We present an episode of the satirical American television cartoon program South Park with which many of our readers are familiar.
The girthy and perpetually gorging Rob Reiner heads up a platoon of bug-eyed antitobacco zealots who abuse children in their war of lies against the Big Tobacco Company.This highly amusing episode originally appeared on television on 3 December 2003. Mister Reiner, as blubbery in life as in the artist's rendering, was reportedly appalled at his cartoon depiction, and went on a crash diet soon after. With the passage of a few years, however, he has resumed elephantine proportion.Reiner, an actor and Hollywood producer of mediocre repute, is called a "fascist" in the cartoon. Although less vocal in his support of the smoker pogrom in recent years it may be supposed this hypocrite still applauds progress toward the Final Solution (if he can manage to get his hands together around that belly.) In real life, Reiner campaigned famously for vilification programs and fleecing of smokers via taxation in California a few years ago, but from a national perspective was more on the order of an antitobacco lieutenant, rather than the general the cartoon show makes him.Antitobacco fascism (aptly called) continues to ravage lives and societies. The sort of ridicule and debunking of this movement shown in "Butt Out" should be common, as was satire regarding alcohol Prohibition eighty years ago, but media lock-step and the intellectual catastrophe of "political correctness" commonly censor and stifle incisive satire today. Enjoy this exception. Click the link below to play the video. (21 minutes)
http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/index.php?selection=230
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Theater Night Update 4-17-08
From: Sheila Kromer
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: Theater Night Update 4-17-08
Hello Everyone -
It's time for another update. As you know, Robert Ripley (of Bullseye Salon in Elko) was served an injunction by the MDH to stop theater nights on the basis of irreparable harm. This week Robert was very busy interviewing several attorneys to fight the injunction. As of today, Robert has retained a very good attorney to represent him and I might add all of us, his name is Patrick H. O'Neill, Jr. In addition, Mark Benjamin will be aiding in this case as well. It is imperative that we band together and help Robert out with the financial expense. This is not just for Robert but for all of us, we are all in this together. This is an investment in our future, when we win this case, we will no longer have to suffer or endure the intimidation and scare tactics of the MDH. We will be able to continue "theater nights" and keep our businesses going legally. We have called the MDH's bluff and they are afraid of losing, of which there is a high probability they will (lose that is!) The Defense of Rights Fund http://DefenseofRights.com that was started will be used towards Robert's legal expenses (i.e. attorney). We will be sending him an initial payment tomorrow. The total attorney fee will be $12,000. I know this sounds like a lot, but if we all kick in and solicit donations from our bar patrons we should easily be able to come up with this amount if not more. Just as an example, if each bar had a donation jar and 50 people contributed $10.00 that would be $500 per bar and if we had 50 bars collecting donations that would total $25,000. I know that some of you have already contributed to the fund and we thank-you very much. Robert is also planning a "Smoker's Rally" at his place either on April 26th or May 3rd. This should raise more in legal defense funds and should be a lot of fun. As his plan becomes more concrete we will let you know the exact date. Several bands have offered to play for free and others have volunteered to help as well. Let's spread the word and make this a huge success!
This is a call to action, we have a great chance of winning but we cannot do it alone. Please get those donation jars up and running. It will take all of us to do this and believe me, we have come this far and we are not going to quit !!! It's time to say enough is enough and we are fighting back!
Thanks everyone,
Sheila, Robert and Mark
Donations can be sent to:
Minnesota Tavern League
235 East Roselawn Suite 17
Maplewood, MN 55117
(Make checks payable to Minnesota Tavern League and indicate it is for the Defense of Rights Fund)
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: Theater Night Update 4-17-08
Hello Everyone -
It's time for another update. As you know, Robert Ripley (of Bullseye Salon in Elko) was served an injunction by the MDH to stop theater nights on the basis of irreparable harm. This week Robert was very busy interviewing several attorneys to fight the injunction. As of today, Robert has retained a very good attorney to represent him and I might add all of us, his name is Patrick H. O'Neill, Jr. In addition, Mark Benjamin will be aiding in this case as well. It is imperative that we band together and help Robert out with the financial expense. This is not just for Robert but for all of us, we are all in this together. This is an investment in our future, when we win this case, we will no longer have to suffer or endure the intimidation and scare tactics of the MDH. We will be able to continue "theater nights" and keep our businesses going legally. We have called the MDH's bluff and they are afraid of losing, of which there is a high probability they will (lose that is!) The Defense of Rights Fund http://DefenseofRights.com that was started will be used towards Robert's legal expenses (i.e. attorney). We will be sending him an initial payment tomorrow. The total attorney fee will be $12,000. I know this sounds like a lot, but if we all kick in and solicit donations from our bar patrons we should easily be able to come up with this amount if not more. Just as an example, if each bar had a donation jar and 50 people contributed $10.00 that would be $500 per bar and if we had 50 bars collecting donations that would total $25,000. I know that some of you have already contributed to the fund and we thank-you very much. Robert is also planning a "Smoker's Rally" at his place either on April 26th or May 3rd. This should raise more in legal defense funds and should be a lot of fun. As his plan becomes more concrete we will let you know the exact date. Several bands have offered to play for free and others have volunteered to help as well. Let's spread the word and make this a huge success!
This is a call to action, we have a great chance of winning but we cannot do it alone. Please get those donation jars up and running. It will take all of us to do this and believe me, we have come this far and we are not going to quit !!! It's time to say enough is enough and we are fighting back!
Thanks everyone,
Sheila, Robert and Mark
Donations can be sent to:
Minnesota Tavern League
235 East Roselawn Suite 17
Maplewood, MN 55117
(Make checks payable to Minnesota Tavern League and indicate it is for the Defense of Rights Fund)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
In loo of a theater, play staged in N.Y. restrooms
More a "fun post" but Shakespeare did say that "The whole world is a stage". On a more serious level I read the legal papers by the MN DOH. From what I can glean the vague terms for smoking by actors in so-called "legitimate theater". was an attempt to accommodate concerns that these theaters would have. Precisely, they claim that many plays are sold in a "season ticket package" and that the theaters might know in advance of the annual "program" what the specific details of the play will be.
I will again give my personal example where I quit smoking before Minnesota's original clean air act. For the first six months any exposure to smoke would trigger "nicotine fits" which could be prolonged and severe. Fortunately, my work-study employer the U of MN was able to provide a smoke free work enviorment in the Walter Library thesis "stacks". I do support the original "MN clean air act".
I attended a quite a few lectures and as I recall a few plays on the U of Campus. I got the student/resident employee discounts for the plays and I couldn't go to a bar or drink for that first six months. Since lectures and plays are free or cheap entertainment during this self-imposed "bar ban" I attended quite a few. There was never any thought of smoking at the events. I would hold my breath when walking by smokers at the entrance but that was just a few seconds. My experience is ancendotal but I've found that one of the strongest factor for an otherwise healthy person to successfully quit is there exposure to second-hand smoke. (This is why it drives me crazy when I see those "nicotine patch" commercials where the patch wearer go over to talk to current smokers who have lit up.
