Smoking Lobby Forum for Smoker's Rights

The Media Makes Up Your Mind For You On The PA Smoking Ban

2008-06-19T02:31:00.000-07:00

I just read this article from the Tri-State Observer, some dishrag yellow paper published in Pennsylvania. What happened to objectivism in journalism? I think this writer is a little too excited about the fact that 30% of the population of his state just had their constitutional rights spat upon. First of all, there's the title of the page, "It's a Fact! Pennsylvania's New Clean Indoor Air Act" Is an exclamation point necessary here? Really? This person is way too excited before the story even starts.

The first sentence of the article is what I find the most highly objectionable though: "... making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to lawfully protect the public and hospitality workers from secondhand smoke exposure." I would have written this a little differently. How about " ... making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to hide behind a flawed state-level legislative system to illegally rescind the rights of 1/3 of all its citizens to enjoy a legal hobby". See how my I write it with one slant, and the journalist writes it with another? That's called bias, and subjectivism, and just like this writer, it has no place in modern ethical journalism!

I don't want to start a tirade about the appalling lack of journalistic integrity in our media, but come on, this is just piss poor writing. And what about the "quote" they got later on - "The Pike County Tobacco-Free Coalition asked several local restaurateurs how they feel about the smoke-free legislation. The response was unanimously welcoming." Really? What did you do, ask two people who work in the restaurant next door who don't smoke? You're telling me every restaurateur in your area loves it when the state passes a law telling them how to run their business? And did you really use an effective sampling technique when you took that poll? Lazy, sloppy, and disgusting journalism.

I would love to see this paper write about life before the civil rights movement, back when the gov't took rights away from black people, before they targeted smokers. "It's a fact! Negroes ain't welcome here anymore! Pennsylvania is the 33rd state to protect white people from the dangers of bad, nasty, scary black people." That is pretty much the same article they just wrote about us smokers. And you thought it couldn't happen in America?

Article repeated from the Source in case they pull it:

PIKE COUNTY, PA - Governor Ed. Rendell has signed a statewide smoking ban, making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to lawfully protect the public and hospitality workers from secondhand smoke exposure. The smoking ban covers restaurants, office buildings, theaters, arenas, sports facilities, mass transportation, and more.

The Clean Indoor Air Act allows for some conditional exemptions including bars when annual sales of food is equal to or less than 20% of combined gross sales, and a percentage of casino gaming floors.

Governor Rendell advocated such a ban as a way to cut health care costs. In June 2006, the Surgeon General released a report on the health consequences of exposure to second-hand smoke, stating that involuntary exposure is a serious public health hazard that can be prevented by making public places completely smoke-free. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes several forms of cancer. Tests have also shown this form of smoke to be particularly dangerous to children.

The Pike County Tobacco-Free Coalition asked several local restaurateurs how they feel about the smoke-free legislation. The response was unanimously welcoming.

The smoking ban will take effect 90 days from the June 13, 2008 signing, with fines for violators ranging from $250 to $1000

Iowa Lawmaker Says Smoking ban rules overstep legislative intent

2008-06-12T05:05:00.000-07:00

From Des Moines, Iowa:

The state’s proposed rules to regulate a statewide smoking ban treats hundreds of bars as restaurants, which means customers won’t be able to smoke in outdoor patio areas, some business owners and a few legislators said today.

"In my mind and in the minds of just about every single legislator I’ve talked with in the past week – and that’s about 20 or so – this is an absolute perversion of the legislative intent. Period," said Rep. McKinley Bailey, a Webster City Democrat.

The state's administrative rules are intended to help clarify and implement laws and spell out details of enforcement. The Legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed the proposed rules for the smoking ban today.

The Legislature this year approved a ban on smoking in almost all public places, including bars and restaurants, effective July 1. One provision in the law allows bar owners to permit smoking in their outdoor patio areas but prohibits restaurants from allowing outdoor smoking.

The rules, also effective July 1, say that bar food is limited to ice, pre-packaged snacks, popcorn, peanuts and the reheating of commercially prepared foods that do not require assembly, such as frozen pizza.

Under that definition, bars that have a grill and serve a burger, for example, would be considered a restaurant.

The draft rules were recommended by the Iowa Department of Public Health, along with a number of other state agencies, including the attorney general's office and the Department of Inspections and Appeals.

"This is a clear case where a state agency is going beyond the scope of the intended legislation," said Tom Baldwin, owner of Drink, a Clive bar.

Roughly 3 percent of Drink’s sales are from food. But because of the proposed rules, the facility would be considered a restaurant for the purposes of enforcement of the statewide smoking ban, he told the rules committee today.

The Iowa Board of Health is expected to vote on the rules at 2 p.m. today The rules are likely to be put into place by July 1 even though a public comment period will continue through Aug. 6, said Don McCormick, a spokesman for the Department of Public Health.

State officials involved in the rules committee could revise them as a result of public input, even after the July 1 start date, he said.

More information on Iowa Anti-Smoking Laws:

RULES: The rules, including information about the rule-making process and how to send state officials a comment about the law, can be found at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.

Smoking ban details

PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS BANNED: Bars; restaurants; restaurants' outdoor seating areas; financial institutions; public and private educational facilities; health care provider locations; laundries; schools; public transportation facilities, including buses and taxicabs, and the ticketing, boarding and waiting areas of these facilities; reception areas; aquariums, galleries, libraries and museums; retail food production and marketing establishments; service establishments; retail stores; shopping malls; entertainment venues, including theaters, concert halls, auditoriums and other similar facilities or sports arenas; polling places; convention facilities and meeting rooms; waiting rooms; public buildings and places of public assembly owned, leased or operated by the state; private residences when used as child care facilities or health care provider locations; and child care facilities.

PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED: Outdoor areas of bars; veterans organizations, except at functions where the general public is invited; farm tractors and trucks; fairgrounds; designated areas of National Guard facilities; designated areas of correctional facilities; areas of casino gambling; some hotels; tobacco stores; semiprivate rooms in long-term-care facilities; many outdoor areas that are places of employment; most limousine services; and homes, except those used as child care facilities.

Smoking ban enforcement

FINES: A person caught smoking in a banned area is subject to a $50 fine. Employers or caretakers of public places who fail to enforce the law are subject to a $100 fine for the first offense, $200 for a second offense, and $500 for other violations within one year.

EMPLOYERS: An employer who fires, refuses to employ a worker, or retaliates against an employee who complains about a violation is subject to fines of $2,000 to $10,000.

SIGNS: The proposed rules outline the responsibilities of property owners or government officials to post no-smoking signs.

COMPLAINTS: The state's health department designates each law enforcement department in the state to help with enforcement. A toll-free number will be set up for people to complain about violators. Complaints may also be filed with state officials online at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.

RULES: Once legislation is signed by the governor it becomes part of the Iowa Code. Some laws require or authorize a state government agency to adopt administrative rules, which are the regulations the agency uses to implement the law.

EXPEDITED: The state's standard rule-making process takes at least 108 days and frequently lasts six months or longer. Because the smoking ban was signed into law by Gov. Chet Culver on April 15 and takes effect July 1, state officials are using an emergency rule-making process.

HEARINGS: The process involves public hearings and public comment periods. State health officials will hold at least five public meetings throughout the state. The public may comment now through Aug. 6. The dates of the public meetings will be posted online at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.

PUBLIC: Even though the rules may be adopted, public comments made before the Aug. 6 deadline will be considered and could play a part in revisions to the rules. Revisions would probably be made in October.

Bar in Ohio Continues Last Fight for Freedom in America

2008-05-21T04:39:00.001-07:00

The owner of Zeno’s Victorian Village, 384 W. Third Ave, a bar in Columbus, Ohio is still fighting to stop the smoking ban. They will be the first bar to challenge the right of the city to enforce the statewide smoking ban at a hearing Wednesday.

From the news story:

Zeno’s first encounter with the city came early on, with an investigation that started a year ago this month and resulted in a warning letter sent in late July. In October, the establishment was fined $100. That fine was paid.

