Taking The Government To Court Over The Smoking Ban Please Help

[wayne]

Hi there all,



I am representing "The Big Debate", an unfunded volunteer group of licensees and members of the public who feel that the Government has lied to them on the smoking ban issue by not carrying though the promises made in its manifesto. Even more concern is now breeding since the Health Minister, Lord Warner, declared that there is a possibility of the ban extending to outside areas.



Not sure if I can do this, but we are all smokers and it is for a good reason, we are taking the Government to court because they are trying to ban smoking in public areas, and we know you Hookah smokers love to smoke in your Hookah bars, and chat to each other, and if it goes you would be very sad, like us who smoke in bars. Please moderators, please check our site out, we are really doing what I say but need help.

We have worked out that not one person has died from passive smoke and no one has been harmed, they are making the whole thing up, and the smoking rates are up, yes up in Ireland New Zealand and Scotland since the bans, if you want hard evidence of this please ask.

We have so much evidence, like smoking rates are down but cancer is on the rise, it's far more lightly to be the diesel in the air and other pollutants.


http://freedom2choose.co.uk



www.thebigdebate.org

Our new site is up and running, please please please could you donate, it would make our day, a £1 £10 £100, or even a £1000000 pounds, I hate asking for donations, not sure if I can on this site, sorry if I can't, but it is for a great thing, it's for the Judicial review to stop the UK Government from implementing the smoking ban in pubs and clubs, come on all lets put one over on the Government, lets show them ass's up, we actually had an amendment put in the house of Lords, it was for smoking rooms in pubs and good ventilation, 70 Lords voted for, but 215 against, when we win we will then help every country.

Here is a little bit from,

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=3374

Speaking exclusively to the MA, their leader and spokesperson Robert Feal-Martinez said,
"We had a full consultation meeting last week with Swindler Gill of Omero's. "Mr Gill is a Judaical Review specialist and has indicated that we have a number of key areas on which to challenge the Government.
"We have devised an action plan and are currently collating the evidence ready to refer to our Barrister"

He went onto say that Mr. Gill has consulted with Richard Gordon QC a top civil rights Barrister who is keen to take on the case.
The man for us Martinez said: "Obviously we are delighted with this news, we identified Mr. Gordon early on as the man for us, and hopefully this will be the case."

Freedom to Choose now needs to raise the money for the case and would ask that any group, company or individual who can financially assist gets in touch.

Martinez said, "We have been writing to individual members of various trade bodies as we feel the executives of the main organizations have let their members down. We are getting more and more support."

He concluded by requesting that trade leaders now get involved, "Surely it's better for Pub's and brewers to donate a few thousand to our fight rather than spending millions which in the end we believe will not be necessary. Our legal team are confident we can win. So are we."

PLEASE SPREAD THIS AROUND TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, AS WORD AND MOUTH IS ONE OF THE FASTEST FORMS OF TRANSPORT.



Wayne Edited December 24, 2006 by wayne

[mushrat]

Hi there all,



I am representing "The Big Debate", an unfunded volunteer group of licensees and members of the public who feel that the Government has lied to them on the smoking ban issue by not carrying though the promises made in its manifesto. Even more concern is now breeding since the Health Minister, Lord Warner, declared that there is a possibility of the ban extending to outside areas.



Not sure if I can do this, but we are all smokers and it is for a good reason, we are taking the Government to court because they are trying to ban smoking in public areas, and we know you Hookah smokers love to smoke in your Hookah bars, and chat to each other, and if it goes you would be very sad, like us who smoke in bars. Please moderators, please check our site out, we are really doing what I say but need help.

We have worked out that not one person has died from passive smoke and no one has been harmed, they are making the whole thing up, and the smoking rates are up, yes up in Ireland New Zealand and Scotland since the bans, if you want hard evidence of this please ask.

We have so much evidence, like smoking rates are down but cancer is on the rise, it's far more lightly to be the diesel in the air and other pollutants.


http://freedom2choose.co.uk



www.thebigdebate.org

Our new site is up and running, please please please could you donate, it would make our day, a £1 £10 £100, or even a £1000000 pounds, I hate asking for donations, not sure if I can on this site, sorry if I can't, but it is for a great thing, it's for the Judicial review to stop the UK Government from implementing the smoking ban in pubs and clubs, come on all lets put one over on the Government, lets show them ass's up, we actually had an amendment put in the house of Lords, it was for smoking rooms in pubs and good ventilation, 70 Lords voted for, but 215 against, when we win we will then help every country.

