To All Our Media Friends --
Yesterday was the first court trial involving an alleged violation of Minnesota's Smoking Ban. Tom Marinaro was charged with violating the state-wide smoking ban by allowing patrons to smoke in his bar on March 14th. His affirmative defense was that he was directing an improvisational "theatrical performance". Under Minnesota law, actors and actresses are allowed to smoke real tobacco cigarettes indoors as long as it is a part of a theatrical performance -- but the legislature did not define the term.
Across the state, Minnesota bar owners have been staging these protest plays and educating the public about the very real economic and mental health issues associated with a blanket smoking ban that grants favor to the performing arts but gives no quarter to our blue-collar bar owners or Minnesota's veterans and their VFW and American Legion clubs.
At the trial, the law enforcement officers complained that there were no scripts or costumes and the "acting" was not on the bar's stage. The prosecutor argued to the judge that this was not a "recognizable" theatrical performance. We argued that these improvisational plays, and the smoking associated with them, stimulated the public into talking about civil liberties, injustice and the need to communicate with our legislators.
We also argued that Art connects with our emotions and transforms something inside of us. Our performers often have been heard to say how they had forgotten how much they missed smoking indoors with their friends in the warm confines of a neighborhood bar and how good it "felt" to once again enjoy that freedom. By participating in these performances, they have been moved to action. Hence, our "Act Now" buttons are being worn outside of the bars and our message and energy is being spread on a grassroots level.
We will continue to protest Minnesota's smoking ban by burning real tobacco cigarettes indoors -- all as part of a theatrical performance. We take our cue from the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case -- Johnson v. Texas -- where Mr. Johnson burned the national flag as part of a protest. He argued that burning the flag evoked powerful emotions in onlookers and brought attention to the message he was trying to convey. The Court agreed and ruled that burning the flag was "expressive conduct" and therefore was protected by the First Amendment.
Our theatrical performances -- which include the burning of tobacco cigarettes indoors -- have obviously evoked powerful emotions as well. We continue to draw attention to our message, namely that a comprehensive public health policy MUST include mental health considerations -- financial stress and social isolation -- brought on by an unforgiving state-wide smoking ban that destroys businesses, loses jobs and forces once-regular customers to smoke and drink alone.
You can watch the Duluth WDIO TV broadcast summarizing the trial here:
http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S454667.shtml?cat=10335
Our show goes on.
-- Mark W. Benjamin
Attorney at Law
Criminal Defense, P.A.
237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111
Cambridge, MN 55008
763-691-0900 (Office)
763-670-9664 (Mobile)
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Theater Night Update 5-22-08
Hello Everyone -
Just a quick update. This one slipped by me but one of our loyal readers sent this to me. I would like to personally thank the authors, Buesgens, Heidgerken, Howes, Holberg, Erickson, Hackbarth, Smith and Magnus, who offered an amendment to S. F. No. 2809, to repeal the smoking ban. Actually, several amendments were offered but voted down on May 17. A personal thanks also goes to M. Olson, Westrom and Rukavina for standing up for us. If you have time this long weekend and want to watch our great legislators at work, here is the video link to that session http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=85&event_id=1695 . It starts at ~ 15:46 into the video. Make sure you have "blood pressure" medication near....you might need it. (Also, you can fast forward it when they have the "calls to the House", it gets rather time consuming waiting for them to show up.) It was interesting to hear Rep Mark Olson tell how the American Cancer Society lobbied him and admitted out right that their goal was to get everyone to quit smoking period. We all knew that was their actual goal and not that of protecting employees health. I'm just amazed they actually admitted it!
Well, the gauntlet has been thrown down. It is time for us to show them we will not put up with them legislating our behaviour, not now or in our future. We have the power and we will use it come this November. There is plenty of time between now and November and as I promised, I will do the research on these legislators and publish it. Everyone will know where these legislators stand and thus who to vote for this coming election. The idea that some of these legislators could care less about the economic hardships they have caused us just BURNS me! These people don't represent us....they have their own agenda and must go! I would lay odds these same legislators want to take more freedom and personal choices away from us...I will find out. Do they really think that WE,THE PEOPLE will not hold them accountable for their actions? Do they think since the session has ended that they are safe? Well, they're not too smart are they!
