Smoking Ban Exemption Introduced

Earlier this week, a new bill was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives that would allow smoking in bars that install ventilation systems.

Our friends at the Minnesota House, Tom Hackbarth, Larry Howes, Tom Rukavina, Bruce Anderson, and Mark Buesgens, introduced this bill that would allow smoking in establishments (HF 188) the meet the definition of a bar or tavern as described by Minnesota Licensing requirements. Under this exemption, the bar would be required to install a ventilation by a specified time period, which would be determined by the amount of liquor sales. The full text of the bill can be found here.

So, what is the likelihood of this bill being enacted? Well, it’s much more likely now that we have a new House and Senate. But, we do need your help. Currently, the bill has been referred to the Health and Human Services Reform Committee. We NEED you to contact the committee members and let them know that you support this bill. You can email them, call them, or write a letter to them. You can find their contact info here.

Remember, without your input, it’ll be difficult to get this bill moving forward. The anti-smoking organizations certainly have their people writing to these reps about this bill, so it’s important you let them know how YOU feel.

Ban the Ban on Twitter

I feel slightly embarrassed that we’re making this, “leap”. I’ve often laughed at those who use it, and I’ve thought it was pointless and downright  worthless.

But, we’ve finally done. Yes, I’m referring to the online social network that was established in 2006. Twitter has clearly established itself and has come a long ways from the simple “I’m walking across the street and it’s raining on me” posts.

As you’ve noticed, I rarely have ample time to right out a well thought out and researched blog. It’s much simpler for me to simply write out things like, “Anti-smokers are neo-prohibitionists” from my smart phone, than it is to devote several hours to a well researched blog post.

Don’t get me wrong, research is a good thing. I try to avoid conjecture, and like to back my facts up with weblinks. However, you’ve seen that my posts are becoming more and more infrequent, which may lead people to believe I’ve lost some of my passion on repealing the smoking ban. And that’s simply not true.

I’m also not going to abandon this blog. I believe, in my humble opinion, that many articles/blog posts have been well researched and thought out. I do plan to continue with that and hope to have a few new blog posts every month.

But, with twitter, you’ll see at least one post a day, all relating to anti-smoking activities around the world, as well as developments within BtBMN.

If you don’t have a twitter account, you’ll need to sign up, and you can follow Ban the Ban Minnesota at the following link:

http://twitter.com/BtBMN

I’ll also be posting a link on the main BtBMN website, and I hope we get you to follow us!

BtBMN Endorsements

2010 stands to be a big election year for us here at BtBMN. Many citizens of our state and county are becoming fed up with our heavy-handy government, and the effects of that could be incredible for our cause.

So, I’m pleased to announce the creation of the “BtBMN Endorsement” page on our website. We already have several candidates that we are endorsing, and we’ll be adding a lot more candidates to the list as we get closer to the election. Please take a moment to check out the page at http://banthebanminnesota.com/Endorsements.aspx. We’ve included links to the candidate’s website, as well as maps for the appropriate legislative district, if applicable.

Please be sure to offer these candidates your support. Also, if you are aware of any Gubernatorial, Senate, or house candidates, let us know! We’d also appreciate any feedback you have or any suggestions you can offer.

Ban the Ban Party!

Keep your calendars open to come join us for the first official Ban the Ban Minnesota Party! Here you’ll have an opportunity to meet with Ban the Ban Organizers, Members, supporters and other like-minded people who think the smoking ban is an unconstitutional government intrusion. We’ll have several speakers, promotional materials, but most of all, fun!

The Ban the Ban Minnesota party will be held on Saturday, October 17th, at 7:30 PM at Dixies on Grand in St. Paul. To view the online invite, click here. Also, feel free to view and share the PDF invitation.

We hope to see you there!

The Next Step: Banning Smoking on Patios

It’s commonly known (or maybe not so commonly known) that the anti-smoking special interest groups are targeting a wide array of other areas to ban smoking: apartments, condos, parks, cars, and even bar patios.

