More apartments are snuffing out smoking

Article: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44563632.html

Lighting up is now prohibited in about 2 percent of the rental properties in Minnesota, according to Live Smoke Free.

RedRant:  First off the comment I posted in the Star Tribune discussion section.  

"according to Live Smoke Free, a program of the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota funded by a Minnesota Department of Health grant."

Hmm! A political advocacy group funded by public money? Hello!!!! This got it's start in California specifically San Francisco and Berkeley. A few problems. In the Bay Area they have very high housing costs so rental tenure is somewhat akin to property ownership. If the "lifer tenant" leaves the landlord can get far higher rent and rent to a friend. Also, in CA they have the idea that marijuana is "medicine". If "Dr. Feelgood" can give prescriptions for pot here will smoke free building have to allow people smoking pot but not smoking cigarettes? The next buildings at the SW corner of the Lake Street Bridge are smoke free. You often see slacker guys smoking on the front stoops. Hmm! Something tells me they are not leaseholders.

posted by bikemiles on May. 8, 09 at 2:04 AM 

First off, "follow the money".  First off, these anti-smoking organisations seemed to get the bulk of their funding from public money grants or pharmaceutical companies pushing anti-smoking "medications".  The MN DOH has done good work on the recent flu pandemic.  That said should they be in the business of funding political advocacy.  This is a pattern which goes way back to "Smoke Free Minnesota" having almost unlimited public money to complain about the non-existant "big tobacco funding".  

The tobacco settlement money was public.  The Minnesota case was brought in the name of the public so the money is public despite any sleigh-of-hand in fund designation. 

I don't have a problem with private market rental housing having a nonsmoking provision.  The complex at the south west corner of the Lake Street bridge opened a few years back smoke free.  No one was displaced.  It is rental and I have seen no big "apartment available" signs so it must be working.  

What is funny to watch is the smokers on the stoops.  Especially, on Saturday and Sunday morning it's the "twenty-something" "slacker" type males on the stoop smoking.  I live in the neighborhood and use the Lake Street Bridge often so I do a "stoop census".  I can't recall a twenty-something women smoking on the stoop.  

Go figure!   Sounds like "twentysomething" single women who embraced the smoke free lifestyle are "picking up" smoking males. 

Greg Lang http://freedomtoact.com 

Healthy Menus Cause Some To Pick Less Healthy Options

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1680536/healthy_menus_cause_some_to_pick_less_healthy_options/

Redrant: In the experiment subjects were given menus with and without "healthy" options.  As the "healthy" option became more extreme (veggie burgers) the subjects were even more likely to choose the most "unhealthy" item (a bacon-cheeseburger).  The researcher theorised that this was 

"vicarious goal fulfillment," in which merely having the opportunity to act in a way that achieves long-term objectives satisfies a person’s goal, even if they ultimately do not make the healthier choice"

I disagree with this theory.  To me the addition of a "veggie burger" triggers a defensive reaction to "food police/nanny state" type chiding.  This would seem to explain the more strong willed people being the most likely to choose the bacon cheeseburger" when the veggie burger is listed.

At the story link I wrote this comment #1:

Posted by Greg Lang on 05/01/2009, 04:23
Interesting study but I disagree with the logic. The "healthy options" on the menu might trigger a defensive reaction. This might be compared to very hard sell from store personnel deterring you from buying something you might have wanted anyway. We are constantly bombarded by "Nanny Culture" and "Food Police" people and messages. Many are by self-righteous, often unpleasant people. The "veggie burger" on the menu might trigger this defensive response in people. It's a stretch to so that because the "healthy" item was on the menu people considered it. As for those with "high self control" (whatever that means) reaction more strongly these people are more likely to respond strongly to perceived or subconscious cohersion. Here is an experiment. Blow up a picture of "Mary Poppins" or other "nice Nanny" into a poster with the caption "Be sure to eat your vegetables" and put it in the produce section. I'd guess that produce sales would go down.

Greg Lang

(original article) http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1680536/healthy_menus_cause_some_to_pick_less_healthy_options/

Healthy Menus Cause Some To Pick Less Healthy Options

A new study finds that simply thinking of a healthy food can satisfy our good intentions of eating well, ironically making it easier to eat less healthier foods.

Researchers at Duke University found that people were significantly more likely to choose the least-healthy option on a menu when the menu included a single healthy option, such as a fruit or a veggie burger.

"Because the healthy option is there, it somehow satisfies this healthy eating goal in them and then they felt liberated to sort of go crazy and choose something really, really bad for them," said Dr. Gavan J. Fitzsimons of Duke University, in an interview with Reuters.

