris Doctor this very day who took a look at the matter and was siezed by fits of uncontrollable laughter!

Also attending at the same impromptu gathering were a few old friends; a trio of scum sucking, bottom feeding lawyers(The best kind!) and an un-named District Court Judge, all of whom wished the “Progressives” the best and all of whom expressed their most sincere wishes that the Lord would Bless Them And Keep Them, as it appeared most unlikely that any reasonable court in the Land would!

Ya'll done.

Read the ordinance and its definitions.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Thanks.

Marion.
9 September 2006
at 10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

Marion wrote,
“Were I in a good mood about this matter, I would file a Brief Amicus Curiae…”
*****
Sorry Marion but as English as the official language of the United States you will not be able to file this Latin motion.
What would this motion mean in “American”?
9 September 2006
at 10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Whatever, Marion. Show me where Sow and I are mistaken. Or just get over that the smoking ban is saying, like it should, and that it IS constitutional and legal. Were it NOT legal, it wouldn't be a LAW.
9 September 2006
at 10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DaleRogers (Anonymous) says…

Marion wrote:

“Were I in a good mood about this matter, I would file a Brief Amicus Curiae and assist to get all this straight.”

OMFG - are you an attorney? Do you really think they would accept your brief?

Racism abounds in your posts.
9 September 2006
at 10:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

DaleRogers:

I challenge you to demonstrate and prove that there is anything which might in a reasonable manner be termed “racist” in any of my posts on this forum.

Moira:

Indeed and in fact you are correct although if such a briedf is fild and rejected by the court in question, one can have a field day in the press.

I can just see the LJW reporting that such a brief was rejected by any court in Douglas County, especially if the primary motivation of the brief was to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

Yeah.

I like THAT scenario!

Besides, anyone can file any darned thing that they want.

Even if rejected by the court, the filing is on record.

Should such a filing be rejected by a court of proper competency and jurisdiction I would begin the filing of Writs Of Mandamus on a plethora of other agencies; each of which would have to be responded to by any agency so served.

Tychoman:

In several posts on this very forum I have referred you to the ordinacne in question.

It is now obvious to me that you cannot read; at least anything written in the Englich language.

Please let me know in what language you are most proficent so that I might arrange a translation of the applicable documents.

Thanks.

Marion.
9 September 2006
at 11:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cerealmom (Anonymous) says…

As the wife of an Attorney it was easy to clarify the question here. What the Marquis says is correct about the Amicus Curiae. A person who files Amicus Curiae may later become a party to the initial suit. As I understand this is how Class action suits can develope from a single filing without refiling the original motion.

9 September 2006
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Marion, I couldn't find the ordinacne you were referring to. I didn't know the skin condition was so organized. Howver, I read the ordinance from the link you provided, and swbsow and I pointed out where the ordinance authorizes this hookah bar.

Of course I can't read in the Englich language. I've never even heard of the Englich language. Anyone know where Englich is? Holy crap I wonder if I can major in it.
9 September 2006
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DaleRogers (Anonymous) says…

Marion:

“I challenge you to demonstrate and prove that there is anything which might in a reasonable manner be termed “racist” in any of my posts on this forum.”

The proof is in your own words:

“This licence has been granted soley because the owners are Lebanese and the City is afraid to offend Middle Easterners, instead. respecting “multiculturalism”. Kind of like the defence the Asian fellow put up that it was OK in his culture to kill those five or six hunters because he thought that they were going to kill him!”
9 September 2006
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

I didn't know you could start parties in court. I wonder what Ruth Bader Ginsburg's like when she's smashed.
9 September 2006
at 11:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lovineveryminuteofit (Anonymous) says…

The Fates are dispesable just like ex's they only have the power in which we give them. I have been told there is nothing to worry about as right prevails no matter what interference is enlisted. I shall endevor upon my path to bliss and it is my sicere wish that those who mock others pay their dues.
9 September 2006
at 11:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

DaleRogers:

You would not know a “racist” comment if one hit you in the head.

There is nothing “racist” in the statement that I made; if anything. I am pointing to the “racism” of others.

Get a dictionary, get an education in history and then try, try deperately to get a life.

Thaks.

Marion.
9 September 2006
at 11:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Figures the Fates were women. Just kidding, Moira.