The City of Minneapolis has recently invoked a 20 year old ordinance to deter bar patrons from walking out to attached patios and lighting up. An owner of Lush Restaurant in Northeast Minneapolis found this out the hard way.

“We have some seating over here that we actually dinner and drinks to and a lot of people like to wander out and have a cigarette and kind of stand…Last Friday, an inspector came out and we ended up with two citations for the patio. I guess I thought it was kind of ridiculous.

According to wcco.com, A public hearing is set for September 23rd to repeal this rediculous rule, but I’d be surprised if this rule disappears anytime soon. Several cities in Minnesota, including Bloomington and Rochester, already have restrictions on smoking on patios. And in the State of Iowa, it is illegal to smoke on the patio of any restaurant.

While I have no doubt that smoking prohibitions will eventually fall by the wayside (using history as a guide), the anti-smoking lunatics are far from finished. And they have billions of dollars available to spread their propoganda and lies.

Ron Paul on FDA Legislation

By now most of us are aware that our Federal Government is about to hand over regulation of tobacco products to the FDA. This “feel good” legislation is officially known as “The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act”. I could certainly think of many other more appropriate names for it.

My opinion of this “feel good” FDA regulation is not favorable, for multiple reasons:

• It essentially brings Philip Morris one step closer to having a monopoly on tobacco products. Philip Morris fully supports this legislation, whereas other tobacco companies do not. Read more on this here.
• It tarnishes the name of the FDA. The FDA is supposed to give the green light on on pharmaceutical and edible products, essentially saying they’re okay for human consumption. Tobacco products have been fairly conclusively proven to be harmful in many aspects.  The FDA taking control of regulating tobacco products essentially gives the products a virtual “seal of approval”. In fact, the head of the FDA opposes this legislation.
• It further restricts freedom of speech. The first amendment to the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This legislation will further restrict advertising by tobacco companies. Although many people are okay with censorship of advertising, it still erodes at the right of free speech.

Although I could go into great depth about other reasons I don’t agree with this legislation, I will simply allow you to watch Congressman Dr. Ron Paul of Texas explain his concerns. If we use history as a learning tool, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with his comments regarding prohibition.

 

Technorati Tags: Ron Paul,prohibition,congress,obama,fda,tobacco

Another BS Clearway “Study”

It truly amazes me how the media will take anything that fits its agenda and run with it without actually verifying the legitimacy of the information it is propagating. Case in point is the recent study completed by Ohio State University, which was funded by Clearway Minnesota, that purports that “Smoking Bans Do Not Cause Job Losses In Bars And Restaurants”.

The study makes the claim that employment trends were examined in Eight Minnesota Cities with varying types of smoking bans, and that employment did not seem to be affected by comprehensive smoking bans.

It’s interesting that the media would take this “feel good” study at face value, especially considering the financial backers of said study. It’s akin to a brewery financing a study that concludes that underage drinking is at an all-time low…such a study would be looked upon with intense scrutiny. However, a study financed by Clearway Minnesota is accepted as truth, without such scrutiny.Why?

An incredible number of media outlets have run with this study, as can be seen here. As usual, the methodolgy behind said study is flawed, and twisted in a way that will support Clearway’s agenda. For more information on the specifics of the study, click here to see a detailed review of the study by Jacob Grier. The bottom line is, restaurants have not been affected by the smoking ban nearly as much as small bars. However, the Clearway study does not examine the employment trends of bars alone. It lumps bars and restaurants into the same category, which can easily skew the final results of this study.

The non-biased study done in 2008, which used more recent data, concluded that smoking bans have a tremendous negative effect on charitable gambling, which one will typically find at stand-alone bars. For more information on the true impact of the smoking ban on small bars, go to our Economic Impact page.

Today, our friends at Opponents of Ohio Bans releases a press bulletin that discusses the flaws of this study. Will the media outlets that ran the original study run this press release? Time will tell, but check out the full press release here.