Fitzsimons, who led the study, and his team were exploring something they call "vicarious goal fulfillment," in which merely having the opportunity to act in a way that achieves long-term objectives satisfies a person’s goal, even if they ultimately do not make the healthier choice.

The researchers hypothesized that people would select the least-healthy option on a menu more often when the menu included a food that represented a healthy goal, compared to when they were presented with a menu with only less-healthy options.

In every one of their experiments, Fitzsimons and his colleagues found their hypothesis held true.

For instance, among 70 undergraduate students, 37% chose a bacon-cheeseburger when the alternatives included a veggie burger.  However, just 17% did so when the veggie burger wasn't on the menu.

Similar results were seen when salad was included on a menu with french fries, chicken nuggets, and baked potato (more selected the fries) and when 100-calories worth of Oreo cookies were offered along with original Oreos, chocolate covered Oreos, and golden Oreos (more people picked the chocolate-covered cookies).

Surprisingly, those with high levels of self-control were more likely to make the less-healthy choices when offered a healthy option than those who had less self-control.

Additional experiments showed that people who were more restrained unconsciously acted as if they had fulfilled their health goals by simply considering a healthy choice.

Fitzsimons concluded that persuading people healthier requires more than merely adding healthier options to the fast food or school cafeteria menus.   Indeed, people should avoid fast food joints altogether if they really want to keep eating healthily, he said, while schools should eliminate unhealthy choices entirely rather than trying to lure children away from the pizza with fruit and vegetable offerings.

By offering a few nutritious choices, fast food restaurants may entice health-conscious customers with the possibility that they might pick these items, Fitzsimons said.

As a result, purveyors of junk food continue to see their profits grow.

"It's not from salads,” said Fitzsimons.

The study was published in the Journal of Consumer Research.

---

On the Net:

• Duke University
• Consumer Research

Story from REDORBIT NEWS:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=1680536

Published: 2009/04/30 15:54:39 CDT

© RedOrbit 2005

The state's smoking ban is back at the Legislature.

http://blogs.twincities.com/politics/2009/04/up_in_smoke.html

Up In Smoke

The state's smoking ban is back at the Legislature. Two efforts to carve out exceptions to the ban narrowly missed being included in the House HHS bill tonight.

The first try came from Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, who attempted to set a up a scheme where bars could have a ventilated room with no food or liquor service. It failed, 63-69, but not before a Rukavina-esque blast across the floor fo the House.

"You love to hammer on those poor smokers with a regressive tax and then make them stand outside when its 35 below and make them feel like second-class citizens,” he chided.

The next came from Rep. Larry Howes, R-Walker. It would set up "shelters" seperate from the main body of a bar where people can smoke. Kind of like smoking outhouses.

That too was defeated, but it was close. The full House was evenly divided, 67-67.

Posted by City Hall Scoop on April 27, 2009 9:52 PM | Permalink

Mark Benjamin press release on appeals hearing

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

markbenjamin@msn.com

www.markwbenjamin.com

 

Press Release

Local News Video Report of Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals on April 16^th in Duluth.

Link:  http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S883113.shtml?cat=10335

Cambridge Attorney Mark W. Benjamin appeared before the MN Court of Appeals yesterday on behalf of his client Tom Marinaro.

Last May, Mr. Marinaro was found guilty of allowing his customer-actors to smoke in his bar during a performance of his improvisational play "The Gunsmoke Monologues".  The district court ruled that his play did not fit within the "theatrical productions" exception to Minnesota's state-wide smoking ban.  Why?  Because his customer-actors did not wear costumes, read from scripts or restrict their performances to a stage.

These standards do not exist in the language of the statute and bar owners have been uncertain just what would satisfy the Minnesota Department of Health.  No bars have hosted Theater Night since last spring, worried that they might inadvertently run afoul of the law, 

That could all change if the Court of Appeals affirms the district court.  For the first time, bar owners would have legal authority to employ those standards in hosting future Theater Nights.  Simply put, all performances would be restricted to a stage and all customer-actors would wear costumes and read from scripts.  Oh yes, and they would smoke too.

Strangely enough, a loss for Mr. Marinaro would be a victory for Minnesota's small bar owners.  Theater Night 2.0 would be born and better than ever.

Mr. Benjamin emphasized that Mr. Marinaro and other small bar owners mean no disrespect to law enforcement or the courts.  They simply want the same thing the Guthrie Theater wants.  They want to make money -- legally.

The Court of Appeals has up to 90 days to reach a decision.

Our show goes on.

New Study of National Heart Attack Admissions and Mortality Finds No Evidence of a Short-Term Effect of Smoking Bans

First the source link to the story.  Also posted on my http://freedomtoact.com  http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-study-of-national-heart-attack.html

Redrant:  The money quote:  "The Helena, Montana study examined  304 heart attack admissions in one community over a period of six months.  This study examined a total of 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2.0 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states over an eight-year period."