Wow thanks for wasting a post and not admitting you're wrong, Marion. It's what you're best at.

Night.
10 September 2006
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

swbsow:

I must again refer you to the Smoking Ban which has its own set of definitions which are quite separate and distinct from anything else in the city code.

The Ban specifically defines a “Food Service Establishment” as (And I quote from the ordinance; 9-802):

“(E) Food Service Establishment shall mean ANY place in which food is served or is prepared for sale or service on the premises or elsewhere. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, fixed or mobile restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, grill, tea room, sandwich shop, soda fountain, tavern, private club, roadside kitchen, commissary and any other private, public or nonprofit organization or institution routinely serving food and any other eating or drinking establishment or operation where food is SERVED or provided for the public with or without charge.”

Now unless Hummus, soft drinks, coffee, tea and chips have been re-classified as not being food, this place meets the specification of the Smoking Ban as a “Food Service Establishment”.

Section 9-803 of that same ordinance prohibits smoking in any “Food Service Establishment”:

9-803(G):

“G) Food service establishments and licensed premises, excluding areas of a food service establishment or licensed premises that are not enclosed such as patios, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards.”

You will note that the ordinance makes a disticntion between “Food Service Establishments” and “licenced premeises”, indicataing that there is no licenceing requirement for a place to be considered a “Food Service Establishment” within the definition set out in the ordinance.

Unfair, unequal and arbitrary enforcement.

Period.

The Smoking Ban is dead.

Thanks.

Marion.
10 September 2006
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

The Smoking Ban is dead.

Thanks.

Marion.

Cool….perhaps you'd like to be the first to test you theory, at the bar or resturant of your choice and let us all know how it turns out.

10 September 2006
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

When reviewed by a court of proper competence and jurisdiction, that court will either mandate fair, equal and universal enforcement of the ban or declare the ban unconstitutional based on the above.

I would not be surprised (Hint!) if within a few days another filing for an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ban until these issues are resolved pops up for consideration.

I expect a move directly to Federal Courts based on violations of Federal laws.

You see, the manner in which the ban is being applied is indeed and in fact discriminatory on several levels.

One place can serve food (Hummus, coffee, tea, soft drinks and chips being food.) and allow smoking while other places cannot.

Addionally, there is no specification in the odinance setting out and percentage of sales requirements making the ordinance vague and difficult to understand and to comply with in manners which might be easily comprehended by the average citizen.

The city has shot itself in the foot on this one and will be eaten alive in court at great expence to the taxpayers.

It would be a lot easier for businesses to define themselves as smoking or non-smoking thereby alowing those who wish to smoke to go to smoking establishments anda those who do not wish to be around smoke to go to non-smoking establishments.

Such a plan reliles on the exercise of personal responsibility and the supporters of smoking bans do not believe that the public at large has the ability to regulate itself in reasonable and rational manners.

If you don't like smoke do not go to a smoking place.

If you don't mind, go there.

No one is forced to work in a smoking establishment and the facta that there are employees in the Mookah BAr is proof positive of that idea.

You are telling me that it is OK for folks to vountarily go to work in a smoking establishment but not OK for them to voluntarily work in a bar which allows smoking.

Same for the customers.

Which is it?

You cannot have it both ways.

Thanks.

Marion.
10 September 2006
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Serving food at the hookah shop is “merely incidental.” Refer to the parts of the ordinance that swbsow and I mentioned hours ago.

It's legal, both the hookah shop and the smoking ban. Get over it.
10 September 2006
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Tychoman:

Whether or not the food service is “incidental” is immaterial.

The business meets the definitioin of “Food Service Establishment” set out in the Smoking Ban.

I did not write the law but I can sureasHades read it.

There is no “primary function” set out in the ban; the wording is clear; if food is served, smoking is not permitted.
Regarding licencing, I am simply stating that the ordinance indicates that no restaurant licence is necessary for a business to be considered a “Food Service Establishment” by the wording of the ordinance.

Regarding you mid-guided belief that a famil “falls into a different category”, there is no usch specification in the law.

I find it very interesting that you folks defend the serving of food in a smoking establishment but deciy smoking in a food service establishment.

Hookahs are very clearly included within the definnition of “smoking accessories” in the city code and I have never questioned that so I don't see what all that biz is about.

There is also no special dispensation given to hookahs in the ordinance.

