If I got it right there is a link to Joe Jackson classic hit song video "Into the Night" on Utube.com Great song, I encourage you to watch the music video so you can get a good association with "Joe Jackson". If in a hurry click on the Utube video and enjoy the song while Reading this.
A loyal reader sent me in the link to Joe Jackson. Thank You. The extra "eyes and ears" help to find things. Confidentiality assured. If you want to be acknowledged via initial or "nickname" state it in the email. You can send me email from the link at http://freedomtoact.com
As for the concept of musicians being "social reformers" this has a "This is Spinal Tap" flavor in the west (usually for good reason!) but it is totally different in Eastern Europe. Under communism the state controlled the media but they allowed live gatherings by clergy and entertainers. Thus, lacking our free speech/free press it was up to clergy and entertainers to get the word out. (As they say "nature hates a vacuum.) this explains the popularity of the late pope John Paul and the fact that (yes the thought is scary here) rock musicians have become the leaders of countries in post communism Eastern Europe. They seem to be doing a good job as far as I can tell. I've been in contact with top government officials of Eastern Europe because I lived in "Dinkeytown" for 12 years, Bob Dylan owned property there so I came to (very) casually know Dylan. Bob Dylan music style was low cost, low tech which suited the anti-communist balladeers of Eastern Europe. I can't offer much insight into Bob Dylan besides that he seemed to be a nice regular guy when he was with me and he would spring for lunch when he was in Dinkeytown with his mother (who loved the old Dinkeytown "Mama D's" restaurant.
Anyway, Joe Jackson wrote a good 20 page "booklet" on smoking issues that I read. I could "nitpick" on a few specifics but it seems "in the ballpark" with my beliefs. I strongly encourage you to read it if you have time. It contains reference to my favorite, the "Framinghan Study". Obviously Joe Jackson has done his "homework". I strongly encourage you to read it. Greg Lang
http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbj0w8iOeM
U tube (if this works).
Friday, April 4, 2008
Short Theater Update 4-4-08
Hello Everyone -
Just another quick update.
- On Wednesday, FOX news (national) was at Bugg's Place in So. St. Paul. It should air today on the Fox News cable channel at ~6:00 pm.
- Please check the www.freedomtoact.com website out. Greg has been working very hard at posting a lot of different items today.
- Mark will issue a press release as soon as he finds out the new court date. It could be issued as early as this weekend and he will send it to Greg to post on the website.
- I received a letter from Doug (Windmill Bar & Lounge near Mankato). It appears to be an advertisement that The American Lung Association sent out. Has anyone else received this. It is posted on the website www.freedomtoact.com
Have a Great Day!
Just another quick update.
- On Wednesday, FOX news (national) was at Bugg's Place in So. St. Paul. It should air today on the Fox News cable channel at ~6:00 pm.
- Please check the www.freedomtoact.com website out. Greg has been working very hard at posting a lot of different items today.
- Mark will issue a press release as soon as he finds out the new court date. It could be issued as early as this weekend and he will send it to Greg to post on the website.
- I received a letter from Doug (Windmill Bar & Lounge near Mankato). It appears to be an advertisement that The American Lung Association sent out. Has anyone else received this. It is posted on the website www.freedomtoact.com
Have a Great Day!
Rules are for the little people.
An attempt to be "bipartisan". This specific event has already occurred but Denver will be hosting the Democratic National Convention.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/04/rules-are-for-the-little-people/
Rules are for the little people
Chuck West, Thornton
Reading about the Mile High Dreams Gala in the Pepsi Center and its theme, "A night in old Havana," with Cuban-inspired food, VIP mojito bar, salsa dancing and a cigar lounge, I can only assume that the smoking ban applies to the poor people ("For charity, athletes play poker, throw dice," March 6).
I am ashamed of a country that allows overpaid, pampered prima donnas to smoke a cigar while drinking their highballs, but will deny a veteran with a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star the freedom of going to his VFW or American Legion club and having a cigarette with his beer.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/04/rules-are-for-the-little-people/
Rules are for the little people
Chuck West, Thornton
Reading about the Mile High Dreams Gala in the Pepsi Center and its theme, "A night in old Havana," with Cuban-inspired food, VIP mojito bar, salsa dancing and a cigar lounge, I can only assume that the smoking ban applies to the poor people ("For charity, athletes play poker, throw dice," March 6).