In early December, the city fined Zeno’s $1,000. That’s double the base level for a second fine. The law allows the city to double the fine when inspectors believe the violations are “ intentional,” said John Richter, supervisor for Columbus’ smoke-free program.

The business has not paid that fine and instead requested the administrative hearing to take place Wednesday. A hearing officer will make recommendations to the Board of Health, which will take up the matter at its next meeting.

In the meantime, city started a fourth investigation in March, resulting in yet another fine, this time for $2,000, Richter said.

Each investigation was prompted by a complaint called into the city.

Dick Allen, owner of Zeno’s, could not be reached.

Hackers target pro choice websites

2008-04-11T17:07:00.000-07:00

Looks like the anti-smokers are at it again. Long time members of SmokingLobby.com will remember when this site was hacked 2 years ago by some non-smoking zealots, and the site was down for a while. Couldn't stop me for long! We were back up within hours. Looks like they're going after a few groups in the UK now, just rec'd this press release:

The websites of two prominent pro choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans were yesterday targeted by hackers in a "pharming" incident that redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The DNS poisoning, a high level and sophisticated hacking technique, affected all UK based internet service providers.

Andy Davis, Vice Chairman of Freedom to Choose, one of the affected websites, says: "It appears that Freedom To Choose has annoyed someone high up, it seems they don't want the truth to get out."

Stephanie Stahl, President of Forces International, claims: "To re-direct our UK visitors to an anti-smoking website shows that the antismoking movement must be very nervous about the information our pro-freedom groups provide. Domain names are sacred on the free-spirited information super highway; we trust that those responsible for this serious violation will be identified and held accountable. "

Both groups campaign against government interference in private life and property, maintaining that blanket smoking bans are based on fraudulent scientific claims about passive smoking. According to Andy Davis: "5 out of 6 studies show second hand smoke to be entirely harmless. In the UK the ban is needlessly devastating the hospitality and entertainment industries, yet modern air filtration can remove 99.97% of airborne particles and make indoor air cleaner than outdoor, regardless of smoking."

The hacking incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and is under investigation. In the meantime, both www.freedom2choose.info and www.forces.org have restored normal service.

Smoking Ban Increases Accidents 12 Percent

2008-04-02T22:35:00.000-07:00

Ban on smoking causes crashes - study

A ban on smoking in American bars has increased the number of accidents apparently caused by drinking and driving.

US jurisdictions with a smoking ban have seen, on average, a nearly 12 percent rise in the number of drink-related accidents at the wheel, researchers say in a paper published in the Journal of Public Economics.

It's based on data from 2000 to 2005, drawn from counties that enforced a ban on smoking in bars during this period and from accident statistics before and after the ban was introduced.

Researchers found that instead of heading to their local bar for a drink and a puff, smokers ventured farther afield in search of a place where lighting up is still allowed

They may not be drinking more than before but they are certainly driving more - and that's what is increasing the risk of a crash.

The study said: "Banning smoking in bars increases the fatal accident risk posed by drunk drivers.

"Our evidence is consistent with two mechanisms -- smokers searching for alternative locations to drink within a locality and smokers driving to nearby jurisdictions that allow smoking in bars."

According figures cited in the report, nearly a one-third of the US population lives in cities, counties or states where there are restrictions on smoking in bars.

Study authors Scott Adams and Chad Cotti of the University of Wisconsin say the increase in drunk driving has to be weighed against "potential positive health impacts" from smoking bans, and this may take years to determine. - Sapa-AFP

Source

Wisconsin Statewide Smoking Ban Snuffed Out in Legislature

2008-03-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

WISCONSIN - Hopes for a statewide smoking ban are once again on hold. The Assembly ended its session Wednesday without giving the bill a vote, which means the debate is likely over until 2009.

Appleton's working smoking ban won't be going statewide after lawmakers failed to cast a vote on an issue that's been divisive, especially among bar and restaurant owners.

"I'm disappointed. I think for everybody across the street, on a fairness question, it would be nice to see it on a level playing field," Mark Dougherty of Mark's East Side Restaurant said.

Dougherty supports a statewide ban. He says the local smoking ban has brought in more business to his restaurant.

Still, others say if a tavern doesn't sell food the losses are there.

"I don't think just because I'm hurting my neighbor in another community needs to be hurting also. There has to be some sort of compromise," Brian Striegel of Camelot Bar said

The Wisconsin Tavern League fought for a phase-in period of up to three years for bars. Others felt there should be exemptions for ventilation systems or rooms open only to smokers.

Still, one lawmaker isn't giving up. Representative Steve Wieckert plans to bring back the smoking ban bill next January.

"The bill has to start from ground zero, so to speak, next year," Wieckert said. "It has to be introduced, but we can say it has the support of both committees previous session."

With bans already in Minnesota and Illinois, it's an issue eventually state lawmakers will have to vote on.

"They're just standing in the way of progress here. I think they should take it on instead of putting it off. Wisconsin should lead it a little more," Dougherty expressed.

Article Source

Smoking Ban Proposed For Renters

2008-03-04T07:13:00.000-08:00

Proposed Legislation To Prevent Renters From Smoking In Apartments

March 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — A new smoking ban is in the works that could make it illegal to smoke in your own apartment.

New legislation is being proposed by democratic senator Alex Padilla of Van Nuys that would allow, not require landlords to ban smoking inside their rental units.

The Rental Association of Sacramento Valley supports the legislation and has already mailed out thousands of informational leaflets to apartment complexes in the Sacramento area.

Cory Koehler Deputy Director of the Renters Housing Association discussed benefits of the legislation, " there's the reduced costs, reduced cleaning cost, reduction of fire danger to the property and really a healthy living environment for other residents."

Some renters like Enrique Rojas disagree with the proposed legislation, " that law doesn't make any sense at this point, I understand bars maybe they should ban it in bars but not in your own apartment. I don't believe that's right."

The smoke-free housing bill has been read in the committee and unlike similar bills that have been proposed in the past, housing experts say this has a better chance of passing because it is not mandated and up to each landlord to ban smoking or not.

Protesters gather to oppose state smoking ban

2008-03-02T09:04:00.000-08:00

This article just appeared in the Southern. Hmm, wonder why they didn't bother to do just a little research to learn that the FORCES website is located at forces.org, not force.org. They even mentioned they tried to do a google search and couldn't find the site. If they did just a little research, like type the phrase "force.org smokers rights" into Google, they would see FORCES.org is the 3rd result (and with a little pat on the back I might mention SmokingLobby.com is the first two results :)

But it doesn't detract from the point of the article, which is to mention the very successful protect that Jon Hemminghaus organized. Kudos to him, a non-smoker, who believes enough in our rights as citizens of a free country, to fight government control and censorship in any form.

Source: The Southern

WEST FRANKFORT - Erik Lind drove all the way from Minneapolis to show his disdain for Illinois' statewide smoking ban.

Jon Hemminghaus, owner of Wounded Rig Fiberglass and Gel Coat Repair in West Frankfort, hosted a protest at noon Saturday against the ban that began in January with stump speeches, greeters in Revolutionary War costumes waving the American flag - and smoking. While the smoking took place outside, Hemminghaus said anyone was welcome to smoke inside his establishment.

"This is the only thing you can do to get noticed," Hemminghaus said. "You can sign a petition and write a letter, but it doesn't do you a bit of good."

Lind, who said he was a contributor to a smokers' rights group called force.org, said he made the drive from Minneapolis because he was inspired by Hemminghaus' willingness to fight for smokers' rights.

"It's a fairly rare opportunity, and I wanted to be a part of it," Lind said. "Maybe it will grow from here."

The protest didn't gain much attention from law enforcement, although Hemminghaus did say some police officers checked on the parking situation earlier.

Hemminghaus carried a cigar with him throughout the protest, despite not being a smoker. He said the protest was more about the government telling people what they can and can't do.

"That flag out there," Hemminghaus said referring to the American Flag. "A lot of people can remember when that stood for freedom."