As for bars, I consciously avoided them for that first six months. In my case alcohol at home tended to trigger the "nicotine fits" so I was "on the wagon" for that six months. Again my case is "ancendotal" but it contradicts some of the "patch" commercials I've seen.
Getting back to the "legitimate theater"s claims that they sell season ticket I would say "so what?" There are arguments I've seen on the web that playwrights "demand" that things like real cigarettes be used supposedly for the "integrity" of the "art".
A local "legitimate theater" has several options. The first is to try to negotiate with the playwrights representatives for a smoking substitution. Quite frankly, there a lot more playwrights and plays than there are "legitimate theater" stage for them. With other states banning "onstage smoking" (In Colorado, the first legal challenge the courts have, so far, upheld the full theater ban.) This further strengthens the negotiating position of local "legitimate theaters". Novels and play scripts are often altered for stage, screen or as musicals. I will give "Pygmalion" as an example. While the British movie was close to the book the musical and movie "My Fair Lady" were greatly altered.
The "season ticket" was another point I recall. Two months ago I was unaware of the "theater" exemption in the so called "Freedom to Breath Act". It would be rare to find everyday people who were aware of it. (Apparently not even the Jungle Theater because they didn't comply with the requirements when they had smoking onstage.). From my observations over 90% of Minnesota adults are now aware of the "smoking theater" exemption due to the extensive publicity the "bar smoking theater" has received.
Some people do want to avoid exposure to second-hand smoke and want to have non-smoking entertainment for their children. Smoking is a factor in TV and movie ratings. http://www.fcc.gov/parents/
I see a lot of people taking children into the Guthrie when I drive by there (I-35W detour). Around 75% of Minnesota adults don't smoke. With the Guthrie clientele apparently more "upscale" than VFW's and blue collar bars. (again, from my detour observations they sure look more upscale.) the Guthrie patrons should have a far lower smoking rate.
It would seem that this would provide a great opportunities for so called "legitimate theaters" to have "smoke free" season ticket packages. It would seem like a good marketing ploy and I wish them success. I've heard that the new Guthrie has something like half a dozen stages. I so that could give plenty of opportunities for non smoking season packages.
On the other side a dilemma is created for the theater patron who buys tickets to plays where the actors smoke. To "time machine" my pre-1973 situation to today , let's say I wanted to see a play at the Jungle Theater (I would have been interested in the "Orson Welles" one man show). I had just quit smoking and had the smoke sensitive girlfriend. I had paid $40 to $50 for a pair of tickets and perhaps made reservations with their post play restaurant partners. Let's say there is smoking on stage and this triggers asthmatic symptoms in the girlfriend and nicotine craving in me. Even if we got a refund the restaurant reservations would be for after the play. Even if this was changed or cancelled it would still make for an unpleasant experience. If I was in pre-1973 situation today I would have had a strong awareness of second-hand smoke avoidance. If the Jungle Theater website, which gives substantial information on plays had a "smoking alert" I could avoid that play. Conversely, I would deduce that the plays without the "smoking alert" were non-smoking.
The Minnesota Twins will customise a ticket "bundle" around your schedule, no reason so called "legitimate theaters" can't also do that. The so called "legitimate theaters" can get (dare we say!) "creative" and work with other so called "legitimate theaters" for "reciprocal arrangements". It's called marketing and adapting to technology.
Six months after I quit second hand smoke didn't bother me. That said, I fell I I have achieved substantial health benefits by not smoking since the early 1970's.
(Someone could have fun writing something like "The Medical Marijuana Monologues". The basic plot would be that theater smoking is banned so the actors get prescriptions for medical marijuana to smoke during their theater performance. Much as in the movie "Fargo" where the "Scandinavian accent" got "thicker and thicker". In our play the actors act increasingly like stoned potheads as the play progresses. It should be perfectly suited to amateur actors)
Enough of my "red rant" for now. Here is the link and the "bathroom theater" story. Greg Lang
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/onstage/16715161.html?page=1&c=y
In loo of a theater, play staged in N.Y. restroom
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON, New York Times
March 15, 2008
"Ladies and Gents," a noir-ish thriller from Ireland with a cast of six, will open on Monday for a two-week engagement in the public bathrooms near the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park. Yes, that is right. The play is being put on in the bathrooms, the audience standing in a line along the stalls. Go ahead, make the clever scatological joke. Come up with some headlines for bad reviews.
Got that out of the way?
Karl Shiels is the leader of the Dublin theater troupe Semper Fi, a company that has a penchant for site-specific theater. One night in 2002 at a Dublin bar, Shiels asked the playwright Paul Walker to come up with something.
"He said, 'Would you write a play for me?'" Walker recalled. "I said, 'Yeah, OK' And he said, 'To be put on in a public toilet.'"
The result was "Ladies and Gents," a nasty little tale about prostitutes, politicians and other morally questionable types in 1950s Dublin. (And, yes, the action is actually set in a couple of public bathrooms; that's not just a mean trick.) It consists of two acts, one that takes place in the ladies' room, and the other in, well, the other room.
The audience splits upon arrival, each half seeing a different act first, and after a brief intermission the halves of the audience switch bathrooms. In the play's chronology the acts are taking place simultaneously, and each act answers questions raised in its counterpart.
"Yes, it's a gimmick," said Walker, who has made a career writing for theater and television. "The gimmick gets the newspapers. But it only gets you five minutes with the audience."
The play was first performed in the bathrooms on St. Stephen's Green, a large public park, as part of the Dublin Theater Festival. The play was later part of the Edinburgh Fringe, where it won the Fringe First Award, and went on a mini-tour of England, playing to sold-out bathrooms in Brighton and Nottingham.
All of this was much talked about in Dublin's small theater world. Laoisa Sexton, an Irish actress who was splitting her time between Dublin and New York and knew Shiels, thought the play should come to America. So did Georgeanne Aldrich Heller, a producer who often works with the Irish Arts Center.
Scoping out locations
Sexton told Heller she would find some public bathrooms in New York and get the needed permission from the Parks Department. Heller just laughed.
"It takes someone who is naive and new to the country to tell me they're going to get the parks," Heller, who once worked in the Manhattan borough president's office, said. "I know what you have to go through."
The Irish Arts Council paid for Shiels to go to New York on a bathroom-searching expedition with Sexton.
The ones in Bryant Park were beautiful but too small; the ones in Washington Square Park were a little too dingy. The bathrooms on the far west end of Christopher Street were perfect, but, she said, a Hudson River Park official told her that putting on a play in them would constitute "inappropriate use" of a public toilet.
But, oh, those sublime loos at the Bethesda Fountain. Large, windowless, old-fashioned, rather spooky. Love at first sight, Sexton said. Now, for that permission from the Parks Department.
Maneuvering red tape
After several months the project reached the desk of Rory McAvoy, an official in the parks' special events and marketing department who just happens to have an Irish background. You might imagine that a request to perform in the Central Park bathrooms would be among the stranger he has heard.
"This definitely didn't take the cake," McAvoy said, mentioning specifically the frequent applications for world-record attempts on city land, including a request that somehow involved the world's largest ice pop.
