quote:

Originally posted by disko-kandi pfff!!! LOL! omg ... you ARE sick! like i said in the other thread, i think you need your brain examined!

You know you love it. wait a minute, you said I needed my brain examined in another thread? oh your so dead! *searches for his nightstick*

***BTW, I am building up my post count, so dont bother me with the idea of putting all my posts into one big post, I already know.

quote:

Originally posted by Rodrico Gee, I wonder why? hey kiddo, do us a favor, let the grow ups talk.

heh.. alright there "grow up", talk away!

quote:

Originally posted by Superstar heh.. alright there "grow up", talk away!

nice nice.

quote:

SMOKERS WHO REFUSE TO GIVE ID CAN'T BE CHARGED By KEVIN CONNOR, TORONTO SUN THE CITY'S new smoking bylaw has no teeth and isn't being enforced, bar staff say. Bar and restaurant staff who phoned the city's new smoking inspectors' hotline to report the bylaw was being broken were told to call the police. "I was told to treat someone smoking in my establishment like you would a drunk and call the police. This is par for the course. It's the city," Vic Salerno, owner of Upfront Bar and Grill, said yesterday after calling inspectors to say the bylaw was being broken in his pub. The city has assigned eight bylaw inspectors to enforce the smoking prohibition, which went into effect at midnight on June 1. Other inspectors are supposed to enforce the bylaw as part of their daily routine. But they aren't responding to calls. "If we find someone smoking, they don't have to give us any ID like they would for the police. We can't charge them if we don't know their name," said smoking bylaw inspector John Coleman. REFUSAL TO DO THE JOB "If people want something done to stop someone from smoking they will have to phone the police and, honestly, I don't know if they would come." Cops will not be enforcing the municipal smoking bylaw, said Toronto Police spokesman Const. Kristine Bacharach. "It's the bylaw officers' job to enforce this bylaw, which doesn't appear to be thought through," Bacharach said. A person who illegally lights a smoke is liable to be fined $255 -- a $205 fine, plus a $50 victim surcharge for the first offence. Repeat offenders could face fines of up to $5,000. "There already is a lot less smoking in bars. Some folks are thumbing their nose at us but we will get to them," said Joe Mihevc, chairman of the Toronto Board of Health. "We need to find a balance without being heavy-handed and let people get their heads around this. "The best bylaws happen with education. There is a curve here and we will meet the curve."

Ive highlighted the sections that prove my case...

I rest my case.....

Oh and one more for those who don't think this affects business.

quote:

Irish law hurts pubs Associated Press DUBLIN PUBS are losing customers because of Ireland's decision to ban smoking from workplaces, the main bar owners' association said yesterday. Business has slipped from 12% to 15% since smoking was banned in pubs on March 29, said Donall O'Keeffe, chief executive of the Licenced Vintners Association, which represents about 700 pubs in the capital. "We expected April to be very bad and things to improve. That hasn't happened and is of great concern to us," O'Keeffe said. "While the impact is not totally uniform across Dublin pubs, make no mistake about it, the smoking ban is having a serious financial impact."

yeah well...the day before, this article states quite the opposite:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...d=1085998564760

owners have reported few problems enforcing the ban, which was introduced March 29 in a country where around 30 per cent of adults smoke.

The Office of Tobacco Control report said that the number of non-smokers visiting pubs and bars has increased slightly since the introduction of the new law, while the number of smokers visiting has remained the same.

I doubt people are staying for less time and therefore possibly spending less just because they can't smoke...so this article suggests business should be the same, if not greater, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Ive highlighted the sections that prove my case... I rest my case.....

You do know the Sun isn't technically a newspaper... I think it was last year, or a couple years ago that they could no longer be technically considered a "newspaper" like, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The National Post... (Mind you the star is pushing it these days) If you compare them to the Sun it's a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by PartyHarlequin You do know the Sun isn't technically a newspaper... I think it was last year, or a couple years ago that they could no longer be technically considered a "newspaper" like, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The National Post... (Mind you the star is pushing it these days) If you compare them to the Sun it's a joke.

ahhhhahahahaha.

that is what i was thinking. obviously you got this shit from the Sun. now it all makes sense. only the readers of the Sun would give a crap about semantics of how you can get charged. what does the Inquirer say about this?

LOL

its funny how the only way you can critisize what i have put now is attacking the newspaper. Very weak rebuttle id say. Semantics? the law is ALL ABOUT SEMANTICS! Thats where technicalities and loopholes like this come from.

And the article about Ireland was the Associated Press which appeared in the Sun. AP is a well recognized global news service.

As for the star article, how does the health dept know that business is up? At least the Associated Press went and spoke to the business owners themselves. After all, they would know best wouldnt they?

.

Normally newspaper journalists are supposed to research hard facts, like for example; the public disclosures that all public companies must produce. Along with a number of other tax surveys etc... These are all handled by the gov't and available for review. That is where the numbers are supposed to come from, in a live interview a small business owner can say whatever they want without an objective comparison to other businesses and companies. Furthermore, no one uses the term rebuttle in conversation unless they are specifically talking about something in a structured debate, it's just freakish and excessive. And what is wrong with attacking the credibility of your resources to disprove your point? It is a very common and viable tactic used in court.

One must disrupt the rhythm of the opponent.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 its funny how the only way you can critisize what i have put now is attacking the newspaper. Very weak rebuttle id say. Semantics? the law is ALL ABOUT SEMANTICS! Thats where technicalities and loopholes like this come from. And the article about Ireland was the Associated Press which appeared in the Sun. AP is a well recognized global news service. As for the star article, how does the health dept know that business is up? At least the Associated Press went and spoke to the business owners themselves. After all, they would know best wouldnt they? .

...and business owners not in favour of the ban are going to be 100% honest and up front with AP reporters? suuuuuure they are

my point is that there's conflicting "evidence", so neither article can be taken as gospel. The office of Tobacco Control has it's agenda, so do pub owners.