Redrant: 200 posts total on this blog! Greg Lang
Hello Everyone -
It is rather sad to see this type of damage caused by smoking bans. One has to ask, what is this world coming to? The government steps in and bans smoking legal products in almost all venues including private businesses, raises taxes on the product to make it unaffordable to some, socially stigmatizes smokers and then we are faced with the fall out or consequences of their actions. What is wrong with this picture? But perhaps the bigger question is, "Who are they going to attack next?" Something needs to change and that starts with all of us....we cannot be silent any longer....we need to act! We hold the power to elect our government officials so lets use it!
Shawn Gertken and I have been working on vetting the legislators running for the House and it is shaping up real nice. We will have an updated scorecard on them soon. The San Francisco article that Greg posted on his website www.freedomtoact.com is worth reading!
Thanks to the Smokers Club Inc for the articles below.
Sheila
Police Search For Man Who Killed Over Cigarettes
May 5, 2008BALTIMORE (WJZ) ― A woman is murdered over cigarettes. Police are asking for help as they try to catch her killer.
Derek Valcourt reports it happened in Southwest Baltimore over the weekend.
Police say the killer asked the victim and her boyfriend for something and when he didn't get it, he shot her in the head.
A makeshift memorial marks the spot on Brunswick Street where 29-year-old Dawn Shipley fell to the ground after being shot by a killer who, police say, wanted cigarettes.
Family members were left devastated by the tragedy that happened just after 1 a.m. Saturday.
Police say that's when Shipley and her boyfriend were walking home from a corner store and were approached by the man asking for cigarettes.
Dawn refused to hand them over.
"This angered the man. At some point he engaged her verbally, some words were exchanged. He produced a handgun and shot her," said Nicole Monroe with Baltimore City Police.
Shipley died a short time later at Shock Trauma. As friends of the victim and her family are coping with grief, police are now turning to the public for help.
They're asking any witnesses to come forward.
"The person that done this to my niece, if he's any kind of a human being, he would turn hisself in," said a relative.
Dawn's boyfriend, an eyewitness to the crime, is working with detectives to help identify the killer.
Elisa Shipley, the victim's sister-in-law, says she's now worried about Dawn's 9-year-old son Norman who is left grieving the loss of his mother.
"I don't want him to think God took her. God didn't take her. God accepted her, but he didn't take her. Evil took her, it wasn't her time," said Elisa.
Her family says they don't have enough money to cover funeral expenses, so they've set up the Dawn Shipley Memorial Fund. Donations can be made at any Provident Bank Branch.
Anyone with information on the case can remain anonymous and earn some reward money by calling Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-7-LOCKUP.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4274
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Another Update 7-15-08
Hello Everyone -
Just a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in our daily lives. Some people favor national health care but countries that have it are struggling too. Read the article and see how they propose to curb the spiraling costs. Is this what we want or are there other solutions?
Sheila
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
· Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment?
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."
Just a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in our daily lives. Some people favor national health care but countries that have it are struggling too. Read the article and see how they propose to curb the spiraling costs. Is this what we want or are there other solutions?
Sheila
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
· Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment?
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Fw: Theater Night Update 7-13-08
Hello Everyone -
Just a quick update with what is going on in Iowa and Hawaii. Iowa is already feeling the economic impact of their smoking ban as we knew they would. I do have a contact in Iowa and am keeping abreast of the Federal action they are pursuing. You can bet I will not pass up this opportunity for our state to be involved. On the Hawaii front, who is still fighting their smoking ban, they have banded together with other groups to bring their message to the legislators that they will not have their freedoms ripped away from them...actually not a bad idea!
Stay tuned....more updates to follow with our own legislators and their positions on issues.
Sheila
(P.S. Theater nights have not gone away.....just on vacation for now! I'll keep you updated.)