And that was, on his advice, what the production needed to prove. So after eliciting testimonial letters from the lord mayor of Dublin and the Irish consulate cultural attaché in New York, and after reading that pleading letter to the mayor, Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, gave the project the go-ahead and even found a way to reduce the rental costs.
Putting on the play, currently in rehearsals at the Irish Arts Center, still proves a logistical challenge. There is a long list of park rules that the production has to abide by. Generators need to be rented, as well as portable toilets (Audience members are not, of course, allowed to use the facilities as they were intended). But the show is going on.
"New York City's parks have always hosted great theater -- from the venerable Shakespeare in the Park to more avant-garde productions," Benepe said in a statement. "But 'Ladies and Gents' will give new meaning to our quest" -- OK, Benepe, just this once -- "to provide outlets for creative expression."
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved
I will again give my personal example where I quit smoking before Minnesota's original clean air act. For the first six months any exposure to smoke would trigger "nicotine fits" which could be prolonged and severe. Fortunately, my work-study employer the U of MN was able to provide a smoke free work enviorment in the Walter Library thesis "stacks". I do support the original "MN clean air act".
I attended a quite a few lectures and as I recall a few plays on the U of Campus. I got the student/resident employee discounts for the plays and I couldn't go to a bar or drink for that first six months. Since lectures and plays are free or cheap entertainment during this self-imposed "bar ban" I attended quite a few. There was never any thought of smoking at the events. I would hold my breath when walking by smokers at the entrance but that was just a few seconds. My experience is ancendotal but I've found that one of the strongest factor for an otherwise healthy person to successfully quit is there exposure to second-hand smoke. (This is why it drives me crazy when I see those "nicotine patch" commercials where the patch wearer go over to talk to current smokers who have lit up.
As for bars, I consciously avoided them for that first six months. In my case alcohol at home tended to trigger the "nicotine fits" so I was "on the wagon" for that six months. Again my case is "ancendotal" but it contradicts some of the "patch" commercials I've seen.
Getting back to the "legitimate theater"s claims that they sell season ticket I would say "so what?" There are arguments I've seen on the web that playwrights "demand" that things like real cigarettes be used supposedly for the "integrity" of the "art".
A local "legitimate theater" has several options. The first is to try to negotiate with the playwrights representatives for a smoking substitution. Quite frankly, there a lot more playwrights and plays than there are "legitimate theater" stage for them. With other states banning "onstage smoking" (In Colorado, the first legal challenge the courts have, so far, upheld the full theater ban.) This further strengthens the negotiating position of local "legitimate theaters". Novels and play scripts are often altered for stage, screen or as musicals. I will give "Pygmalion" as an example. While the British movie was close to the book the musical and movie "My Fair Lady" were greatly altered.
The "season ticket" was another point I recall. Two months ago I was unaware of the "theater" exemption in the so called "Freedom to Breath Act". It would be rare to find everyday people who were aware of it. (Apparently not even the Jungle Theater because they didn't comply with the requirements when they had smoking onstage.). From my observations over 90% of Minnesota adults are now aware of the "smoking theater" exemption due to the extensive publicity the "bar smoking theater" has received.
Some people do want to avoid exposure to second-hand smoke and want to have non-smoking entertainment for their children. Smoking is a factor in TV and movie ratings. http://www.fcc.gov/parents/
I see a lot of people taking children into the Guthrie when I drive by there (I-35W detour). Around 75% of Minnesota adults don't smoke. With the Guthrie clientele apparently more "upscale" than VFW's and blue collar bars. (again, from my detour observations they sure look more upscale.) the Guthrie patrons should have a far lower smoking rate.
It would seem that this would provide a great opportunities for so called "legitimate theaters" to have "smoke free" season ticket packages. It would seem like a good marketing ploy and I wish them success. I've heard that the new Guthrie has something like half a dozen stages. I so that could give plenty of opportunities for non smoking season packages.
On the other side a dilemma is created for the theater patron who buys tickets to plays where the actors smoke. To "time machine" my pre-1973 situation to today , let's say I wanted to see a play at the Jungle Theater (I would have been interested in the "Orson Welles" one man show). I had just quit smoking and had the smoke sensitive girlfriend. I had paid $40 to $50 for a pair of tickets and perhaps made reservations with their post play restaurant partners. Let's say there is smoking on stage and this triggers asthmatic symptoms in the girlfriend and nicotine craving in me. Even if we got a refund the restaurant reservations would be for after the play. Even if this was changed or cancelled it would still make for an unpleasant experience. If I was in pre-1973 situation today I would have had a strong awareness of second-hand smoke avoidance. If the Jungle Theater website, which gives substantial information on plays had a "smoking alert" I could avoid that play. Conversely, I would deduce that the plays without the "smoking alert" were non-smoking.
The Minnesota Twins will customise a ticket "bundle" around your schedule, no reason so called "legitimate theaters" can't also do that. The so called "legitimate theaters" can get (dare we say!) "creative" and work with other so called "legitimate theaters" for "reciprocal arrangements". It's called marketing and adapting to technology.
Six months after I quit second hand smoke didn't bother me. That said, I fell I I have achieved substantial health benefits by not smoking since the early 1970's.
(Someone could have fun writing something like "The Medical Marijuana Monologues". The basic plot would be that theater smoking is banned so the actors get prescriptions for medical marijuana to smoke during their theater performance. Much as in the movie "Fargo" where the "Scandinavian accent" got "thicker and thicker". In our play the actors act increasingly like stoned potheads as the play progresses. It should be perfectly suited to amateur actors)
Enough of my "red rant" for now. Here is the link and the "bathroom theater" story. Greg Lang
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/onstage/16715161.html?page=1&c=y
In loo of a theater, play staged in N.Y. restroom
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON, New York Times
March 15, 2008
"Ladies and Gents," a noir-ish thriller from Ireland with a cast of six, will open on Monday for a two-week engagement in the public bathrooms near the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park. Yes, that is right. The play is being put on in the bathrooms, the audience standing in a line along the stalls. Go ahead, make the clever scatological joke. Come up with some headlines for bad reviews.
Got that out of the way?
Karl Shiels is the leader of the Dublin theater troupe Semper Fi, a company that has a penchant for site-specific theater. One night in 2002 at a Dublin bar, Shiels asked the playwright Paul Walker to come up with something.
"He said, 'Would you write a play for me?'" Walker recalled. "I said, 'Yeah, OK' And he said, 'To be put on in a public toilet.'"
The result was "Ladies and Gents," a nasty little tale about prostitutes, politicians and other morally questionable types in 1950s Dublin. (And, yes, the action is actually set in a couple of public bathrooms; that's not just a mean trick.) It consists of two acts, one that takes place in the ladies' room, and the other in, well, the other room.
The audience splits upon arrival, each half seeing a different act first, and after a brief intermission the halves of the audience switch bathrooms. In the play's chronology the acts are taking place simultaneously, and each act answers questions raised in its counterpart.
"Yes, it's a gimmick," said Walker, who has made a career writing for theater and television. "The gimmick gets the newspapers. But it only gets you five minutes with the audience."
