Here's the list of the scofflaw smoking establishments caught allowing their patrons to SMOKE! or not properly warning their customers of Washington's ridiculous smoking law. See the cops' list below including the place and the rap sheet. Consider this: the cops won't pick up illegal aliens who commit crimes unless they've already committed several, but they're willing to bust legal establishments.
Patronize these places, won't you?
My favorites are highlighted. Check out the Hookah Lounge being busted.
Al's Tavern, 2303 N. 45th St., Seattle, Dec. 16, smoking and lack of signage
Back Door Pub, 12330 Lake City Way N.E., Seattle, Feb. 24, smoking
Brewsky's Bar & Grill, 9635 16th Ave. S.W., Seattle, Dec. 16, smoking
Bubba's Place, 21237 E. Valley Highway, Kent, Dec. 19, smoking
Buckaroo Tavern, 4201 Fremont Ave. N., Seattle, Jan. 11, smoking
C.C. Attles and the Cadillac Grill, 1501 E. Madison St., Seattle, Feb. 15, smoking
Central Avenue Pub & Eatery, 1404 S. Central Ave., Kent, Dec. 19, smoking
City Hall Saloon & Eatery, 35317 314th Ave. S.E., Enumclaw, Jan. 13, signage and smoking
Club Hollywood Casino, 16176 Aurora Ave. N., Shoreline, Jan. 4, signage
Diwan Hookah Lounge, 111 Pine St., Seattle, Jan. 19, signage and smoking Hello? It's a Hookah Lounge whose sole purpose is to SMOKE!
Downtown Emergency Service Center, 517 Third Ave., Seattle, Jan. 12, signage and smoking
Eagles Aerie #1, 6205 Corson Ave. S., Seattle, Dec. 16, smoking
Elks Cascade Lodge, 9116 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S., Seattle, Feb. 16, signage and smoking
Elks Lodge #92, 301 Queen Anne Ave. N., Seattle, Dec. 16, signage and smoking
Gator's Sports Bar and Grill, 21609 84th Ave. S., Kent, Dec. 19, signage and smoking
Good Time Ernie's, 15747 Ambaum Blvd. S.W., Seattle, Jan. 19, signage
Jumbo Chinese Restaurant, 4208 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, March 22, smoking
Lemieux's 97, S. Lander St., Seattle, April 19, signage and smoking
Linda's Tavern, 707 E. Pine St., Seattle, May 4, smoking
Lindmark Machine Works, 49 S. Spokane St., Seattle, March 15, signage
Mecca Bar & Grill, 1 E. Main St., Auburn, March 27, smoking
The Mercury, 1009 E. Union St., Seattle, May 12, signage and smoking
Pony Keg Lounge & Eatery, 8535 S. 212th St., Kent, Jan. 6, signage
Rabbit Hole, 4701 Roosevelt Ave. N.E., Seattle, Dec. 16, signage
Rainbow Room, 33320 Pacific Ave. S., Federal Way, April 19, signage
Rainier BBQ, 6400 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S., Seattle, March 22, smoking
Rimrock Steak House, 12322 Lake City Way N.E., Seattle, Jan. 4, smoking
Roman Casino, 11829 Renton Ave. S., Seattle, Dec. 19, signage and smoking
Rooty's Sports Bar and Grill, 209 S.W. 148th St., Burien, Dec. 19, signage
Seattle Eagle Tavern, 314 E. Pike St., Seattle, Jan. 11, signage and smoking
Serenity Hall, 12536 Renton Ave. S., Renton, Jan. 6, signage
Shelly's Restaurant and Lounge, 1734 Central Ave. S., Kent, Jan. 18, signage and smoking
Sonya's Bar & Grill, 1919 First Ave., Seattle, Feb. 15, signage
Swannie's Restaurant, 222 S. Main St., Seattle, March 1, signage
The Ballroom, 456 N. 36th St., Seattle, May 4, smoking
The Ballroom, 456 N. 36th St., Seattle, May 25, smoking
The Cuff, 1533 13th Ave., Seattle, Dec. 16, signage and smoking
The Monkey, 5303 Roosevelt Way N.E., Seattle, Dec. 28, signage and smoking
The Pickled Onion, 1314 Union Ave. N.E., Renton, Dec. 19, smoking
The Quarter Lounge, 909 Madison St., Seattle, Jan. 11, signage and smoking
The Tin Hat Bar & Grill, 512 N.W. 65th St., Seattle, Jan. 4, signage and smoking
The Whisky Bar, 2000 Second Ave., Seattle, March 22, smoking
Tony's Liquid Lounge, 2317 N. 45th St., Seattle, March 22, signage
Victrola Coffee and Art, 411 15th Ave. E., Seattle, Dec. 21, signage
Virginia Saloon, 114 Railroad Ave. N., Kent, Dec. 19, signage
Wild Spirits, 944 Harrington Ave. N.E., Renton, Dec. 21, smoking
Zaina Food, Drinks & Friends, 108 Cherry St., Seattle, March 9, smoking
19 comments:
Consider this: the cops won't pick up illegal aliens who commit crimes unless they've already committed several...
