Redrant: I have mixed feelings about lowering the legal age to 18 but the prohibitionist nanny culture is definitely creating a backlash, especially since the prohibitionist see a victory as a springboard to further restrictions. As an example the bar closest to my house is The Rail Station http://www.railstationbarandgrill.com The state smoking ban shut down their smoking caboose. Drinks were not allowed in there, the staff (who made no complaints of secondhand smoke) were "protected" and monitoring was done via camera. There was good signage for the smoking caboose http://www.railstationbarandgrill.com/caboose/index.htm Thus the real goal was to try to make it as difficult as possible for smokers. The same tactic is used by many environmentalists who seem to welcome very high fuel costs despite the devastating affect it has on the "working people" they claim to care about. Greg Lang
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/146/story/234595.html
The drinking age / Can't we even debate it?
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
No wonder many people are afraid to open their mouths and challenge conventional wisdom.
Presidents of about 100 of the nation's best-known universities are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 in an effort to curb dangerous binge drinking on campuses. The group, dubbed the Amethyst Initiative, stops short of asking for a change in the law but wants to open up a debate on the issue.
The response? Mothers Against Drunk Driving is urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on: "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said MADD's national president.
Rowan University President Donald Farish voiced similar sentiments: "I'm disappointed to see college presidents throw in the towel on this issue. On the other hand, I'm happy to see students who drink go to their colleges" and not Rowan, he said.
Please. Can't we even debate this subject? Has it come to the point where people can't even question certain accepted, politically correct beliefs?
');
//-->
It may be true that 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to handle alcohol. And there are many factors to consider when setting the drinking age beside binge drinking - such as the effect on drunken-driving fatalities, for example.
But it's also true that binge drinking on campuses has reached dangerous levels. A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people drank themselves to death from 1999 to 2005. And there are some who believe, right or wrong, that the 21-year-old drinking age exacerbates binge drinking, pushing it into hiding and enhancing the attraction of a forbidden activity. "If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," said one senior at Duke University.
The fact is, the debate about whether the 21-year-old drinking age is appropriate has been going on quietly for some time. These college presidents are simply bringing the issue into the public arena.
"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn.
We agree. Critics can make some convincing and rational points. But we wish they wouldn't vilify the messengers while adjusting their own halos.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
NY Times: Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/health/19well.html?_r=1&ref=health&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
August 19, 2008
Well
Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Often, a visit to the doctor’s office starts with a weigh-in. But is a person’s weight really a reliable indicator of overall health?
Increasingly, medical research is showing that it isn’t. Despite concerns about an obesity epidemic, there is growing evidence that our obsession about weight as a primary measure of health may be misguided.
Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.
At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.
To be sure, being overweight or obese is linked with numerous health problems, and even in the most recent research, obese people were more likely to have two or more cardiovascular risk factors than slim people. But researchers say it is the proportion of overweight and obese people who are metabolically healthy that is so surprising.
“We use ‘overweight’ almost indiscriminately sometimes,” said MaryFran Sowers, a co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. “But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.”
The data follow a report last fall from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute showing that overweight people appear to have longer life expectancies than so-called normal weight adults.
But many people resist the notion that people who are overweight or obese can be healthy. Several prominent health researchers have criticized the findings from the C.D.C. researchers as misleading, noting that mortality statistics don’t reflect the poor quality of life and suffering obesity can cause. And on the Internet, various blog posters, including readers of the Times’s Well blog, have argued that the data are deceptive, masking the fact that far more overweight and obese people are at higher cardiovascular risk than thin people.
Part of the problem may be our skewed perception of what it means to be overweight. Typically, a person is judged to be of normal weight based on body mass index, or B.M.I., which measures weight relative to height. A normal B.M.I. ranges from 18.5 to 25. Once B.M.I. reaches 25, a person is viewed as overweight. Thirty or higher is considered obese.
“People get confused by the words and the mental image they get,” said Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics. “People may think, ‘How could it be that a person who is so huge wouldn’t have health problems?’ But people with B.M.I.’s of 25 are pretty unremarkable.”
Several studies from researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas have shown that fitness — determined by how a person performs on a treadmill — is a far better indicator of health than body mass index. In several studies, the researchers have shown that people who are fat but can still keep up on treadmill tests have much lower heart risk than people who are slim and unfit.
