In The News Again.

[Vampy6997]

NOw thew damn press is interested in the story. I've been getting requests for interviews from all sorts of place. Where the fuck were these people when we were trying to block the law in the first place. Ah well....

Interesting.......

I feel slightly responsible...but there's no way to tell because my friend hasn't replied to my email yet (lol)

[chromecarz00]

This is MADNESS!!


Madness?

...
...
...

THIS
IS
HOOKAHFORUM!

[Canon]

doesnt seem like much of a fight, seems more like the big guy shitting on the little guy. its nice to know that if your a minority (hookah lounge owner) you get no say.
“Something is better than nothing, and that’s the way democracy works.”-Bullshit

[cymptom]

I would think that it might also be a good idea to look at the state's legal definition of smoking. Perhaps an argument could be made that the vapors inhaled in hookah smoking aren't technically "smoke", and/or that the second-hand effects may not be comparable to more conventional forms of "smoking".

[ashes87]

All I know is this sucks Mush, and Im sorry to hear this. I love hookah bars, its where I was first introduced to the wonders of hookah and shisha.

Because of what is happening to you, I am definitely going to keep a better eye on things here in Texas, even though the closest hookah bar is 2 hours away

[Rani]

and the fight continues.

http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/features/...ookah-1.1752823

A law-student friend of mine made a suggestion...... Find a young, hungry, just-out-of-law-school-and-passed-the-bar lawyer who is looking to make a name for themselves. For that matter in most states attorney's are required to do a certain percentage of pro bono work and one who wants headlines would probably love to take the case. Then sue the state for loss of income. Is it likely to get all the way to challenging the law in the state supreme court? Probably not. But it may publically force them to hurry up the change in legislation. I'm not a lawyer so I haven't a clue about all the ramifications and possible actions to take. Personally, I totally disagree with anti-smoking laws the way they're all written because I think it should be enough to post signage that this establishment is a smoking etablishment and patrons can choose for themselves whether or not to spend time there. If business in a certain bar or restaurant slows to nothing maybe they'll choose to go non-smoking, etc. It should allow the public to make the choice the same way supply and demand set pricing in our capitalist economy. And honestly, until business owners start suing the states for loss of business the smoking nazis are going to continue to win.

'Rani

[SimplexCoda]

and the fight continues.

http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/features/...ookah-1.1752823

A law-student friend of mine made a suggestion...... Find a young, hungry, just-out-of-law-school-and-passed-the-bar lawyer who is looking to make a name for themselves. For that matter in most states attorney's are required to do a certain percentage of pro bono work and one who wants headlines would probably love to take the case. Then sue the state for loss of income. Is it likely to get all the way to challenging the law in the state supreme court? Probably not. But it may publically force them to hurry up the change in legislation. I'm not a lawyer so I haven't a clue about all the ramifications and possible actions to take. Personally, I totally disagree with anti-smoking laws the way they're all written because I think it should be enough to post signage that this establishment is a smoking etablishment and patrons can choose for themselves whether or not to spend time there. If business in a certain bar or restaurant slows to nothing maybe they'll choose to go non-smoking, etc. It should allow the public to make the choice the same way supply and demand set pricing in our capitalist economy. And honestly, until business owners start suing the states for loss of business the smoking nazis are going to continue to win.

'Rani

NO SMOKE FOR YOU.....YOU COME BACK 2 WEEKS.

Sorry i couldnt pass up the opportunity.

Anyway i agree, our economic system is capitalist. Why cant the choice of what we do to our bodies and our business' be also? I have seen it in history books, governments tell people what to do because the people let them, when the people stop lettin the government control them it stops happening.

[SmokinMoose]

In Canada they are passing no smoking laws everywhere.

In Toronto we have had it for a while. There are still a ton of hookah bars that operate, but they say that they only serve herbal. They have the herbal stuff on display for any inspector and they also only serve you AF or Nakhla if you ask for it.

Because it would cost way too much for the city to come in and take every hookah head and test it and it would be intrusive on the business. They also keep their tobacco stock in the bar to a minimum.

This could be a last resort for you.

[RingsMaster]

sorry to hear this, luckily this doesnt happen in texas but what i can tell you that where there is a fight to be fought, beat the crap out of people. dont let them take away your buisness, fight this crappy law. since when can the government tell you that you cannot sell a legal product.

[Sonthert]

Hmmm. I made a post of some kind. I think Cymptom's on the right track. Just keep doing it, stop serving Jurak or Tombac if you do, and let them prove it is smoking. You go to court, tell them its not smoking, describe the scientific reasoning and let them refute it. I know a guy thats fighting it in Great Britain and has amassed an impressive collection of data and scientific opinions that demonstrate the idea that it isn't smoking.


Edit: My first post seems to have disappeared...I've been hitting the back button instead of "Save Post" lately.

[cymptom]

Perhaps it's time that hookah be recognized as something other than "smoking". We call it "smoking" now, because that's how it looks and it did in fact begin as a form of actual "smoking" (tombac, jurak...), but it has evolved into something quite different.

As I've been saying all along, the largest obstacle to this argument and to the legality of hookah smoking as a whole is the use and inhalation of burning charcoal. When someone finds a way around this, it'll be a new day for hookah smokers...

[Sonthert]

Charcoal is by definition smokeless. That doesn't change the picture.

[chromecarz00]

How about vaporing?

[cymptom]

It's still inhalation of a burning substance, though -- I figure that might be closer to the legal definition of smoking than just vaporizing glycerin/nicotine/flavor. I guess I could foresee someone making the argument that inhaling the gas from burning charcoal could still be considered smoking even if the gases aren't visible to the human eye.

But more generally, I just think that the reputation of hookah smoking could probably move in a more positive direction if the health concerns associated with charcoal inhalation are eliminated. That might be a different discussion, though...