[Vision2020] CORRECTION: Bucer's (was RE: More Banning?)

[Joe Campbell]

Thanks for the clarification. Is it Bucer's? If so, who is Bucer?

Joe Campbell

On Jun 20, 2009, at 10:54 AM, "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm>  
wrote:

> Hi Joe et al,
>
> It seems that perhaps the whole Bucer's thing is a bit less straight- 
> forward than I was informed back then (anyone else remember the  
> cigar appreciation session that was to be offered in 2004?).
>
> At the time, I was informed in no uncertain terms by someone within  
> the Kirk who I had no reason to disbelieve that women wouldn't be  
> welcomed at the class.  That was it for me -- I've never been one to  
> socially impose where I'm apparently not wanted.  It became a moot  
> point, though, because I believe the class was cancelled.
>
> HOWEVER, in response to my post last evening, I've heard from  
> someone who says that it's ***cigarette*** smoking that's not  
> allowed in the smoking room at Bucer's, ***not women***.
>
> So, perhaps there was some confusion back in 2004.  Perhaps the  
> admonition I received was on the assumption that I'd be wanting to  
> smoke cigarettes at a cigar class?
>
> The person who contacted me in response to my post indicates having  
> actually smoked cigars with women in the smoke room, so that more  
> recent experience shouldn't be discounted.
>
> In any case, I don't want to leave an incorrect impression about  
> what's allowed and what's not in the smoking room at Bucer's because  
> I don't know!  I implicitly trusted the words of wisdom I was given  
> back in 2004, but perhaps that was a mistake or maybe there was some  
> confusion back then.
>
> For those interested, I suggest contacting Bucer's directly for the  
> current policy rather than relying on information I was given over  
> four years ago that's now been contradicted.
>
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people  
> to do nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through  
> life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or  
> reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written  
> permission of the author.*****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:09 AM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: <bear at moscow.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
>
> Good points, Saundra. I didn't know that Bucers restricted women from
> the smoking room. Does anyone know if they still have that policy? I
> haven't been there since Michael Metzler left town.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:46 PM, "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wayne,
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "What do you think about the way Bucers has their set up?"
>>
>> I'm afraid I can't offer any comment because women aren't allowed
>> inside the
>> smoking room at Bucers, or at least we weren't when I tried to go a
>> few
>> years back.  <shaking my head>  It's such a ludicrous thing to type
>> in the
>> 21st century:  no women allowed.  Frankly, if the City Council wants
>> to
>> stick its nose in such matters as mandating smoking bans, I'd be far
>> more
>> interested in the cause had they addressed the gender discrimination
>> by
>> Bucers.  But, that's a different issue.
>>
>> I really have no dog in this fight -- while I’m a smoker, I rarel 
>> y v
>> isit our
>> local bars -- but I do have a couple of comments <g>.
>>
>> First, I think it's a stunningly stupid move on the part of the City
>> to even
>> consider such a move during tough economic times.  Have we not
>> enough dark
>> business space already?
>>
>> Second, I really think the city should get an adequate handle on
>> things
>> currently on its plate before taking on new enforcement
>> responsibilities.
>> For instance, let's talk snow removal enforcement as just one
>> example  :-)
>> Yes, we've had a couple of hard winters in a row, but even in mild
>> winters,
>> there are sidewalks that aren't shoveled for weeks on end, which
>> presents a
>> serious public safety hazard that is ignored by the city.  Streets
>> can't be
>> adequately plowed because the city refuses to address the issue of
>> cars left
>> on the streets for weeks at a time.  The resulting narrow roads are
>> a safety
>> hazard for all who travel on them, including emergency vehicles.
>> So.  Why
>> on earth the city thinks it should take on a smoking ban in bars to
>> the
>> detriment of small businesses when it is woefully inadequate at
>> enforcing
>> rules already on the books is beyond me.
>>
>> Third, for those who object to smoke in bars, for the love of God,
>> COME UP
>> WITH YOUR OWN ALTERNATIVES rather than trying to force existing
>> business
>> owners to cater to your needs.  Isn't that exactly the kind of
>> situation the
>> free market should address.  Certainly, there are smoke-free bars, so
>> patronize them.  They don't have pool tables?  Then convince an
>> investor --
>> or band together yourselves -- to start up a business to suit your
>> needs.
>> Granted, you wouldn't have a liquor license immediately, but had you
>> tried
>> to solve your own problem rather than whine and force government to
>> ram your
>> desires to eliminate lawful behavior that will likely cause some  
>> local
>> businesses to fail, you could have had exactly what you want by
>> now.  Lord
>> knows there's plenty of dark retail spaces you could check into, and
>> had you