In December, a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association looked at death rates among 2,600 adults 60 and older over 12 years. Notably, death rates among the overweight, those with a B.M.I. of 25 to 30, were slightly lower than in normal weight adults. Death rates were highest among those with a B.M.I. of 35 or more.
But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.
During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.
The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.
Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.
“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”
well@nytimes.com
August 19, 2008
Well
Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Often, a visit to the doctor’s office starts with a weigh-in. But is a person’s weight really a reliable indicator of overall health?
Increasingly, medical research is showing that it isn’t. Despite concerns about an obesity epidemic, there is growing evidence that our obsession about weight as a primary measure of health may be misguided.
Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.
At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.
To be sure, being overweight or obese is linked with numerous health problems, and even in the most recent research, obese people were more likely to have two or more cardiovascular risk factors than slim people. But researchers say it is the proportion of overweight and obese people who are metabolically healthy that is so surprising.
“We use ‘overweight’ almost indiscriminately sometimes,” said MaryFran Sowers, a co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. “But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.”
The data follow a report last fall from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute showing that overweight people appear to have longer life expectancies than so-called normal weight adults.
But many people resist the notion that people who are overweight or obese can be healthy. Several prominent health researchers have criticized the findings from the C.D.C. researchers as misleading, noting that mortality statistics don’t reflect the poor quality of life and suffering obesity can cause. And on the Internet, various blog posters, including readers of the Times’s Well blog, have argued that the data are deceptive, masking the fact that far more overweight and obese people are at higher cardiovascular risk than thin people.
Part of the problem may be our skewed perception of what it means to be overweight. Typically, a person is judged to be of normal weight based on body mass index, or B.M.I., which measures weight relative to height. A normal B.M.I. ranges from 18.5 to 25. Once B.M.I. reaches 25, a person is viewed as overweight. Thirty or higher is considered obese.
“People get confused by the words and the mental image they get,” said Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics. “People may think, ‘How could it be that a person who is so huge wouldn’t have health problems?’ But people with B.M.I.’s of 25 are pretty unremarkable.”
Several studies from researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas have shown that fitness — determined by how a person performs on a treadmill — is a far better indicator of health than body mass index. In several studies, the researchers have shown that people who are fat but can still keep up on treadmill tests have much lower heart risk than people who are slim and unfit.
In December, a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association looked at death rates among 2,600 adults 60 and older over 12 years. Notably, death rates among the overweight, those with a B.M.I. of 25 to 30, were slightly lower than in normal weight adults. Death rates were highest among those with a B.M.I. of 35 or more.
But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.
During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.
The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.
Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.
“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”
well@nytimes.com
Monday, August 18, 2008
Houston, TX No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2008/08/smoking_ban_houston_west_u.php
No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM
With the passing of Houston’s smoking ban last year, smokers in the Village area were driven to a single sanctuary, a bar that harkens back to a simpler time when frat boys were frat boys and everyone’s hair smelled like cigarettes after a good night out. Location is everything at Marquis II, a windowless watering hole near Bissonnet and Kirby that sits just inside the West University city limits.
And for the unfamiliar, here’s a quick list of things West U doesn’t have: more than one bar, cops that won’t pull you over at night if you’re black or driving a shitty car, and a smoking ban that extends past restaurants.
And it looks like things are going to say that way. The West University Examiner reported the City Council was considering revising its smoking ordinance to include bars, but City Manager Michael Ross tells Hair Balls that at Monday’s meeting it became clear no one really cares if patrons of Marquis II light up.
“Council did discuss it, and there was no interest in changing the ordinance. There is no further ban being considered that would affect bars,” Ross said.
(This may make the Marquis II the last bar inside the Loop to allow smoking, but we can't be sure.)
Marquis II’s bar manager, who goes only by Al, was present at the meeting and says keeping the smokers inside is in everyone’s best interest.
“We would have had to make a smoking area for our patrons. We have neighbors right up next to us in the back – I was more concerned with their privacy. I’d have my customers outside, so it would have been noisy till 2 a.m.,” he says.
Al attributes healthy business on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays to the bar’s unique situation. (Two-dollar Long Island iced teas get all the credit for Tuesday’s crowds.)
“The bar business has pretty much seen a decline,” he says. “Once they took the smoking away, people pretty much only go out on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays now. They’ll head to Midtown, they’ll head to the Heights, the new bars. But we’ve been able to maintain a steady week, which I’ll take.”