I am ashamed of a country that allows overpaid, pampered prima donnas to smoke a cigar while drinking their highballs, but will deny a veteran with a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star the freedom of going to his VFW or American Legion club and having a cigarette with his beer.
St. Paul Sen. Pappas apologizes for St. Paul council's Thune
Dave Thune is apparently a "p0ster child" for the anti-smoking "bullies" who can "dish it out but not take it." There was a proposal before the MN legislature all the option of having bars close at 4AM during the Republican National Convention. I have no opinion on this and it is not related to the "smoking theater" issue.
Dave Thune represents downtown St. Paul in the St. Paul City Council. Thune is suspected of being the person who personally "rolls up the sidewalks in downtown St. Paul at 7PM every evening.Dave Thune opined on the proposed convention 4AM closing.
“I got 8,000 people who live downtown who don't want a bunch of Republican lobbyists puking on the streets,” Thune who represents downtown and eastern Grand Avenue, said Wednesday Tuesday. The city council voted 4-3 not to back the later bar closing." http://blogs.twincities.com/politics/2008/04/st_paul_sen_pappas_apologizes.html
First off, I certainly believe that convention planners should address democrat Dave Thune's concern by, to as great of an extent as possible, avoid booking events or recommending patronage of hospitality industry businesses in Dave Thune's district to ally Thune's fear of "puking republicans". The Twin Cities is ten times the size of St. Paul so so many other hospitality venues should be available that have not expressed objection to "puking republicans".
Dave Thune hasn't apologised for his remarks but a "proxy" apoligy (with no indication that Dave Thune approved that message) by the "foul mouthed" MN State Senator Sandy Pappas. (who voted for the so-called "Freedom to Breath act".
Dave Thune, a smoker at the time, was the chief proponent of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Hennepin County smoking bans. http://citypages.com/databank/25/1228/article12211.asp
As I recall, Thune was in a band that played at bars and also cited this "workplace" exposure to second hand smoke. Thune is no doubt "protected" from such smoke exposure since the demand for band by bars has decreased dramatically following the bar smoking bans. This has be chronicaled in this blog. http://freedomtoact.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-to-elected-officials-from.html
Thunes insensitive, hateful and stereotyped comments clearly demonstrate dramatically how many anti-smoking "advocates" feel they have some sort of licence to be thugs, bullies and jerks. I hear this from a lot of people, even those who hope that fewer people smoke in the future. They are very uncomfortable with the increased "thuggery" of the anti-smoking "advocates".
We can envision "bully" Dave Thune hiding behind "mommy Pappas's skirt" when his bullying and thuggery gets Thune into trouble. (hint: a great idea for an editorial type cartoon either for a publication of from a reader who can draw.) Greg Lang
Dave Thune represents downtown St. Paul in the St. Paul City Council. Thune is suspected of being the person who personally "rolls up the sidewalks in downtown St. Paul at 7PM every evening.
“I got 8,000 people who live downtown who don't want a bunch of Republican lobbyists puking on the streets,” Thune who represents downtown and eastern Grand Avenue, said Wednesday Tuesday. The city council voted 4-3 not to back the later bar closing."
First off, I certainly believe that convention planners should address democrat Dave Thune's concern by, to as great of an extent as possible, avoid booking events or recommending patronage of hospitality industry businesses in Dave Thune's district to ally Thune's fear of "puking republicans". The Twin Cities is ten times the size of St. Paul so so many other hospitality venues should be available that have not expressed objection to "puking republicans".
Dave Thune hasn't apologised for his remarks but a "proxy" apoligy (with no indication that Dave Thune approved that message) by the "foul mouthed" MN State Senator Sandy Pappas. (who voted for the so-called "Freedom to Breath act".
Dave Thune, a smoker at the time, was the chief proponent of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Hennepin County smoking bans. http://citypages.com/databank/25/1228/article12211.asp
As I recall, Thune was in a band that played at bars and also cited this "workplace" exposure to second hand smoke. Thune is no doubt "protected" from such smoke exposure since the demand for band by bars has decreased dramatically following the bar smoking bans. This has be chronicaled in this blog. http://freedomtoact.blogspot.com/2008/03/letter-to-elected-officials-from.html
Thunes insensitive, hateful and stereotyped comments clearly demonstrate dramatically how many anti-smoking "advocates" feel they have some sort of licence to be thugs, bullies and jerks. I hear this from a lot of people, even those who hope that fewer people smoke in the future. They are very uncomfortable with the increased "thuggery" of the anti-smoking "advocates".