Enough is Enough and they will find that out!
SF2809 & HF1825
Bill: Smoking in a nonsmoking hotel room penalty increased, and civil and criminal penalties imposed.
Senate Authors: Dibble; Dille; Higgins; Foley
House Authors: Kahn; Bly; Abeler; Jaros
Health
Smoking ban stays Published (5/17/2008)
An attempt to overturn the state smoking ban was snuffed out by the House.
While debating a bill that would provide a civil process for recovery of costs, a service charge and a civil penalty against an individual who smokes in a designated non-smoking hotel room, Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) unsuccessfully offered an amendment to repeal the smoking ban enacted by the 2007 Legislature.
The attempt was ruled not germane by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar), who was presiding over the body at the time, and upheld on an 86-48 vote among House members.
The House passed the bill 94-39; the Senate did so 46-16 May 13.
Current law provides that a person who smokes in a hotel sleeping room designated as “non-smoking” may be convicted of a petty misdemeanor for the offense, and may be required to reimburse the innkeeper for the actual costs to restore the room to its pre-violation condition, up to $100.
Sponsored by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Mpls) and Sen. D. Scott Dibble (DFL-Mpls), HF1825/SF2809* also removes the cap and enable to hotel to recover the entire actual cost of restoring a damaged room to its pre-violation condition.
link : http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?yearid=2008&storyid=1466
Just a quick update. This one slipped by me but one of our loyal readers sent this to me. I would like to personally thank the authors, Buesgens, Heidgerken, Howes, Holberg, Erickson, Hackbarth, Smith and Magnus, who offered an amendment to S. F. No. 2809, to repeal the smoking ban. Actually, several amendments were offered but voted down on May 17. A personal thanks also goes to M. Olson, Westrom and Rukavina for standing up for us. If you have time this long weekend and want to watch our great legislators at work, here is the video link to that session http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=85&event_id=1695 . It starts at ~ 15:46 into the video. Make sure you have "blood pressure" medication near....you might need it. (Also, you can fast forward it when they have the "calls to the House", it gets rather time consuming waiting for them to show up.) It was interesting to hear Rep Mark Olson tell how the American Cancer Society lobbied him and admitted out right that their goal was to get everyone to quit smoking period. We all knew that was their actual goal and not that of protecting employees health. I'm just amazed they actually admitted it!
Well, the gauntlet has been thrown down. It is time for us to show them we will not put up with them legislating our behaviour, not now or in our future. We have the power and we will use it come this November. There is plenty of time between now and November and as I promised, I will do the research on these legislators and publish it. Everyone will know where these legislators stand and thus who to vote for this coming election. The idea that some of these legislators could care less about the economic hardships they have caused us just BURNS me! These people don't represent us....they have their own agenda and must go! I would lay odds these same legislators want to take more freedom and personal choices away from us...I will find out. Do they really think that WE,THE PEOPLE will not hold them accountable for their actions? Do they think since the session has ended that they are safe? Well, they're not too smart are they!
Enough is Enough and they will find that out!
SF2809 & HF1825
Bill: Smoking in a nonsmoking hotel room penalty increased, and civil and criminal penalties imposed.
Senate Authors: Dibble; Dille; Higgins; Foley
House Authors: Kahn; Bly; Abeler; Jaros
Health
Smoking ban stays Published (5/17/2008)
An attempt to overturn the state smoking ban was snuffed out by the House.
While debating a bill that would provide a civil process for recovery of costs, a service charge and a civil penalty against an individual who smokes in a designated non-smoking hotel room, Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) unsuccessfully offered an amendment to repeal the smoking ban enacted by the 2007 Legislature.
The attempt was ruled not germane by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar), who was presiding over the body at the time, and upheld on an 86-48 vote among House members.
The House passed the bill 94-39; the Senate did so 46-16 May 13.
Current law provides that a person who smokes in a hotel sleeping room designated as “non-smoking” may be convicted of a petty misdemeanor for the offense, and may be required to reimburse the innkeeper for the actual costs to restore the room to its pre-violation condition, up to $100.