So to any self-righteous pink-lungers in the Village scene: Take that faux-cough to the next town over, and let the smokers enjoy this rare break.
-- Blake Whitaker
No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM
With the passing of Houston’s smoking ban last year, smokers in the Village area were driven to a single sanctuary, a bar that harkens back to a simpler time when frat boys were frat boys and everyone’s hair smelled like cigarettes after a good night out. Location is everything at Marquis II, a windowless watering hole near Bissonnet and Kirby that sits just inside the West University city limits.
And for the unfamiliar, here’s a quick list of things West U doesn’t have: more than one bar, cops that won’t pull you over at night if you’re black or driving a shitty car, and a smoking ban that extends past restaurants.
And it looks like things are going to say that way. The West University Examiner reported the City Council was considering revising its smoking ordinance to include bars, but City Manager Michael Ross tells Hair Balls that at Monday’s meeting it became clear no one really cares if patrons of Marquis II light up.
“Council did discuss it, and there was no interest in changing the ordinance. There is no further ban being considered that would affect bars,” Ross said.
(This may make the Marquis II the last bar inside the Loop to allow smoking, but we can't be sure.)
Marquis II’s bar manager, who goes only by Al, was present at the meeting and says keeping the smokers inside is in everyone’s best interest.
“We would have had to make a smoking area for our patrons. We have neighbors right up next to us in the back – I was more concerned with their privacy. I’d have my customers outside, so it would have been noisy till 2 a.m.,” he says.
Al attributes healthy business on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays to the bar’s unique situation. (Two-dollar Long Island iced teas get all the credit for Tuesday’s crowds.)
“The bar business has pretty much seen a decline,” he says. “Once they took the smoking away, people pretty much only go out on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays now. They’ll head to Midtown, they’ll head to the Heights, the new bars. But we’ve been able to maintain a steady week, which I’ll take.”
So to any self-righteous pink-lungers in the Village scene: Take that faux-cough to the next town over, and let the smokers enjoy this rare break.
-- Blake Whitaker
Jim Tiseth Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Greg- Could you post this flyer on your website. Cheater passed away...he was a member of the 4-on-the-floor band that volunteered their time and played for free at the "Bullseye's" fundraiser that Robert had to raise money for the attorney fees for "theater night".
http://presslord.com/cheat.pdf
Jim Tiseth
Cheater SlickMemorialBenefit
Jim Tiseth
Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Sunday, Aug. 24th 2:00pm-Close
at Minnesota Music Cafe
499 Payne Ave.
St. Paul MN
651 776-4699
http://www.minnesotamusiccafe.com/
Entertainment By;
Rocking Hollywoods
4 on the Floor
Chain Lightning
Cheater Slick Band reunion
Party Army Free Fallin
Pearl
Show
Me Yours reunion
Knights of Rock-n-Roll
Send donations to:
Cheater Memorial Fund
c/o Northview Bank
8132 Co. Hwy 61
Willow River Mn 55795
http://presslord.com/cheat.pdf
Jim Tiseth
Cheater SlickMemorialBenefit
Jim Tiseth
Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Sunday, Aug. 24th 2:00pm-Close
at Minnesota Music Cafe
499 Payne Ave.
St. Paul MN
651 776-4699
http://www.minnesotamusiccafe.com/
Entertainment By;
Rocking Hollywoods
4 on the Floor
Chain Lightning
Cheater Slick Band reunion
Party Army Free Fallin
Pearl
Show
Me Yours reunion
Knights of Rock-n-Roll
Send donations to:
Cheater Memorial Fund
c/o Northview Bank
8132 Co. Hwy 61
Willow River Mn 55795
Can We Post: That slippery slope......the fat people are next!