We can envision "bully" Dave Thune hiding behind "mommy Pappas's skirt" when his bullying and thuggery gets Thune into trouble. (hint: a great idea for an editorial type cartoon either for a publication of from a reader who can draw.) Greg Lang
Hawaii's smoking ban’s effect on bars needs study.
Notable because Hawaii has neither "border states" or winter cold. Apparently, bars are still suffering much like they are here. Greg Lang
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/17/editorial/editorial02.html
OUR OPINION
Smoking ban’s effect on bars needs study
THE ISSUEA report commissioned by the state has concluded that restrictions on smoking have not hurt the visitor industry.
Bar owners have complained that a state smoking ban that was extended to their establishments in late 2006 has been bad for business. A report by the state Department of Health maintains that it has not hurt Hawaii's visitor industry but has failed to address the bar owners' concerns. A more precise study is needed.
A report prepared for the department by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., found that the food and beverage sector of Hawaii's tourism industry gained 212 more employees and 1,541 jobs since the law went into effect. It also said the state's overall visitor spending, including that by visitors from Japan, was comparable last year to the previous year, although declining slightly.
Unfortunately, the report does not include data from the Honolulu Liquor Commission because it did not fall within the time period needed to evaluate the law's effect. The Health Department should examine Liquor Commission data at the earliest opportunity to determine the ban's effect.
In a legislative hearing in January, bar owners contended that the ban has cost them revenue. One said the no-smoking law has cut his business in half, resulting in a $65,000 loss last year. Bar owners have sought an entire exemption from the ban.
The health risk caused by secondhand smoke justifies a ban, although the Hawaii law is too broad by including open-air sections, where secondhand smoke poses little or no risk.
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/17/editorial/editorial02.html
OUR OPINION
Smoking ban’s effect on bars needs study
THE ISSUEA report commissioned by the state has concluded that restrictions on smoking have not hurt the visitor industry.
Bar owners have complained that a state smoking ban that was extended to their establishments in late 2006 has been bad for business. A report by the state Department of Health maintains that it has not hurt Hawaii's visitor industry but has failed to address the bar owners' concerns. A more precise study is needed.
A report prepared for the department by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., found that the food and beverage sector of Hawaii's tourism industry gained 212 more employees and 1,541 jobs since the law went into effect. It also said the state's overall visitor spending, including that by visitors from Japan, was comparable last year to the previous year, although declining slightly.
Unfortunately, the report does not include data from the Honolulu Liquor Commission because it did not fall within the time period needed to evaluate the law's effect. The Health Department should examine Liquor Commission data at the earliest opportunity to determine the ban's effect.
In a legislative hearing in January, bar owners contended that the ban has cost them revenue. One said the no-smoking law has cut his business in half, resulting in a $65,000 loss last year. Bar owners have sought an entire exemption from the ban.
The health risk caused by secondhand smoke justifies a ban, although the Hawaii law is too broad by including open-air sections, where secondhand smoke poses little or no risk.
False Advertising? Billboard: Minnesota: Clean air in a cloud of smoke.
They still got it wrong. Monitoba has a bar and restaurant ban that includes Indian reservation so, by the billboard's logic Manitoba is "cleaner" than Minnesota. http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthyliving/smokingban.html First Nations bars, restaurants and casinos will no longer be exempt from Manitoba's smoking ban, provincial minister Dave Chomiak announced Wednesday. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/09/13/smoking-ban.html
Greg Lang
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/17222749.html
Minnesota: Clean air in a cloud of smoke
Dml -
A new billboard shows a clean, green Minnesota surrounded by smoke to celebrate the state's new smoke-free law.
By JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY, Star Tribune
Last update: April 2, 2008 - 1:56 PM
States will be reminded that the air is cleaner here.
Three billboards showing a satellite image of Minnesota as the clear green spot in a fog of tobacco smoke went up on highways at the borders of Wisconsin, South Dakota and North Dakota.