Sponsored by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Mpls) and Sen. D. Scott Dibble (DFL-Mpls), HF1825/SF2809* also removes the cap and enable to hotel to recover the entire actual cost of restoring a damaged room to its pre-violation condition.
link : http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?yearid=2008&storyid=1466
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Theater Night Update 5-21-08
Time for another update. Robert (Bullseye Saloon) is working with the lawyer on the injunction case, it is not DEAD. As a reminder, this Friday at 1:00 PM (St. Louis County Courthouse in Virginia) is the ticket case against Tom (Tanks in Babbit). Mark Benjamin will be defending this case and I will be in attendance also.
I would like to share some e-mails with you all that I have received from CONCERNED citizens. I have copied them below along with 2 articles that I picked up from the Force's website http://forces.org/News_Portal/ . Forces is such a great website, I would encourage you all to visit and keep up to date with whats going on in the world. In case you haven't heard, I just wanted to mention the article that Greg posted on the www.freedomtoact.com website " County: Smokers need not apply" .
People - This is not over, as a matter of fact, it has just begun. The legislators decided not to address the smoking ban issue this session, regardless of the hardships that it has caused for small "mom & pop" establishments, VFW's, Legions, employees, distributors, vendors, entertainers, charities, and etc.... This fall some of them will regret their decision. I will be putting together information on these legislators and distributing it so that all of you know where they stand....you can take this information to the voting booth with you! WE WILL BE HEARD!
Sheila, Mark, Robert
E-Mail from Angie
Sheila,
First of all- I am so behind in personal email, it's sad! But yesterday I spent some time reading through a bunch of your messages. I think I know why I don't like reading them- they just get me more and more upset. What bothers me the most, more than the smoking ban, is the bigger issue of how new laws are beginning to crop up. I loved the term "Nanny Laws", it very accurately describes what is going on- people creating laws to protect adults from themselves. That is a very condescending term to use in relation to adults- who, by every definition, are responsible for their own actions (i.e. choices)!
In my mind, the battle is about our rights as US citizens, not specifically about smoking. The best way to rally people, are to focus on that big issue- and try to keep the smoking bans as just one component of many. I would imagine, many advocates of the ban, are just not thinking of the big picture, because all they think of is their own preference to not be around smoke. The smoking issue creates such passion, it clouds peoples' ability to see the overarching issue.
I think you've done a nice job of keeping that component in your messages- keep it up!
Anyways, on to my idea. I was trying to think- why is it so hard to vote out those who don't support freedom of choice, and vote in those that do. Because, it's really hard to know what people stand for. Our incumbents that go for re-election have a voting record we can use, but how can you be sure you don't vote one out, only to get the same thing with your new person?
So here's my idea- a little rough- What if there was a way to contact all "new" candidates who will be appearing on our 2008 ballots (from small city to large state elections), and ask a simple question like... In light of the recent law passing a state-wide smoking ban, how would you vote for an appeal of this law? And, how do you feel about other recent bill proposals that discuss proposals to fight obesity and alcohol consumption, by creating laws to protect people from .... themselves?
If you could compile a list of candidates, their responses, who supports the ban, and who would fight to overturn it, maybe it would be helpful for all of us as voters. I can see myself taking it in to the polls with me!
Ideally, you'd want to see something documented- in writing for example. I could even see it making statewide news.
So there's my idea, maybe something already exists, but if it doesn't maybe something a large group of people can gather around and complete this summer.
Thanks for listening to my rambling! Have a wonderful weekend,
~Angie
E-Mail from David
Dear Sheila,
I appreciate all that you, your group and legal representative are doing to fight the smoking ban. I was disappointed but not surprised that a temporary injunction was issued. I know that you are all trying to keep a positive attitude and took some solace in the fact the judge commented on an acceptable way to conduct these 'performances'. The problem, I believe, is that this is only a gimmick and that the state can and will change this loophole quickly and much effort and resources will be lost.
I ask you and your group to please consider another approach. This issue is not about one bar fighting a battle over a loophole, it is exponentially larger than that. This issue affects a vast amount of restaurant and lounge property owners. It affects liquor vendors, suppliers, employees, and most importantly the general public who would wish to perform a legal activity on private property with like-minded people. This goes beyond the borders of our state, as adjoining states now face cross-over problems caused by this Minnesota smoking ban.