WA schools full of food 'junkies'
Article from: PerthNow
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24153041-2761,00.html
Paul Lampathakis, eduacation reporter
August 09, 2008 05:00pm
CHILDREN are defying a junk-food ban in school canteens by smuggling in fattening snacks and selling them to classmates.Frustrated teachers reveal they are powerless to stop many children who bring unhealthy treats from home in their bags. ``I've even seen them selling chocolates to their classmates at school. It's almost like they're dealing drugs,'' said a teacher from a prominent Perth southern suburbs public school. Education Minister Mark McGowan conceded he could not halt the junk-food flood, even though the Government stopped it from being sold in canteens last year. ``What students bring to school in their lunchboxes is not covered by the canteen policy,'' he said. ``And we can't police what foods children bring to school. If teachers notice a particular child selling junk food on the side, I encourage them to alert the school principal. ``We as a Government can only do so much. It is important parents keep a close eye on their child or children to make sure they are doing the right thing.'' Obesity was a serious issue, which was why the Carpenter Government required all public school canteens or food services to have healthy menus, Mr McGowan said. A healthy canteen menu, combined with the required two hours of exercise a week for Years One to 10, were great initiatives. ``But parents also need to come on board in the fight against obesity. This is not the sole responsibility of the Government,'' he said. Rob Fry, president of peak parent group the WA Council of State School Organisations, said parents should realise they were ``killing their kids'' with bad food. They should pack healthy lunches, or pre-pay for canteen meals, so children had no cash for junk. WA State School Teachers Union general secretary David Kelly said teachers could contact parents if they were concerned about certain students. But parents and schools had to work together to address obesity. The southern suburbs teacher said: ``When they banned junk food from canteens it came back into school with a vengeance. They just started bringing their own from home, like chips and chocolates. ``I'd love to be able to confiscate it. But we're not allowed to take food off kids because they can just say `mum gave me this for lunch'.'' Another southern suburbs teacher said: ``Most teachers I know are all for the ban. But there's no use having a ban if you can't stop them from bringing it to school. ``Some kids are selling it to their mates, which would be funny if our kids weren't so fat. ``But you can't really say anything to your students these days. They swear at us in the classroom and get away with it, so this would be hard to stop.'' Another teacher said healthy canteen food had great potential to help children who weren't getting good food at home and it was a pity the situation had deteriorated to this. Canteens have a ``traffic light'' system banning ``red'' items such as soft drinks, confectionery, deep-fried foods, chips, chocolate coated ice-creams and cakes.
Article from: PerthNow
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24153041-2761,00.html
Paul Lampathakis, eduacation reporter
August 09, 2008 05:00pm
CHILDREN are defying a junk-food ban in school canteens by smuggling in fattening snacks and selling them to classmates.Frustrated teachers reveal they are powerless to stop many children who bring unhealthy treats from home in their bags. ``I've even seen them selling chocolates to their classmates at school. It's almost like they're dealing drugs,'' said a teacher from a prominent Perth southern suburbs public school. Education Minister Mark McGowan conceded he could not halt the junk-food flood, even though the Government stopped it from being sold in canteens last year. ``What students bring to school in their lunchboxes is not covered by the canteen policy,'' he said. ``And we can't police what foods children bring to school. If teachers notice a particular child selling junk food on the side, I encourage them to alert the school principal. ``We as a Government can only do so much. It is important parents keep a close eye on their child or children to make sure they are doing the right thing.'' Obesity was a serious issue, which was why the Carpenter Government required all public school canteens or food services to have healthy menus, Mr McGowan said. A healthy canteen menu, combined with the required two hours of exercise a week for Years One to 10, were great initiatives. ``But parents also need to come on board in the fight against obesity. This is not the sole responsibility of the Government,'' he said. Rob Fry, president of peak parent group the WA Council of State School Organisations, said parents should realise they were ``killing their kids'' with bad food. They should pack healthy lunches, or pre-pay for canteen meals, so children had no cash for junk. WA State School Teachers Union general secretary David Kelly said teachers could contact parents if they were concerned about certain students. But parents and schools had to work together to address obesity. The southern suburbs teacher said: ``When they banned junk food from canteens it came back into school with a vengeance. They just started bringing their own from home, like chips and chocolates. ``I'd love to be able to confiscate it. But we're not allowed to take food off kids because they can just say `mum gave me this for lunch'.'' Another southern suburbs teacher said: ``Most teachers I know are all for the ban. But there's no use having a ban if you can't stop them from bringing it to school. ``Some kids are selling it to their mates, which would be funny if our kids weren't so fat. ``But you can't really say anything to your students these days. They swear at us in the classroom and get away with it, so this would be hard to stop.'' Another teacher said healthy canteen food had great potential to help children who weren't getting good food at home and it was a pity the situation had deteriorated to this. Canteens have a ``traffic light'' system banning ``red'' items such as soft drinks, confectionery, deep-fried foods, chips, chocolate coated ice-creams and cakes.
