No Smoking Law

arbon wrote:The owner of "The Thirsty Turtle" is quoted by another poster on TOB.

Daniel has ignored the non smoking issue saying the "non smokers can be outside" .

Someone should report him and watch his face as he gets fined $ 20,000. pesos. He'll change his tune then.

"Someone should report him and watch his face as he gets fined $ 20,000. pesos. He'll change his tune then."

Might want to be careful what you wish for unless one is absolutely perfect without ever having bent, manipulated or broken any law or regulation that could come back on them too!

As is typical, the anti's have misquoted the owner of the Thirsty Turtle, and are now out for blood.
He has stated that he never said that the non-smokers could stay outside, is not ignoring the no-smoking laws, and is trying to come up with a solution to please everyone. Sadly this is not likely to work out because the anti's have their prejudices so firmly implanted that there will never be any pleasing them.

raqueteer wrote:As is typical, the anti's have misquoted the owner of the Thirsty Turtle, and are now out for blood.
He has stated that he never said that the non-smokers could stay outside, is not ignoring the no-smoking laws, and is trying to come up with a solution to please everyone. Sadly this is not likely to work out because the anti's have their prejudices so firmly implanted that there will never be any pleasing them.

Raqueteer - What do you mean by antis? What doesn't the owner or you get when the Mexican government makes a "No Smoking" law for restaurants? That it's OK to smoke outside?

I loved the burgers and ice cold beer at the old Turtle. When the owner himself announces that it is a non-smoking inside place, nobody will misquote him wrongly. Bruno's did that, and the non-smoking patrons returned.

I think we should keep this to "what he said" instead of implications.

johninajijic wrote:

raqueteer wrote:As is typical, the anti's have misquoted the owner of the Thirsty Turtle, and are now out for blood.
He has stated that he never said that the non-smokers could stay outside, is not ignoring the no-smoking laws, and is trying to come up with a solution to please everyone. Sadly this is not likely to work out because the anti's have their prejudices so firmly implanted that there will never be any pleasing them.

Raqueteer - What do you mean by antis? What doesn't the owner or you get when the Mexican government makes a "No Smoking" law for restaurants? That it's OK to smoke outside?

Well, let's see John, what is an anti? An anti would be someone, such as yourself, who wishes to see the person who has refused to see your particular form of religious fervor, punished, and severely at that. Today it is smoking, tomorrow, who knows. Perhaps it will be the demon rum as it has been in the past. Let's try to imagine some other dastardly act which some miscreant, in your eyes, will come up with. Could it be the use of asthma inhalers, possibly homeschooling, or the growing of tomato plants in one's back yard. I could in fact provide links to each and every one of these horrendous affronts to the moral majority, however I do feel that they might fall on deaf ears, or to be more accurate, blind eyes.

As for smoking in restaurants, what part of outside do you not understand? The not inside part?

raqueteer - What part of NO SMOKING in restaurants don't you understand??? A No Smoking law means No Smoking in a restaurant whether inside or outside. I guess you are a smoker. I have never smoked.

What if someone is smoking outside and the breeze is blowing smoke into the restaurant affecting other patrons. Is that OK? NOT. What if the persons affected by the smoke complains to the owner and he does nothing about it? Is that OK? NOT! Or he will lose his non smoking customers.

I can assure you if that scenario ocurred with our Monthly Dinner group, there would be more than one of us chewing out a new ahole in the restauranteur and if he did nothing, never to return again. None of us smoke.

John, what part of IN don't you understand? The owner of the Thirsty Turtle himself has stated that he has a non smoking section, for about 3,000.

From the owner himself:

(quote)

thankss Gary I have non smoking for up to about 3000 thanks

(end quote)

Now if that's not good enough for you, I fail to see what ever could be good enough for you.

raqueteer wrote:John, what part of IN don't you understand? The owner of the Thirsty Turtle himself has stated that he has a non smoking section, for about 3,000.

From the owner himself:

(quote)

thankss Gary I have non smoking for up to about 3000 thanks

(end quote)

Now if that's not good enough for you, I fail to see what ever could be good enough for you.

Yes, I understand that, but I believe the law applies to ALL areas of the restaurant.

johninajijic wrote:

raqueteer wrote:John, what part of IN don't you understand? The owner of the Thirsty Turtle himself has stated that he has a non smoking section, for about 3,000.

From the owner himself:

(quote)

thankss Gary I have non smoking for up to about 3000 thanks

(end quote)

Now if that's not good enough for you, I fail to see what ever could be good enough for you.

Yes, I understand that, but I believe the law applies to ALL areas of the restaurant.

Incorrect.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/02/27/us-mexico-smoking-idINN2638831620080227

Now can you just limit your rants to specific laws and not speculation?

I've just asked the owner very bluntly, on (GASP) TOB, whether he was banning smoking inside his restaurant or not. How hard is that to answer with a "yes" or "no"?

He's been posting on there in the "meet and greet" thread, so he is likely to see it. So far, it sounds like he is dodging the question rather adroitly with the comments about trying to work something out that would make everybody happy. That is very unlikely, considering the level of passion expressed by various sides to the issue. The law doesn't attempt to make everybody happy. That is impossible.