The play was first performed in the bathrooms on St. Stephen's Green, a large public park, as part of the Dublin Theater Festival. The play was later part of the Edinburgh Fringe, where it won the Fringe First Award, and went on a mini-tour of England, playing to sold-out bathrooms in Brighton and Nottingham.
All of this was much talked about in Dublin's small theater world. Laoisa Sexton, an Irish actress who was splitting her time between Dublin and New York and knew Shiels, thought the play should come to America. So did Georgeanne Aldrich Heller, a producer who often works with the Irish Arts Center.
Scoping out locations
Sexton told Heller she would find some public bathrooms in New York and get the needed permission from the Parks Department. Heller just laughed.
"It takes someone who is naive and new to the country to tell me they're going to get the parks," Heller, who once worked in the Manhattan borough president's office, said. "I know what you have to go through."
The Irish Arts Council paid for Shiels to go to New York on a bathroom-searching expedition with Sexton.
The ones in Bryant Park were beautiful but too small; the ones in Washington Square Park were a little too dingy. The bathrooms on the far west end of Christopher Street were perfect, but, she said, a Hudson River Park official told her that putting on a play in them would constitute "inappropriate use" of a public toilet.
But, oh, those sublime loos at the Bethesda Fountain. Large, windowless, old-fashioned, rather spooky. Love at first sight, Sexton said. Now, for that permission from the Parks Department.
Maneuvering red tape
After several months the project reached the desk of Rory McAvoy, an official in the parks' special events and marketing department who just happens to have an Irish background. You might imagine that a request to perform in the Central Park bathrooms would be among the stranger he has heard.
"This definitely didn't take the cake," McAvoy said, mentioning specifically the frequent applications for world-record attempts on city land, including a request that somehow involved the world's largest ice pop.
And that was, on his advice, what the production needed to prove. So after eliciting testimonial letters from the lord mayor of Dublin and the Irish consulate cultural attaché in New York, and after reading that pleading letter to the mayor, Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, gave the project the go-ahead and even found a way to reduce the rental costs.
Putting on the play, currently in rehearsals at the Irish Arts Center, still proves a logistical challenge. There is a long list of park rules that the production has to abide by. Generators need to be rented, as well as portable toilets (Audience members are not, of course, allowed to use the facilities as they were intended). But the show is going on.
"New York City's parks have always hosted great theater -- from the venerable Shakespeare in the Park to more avant-garde productions," Benepe said in a statement. "But 'Ladies and Gents' will give new meaning to our quest" -- OK, Benepe, just this once -- "to provide outlets for creative expression."
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Dille was one of the Co-Authors on the Senate FTBA. Go ahead and post. Maybe a few others who are in his area will see his reply and that he relies on Bogus science before his constituants.
To: Sen.Steve Dille
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Thank you for your reply Sen. Dille.Yes, and the unemployment rate may have gone up because bar owners have cut back and reduced staff. Many bar owners may also be in foreclosure because they levied their houses to put the money into their businesses and are losing it all. If you look at the report from the GCB - it did factor in outside influences. It still showed a decrease which they attribute to the smoking ban. Revenue all around is being affected by many factors. This has been the last nail in the coffin for many small businesses and it is another bullet in the back for others. Why don't you believe these owners when they say it is the smoking ban that affected their business? Why would bars resort to "Theater Nights" and see revenue increase on the nights they allow their Performers to smoke? Rep. Dean Urdahl, who also represents areas that you do, has taken the time to visit with the area bars. Why don't you visit with these businesses who have been affected and ask them first hand? ADULTS can make a choice - whether to patronize a BAR (adult orientated business) that allows smoking or to patronize one that does not. We were told by the Anti-Smokers that this would be good for business. Yes, it sure has. Fresh Air, less employees, less customers and NO NEW BUSINESS from the Anti-smokers. Especially in rural Minnesota. Now the only option being "seriously" pursued is a Smoking Shack outside of businesses. The Anti's are against this option too. How the heck will an outdoor smoking shack affect an Anti-smoker? They again have the choice to stay away, but this isn't about health, it is about control. They want to dictate to people who smoke their health. What they are doing is driving people to smoke in their cars and at home more. Also, people are driving to places where they can smoke. Like Casinos. Sen Dille - If this is really about health, then why are CASINO'S not included as other states have included?? Are those employees Less Worthy of the protection of the Anti-smokers agenda?? No, The casinos are allowed to cater to a group of potential customers that the bars in Minnesota are no longer allowed to cater to. They are able to reap the revenue and profits. Not the bars that are owned by Mom and Pop. My Anti-smoking friend just returned from a trip to Jackpot Junction with a group of over 30 people and complained because of all the smoke at the Casino. No one told her she had to go and she knew there would be smoking. That is where people are going to gamble, drink and enjoy a smoke. Not to their own small town establishments. I don't see the Casinos of Minnesota complaining about the smoking ban - darn right they would if their bottom line was affected like our businesses are. I would hope you would support the businesses you represent and help keep them viable. What will replace these businesses that do not make it? Our small towns are having a tough time keeping the businesses they have. By the way, we do not have ONE franchise restaurant in Meeker County. No Applebees, Perkins, TGI Fridays, IHOP, etc. ALL are small business and privately owned. These are not going to fill the spaces in Dassel, Darwin, Forest City, Watkins, etc. It is the hard work and many years of these Private establishments, the local owners, that is on the line across all of Minnesota. I had voted for you the past couple elections. In the visits with various lobby days, for ABATE, MLBA, and other days that I have been at the Capitol, I thought you would support at least Bars. "the dose is the poison" you told me. Now, I will rethink the next time, if you are up for re-election. I am very disappointed that you bowed to the lies of the Anti-smokers. The bottom line is that it was not good for our businesses. The Anti's have not and will not frequent our establishments to make up for the difference lost from the regular customers that we had who smoked. I should know, I am a non-smoker, not an anti-smoker of course. If I believed what the Anti's said, I would be the perfect Anti. I do not own the bar anymore, but depend on it to make my settlement payments from the divorce. I know business is not good when the payments are late or non-existant. I also talk to the bartenders and they state that "business is down because of the smoking ban." I believe them before I'd believe and Anti smoker who never steps foot in the bar as a regular customer. Thank you for your time.
Lia Nistler241 Cedar Ave SWatkins, MN 55389
320-764-2530
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:47:15 -0500From: Sen.Steve.Dille@senate.mn
Subject: Re: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Thank you for your email and the information on how the smoking ban has adversely affected charitable gambling. I do not doubt that the smoking ban is a contributing factor to the decrease in charitable gaming but other contributing factors could be higher gas prices, higher unemployment rate and higher rates of home foreclosures.
Another report that was just released showed a decrease in cancer causing chemicals in waiter and waitresses which indicate a positive affect of the smoking ban.