Hemminghaus thanked people for attending and let others take the stage, including a representative from force.org, which doesn't show up as a Web site in a Google search. The representative encouraged those in attendance to fight the ban and gave examples of reasons to fight the smoking ban, including an allegation that the smoking ban that Mayor Michael Bloomberg enacted in New York City in 2003 forced several casinos to file for bankruptcy. However, according to casino directory www.casinocity.com, there are no casinos in New York City.

For Hemminghaus, the main purpose for the protest was to let the government know that he won't let the smoking ban inflict peoples' rights.

"Smoking doesn't really affect me," Hemminghaus said. "It's just taking rights away."

Smoking ban unjust, unfair to younger people

2008-02-25T06:47:00.000-08:00

This is a great opinion piece by Michael Cannon published in the Middle Tennessee State Univ. paper, Sidelines:

Full Article Source

Governor Bredesen slighted working Tennesseans by restricting our right to light up in public

On Oct. 1, 2007, a dark cloud descended upon the homely town of Murfreesboro, replacing the gray cloud of cigarette smoke that was there before.

We all knew that this day was coming. Although we tried to relegate its existence to some far off future, on that somber fall day we all reckoned with fate as an old man reluctantly resigns himself to the inevitability of death.

This infamous day marked the end of an era: citizens were now prohibited from smoking in all enclosed public places within the State of Tennessee with a few exceptions including private homes, private residences and private motor vehicles unless used for child care or day care, and non-enclosed areas of public places.

With this stunning jargon blitz, the Tennessee state government dragged us one step closer to totalitarianism. We all awoke that day to find that our glorious homeland had undergone a frightful social transformation. The blood-curdling screams emanating from dorm rooms and surrounding restaurants were seared upon our collective memory forever.

The sole vanguard of Southern hospitality and the embodiment of man's aspirations for freedom, Tennessee, had fallen to the dark armies of extremely bored, fundamentalist legislators. These villainous mercenaries have exacted much sadistic pleasure from depriving the Tennessee masses of their inalienable right to self-inflicted health problems.

This act of legislative terrorism was the culmination of a concerted campaign against civil rights and poor people. We were first alerted to the threat during the late '90s and early 2000s, when a wave of smoking bans swept the globe.

However, just as Americans felt safe from the Nazi war machine that enveloped Europe 70 years ago, we too thought we were safe in the South, where we possess a proud tradition of vice, from moonshine to fried foods. This false sense of security gradually withered away however, and was decisively shattered in May of last year with the advent of a 62-cent cigarette tax increase.

This event awoke us to the imminent threat to our civil rights, just as the attacks on Pearl Harbor opened our ancestors' eyes to the menace of fascism. When drafting this Draconian decree, lawmakers were certainly aware that poorer people have much higher rates of smoking than those well above the poverty line. As such, this bill should be viewed as a brazen assault on our state's poor and destitute.

This tax essentially forces many poor folks to choose between satisfying a nicotine addiction or eating lunch that day. Smoking is not like biting your nails. Addiction is a disease and you cannot just instantaneously end the habit. These foul villains are aware of this fact and use it to their advantage.

The revenue from these taxes is being used to fuel Lord Bredesen's nefarious plot to make a more hilarious joke out of our state's public school system. Rather than taxing people who work for living and suffer from a disease, perhaps we should look into levying fees on such oceans of untapped tax revenue such as Brentwood and Belle Meade.

This is unlikely, however, as the aforementioned lawmen tend to cohabitate in these dark lands to the west. Therefore, it is quite logical to conclude that the government's anti-smoking campaign is merely a microcosm of a larger war against working, freedom-loving southern folk carried out by a state government dominated by wealthy white men who have no real sense of what an average person's life is like. This enables them to extort us without conscience.

Despite the glaring injustice of this action, we grudgingly accepted it. We thought the worst was over, but we could not have been more wrong. Only five months later, the blanket ban on smoking would strike fear into the hearts of millions of peaceful Tennesseans.

As citizens are now aware, we can no longer smoke in most public places, including restaurants. These past months, we have all had to deal with the severe psychological stress and separation anxiety that has resulted from losing the right to smoke in Waffle House. Sunday morning hangovers will never again be the same.

This law outlines some truly oppressive restrictions. However, one of the few exceptions to smoking in public buildings is bars and venues. There is a catch though. The bar must become 21 and up only. This aspect of the bill is particularly unsettling for me, as teenagers such as myself now find it much harder to enjoy Murfreesboro's thriving music scene.

Furthermore, once you think about this section of the law for two seconds, the complete stupidity of our "representatives" becomes hilariously clear. Okay, so I am 19 and can legally go buy cigarettes and chain smoke in an enclosed space all day if I so desire. However, I am not allowed to go to a venue where people are smoking in a large room. Through some goofy reasoning, exposure to second smoke from 21-plus people in a bar endangers my health so much more that it necessitates a law. To put it plainly, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Then again, I am kind of a small guy and if some older bar-goer smokes more tobacco than he can handle, he might attack me in a fit of nicotine-induced rage.

This ban on public smoking is also a blatant falsification of historical facts. There is a universal consensus amongst scholars that 20th century French philosophy would have never developed without smoke-filled Paris cafes serving as the breeding ground for movements such as existentialism. So next time you pick up your favorite Albert Camus novel, remember that it would not exist without smoking.

These lines are essentially a call to action for all freedom-loving southerners to band together and defeat the great menace that is corrupting our progressive and advanced society. Phil Bredesen, together with his cohorts, should be removed from office and tried for their crimes against the people.

The only punishment appropriate for this treacherous act is to tar and feather them with nicotine patches on the steps of the capitol building. Only then will justice, democracy and freedom be reborn in our state. The struggle of the smoker is the struggle of humankind and we must preserve to the bitter, cancerous end.

Lawmakers douse all bills that ban smoking in public

2008-02-08T07:53:00.000-08:00

RICHMOND, The Virginian-Pilot -- The proposed statewide ban on smoking in many public places, including restaurants, all but died Thursday night when a House subcommittee quickly spiked several smoking bills after an hour of emotional testimony from people on both sides of the issue.

The vote means it's unlikely the Republican-controlled House will entertain the Senate's smoking ban bill, which passed Wednesday. Democrats control the Senate. A statewide smoking ban in restaurants is also a top priority of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat.

The subcommittee of the General Laws Committee also squashed bills to give localities the right to impose their own smoking bans, a blow to cities including Virginia Beach and Norfolk that pushed for the power.

The unanimous action disappointed advocates who said secondhand smoke is dangerous and pleased those who saw the proposed ban as government intrusion into private affairs.

"This gives you some idea how much control lobbyists have," said Del. Algie Howell Jr., D-Norfolk, who sponsored one of the ban bills. "It's unbelievable that a handful of people will decide what's in the best interest of the people of Virginia."

Randy Estenson, owner of Poppa's Pub in Virginia Beach, who said 80 percent of his customers smoke, praised the ruling.

"I'm very happy," he said. "I honestly believe businesses are doing what they need to do on their own."

Delegates who voted against the measure took a similar position.

"It's not up to the government to tell people what to do," said Del. Thomas Gear, R-Hampton, chairman of the General Laws ABC/Gaming subcommittee.

Gear said many of his favorite restaurants in Hampton have decided to ban smoking on their own.

Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, who is the only South Hampton Roads lawmaker on the subcommittee, also voted against the bills. Del. Terrie Suit, R-Virginia Beach, who leads the full General Laws Committee, spoke against them.

"The issue has been elevated to the level that so many restaurants have gone smoke free, so it's not longer necessary for the government to do it," Suit said.

ASH Ireland Creates Smoking Ban to Further Own Existence

2008-01-29T05:54:00.000-08:00

Here's a prime example of why the gov't was duped into creating smoking bans by self-interest groups. ASH Ireland is one of those bogus anti-smoking groups who popped up a few years ago to collect tobacco settlement money to prevent smoking. They started getting false scientific claims that second-hand smoke is bad for the public's health (despite massive evidence to the contrary that secondhand smoke is NOT bad for anyone).