I recall reading and the Consumer report website about an IBM executive who complained of "chest pains"  $150K of diagnostic work and testing it was finally determined that he had taken up yard work and was experiencing "weed wackier muscle strain", a common condition if you are not adapted to this type of "lifting".  Also, we have to assume that if didn't balk at even the co-pays, he had a rather large residence that required a lot more weedwacking than my 40 foot city lot.    I recently sniped at a doctor posting at http://minnpost.com who wrote that the Framingham heart study "contained few women" when the charter group was over 50% women.  http://freedomtoact.blogspot.com/2009/03/minnpost-doctor-claims-framingham-heart.html

A glaring error but this doctor and it indicates a mindset.  The charter Framingham group contained no minorities (Framingham, MA had a very low percentage of minorities in 1948, somewhat comparable to the Twin Cities at the time).  If you use "victimology logic" you might conclude that the Framingham study charter group must not have included women because it didn't include minorities!  Of course, a few seconds of fact checking  on the Internet could dispel this.  

That is point one.  The mindset.  If you think you are fighting "social injustice", evil corporations or whatever, you are  not likely to question the idea that the the Framingham study contained few women.

Actually, the doctor writing this column is pretty good.  He tends to write about how doctors don't tend to adapt to research and the huge disparities in diagnosis and treatment rates.  I can't recall him taking on "heart attack" hospital admissions rates and I don't know if the aforementioned IBM executive was admitted there is wild inconsistency in hospital admission rates for "heart attacks".  First off, these are for hospital admissions, not actual verified heart attacks.  Someone complains of chest pain and someone calls the ambulance.  (They don't call it "heartburn" for nothing.)  For starters, except for a true serious heart attack where you are "down" an actual heart attack is very  difficult to diagnose.  Basically, an EKG, preferably with a past reference EKG.  Also if heart tissue actually dies there is detectable blood and urine waste tracers which apparently are different for the typical "sore muscle" waste tracers.  

That said, the Framingham heart study found that at least in males 25% of heart attacks were "silent".  They did yearly EKG's so I would assume the diagnosis was done with EKG variances.  On the other extreme I knew the late  "Meet the Press" Tim Russert's family.   I happened to know that Tim got "top notch" medical treatment, had an exercises regime and a there was an on site heart defillabrator.  

For a second example a now retired co-worker (who was very "high strung") was basically forced to go to a doctor after he became totally tired after carry a rather heavy computer a couple of hundred feet (endurance and energy recovery are good hints).  The doctors ordered him admitted and he had (as I recall) a quadruple bypass.  

Basically, "walking wounded".  He looked in rough shape but he took more asprin than I did (dollar stores have a bottle of 200 USP asprin for $1.  Cheapest insurance around!)  The Framingham study found the link between asprin and dramatically reduced heart attack risk.  He could have gone a long time this way as walking wounded.  If he had a massive heart attack and died that would not be a hospital admission.  It would have been a "statistic". 

The point here is that if a reduction in "admissions" occurs" after a smoking ban there could be a number of reasons.  Smokers might stay home more or frequent more "smoke friendly" establishments (Minnesota Indian casinos, exempt from the smoking bans have greatly expanded smoking sections) and if at home, the person might take an aspirin or die in their sleep.  I am wondering if nowadays the "patient harvesting" hospitals are advising the admission of more people for "heart attacks" with good insurance versus non-insured?  We would have to look at initial hospitalisations recommendations versus actual hospitalisation.  

Yet another variable.  Basically, the Helena study was "cherry picking" data, a "gotcha" of sorts.  This is a very large study where the "law of large numbers" applies.

Of course the anti-smoking "family" has no problem sacrificing science for "propaganda".  They don't debate.  I wonder why?  Greg Lang

Smoking Ban Appeal this Thursday

MARK W. BENJAMIN

Criminal Defense, P.A.

237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111

Cambridge, MN 55008

763-691-0900 (office)

763-670-9664 (mobile)

markbenjamin@msn.com

www.markwbenjamin.com

 

Press Release

REMINDER – Theater Night – Oral Arguments at Court of Appeals – April 16^th at 10:40 a.m. in Duluth.

This Thursday morning, April 16^th at 10:40 a.m., at the St. Louis County Courthouse, 100 North Fifth Avenue West, Mark Benjamin will argue before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Tom Marinaro, owner of Tank’s Bar in Babbitt, Minnesota. 