Steve Dille
Senator Steve DilleDistrict 18103 State Office BuildingSt. Paul, MN 55155651-296-4131sen.steve.dille@senate.mnFax: 651-296-9441
My note: I read the summary report on the U of MN study. One of the 24 volunteers forgot to take the initial sample until three days after the ban started. This same person may have been exposed to other second hand smoke before the second test. They included the "flawed" subject in the study. This is generally considered "taboo" in research studies. Also, a Wikipedia page on smoking bans listed other studies that studied "indicator" chemicals after smoking and second hand smoking cessation.
It seems like an alleged "embellishment" to say that this is the "first of it's kind research. Otherwise we would have to believe that with billions already spent of smoking related research no one thought to test the biochemical effects cessation of exposure to second hand smoke had. To give an example, for more than a decade the US military has not allowed any smoking or exposure to second hand smoke during "boot camp". Also, the McMurdo Ice station at the South Pole has not allowed smoking there for several decades and it is strictly enforced (I've met people who have wintered there). In both "boot camp" and the South Pole there is consent for passive medical testing. These would be far more "controlled" study venues. Also, if a chemical is "flushed out" in urine and not replenished the level will drop. Like duhh!
Off subject but the son of the owner/builder of my 1921 house claimed that he had the first short wave "ham" radio conversation with with the South Pole from the Northern hemisphere. I would occasionally get letters from the "old hams" about this addressed to the house. I also knew a pilot who flew C-130's to the South Pole. Also, at least 25 years ago I had a girlfriend who smoked but wanted to winter at the South Pole station. She had several local friends who had wintered at the South Pole. They stressed the "no smoking" and warned her that they had ways to find out. This I assume were passive medical tests since that research is part of it.
The plan sounded fine to me. She would be 18,000 miles away during our summer and when she got back she would be even more acclimated to our Minnesota winters. Good plan but the Antarctic assessment and training center was in a different city so we lost touch. That said, I learned a lot about the Antarctic "culture".
If anti-smoking research can't figure out how to "piggyback" on existing research we might want to wonder about "pork". Greg Lang
Greg Lang
To: Sen.Steve Dille
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Thank you for your reply Sen. Dille.Yes, and the unemployment rate may have gone up because bar owners have cut back and reduced staff. Many bar owners may also be in foreclosure because they levied their houses to put the money into their businesses and are losing it all. If you look at the report from the GCB - it did factor in outside influences. It still showed a decrease which they attribute to the smoking ban. Revenue all around is being affected by many factors. This has been the last nail in the coffin for many small businesses and it is another bullet in the back for others. Why don't you believe these owners when they say it is the smoking ban that affected their business? Why would bars resort to "Theater Nights" and see revenue increase on the nights they allow their Performers to smoke? Rep. Dean Urdahl, who also represents areas that you do, has taken the time to visit with the area bars. Why don't you visit with these businesses who have been affected and ask them first hand? ADULTS can make a choice - whether to patronize a BAR (adult orientated business) that allows smoking or to patronize one that does not. We were told by the Anti-Smokers that this would be good for business. Yes, it sure has. Fresh Air, less employees, less customers and NO NEW BUSINESS from the Anti-smokers. Especially in rural Minnesota. Now the only option being "seriously" pursued is a Smoking Shack outside of businesses. The Anti's are against this option too. How the heck will an outdoor smoking shack affect an Anti-smoker? They again have the choice to stay away, but this isn't about health, it is about control. They want to dictate to people who smoke their health. What they are doing is driving people to smoke in their cars and at home more. Also, people are driving to places where they can smoke. Like Casinos. Sen Dille - If this is really about health, then why are CASINO'S not included as other states have included?? Are those employees Less Worthy of the protection of the Anti-smokers agenda?? No, The casinos are allowed to cater to a group of potential customers that the bars in Minnesota are no longer allowed to cater to. They are able to reap the revenue and profits. Not the bars that are owned by Mom and Pop. My Anti-smoking friend just returned from a trip to Jackpot Junction with a group of over 30 people and complained because of all the smoke at the Casino. No one told her she had to go and she knew there would be smoking. That is where people are going to gamble, drink and enjoy a smoke. Not to their own small town establishments. I don't see the Casinos of Minnesota complaining about the smoking ban - darn right they would if their bottom line was affected like our businesses are. I would hope you would support the businesses you represent and help keep them viable. What will replace these businesses that do not make it? Our small towns are having a tough time keeping the businesses they have. By the way, we do not have ONE franchise restaurant in Meeker County. No Applebees, Perkins, TGI Fridays, IHOP, etc. ALL are small business and privately owned. These are not going to fill the spaces in Dassel, Darwin, Forest City, Watkins, etc. It is the hard work and many years of these Private establishments, the local owners, that is on the line across all of Minnesota. I had voted for you the past couple elections. In the visits with various lobby days, for ABATE, MLBA, and other days that I have been at the Capitol, I thought you would support at least Bars. "the dose is the poison" you told me. Now, I will rethink the next time, if you are up for re-election. I am very disappointed that you bowed to the lies of the Anti-smokers. The bottom line is that it was not good for our businesses. The Anti's have not and will not frequent our establishments to make up for the difference lost from the regular customers that we had who smoked. I should know, I am a non-smoker, not an anti-smoker of course. If I believed what the Anti's said, I would be the perfect Anti. I do not own the bar anymore, but depend on it to make my settlement payments from the divorce. I know business is not good when the payments are late or non-existant. I also talk to the bartenders and they state that "business is down because of the smoking ban." I believe them before I'd believe and Anti smoker who never steps foot in the bar as a regular customer. Thank you for your time.
Lia Nistler241 Cedar Ave SWatkins, MN 55389
320-764-2530
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:47:15 -0500From: Sen.Steve.Dille@senate.mn
Subject: Re: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Thank you for your email and the information on how the smoking ban has adversely affected charitable gambling. I do not doubt that the smoking ban is a contributing factor to the decrease in charitable gaming but other contributing factors could be higher gas prices, higher unemployment rate and higher rates of home foreclosures.
Another report that was just released showed a decrease in cancer causing chemicals in waiter and waitresses which indicate a positive affect of the smoking ban.
Steve Dille
Senator Steve DilleDistrict 18103 State Office BuildingSt. Paul, MN 55155651-296-4131sen.steve.dille@senate.mnFax: 651-296-9441
My note: I read the summary report on the U of MN study. One of the 24 volunteers forgot to take the initial sample until three days after the ban started. This same person may have been exposed to other second hand smoke before the second test. They included the "flawed" subject in the study. This is generally considered "taboo" in research studies. Also, a Wikipedia page on smoking bans listed other studies that studied "indicator" chemicals after smoking and second hand smoking cessation.
It seems like an alleged "embellishment" to say that this is the "first of it's kind research. Otherwise we would have to believe that with billions already spent of smoking related research no one thought to test the biochemical effects cessation of exposure to second hand smoke had. To give an example, for more than a decade the US military has not allowed any smoking or exposure to second hand smoke during "boot camp". Also, the McMurdo Ice station at the South Pole has not allowed smoking there for several decades and it is strictly enforced (I've met people who have wintered there). In both "boot camp" and the South Pole there is consent for passive medical testing. These would be far more "controlled" study venues. Also, if a chemical is "flushed out" in urine and not replenished the level will drop. Like duhh!