They were provided by three local anti-smoking coalitions who say they want to brag about Minnesota's status as the only state in the region with a state-wide smoking ban. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota provided the funding for the advertising.
"Today, our neighbors are not smoke-free," said Cynthia Piette, project coordinator for Smoke-Free Washington County, which is sponsoring a billboard on Interstate Hwy. 94 in Woodbury just over the border from Wisconsin. "We are the regional leader."
The antismoking groups chose today to unveil the billboards because it's "Kick Butts Day," and in honor of the six-month anniversary of the state's anti-smoking ban, which was April 1.
Josephine Marcotty • 612-673-7394
Minnesota: Clean air in a cloud of smoke
Dml -
A new billboard shows a clean, green Minnesota surrounded by smoke to celebrate the state's new smoke-free law.
By JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY, Star Tribune
Last update: April 2, 2008 - 1:56 PM
States will be reminded that the air is cleaner here.
Three billboards showing a satellite image of Minnesota as the clear green spot in a fog of tobacco smoke went up on highways at the borders of Wisconsin, South Dakota and North Dakota.
They were provided by three local anti-smoking coalitions who say they want to brag about Minnesota's status as the only state in the region with a state-wide smoking ban. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota provided the funding for the advertising.
"Today, our neighbors are not smoke-free," said Cynthia Piette, project coordinator for Smoke-Free Washington County, which is sponsoring a billboard on Interstate Hwy. 94 in Woodbury just over the border from Wisconsin. "We are the regional leader."
The antismoking groups chose today to unveil the billboards because it's "Kick Butts Day," and in honor of the six-month anniversary of the state's anti-smoking ban, which was April 1.
Josephine Marcotty • 612-673-7394
Smoking shelter bill makes progress in MN House of Representatives.
Hello Everyone,
I was watching the House Floor session tonight live on my computer. At ~ 11:30 pm an amendent came up on the HF1812 Ominbus supplemental budget bill. The amendent is HDA-911and is copied below.
This is not a done deal, the HF1812 Omnibus bill will still have to go to conference committee and the amendent could get stripped back out. I'll keep you posted. This amendment is basically for a smoking shelter, meaning 4 walls, floor & ceiling.
HF1812 (Carlson) Omnibus supplemental budget bill
HDA-911
1.1 .................... moves to amend H. F. No. 1812, the third engrossment, as follows:1.2Page 277, after line 5, insert:1.3 "Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2007 Supplement, section 144.4167, is amended by 1.4adding a subdivision to read:1.5 Subdivision 1. Smoking shelters. Sections 144.411 to 144.417 do not prohibit 1.6smoking in a structure located outside of an establishment that provides shelter for persons 1.7smoking outdoors. Employees of an establishment with a smoking shelter may not serve 1.8food or beverages to persons in the smoking shelter. "1.9Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references1.10Amend the title accordingly
I was watching the House Floor session tonight live on my computer. At ~ 11:30 pm an amendent came up on the HF1812 Ominbus supplemental budget bill. The amendent is HDA-911and is copied below.
This is not a done deal, the HF1812 Omnibus bill will still have to go to conference committee and the amendent could get stripped back out. I'll keep you posted. This amendment is basically for a smoking shelter, meaning 4 walls, floor & ceiling.
HF1812 (Carlson) Omnibus supplemental budget bill
HDA-911
1.1 .................... moves to amend H. F. No. 1812, the third engrossment, as follows:1.2Page 277, after line 5, insert:1.3 "Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2007 Supplement, section 144.4167, is amended by 1.4adding a subdivision to read:1.5 Subdivision 1. Smoking shelters. Sections 144.411 to 144.417 do not prohibit 1.6smoking in a structure located outside of an establishment that provides shelter for persons 1.7smoking outdoors. Employees of an establishment with a smoking shelter may not serve 1.8food or beverages to persons in the smoking shelter. "1.9Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references1.10Amend the title accordingly
Toddlers Can No Longer Marry in Arkansas..
Soon in Arkansas you won't be able to marry your cousin until she is eighteen or (gasp! or a non-relative) until they are eighteen unless the woman is pregnant and the man's uncle, err!, I mean the woman's parents, provide consent. (Do they have provisions for checking in the Uncle/Father's shotgun at the courthouse when the couple "with child) applies for a marriage licence in Arkansas.