Theater Night Update 8-15-08
Hello Everyone -
I am not sure if you aware that Wisconsin is fighting for their liberties (i.e. smoking ban). They have a website www.banthebanwisconsin.com that has a lot of information. As a matter of fact, the www.banthebanminnesota.com website was modeled after theirs. Anyways, below is a look at "insider information" (i.e. the anti's). Take a look at the e-mails....this is how they work behind the scenes to accomplish their goal of "smoking bans".
Don't forget to check out the www.freedomtoact.com website...Greg has posted some interesting articles:
-Cigerette Tax Burnout
-Update on $50 refundable campaign donation
-TLM update 8-8-08
-Nanny Nation from NYT
-and more
Anyone that wants to use their refundable campaign donation, please contact me. There are many good candidates running this year that could use your/our help....candidates that support private property rights!
Sheila
A Look Behind the Scenes of How the Anti's Work (Insider Information)
Ryan over at Ban the Ban Wisconsin compiled a list of emails he was able to obtain through the use of open records requests. They are from the time periods immediately prior to several cities in Wisconsin passing their bans. Take a read (Ryan's comments are in italics):
Eau Claire
From an email dated 3/4/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Eau Clare city council member Bob Von Haden regarding Julian of the Eau Claire Leader Telegram
"I have talked to Julian. He is OK to talk to now. He will not publish his story until next week, probably on Thursday next week. He knows that you and Hal and I are on board. He is strictly keeping this off the record and will respect our request.
While we have had nothing but trouble with the media, it seems that where the ban is concerned, the local media is very congenial and useful.
From an email dated 3/5/08 from Smoke Free WI to Eau Claire city council members regarding a planned press conference
"I'm planning on being there in person in Monday, as well as Sarah Sahli from the American Cancer Society. I will ask Anita and Julie to help turn out some supporters to fill the room. I will also reach out to Town Hall attendees and make sure they know about the press conference."
Sounds like Smoke Free WI is going to be stocking the press conference. A good question to ask, and perhaps an answer we may never get, is if the Tavern League or any other ban opponents had advance warning or an opportunity to stock the conference? Was this a fair cross-section of the community?
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Smoke Free WI
"Liz, Thank you and your media partners so much for doing all of this work. We truly appreciate this! Without the resources of Smoke Free Wisconsin, the American Cancer Society of WI, the Lung Association of WI, and WISPIRG, we could not hope to counter the efforts of the Tavern League and big tobacco interests... Based on reliable reports I have received as of today, the Eau Claire city council appears to already have sufficient support to pass the Eau Claire Clean Air Ordinance (ECCAo)... However we must step up our efforts to get testimony at the hearing march 24, and letters, emails and calls to our city council members to adopt the ECCAo. I have no doubt that we could achieve a strong vote for ECCAo, which would send a strong message to Madison (the state Senate) to act on SB150."
Looks to me like there was a whole lot of support from outside the Eau Claire community. Additionally, it looks like these ources are working to push from the outside, further drawing into question the "for the community" argument. What is also interesting is the fact that at no point does Mr. Daux mention the health or well-being of the community while he does mention sending a message to Madison.
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Smoke Free WI and Flaherty PR
"Mike and Liz, Below see the email to the city council from Bonnie Harper, President of the Eau Claire County Tavern League. Although some of her arguments are pretty poor, could you prepare some written point-by-point responses to the arguments for our city council members? We could have them in a 'truth packet.'"
So Bonnie Harper has made some points that Dave Daux can't successfully counter himself, so he's recruiting outside help. He is also interested in doing some damage control here by preempting the rest of the city council.
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Bonnie Harper
"... In closing, let me say that I respect your opinion. The council will have a chance to hear your thoughts at the public hearing on March 24. Both sides should be heard, and the city council can and will discuss the facts and opinions offered."
Need I point out the irony here? Prior to telling Bonnie that he respects her opinion and that the council will hear both sides, Mr. Daux has already contacted Smoke Free WI and Flahrety PR to help discredit her opinions and spread the word to the rest of the city council via a "truth packet." Get the idea that he's working to stack the deck against Ms. harper before she even gets a chance?
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"I'm working to create a TV ad to promote the smoke free workplace legislation. We must get on the airwaves to counter the negative spin the tavern league is working on right now.However, to put this ad on the air, I need to raise $2,000. The ad can be on the air by THIS Saturday and run for the next two weeks. Can I count on you and your supporters to help me raise this money?"