So then they convinced the Irish gov't to ban smoking. Now, you may ask, why does this group still exist? Their sole purpose was to ban smoking; they did, but here they are a few years later and they won't go away. They want to self-preserve. So what do they do? Come up with more and more false scientific claims to create ever more restrictive bans on smoking so that they can stay in existence and continue to draw more taxpayer's money into their own pockets.

Their latest claim is that secondhand smoke in cars is worse than smoking indoors. If this was true, why didn't they ban car smoke in the first place? Why rush to ban indoor smoking if it wasn't the worst kind of secondhand smoke? The truth is there is no medical evidence to support the claims of any kind of secondhand smoke danger, so they create it to line their pockets and further their own existence.

It is only a matter of time before the public realizes they are only crying wolf. As more and more indoor smoking bans are being revised and repealed, these groups will have plenty of reason to exist -- hiring lawyers to defend their false claims!

Article from the Irish Examiner follows:

Anti-smoking group, ASH Ireland, said passive smoke in a vehicle is 23 times more toxic than it is in buildings or open spaces.

The group, which successfully lobbied the Government to introduce the work-place tobacco ban, is calling for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children under 16.

ASH chief executive Dr Angie Brown said the workplace ban protects adults from the harmful effects of passive smoking, and it is now time to focus attention on protecting children.

ASH said smoking in cars carrying children has been banned in parts of Australia, Canada and the USA.

Dr Brown said: "In households where parents smoke, children are more likely to suffer from respiratory illnesses. Often it exacerbates a child's asthma.

Research shows that passive smoking might be even more harmful in a confined space like a car, even if the windows are open."

She said: "It will not only have an effect on their health, it also has an effect on their schooling because they might have to miss school if they become ill."

ASH said it would eventually like to see an all-out ban in cars, but the protection of children under 16 is its main priority.

"We would much prefer a total ban on smoking in cars as it is such an unhealthy practice," said Dr Brown.

"Children are unlikely to ask adults to stop smoking, so we must take this important decision out of their hands," she said.

Dr Brown denied that her organisation wants to create a so-called "nanny state".

"An adult can make their own decision whether they want to smoke or not. We have to protect those who can't protect themselves."

Another smoking ban revised

2008-01-26T17:14:00.001-08:00

Looks like Kansas City is the next place to come to it's senses and left a previously restrictive smoking ban. Now they will allow smoking in 25% of public places, and in any bar where only patrons 21 and older attend:

KC Council revises smoking ban

A revised smoking ban becomes effective in Kansas City on March 23.

About two weeks later, in an April 8 special election, Kansas City voters will consider another, different smoking ban.

Previously, it appeared that voters would have to weigh both a petition initiative and the City Council's ballot measure to limit smoking. But on Thursday, the council stubbed out the ballot measure it had approved earlier this month, instead changing the city's existing smoking ordinance.

Now, voters can override the current ordinance with the petitioners' ban.

The city's revised ban excludes generally 25 percent of hotel and motel rooms, tobacco stores, bars and casino gaming floors. Businesses with liquor licenses that admit only people 21 or older can be exempted from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. or closing if they post a sign indicating smoking is allowed.

Establishments with both a restaurant and bar could allow smoking in the bar if it is completely enclosed and separately ventilated.

"What we tried to do ... is if it's an establishment that those under 21 are able to be admitted, then there's a smoking ban," Councilman Ed Ford said Friday. "We tried to be consistent."

The petition initiative would exclude only casino floors and concourses at Truman Sports Complex.

Regarding indoor establishments, the petition initiative would exclude only casino floors.

Ford said there probably would be a "vigorous campaign" to tell voters about the council's action and educate them about the differences between the bans.

Look at other side of smoking ban

2008-01-19T06:18:00.000-08:00

This letter to the editor appeared in Chicago's Daily Herald today - thought it was worth repeating:

Look at other side of smoking ban

To the anti-smoking folks writing letters to the media: There seem to be two major themes coming through loud and clear.

First is a patent hatred of people who smoke. These are your friends, relatives, co-workers, employers and employees, not to mention perfect strangers who have done you no harm. Somewhere between 60 and 90 million of us … depending on who is counting.

It takes a special kind of hate and heartlessness to force people from all walks of life, race, economic status, age, disability, etc. out into the cold to smoke. And outdoor smoking areas --no more than three walls mind you -- can't serve drinks, food, entertainment, TV, heat? This is America?

The second notion is that somehow smokers are forcing you to inhale their smoke. Can someone cite one instance where a smoker forced a non-smoker into an establishment that allows (excuse me, allowed) smoking? Maybe it's just me, but if there is something about a place I don't like, I don't go there. What is so difficult about this concept? A cigar bar? Why then Mr. and Ms. Non-smoker, don't go there if it offends you. But rather the attitude of these people seems to be "change the world to suit me". After all, isn't it "all about me"? No compromise? Again, this is America?

The most successful propaganda is based on the theory that the biggest lie repeated often enough sinks into the subconscious. Then, it becomes religion-like.

Spencer Hendron
Lake Barrington

Virginia Smoking Ban Opposed By Some

2008-01-08T08:49:00.000-08:00

Staunton's Depot Grille went to a smoke-free environment 18 months ago, and Manager Erin Smith said the response has been positive.

"A lot of customers wanted it," Smith said Monday.

The restaurant had previously only allowed smoking at its bar.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine renewed his legislative request Monday for a statewide ban on smoking in Virginia restaurants, including public and private clubs.

The ban would include any area of public or private clubs where food is available and includes the restaurant areas where the food is prepared, served or consumed. The ban would be indoors only.

Kaine, whose proposal was defeated in the General Assembly a year ago, said the health risks associated with secondhand smoke offer convincing evidence for the ban.

"Recognizing the negative health effects and high public costs of secondhand smoke, Virginia must act to protect the workers and consumers in its restaurants," Kaine said.

The Virginia Department of Health estimates that 1,700 deaths a year are caused by secondhand smoke in the commonwealth.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids says Virginia spends $124.9 million a year on health-care expenditures related to secondhand smoke exposure.

Smith said the Depot's smoke-free environment attracted employees who wanted to get away from cigarette smoke.

Another Staunton restaurant owner, Jennifer Lynch of the Baja Bean, said operating a bar without smoking would be tricky.

She said such a prohibition could lead to smokers cutting back on cigarette consumption. But it could also affect bar business at her restaurant.

"A lot of people who smoke do so when they drink," she said. Lynch said many of her employees are smokers.

Area legislators don't favor the Kaine bill.

Del. Chris Saxman, R-Staunton, said he prefers a smoke-free environment in a restaurant, but does not think all restaurants should have a smoking ban.

"I don't support a ban on every place. I'm a bigger fan of someone's liberty to smoke," he said.

Saxman said it is a case of government going too far.

"If I don't like something on TV, I don't watch it. I rent the movies and watch the movies I want to," he said.

Both Saxman and Del. Steve Landes said they voted against the legislation a year ago and will do so again.

Landes, R-Weyers Cave, said while many restaurants are voluntarily elminating smoking, they should have the option to allow it.

"If a business wants to cater to smokers, shouldn't they be able to do it?" Landes said.

Gordon Hickey, Kaine's press secretary, said the restaurant industry is already heavily regulated.

And he said none of the 25 states that have already insituted a similar ban on restaurant smoking has repealed it.

"It [smoking ban] has been done quite a lot around the country and no one has regretted or repealed it," he said.

Traditional pubs’ takings drop 25% after smoking ban

2007-12-18T04:55:00.001-08:00

UK - PUB owners have suffered a 7.3% slump in sales since the smoking ban, according to a new poll.

But a startling 25% drop in takings was seen at some traditional pubs and working men’s clubs, which do not rely on food sales, the survey of more than 2,700 licensees found.

Some 58% said smokers were paying fewer visits to their pubs and 73% said customers who smoked were spending less time inside their pubs.

And although a quarter of respondents said more non-smokers were visiting their premises, they had seen an overall drop since the smoking ban came into force in Wales on April 2.