On a serious level, the Arkansas Legislatue, as part of bill to raise the age of marraige to 18 orinigally wrote the following which appeared to give no minumum age of marraige if the female was not pregnant and had parental consent (hmm!). The original law read.
"The bill read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage.".
The point of this that the law, as written, was letter of the law allowing marriage at any age while the "spirit" of the law may have been the opposite. The Arkansas legislators took the proper and correct legal action by reopening the law, ammending it to remove not.
This is the appropriate course of action if Minnesota's so called "Freedom to breath law" is to be ammended.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hahZy1lTXtSwYpy8bSQN-uo7f2QQD8VQD4FO2
Toddlers Can No Longer Marry in Ark.
By ANDREW DeMILLO – 16 hours ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas' marriage-age crisis is over. A law that mistakenly allowed anyone — even toddlers — to marry with parental permission was repealed by a measure signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Mike Beebe, ending months of embarrassment for the state and confusion for county clerks.
Lawmakers didn't realize until after the end of last year's regular session that a law they approved, intended to establish 18 as the minimum age for marriage, instead removed the minimum age to marry entirely. An extraneous "not" in the bill allowed anyone who was not pregnant to marry at any age with permission.
The bill read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage."
Some lawmakers called for a special session last year, saying the error would make it easy for pedophiles to take advantage of the law. Gov. Mike Beebe said he didn't see any imminent crisis and said the chances of children marrying under the law were slim.
Legislators, however, had the chance for a do-over this week when Beebe convened a special session to consider a hike in the state's severance tax on natural gas. They repealed the botched law, and reinstated 17 as the minimum age to marry for boys and 16 for girls.
Rep. Will Bond, the sponsor of the botched 2007 law and its correction, apologized for the error and asked his colleagues to "throw me a rope and bail me out here."
"I always thought if you put your name on a bill, you should be ready to take the blame if you're willing to accept the credit," Bond said Wednesday.
Bond, a Democrat, said there hadn't been any reports of young children attempting to marry under the 2007 law.
On a serious level, the Arkansas Legislatue, as part of bill to raise the age of marraige to 18 orinigally wrote the following which appeared to give no minumum age of marraige if the female was not pregnant and had parental consent (hmm!). The original law read.
"The bill read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage.".
The point of this that the law, as written, was letter of the law allowing marriage at any age while the "spirit" of the law may have been the opposite. The Arkansas legislators took the proper and correct legal action by reopening the law, ammending it to remove not.
This is the appropriate course of action if Minnesota's so called "Freedom to breath law" is to be ammended.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hahZy1lTXtSwYpy8bSQN-uo7f2QQD8VQD4FO2
Toddlers Can No Longer Marry in Ark.
By ANDREW DeMILLO – 16 hours ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas' marriage-age crisis is over. A law that mistakenly allowed anyone — even toddlers — to marry with parental permission was repealed by a measure signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Mike Beebe, ending months of embarrassment for the state and confusion for county clerks.
Lawmakers didn't realize until after the end of last year's regular session that a law they approved, intended to establish 18 as the minimum age for marriage, instead removed the minimum age to marry entirely. An extraneous "not" in the bill allowed anyone who was not pregnant to marry at any age with permission.
The bill read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage."
Some lawmakers called for a special session last year, saying the error would make it easy for pedophiles to take advantage of the law. Gov. Mike Beebe said he didn't see any imminent crisis and said the chances of children marrying under the law were slim.
Legislators, however, had the chance for a do-over this week when Beebe convened a special session to consider a hike in the state's severance tax on natural gas. They repealed the botched law, and reinstated 17 as the minimum age to marry for boys and 16 for girls.
Rep. Will Bond, the sponsor of the botched 2007 law and its correction, apologized for the error and asked his colleagues to "throw me a rope and bail me out here."
"I always thought if you put your name on a bill, you should be ready to take the blame if you're willing to accept the credit," Bond said Wednesday.
Bond, a Democrat, said there hadn't been any reports of young children attempting to marry under the 2007 law.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Letter send out by "anti-smoking" groups. Click on images. Comments under images.