I was recently on a trip and stopped in an Applebee's Restaurant in Kansas. When the hostess asked me if I wanted "smoking or non-smoking" I was thrilled. I said, "You mean I can eat, drink and smoke here all at the same time and be human?" She smiled and said yes. I proposed to her and asked if I could stay forever. She laughed and said she didn't get that reaction often.
The point is, how far has the government gone in over zealous action to control our lives 'for our own good' without us doing anything or noticing? Two years ago would you have bet a simple dinner out with a drink and cigarette would be better than winning the lottery? I think not!
Here are my suggestions:
1. Never for a moment forget that the state and these zealots care NOTHING about your health. It is ALL about power and control, and this is only the beginning.
2. Build your base of concerned citizens, restaurant and lounge owners, vendors, suppliers, workers and patrons. Expand beyond our borders to reach the cross-over affected parties.
3. Set up a new fund to properly challenge this issue at the core - Constitutional rights of freedom of association, freedom of choice, illegal taking of property rights, illegal taking of legal capitalistic commerce. This new contact list could easily grow to 10,000 interested entities.
4. I would be the first to make a $100. per month commitment to contribute until we win. That could easily generate a million dollars a month.
5. Get a legal team to take the offensive. WE get an injunction against the state. We fight until our legal rights have been restored and protected.
6. Let us not forget the fight on the other front: The state is illegally spending the tobacco settlement money, obtained under the specious argument it was intended to supplement the health care for smokers.
We can do this. We must do this. I do not wish to live in Russia, China or North Korea. I want to live in the United States of America, where millions have sacrificed to secure the FREEDOM guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, discussed extensively in the Federalist Papers, and permanently set into law by our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I urge you to share this communication with all interested parties so we may consolidate and fight for our rights and freedom's together.
David S. Gageby
Tackle obesity like smoking: researcher
Wed May 14, 2008 8:02pm IST
By Michael Kahn
GENEVA (Reuters) - Tackling the global obesity epidemic will require governments to take similar action to that many used to curb smoking, a top researcher said on Wednesday.
This could include regulations that restrict how companies market "junk" food to children and requirements for schools to serve healthy meals, said Professor Boyd Swinburn, a public health researcher who works with the World Health Organisation.
"The brakes on the obesity epidemic need to be policy-led and governments need to take centre stage," Swinburn, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia, told Reuters at the 2008 European Congress on Obesity.
"Governments have to lead the way they did with the tobacco epidemic. We need hard-hitting messages."
Action is urgent because, aside from sub-Saharan Africa, nearly every country has suffered a dramatic rise in the number of obese people in the past 30 years. That increase has likely been a tripling in many industrialized nations, he said.
The World Health Organisation classifies around 400 million people around the world as obese, 20 million of them children under the age of five.
Obesity raises the risk of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart problems, and is a problem that is piling pressure on already overburdened national health systems.
Swinburn says the food industry has largely driven the epidemic with a stream of processed products that are cheaper and better-tasting but filled with unhealthy ingredients.
(To read the rest of the article click here http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINL1481626820080514 )
label --
Story--
-- --
‘World no liquor day on Oct 2’
Ads By Google
Sanchita Sharma, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, May 18, 2008
First Published: 02:22 IST(18/5/2008)
Last Updated: 02:24 IST(18/5/2008
India has formally requested the World Health Organisation to declare October 2 — Mahatma Gandhi's birthday — as World No Alcohol Day and introduce global restrictions on alcohol sale, advertising and consumption, similar to those against tobacco. If that happens, international flights may have to stop serving alcohol and pubs would turn into salad bars.
“We have written to the WHO director general Dr Margaret Chan requesting her to enact a law against alcohol similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that has the global mandate to counter tobacco use and reduce its deadly toll. Alcohol is as bad for people as tobacco, so the restrictions should be the same,” says Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, who lately included alcohol in his list of things healthy India can do without.
“Along with junk food and smoking, alcohol is a leading cause of avoidable death and accidents. I know some people resent my speaking on these issues, but if I as health minister can't talk about them, who can?” says Ramadoss, raising fears that similar restrictions would next be imposed on chips and colas.