I thought the police weren't required to (or even do) ask if they are illegal when they bust them...so how is it you know the cops won't pick up the illegals they don't know are illegal, until they commit several crimes?
As to the no smoking violations, have you considered the number of infractions on your list handed down from local law enforcement vs. the health department, who I'm guessing isn't ever going to be arresting illegals?
Should we "never advocate for breaking the law," unless we think the law is stupid?
backwards idiot, please list the crimes legal residents and actual citizens are allowed to commit....and keep in mind that the crimes you list must be federal and state crimes worthy of a $250,000 fine + jail (as in claiming a false SSN). You foolishly contend that Mrs. Taft is advocating for breaking the law, when she is only asking us to patronize the businesses named. I don't smoke, but I'll buy a beer in any of those places. Please stop being so intellectually LAZY.....sheesh.
Backwards, in another thread you asked about businesses closing down because of this nanny state controls of private business. While I don't think there is any actual list compiled, there have been articles printed.
One such article listed a Bingo Parlor business that had to close down 5 parlors, laying off all the employees. On top of that, the parlors donated a lot of their profits to community causes for children. Those too are gone now.
Sorry, but I didn't save the articles, but it seems Spokane has been hit the hardest so far. One such article had a picture of a bar with a sign outside saying, "non-smokers, where are you?" Since non-smokers said they would frequent businesses now that smoking was prohibited, businesses are wondering where they are now.
This won't bankrupt the state, that's for sure. But, do you really want the state to keep mandating what you may and may not do?
If so, hold on to your hat as Portland passes their Children's Bill of Rights and hope they don't follow suit with a Canadian City that is trying to ban perfumes and other scents in public.
You foolishly contend that Mrs. Taft is advocating for breaking the law, when she is only asking us to patronize the businesses named.
The question was rhetorical, and not directed at Victoria. But you go ahead and keep those insults coming, they're great!
However, is your patronage, in specific to the fact they have violated law, showing support for their actions? Is she not promoting everyone to support these businesses simply because they have been in violation of "Washington's ridiculous smoking law?" You bet she is.
Does that translate into a promotion of willful disregard for laws you find erroneous? That's for you to decide, and why I posed the question...sheesh.
your questions are meaningless....where's that list? thought so.
bear: backwards idiot, please list the crimes legal residents and actual citizens are allowed to commit....and keep in mind that the crimes you list must be federal and state crimes worthy of a $250,000 fine + jail (as in claiming a false SSN).
bear:...where's that list? thought so.
Wow, you proved that I didn't make you a list that doesn't exist...way to go. What does that have to do with anything, especially related to the topic at hand?
Backwards, in another thread you asked about businesses closing down because of this nanny state controls of private business.
lew, thanks for the update. I had forgotten about that one.
I think many non-smokers need a reality check on these smoking bans. I agree you are entitled to clean air and not having to be forced to smell someone elses smoke. I believe that is why some 80% of businesses in the State of Washignton were already smoke free to begin with. To me, that sounds like ample businesses for non-smokers to patronize.
With 80% already barring smoking, what is the real reason for barring the other 20% of private businesses that choose to allow smoking from allowing it? The term nanny state comes to mind. That's the elite people (from both sides) that feel they have the answers and must enforce their values (or lack of) on others, "for their own good."
Like many things, smoking is not a right. It's a Liberty. Even if it isn't good for you, it's a Liberty.