Are these groups receiving "public money" from the Minnesota Tobacco Settlement and if they do, do they believe that t his would affect their research and advocacy? The letters statements of the MN DOH position on the supposed illegality of "theater nights" still fails to cite any written and dated legal opinion SIGNED BY A CONSULTING LAWYER to back the MN DOH opinion. This document should be dated before the MN DOH press release that claimed that "smoking theater" was illegal.
No Court Tomorrow in Virginia Friday, April 04, 2008
Greg --Just went on the web site and saw that you had posted that there will be a court hearing tomorrow in Virginia. There won't be. It was scheduled for an arraignment only -- the purpose of which would have been to inform Tom Marinaro of his rights and what he is charged with.
I sent a letter to the court on Monday informing them that we are waiving that hearing and asking for a new court date -- the purpose of which will be to argue the law to the judge, namely, that the "theatrical productions" exception is unconstitutionally vague and therefore unenforceable.
We haven't heard back yet on the date and time but I will be issuing a press release on that as soon as I get word.Please let everyone know. Thanks.-- Mark Benjamin
I sent a letter to the court on Monday informing them that we are waiving that hearing and asking for a new court date -- the purpose of which will be to argue the law to the judge, namely, that the "theatrical productions" exception is unconstitutionally vague and therefore unenforceable.
We haven't heard back yet on the date and time but I will be issuing a press release on that as soon as I get word.Please let everyone know. Thanks.-- Mark Benjamin
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Greg - Below is a post from the Yahoo's Smoker's Forum. Thought it was worth posting on your website.
Greg - Below is a post from the Yahoo's Smoker's Forum. Thought it was worth posting on your website. Sheila
Re: [Minnesota smokers] Theater Night Update 3-18-08
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 10:59 PM
From:
"Scott Berosik"
To: minnesotasmokers@yahoogroups.com
A special thank you to all that is supporting the pro smokers of Minnesota. And a special thanks to Mark and Sheila for working forward to a possible compromise on the smoking ban in bars. Since Oct. 1st I have maybe spent 2 dollars in a Minnesota bar, I just don't feel comfortable sitting in a bar and not having my cigarette in my hand. I'm sorry to all the bars I used to patronize but the war is on and I feel that the issue must be put up front and forward to drive a point. A special thanks to the owners of Bulls eye Bar for there stand on the issue. you are not alone.
A word to the Minnesota smokers "GET OFF YOUR %#&" and show your support at the government meetings. I was at the Minneapolis meeting when they where considering overturning the smoking ban. There where about 75 smokers and bar owners and a handful of Drs. that where escorted to there cars after testimony (for a smoking ban and the dangers of second hand smoke) of course. I was shocked to see only 75 people at this meeting.
A story for the smokers of Minn. I live in No. St. Paul Minnesota and graduated from No. High School in 1976. During 1975 about a third of the 11th grade class had an old fashioned 60's style "walk out" and "sit in" to fight for the right to smoke on school grounds (legal for 18 year old students), after a 3 day expulsion it was decided to allow smoking on school grounds for legal aged students and a smoking lounge was built for us. After we received our smoking lounge Tartan High School followed suite and a long line of other schools followed. What ever happened to the "stick together and prevail" attitude of that era? If an 18 year old person is old enough to make the decision to risk there life in a war I think they have the right to make the decision to walk or not walk into a bar that has second hand smoke in it.
Just goes to show that if enough of us get together things can get accomplished. But we need to get together next time a government meeting is in session concerning our right to smoke in a bar.
Again thanks to all who are fighting for the rights of smokers and all other rights that are being taken advantage of by our government officials.
Re: [Minnesota smokers] Theater Night Update 3-18-08
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 10:59 PM
From:
"Scott Berosik"
To: minnesotasmokers@yahoogroups.com
A special thank you to all that is supporting the pro smokers of Minnesota. And a special thanks to Mark and Sheila for working forward to a possible compromise on the smoking ban in bars. Since Oct. 1st I have maybe spent 2 dollars in a Minnesota bar, I just don't feel comfortable sitting in a bar and not having my cigarette in my hand. I'm sorry to all the bars I used to patronize but the war is on and I feel that the issue must be put up front and forward to drive a point. A special thanks to the owners of Bulls eye Bar for there stand on the issue. you are not alone.
