Appeals court: Bar violated smoking ban

[onehandle]

Source: AP

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Minnesota Court of Appeals has agreed with a judge's ruling that "theater nights" in a northeastern Minnesota bar were violating the state's smoking ban.

Tank's Bar in Babbitt had allowed patrons to smoke under a loophole in the smoking ban that allows actors to smoke as part of a theatrical production.

But a St. Louis County judge ruled in May that wearing a badge that says "Actor" doesn't make it a theatrical production. On Tuesday, the appeals court agreed.

In its decision, the appeals court says "Gun SMOKE Monologues" was not real, but a sham.

Read more: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/07/15/news/state/189865.txt

[Historic NY]

1. I guess they didn't consider the Raygun yrs.

[MercutioATC]

2. I'm pissed. That was a GREAT loophole.

...and creative, to boot.

[Wizard777]

5. It still is. They need to appeal. The decision violates their first amendment rights.

Freedom of expression.

[onehandle]

10. Appeals on trickery to bypass laws lose the vast majority of time.

It is apparent that they are fully aware that they are breaking the law.

[Wizard777]

12. How do we know the judge knows it's trickery? He said it was a sham.

But he refused to define what a legitimate (fair use) theatrical show was. Until he does we can't be sure he actually knows a legitimate theatrical show from a shame. He's having obscenity problems. The courts or the legislature have yet to render a legal definition of obscenity. The closest they have come is "they know it when they see it." This could have ramifications in other areas. Such as the National Endowment for the Arts. Many Republican legislators believe that artists that receive funding through this program are scamming the government. Especially street performers. Even more so if they are doing impromptu morality plays on the streets about gay rights. Now you can take a controversial new Broadway play in front of a Judge, have him declare it a sham and shut it down before it opens.

Also the use of loopholes are always a sham. They are very legal if you comply with the letter of the law. That is the real question here. Did they comply with the letter of law? That's what the court was to decide. What's wrong with this picture? I find you have obeyed the letter of law and in doing so you are committing a scam. So I find you guilty. Dayum! You can't even be not guilty for obeying the letter of the law as written. If the intent and the letter of the law are in harmony. You may consider them interchangeably. But they conflict. The Judge must enforce the letter of the law as written. Any legislature has an obligation to say what they mean so the courts can mean what they say. It wouldn't be the first time a legislature has groused about a legal decision saying, that's not what we meant when we wrote that law. Only to have the Judge shoot back with. Yeah but that's EXACTLY what you said when you wrote it. It's perfectly legal to violate the intent of the law. Just as long as you are obeying the letter of the law when you violate the intent. If the judge was enforcing the intent of the law over the letter of the law. They should appeal. If he wasn't you still have the first amendment can of worms that will make the court squirm defining a legitimate theatrical production. If they even can.

[trumad]

3. This guy was an Actor/Model

"Marlboro Man" Wayne McLaren.

Wayne McLaren dying from cancer. McLaren spent the final months of his life speaking out about the dangers of smoking.

[SheilaT]

4. I read somewhere, years ago, that all

of the Marlboro Men died of either lung cancer of smoking related disease. All of them.

[DJ13]

6. I read somewhere, years ago, that

everyone dies eventually.

Non smokers die at the same 100% rate as smokers.

[trumad]

7. Nice rationalization...

[DJ13]

8. The truth is never a rationalization

[trumad]

9. Keep saying that to yourself....

[DJ13]

11. I think its people like you that feel a need to rationalize why they

believe they have the right to tell others how to live their lives.

[No Elephants]

16. I don't see a single post on this thread that claims a right to tell people how

to live their lives.

[christx30]

17. Because no one is capable of

running their own lives. That's why people like trumad are there. He (or she) gets to decide what other people do with their own bodies. Which is why we can't smoke in bars. And why I have to wear a helmet when I ride a bicycle. Or why I should have to pay a $200 fine for not wearing my seat belt. Or why I will have to pay a huge fine for not having health insurance. We must be protected from ourselves. They are always watching us to make sure that we don't do anything that we might enjoy.
The question is how will they protect us in the future? Taxing the crap out of sodas, or outlawing them all together? Fatty foods? How will they take care of us in the future? And since he is taking care of us does that absolve the responsibility of our own lives?

[No Elephants]

15. A factoid off the tip of the iceberg is never the truth about the iceberg, though.

[Zhade]

13. Yeah, but what kills us doesn't kill others secondhand.

NT!

[No Elephants]

14. Sounds like the "science" the tobacco industry employed.