The poll was carried out by the Federation of Licensed Victuallers’ Associations (FLVA) and the BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) who surveyed 2,708 licensees in Wales and England.

The BII predicts that around 5,000 pubs will close in the next three or four years accelerated by the ban.

The Welsh secretary of the FLVA is adamant the drops are due to the smoking ban.

John Price who runs the Bush Hotel, in Clydach Vale in the Rhondda said, “My takings are down 25%. A lot of my friends’ pubs are losing a lot, other pubs are losing a lot of money.

“The pub up the road from me is losing £1,500 per week and thinking of closing and takings at the local club, known as The Top Club, have fallen drastically.

“People are staying in and going to supermarkets to buy their alcohol because they can smoke at home. The worst thing about that is youngsters get the chance to get a beer from the fridge and drink it in the house.”

Miles Vaughan, chairman of the BII Wales, said sales at his pub have also plummeted.

He said, “I’m the tenant here at the Royal Victoria in Prestatyn and sales have gone down at least 25% if not 30% since the ban. It was predicted that pubs wouldn’t suffer because the people that didn’t smoke would go out and enjoy the atmosphere in public houses but this hasn’t happened.

“At a recent council meeting at the Churchill’s Hotel in Cardiff, there were 12 council members representing 20 pubs and only one said they had gained a new customer since the ban. Pub sales have been going down 5% every year over the last few years but the smoking ban was really the nail in the coffin for many.”

Mr Vaughan said that even those people that came out spent most of the night sitting outside so they didn’t drink that much.

The FLVA’s chief executive Tony Payne said 89% of survey respondents wanted rate relief for licensees who had lost business as a result of the smoking ban.

But ASH Wales, a voluntary organisation tackling tobacco use, said the ban was worth the benefit to public health.

Spokesperson Daniel Clayton said, “We know there’s been a fall in sales in pubs but the decrease is to do with the wet summer we’ve had and in part, due to the health message about drinking that’s in the news at present.

He added that in Scotland, 12 months after the ban, there had been no decrease in pub takings.

Bill Williams on Smokers Rights

2007-12-10T13:46:00.001-08:00

As the founder of SmokingLobby.com, I was recently interviewed by a college student for a paper on smokers' rights. Since I already did all the writing, I figured I'd post it here as well:

Q. When did you first start smoking?

At age 18

Q. What does smoking do for you?

It's an enjoyable hobby.

Q. What do you smoke? Quantity per day?

1 pack/day

Q. Did you grow up in a smoking environment?

My father smoked for many years, but quit when I was 14, not due to health reasons. He's still alive and well at 83. My mother never smoked again once she became pregnant.

Q. When did you first promote smokers' rights? Have you always been fighting for rights of some kind?

I started in 2000 as a direct result of becoming fed up with TV ads for thetruth.com. I didn't like the fact that smokers were being villified and discriminated against just like other minorities, and felt we were being overly taxed without any representation. To this day tobacco tax increases and smokers have no say in the matter - we have no real "smoking lobby" in Washington lobbying for our rights. Then I started reading about the effects of secondhand smoke, and realized OSHA, the WHO, and other health organizations have actually determined that secondhand smoke is not harmful at all, so there is no need to demonize smokers, and no need to ban smoking. It has all been a large farce dreamed up by a few nuts who run anti-smoking groups and don't like the smell of smoke, so they lobby for smoking bans. And no, I have never bothered to fight for anyone's rights before this. I don't even donate to charity. And I hate children and small animals.

Q. Specifically, what do you hope to see accomplished for smokers' in the near future? What are you working towards?

All we really do is raise awareness of the fact that smokers are being censored and discriminated against, and taxed unfairly. I would love to see smoking bans overturned, but I'm far too lazy to get that involved.

Q. Right now, it is popular for civil rights advocacy groups to promote gay marriage rights. How do you justify what you do, when others might dismiss it as frivolous or only affecting a marginal amount of people (or, as the anti-smokers say, upsetting and harming a great many people)?

Smokers make up somewhere around 20% - 30% of the population, depending on who you listen to. Only 12% of America is African-American. Should we repeal the civil rights movements of the 60s since it only effects blacks? I don't know how many people are gay but I'm sure it's comparable, if not much less than, the amount of smokers in America. So why are these very small minority groups given rights, but smokers are denied them? It's because smokers are not a *vocal* minority, and because noone in mainstream liberal America will take up our cause. If no whites helped the black movement in the 60s there would be no movement. If straight liberals weren't pushing for gay marriage today it would never happen. Why? Because they can't swing a majority vote alone. Same goes for smokers. Even if we make up 30% of the population, we need 21% of everyone else to fight for our rights to get a majority vote to overturn smoking bans.

Q. How do smokers' rights benefit everybody?

In a free country, everyone's rights should be important. If the gov't and a small anti-smoking group can ban my activities, they can ban yours next. Like your chicken fried in oil? Not anymore - they banned trans fats. I think this is best answered with a poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Q. Have you attempted or considered any direct action protests? Were these successful? Why or why not?

I'm too lazy to get that involved. I see my involvement in the entire smoker's rights movement as one of distanced entitlement -- my motto is "I am better than everyone else, therefore I should be able to do what I want." Seriously. There are a lot of stupid people out there trying to pass laws which tell us what to do, how to behave, etc. Can't smoke here, can't eat that, gotta wear your seatbelt, etc. We are spiralling into a nanny state with the less intelligent few dictating the laws and actions the rest of us must follow. I would rather wait until the entire system destabilizes itself and then sweep in with a bloodless coup and take control of the White House. And then I would change the hiring system for gov't job applicants. Every position would require a simple IQ test. If you score less than 120, you can't serve in public office. If you score less than 100, you can't even drive. And if you score less than 80, we send you back home to the South with $5 and a bag of peanuts.

Q. What is your view of the U.S. Constitution? How do you justify smokers' rights by it?

I don't believe the consitution justifies any specific rights per se, it simplies protects the rights of free citizens. I shouldn't have to defend or justify my rights - smoking is a legal activity which hurts noone else. Thanks to our constitution, the burden of proof falls upon you to justify why you have a right to take some of mine away.

Q. How does the NY cultural climate help or hinder smokers? Is there more latitude here, or do you feel the line between the two opposing camps is drawn darker?

I guess it depends on who you talk to. Before the smoking ban, I don't think I could even find a non-smoker in a bar. It seemed like everyone was smoking everywhere. But the bar-going crowd tends to be a younger subset of the entire population. Today I don't think most people in bars care who smokes. Soon after the ban I forgot about it and lit up in a bar - several people actually cheered. Then the bouncer reminded me I had to go outside. But if you ask the older crowd, the family types who don't go to bars as much, or the conformist types who actually still own a gym membership in 2007, they are strongly against it. Unfortunately for us, those are the people who voted for the ban.

Q. Unlike racial minorities or homosexuals, people are not born smokers. This is a conscious choice, which is maybe why few non-smokers join in the fight for smokers' rights. How would you persuade a non-smoker to lobby for smokers' rights?

I think that is a poor comparison. There are many racial minorities who would be very upset to hear homosexuals compared to them - there is no definitive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Regardless, everyone can quit. Smokers can quit smoking, just like homosexuals can stop being homosexual and people of ethnic diversity can have their skin bleached. If those sound like ridiculous suggestions, it's because they are. Smokers shouldn't have to quit.
Many things in life are choices, and we have to protect our right to choose. I may choose to eat meat. But if the meat lobby in Washington decided to pass laws making vegetarianism a crime, I would see the benefit in standing up for vegetarian rights. Not because I am one of them, but because I don't the idea of a gov't which censors and controls our personal behavior nor our free choices.
In order to persuade a non-smoker to help smokers' rights I would simply show them the findings and studies which demonstrate that second-hand smoke is simply not harmful. If non-smokers knew the truth, they wouldn't feel a need to ban smoking.