Here is a little bit from,

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=3374

Speaking exclusively to the MA, their leader and spokesperson Robert Feal-Martinez said,
"We had a full consultation meeting last week with Swindler Gill of Omero's. "Mr Gill is a Judaical Review specialist and has indicated that we have a number of key areas on which to challenge the Government.
"We have devised an action plan and are currently collating the evidence ready to refer to our Barrister"

He went onto say that Mr. Gill has consulted with Richard Gordon QC a top civil rights Barrister who is keen to take on the case.
The man for us Martinez said: "Obviously we are delighted with this news, we identified Mr. Gordon early on as the man for us, and hopefully this will be the case."

Freedom to Choose now needs to raise the money for the case and would ask that any group, company or individual who can financially assist gets in touch.

Martinez said, "We have been writing to individual members of various trade bodies as we feel the executives of the main organizations have let their members down. We are getting more and more support."

He concluded by requesting that trade leaders now get involved, "Surely it's better for Pub's and brewers to donate a few thousand to our fight rather than spending millions which in the end we believe will not be necessary. Our legal team are confident we can win. So are we."

PLEASE SPREAD THIS AROUND TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, AS WORD AND MOUTH IS ONE OF THE FASTEST FORMS OF TRANSPORT.



Wayne

Good of you to join us wyane...
You smoke hookah by any chance?

[wayne]

Good of you to join us wyane...
You smoke hookah by any chance?

Hi Mushrat,

No I never have, but "always" wanted to, I just must try in the new year.

Wayne

[mushrat]

Good of you to join us wyane...
You smoke hookah by any chance?

Hi Mushrat,

No I never have, but "always" wanted to, I just must try in the new year.

Wayne

That's cool. Remember this is a Hookah forum.....

[wayne]

Good of you to join us wyane...
You smoke hookah by any chance?

Hi Mushrat,

No I never have, but "always" wanted to, I just must try in the new year.

Wayne

That's cool. Remember this is a Hookah forum.....

Thank you for the PM.

Yes your right there Mushrat, but all the Hookah bars in the UK will have too cose down, thats why I shink we should all stick together, and it's as you know not just the UK, it's lots of other places, so if we can stop this one there will be a chance for all.

respect you for what each person thinks of this, but it’s more than just about the smoking ban, it’s about freedom of choose, the Government is trying to rule us, next you will have to smoke 10 yards from the pub, and not be allowed to smoke in parks, this is all ready happening in some stats in America, we need to stop it now, next it will be drink, then they will un-relax the cannabis laws again, please see the fill below last link, this country is turning into a communist country, with id cards on the way, cameras every where.



This email is being circulated to all who have pledged a donation,



Please please please a £1, £10, £50, or even a £1000000, come on people let’s stop this ban and put one over on the Government



Anyone who wants to join our forum please do, www.thebigdebate.org

As you may all ready know we have consulted with solicitors for the Judicial Review, Jaswinder Gill of Ormerods. "Mr Gill is a Judicial Review specialist who have said that our case merit and have agreed to take it on, that was back in August. If you want a full write up, on anything in particular, please say.

We will be going to see the solicitor again later in January and will, therefore, need to have the donations all cleared through the bank by that date in order that we can add to the client account.

Well, it is crunch time now guys and I need you to get your cheque books out or phone Bob with your debit/credit card numbers as soon as possible. Bob's details are as follows:-

Bob Feal-Martinez will be accepting and accounting for all monies received.

You will be able to donate either by Credit or Debit Card ( with the exception of Amec or Diners Card) by phoning Bob on 01793 822997.



Or please go to our new site and pay by Paypal, http://freedom2choose.co.uk Please say who you are and which site you are from, we can then thank you, if so some reason we can’t, I will now thank you in advancement, thank you



Alternatively, you can post cheques, made payable to R.Feal-Martinez or Jaswinder Gill of Ormerods at:-

The Carpenters Arms Motel
Old Vicarage Lane
South Marston
Swindon
Wiltshire
SN3 4ST

Many thanks to you all - without you we could not have got this far.