According to Pat Carroll, President of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, “It’s obvious why it was done this way. It’s to distort the truth. You can’t lump bars and restaurants together. We have entirely different customers and provide different atmospheres. We demand this study be done again without restaurant data.”

Perhaps it’s time we hold the media accountable for its actions. I would encourage anyone and everyone to contact their favorite media outlet and ask why studies are published without even the slightest effort to verify any conflicts of interest.

Smoking Ban Amendment Introduced

Today Minnesota Representatives Larry Howes, Tom Emmer, Tom Hackbarth, Loren Solberg, and Tom Rukavina introduced a bill, HF257 that would exempt certain bars from the smoking ban.

If this bill becomes law in in current form, all bars that make most of their sales in liquor would be permitted to allow smoking, provided that a modern ventilation system is installed. It would also allow bar portions of a bar/restaurant to allow smoking, provided that the bar is physically separated from the restaurant area. The full text of the bill is available here, and you can follow the status of the bill here.

So, what does this mean? Well, there’s not a companion bill in the Senate, yet. And, the bill has been referred to the Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee, which is chaired by none other than Paul Thissen and Tina Liebling, who are extremely narrow-minded when it comes to the smoking ban. However, we do have some supporters in that committee, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

It certainly wouldn’t hurt to email your House Rep and let them know how you feel about this proposed exemption. Also, email or call the reps in the committee–their email addresses and phone numbers can be found here. Let them know that the smoking ban really hurts small bars, and that you support this exemption!

Buy a Carton for the Kids

We all love tax hikes, and here comes another one that is directed exclusively at smokers and other users of tobacco products. Here are some details I received from Audrey Silk with NYC Clash:

State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a program that already exists but which needs reauthorization upon a sunset date but also can be revised each time.  Back in Sept. 2007 a revision to raise tobacco taxes to cover funding was proposed.  At that time it was only because of a presidential veto that it failed to survive.  It’s back.  And the players in office today are making all the difference in the world — promising to have it signed, sealed and delivered to the president on his first day in office — only 12 short days to January 20th!

And of course our President-Elect has shown his support for such a tax. There are many issues with this proposed tax hike:

• It is directed at smokers–smokers tend to be near the lower end of the economic scale, which means this tax would be incredibly regressive, meaning it unfairly taxes the poor.
• Increases in tobacco taxes typically result in more individuals resorting to gray and black market cigarettes. Some of these sources have been tied to terrorist groups. Increases in tobacco taxes also resort to higher incidences of theft.
• Tobacco taxes are an unreliable source of revenue. Higher tobacco taxes will result in individuals quitting smoking, and also results in individuals resorting to the aforementioned black market tobacco products.
• Locally, the SCHIP program is not much benefit to Minnesota residents, as Minnesota’s Medical Assistance and Minnesota Care programs already generously cover most of the individuals that would be covered by the SCHIP program.
• Children will be benefiting on the backs of those who suffer from an addiction that the anti-smoking movement claims that children should not be exposed to.

How much will cigarette taxes go up?

An increase in the federal tobacco tax was proposed as the funding source as follows:

        Cigars from 20.719% to 53% with a $3 per cigar cap (+156%);
        Little cigars from 4.0 cents to $1.00 per pack (+2,500%);
        Cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 per 20 (+156%);
        Cigarette papers from 1.22 cents to 3.13 cents per 50 (+256%);
        Cigarette tubes from 2.44 cents to 6.26 cents per 50 (+256%);
        Snuff from 58.5 cents to $1.50 (+156%);
        Chewing tobacco from 19.5 cents to 50 cents (+156%);
        Pipe tobacco from $1.0969 to $2.8126 (+156%); and
        Roll-your-own tobacco from $1.0969 to $8.8889 (+814%).

NYC CLASH goes on to say:

The economic arguments have been beaten to death.  Groups like the Heartland Institute and Americans for Tax Reform have done another wonderful job of covering that ground with their own press releases and letters to Congress just a day or so ago.