The Indian delegation will further raise the issue and lobby for support at the week-long World Health Assembly in Geneva beginning May 19, which has a special session on strategies to reduce the harmful use of alcohol.
About 2 billion people worldwide consume alcohol, which causes 1.8 million deaths a year, which represents 3.2 per cent of all deaths worldwide. According to WHO, accidents related to alcohol consumption account for roughly a third of alcohol deaths.
A study by Bangalore-based NIMHANS has shown the average age of initiation has reduced from 28 years during the 1980s to 20 years. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3, 2007), 32 per cent adults are current alcohol users and between 4 and 13 per cent have alcohol daily. The proportion of alcohol consumption among rural and urban India is very similar.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=b69cc44c-9654-4eda-a39c-a3af270421d9&&Headline=%e2%80%98World+no+liquor+day+on+Oct+2%e2%80%99
I would like to share some e-mails with you all that I have received from CONCERNED citizens. I have copied them below along with 2 articles that I picked up from the Force's website http://forces.org/News_Portal/ . Forces is such a great website, I would encourage you all to visit and keep up to date with whats going on in the world. In case you haven't heard, I just wanted to mention the article that Greg posted on the www.freedomtoact.com website " County: Smokers need not apply" .
People - This is not over, as a matter of fact, it has just begun. The legislators decided not to address the smoking ban issue this session, regardless of the hardships that it has caused for small "mom & pop" establishments, VFW's, Legions, employees, distributors, vendors, entertainers, charities, and etc.... This fall some of them will regret their decision. I will be putting together information on these legislators and distributing it so that all of you know where they stand....you can take this information to the voting booth with you! WE WILL BE HEARD!
Sheila, Mark, Robert
E-Mail from Angie
Sheila,
First of all- I am so behind in personal email, it's sad! But yesterday I spent some time reading through a bunch of your messages. I think I know why I don't like reading them- they just get me more and more upset. What bothers me the most, more than the smoking ban, is the bigger issue of how new laws are beginning to crop up. I loved the term "Nanny Laws", it very accurately describes what is going on- people creating laws to protect adults from themselves. That is a very condescending term to use in relation to adults- who, by every definition, are responsible for their own actions (i.e. choices)!
In my mind, the battle is about our rights as US citizens, not specifically about smoking. The best way to rally people, are to focus on that big issue- and try to keep the smoking bans as just one component of many. I would imagine, many advocates of the ban, are just not thinking of the big picture, because all they think of is their own preference to not be around smoke. The smoking issue creates such passion, it clouds peoples' ability to see the overarching issue.
I think you've done a nice job of keeping that component in your messages- keep it up!
Anyways, on to my idea. I was trying to think- why is it so hard to vote out those who don't support freedom of choice, and vote in those that do. Because, it's really hard to know what people stand for. Our incumbents that go for re-election have a voting record we can use, but how can you be sure you don't vote one out, only to get the same thing with your new person?
So here's my idea- a little rough- What if there was a way to contact all "new" candidates who will be appearing on our 2008 ballots (from small city to large state elections), and ask a simple question like... In light of the recent law passing a state-wide smoking ban, how would you vote for an appeal of this law? And, how do you feel about other recent bill proposals that discuss proposals to fight obesity and alcohol consumption, by creating laws to protect people from .... themselves?
If you could compile a list of candidates, their responses, who supports the ban, and who would fight to overturn it, maybe it would be helpful for all of us as voters. I can see myself taking it in to the polls with me!
Ideally, you'd want to see something documented- in writing for example. I could even see it making statewide news.
So there's my idea, maybe something already exists, but if it doesn't maybe something a large group of people can gather around and complete this summer.
Thanks for listening to my rambling! Have a wonderful weekend,
~Angie
E-Mail from David
Dear Sheila,
I appreciate all that you, your group and legal representative are doing to fight the smoking ban. I was disappointed but not surprised that a temporary injunction was issued. I know that you are all trying to keep a positive attitude and took some solace in the fact the judge commented on an acceptable way to conduct these 'performances'. The problem, I believe, is that this is only a gimmick and that the state can and will change this loophole quickly and much effort and resources will be lost.