Here is some interesting reading, as people all over the country are stating to see the Government are using the smoking as a cover up, as the rise in cancer is diesel and the pollutants in the air,



http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayN...;pNodeId=126190



This is also about freedom of choice, see this, it, very frightening.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...ng+your+freedom,



Nearly forgot, the Government are going to spent over £50million on this, and it should be used to save real lives, and to buy new machines for hospitals



Wayne

[stevehookah]

Non-smokers should have that right. However, having a smoking house is also a right.

In Boulder Co, US..

If you smoke in your own home with kids, the law can take them from you for child abuse.

My wife does not smoke. I smoke cigs outside. She does not mind the hookah tho... Simple.. I smoke more hookah. heehee

[wayne]

Hi there all,

I have posted here before only once or twice; http://www.hookahforum.com/index.php?showt...84&hl=wayne

As you know more and more Country's are trying to stop us smoking in public, that is why our group is taking the UK Government to the High Courts, we ask only for separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration, if we win, and with all the studies we have against passive smoke, and we have the UK Law freedom act which we are acting on, we are very confident we will, and if we win it will must have an effect on all other Country.

We have made contact with the organizer of the Shisha Bar campaign here in the UK, which hit the news last week. We are getting together early next week to try and pool resources as he has also instructed council to go for a JR on their behalf. He had never heard of us and was very excited by the prospect of fighting this together.

I hate when people ask me for a donation on the Internet, but we are all in this together and think everyone should help, if you feel the other way about this, and do not want to help, I take that as your judgment and honers you for that, we have the best solicitors in the Country, http://www.ormerods.co.uk/index.htm

Please have a look around our site, and join if you like.

Wayne

[wayne]

Hi again,

I would imagine if any Member read the below they would resize that a full blanket ban is not the way to go, please note Spain, and that all other bans backfire in every way.

New Zealand smoke more after the ban

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0612/S00091.htm



Italians smoking more despite national ban

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...y-smoking-.html



Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million less smoking

http://www.tobacco.org/news/239087.html



New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,

http://www.nysun.com/article/39753



Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news1.php?id=39



Smoking rates up in Scotland,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...cnsmoking01.xml



Children are victims of smoking ban, says study,

<A href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=341192007" target=_blank><I> Edited March 29, 2007 by wayne

[Guest LondonShisha]

The UK Government seems pretty set on the idea that no smoking should be allowed. I do hope they change their mind but realistically if it was going to happen it would have done so by now.

Did you say you're asking for donations? If so, best to contact the shisha bars/restaurants on Edgware Road in London as they've got millions at stake here and i'm sure they'll be glad to help out.

[Sonthert]

Man, all this crap I keep hearing out of the UK...you guys used to be pretty mellow...this Blair guy and the parliament seem to be hell-bent on a Nazi regime. If we weren't broiling in the next oven over, I'd think something was wrong. Seems to be the way of the world. Racism, control, paranoia. The information age has brought us closer together by scaring the shit out of everybody. Good luck, we all need it...and some dedication to liberty.

"They are dangerous because they have something you don't have Max; they have a philosophy and thats what makes them dangerous."

"Man: a poor, forked radish."

"Reality is the toothbrush waiting for you at home in its glass, a bus ticket, a paycheck, the grave." Edited May 14, 2007 by Sonthert
My throbbing loins

[Rani]

Sorry everyone but I'm afraid I'm pro-smoking ban with certain modifications. It's a simple matter to me of encroachment. Someone who doesn't smoke doesn't encroach upon my ability to inhale clean, smoke free air. However, the moment I light up, especially if I'm in an enclosed space with them, I have now encroached on their ability to inhale that same smoke free air. I smoke cigarettes on rare occasion. I go outside to smoke. I smoke my hookah inside. In my own home. If a public establishment wants to have smoking, then they need to turn it into a private club with membership required and clearly post that it's a smoking establishment. The laws are not meant really to stop anyone from smoking. What they are meant to do is stop smoke from reaching those who don't want or can't have it around them. The more our air becomes polluted in general, the more smoking impacts. We already have an increased rate of asthma, etc. I'm extremely pro-personal freedom. But I'm also cognizent that my personal freedom stops right at the boundary where yours begins. And that's just the way it is if we all want to live side by side and get along with each other.

'Rani

[Furio]

So it is logical to outlaw shisha bars because people who dont like smoke might be in there?

