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

What’s New for 2009

As some of you have noticed, I haven’t posted for awhile, but please know that we’re not abandoning our cause. In fact, we’ve been working on some projects “behind the scenes”, and I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you a little about plans for 2009:

• New Flyers- We’ve posted new flyers to our website. Please check them out here. I would encourage you to print them out, post them on community message boards, pass them around your workplace, or share them with others at your local tavern. You can help us spread the word and make others aware of the economic harm and liberties that have been taken from all of us.
• New Membership Level- There’s now a new membership level that we’ve introduced. Due to the tough economic times, we now how a $10 annual membership fee. We would appreciate you helping us by scraping together $10 for our cause. You can sign up by clicking here and donating. You can pay by check, money order, or credit card, and all of your money will be used to promote BtBMN and to fund our upcoming projects. You may think that $10 won’t go too far, but our goal is to get 1,000 members this year alone, and that’s a substantial amount of money that will really get us some serious attention.
• New Promotional Items- We’re planning on ordering new promotional items. We will have BtBMN T-Shirts available on our website soon, and we’re also looking at ordering static window clings with our logo and website.
• A Lawsuit- It’s a distinct possibility we will be filing a lawsuit this year against several organizations. I can’t let too much out at this time, but a clue about the lawsuit can be found here. Again, lawsuits cost money, and we hope you will consider becoming a member to help support us in this effort.
• Theater Night Revival- The first anniversary of Minnesota Theater Nights is rapidly approaching. We are looking into celebrating the anniversary, but are still working on the logistics of such an event. Again, the more support we receive, the better the likelihood of such an event coming to fruition.

Finally, I want to thank all of you that supported us in 2008. I am hoping that in 2009 we will discover an additional  group of supporters that will make us even stronger and show our legislators that we are serious and are not interested in backing down from their attack on our liberties.

Merry Christmas from the Anti-Smoking League!!

Attack by "Shot in the Dark"

Sheila and I were featured in an article in Sunday’s Star Tribune titled, “Whose Life is it Anyway?…” The article lacks the normal bias of most Star Tribune articles; however, it doesn’t necessarily put us in good light.

Shot in the Dark, a website/blog devoted to current events unfairly attacked us reagrding the Star Tribune article. The author, Johnny Roosh, went so far as to call Sheila a “jackass”, which I believe was completely uncalled for and Mr. Roosh completely missed the point of Sheila’s comments. The blog post can be found here.

This compelled me to make a comment on the Shot in the Dark blog:

I am writing to express my disappointment in an article posted on “Shot in the Dark” titled “Obese? Smoke? Do not pass go. Do not collect $200”. As a fellow writer of a blog devoted to personal liberties, I find the authors remarks to be incredibly myopic.

The general point of the article is well taken; that individuals need to be accountable for their own actions. I couldn’t agree more. In our society, there are too many that believe that everyone is to blame for their own misfortunes—everyone, that is, except for themselves.

The author of the article posted on your blog, Johnny Roosh, writes the article with an incredibly insolent and judgmental attitude, and should have taken some time to do a little research on the issue at hand. Mr. Roosh also resorts to attacking and name-calling of Sheila Kromer, the co-chair of Ban the Ban Minnesota, as well as attacking me personally.

In my opinion, the article loses all credibility when Mr. Roosh attacks specific individuals, such as Sheila and myself. He also resorts to calling Sheila and me names, such as “jackass”, which seems incredibly childish and counter-productive.

Furthermore, Mr. Roosh does not seem to comprehend the point of group health insurance. It’s called group health insurance because everyone in the “group” typically pays the same rates, regardless if you smoke, drink, skydive, engage in unsafe sex, drive recklessly, or have 20 children. Nearly everyone can point to other individuals and blame them for their lifestyle choice resulting in obscene health insurance premiums. We are humans and we are not perfect.

If Mr. Roosh would have done a bit of research, he would understand that those who have unhealthy diets and those who smoke do not necessarily cause undue drain on the health care system. For example, a Dutch study shows that, “The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.” And to assume that Sheila, as an individual, will cost the health care system more than any healthy non-smoker is completely baseless.

Also, keep in mind that smokers pay for an incredibly regressive federal and state sales tax, a Minnesota “Health Impact” fee, and the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield tobacco settlement. This results in over ½ billion dollars coming back to the state and to BCBS per year.