Smoking is the test case, if you will, for these elite to gradually take even more Liberties away from us all. Once they succeed, and they prett much have already, in convincing the rest that they are at peril, the door is open to whatever else they feel you shouldn't do.
Ottawa Canada is currently considering a ban on deodorants, perfumes, colognes, aftershaves, and sundry sweet-smelling scents in public buildings due to allergies some people have to them.
Ottawa Sun
Complaints about obesity are becoming more and more common, targeting burger joints we may like to frequent.
New York is contemplating requiring Diabetics to register with the state and be monitored by the state for their blood sugar level.
We all know about the nationwide campaign of "click it or ticket," even though we were told they wouldn't seat belt laws as a reason to target drivers.
On and on it goes, where it will stop, no one knows. Smoking is just the tip of the iceberg for the Nanny Staters as they decide what you and I should be allowed to do.
And, all the while, many of these same Nanny Staters are lobbying real strong for the legalization of smoking marijuana (for medicianl purposes, of course), even though the FDA has reported there is no benefit medicinally from smoking marijuana.
MSNBC
Still, pot heads went ballistic over their vice being shown to be detrimental to your health.
Everytime we vote in one of these smoking bans, especially when they really aren't necessary, the Nanny Staters just smile and smirk and think of what they can control next.
Smokers find refuge in secret nicotine dens
lew (or anyone, rhetorical question here),
If I was for legislation and government to stay out of my personal life, and allow me the liberties I am afforded accepting my decisions come with personal responsibility, then why would I be for smoking (or alcohol) and against medical or any marijuana use?
Backwards, you cannot see the hypocrisy of banning tobacco everywhere while advocating legalizing marijuana?
Think about it for a minute. If legalized, for purely medicinal purposes, that means some doctor will write you a prescription for it and you can obtain it legally. I can only hope it will be as heavily taxed as alcohol and tobacco.
Now, assume you are in a building, office, bar, bowling alley, whatever. The same buildings being discussed now for tobacco bans.
Since it will be a "prescribed medicine," how do you prevent the person next to you from lighting up and partaking of their prescription? Since marijuana contains the same and more of the contaminants that tobacco does, the second-hand smoke is once again in your pristine air with even more effects on those near by than tobacco.
Now, if NORML wished to be upfront with their efforts at legalization of it, for using to get high or feeling good, I might be more inclined to support them, provided marijuana were taxed and regulated just as tobacco and alcohol and subject to the same bans and arrests for use and driving under the influence.
Cancer.org
Marijuana Health
Legal Opinon Passive Marijuana Smoke
Although not happening here, just yet, how ironic is it that Resturaunts are being forbidden to allow smokers into their businesses, yet Florida's Jeb Bush is said to be signing legislation that will allow customers to bring their dogs into outdoor eating areas around other customers, if they so choose? With as many dog lovers as we have in the Northwest, I see it as only a matter of time.
Jeb Bush to Sign ‘Dining With Dogs’ Bill
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:11 p.m. EDT
Dogs may soon be allowed to accompany their owners out to dinner.
Gov. Jeb Bush says that on Friday he will sign a 'dining with dogs' bill. The legislation gives local governments the OK to let restaurants permit dogs to eat with their owners in outdoor dining areas.
The measure would create a three-year pilot program after which time the state would revisit the issue to determine whether it was a good idea.
Allowing dogs to dine would be up to the local city or county, and then even if local restrictions were waived to allow it, it would still be up to the restaurant owner as to whether to participate.
The governor said his dog Marvin won't be able to make the bill signing ceremony, but he promises there will be a canine presence watching when he puts his signature on the bill.
Newsmax.com
Hopefully, thje dog or it's owner don't smoke.
Backwards, you cannot see the hypocrisy of banning tobacco everywhere while advocating legalizing marijuana?
Actually, I was speaking to just the opposite. I can see the hypocrisy of those who react in disgust towards the regulation of smoking through legislation, while supporting every effort to limit and regulate any use of marijuana through any means necessary, including legislation. And I'm not convinced that is excused simply because marijuana is "illegal." I speculate, if the trend continues, that smoking will also be "illegal" within the next 50 years.