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_185203135.html
COBRA, IBOC file smoking ban petitionBy Danica BakerHerald Staff Writer
CLINTON — The Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant Association and the Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a lawsuit in an effort to get the statewide smoking ban overturned.The lawsuit includes a petition for an immediate injunction, asking the court to put a halt on the smoking ban until a ruling can be made on the law’s constitutionality.“It’s been our belief from the get-go that this law is unconstitutional,” said Jon Van Roekel, president of COBRA. “It’s blatant discrimination against smokers and it’s a property rights issue.”The petition was filed Tuesday evening in Polk County District Court in Des Moines. Van Roekel said the groups are not contesting the casino exemption, because many members feel the exemption will be overturned in the next legislative session.The petition names the Iowa Department of Public Health, IDPH Director Thomas Newton and the State of Iowa as defendants. Attorney George Eichhorn, of Stratford, is representing the plaintiffs in the case. Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC currently are the only two plaintiffs listed on the suit so far. He said more will be added as several organizations have contacted the two groups wanting to be named as parties to the lawsuit.Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC leaders are in the process of hiring a public relations firm out of Washington, D.C., to coordinate the release of information relating to court proceedings. He said the firm also will be responsible for contacting organizations to join in the lawsuit and injunction request as they too will be affected by the court’s decision.“In essence, we are fighting for the rights of every small business in Iowa,” said Van Roekel.He said the lawsuit and injunction request are the first step in getting the ban overturned. He said the groups plan to become more politically active, including putting candidates up for office “that will look out for the interests and rights of the small business owner.” Van Roekel said the final step is making the matter a national issue by pooling the resources of similar organizations throughout the United States and debating the constitutionality of the ban before the U.S. Supreme Court. He said COBRA and IBOC have been in contact with interested parties in nine states and are in the process of contacting many others.Van Roekel said part of the hypocrisy of the law is that small business owners don’t know the rules of the law because legislators haven’t been clear about the regulations and enforcement.“From the start, it’s just been a complete debacle. They needed to be clear, explain what the rules are, how to enforce them, how to handle complaints, who to contact. First, the Iowa Department of Public Health was to enforce this. Then the local police, then it was self-enforcement. First patios were allowed, now they’re not,” he said. “Very few people actually know what the rules are because they’ve changed so many times. All they’ve done is completely confuse the small business owner.”He said an injunction is necessary so legislators can step back and re-examine the issue, determine what is best for citizens and businesses and “go from there.”Van Roekel said local businesses have seen a decrease in revenue just in the first few days the smoking ban has been in effect. He said small business owners in Clinton are telling him that fewer patrons are coming to bars and spending less time there.“They are already seeing effects from this and I think it will only get worse from there,” he said. “The patrons are saying they feel they have been inconvenienced, made to be outcasts.”Van Roekel acknowledged criticism he has received regarding his decision to run against State Rep. Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, for the Iowa House District 26 seat, remarking that some are calling him a “one-issue candidate.”“If I’m a one-issue candidate, it’s not based on fighting the smoking ban, it’s protecting rights,” Van Roekel said. “We live in a free society. The more rights that are taken away, the less free we are.”No date for a hearing on the petition has been set.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/NEWS01/807070348/1001/LOCALNEWSFRONT
Smokers protest state restrictions
Motorcyclists, gun enthusiasts join in rally in front of state Capitol
By Suzanne RoigAdvertiser Staff Writer
As the nation yesterday wound down celebrations recognizing hard-fought freedoms, a group of smokers, gun owners and motorcyclists exercised a constitutional right in front of the state Capitol, waving flags, signs and banners in opposition to the state's ban on smoking.
"It's a question of freedom of choice," said Marty Hill, a bar owner who flew in from the Big Island to join the protest. "We think it's a bar owner's right to choose to be either a nonsmoking or smoking establishment."
A group of about 20 people, from 1 to 3 p.m., protested the nearly 2-year-old old law that bans smoking in businesses, including bars and restaurants — even open-air restaurants — and requires smokers to be at least 20 feet from any public building before lighting up. The law is among the toughest in the nation and was pushed by Hawai'i anti-smoking groups for nearly two decades before it passed — touted as a way to protect people from secondhand smoke.
To comply with the law, Hill posted signs around his Kailua, Kona, bar reminding smokers that the law prohibits smoking in public places, "but if they choose to smoke, here's an ashtray."