What is really going on here is complete and total hypocrisy.

It is OK for a “family” to band toether to work in a smoking place and to serve food in that same place, defend the right of the clientle to be there and you folks defend their right to do so while denying those same rights to others.

You are suggesting that a “family” may band together to make the decision to expose itself to smoke but that any other group may not make that decision?

Where are those who howl about worker's rights and the right to a healthy environment?

Where they are is nowhere!

You have no problem exempting this business from regulations which apply to everyone else!

You defend the “right” of the workers, the owners and the clientle to make the choice but deny that same CHOICE elsewhere.

cont'd:
10 September 2006
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

cont'd:

The filing of appropriate and relevant documents with a court is NOT “abuse of the court system”; it is the exercise of the rights of a citizen and the only manner in which one may be heard in the system.

Further I never used the phrase “get back” at the system and you spin is noted!

You have also told us that working within the system “smacks of the militia men”, implying that the ordinary citizenry should lnot participate in the very legal system set up to protect the rights of that citizenry.

I have said that I have no axe to grind against this business.

I hope that it succeeds.

What I have said is that the Smoking Ban is being unfairly, unequally and arbitrarily applied and I have every confidence that a court will substantiate my claim in that regard.

I again quote from the ordinance:

“”(E) Food Service Establishment shall mean ANY place in which food is served or is prepared for sale or service on the premises or elsewhere.”

Thank you City Code.

Please explain to me how the Hookah Bar is NOT “ANY place in which food is served” as defined in the ordinance!

This oughta be good!

If you have difficulty reading the above section of the ordinance, please find someone to read it to you.

As we live in the USA, English speakers and readers are easily found so you should have little diffculty locating one.

As far as a “Lebanese licencing requirement”; I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

There are very real reasons why this rather odd application of the law has been allowed but because of the other blatant mis-applications, those will most likely be irrelevant in the fight against the Smoking Ban.

You have lost.

Have a nice day.

Thanks.

Marion.
10 September 2006
at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

It's a tobacco shop, not a bar.

The ordinance lists tobacco shops specifically as exempt, even if the serving of food is “merely incidental.” And the hookah shop is most definitely a tobacco shop, not a food service establishment.

Look up the references swbsow and I pointed out AGES ago.

You have lost. Have a mediocre day.
10 September 2006
at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

The ordinance says the food says cannot go beyond a certain percent. The serving of Alcohol has nothing to do with it. It is the same concept of a private club, except the private club was required to sell a crtain amount in food sales. Here the food sales cannot surpass a certain amount. If these people were really on the up and up they would not charge for food & drinks at all. There is some speculation in my mind when they sell $2.00 worth of tabacco for $10 and throw in Hummus and a drink. If you buy this line have I got some dals for you.
10 September 2006
at 5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Selene:

I suggest that you read the ordinance as you obviously have not done so.

There is NO specification for a given percentage of food sales in this ordinance.

I suggest that you are confusing this matter with the 55% food sales requirement for drinking establishments in the Downtown Corridor.

If you READ the ordinance you will find that private clubs are specifically mentioined and specifically included in the smoking ban.

Go do your homeowrk and stop speculating.

Swbsow and Tychoman do enough baseless speculating and promulgate enough BOGUS information for everyone.

For you perusal; the ordinance:

http://web.ci.lawrence.ks.us/legal_se…

Thanks.

Marion.
10 September 2006
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

Marion
This is what I refer to

What constitutes incidental, however, is not specifically defined by the city, Miller said. He said if the business began selling a significant amount of nontobacco products, it could be reclassified as a restaurant or coffee shop that would be required to comply with the ban.

10 September 2006
at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

yes, you are correct and that is precisely part of the problem with the smoking ban.

By the way, I apologise for the tenor of the post which I addressed to you.

I am a bit tired of those who attack me rather than deal with the issues at hand.

You are 100% correct in your reference and that is precisely the problem.

The ban lacks specification which leads to unfair, unequal and arbitrary enforcement.

Ya just can't have laws like that.

This is why the Smoking Ban will either be declared unconstitutional or complete and universal enforcement will will ordered by the court.

Further, you will note that with each and every of my complaints about the ban I have included a link to the ordinance itself which confirm what I have written.

Most others who have commented on this thread have engaged in wild and baseless opinionated commentary most of which is without foundation in fact or law.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

Thanks.