We are bothered by the idea that a city council member is trying to raise money through Smoke Free Wisconsin to run pro-ban commercials to counter the Tavern League.
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"Do you have a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of people I could contact to donate to my re-election campaign to pay for a $2,000 TV ad for this legislation, or would you be willing to contact people personally? They don't have to live in Eau Claire; they just need to be willing to support the effort in Eau Claire."
Again, this guy is trying to raise money from outside Eau Claire to influence Eau Claire legislation. There's something very disturbing about this and something that should raise alarm in Eau Claire.
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"Even if you are not interested in helping with the financing of a TV ad, I still need help locating a cancer surviver who is willing to go on TV and give a testimony. And I need that ASAP. I can shoot the commercial TOMORROW if I have the person.If no one is willing to help me foot the bill, I will just go in debt $2,000 and tell Studio One I'll try to pay them whenever I can. So I still need to find a local person who was compromised via second hand smoke at work."
So now he is looking for help in tugging the heartstrings of Eau Claire by parading a "cancer survivor" in front of the camera.
MiddletonFrom an email dated 6/9/08 from Didi Heisler of Smoke Free Middleton to Middleton city council members et al."Maybe it's just me, but I'm really ticked. I feel like that article made us look bad. The Bristled Boar owner guy is really making us sound like jerks using the classic method of essentially lying about what we are doing (since we've made it clear that technology cannot fix the problem) and then blaming us. (Note: His bar is Madison was written up on health code violations a few years back).I am a little confused about the implications of a "no" vote from our supportive alders in the face of a delayed implementation (say, until June of 2009). If we drop this ordinance, then is there any way we could get one in place by next spring? I don't want to appear to be caving (please don't aim the large rocks at my head just now), but I need clarification: Is April an option? Obviously, I want this done yesterday, but I am not sure how ugly it is going to get about implementing this fall. It reminds me of my 3-year-old...as soon as we announce that it is bedtime, he suddenly claims that he is hungry, thirsty, etc. These tavern owners have seen this coming for years and all of a sudden, they can't get prepared in time.OK, I am more than ticked.So are we really going to walk away if they suggest June 1? Would we counter with say, April 1?"
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Ron Biendseil of Smoke Free Middleton to Middleton city council members et al. in response to Didi's email above"Don't worry about the Bristol Boar. The guy has no local credibility. He is angry, loud and abrasive, but his outlandish remarks and demands will marginalize him.I would suggest that we first say Sept. 15 is reasonable, but if October 15 gets us a deal, we can compromise. And in no case should we accept anything later than October 30 as an implementation date and ONLY if that date gets the support of at least 6 alders... And as I said before, no matter when the ordinance takes effect, they will need several months to assess whether/how the ordinance will actually affect their individual business. In reality, all this talk of delaying the implementation date is just a smoke screen for allowing them to keep the status quo."
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Smoke Free Wisconsin to Middleton city council members and Smoke Free Middleton"Good afternoon Smoke-free Middleton, In the City of Monona, the long implementation timeline was a compromise to get votes on the council that weren't there without the delay. The impending Monona Dr. construction and a council stacked in opposition to a strong smoke-free ordinance created a shaky environment to pass anything better. Monona represents a victory because the council started by talking about a three year timeline and other poison pill exemptions. In Middleton, on the other hand you have the votes to pass a clean ordinance with a reasonable timeline... My understanding is that the VFW is the only 501 (c)3 that currently operates in Middleton and would be the only exemption under private clubs as the ordinance is now written. Is that correct? If it is the case, it would speak volumes to supportive alders and to L & O Committee members if a member of the VFW (and especially an officer, like the treasurer!) reached out to them. Workers and veterans that frequent the VFW deserve protection from secondhand smoke just as much as everyone else. I will also attempt to secure a letter from a member of the VFW in Beaver Dam, which is the only smoke-free VFW in the state of Wisconsin, to share their experience... In conclusion, I recommend everyone advocate for the cleanest policy and the soonest implementation that can pass through the council."
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Didi Heisler to Middleton city council members et al."By the way...are private clubs still an issue? It turns out that my husband knows the VFW treasurer and we'd feel comfortable talking to him about this issue if people want to..."
