(no subject)

First - despite missing Chronos, we went to midnight - yes, midnight. On purpose. It wasn't as bad as last time, but wow...I think I may be clubbing a lot more now that the smoking ban is in place. It was unbelievable how different everything felt - no coughing, no phlegm, no burning eyes at midnight (pun there, intent irrelevant). In fact, it was hard to tell what time it was since I wasn't in great discomfort and pain. I'm curious how much crap I accepted because I had to deal with it to go to clubs...now with the smoking ban, I'm only realizing how bad the smoke was in the first place. It was incredible to not-reek at home, and to pick up the clothes the next day and similarly find the lack of stench. I could, and fully intend to, get used to this.

The NY smoking ban bar/rest losses were a myth, as proven by a simple internet search:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1355819/posts?page=1 shows increases
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/249730_smokingban25.asp shows increases - and I liked this quote "About 94 percent of studies supported by the tobacco industry found bans had a negative impact, said Peter McCollum, a spokesman for Healthy Indoor Air for All Washington, which supported the ban. But among studies not supported by tobacco, all of them found either a neutral or a positive impact, he said." They don't cite their sources, but it does seem like a credible news article.
http://www.smokingorhealth.org/Smoking%20News%20articles/May05/cia1.pdf finds business increased (no cites given)
http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/smokingbanreport.htm reports losses, but is contrary to all other articles and has no good sources of data provided

I may be going to clubs more thanks to the ban, as the direct pain and cost to my experience are greatly diminished. I didn't even realize how bad it was, how much abuse I put up with for the benefit of the club environment. We'll see if that's a general trend and business go up overall.

Here's why law is fun: don't click the link to see the title of this case until you read:
Appeal was taken by defendant from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Griesa, J., 467 F.Supp. 366, preliminarily enjoining defendants from exhibiting or distributing a motion picture film. The Court of Appeals, Van Graafeiland, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) combination of white boots, white shorts, blue blouse, and white star-studded vest and belt was an arbitrary design which made otherwise functional uniform worn by plaintiff's cheerleading group trademarkable despite claim by distributor and exhibitor of allegedly infringing film that uniform was a purely functional item, and (2) a likelihood of confusion was sufficiently established to entitle plaintiff's cheerleading group to a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from distributing or exhibiting a motion picture film featuring a uniform strikingly similar to one worn by plaintiff's cheerleading group where it was hard to believe that anyone who had seen film could ever thereafter disassociate it from plaintiff's cheerleaders, and association resulted in confusion which had a tendency to impugn plaintiff's services and injure plaintiff's business reputation.
( Wait for it... )