Marion.
10 September 2006
at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Marion….I hope your right…really I do! Frankly I'd like to see the smoking ban revisited, being a smoker myself. My feelings are, that at the very least, bars should be allowed to have smoking at the discretion of the owner! Then there would be both smoking and non-smoking bars and hopefully everyone would be happy…though I doubt it.
10 September 2006
at 10:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

amanda_lazer (Anonymous) says…

I don't give a hoot about the hookah place or the restaurants. I would just like to enjoy a cold beer with my friends and voluntarily smoke a cig. Is that too much to ask?
10 September 2006
at 11:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Marion, I think your axe is sharp enough. Admit that this hookah shop is legal, the smoking ban is legal and labels perfectly well that this is not a food service establishment.
11 September 2006
at 12:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Amanda_lazer:

In the People's Republic Of Lawrence your request is indeed to musch to ask.

Swbsow:

I am challenging the ordinace on “legitimate grounds”; just not “legitimate grounds” that you agree with.

Re: enforcement and vagueness: I already said that.

Check my posts.

Tychoman:

The Smoking Ban is dead.

Actually this entire thread is not about the smoking abn but rather about someone who may now and then voice upopular opinions.

I am firmly convinced that if one of the local Looney Left were voicing the opinions that I put up, that there would be accolades in profusion!

Let's get to the REAL reason that this place has been exempted.

Ya'll hae a nice day, ya hear?

Thanks.

Marion.
11 September 2006
at 12:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Swbsow:

Allow me to use the “N Word”.

NITWIT!

I stand by my comments.

Thanks.

Marion.
11 September 2006
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

All this hookah hoopla…..caused me to have a dream about it last night. In the dream it was quite a place and even Marion was there partaking and enjoying himself….LOL! Yikes….I'm definately spending toooooooo much time on this silly site!
11 September 2006
at 10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

biggunz (Anonymous) says…

you guys need to find something else to do with your time….or not.

arguing with marion will get you nowhere as he apparently has all the time in the world to devote to ljworld.com and nothing else to do.

11 September 2006
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

swbsow

Just to play “devils” advocate here for a minute…LOL! After much pondering of the wording, it could be misconstrued as a “public place where food is prepared for service on the premises”. The wording in the ordinance is sketchy at best. Though more often than not I totally disagree with Marion….I gotta say on this one he does have a point….even if he comes across the wrong way.

There is obviously some things about the ordinance that need to be revised and the way it is written would be a good start!
11 September 2006
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, lemmee see here

Swbsow has gone so far as to recognise that the existing law is vague and open to interpretation.

golly gee whiz and shuckie darn!

I think that's where I started.

Others are now chiming in of the same mind.

Swbsow and a few others round here seem to suffer from the same grammatical disease as Bill Clinton, who had difficulty with the definition of the word is; they have just the worst time with ANY.

By the way, Swbsow, your flower shop analogy won't fly as you can't smoke in one to begin with.

Yes, Gentle Readers, the definition of the world ANY from AnswersDOTcom:

“One, some, every, or all without specification.”

Reads pretty clearly to me.

I have also been told that if this law is overturned because it is bad the City will just write a new one.

OK.

If you're going to have a law, that law, any law, needs to be correctly written and unchallengeable.

if it worth doing, it is worth doing right.

On the ohter hand, business people could be allowed to select their clientle.

If one does not like smoke, one should refrain from going to a place in which people smoke.

Smokers could be quite properly restrained from smoking in nonsmoking premises.

See how easy THAT would be?

The ONLY ways to change a bad law are through the courts or the body which enacted the law.

Glad to know that you believe getting rid of a bad law through the courts is a waste or the court's time and taxpayer monies!

The City Commission will most likely not change the law as doing so would put it in the position of having to backtrack and either completely eliminate ALL smoking in ALL businesses or create more exemptions which, I assure you, it will not do through changes in the Code; hence the unfair, unequal and arbitrary enforcement.

Thanks.

Marion.
11 September 2006
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

I saw this article crept back up into the most commented on stories today and knew a certain repeatedly failed bankrupt ex-store owner was behind it. Since the Doggie Crusades failed miserably this must be his new cause.
11 September 2006
at 4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

OMB:

Have no fear: I use an ergonomic keyboard.