State Sen. Roz Baker, D-5th District (South and West Maui), who was the lead sponsor of the bill banning smoking, said that while the protesters had a right to assemble, there is nothing written in the Constitution guaranteeing a person the right to smoke.
"It's a public health issue, not a civil rights issue," Baker said. "There's nothing written in the Constitution that says you can harm your workers' health. I've had so many workers say to me how much they appreciate the fact that they don't have to go home smelling of smoke. I'm glad to talk about this issue anytime."
Jolyn Tenn, of Hawaii Smokers Alliance, held a broom yesterday to illustrate her desire to sweep out lawmakers who voted in favor of the ban. She said the gun enthusiasts and motorcyclists asked to join the protest rally because they feel that helmets, gun laws and smoking bans all impede rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
"At a pub or at the state Capitol, it should be up to the business owner to decide what the policy will be on smoking in his or her own establishment," Tenn said. "The law is discriminatory."
Rick Davis arrived on his sidecar motorcycle in front of the Capitol with about five other cyclist, all wanting to support the smokers.
"I'm a nonsmoker," said Davis, a member of the Worldwide Motorcycle Club. "They have the right to smoke when there's adequate ventilation. I'm a gun enthusiast, and I feel the gun laws in Hawai'i are terrible. The laws impinge on our Second Amendment" rights.
Bill Comerford, Hawai'i Bar Association spokesman, held signs at the protest saying "Let the Owner Decide."
"People should be able to smoke a legal substance in a public or private space," Comerford said. "A lot of bars have lost business because you have to comply with the law."
Reach Suzanne Roig at sroig@honoluluadvertiser.com.
Just a quick update with what is going on in Iowa and Hawaii. Iowa is already feeling the economic impact of their smoking ban as we knew they would. I do have a contact in Iowa and am keeping abreast of the Federal action they are pursuing. You can bet I will not pass up this opportunity for our state to be involved. On the Hawaii front, who is still fighting their smoking ban, they have banded together with other groups to bring their message to the legislators that they will not have their freedoms ripped away from them...actually not a bad idea!
Stay tuned....more updates to follow with our own legislators and their positions on issues.
Sheila
(P.S. Theater nights have not gone away.....just on vacation for now! I'll keep you updated.)
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_185203135.html
COBRA, IBOC file smoking ban petitionBy Danica BakerHerald Staff Writer
CLINTON — The Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant Association and the Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a lawsuit in an effort to get the statewide smoking ban overturned.The lawsuit includes a petition for an immediate injunction, asking the court to put a halt on the smoking ban until a ruling can be made on the law’s constitutionality.“It’s been our belief from the get-go that this law is unconstitutional,” said Jon Van Roekel, president of COBRA. “It’s blatant discrimination against smokers and it’s a property rights issue.”The petition was filed Tuesday evening in Polk County District Court in Des Moines. Van Roekel said the groups are not contesting the casino exemption, because many members feel the exemption will be overturned in the next legislative session.The petition names the Iowa Department of Public Health, IDPH Director Thomas Newton and the State of Iowa as defendants. Attorney George Eichhorn, of Stratford, is representing the plaintiffs in the case. Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC currently are the only two plaintiffs listed on the suit so far. He said more will be added as several organizations have contacted the two groups wanting to be named as parties to the lawsuit.Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC leaders are in the process of hiring a public relations firm out of Washington, D.C., to coordinate the release of information relating to court proceedings. He said the firm also will be responsible for contacting organizations to join in the lawsuit and injunction request as they too will be affected by the court’s decision.“In essence, we are fighting for the rights of every small business in Iowa,” said Van Roekel.He said the lawsuit and injunction request are the first step in getting the ban overturned. He said the groups plan to become more politically active, including putting candidates up for office “that will look out for the interests and rights of the small business owner.” Van Roekel said the final step is making the matter a national issue by pooling the resources of similar organizations throughout the United States and debating the constitutionality of the ban before the U.S. Supreme Court. He said COBRA and IBOC have been in contact with interested parties in nine states and are in the process of contacting many others.Van Roekel said part of the hypocrisy of the law is that small business owners don’t know the rules of the law because legislators haven’t been clear about the regulations and enforcement.