A word to the Minnesota smokers "GET OFF YOUR %#&" and show your support at the government meetings. I was at the Minneapolis meeting when they where considering overturning the smoking ban. There where about 75 smokers and bar owners and a handful of Drs. that where escorted to there cars after testimony (for a smoking ban and the dangers of second hand smoke) of course. I was shocked to see only 75 people at this meeting.
A story for the smokers of Minn. I live in No. St. Paul Minnesota and graduated from No. High School in 1976. During 1975 about a third of the 11th grade class had an old fashioned 60's style "walk out" and "sit in" to fight for the right to smoke on school grounds (legal for 18 year old students), after a 3 day expulsion it was decided to allow smoking on school grounds for legal aged students and a smoking lounge was built for us. After we received our smoking lounge Tartan High School followed suite and a long line of other schools followed. What ever happened to the "stick together and prevail" attitude of that era? If an 18 year old person is old enough to make the decision to risk there life in a war I think they have the right to make the decision to walk or not walk into a bar that has second hand smoke in it.
Just goes to show that if enough of us get together things can get accomplished. But we need to get together next time a government meeting is in session concerning our right to smoke in a bar.
Again thanks to all who are fighting for the rights of smokers and all other rights that are being taken advantage of by our government officials.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
March 31, 2008 - Smoking ban study released - A brief review of the fiscal impact of a statewide smoking ban on lawful gambling.
Minnesota Gambling Control Board
Suite 300 South1711
West County Road B
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
651-639-4000
March 31, 2008 - Smoking ban study released - A brief review of the fiscal impact of a statewide smoking ban on lawful gambling.
My comments: I did a quick read of the report and it seems unbiased. Note page 17, the St. Paul numbers before and after the local ban and page 19, from areas with no ban before the statewide ban. This seems to mirror the first hand accounts from bars that have been posted here. Below is a report I recieved at 9 AM April 04, 2008
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:39 AM
Subject: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Hello - I am writing again to bring to your attention the report by the Gambling Control Board on the Impact of the Smoking Ban on Charitable gambling. http://www.gcb.state.mn.us/PDF_Files/Smoking%20ban%20study.pdf In our rural area, Meeker County, many of our communities obtain donations to support youth, community sports, and our citizens special needs. Much of the money is raised by charitable gambling. Notice how Meeker County is mentioned, but it does not mention that the ban only affected restaurants. Many bars obtained exemptions by paying $150 to allow smoking. The County Commissioners repealed the County Ban and deferred to the State Ban that went into effect on Oct. 1, 2007. That is when all the bars went "smokefree" like the rest of the state. I have mentioned for the past couple years in my visits to you at the Capitol, that many organizations and charitable sponsors would be affected by a smoking ban. Now the GCB has a report that appears to support this claim. It is just another bullet in the back for small establishments and our wonderful community organizations. Please consider the fallout from the Smoking Ban and support some relief for the small establishments, our communities and those affected by this law. Thank you again for your time and your hard work on behalf of the business and citizens of Meeker County.
Subject: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Hello - I am writing again to bring to your attention the report by the Gambling Control Board on the Impact of the Smoking Ban on Charitable gambling. http://www.gcb.state.mn.us/PDF_Files/Smoking%20ban%20study.pdf In our rural area, Meeker County, many of our communities obtain donations to support youth, community sports, and our citizens special needs. Much of the money is raised by charitable gambling. Notice how Meeker County is mentioned, but it does not mention that the ban only affected restaurants. Many bars obtained exemptions by paying $150 to allow smoking. The County Commissioners repealed the County Ban and deferred to the State Ban that went into effect on Oct. 1, 2007. That is when all the bars went "smokefree" like the rest of the state. I have mentioned for the past couple years in my visits to you at the Capitol, that many organizations and charitable sponsors would be affected by a smoking ban. Now the GCB has a report that appears to support this claim. It is just another bullet in the back for small establishments and our wonderful community organizations. Please consider the fallout from the Smoking Ban and support some relief for the small establishments, our communities and those affected by this law. Thank you again for your time and your hard work on behalf of the business and citizens of Meeker County.