[Sonthert]

First off, I read the entire constitution, front to back, and there is no right in the constitution to ensure people clean, smoke-free air. Just isn't there.

The laws are not meant really to stop anyone from smoking. What they are meant to do is stop smoke from reaching those who don't want or can't have it around them.

Second hand smoke, unlike primary-hand smoke, has highly questionable data to support that its dangerous. It may be, but, the levels of chemicals inhaled aren't high enough to impact people's health. So it really is just being banned because it is an annoyance. Industry pollutes the air worse than cigarettes...should I ban industry, because it's dangerous...or just annoying? Cows and other livestock are major polluters...their farts contribute chemicals to the air (and annoying, too.) should we ban them? Cars produce thousands of times the amount of pollution that cigarettes do, so cars should be banned. By your logic, since I don't want to inhale those things, we should be able to ban people driving cars. People really don't need to drive. They kill lots of people every year (within an order of magnitude of smoking) and they smell up the air. Same as cigarettes.

But I'm also cognizent that my personal freedom stops right at the boundary where yours begins.

That's clearly absurd. As I pointed out in another thread, people have the right, guaranteed in the constitution, to liberty. I read it, checked it out its in there.

"Liberty: 2. Power to do what one pleases : freedom from restraint."

I guess I can't say anything that might offend somebody else, if they can hear it, because I might be polluting their ears. Sad truth is, liberty sometimes involves putting up with what other people might say or do...so that you have the same right. If I understand the direction of your point, your reference to boundaries was in terms of smoking and another person being an unhappy recipient of some downwind smoke. You can't stop people from doing things that infringe other people's "boundaries", if you do, there is no freedom, no liberty, pack up your shit and move to North Korea. Because a cigarette offends somebody's nose or lungs, then we move on to offending people's ears or eyes.

I believe people should be considerate enough to not smoke in public, but I also believe people shouldn't swear around children or fart in public (OK, well not the farting one). Its called consideration. When you start legislating consideration, you have laws regarding the content of what people can say or what people can watch, because to say fuck or type fuck would infringe on people's boundaries, it might offend someone. Next people might ban public use of words like god or equality...because they offend...maybe they can even put together a case that people that hear or use those words have a higher incidence of cancer...so banning them makes sense. Sure its a little absurd, but when people's moral judgments start becoming law, then the laws have no meaning as it pertains to a free society. Say what you will, banning smoking is legislating somebody's moral judgment. Its your moral judgment that you shouldn't have to breath the cigarette smoke in (not you, but them...you get what I mean ). Plain and simple.

[Rani]

First off, I read the entire constitution, front to back, and there is no right in the constitution to ensure people clean, smoke-free air. Just isn't there.

The laws are not meant really to stop anyone from smoking. What they are meant to do is stop smoke from reaching those who don't want or can't have it around them.

Second hand smoke, unlike primary-hand smoke, has highly questionable data to support that its dangerous. It may be, but, the levels of chemicals inhaled aren't high enough to impact people's health. So it really is just being banned because it is an annoyance. Industry pollutes the air worse than cigarettes...should I ban industry, because it's dangerous...or just annoying? Cows and other livestock are major polluters...their farts contribute chemicals to the air (and annoying, too.) should we ban them? Cars produce thousands of times the amount of pollution that cigarettes do, so cars should be banned. By your logic, since I don't want to inhale those things, we should be able to ban people driving cars. People really don't need to drive. They kill lots of people every year (within an order of magnitude of smoking) and they smell up the air. Same as cigarettes.

But I'm also cognizent that my personal freedom stops right at the boundary where yours begins.

That's clearly absurd. As I pointed out in another thread, people have the right, guaranteed in the constitution, to liberty. I read it, checked it out its in there.

"Liberty: 2. Power to do what one pleases : freedom from restraint."

I guess I can't say anything that might offend somebody else, if they can hear it, because I might be polluting their ears. Sad truth is, liberty sometimes involves putting up with what other people might say or do...so that you have the same right. If I understand the direction of your point, your reference to boundaries was in terms of smoking and another person being an unhappy recipient of some downwind smoke. You can't stop people from doing things that infringe other people's "boundaries", if you do, there is no freedom, no liberty, pack up your shit and move to North Korea. Because a cigarette offends somebody's nose or lungs, then we move on to offending people's ears or eyes.