At a personal level, I think most people are responsible enough to choose for themselves. I couldn't expect to support any legislative action to "decide what's best for you" without applying that to everything. For me it's "get government out of my personal life" not "get government out of my personal life but stop everyone else from doing what I detest."
is just more that touchy-feely, I know what's better for you, mentality [and the chance to make some money] politically correct BS.
you have people like this young lady that Lars is talking to on the air or the other day that wanted to introduce a bill to restrict or limit cigarette smoking because of secondhand smoke, and whenever Lars asked her a question,
she would repeat her answers just like a parrot, stating that "secondhand smoke blah blah..."
Within the last two years, [nuclear free zone] Eugene decided that restaurants and bars should be smoke-free. The results of that was similar to what Victoria pointed out, business owners got cited for patrons smoking in their bar and other bars went out of business, in addition a lot of the smoking customers went next door to Springfield where it is still legal to smoke.
we used to have areas called "non-smoking" which I thought were great. I do not smoke, and I have asthma, and I've never had a problem at these places.
but these non-smoking advocates are the same people that are trying to get you out of your car and take mass transit.
we used to have areas called "non-smoking" which I thought were great. I do not smoke, and I have asthma, and I've never had a problem at these places.
robin, is it still "liberal PC crowd forced indoctrination" if this no smoking law was decided by the residents of the state? I seem to remember that it was.
Your opinion and position lost in WA state. Does not the majority will of the state signal there's more to it than just the "PC crowd" trying to tell you what you can and can't do? If so, that's an awful big crowd...
Also, by relating the "pc crowd" with mass transit, are you trying to imply that if there were no "better than you PC liberals" trying to "get you out of your car," there would be no mass transit system? I suppose it is your opinion that everyone everywhere both wants to own a car, and can afford to?
Your opinion and position lost in WA state. Does not the majority will of the state signal there's more to it than just the "PC crowd" trying to tell you what you can and can't do?
Apparently you did not see the onslaught of fear inducing ads aired by anti-smokers funded with some real big money from all over the nation.
With no equal national backing, opponents to I-901 could do little advertising as well any ads against could be misconstrued as advertising for tobacco, against the law of the land anymore.
Citizens were pretty much brainwashed into believing all bars and resturants had non-smoking employees wearing gas masks to preserve their health and evil smokers forcing smoke on everyone throughout the state.
As for "will of the people," I hope you were not addressing this towards the Democrat controlled Congress of our state that is known to take peoples initiatives to the State Supreme Court to be overturned when it's something they don't like, such as lower taxes.
Apparently you did not see the onslaught of fear inducing ads aired by anti-smokers funded with some real big money from all over the nation.
With no equal national backing, opponents to I-901 could do little advertising as well any ads against could be misconstrued as advertising for tobacco, against the law of the land anymore.
Citizens were pretty much brainwashed into believing all bars and resturants had non-smoking employees wearing gas masks to preserve their health and evil smokers forcing smoke on everyone throughout the state.
Are you kidding with this? Please tell me you've just had a couple brews and aren't serious...
How many smokers do you know voted for the ban, then had a "come to Jesus" after the tv ads went off the air? I can see it now..."oh my stars, where am I? Where have I been for the last month while my TV was on? wha....I voted for what?!" ;)
This could be a real danger. Makes one wonder how I wasn't brainwashed with the masses into voting for Bush in 04 after being witness to the onslaught of fear inducing Repbulican ads. (I jest..)
Is that the best you can do, Backwards? I gave you more credit than that.
By your diatribe, I assume you did not see the onslaught of ads aired for us, statewide or that you missed that some Pharmaceuticals that sell stop smoking aids, at quite a profit, by the way, funded much of the campaign.
I do realize you hate Bush too, but he really doesn't have anything to do with this issue, really. Besides, it was Algore that was harping on fear. ;)
(sigh)...lew, did the waves of brain washing tv ads and campaign slogans convince you to vote yes for the ban?
btw - I hate Bush's agenda, track record, and some of his social policies. I don't know him as a person, but most people who do say he's got a great personality - and he rides a mountain bike. I imagine him and I could hit some single track, toss back a brew, and have a great time. My "diatribe" was simply a reflection of your silly assertion of "brain washing by commercial." So yes, Bush himself has nothing to do with the specific topic.
How about my wild abilities to thwart the brain washing attempts of the 04 Nader campaign? Is that better?
Post a Comment