“From the start, it’s just been a complete debacle. They needed to be clear, explain what the rules are, how to enforce them, how to handle complaints, who to contact. First, the Iowa Department of Public Health was to enforce this. Then the local police, then it was self-enforcement. First patios were allowed, now they’re not,” he said. “Very few people actually know what the rules are because they’ve changed so many times. All they’ve done is completely confuse the small business owner.”He said an injunction is necessary so legislators can step back and re-examine the issue, determine what is best for citizens and businesses and “go from there.”Van Roekel said local businesses have seen a decrease in revenue just in the first few days the smoking ban has been in effect. He said small business owners in Clinton are telling him that fewer patrons are coming to bars and spending less time there.“They are already seeing effects from this and I think it will only get worse from there,” he said. “The patrons are saying they feel they have been inconvenienced, made to be outcasts.”Van Roekel acknowledged criticism he has received regarding his decision to run against State Rep. Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, for the Iowa House District 26 seat, remarking that some are calling him a “one-issue candidate.”“If I’m a one-issue candidate, it’s not based on fighting the smoking ban, it’s protecting rights,” Van Roekel said. “We live in a free society. The more rights that are taken away, the less free we are.”No date for a hearing on the petition has been set.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/NEWS01/807070348/1001/LOCALNEWSFRONT
Smokers protest state restrictions
Motorcyclists, gun enthusiasts join in rally in front of state Capitol
By Suzanne RoigAdvertiser Staff Writer
As the nation yesterday wound down celebrations recognizing hard-fought freedoms, a group of smokers, gun owners and motorcyclists exercised a constitutional right in front of the state Capitol, waving flags, signs and banners in opposition to the state's ban on smoking.
"It's a question of freedom of choice," said Marty Hill, a bar owner who flew in from the Big Island to join the protest. "We think it's a bar owner's right to choose to be either a nonsmoking or smoking establishment."
A group of about 20 people, from 1 to 3 p.m., protested the nearly 2-year-old old law that bans smoking in businesses, including bars and restaurants — even open-air restaurants — and requires smokers to be at least 20 feet from any public building before lighting up. The law is among the toughest in the nation and was pushed by Hawai'i anti-smoking groups for nearly two decades before it passed — touted as a way to protect people from secondhand smoke.
To comply with the law, Hill posted signs around his Kailua, Kona, bar reminding smokers that the law prohibits smoking in public places, "but if they choose to smoke, here's an ashtray."
State Sen. Roz Baker, D-5th District (South and West Maui), who was the lead sponsor of the bill banning smoking, said that while the protesters had a right to assemble, there is nothing written in the Constitution guaranteeing a person the right to smoke.
"It's a public health issue, not a civil rights issue," Baker said. "There's nothing written in the Constitution that says you can harm your workers' health. I've had so many workers say to me how much they appreciate the fact that they don't have to go home smelling of smoke. I'm glad to talk about this issue anytime."
Jolyn Tenn, of Hawaii Smokers Alliance, held a broom yesterday to illustrate her desire to sweep out lawmakers who voted in favor of the ban. She said the gun enthusiasts and motorcyclists asked to join the protest rally because they feel that helmets, gun laws and smoking bans all impede rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
"At a pub or at the state Capitol, it should be up to the business owner to decide what the policy will be on smoking in his or her own establishment," Tenn said. "The law is discriminatory."
Rick Davis arrived on his sidecar motorcycle in front of the Capitol with about five other cyclist, all wanting to support the smokers.
"I'm a nonsmoker," said Davis, a member of the Worldwide Motorcycle Club. "They have the right to smoke when there's adequate ventilation. I'm a gun enthusiast, and I feel the gun laws in Hawai'i are terrible. The laws impinge on our Second Amendment" rights.
Bill Comerford, Hawai'i Bar Association spokesman, held signs at the protest saying "Let the Owner Decide."
"People should be able to smoke a legal substance in a public or private space," Comerford said. "A lot of bars have lost business because you have to comply with the law."
Reach Suzanne Roig at sroig@honoluluadvertiser.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)