I am not sure if you aware that Wisconsin is fighting for their liberties (i.e. smoking ban). They have a website www.banthebanwisconsin.com that has a lot of information. As a matter of fact, the www.banthebanminnesota.com website was modeled after theirs. Anyways, below is a look at "insider information" (i.e. the anti's). Take a look at the e-mails....this is how they work behind the scenes to accomplish their goal of "smoking bans".
Don't forget to check out the www.freedomtoact.com website...Greg has posted some interesting articles:
-Cigerette Tax Burnout
-Update on $50 refundable campaign donation
-TLM update 8-8-08
-Nanny Nation from NYT
-and more
Anyone that wants to use their refundable campaign donation, please contact me. There are many good candidates running this year that could use your/our help....candidates that support private property rights!
Sheila
A Look Behind the Scenes of How the Anti's Work (Insider Information)
Ryan over at Ban the Ban Wisconsin compiled a list of emails he was able to obtain through the use of open records requests. They are from the time periods immediately prior to several cities in Wisconsin passing their bans. Take a read (Ryan's comments are in italics):
Eau Claire
From an email dated 3/4/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Eau Clare city council member Bob Von Haden regarding Julian of the Eau Claire Leader Telegram
"I have talked to Julian. He is OK to talk to now. He will not publish his story until next week, probably on Thursday next week. He knows that you and Hal and I are on board. He is strictly keeping this off the record and will respect our request.
While we have had nothing but trouble with the media, it seems that where the ban is concerned, the local media is very congenial and useful.
From an email dated 3/5/08 from Smoke Free WI to Eau Claire city council members regarding a planned press conference
"I'm planning on being there in person in Monday, as well as Sarah Sahli from the American Cancer Society. I will ask Anita and Julie to help turn out some supporters to fill the room. I will also reach out to Town Hall attendees and make sure they know about the press conference."
Sounds like Smoke Free WI is going to be stocking the press conference. A good question to ask, and perhaps an answer we may never get, is if the Tavern League or any other ban opponents had advance warning or an opportunity to stock the conference? Was this a fair cross-section of the community?
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Smoke Free WI
"Liz, Thank you and your media partners so much for doing all of this work. We truly appreciate this! Without the resources of Smoke Free Wisconsin, the American Cancer Society of WI, the Lung Association of WI, and WISPIRG, we could not hope to counter the efforts of the Tavern League and big tobacco interests... Based on reliable reports I have received as of today, the Eau Claire city council appears to already have sufficient support to pass the Eau Claire Clean Air Ordinance (ECCAo)... However we must step up our efforts to get testimony at the hearing march 24, and letters, emails and calls to our city council members to adopt the ECCAo. I have no doubt that we could achieve a strong vote for ECCAo, which would send a strong message to Madison (the state Senate) to act on SB150."
Looks to me like there was a whole lot of support from outside the Eau Claire community. Additionally, it looks like these ources are working to push from the outside, further drawing into question the "for the community" argument. What is also interesting is the fact that at no point does Mr. Daux mention the health or well-being of the community while he does mention sending a message to Madison.
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Smoke Free WI and Flaherty PR
"Mike and Liz, Below see the email to the city council from Bonnie Harper, President of the Eau Claire County Tavern League. Although some of her arguments are pretty poor, could you prepare some written point-by-point responses to the arguments for our city council members? We could have them in a 'truth packet.'"
So Bonnie Harper has made some points that Dave Daux can't successfully counter himself, so he's recruiting outside help. He is also interested in doing some damage control here by preempting the rest of the city council.
From an email dated 3/8/08 from Eau Claire city council member Dave Daux to Bonnie Harper
"... In closing, let me say that I respect your opinion. The council will have a chance to hear your thoughts at the public hearing on March 24. Both sides should be heard, and the city council can and will discuss the facts and opinions offered."
Need I point out the irony here? Prior to telling Bonnie that he respects her opinion and that the council will hear both sides, Mr. Daux has already contacted Smoke Free WI and Flahrety PR to help discredit her opinions and spread the word to the rest of the city council via a "truth packet." Get the idea that he's working to stack the deck against Ms. harper before she even gets a chance?
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"I'm working to create a TV ad to promote the smoke free workplace legislation. We must get on the airwaves to counter the negative spin the tavern league is working on right now.However, to put this ad on the air, I need to raise $2,000. The ad can be on the air by THIS Saturday and run for the next two weeks. Can I count on you and your supporters to help me raise this money?"