I believe people should be considerate enough to not smoke in public, but I also believe people shouldn't swear around children or fart in public (OK, well not the farting one). Its called consideration. When you start legislating consideration, you have laws regarding the content of what people can say or what people can watch, because to say fuck or type fuck would infringe on people's boundaries, it might offend someone. Next people might ban public use of words like god or equality...because they offend...maybe they can even put together a case that people that hear or use those words have a higher incidence of cancer...so banning them makes sense. Sure its a little absurd, but when people's moral judgments start becoming law, then the laws have no meaning as it pertains to a free society. Say what you will, banning smoking is legislating somebody's moral judgment. Its your moral judgment that you shouldn't have to breath the cigarette smoke in (not you, but them...you get what I mean ). Plain and simple.

[Rani]

First off, I read the entire constitution, front to back, and there is no right in the constitution to ensure people clean, smoke-free air. Just isn't there.

The laws are not meant really to stop anyone from smoking. What they are meant to do is stop smoke from reaching those who don't want or can't have it around them.

Second hand smoke, unlike primary-hand smoke, has highly questionable data to support that its dangerous. It may be, but, the levels of chemicals inhaled aren't high enough to impact people's health. So it really is just being banned because it is an annoyance. Industry pollutes the air worse than cigarettes...should I ban industry, because it's dangerous...or just annoying? Cows and other livestock are major polluters...their farts contribute chemicals to the air (and annoying, too.) should we ban them? Cars produce thousands of times the amount of pollution that cigarettes do, so cars should be banned. By your logic, since I don't want to inhale those things, we should be able to ban people driving cars. People really don't need to drive. They kill lots of people every year (within an order of magnitude of smoking) and they smell up the air. Same as cigarettes.

But I'm also cognizent that my personal freedom stops right at the boundary where yours begins.

That's clearly absurd. As I pointed out in another thread, people have the right, guaranteed in the constitution, to liberty. I read it, checked it out its in there.

"Liberty: 2. Power to do what one pleases : freedom from restraint."

I guess I can't say anything that might offend somebody else, if they can hear it, because I might be polluting their ears. Sad truth is, liberty sometimes involves putting up with what other people might say or do...so that you have the same right. If I understand the direction of your point, your reference to boundaries was in terms of smoking and another person being an unhappy recipient of some downwind smoke. You can't stop people from doing things that infringe other people's "boundaries", if you do, there is no freedom, no liberty, pack up your shit and move to North Korea. Because a cigarette offends somebody's nose or lungs, then we move on to offending people's ears or eyes.

I believe people should be considerate enough to not smoke in public, but I also believe people shouldn't swear around children or fart in public (OK, well not the farting one). Its called consideration. When you start legislating consideration, you have laws regarding the content of what people can say or what people can watch, because to say fuck or type fuck would infringe on people's boundaries, it might offend someone. Next people might ban public use of words like god or equality...because they offend...maybe they can even put together a case that people that hear or use those words have a higher incidence of cancer...so banning them makes sense. Sure its a little absurd, but when people's moral judgments start becoming law, then the laws have no meaning as it pertains to a free society. Say what you will, banning smoking is legislating somebody's moral judgment. Its your moral judgment that you shouldn't have to breath the cigarette smoke in (not you, but them...you get what I mean ). Plain and simple.

Well, I knew was likely to be crucified by posting that I'm pro the ban, but hey, I believe what I believe. I'm a smoker - hookah on the regular and cigarettes (imported) now and then. I'm also a singer who very well knows that the smoke whether I'm inhaling it or it's coming off the audience onto the stage effects my voice. Sure I have the right to damage my own voice anyway, but if I'm performing, then no, I'm sorry, you're not allowed to impact my performance, and my career by blowing smoke in my face when I can't handle it. What's more, many, many, MANY of my friends are cocktail waitresses and they are all pro the ban even if they smoke themselves on their off duty moments because you're not talking about just smoking. You're talking about building up smoke in an enclosed place. So yeah, I'm afraid I truly believe even hookah bars should be membership oriented. Have any of you ever looked up at the ceiling in a nightclub during the daylight hours during soundcheck before the ban? You'd be appalled. It's trashed by literally thousands of layers of smoke rising. Much as I love my hookah and even my imported cigarettes, no, you can't come over and light 45 hookahs in my tiny apartment all at the same time which is essentially what you're talking about. Because the smoke won't go anywhere. It's no different than a paint booth or anything else that putting something into the air without proper air handling taking it out of the space. Now perhaps that's the real issue. Good air handlers might eliminate all the problems. Bet nobody ever tried to amend the law to account for that by requiring smoking establishments to put in air handlers did they, hmmmmm? For those of you in the Los Angeles area who are willing, let's try the experiment at your place. 20 or 30 or the nightclub size population of say 250 people all bring over their hookahs and we light them all up at the same time in your apartment. Then tell me after an hour if you still think there's nothing wrong with multiple sources of smoke in an enclosed area. Or has anyone not noticed that not one single smoking ban that I'm aware of outlaws smoking in an outdoor or unenclosed area?