Factual Background.  On the afternoon of March 14, 2008, Mr. Marinaro received a citation for violating Minnesota’s smoking ban, even though his bar was participating in “Theater Night” at the time.  Mr. Marinaro demanded a court trial and claimed he was innocent, given that the ban allows smoking during “theatrical performances” by “actors” and “actresses”.  This exception provides no guidance, standards or restrictions on what constitutes a “theatrical performance”.  Mr. Marinaro, a former steel worker, put on the best play he could and claimed that smoking in his bar was legal as long as the play was being performed.  The trial court disagreed and fined him $300.  Mr. Marinaro appealed.

Legislative Background.  In the closing days of the 2007 legislative session, a conference committee was formed to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the smoking ban.  Rep. Tom Huntley of Duluth – as a favor to the Guthrie Theater – introduced a “theatrical performances” exception in the committee.  One of the legislators warned that the exception’s language was broad enough to allow acting (and smoking) in bars, not just playhouses.  He was greeted with laughter and the new exception was voted in as written.

Theater Night Background.  The first Theater Night was performed on February 9, 2008 (3 days before the new legislative session) at Barnacles Bar in Aitkin.  Within three weeks, approximately 100 bars across Minnesota were hosting their own versions of Theater Night.  Despite this, the legislature refused to limit or clarify the language of the “theatrical performances” exception.  The Department of Health cracked down on several bars with administrative penalties.  Nobody appealed these actions and Theater Night seemed doomed.

Our Goal.  We hope the MN Court of Appeals will properly rule that the legislature shirked its duty to define its terms and declare that Mr. Marinaro comported his conduct within the admittedly broad language of the “theatrical performances” exception.  Bar owners are hoping for a favorable ruling so their businesses and employees’ jobs can be saved.  We ask the legislature to examine the law and provide reasonable accommodations for our blue collar bar owners and veterans clubs – just as it did for the Guthrie.

Our show goes on.

Minnpost Doctor claims Framingham Heart Study had "very few women".

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/23/7528/risk_factors_vs_risks_who_will_develop_cardiovascular_disease_--_and_could_a_new_polypill_help_prevent_it

Key quote in this otherwise good article: "Early risk-factor data on cardiovascular disease came from the likes of the Framingham Heart Study, which Grimm describes as "very famous; but as a study it was tiny by today's comparisons, and it included essentially no blacks and very few women."

My posted comment:

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/23/7528/risk_factors_vs_risks_who_will_develop_cardiovascular_disease_--_and_could_a_new_polypill_help_prevent_it#comment_22182

The Framington Heart study was essentially all "white" in the beginning but the majority of the original participants were women, contrary to what is written. This is very relevant to the "second hand smoke" debate because back in 1948 most men smoked and few women did. Also, most women didn't work out side the home so we have an good, long term study of the effects of second hand smoke that is ignored by things like the Surgeon Generals report on second hand smoke. Framingham asked about these things.
Here is a breakdown of the "charter" 1948 participants. 
Age 29-39 40-49 50-62 Totals
Men 835 779 722 2,336
Women 1,042 962 869 2,873
Totals 1,877 1,741 1,591 5,209
http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/participants/original.html

Redrant:  My calculator says that the Framingham original 1948 participants were 55% women.  Often I have gone into a bar or party that is more than half women and concluded there were few women there but hey!  I was usually looking for a date!  As for the original group being almost all "white" this may not be PC but if you are Italian are you you going to reject the Mediterranean Diet Heart study because almost all participants are Italian?  Because it is not "PC"?  Of course not!  

The Framington Heart study turned 60 in 2008 and has followed three generations.  The youngest original cohorts would be in their 90's by now so most have passed on.   Almost all participants agreed to autopsies after their death.  The key was getting a good look at the heart but if you crack open the chest it's easy to also get a look at the lungs.  

Also, children in smoking and non-smoking homes could be studied since many participate.  As I mentioned most women did not work outside the home back then and the questions asked about smoke exposure in the home and outside the home.  Framingham could not find any specific relation to domestic secondhand smoke and illness.  Framingham, also found that occasional male smokers, what we call "chippers"  smoking less than ten cigarettes a week had a lower heart disease rate than non-smoking males!  My guess is that that the non-smoking males tended to have more sedentary "desk" jobs which often had a lot more stress.   

Physical activity and stress are two factors that are hard to quantify.  I have seen several shows on primates where CAT scans and autopsies showed that the "submissive males" in the group tended to have a severe hardening of the arteries due to stress.  As one researcher noted, these primates couldn't sneak out for to double cheesburgers, booze and cigarettes but the effect was dramatic with these variables controlled.

I downloaded the 650 page Surgeon Generals report on second hand smoke.  I tried searches with assorted variation of "Framingham" but the Framingham study did not rate a mention.  To paraphrase the man who claimed to have helped create the Internet, Al Gore, the Framingham study seems to contain "Inconvenient Truths".   Greg Lang