I ask you and your group to please consider another approach. This issue is not about one bar fighting a battle over a loophole, it is exponentially larger than that. This issue affects a vast amount of restaurant and lounge property owners. It affects liquor vendors, suppliers, employees, and most importantly the general public who would wish to perform a legal activity on private property with like-minded people. This goes beyond the borders of our state, as adjoining states now face cross-over problems caused by this Minnesota smoking ban.
I was recently on a trip and stopped in an Applebee's Restaurant in Kansas. When the hostess asked me if I wanted "smoking or non-smoking" I was thrilled. I said, "You mean I can eat, drink and smoke here all at the same time and be human?" She smiled and said yes. I proposed to her and asked if I could stay forever. She laughed and said she didn't get that reaction often.
The point is, how far has the government gone in over zealous action to control our lives 'for our own good' without us doing anything or noticing? Two years ago would you have bet a simple dinner out with a drink and cigarette would be better than winning the lottery? I think not!
Here are my suggestions:
1. Never for a moment forget that the state and these zealots care NOTHING about your health. It is ALL about power and control, and this is only the beginning.
2. Build your base of concerned citizens, restaurant and lounge owners, vendors, suppliers, workers and patrons. Expand beyond our borders to reach the cross-over affected parties.
3. Set up a new fund to properly challenge this issue at the core - Constitutional rights of freedom of association, freedom of choice, illegal taking of property rights, illegal taking of legal capitalistic commerce. This new contact list could easily grow to 10,000 interested entities.
4. I would be the first to make a $100. per month commitment to contribute until we win. That could easily generate a million dollars a month.
5. Get a legal team to take the offensive. WE get an injunction against the state. We fight until our legal rights have been restored and protected.
6. Let us not forget the fight on the other front: The state is illegally spending the tobacco settlement money, obtained under the specious argument it was intended to supplement the health care for smokers.
We can do this. We must do this. I do not wish to live in Russia, China or North Korea. I want to live in the United States of America, where millions have sacrificed to secure the FREEDOM guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, discussed extensively in the Federalist Papers, and permanently set into law by our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I urge you to share this communication with all interested parties so we may consolidate and fight for our rights and freedom's together.
David S. Gageby
Tackle obesity like smoking: researcher
Wed May 14, 2008 8:02pm IST
By Michael Kahn
GENEVA (Reuters) - Tackling the global obesity epidemic will require governments to take similar action to that many used to curb smoking, a top researcher said on Wednesday.
This could include regulations that restrict how companies market "junk" food to children and requirements for schools to serve healthy meals, said Professor Boyd Swinburn, a public health researcher who works with the World Health Organisation.
"The brakes on the obesity epidemic need to be policy-led and governments need to take centre stage," Swinburn, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia, told Reuters at the 2008 European Congress on Obesity.
"Governments have to lead the way they did with the tobacco epidemic. We need hard-hitting messages."
Action is urgent because, aside from sub-Saharan Africa, nearly every country has suffered a dramatic rise in the number of obese people in the past 30 years. That increase has likely been a tripling in many industrialized nations, he said.
The World Health Organisation classifies around 400 million people around the world as obese, 20 million of them children under the age of five.
Obesity raises the risk of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart problems, and is a problem that is piling pressure on already overburdened national health systems.
Swinburn says the food industry has largely driven the epidemic with a stream of processed products that are cheaper and better-tasting but filled with unhealthy ingredients.
(To read the rest of the article click here http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINL1481626820080514 )
label --
Story--
-- --
‘World no liquor day on Oct 2’
Ads By Google
Sanchita Sharma, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, May 18, 2008
First Published: 02:22 IST(18/5/2008)
Last Updated: 02:24 IST(18/5/2008
India has formally requested the World Health Organisation to declare October 2 — Mahatma Gandhi's birthday — as World No Alcohol Day and introduce global restrictions on alcohol sale, advertising and consumption, similar to those against tobacco. If that happens, international flights may have to stop serving alcohol and pubs would turn into salad bars.
“We have written to the WHO director general Dr Margaret Chan requesting her to enact a law against alcohol similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that has the global mandate to counter tobacco use and reduce its deadly toll. Alcohol is as bad for people as tobacco, so the restrictions should be the same,” says Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, who lately included alcohol in his list of things healthy India can do without.