I think the comment about "room for 3000" may well have been made with tongue firmly in cheek and may be referring to the great outdoors, since there are no restaurants in this area with inside seating for 3,000 patrons.

Quoted "I can assure you if that scenario occurred with our Monthly Dinner group, there would be more than one of us chewing out a new ahole in the restaurant and if he did nothing, never to return again. None of us smoke."

There in lies the rub, if a restaurant doesn't abide by the no smoking law, "don't go there" not too difficult a concept to grasp.

raqueteer wrote:

johninajijic wrote:

raqueteer wrote:John, what part of IN don't you understand? The owner of the Thirsty Turtle himself has stated that he has a non smoking section, for about 3,000.

From the owner himself:

(quote)

thankss Gary I have non smoking for up to about 3000 thanks

(end quote)

Now if that's not good enough for you, I fail to see what ever could be good enough for you.

Yes, I understand that, but I believe the law applies to ALL areas of the restaurant.

Incorrect.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/02/27/us-mexico-smoking-idINN2638831620080227

Now can you just limit your rants to specific laws and not speculation?

So what!!! Read chapala.com and see how their members feel about Thirsty Turtle. Since there are more non smokers than smokers, let him cater to smokers and we'll watch his business go down the drain.

He won't have the business of most of the members on TOB.

Snowdaddy has the right idea. "Don't go there". Then it's up to the owner to see which side of the bread has more butter on it and act accordingly.

As far as the pro-smoking contingent goes........I wonder who'd be willing to pay his fine if it comes to that? It's easy to say what we'd like it to be and have an arsenal of reasons for it, but like speeding and all the other laws we may or may not agree with, it gets down to who pays the penalty for breaking said laws.

johninajijic wrote:

raqueteer wrote:

johninajijic wrote:

raqueteer wrote:John, what part of IN don't you understand? The owner of the Thirsty Turtle himself has stated that he has a non smoking section, for about 3,000.

From the owner himself:

(quote)

thankss Gary I have non smoking for up to about 3000 thanks

(end quote)

Now if that's not good enough for you, I fail to see what ever could be good enough for you.

Yes, I understand that, but I believe the law applies to ALL areas of the restaurant.

Incorrect.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/02/27/us-mexico-smoking-idINN2638831620080227

Now can you just limit your rants to specific laws and not speculation?

So what!!! Read chapala.com and see how their members feel about Thirsty Turtle. Since there are more non smokers than smokers, let him cater to smokers and we'll watch his business go down the drain.

He won't have the business of most of the members on TOB.

I rest my case your honor, this poster is not really interested in any specific law, however wishes to punish any one who even thinks about allowing smoking outside of their establishment.

As to losing certain customers, while abiding by the law, well so be it. In fact, now that I know that certain posters on TOB, and on this one will not be going there despite the owner most likely complying with the no smoking inside law, perhaps the big guy and I will give it a shot, in good weather.

The law is the law, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Keep on schmokin'. You'll get lung cancer or another smoking related disorder or one from second hand smoke. I don't wish you harm, but some people never wake up.

Enjoy your smoke filled unhealthy burger. I wouldn't go to Thirsty Turtle to eat because it's out of the way and there's better burgers in downtown Ajijic.

On TOB, the owner admitted the "3.000" was a joke.
He didn't answer the direct question of "yes" or "no" about inside smoking.

Quoting John: "raqueteer - What part of NO SMOKING in restaurants don't you understand??? A No Smoking law means No Smoking in a restaurant whether inside or outside."
&
"Keep on schmokin'. You'll get lung cancer or another smoking related disorder or one from second hand smoke. I don't wish you harm, but some people never wake up.
Enjoy your smoke filled unhealthy burger. I wouldn't go to Thirsty Turtle to eat because it's out of the way and there's better burgers in downtown Ajijic."

This sure sounds like there is a control issue with John and like all of his lists or restaurant opinions - it is his way or the highway. Remember there is power in numbers (more non-smokers) as he so states. This reminds me of a "professional firefighter" for the City of Spokane, WA who drew a line in the sand about entering any vehicle, store, restaurant or bar where people smoked because he was allergic to smoke. Say What?

ok... so you can't smoke in eating establishments... but the burning question I have is

Can U still smoke at The Titty Bar?

You are referring to something the smokers may still remember but many have also forgotten or have fading memories of which you speak!

Who knows? We don't have one here.

If The Thirsty Turtle fella falls on hard times because of his enforcement ( policies ? ) of the Law... he can always open up a Hooters Franchise some things transend a simple ciggy!!

If nothing else, the owner of the Thirsty Turtle is getting his name in front of lots of people with 3300+ views of the topic. How much would it have cost him to run advertising to get that much attention?

CheenaGringo wrote:If nothing else, the owner of the Thirsty Turtle is getting his name in front of lots of people with 3300+ views of the topic. How much would it have cost him to run advertising to get that much attention?

Bingo!!!!!

David wrote:Who knows? We don't have one here.

AHA, a new business opportunity, Bob.

Yeah if you want to have the cartel as business partners.............