'Rani

[hooky1742]

im a non-smoker (except for hookah ) and i am pro the smoking ban as well, people go to pubs mainly to drink, non-smoking drinkers shouldn't have to suffer second hand ciggy smoke, it is simply unpleasant.

However, shisha cafes/bars should clearly have a let out of the ban, because everyone in the bar is there for the express purpose of smoking shisha. Thus, there is no-one in there to annoy, so there isnt a problem there.

[Johnny_D]

I am pro the ban... to a point.

I'm an ex-cigarette smoker. Current hookah smoker.

But when i choose to frequent a public restaraunt then i do not wish to breath in smoke. When I take my girls out to dinner i wish to know that i am not damaging there lungs.

At home i only smoke after bedtime and I have ventilation systems in place.

So I agree with banning smoking in most places. However membership bases establishments, Establishments whose sole design is for smoking, then i do not agree with the ban.

I choose to not take my children in a hookah bar. Someone who chooses todo this, well that's up to them. But it's kinda stupid?

JD

[jaker29902]

Ive said this before, so Ill say it again, charge like $1 for lifetime membership, and give them a cheap laminated construction paper membership card, your establishment is now a private club. Problem solved, people who want the ban get what they want, and people who hate the ban get to screw over the pro-ban people, easy Edited July 2, 2007 by jaker29902

[Furio]

I have said it before, so I will say it again. There is a TOTAL smoking ban in enclosed public buildings. Do you think if it was as easy as a 50p membership people would give a shit about the ban?

[jaker29902]

when you charge membership it becomes an eclosed PRIVATE building, unless its different in the UK

[Johnny_D]

when you charge membership it becomes an eclosed PRIVATE building, unless its different in the UK

It is different in the UK.

This was tabled as an idea very very early. And it does not, currently, stand up against the Law.

However it would need to be tested within the high courts to get a final decision.

It's far more likely that someone will use the human rights act to beat the new Law with. But until it happens & is proved within a high court then I imagine that as of yesterday the hookah bars are closed.

There is a 3rd possibility. It is entirely pluasable that each council could choose to just 'ignore' the hookah bar. There are a number of good reasons that this might happen. If you cannot think of them.. don't ask.

JD

[Furio]

Ok you are correct. Clearly I misunderstand what a TOTAL enclosed public building is. Maybe I should go back to school and study law because I am a smacktard and do not realise that a TOTAL ban does not include private clubs.

Like I said before. Do you think that anyone would give a shit about the ban if a membership fee had to be paid? Think about how much money the private clubs would make that allow smoking.

[Johnny_D]

Furio your not wrong son.

The problem becomes, with this law, the certification and clarification of 'public building' -vs- 'private building'

Take the piano teacher as an example.

Her entire home is private. Right up until the moment a pupil enters to be taught. Then it becomes (at least under this, specific, law) public.

So Furio you were right on the money.

Take the example of a rather dashing good looking charming respectable chap we know, who also likes hookah.

He also is involved with clubs outside of work/school and, on rare occasions, may have a number of members of said club into his home. At this point it becomes 'a public building'

So weather you charge a fee or not. It matters not.

What happens in the case of friends & family in one's home I am not sure. But the above two scenarios are covered by this law.

JD

[jonny_lech]

Here in Washington DC there is a city wide smoking ban; but lobbying was done when the bill was written to give specific exemptions to hookah lounges and cigar bars.

[Furio]

JD, are you sure about inviting members of the club and that being illegal? As that would count as friends and personal lifestyle in your home unless the home was a meeting place for the club as opposed to the "after club" events.