Q. You wrote: "In a free country, everyone's rights should be important." But in a country as large and diverse as America, rights will necessarily be competitive. One person's rights will impinge on another's rights. Smokers' status as a minority is fundamentally different than blacks or homosexuals since smokers choose their smoker identity. How can they vie for realized rights when smoking is not fundamental to their nature?

Again, a poor comparison. Just because I choose to smoke that does not make my right to smoke any less important. Some men choose to cross-dress like a woman, and that makes some people uncomfortable and even upset, but we don't ban or outlaw them. Some people choose to be Jewish, and we don't ban or outlaw them. Religion is not a genetic trait like ethnicity, so is that considered a less important right? I may be personally offended by seeing a Jew eating in the same restaurant as me just as easily as someone may be offended by seeing a smoker light up, so does that give me the right to request that all Jews be banned from restaurants?
We don't get to pick and choose the "popular" rights which we support in America, or at least we shouldn't. As long as smoking is legal, which it is, and hurts noone else, which it doesn't, it should be a protected right.

Q. Some anti-smokers desire restrictive policies on simple comfort grounds (eye irritation, smell, allergies; cf. smoking restrictions to No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service policies or No Pets Allowed). Can there be a compromise between these conflicting rights in a public space? What is your opinion on smoking sections or "glass cages"?

I definitely think so. I have no problem with smoking sections in restuarants or bars if they would agree with that compromise.
BUT - what we push most on smokinglobby.com is the right for business owners to choose. We should have bars or restaurants which are designated as Smoke-Free, or Smoke-Only. It should be entirely left up to the business owner - the gov't should not be telling private business owners what they can or can't do in their own establishment.

Q. Have you seen the film Thank You for Smoking? What was your reaction to it?

I thought it was a rather boring film and felt it had little to do with the smoking rights argument.

Q. You seem fairly convinced that smoking is not bad for your or anyone's health. Would your habit change if cigarettes were proven harmful to your health--beyond a doubt?

I think you misunderstood - I am convinced that smoking can be harmful to the smokers health - I just don't think secondhand smoke is harmful to anyone else. But I don't base this on my opinions - I cite many studies on smokinglobby which point out both of these points. So I know smoking may be dangerous, but yes I still do it. Because I don't think it's quite as dangerous as they want us all to believe. I know many smokers who have smoked for over 50 years and had no ill health effects. I have never met anyone who has cancer or any other illness due to smoking.

Q. What is the biggest or most frustrating challenge facing you as a smoker? Public space, taxation, or something else?

Personally, it is taxation and gov't censorship and the way in which small interest groups can pressure Washington through lobbying. I don't really care that much where I smoke, but I don't like the gov't passing legislation which effects our personal behaviour. I don't like what it can lead to. I believe in the next 10 years we will see laws, bans, etc., which will impact our diet and what we eat. NYC has already banned trans fats. It is not a far leap to assume they will begin banning how much we eat, because this is all driven by the insurance lobby.

Smoking Ban Kills Las Vegas Bar Business

2007-12-03T21:59:00.001-08:00

LAS VEGAS, NV -- Revenue has dropped at many taverns - as much as 30 percent in some locations - because of a decline in customers, shooed away by the state smoking ban in establishments that serve food.

The prohibition against smoking, which took effect in January, sent gamblers who want to light up while playing slot machines to traditional casinos or one of the few taverns built before 1992 that have 35 slot machines and are exempt because the businesses were classified as casinos.

"There are a lot more challenges for an operator than ever before," said Joseph Wilcock, president of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association.

Wilcock estimates that 75 of the association's roughly 300 members gave up food service to keep their gambling and smoking patrons. Most of the membership, he said, is complying with the smoking ban "but are losing their shirts."

None, Wilcock said, wanted to give up the moneymaking slot machines.

Roger Sachs, co-owner of the three Las Vegas-area Steiner's taverns, said friendly service, good food and a lively atmosphere help keep customers from taking their business to a more traditional restaurant.

Sachs said the gambling devices made Steiner's three locations profitable.

Since January, however, revenues from the slot machines are off 29 percent to 35 percent at each location.

"We probably do as well on food as anybody because that's something we wanted to establish," Sachs said. "But other places might take a monthly loss of $10,000 on food, but made it up with the gaming. That's not the case now because the business is not there."

Herbst Gaming is Nevada's largest slot route operator with approximately 7,200 slot machines in 700 locations throughout the state.

In the third quarter, Herbst said revenues from the company's route operations were $66.1 million in the three months ended Sept. 30, a 21 percent drop over the same period in 2006.

For the first nine months of 2007, Herbst's slot route operations generated $212.5 million, 19 percent less than the same nine-month period in 2006.

"There is no question the smoking ban had a dramatic impact on our route operations and has fundamentally changed the slot route industry," Herbst Gaming President Ed Herbst told gaming analysts following the earnings release.

United Coin Machine, which operates about 6,000 machines in more than 400 locations statewide, is experiencing similar losses in revenue.

United Coin President Grant Lincoln said the smoking ban created an uneven playing field for the tavern operators, who don't have the promotional budgets to match the customer incentives offered by the large casinos.

"There's not a lot we can do," Lincoln said. "As their volume suffers, our volume suffers. The question is, have we truly bottomed out? The smoking issue has been a fairly crushing blow for the average tavern operator."

Landmark legal challenge to smoking ban

2007-11-29T05:14:00.000-08:00

ENGLAND -- A group seeking amendments to the smoking ban has asked for a Judicial Review at the High Court today.

The legal challenge will then be served on the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for Health: The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP prior to new law coming into effect on 1st July.

Freedom to Choose say the ban is an erosion of freedom and personal liberties.

A pre-claim letter before action was sent on 12th June 2007 by the solicitor on behalf of the group and following an ‘unsatisfactory’ response the challenge is set to be launched.

Human rights lawyer Jaswinder Gill of law firm Ormerod’s told morningadvertiser.co.uk: “The Government has made clear that they will not consider our request for amendments so it gives us no choice but to issue proceedings on behalf of Freedom to Choose.”

Speaking after issuing the papers in the High Court this afternoon, Robert Feal-Martinez, Freedom to Choose spokesman, said: "This makes me feel really good to be honest.

"On a personal level I've suffered a lot of abuse over this and all I've ever wanted to do was represent the views of the membership of Freedom to Choose.

"This is the milestone we've been aiming at and we did it at our own pace - not the pace dictated by the anti-smoking lobby."

Smoke ban opponents file petition

2007-11-06T05:58:00.000-08:00

COLUMBIA, MO -- When the Columbia City Council voted more than a year ago to pass an ordinance banning smoking in most public places, two business owners began their work to get it repealed.

Joel Thiel, co-owner of Otto’s Corner Bar & Grill, 38 N. Eighth St., and Betty Hamilton, owner of Tiger Club, 1116 Business Loop 70 E., showed the product of their efforts last week when they filed a petition with the city clerk’s office containing almost 3,000 signatures to repeal the ordinance.

"To me, this is not a smoking issue," Hamilton said. "This is a bar-owners’ rights issue."

Thiel and Hamilton said the ban on smoking, which the city enacted Jan. 9, unfairly takes away personal rights from residents as well as property rights from business owners. Thiel said many bars and restaurants, including his, have experienced a decrease in business since the ban. He said Otto’s is down 35 percent in sales for October compared with last year, which he attributes to the smoking ordinance.

"Even our regulars don’t come in near as much and don’t stay near as long, and I’ve heard from many that it’s because they don’t want to keep getting up to go outside to smoke," Thiel said.

City Clerk Sheela Amin said a petition to repeal an ordinance must have 2,579 signatures from qualified city voters to be considered valid. If the petition doesn’t have enough signatures, Amin said, Thiel and Hamilton will have 10 days to collect more.

The city is working with the Boone County clerk’s office to validate the signatures, and Amin hopes to finish by the end of this week.

If the petition is validated, an item to repeal the ordinance will come before the city council Nov. 19, and council members will most likely vote on it at their Dec. 3 meeting. If the city council votes against the petition, city voters will decide the issue in April.