Swbsow: You are demostrating how little you really know about our legal system. I suggest that you give it some study other than what you see on “Law And Order”.

TOB:

Ah, back with the red herrings again.

By the way, TOB, the “Doggie Crusade” as you put it, is cruising along splendidly with the case now residing in the Appellate Court.

I really spin out “Liberals” and really enjoy it!

Thanks.

Marion.
11 September 2006
at 7:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

It's not vague. It's legal.

Get over it.
12 September 2006
at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Again at the risk of casting pearls before swine, I have reprinted a bit of thought from the Cornell Law School's website regarding vagueness of a a given law and referenced the specific web address.

Ahem:

“The Elements of Due Process

Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The VoidforVagueness Doctrine.- “Legislation may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be lawabiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.”8 Acts which are made criminal “must be defined with appropriate definiteness.”9 “There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act … or in regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.”10 Statutes which lack the requisite definiteness or specificity are commonly held “void for vagueness.” Such a statute may be pronounced wholly unconstitutional (unconstitutional “on its face”),11 or, if the statute could be applied to both prohibitable and to protected conduct and its valuable effects outweigh its potential general harm, it could be held unconstitutional as applied.12 Generally, a vague statute that regulates in the area of First Amendment guarantees will be pronounced wholly void,13 while one that does not reach such protected conduct will either be upheld because it is applied to clearly proscribable conduct, or voided as applied when the conduct is marginal and the proscription is unclear.14”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/htm…

It is clear from the number of interpretations posted in this thread alone that the Lawrence Smoking ban in vague on its face and worthy of judicial review.

Thanks.

Marion.
12 September 2006
at 3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Hmmmmmmmmm……….

Challenged to produce documentation regarding the vagueness of laws and how that vagueness might lead to the voiding of that law due to unconstitutionality……..

…..what do I?

I come up with the specifics which back up may claim and even go so far as to post a link to the source.

What happens next is that the decriers acting ever so much as the Arthurian Knights who…..

run away!

run away!……..

…. from the French Knight or the Rabbit.

Sure got quiet, din't it?

An yes, the same theory of law applies to Breed Specific Legislation and the pitifully researched and poorly written animal control laws of this little Blue Burg.

(Holding head high and NOT shouting, “Nyah!)

Thanks.

Marion.
12 September 2006
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DaleRogers (Anonymous) says…

No Marion

Tychoman said it all in three sentences.

It's not vague. It's legal.

Get over it.

12 September 2006
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Unless taunted and then they come out.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Thanks.

Marion.
12 September 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

When Monty Python says it, it's funny.

When Marion says it, not so much.
12 September 2006
at 4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davisnin (Anonymous) says…

too much to read..
12 September 2006
at 6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

davisnin:

Yes, your comment is characteristic of the Soundbyte Generation.

If it takes any time to learn, it's not worth learning and whattheHeck?; you are more comfortable with you unfounded beliefs anyway.

Your attitude is exactly why we are turning into a nation of drones, worker bees and sheep.

I hope that you are not registered to vote.

Taunting you yet again:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theor…

Thanks.

Marion.
12 September 2006
at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davisnin (Anonymous) says…

Dear Marion,
I was merely commenting that I, apparently unlike you, don't have the time to read 300 comments of people arguing the same points over and over. If you 'learn' from the ranting disjointed arguments in this forum I pity you.

Person a against the smoking ban: “wasn't this supposed to be about the health of the employees, the city council is full of it”

Person b against the smoking ban: “your an idiot! people have the choice of where to work, they know the risks and you shouldn't force your views on me!!”

Person C ambiguous stance on ban: “I'm an A-hole and you're an idiot”

Thanks

Davisnin
12 September 2006
at 8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davisnin (Anonymous) says…

Oh and thanks one_more_bob for getting it right.
12 September 2006
at 11:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

marquisdesade:

Thank you Kind Sir or Madame.

As for the others…..let them eat cake.

Or dung.

They would not know the difference.

Thanks.

Marion.
28 February 2007
at 11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lounger (Anonymous) says…

im proud lawrence has a variety of cultures. its pathetic that muslem bashing is in our town. so i say to you people who cant handle the variety of cultures to please exit the town..forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 March 2007
at 12:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Wow…I'm impressed…how far back did you have to search to find this thread?