There is already debate about the cigar bar exemption;

A smoking ban backer says restaurants, pubs or casinos thinking of becoming cigar bars to get around the ban – if it’s enacted – won’t be able to do it.

As it passed the state Senate earlier this week, the ban would exempt existing cigar bars making at least 10 percent of their gross revenue from cigar sales. That applies to just two businesses in the entire state: Stogeez Cigar Lounge in Sioux Falls and the Deadwood Tobacco Co. and Cigar Bar.

Yeah, I bet 10% of Stogeez gross revenue comes from cigars – whatever. Who is cooking the books there? I hear Matt Adamski’s accountant is looking for a job. This is what Kant says in the AL;

Stogeez owner Tim Kant said 14 percent to 16 percent of his business is cigar sales, or about 10,000 cigars sold a year.

Why jeopardize good legislation by exempting a whopping TWO businesses in the entire state? Because, once again, If Tim Kant wants it, lawmakers cave.

12 Thoughts on “One more reason why I think the smoking ban should have applied to ALL bars

  1. Angry Guy on March 6, 2009 at 7:30 am said:

    When it passes, we should start a Kant Task Force and take turns calling in complaints to his business if people are smoking cigs.

  2. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 7:40 am said:

    Oh, this has already been discussed. I look at it this way, if lawmakers and the Poooolice won’t reign this guy in, the citizens will. I’m sick of him thumbing his nose at the law because he is a Republican business owner. I could go on, but I’ll start cussing (and more than usual).

  3. scotty on March 6, 2009 at 8:03 pm said:

    ya kant knows how to push the buttons don’t kid yourself. he was the same when i knew him best as a kid..don’t know if he ever grew up……

  4. Kant better hope the gov’r signs this bill…my gut tells me governor no-nutz will veto the bill, but take the chicken way out and do it with a ‘style & form’ veto so he doesn’t have to take a stand on it…otherwise the people will take up an initiated measure, put it before the people in 2010 and there will be no exceptions and the penalty for offense will be back to a class 2 misdemeanor, not just a petty offense.

  5. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 10:32 pm said:

    I Kan’t stand Kant, there is just something I don’t like about him, and the people who work for him are the same way, it’s like he controls them. Last summer I was pushing my bike on the sidewalk in front of his place and asking people to move and his rent-a-cop got in my face about it. I basically told him that they can’t stand there, that’s the law, he went on some rant about how I could have went on the street or the other side, and I was trying to cause problems, I basically told him it does not matter, I have the right away. Then he kept harrassing me, and I said, “Who owns this sidewalk?” and he would not answer, so I asked again. He still wouldn’t answer, so I said, “I own this fucking sidewalk, not Tim Kant.” and he walked off. It’s like he trains them to be pricks in stupidity.

  6. l3wis on March 6, 2009 at 10:33 pm said:

    BTW – GK – Rounds is nutless, I could not agree more.

  7. It is the owner’s decisiont to go smoking or smoke-free, not the government decisian

  8. l3wis on March 7, 2009 at 6:20 am said:

    Does smoking affect your ability to spell words?

  9. I have been thinking alot about this over the weekend. Up until the late 1500’s, people were able to perform bodily functions anywhere and anytime. If someone wanted to take a crap in the middle of the floor in a bar, that was just fine. We don’t allow someone to deficate on the floor of a restaurant or bar or any public place for that matter. We don’t because it 1. is disgusting, 2. it stinks, and 3. it causes a miriade of disease. For these and other reasons, the welfare of the public trumps the rights of the property owner. Even if a bar owner wanted to have a “You can crap anwhere you want” bar, the public health department would never allow it. No one would ever suggest you should just avoid that bar if you didn’t like feces on the floor.

    Now let’s look at second hand smoke. I focus on second hand smoke, because frankly if someone wants to smoke and kill themselves, that is their business. But when you smoke in a closed environment, second hand smoke harms those around you. Second hand smoke 1. is disgusting, 2. it stinks and 3. causes a miriade of disease. I see no difference in raw sewage on the floor and second hand smoke in the air. The welfare of the public trumps the rights of the property owner. Having a non-smoking area in a bar or restaurant is like having a no-peeing zone in a pool.

  10. l3wis on March 9, 2009 at 5:54 am said:

    You make a good argument, but I have often said it is about the safety of the employees. OSHA regulations have existed for decades, they should also apply to bars.

  11. Costner on March 9, 2009 at 2:19 pm said:

    Have you ever noticed that when people defend the right to smoke in bars, they often preclude their arguments with “I’m not a smoker, but…”?

    I’ve noticed this on the Argus forums, I’ve heard it on VPU (radio), and I’ve seen it over at the Kelo site.

    Who are these people trying to fool? If I tell someone that I raise money for breast cancer I don’t preclude the statement with “I don’t have breast cancer myself…”. If someone goes out of their way to make it clear they don’t smoke, I’d bet money there is a 70-80% chance they are lying.

  12. l3wis on March 9, 2009 at 2:37 pm said:

    Or they are fucking a smoker . . . I’m just saying.

Post Navigation