Two new council members have joined the city council since it approved the smoking ordinance with a 4-3 vote on Oct. 10, 2006, citing public health concerns over second-hand smoke. However, both new members - Third Ward Councilman Karl Skala and Fourth Ward Councilman Jerry Wade - said they support the smoking ban. Two council members remain who voted against the ban, First Ward Councilwoman Almeta Crayton and Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser.

Thiel said he would like to see the issue put to a vote to let the people decide.

"If we at least got a chance to vote on it, I could swallow it a lot easier," Thiel said.

Hamilton agreed. "The people should have voted on it, not seven people," she said, referring to the city council.

Thiel said about 11 other restaurants and bars helped get the petition signed. He reviewed each signature and crossed off at least 500 that didn’t appear to be from city voters. To be on the safe side, Thiel said, the petition contains about 400 more signatures than required.

Ironically, if the petition gets on the April ballot, neither Thiel nor Hamilton will get to vote; both of them live in the county.

Thiel and Hamilton, whose business has a patio, said the ban also gives bars and restaurants with patios an unfair advantage; the ordinance allows smoking on patios as long as 50 percent of the space is designated nonsmoking.

Skala said although he is in favor of the smoking ban, he agreed that businesses with patios do have an unfair advantage. "That’s the only problem I can see with it," Skala said. "I see this as a public health issue, which for me trumps the property rights issue."

Objections voiced to smoking ban

2007-10-24T16:28:00.001-07:00

NEWTON, KANSAS - The clean air ordinance brought community members as well as others to the usually scarcely attended Newton City Commission meeting Tuesday night.

The main statement people wanted to make against the clean air ordinance being considered by the commission that will ban smoking in public places was the local government was overstepping its boundaries and taking away the rights of the residents.

Others came to the podium to voice their concerns about the amount of business that would be lost if the ordinance is passed.

Tiara Boyd, manager of Prime Time, said she would lose business if smoking was prohibited in her convenience store.

"Many of the customers come in to play the lottery or lotto where they can smoke," she said. "We would lose our customers."

Not only do the customers smoke, but employees do as well, she said. Only one clerk is on duty at a time and going outside while customers are in the store is not an option.

"If smoke bothers you, you have the choice not to come to our store," Boyd said. "It’s not fair to ban something that is legal."

CJ’s Pancake owner, Charles Lanham, was at the meeting to again state he is against the city government telling him what he can do with his business in regards to smoking. He said people have a choice to come to his restaurant. People who don’t like smoking don’t have to patronize the establishment. Also on Sundays there is a non-smoking room in the back of the restaurant for people to use.

After several people voiced their objections to government regulating smoking, the issue went back to the commission for discussion.

People were willing to give their input against the ordinance, but a few were quick to leave once their piece was said.

The commission reviewed the ordinance by first looking at the general prohibition of enclosed public areas and places of employment. Enclosed public places is defined in the ordinance to mean the portion or portions of any building, structure or other enclosure to which the public is invited or permitted to perform business transactions or to engage in any activity. Examples given in the ordinance include retail stores, retail service establishments (restaurants and bars), professional offices, educational, health care, child care and adult day cares, and indoor recreational and sport facilities.

Enclosed places of employment is described as any enclosed space under the possession or control of a public or private employer where employees engage in employment-related and other necessary activities include work areas, lounges, dining and rest areas, restrooms, meeting rooms and hallways.

It will be recommended that business owners post no-smoking signs at their places of business.

Areas within 20 feet of public entrances to buildings and outdoor vendor areas, such as the farmer’s markets, also will have a 20-foot area around them in which smoking will be prohibited.

Other outside areas, such as concession stands, bleachers and restroom areas, were left out of the ordinance and smoking will be allowed in those areas.

Commissioner Ken Hall asked if fraternal organizations, such as the Eagle Lodge and American Legion, were considered public groups. After discussion that organizations like that ask for membership, fraternal organizations were left out of the ordinance. This means smoking will not be banned from those organizations’ gathering places.

Bars will become non-smoking if the ordinance passes.

Smoke shops, defined as businesses where the predominate product is tobacco and tobacco-related products, will have a non-smoking policy put in place in the ordinance if enacted.

Hotels and motels will be allowed to designate up to 25 percent of their rooms as smoking, if the business owner chooses to.

Private functions within public buildings will not be allowed to include lighting up a cigarette or other tobacco products.

"In summary, smoking will be banned from all restaurants, bars and retail businesses," Mayor Willis Heck said.

The commission will revisit the clean air ordinance at the next meeting after the changes are made to the ordinance. Violation ramifications will be addressed at the next meeting, as well as discussing the possibility of individual businesses being exempted from the ordinance based on objections by management to the proposed ordinance.

City backs away from smoking ban

2007-10-05T04:17:00.001-07:00

CALABASAS - City officials have backed off on a plan to ban smoking in all local apartments, instead reserving a small percentage of units for those who light up.

The City Council on Wednesday night reviewed an amendment to its second-hand smoke ordinance, which as originally drafted would have eventually barred all tenants from smoking inside their own apartments.

"In weighing the different rights, I feel that an individual has the right to engage in smoking inside their own residence," Mayor James Bozajian said. "I am not a smoker. I don't allow smoke in my home.

"As long as tobacco products are legal, it's something we shouldn't outlaw."

Last year, the city was the first to ban smoking in public places where anyone would be exposed to second-hand smoke.

"This is an extension of protection," said Councilwoman Mary Sue Maurer, who wrote the amendment along with Councilman Barry Groveman to include apartment complexes. "We're going to look further in separating buildings, having a percentage of buildings for smokers."

Under the revised proposal, apartment tenants would be prohibited from puffing on patios and balconies. But the council tossed out a recommendation that would have completely snuffed out smoking in local apartment complexes by designating units as nonsmoking once smokers leave.
Council members will revisit the issue in November when a revision is expected. They hope to have some form of anti-smoke policy pertaining to apartment complexes by the end of the year.

Belmont tries again to ban smoking in private homes

2007-09-24T06:28:00.001-07:00

Belmont, CA -- It's not law yet, but the city of "Backwards Belmont" in California wants to ban smoking in privately owned condos and apartments. Even if you paid half a million dollars for your own condo, the city government can tell you you are not allowed to engage in a legal activity - smoking - in your own home! Of course it's just some dumb b!tch, Mayor Coralin Feierbach, who simply doesn't like the smell of smoke and wants to play Hitler in her little city and tell people where and when they can smoke.

The story from San Jose Mercury News:

The long-smoldering battle over Belmont's proposed anti-smoking ordinance could flare up one more time before it goes on the books.

After voting 3-2 to approve the ordinance Sept. 11, the Belmont City Council was scheduled to finalize it without further discussion at its meeting Tuesday.

But because of some changes city staff made to the ordinance following its initial approval, another public hearing is needed.

The most significant of those changes is a 14-month grace period for smokers living in apartments and condominiums. There also have been a few tweaks to the "reasonable distance" clause that requires smokers to stand 20 feet from any entrance to a non-smoking facility.

The ordinance makes it illegal to smoke in indoor and outdoor workplaces, public spaces such as parks and sports fields, and, most controversially, inside condominiums, townhouses and apartments.

Mayor Coralin Feierbach, who helped push the ordinance, said she hopes Tuesday's discussion will be brief.

"There's just a few things that need to be corrected," she said.

However, Councilman Warren Lieberman, who first voted against the ordinance Sept. 11, hopes to air misgivings one more time.

"My concern primarily is that we take too hard-line an approach to prohibiting smoking in apartments," Lieberman said. "The fact that if you smoke in your apartment you could be evicted - the penalties are just too excessive."

Feierbach, who sees banning smoking in apartments as a key to protecting residents from secondhand smoke, said she won't be swayed by Lieberman's objections.
"My vote stands as is," Feierbach said.

The Belmont City Council is scheduled to meet at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at Belmont City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane.