“Along with junk food and smoking, alcohol is a leading cause of avoidable death and accidents. I know some people resent my speaking on these issues, but if I as health minister can't talk about them, who can?” says Ramadoss, raising fears that similar restrictions would next be imposed on chips and colas.
The Indian delegation will further raise the issue and lobby for support at the week-long World Health Assembly in Geneva beginning May 19, which has a special session on strategies to reduce the harmful use of alcohol.
About 2 billion people worldwide consume alcohol, which causes 1.8 million deaths a year, which represents 3.2 per cent of all deaths worldwide. According to WHO, accidents related to alcohol consumption account for roughly a third of alcohol deaths.
A study by Bangalore-based NIMHANS has shown the average age of initiation has reduced from 28 years during the 1980s to 20 years. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3, 2007), 32 per cent adults are current alcohol users and between 4 and 13 per cent have alcohol daily. The proportion of alcohol consumption among rural and urban India is very similar.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=b69cc44c-9654-4eda-a39c-a3af270421d9&&Headline=%e2%80%98World+no+liquor+day+on+Oct+2%e2%80%99
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
It not yet legal to dicriminate against smokers when hiring in Minnesota.
"Red Rant" alert. Greg Lang
First a link to the source article. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
I worked in an "office" or "downtown" enviorment in MN local government before retiring last year. If you consider that more than 6,000 people work in the Hennepin County Government Center you see very few going outside for a smoke. I'd guess that well under 10% of the downtown office" workforce there smokes, but there were always people coming down with major medical problems that didn't smoke. A key factor seemed to be the sedentary nature of the office-desk work. Also, for decades, the "family" or dependent medical coverage costs have increased at double the annual rate of the "individual" coverage. These rates are basically based on past useage. Hennepin County (or for that matter any Minnesota government entity does not offer "gay" domestic partner" benefits so these are in the "individual" coverage group which I noted has half the cost increase of family/dependent coverage.) Hennepin County has a lot of gay and lesbian employees. Beside the HIV related costs this the GLIB group has a disproportionately high number of smokers as does the "individual" coverage people in general. As I said, the cost of individual coverage increased at only half the rate the family/dependent coverage did.
Most county employees who smoke tend to be in the work that involves more physical activity. "Exercise" is not just the gym! Also, those involved in work that is "less sedentary" tend to have workplace injuries other than carpal tunnel syndrome.
The "lost productivity" claims are suspect. Just as the way someone can claim the lost productivity when Brittany Spears gets in the news the lost productivity per cigarette smoked can be theoretically calculated. The so-called "water cooler chatter" in an office is much harder to calculate. I don't want to indict my former employer here they seemed very typical of "downtown office" but working nights most people "burning the midnight oil" that I dealt with said they could get a lot more accomplished because they weren't being distracted.
The article itself had several contradictory claims. "The city argued that each smoker cost taxpayers $4,611 (in 1981 dollars) annually because of medical bill". Say what? 1981 dollars?
I googled a CPI inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
"What cost $4611 in 1981 would cost $11462.19 in 2007. " In a real world that would require almost all medical cost be attributed to smokers. The premiums portion that employees pay don't cost the local taxpayers.
The article also states: "County officials based their decision not to hire smokers in part on a Centers for Disease Control study that said employees who smoke cost their employer about $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses."
Since the study is undated we can assume that it is recent. Note "lost productivity". With the CDC we can assume that it includes the pay and benefits time smoking a cigarette. That said, even with so-called "lost productivity" included it is only one fourth to one third the claimed "medical expense only" cost cited above.
"Some companies even extend the smoking prohibition to spouses of prospective employees."
Behold the future! Greg Lang
Here is the article link again. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
First a link to the source article. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
I worked in an "office" or "downtown" enviorment in MN local government before retiring last year. If you consider that more than 6,000 people work in the Hennepin County Government Center you see very few going outside for a smoke. I'd guess that well under 10% of the downtown office" workforce there smokes, but there were always people coming down with major medical problems that didn't smoke. A key factor seemed to be the sedentary nature of the office-desk work. Also, for decades, the "family" or dependent medical coverage costs have increased at double the annual rate of the "individual" coverage. These rates are basically based on past useage. Hennepin County (or for that matter any Minnesota government entity does not offer "gay" domestic partner" benefits so these are in the "individual" coverage group which I noted has half the cost increase of family/dependent coverage.) Hennepin County has a lot of gay and lesbian employees. Beside the HIV related costs this the GLIB group has a disproportionately high number of smokers as does the "individual" coverage people in general. As I said, the cost of individual coverage increased at only half the rate the family/dependent coverage did.