Mr. Roosh’s idea of liberty is essentially being an apologist for corrupt insurance companies and socially engineering everyone in our society to walk side by side on treadmills sipping tea. I’m sure if I were to examine his lifestyle closely, I could find a potential unhealthy activity or two in which he engages, so perhaps he should realize that singling out only two specific potential health risk groups is unfair and judgmental.

I understand that blogs are intended to be a venue to express specific opinions. At the same time, I felt it necessary to share my opinion on this particular issue. Thank you for your time.

Shawn R. Gertken

Co-Chair, Ban the Ban Minnesota, Inc.

I am going on the record as stating that I completely agree with and support Sheila’s comments in the Star Tribune article. It’s time that greedy insurance companies get their noses out of our lifestyles, particular when the lifestyle choices in question are not “politically correct”. Sheila was brave for making the comments that she did, and I admire and respect her for doing so. Thank you for telling it like it is, Sheila!!

Visit Mark Benjamin’s Website

Mark Benjamin, Criminal Defense, P.A., the man who helped organize and continues to defend Minnesota Theater Nights in Minnesota, has web page for his law firm. It is:

http://www.markwbenjamin.com/

Mark is a friend of ours who helped bring attention to the economic devastation that was imposed on small taverns by the State of Minnesota. Mark continues to defend Theater Nights, and we strongly support and thank Mark for all of his hard work.

BtBMN Co-Chair Sheila Kromer and Mark worked together to kick off the first Theatre Night at Barnacles in February of 2008. It was a huge success, and here is a video of the event:

Barnacles revenues rebounded, along with many other bars that hosted Theater Night. But, the corrupt Minnesota Department of Health was angered by this, and threatened bars with a $10,000 fine. Many bars signed “agreements” that they would no longer host Theater Nights, but bars such as Barnacles, The Bullseye Saloon, and many other persisted, in an effort to defend our liberties, and to keep their businesses viable.

Theater nights are currently on hold, because of a series of court proceedings, and an upcoming appeal. The legal brief filed by Mark Benjamin can be found by clicking here. With Mark’s devotion to this issue, we are expecting a positive outcome.

BtBMN wants to sincerely thank Mark Benjamin for all of his passion, drive, and tenacity to restore a liberty that was stripped from Minnesota business owners in 2007. Thank you, Mark!!

For more information on Theater Nights, please visit the official Theater Night Website:

http://www.freedomtoact.com

 

Time to Bail Out Our Charities

In Australia, small charities are suffering from the introduction of indoor smoking bans. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

THE introduction of the indoor smoking ban last year cost clubs and pubs almost $1.7 million a day in poker machine revenue, cutting thousands of jobs in the industry and putting at risk future donations to charities and sporting groups…

“As predicted, club gaming revenue fell off a cliff when the indoor smoking bans were introduced,” said the chief executive of Clubs NSW, David Costello.

The result was the loss of 2100 jobs at clubs in the first 12 months of the ban, bringing the total workforce down to 43,300. This was despite club memberships reaching a record high.

Club donations to organisations such as charities and professional sporting teams also fell by $8.9 million.

“Overwhelmingly, clubs have reacted to the fall in revenue by implementing a dramatic reduction in their workforce,” Mr Costello said. “However, with employment now cut to the bone, I expect clubs will have little choice but to make further cuts in community donations over the coming 12 months…”

Minnesota also was struck by the huge decline in charitable gambling receipts, as evidenced by the Charitable Gambling Impact Study. The study has clearly shown that “The state-wide ban accounts for 7.5 to 8.0 percentage points of the 12.8 percent state-wide reduction in the fourth quarter of 2007.” The study also concluded that, “Although the business cycle and gasoline prices each have large and significant impacts on legalized gambling, smoking bans have a strong independent impact. The unusually large decline in gross receipts following the local smoking bans (where they affected bars) was not just a result of simultaneous changes in other economic variables” and that “Smoking bans appear to cause a permanent drop in lawful gambling. The lack of a rebound in gross receipts in St. Paul is similar to what has been seen in other cities with smoking bans in bars.”

With our government so eager to bail out our financial sector and automotive sector, now is the time to focus our attention on small charities and small businesses.

By allowing bars in Minnesota the option of allowing smoking within their properties, it is very likely that revenues would increase for small bars and charities.

However, the Minnesota government has ignored the cries for help from the small bars and charities to this point. Perhaps with the looming multi-billion deficit, our government needs to re-think its position on the smoking ban.