Off subject but the son of the owner/builder of my 1921 house claimed that he had the first short wave "ham" radio conversation with with the South Pole from the Northern hemisphere. I would occasionally get letters from the "old hams" about this addressed to the house. I also knew a pilot who flew C-130's to the South Pole. Also, at least 25 years ago I had a girlfriend who smoked but wanted to winter at the South Pole station. She had several local friends who had wintered at the South Pole. They stressed the "no smoking" and warned her that they had ways to find out. This I assume were passive medical tests since that research is part of it.
The plan sounded fine to me. She would be 18,000 miles away during our summer and when she got back she would be even more acclimated to our Minnesota winters. Good plan but the Antarctic assessment and training center was in a different city so we lost touch. That said, I learned a lot about the Antarctic "culture".
If anti-smoking research can't figure out how to "piggyback" on existing research we might want to wonder about "pork". Greg Lang
Greg Lang
Can We Post: To Those Who Lurk Here
Can we post on the website? I promised I would not reveal who sent it in case of harrassment.
Since this website gets a lot of attention from all kinds of folks, I know that those below will receive the messages intended for them.
Commissioner Magnan –With all due respect, could you please answer a question? The Pioneer Press (4-12-08) states that you said one asthma sufferer called the Department of Health to complain after that worker’s place of employment began holding smoking performances. How is that any different if that person worked for the Guthrie Theater? The truth please without the spin. In addition, please do not insult our intelligence by saying that thousands of people die from second hand smoke every year. When throwing out these statistics you should really have the data to back it up or no one will take you seriously.
John Stine, John Olson, Dale Dorschner – I know that you are all just doing your job even though a little zealously at times. I also understand that if you don’t do as your superior’s tell you then you could suffer the consequences of losing your job. The loss of a job (resulting in lost income) is a very traumatic and unhealthy experience for anyone as these small bar owners, their employees, vendors, distributors and entertainers can attest to. So, we don’t blame you for trying to protect your livelihood as we are trying to do.
MDH – Just a thank-you for finally bringing this to court. An interpretation, of the theatrical performance exemption, by a court of law is definitely needed since there is disagreement. I think you have been treated very unfairly by the legislature. The legislature could have re-opened the FTBA statute and more clearly defined the exemption but they chose not to and in so doing threw it back in your lap. If I were you, I think I would have a little talk with that Mr. Huntley. Isn’t he the one who is responsible for this exemption in the first place? Shame on you Mr. Huntley, you should have stepped up to the plate but you didn’t.
Phyllis Kahn – This one time I actually agree with you. You propose that the bars stay open until 4:00AM during the Republican Convention so that our state comes off as being “sophisticated” like other states with the late night bar hours. Only, I would suggest you take this one step further like New York has and offer up hard ship waivers for small bars to allow smoking. Then we truly would be as “sophisticated” as New York.
Legislators – To those of you that supported and voted for the all out smoking ban, remember that elections are this November and don’t think that for one minute it will be forgotten who you are. When people’s livelihoods are on the line they don’t forget! As one of you said last year during the debate, if we lose a few smoker dependent bars the health care savings will be worth it. Our response to this will be quite evident in this November’s election.
St. Louis County Health Department – There are no words to describe the shenanigans you’ve partaken in. Shame on all of you and I hope you can sleep at night. You know who you are.
Clearway, American Lung Association - Sorry to have messed up your budget plans for this year. I know that you planned to cut back on anti-smoking efforts to spend more money on your “anti-obesity” campaign since the FTBA was passed. I wonder how big a dent all those new radio ads will put in your anti-obesity campaign. At least the “over-weight” people will get a slight reprieve from your good intentions.
Anonymous
My comments: To the legislature and others. If the MN appeals and MN Supreme Court rules that the "letter of the law" applies there could be a "smoking theater anarchy" since the current "letter" of the law does not define theater. The proposed revisions of the so called "Freedom to Breath Act" specify conditions for smoking in bars.
A powerful argument in the appeal process is the ability of the legislature to revise a law when the wording is believed flawed. The bar smoking theater controversy has been going on for almost two months with the MN legislature in session. This gave plenty of time to reopen and revise the so called "Freedom to Breath Act" in whatever way the legislature chooses. The legislature could, if it wanted close the "theater" loophole completely. Other states such as Colorado have no theater exemption and so far the courts there have sided with the "letter" of that law. Greg Lang
Since this website gets a lot of attention from all kinds of folks, I know that those below will receive the messages intended for them.
Commissioner Magnan –With all due respect, could you please answer a question? The Pioneer Press (4-12-08) states that you said one asthma sufferer called the Department of Health to complain after that worker’s place of employment began holding smoking performances. How is that any different if that person worked for the Guthrie Theater? The truth please without the spin. In addition, please do not insult our intelligence by saying that thousands of people die from second hand smoke every year. When throwing out these statistics you should really have the data to back it up or no one will take you seriously.
John Stine, John Olson, Dale Dorschner – I know that you are all just doing your job even though a little zealously at times. I also understand that if you don’t do as your superior’s tell you then you could suffer the consequences of losing your job. The loss of a job (resulting in lost income) is a very traumatic and unhealthy experience for anyone as these small bar owners, their employees, vendors, distributors and entertainers can attest to. So, we don’t blame you for trying to protect your livelihood as we are trying to do.
MDH – Just a thank-you for finally bringing this to court. An interpretation, of the theatrical performance exemption, by a court of law is definitely needed since there is disagreement. I think you have been treated very unfairly by the legislature. The legislature could have re-opened the FTBA statute and more clearly defined the exemption but they chose not to and in so doing threw it back in your lap. If I were you, I think I would have a little talk with that Mr. Huntley. Isn’t he the one who is responsible for this exemption in the first place? Shame on you Mr. Huntley, you should have stepped up to the plate but you didn’t.
Phyllis Kahn – This one time I actually agree with you. You propose that the bars stay open until 4:00AM during the Republican Convention so that our state comes off as being “sophisticated” like other states with the late night bar hours. Only, I would suggest you take this one step further like New York has and offer up hard ship waivers for small bars to allow smoking. Then we truly would be as “sophisticated” as New York.
Legislators – To those of you that supported and voted for the all out smoking ban, remember that elections are this November and don’t think that for one minute it will be forgotten who you are. When people’s livelihoods are on the line they don’t forget! As one of you said last year during the debate, if we lose a few smoker dependent bars the health care savings will be worth it. Our response to this will be quite evident in this November’s election.
St. Louis County Health Department – There are no words to describe the shenanigans you’ve partaken in. Shame on all of you and I hope you can sleep at night. You know who you are.
Clearway, American Lung Association - Sorry to have messed up your budget plans for this year. I know that you planned to cut back on anti-smoking efforts to spend more money on your “anti-obesity” campaign since the FTBA was passed. I wonder how big a dent all those new radio ads will put in your anti-obesity campaign. At least the “over-weight” people will get a slight reprieve from your good intentions.