It’s certainly welcomed assistance but despite it I’ve reached this conclusion:  There is nothing — in any form of lobbying — we, as smokers’ rights and other civil liberty organizations, can do that will be effective.  No emails, no calls, no petitions asking members of Congress to consider voting against it.  In that form we would be like throwing a pebble to knock down the State Capitol.  I’ve concluded we are powerless to change anything approaching it from that direction considering the climate and make-up of our federal lawmaking bodies.

And so I offer one last Hail Mary suggestion.  Playing it with the same (lack of) “dignity” as those that chance to use the race card.  Or, for us, as the Abused and Oppressed.  Call it emotional blackmail if you like.  The plea to the public ear via press release that we have no voice.  We are not heard.  Taxation without representation.  No one speaks for us.  Not the anti-smokers and not the tobacco industry (a la our argument in the Kessler letter in the Rico suit). We take our case to the public (actually I mean in public) instead of the lawmakers as a backdoor pressure tactic to have lawmakers to respond.  To open a dialogue in public (and by public I mean from John on the corner to editors and program managers) and to alert the unsuspecting smokers and sympathizers.  It’s all that’s left to try in my opinion.  At the very least we will be able to claim We Spoke.

I cannot guarantee this press release will even be picked up.  But it can’t hurt to try. And we’re not going to convince this Congress through one-on-one interaction to vote otherwise in the majority.  I will be relying a bit on my own personal relationships I have with members of the AP and other press. 
In all likelihood, I (CLASH) will be issuing a statement — with the above sentiments and some economic argument too — hopefully by Monday.  What I’d like to have are signatories to it — other smokers’ rights groups, etc.  If you want in and/or know of others to ask let me know.  We had a very healthy and respectable signatory list for the ACS/ALA/AHA Boycott.  I’d like to see the same.

When the Associated Press took interest in the CLASH release on the boycott and called to do an article which was then carried by over 300 news outlets around the country and world, it in fact was written this way:
“Smoking rights’ groups, tavern owners and libertarian political parties in nine states are calling for a boycott of donations to major charities, saying their support of smoking bans is a threat to small businesses and civil rights.

…Smokers’ and libertarian groups from Minnesota to Massachusetts are targeting the nonprofits for their political activities.

…The boycott effort is supported by Silk’s CLASH, the national Smokers Club Inc., Illinois Smokers’ Rights group, Indiana Amusement & Music Operators Association, the Kentucky Licensed Beverage Association, the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition, the Cambridge Citizens For Smokers’ Rights in Massachusetts, the Smoke Out Gary group based in Minneapolis, Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans, the Fight City Hall group of Minnesota, Taverners United for Fairness New York, the American Arborist of New York, the Madison County Chapter of the Independence Party Ohio, the Lakewood Hospitality Association of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network and Tennessee’s Yes S.I.R. group.”

If you’d like to be included, please provide:
Your name
The name of your group
What state/city you represent or if you’re national
Your web site address if you have one (In lieu of web addresses an email address will have to suffice).
Your email address. 

Fourth-Hand Smoke

Since the junk scientists have released a ridiculous study on third-hand smoke that some people actually believe, I’d like to sidestep the issue of third-hand smoke, and move right on to fourth-hand smoke, which John Boston of the Santa Clarita Valley Signal describes as “someone sitting next to someone who is thinking about someone else smoking.”

Obviously, Mr. Boston’s comment was made tongue-in-cheek, but there’s no doubt that many people would believe it to be fact if the media were to broadcast it as fact. The third-hand smoke argument is so ridiculous, and clearly not based at all upon science, that I can’t understand why the media actually runs with it as the truth. What’s even more disturbing about it is that fact that people really do believe in the deadly phenomenon simply because the media reports it. Is our society so gullible to believe this nonsense? Apparently so. And I’m still in disbelief that anyone buys the argument that second-hand smoke is harmful.

To read more on the third-hand smoke fantasy, check out Sandy Szwarc’s article on “Junkfood Science”:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/third-hand-smoke-and-chemtrails.html