We are bothered by the idea that a city council member is trying to raise money through Smoke Free Wisconsin to run pro-ban commercials to counter the Tavern League.
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"Do you have a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of people I could contact to donate to my re-election campaign to pay for a $2,000 TV ad for this legislation, or would you be willing to contact people personally? They don't have to live in Eau Claire; they just need to be willing to support the effort in Eau Claire."
Again, this guy is trying to raise money from outside Eau Claire to influence Eau Claire legislation. There's something very disturbing about this and something that should raise alarm in Eau Claire.
From an email dated 3/10/08 from Eau Claire city council member Brandon Buchanan to Smoke Free Wisconsin
"Even if you are not interested in helping with the financing of a TV ad, I still need help locating a cancer surviver who is willing to go on TV and give a testimony. And I need that ASAP. I can shoot the commercial TOMORROW if I have the person.If no one is willing to help me foot the bill, I will just go in debt $2,000 and tell Studio One I'll try to pay them whenever I can. So I still need to find a local person who was compromised via second hand smoke at work."
So now he is looking for help in tugging the heartstrings of Eau Claire by parading a "cancer survivor" in front of the camera.
MiddletonFrom an email dated 6/9/08 from Didi Heisler of Smoke Free Middleton to Middleton city council members et al."Maybe it's just me, but I'm really ticked. I feel like that article made us look bad. The Bristled Boar owner guy is really making us sound like jerks using the classic method of essentially lying about what we are doing (since we've made it clear that technology cannot fix the problem) and then blaming us. (Note: His bar is Madison was written up on health code violations a few years back).I am a little confused about the implications of a "no" vote from our supportive alders in the face of a delayed implementation (say, until June of 2009). If we drop this ordinance, then is there any way we could get one in place by next spring? I don't want to appear to be caving (please don't aim the large rocks at my head just now), but I need clarification: Is April an option? Obviously, I want this done yesterday, but I am not sure how ugly it is going to get about implementing this fall. It reminds me of my 3-year-old...as soon as we announce that it is bedtime, he suddenly claims that he is hungry, thirsty, etc. These tavern owners have seen this coming for years and all of a sudden, they can't get prepared in time.OK, I am more than ticked.So are we really going to walk away if they suggest June 1? Would we counter with say, April 1?"
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Ron Biendseil of Smoke Free Middleton to Middleton city council members et al. in response to Didi's email above"Don't worry about the Bristol Boar. The guy has no local credibility. He is angry, loud and abrasive, but his outlandish remarks and demands will marginalize him.I would suggest that we first say Sept. 15 is reasonable, but if October 15 gets us a deal, we can compromise. And in no case should we accept anything later than October 30 as an implementation date and ONLY if that date gets the support of at least 6 alders... And as I said before, no matter when the ordinance takes effect, they will need several months to assess whether/how the ordinance will actually affect their individual business. In reality, all this talk of delaying the implementation date is just a smoke screen for allowing them to keep the status quo."
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Smoke Free Wisconsin to Middleton city council members and Smoke Free Middleton"Good afternoon Smoke-free Middleton, In the City of Monona, the long implementation timeline was a compromise to get votes on the council that weren't there without the delay. The impending Monona Dr. construction and a council stacked in opposition to a strong smoke-free ordinance created a shaky environment to pass anything better. Monona represents a victory because the council started by talking about a three year timeline and other poison pill exemptions. In Middleton, on the other hand you have the votes to pass a clean ordinance with a reasonable timeline... My understanding is that the VFW is the only 501 (c)3 that currently operates in Middleton and would be the only exemption under private clubs as the ordinance is now written. Is that correct? If it is the case, it would speak volumes to supportive alders and to L & O Committee members if a member of the VFW (and especially an officer, like the treasurer!) reached out to them. Workers and veterans that frequent the VFW deserve protection from secondhand smoke just as much as everyone else. I will also attempt to secure a letter from a member of the VFW in Beaver Dam, which is the only smoke-free VFW in the state of Wisconsin, to share their experience... In conclusion, I recommend everyone advocate for the cleanest policy and the soonest implementation that can pass through the council."
From an email dated 6/9/08 from Didi Heisler to Middleton city council members et al."By the way...are private clubs still an issue? It turns out that my husband knows the VFW treasurer and we'd feel comfortable talking to him about this issue if people want to..."
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)