Anonymous
My comments: To the legislature and others. If the MN appeals and MN Supreme Court rules that the "letter of the law" applies there could be a "smoking theater anarchy" since the current "letter" of the law does not define theater. The proposed revisions of the so called "Freedom to Breath Act" specify conditions for smoking in bars.
A powerful argument in the appeal process is the ability of the legislature to revise a law when the wording is believed flawed. The bar smoking theater controversy has been going on for almost two months with the MN legislature in session. This gave plenty of time to reopen and revise the so called "Freedom to Breath Act" in whatever way the legislature chooses. The legislature could, if it wanted close the "theater" loophole completely. Other states such as Colorado have no theater exemption and so far the courts there have sided with the "letter" of that law. Greg Lang
Monday, April 14, 2008
Minn Post on Star Tribune editorial against "smoke shacks".
Yesterday I recalled having a framed copy of this Piccasso drawing "The Man of La Mancha. With a few minutes searching I found it and hung it up in my home-office room. The theme seems appropriate. This effort can seem at times like Don Quixote charging windmills. Is this a mad and futile attempt? Time will tell but today when driving around both radio stations I listened to had the "smoke theater" updates. In casual conversations with people I encounter around 90% of local adults are aware of the "smoking theater" controversy. I've found that at least half have "tactic support" of the effort. There are the smokers and "rights" people but a lot of people want there to be less smoking in the future but they have very strong negative "feeling" about the "nanny state" and the tactics and behavior of many of the "anti's". Few make the connection with St. Paul City Council President Dave Thune remarks about "8000 puking republican lobbyists" and Thune's spearheading of the Twin Cities bar smoking bans before Thune latest remarks. Thune needs to be a made a "poster child" of this because of the economic impact of this (and because he is a jerk! He emailed that he would not attend a city employees Christmas gathering because the owner of the bar supported Thune's opponent. Obviously, Thune's believes in "boycotts" so perhaps the convention planners could return the favor and try to boycott events and businesses in Thunes district. Early on $850K had reported been pulled and switched to more "tolerant" areas.
Anyway, this art print represents the fact that we are out gunned and out funded. That "big tobacco" money is nowhere to be found. In my case I have $14.20 direct cost in this (two new domain names registered for one year each). My time and effort is "priceless". Obviously, I can afford the $14.20 bu there are real burdens, real expenses, especially for lawyer Mark Benjamine. MPACT/Clean Air Minnesota apparently has a $200 million dollar endowment and a alledegly a $20 million dollar annual budget and the governemnt agencies have huge resources. Also, the "anti" side there tends to attract the "zealots". (Chick on picture for larger version if you want to print)
Publicity is our friend and the media has been coming around to greater or lesser degrees. If you see or hear positive stories let the media outlet know. Also, therefor needs money. None will go to me. They will go for legitimate legal expenses, which there will be plenty. Please give and promote http://DefenseofRights.com
Anyway, to get past my spiel (which I try to always color code in red there are two examples of the "newsworthiness" of the effort.
The first is http://MinnPost.com which reported on the Star Tribune editorial against "smoke shacks" but noted that the Strib editorial gave some ground on an adequate "smoking shelter" because apparently, the Strib editorial writers discovered that Minnesota has this thing called "wnter". It's odd that the Star Tribune didn't notice "winter" in the three years since the Minneapolis bar smoking ban. The "smoke shack" provision is unrelated to "bar theater" issue but it shows "progress". We might have fun with this in the future. I currently have parked http://leanto.com (feel free to "share" the "telemarketer graphic". )
Anyway, here are the links and text to the MNPost comments and Strib editorial. (color coded)
The Strib edit page says a current amendment for winter smoking shelters should be "snuffed out," but indicates it might be OK with "small smoking shelters" at smoking-banned hangouts. That's buried toward end of a piece criticizing a House proposal to liberalize the smoking ban. Stribs warn that shelters could become "extravagant structures." ("Hey, why does Puffy get all the pinball machines?") Also, a joint's servers can't enter the shacks, but patrons perhaps "could be served by a neighboring establishment that happens to have the same ownership." Theater-night folks, you enabled these contortions.
Editorial: Smoking-shelter plan needs to be shut down
April 13, 2008
The state's ban on smoking in bars and restaurants still has that new-law smell, but already some lawmakers want to water it down. A late-night amendment slipped into a state budget bill would allow smoking shelters to accommodate patrons during the winter.
Now legislators need to reconcile the House version of the bill, which has the shelter exception, with the Senate version, which does not.
Recent efforts by some bar owners to abuse an existing exception in the smoking ban make us wary about the shelter proposal. As written, the amendment does not limit a shelter's size or scope, leaving open the possibility of extravagant structures that go beyond merely providing protection from the cold. The exception also says that "employees of an establishment with a smoking shelter may not serve food or beverages to persons in the smoking shelter," but does that mean they could be served by a neighboring establishment that happens to have the same ownership?
Far-fetched? Perhaps. But some Minnesota bars have demonstrated their willingness to violate the intent of the law. Schemes such as "theater nights," in which patrons became "actors" and bars were turned into "stages," were meant to make a mockery of the law. A shelter exception would likely invite similar impertinence.
Legislators slipped the smoking-shack exception into a wholly unrelated state budget bill in a dead-of-night vote in the House, which prevented it from being decided on its merits.
From a public-health point of view, an exception for shelters is a clear backsliding in efforts to reduce smoking. The indoor ban was part of a comprehensive effort, along with increases in tobacco taxes and antismoking education, to discourage new smokers and encourage those who might want to quit smoking.
The ban is also a workplace safety issue, protecting the health of workers and nonsmoking patrons by assuring that they have clean air to breathe. In that context, a small smoking shelter that employees are not required to enter and where secondhand smoke is comprehensively isolated could be a reasonable accommodation during our breathtaking winters. But it would be essential to ensure that workers would not be exposed to secondhand smoke and that they would not be pressured to enter smoking shelters as a condition of employment. Other patrons would also need to be completely protected from secondhand smoke.
With those major caveats, the shelter proposal was worthy of a full hearing at the Legislature. But the potential public-health risks are too significant to allow the amendment to go forward. As written, the proposal is a fundamentally flawed effort to get around the indoor smoking ban. The legislative conference committee should snuff it out.
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Mesabi Daily News: Babbitt bar smoking ban issue set for court April 28
Mesabi Daily News: Babbitt bar smoking ban issue set for court April 28
'Theater Nights' citation contested.
By JESSE WHITE Staff Writer Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:48 PM CDT VIRGINIA -
Babbitt bar owner Tom Marinaro and his attorney Mark Benjamin will be in St. Louis County District Court in Virginia April 28 to take on Minnesota's smoking ban.
The hearing is expected to garner local and national media attention and the results could have statewide repercussions.
Benjamin, from Cambridge, Minn., is hoping Judge James Florey will render a decision that will finally resolve whether Benjamin's concept of "Theater Nights" in bars is legal or not.
"We've got people in the state that are afraid (to do theater nights). They don't know if it is legal or not," Benjamin. "I would like the courts to resolve this as soon as possible." On March 14, Babbitt Chief of Police Terry Switajewski issued a citation to Thomas Marinaro for allowing smoking in his establishment, Tank's Bar.