Group Says Colorado Smoking Ban Having Negative Economic Consequences

2007-09-11T05:03:00.001-07:00

The Colorado Coalition for Equal Rights on Monday denounced the state's ban on smoking in public places, saying that data from the state's hurting tavern and bar industry gives the lie to the efficacy of the measure.
Colorado became the 13th state in the U.S. to ban smoking in public buildings in the spring of 2006.

According to the non-profit Coalition, OSHA (the federal occupational safety and health administration) typically considers a regulatory action to be economically unfeasible if said action would cause a decrease in related industry or sector revenue of at least one percent or cause a decline in profits in excess of ten percent. Furthermore, says the Coalition, OSHA typically considers a regulatory action economically unfeasible if the action would cause a change in the competitive structure of an industry.

"The Colorado smoking ban violates all three OSHA economic feasibility criteria. As of the first quarter 2007 the Colorado smoking ban has imposed at least $16.8 million in economic damages on bars and taverns in the state, 6.4 percent of previous revenues, and many of our members are experiencing profit declines in the range of fifteen to forty percent," said Allen Campbell, Senior Vice President of the Coalition.

The Colorado law met with very mixed reviews, including a lot of hostile ones, when it was first enacted, especially in light of the fact that if you work from home, your home office is considered a "public building" and if you're a smoker you are thus restricted in what you can do in a certain part of your own home.

Many non-smokers who enjoy going out to restaurants unsurprisingly praised the measure, saying the ban made their outings more enjoyable. Here and there, one could even find a bartender who would praise the measure as well, citing that they didn't have to go home every night after work smelling like smoke (needless to say, these bartenders were all non-smokers).

However, the ban has had an abundance of critics both professional and public. Many bar and tavern owners, and even some restaurateurs, have been saying that their business has suffered because their patrons who are smokers feel their civil rights have been violated and they will just go home and enjoy not only their smoking, but also their imbibing and eating there, too.

Smokers have consistently said that they can understand a high-end restaurant choosing to ban smoking on its premises, but that it's traditional for smoking to take place in places like taverns and that it should be the non-smokers, not themselves, who should have to make the choice to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a smoky room.

OSHA has stated that it's highly unusual for tobacco smoke constituents to exceed its Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) in the normal work environment, even in places such as taverns.

"OSHA regulations provide a safe harbor for business owners because compliance with OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) protects them from unwarranted regulatory intrusion. Are Colorado bar and tavern small business owners deprived of equal protection of law through substitution of a special-interest smoking ban agenda for established federally regulatory policy?" asks CER consultant Norman E. Kjono.

County snuffs out proposed smoking ban

2007-08-23T05:43:00.001-07:00

Good for this county in Michigan! They are standing up to the Health Facists who are trying to ram "healthy" legislation down our throats.

Ironwood,MI -- The Ontonagon County Board of Commissioners rejected an anti-smoking ordinance Tuesday against the wishes of the health department.

Ontonagon became the first county in the Western Upper Peninsula District Health Department to reject the clean indoor air regulation. A health department had urged the commissioners to table any action until a public survey could be conducted.

Houghton, Baraga and Gogebic counties have all approved the regulation, but all the counties in the health department district must consent to it before the ordinance can take effect. The ordinance would prohibit smoking indoors at all worksites and public places, with the exception of bars, restaurants and tribal properties.

Former commissioner Al Slye questioned the cost of enforcing the ban with mandated inspections.

"Who enforces the ordinance?" Slye asked. "In my opinion, the (health department) has an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda, and more of this kind of ordinance will come down the line."

Health department director Guy St. Germain asked the board to postpone action on the ordinance until a survey of county residents could be conducted by an impartial body.

"I am concerned that we not rush into this because everything we read shows that a majority of citizens support the ordinance," St. Germain said.

He said a majority of states have already passed such an act.

Commissioner Skip Schulz told St. Germain that the health department didn't ask for a survey from the Village of Ontonagon before the village council voted on the issue, because he already knew the council supported the ordinance.

"You do not have support here, so you want to put it off," Schulz said.

Schulz also said that in the three months since the county board held a public hearing on the issue, there has been no outcry from the public to support more laws or such a ban.

The board agreed to vote and then defeated the proposal, saying it would be preferable for businesses to voluntarily take action. The motion also suggested it was the health department's responsibility to convince businesses to voluntarily support a ban.

Commissioner John Pelkola cast the lone dissenting vote.

Bar Owner sentenced to $41k in fines for being a Free Citizen in America

2007-08-16T08:05:00.001-07:00

THIS IS TRUE BULLSH!T!
Kevin Lipka is the true hero of Smoking Lobby, and this has got to stop!

Judge: Go-go bar must pay $41K in fines
Smoke-Free Air Act is 'flagrantly violated' by Smiles II

DAILY RECORD
Thursday, August 16, 2007

A Superior Court judge on Wednesday upheld $41,103 in fines imposed against the owner of the Smiles II go-go bar in Roxbury, finding the owner flagrantly violated the state's law against smoking inside bars and restaurants.

Judge W. Hunt Dumont, sitting in Morristown, gave Smiles II owner Kevin Lipka 14 days to consider an appeal to the state's appellate division before being required to pay the fines first imposed last year by Roxbury Municipal Court Judge Carl Wronko. Lipka paid $5,000 of the fine already, but the rest was put on hold pending his appeal to Dumont.

Lipka, who has owned the go-go bar on Route 46 for 14 years, does not dispute he never posted no-smoking signs and allowed patrons and employees to smoke indoors after New Jersey's Smoke-Free Air Act went into effect on April 15, 2006. Instead, defense lawyer Jeffrey Advokat attacked the violations levied by a Roxbury health officer against Smiles II as unenforceable because the state had not finished formalizing administrative regulations to support the law when it went into effect.

Advokat also argued that Lipka, in the time frame the violations were issued, was actively seeking recognition from Roxbury as a cigar bar so Smiles II could be exempt from the law. Advokat contended that unless or until Roxbury decided whether Smiles II qualified for an exemption it should have refrained from giving him violations.

Dumont disagreed, siding with township attorney James Bryce's position that Lipka waited until two days before the law was in effect to try to get an exemption and should have barred smoking on his premises until he knew whether he qualified. Dumont said Lipka had months to prepare for the new law.

"Everyone knew this smoking ban was more than likely to become law in indoor establishments. Everyone saw this coming unless you had your head in the sand," Dumont said.

In Lipka's case, the judge said, "The violations are flagrant."

Lipka received 41 notices of violations of the law between April 27 and Oct. 13, 2006. Two days before the law's enactment, Lipka wrote the township a letter he hoped would serve as registration as a cigar bar. The town responded, in part, that a business must have generated 15 percent of its total annual gross income in the year ending Dec. 31, 2004 from the on-site sale of tobacco products to qualify.

Advokat told the judge Wednesday that the condition for an exemption is virtually impossible to meet because how could his client know in 2006 he would need specific revenue documents from 2004 to support an exemption? The judge agreed the condition is onerous -- likely designed to limit the number of available indoor places to smoke -- but said Lipka had no choice but to comply if he wanted to be free of the law.

Dumont noted that Roxbury sent certified letters to Lipka on April 20 and 21, 2006 ordering him to "cease and desist" smoking inside the bar. Another township-sent letter said an inspection for signage and smoking would be done on April 26, 2006. Smoking continued at Smiles II despite the warnings, and the first violation was issued April 27, 2006. They continued into October.

The judge at first questioned the need for 41 violation notices but then ruled the township was justified in its effort to get Lipka to comply. He found that the municipal court judge, Wronko, acted within his authority when he followed the law's penalty schedule to mete out $41,103 in fines.

Lipka, meanwhile, would not comment on whether he will appeal. He said he believes he generated, before the law, 15 percent of his income from cigar and cigarette sales and rentals of humidors. Since the law's passage, he said, only a handful of his 75 humidors are rented and passersby call the police department when they see his dancers outside smoking in their skimpy outfits.

"I have customers who are sitting mesmerized by the dancing. They want a cigarette with their drink. They have a nic-fit. It breaks the mood when they have to go outside," Lipka said during a break in the hearing.