Bill Williams : Weblog

Smoking ban passes in Manhattan

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:24:36 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/smoking-ban-passes-in-manhattan/

From KTKA News, New York, NY

Soon, smoking will be banned in many public places in Manhattan.

Tonight, voters in the Little Apple approved a smoking ban.

57 percent of voters said yes.

This summer, the Manhattan city commission decided to put it to a vote.

And supporters of the ban say they fought hard against misinformation in the campaign.

"They saw through all of the stories from the other side and finally what the city commission didn't do and what hasn't happened until now, the voters passed this ordinance...Very exciting," ban proponent David Seay said.

This is an issue the Manhattan city commission refused to decide three times.

That last time, they decided to put it on the ballot.

The ban goes into effect in 60 days.

Protect rights of smokers

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:54:42 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/protect-rights-of-smokers/

I just wanted to post this letter to the editor of the Santa Maria Times ... I think it says it all:

"I am not an advocate of smoking. I quit over 30 years ago, and regularly advise others to do the same.

My argument is that there is already too much government in our everyday lives.

You must agree that people you are proposing to regulate are taxpaying citizens, with every right to enjoy the parks as anyone else. The second-hand-smoke theory is very loosely based on junk science, as so many things are these days.

Common sense tells us that for a smoker to affect another person in a open space, such as the parks, he/she would have to be directly in that person's face. It is far more likely that dust and/or any number of other contaminants will be inhaled.

If city fathers wish to be so Draconian, they should set aside areas for smokers, as smoking, per se, is not an illegal activity.

K. Weber
Santa Maria"

null

Anti-smoking ban site launched by 4th District Congressional candidate

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:29:14 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/antismoking-ban-site-launched-by-4

REPRINTED from the Iowa Independent :
Independent Congressional candidate William Meyers, who lost his district's Democratic primary last month, has launched a new Web site he hopes will become the focal point for the movement to repeal the recently enacted statewide smoking ban. The site attacks most Democrats in both chambers of the state legislature.

The site, RepealTheSmokingBan.org , officially went live earlier today. Meyers said he is currently operating it on his own but hopes in the coming days to contact interested parties who are working to overturn the ban to see if they would be interested in utilizing the site to unify the movement on a statewide basis.

"I want to donate the site to groups trying to get this terrible law overturned," Meyers said. "This site can help form a statewide coalition to make that a reality."

Meyers said he first became interested in the idea when he was running in the Democratic primary for the 4th District U.S. Congressional seat. The site, however, is completely separate from his independent run for Congress, Meyers said, though he hopes he can use the experience he has gained during the campaign to benefit the anti-ban movement.

"I'm willing to do what I can, whether that is helping with research for a future lawsuit, assist in online networking or just out talking to people and letting them know why this ban is a bad idea."

One section of the site, entitled "The Nannies," lists every legislator who voted in favor of the smoking ban, along with contact information. A "Nanny," according to the site, is anyone who "thinks they should be able to tell other adults how to live. The militantly anti-anything-else-they-see-someone-else-enjoying."

Many Democrats were already upset with Meyers, fearing his independent run for Congress could siphon votes away from Democratic nominee Becky Greenwald and tip the race to Republican incumbent Tom Latham. In designing a Web site aimed directly at a bill Democratic legislators and Democratic Gov. Chet Culver advocated,he runs the risk of further alienating the Democratic establishment.

"I think this shows my willingness to reach across the aisle and speak out on an issue I believe in," he said. "I was embarrassed to call myself a Democrat when my party pushed through the smoking ban, and I think it will hurt them and any Republican who voted for it this fall."

England: 175 Million Fewer Pints Sold Due to Smoking Ban

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:52:31 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/england-175-million-fewer-pints-so

First of all let me just say I hope everyone had a great July 4th weekend here in the U.S. I for one celebrated in the true spirit of American Freedom and Liberty; getting as drunk as I wanted and smoking just as much as I pleased. Figured I'd celebrate our country's heritage of freedom by enjoying it while it lasts. Remember when those little "bang bang" fireworks where legal? Remember when you could just run up to the store without a seat belt, or ride your bike without a helmet? That was all before the Anti smoking Health Nazis took over, the good old days in America.

But I digress - I wanted to write about this latest headline in the Observer from England. And what better way to recognize our Independence than by giving a nod of sympathy to the Queen's Land? Over the past year, with the smoking ban in effect in England, "Pubs have sold 175 million fewer pints in the past year as a direct result of the smoking ban, according to market analysts AC Nielsen."

Damn. That's a lot of beer . That's got to hurt the pub economy over there. And you think that won't happen to bars in the U.S.? They went on to report "winter months were particularly bad. Sales fell nine per cent through November to January when smokers would have been reluctant to stand outside in the cold to have a cigarette." Hell, it gets even colder here in some states ... you think American smokers are going to stand outside in the cold to enjoy a cigarette, when all the other sheep, er, I mean voters ... wait, I mean patrons ... are inside all warm and cozy, tobacco-free?

What I don't understand is why Americans are accepting these smoking bans with such complacency. British smokers are practically rioting in the streets to topple the ban compared to the way American smokers are just sitting down for it. There is no struggle, no fight left in the American citizen to stop big government from legislating their lives. No smoking? Alright, take it away . No trans fats? It's OK, I wasn't going to eat that anyway . The Jews? No, I don't know any, you can round them all up . Even people who don't smoke should realize the need to stop anti-smoking legislation. Because if you don't stop the smoking ban, they're just going to ban something else you like pretty soon.

I think the problem is smoking has been demonized so much in our society, that people actually think they can get cancer if they stand inside of the same room as a smoker for a few hours. I grew up with a smoker, as did my entire family, and no one had so much as a wheeze or a cough. And to this day no one in my family that smoked has been ill; let alone anyone who inhaled the deadly "second hand smoke."

So I implore America to think about Liberty and Justice this weekend, and consider the fate of England's pubs. It's just one more tragic casualty as a result of the lies and fallacy of the anti-smoking movement .

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

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:12:55 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/the-media-makes-up-your-mind-for-y

I just read this article from the Tri-State Observer, some dishrag yellow paper published in Pennsylvannia. 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

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:00:40 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/iowa-lawmaker-says-smoking-ban-rul

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

Mon, 19 May 2008 23:55:36 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/bar-in-ohio-continues-last-fight-f

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

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:03:38 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/hackers-target-pro-choice-websites

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.

Hackers target pro choice websites

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:03:38 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/smokers-rights-news/hackers-target-pro-

Smoking Ban Increases Accidents 12 Percent

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:32:24 GMT

http://www.smokinglobby.com/home/smoking-ban-increases-accidents-12

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