At the time, Marinaro was presiding over and directing an improvisational theatrical production entitled "The Gunsmoke Monologues," according to Benjamin - which included the patrons as the actors.
A customer in the bar was also ticketed and he is scheduled to be in court in July.
Benjamin drew headlines across the state earlier this year with his "Theater Night" concept which encourages bar owners to challenge the Freedom to Breathe Act by taking advantage of a loophole that allows smoking during theatrical productions.
Bars put on "plays" and the actors are the staff and customers.
The Freedom to Breathe Act went into effect last fall and made smoking in bars illegal.
However, Minnesota's smoking ban specifically permits smoking by actors and actresses in theatrical productions as long as performance programs notify patrons that there will be some smoking during the play.
Marianaro was charged with a petty misdemeanor, Benjamin said, with a maximum fine of $300.
Marie Rinta, co-owner of Tank's, said she and Marinaro plan to be at the hearing. She's hoping any decision will clarify the Freedom to Breathe Act. "(The decision) will affect the economic situation of this bar and every other bar in Minnesota," Rinta said.
Marinaro was scheduled to be in court earlier this month for an arraignment, but Benjamin waived the appearance to expedite the process.
"We don't dispute the facts that there was smoking going on indoors," he said. "(This way) we get directly to the legal issue."
That issue, according to Benjamin, is whether bar patrons can legally smoke in an establishment if they are taking part in a theatrical production.
Benjamin said that when the Minnesota Department of Health said in a release on March 9 that bars do not become exempt from to Freedom to Breathe Act by holding theater nights and that bars violating the act could face penalties up to $10,000, they cited legal advice as the basis for that determination but have yet to reveal that advice or where it came from.
Benjamin said the Minnesota Attorney General's office didn't give them the advice and that he wants the judge in Marinaro's case to get a copy of it so that a legal ruling can be made.
"The Department of Health says it's illegal but we need a judicial person to make a decision on that. Unfortunately, the Attorney General is sitting out on this," Benjamin said. "I am willing to stipulate to a court order to get that legal document so the judge can make the right decision."
According to Benjamin, only one other bar in northern Minnesota has been ticketed during a theater night, Sabin's Bar in Chisholm.
Benjamin and Chisholm's City Attorney, Lou Cianni, have agreed to indefinitely continue that case until Marinaro's case is resolved in district court in Virginia and/or a court of appeals.
Mike Horridge, owner of Sabin's, said he is still doing theater nights for now but that he has been under constant harassment from Chisholm police officials and the Department of Health.
He said he is looking forward to seeing the results of Marinaro's case but added that regardless of the outcome he foresees appeals court challenges in the future.
"It's probably going to end up in the Supreme Court," he said.
Rinta said the Department of Health, under direction of the St. Louis County Attorney's Office, has also been to her establishment and threatened to suspend their food and beverage license should they continue to do theater nights.
They have since stopped, she said. "It's too bad they made that stand without waiting for," the results of Marinaro's case, Rinta added.
The case is scheduled to be heard at 3:30 p.m. o
Jesse White can be reached at jesse.white@mx3.com. To read this story online and comment on it go to www.virginiamn.com.
'Theater Nights' citation contested.
By JESSE WHITE Staff Writer Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:48 PM CDT VIRGINIA -
Babbitt bar owner Tom Marinaro and his attorney Mark Benjamin will be in St. Louis County District Court in Virginia April 28 to take on Minnesota's smoking ban.
The hearing is expected to garner local and national media attention and the results could have statewide repercussions.
Benjamin, from Cambridge, Minn., is hoping Judge James Florey will render a decision that will finally resolve whether Benjamin's concept of "Theater Nights" in bars is legal or not.
"We've got people in the state that are afraid (to do theater nights). They don't know if it is legal or not," Benjamin. "I would like the courts to resolve this as soon as possible." On March 14, Babbitt Chief of Police Terry Switajewski issued a citation to Thomas Marinaro for allowing smoking in his establishment, Tank's Bar.
At the time, Marinaro was presiding over and directing an improvisational theatrical production entitled "The Gunsmoke Monologues," according to Benjamin - which included the patrons as the actors.
A customer in the bar was also ticketed and he is scheduled to be in court in July.
Benjamin drew headlines across the state earlier this year with his "Theater Night" concept which encourages bar owners to challenge the Freedom to Breathe Act by taking advantage of a loophole that allows smoking during theatrical productions.
Bars put on "plays" and the actors are the staff and customers.
The Freedom to Breathe Act went into effect last fall and made smoking in bars illegal.
However, Minnesota's smoking ban specifically permits smoking by actors and actresses in theatrical productions as long as performance programs notify patrons that there will be some smoking during the play.
Marianaro was charged with a petty misdemeanor, Benjamin said, with a maximum fine of $300.
Marie Rinta, co-owner of Tank's, said she and Marinaro plan to be at the hearing. She's hoping any decision will clarify the Freedom to Breathe Act. "(The decision) will affect the economic situation of this bar and every other bar in Minnesota," Rinta said.
Marinaro was scheduled to be in court earlier this month for an arraignment, but Benjamin waived the appearance to expedite the process.
"We don't dispute the facts that there was smoking going on indoors," he said. "(This way) we get directly to the legal issue."
That issue, according to Benjamin, is whether bar patrons can legally smoke in an establishment if they are taking part in a theatrical production.
Benjamin said that when the Minnesota Department of Health said in a release on March 9 that bars do not become exempt from to Freedom to Breathe Act by holding theater nights and that bars violating the act could face penalties up to $10,000, they cited legal advice as the basis for that determination but have yet to reveal that advice or where it came from.
Benjamin said the Minnesota Attorney General's office didn't give them the advice and that he wants the judge in Marinaro's case to get a copy of it so that a legal ruling can be made.
"The Department of Health says it's illegal but we need a judicial person to make a decision on that. Unfortunately, the Attorney General is sitting out on this," Benjamin said. "I am willing to stipulate to a court order to get that legal document so the judge can make the right decision."
According to Benjamin, only one other bar in northern Minnesota has been ticketed during a theater night, Sabin's Bar in Chisholm.
Benjamin and Chisholm's City Attorney, Lou Cianni, have agreed to indefinitely continue that case until Marinaro's case is resolved in district court in Virginia and/or a court of appeals.
Mike Horridge, owner of Sabin's, said he is still doing theater nights for now but that he has been under constant harassment from Chisholm police officials and the Department of Health.
He said he is looking forward to seeing the results of Marinaro's case but added that regardless of the outcome he foresees appeals court challenges in the future.
"It's probably going to end up in the Supreme Court," he said.
Rinta said the Department of Health, under direction of the St. Louis County Attorney's Office, has also been to her establishment and threatened to suspend their food and beverage license should they continue to do theater nights.
They have since stopped, she said. "It's too bad they made that stand without waiting for," the results of Marinaro's case, Rinta added.
The case is scheduled to be heard at 3:30 p.m. o
Jesse White can be reached at jesse.white@mx3.com. To read this story online and comment on it go to www.virginiamn.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)