Most county employees who smoke tend to be in the work that involves more physical activity. "Exercise" is not just the gym! Also, those involved in work that is "less sedentary" tend to have workplace injuries other than carpal tunnel syndrome.
The "lost productivity" claims are suspect. Just as the way someone can claim the lost productivity when Brittany Spears gets in the news the lost productivity per cigarette smoked can be theoretically calculated. The so-called "water cooler chatter" in an office is much harder to calculate. I don't want to indict my former employer here they seemed very typical of "downtown office" but working nights most people "burning the midnight oil" that I dealt with said they could get a lot more accomplished because they weren't being distracted.
The article itself had several contradictory claims. "The city argued that each smoker cost taxpayers $4,611 (in 1981 dollars) annually because of medical bill". Say what? 1981 dollars?
I googled a CPI inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
"What cost $4611 in 1981 would cost $11462.19 in 2007. " In a real world that would require almost all medical cost be attributed to smokers. The premiums portion that employees pay don't cost the local taxpayers.
Also, the article states "The county currently pays about $31 million annually in health benefits for 3,600 employees, or $8,600 per worker." Hmm! We can only infer that employee smoking, presumably away from the work place in offices at least, reults in some yet undescribed contagious disease that "infects" all others in the office since the current dollar $11462.19 cited above is almost $3000 more than the total per employee cost. The cited insurance costs are likely 2007. Hmm!
The article also states: "County officials based their decision not to hire smokers in part on a Centers for Disease Control study that said employees who smoke cost their employer about $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses."
Since the study is undated we can assume that it is recent. Note "lost productivity". With the CDC we can assume that it includes the pay and benefits time smoking a cigarette. That said, even with so-called "lost productivity" included it is only one fourth to one third the claimed "medical expense only" cost cited above.
"Some companies even extend the smoking prohibition to spouses of prospective employees."
Behold the future! Greg Lang
Here is the article link again. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Slow news weekend filler: My 2004 Smoking ban site.
Minneapolis passed a bar smoking ban in 2004 that took effect in March 2005. I registered the domain name "BarSmokingBan.com" to try to organise resistance against the ban. My regular neighborhood bar, then the Poodle Club on East Lake Street in Minneapolis, now http://mcmahonsirishpub.net/ was at least 75% smokers so I anticipated the effect a Minneapolis smoking ban would have. My predictions turned out to be true, even though the Minneapolis ban began when the weather warmed up in the spring 2005.
2004 was, like 2008, a major election year and I hoped to motivate people to use the ban vote as a factor in their voting and to try to get them to vote. The latter was the more important of the two because a high number of the "barflies" while quite knowledgeable on political issues didn't vote or voted reflexively.
The website idea was, to be honest, a flop. It garnered well under 100 hits before the election (that's the same counter at 77 now). This is fewer than http://FreedomToAct.com gets on a slow weekend day.
Most links are now dead. It show that I cared about this issue in the past. Also, it has really "smokey" wallpaper background. I dropped the domain name after the first year. This is common with domain ideas that don't "get traction" Greg Lang
Here is the original page. http://ocrscans.homestead.com/barsmokingban.html
2004 was, like 2008, a major election year and I hoped to motivate people to use the ban vote as a factor in their voting and to try to get them to vote. The latter was the more important of the two because a high number of the "barflies" while quite knowledgeable on political issues didn't vote or voted reflexively.
The website idea was, to be honest, a flop. It garnered well under 100 hits before the election (that's the same counter at 77 now). This is fewer than http://FreedomToAct.com gets on a slow weekend day.
Most links are now dead. It show that I cared about this issue in the past. Also, it has really "smokey" wallpaper background. I dropped the domain name after the first year. This is common with domain ideas that don't "get traction" Greg Lang
Here is the original page. http://ocrscans.homestead.com/barsmokingban.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)