>> attempted to solve your problem rather than getting government to do
>> it for
>> you, you could have a nice setting or four that would suit your
>> needs rather
>> than advocating a ridiculous position that will hurt local business.
>>
>> Fourth, with respect to Ted's case, I reject it.  No one is forcing
>> anyone
>> to work in bars where there's second-hand smoke exposure.  For those
>> who
>> choose to not expose themselves to second-hand smoke, then DON'T
>> APPLY FOR
>> JOBS WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED!  Indeed, I find it incredibly
>> hypocritical
>> that some of those complaining about second-hand smoke exposure
>> explicitly
>> choose to work in bars rather than smoke-free restaurants or other
>> smoke-free settings precisely because they can make better tips in
>> bars, and
>> a good portion of those tips come from smokers.  I've yet to see
>> anyone who
>> objects to working in an environment where there's second-hand smoke
>> exposure refuse to take tips from smokers.  There's an ethical
>> position for
>> you  :-)
>>
>> Fifth, what's next?  I think <tongue in cheek> we should outlaw the
>> sales &
>> operation of inefficient motor vehicles in Moscow because they are
>> bad for
>> the environment, which means they are bad for all of us.  What about
>> donorcycles -- we should all be aware of the significant impact on
>> health
>> care costs for all of us from those who choose to ride motorcycles.
>> And, if
>> we want to talk about health risks, then let's go after restaurants
>> that
>> serve red meat because you'd have to live in a cave to not know that
>> the
>> consumption of red meat is linked to lots of health problems
>> including heart
>> disease, which is THE leading cause of death in this country.  And,
>> what
>> about those vegetarian employees working in restaurants with no
>> vegetarian
>> options?!  Quite often, an indirect compensation for restaurant
>> employees is
>> free or reduced prices on meals while working, yet if the restaurant
>> doesn't
>> offer any vegetarian options . . . so perhaps we should get the City
>> to pass
>> a law mandating that ALL restaurants offer vegetarian option.  Yeah  
>> --
>> that's the ticket!
>>
>> Sixth, I don't know Bill Parks, but I will say that I might be more
>> sympathetic to his cause had he thrown his weight behind the
>> significant
>> concerns for Moscow's air quality problem from allowing bonfires in
>> neighborhoods.  *That* is an issue that affects entire
>> neighborhoods . . .
>> and the quality of life for people in their own homes and on their  
>> own
>> property, yet I don't recall him addressing that.  Instead, he'd
>> rather have
>> the government address social & the business concerns of others.
>>
>> If what's been posted is accurate (I don't know if it is), I can't
>> imagine
>> Mr. Parks would be too happy if Moscow decided to outlaw the sale of
>> products manufactured outside the country -- my guess would be he
>> would
>> vigorously object to local government messing with the legal
>> activities of
>> the free market in that respect.  It's really too bad he fails to
>> see the
>> correlation . . .
>>
>> Am I missing something?  Isn't any business owner interested able to
>> operate
>> a bar or tavern where smoking is prohibited???  Again let Parks &
>> those who
>> share his concern open & operate their own smoke-free venue rather
>> than
>> trying to get the government to force others' businesses to do
>> things His
>> way.  Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do?
>>
>>
>> JMHO,
>> Saundra Lund
>> Moscow, ID
>>
>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
>> to do
>> nothing.
>> ~ Edmund Burke
>>
>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through
>> life plus
>> 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
>> outside
>> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>> author.*****
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of bear at moscow.com
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
>> To: Ted Moffett
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
>>
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> What about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical
>> separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way
>> Bucers has
>> their set up?
>>
>> I can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise  
>> with
>> total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests are up  
>> for
>> consideration later. And I vote.  There has to be a middle ground
>> somewhere.
>>
>> And you mention that  keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to the
>> workers
>> in these businesses who need the jobs yet are exposed to second hand
>> smoke. In the case here in Moscow, I don't even think the employees
>> were
>> even asked. Based on the tape I saw of the meeting before city
>> council on
>> the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer, and
>> from his
>> comments, I have to believe he was talking about Mingles. So,
>> because he
>> doesn't like the smoky atmosphere in Mingles,  all of the bars in
>> Moscow
>> have to ban smoking?
>>
>> I just think much more research needs to be done to see IF there is a
>> problem before the Council passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk
>> reaction,
>> the simple solution to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a ban.
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>