Lia NistlerFormer Bar Owner
241 Cedar Avenue South
Watkins, MN 55389
320=764=2530
Monday, March 31, 2008
MN Smoking Ban Theater Night Press Release 2008.03.29
Note: "Open Letter to John Stine" is at bottom of this posting in this maroon color. One page black ink printable copy of "open letter".http://ocrscans.homestead.com/03-01-08open.html
MN Smoking Ban Theater Night Press Release 2008.03.29
MN Smoking Ban Theater Night Press Release 2008.03.29
MARK W. BENJAMINCriminal Defense, P.A.
237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111
Cambridge, MN 55008
763-691-0900 (office)
763-670-9664 (mobile)
Press Release
The Minnesota Department of Health is threatening bar owners to sign a document giving MDH authority to enforce the smoking ban; MDH currently does not have that authority in the law.
For the last several days, Minnesota Department of Health inspectors have descended upon Theater Night bars – unannounced and brandishing a document – demanding to talk to the owner. They then thrust the document at the owner – a copy of which we only got last night.
We scanned it and posted it:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBzm0FNj5-omsp8dW7Oqthoy_doz7dt9-w1efgxfHzZbZr-1-HvhiElb5Q-azraZU5zhTgPVQ1XQWP67dq7JAeqpkOPBiVgTFyjg8-iwdXIs-RZYkbD13MhFsyfeI6yVFBwV3NOHxhdt4Y/s1600-h/03-29-08MNDOH_html_m3f2aba90.png
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBzm0FNj5-omsp8dW7Oqthoy_doz7dt9-w1efgxfHzZbZr-1-HvhiElb5Q-azraZU5zhTgPVQ1XQWP67dq7JAeqpkOPBiVgTFyjg8-iwdXIs-RZYkbD13MhFsyfeI6yVFBwV3NOHxhdt4Y/s1600-h/03-29-08MNDOH_html_m3f2aba90.png
The owner is given no time to consider the document’s legal ramifications and is told to sign it immediately or risk the following:
“I understand that if I refuse to comply that I have been duly notified that swift and decisive enforcement actions will follow by the Minnesota Department of Health that may include District Court Injunction for Relief (Court Order), Administrative Penalties up to $10,000, and suspension or revocation of my establishment’s food and beverage licenses. *** Immediate action is required to prevent MDH enforcement actions."
“I understand that if I do hold one or more of these [Theater Night] events where my patrons and my food and beverage employees are allowed to smoke indoors, that state and local authorities will take enforcement action that may lead to the loss of my food, beverage, and lodging license and the loss of my liquor license.”
We were curious why MDH suddenly decided to send their inspectors out en masse and require immediate compliance. It turns out that MDH finally found a way to enforce the smoking ban using the administrative procedures outlined in my previous Open Letter to John Stine (see attachment.) <Maroon letter below>
Here’s the relevant part:
Subdivision 2 [of Minn. Stat. 144.991] says the contents of an administrative penalty order “must include”:
Subdivision 2 [of Minn. Stat. 144.991] says the contents of an administrative penalty order “must include”:
(1) (1) a concise statement of the facts alleged to constitute a violation;
(2) (2) a reference to the section of the statute, rule, variance, order, stipulation agreement, or term or condition of a permit that has been violated;
(3) (3) a statement of the amount of the administrative penalty to be imposed and the factors upon which the penalty is based; and
(4) a statement of the person's right to review of the order. (emphasis added.)
Obviously, the MDH has determined that it has no legal authority to enforce the state-wide smoking ban by “a reference to the section of the statute” so it has decided to enforce the ban by reference to a “stipulation agreement”. Neat trick, but first you have to get the bar owner to sign the stupid thing.
This backdoor method of enforcing a statute that is unconstitutionally vague on its face (what constitutes a “theatrical production”?) is sad and shameful behavior by a once-proud Minnesota institution.
We have notified all of our participating bar owners of the consequences of signing this document. Any bar owner signing it will provide a legal basis for enforcement of the smoking ban -- where no such basis existed beforehand.
The MDH is adding to its growing list of questions which, to date, remain unanswered:
1. For three weeks, the MDH and the Attorney General’s Office consulted regarding the enforcement of the smoking ban. On March 5th, the MDH issued a press release stating that it had received “legal advice” upon which it decided that bars hosting Theater Night were engaged in illegal activity. Who gave the “legal advice”? Hint: it wasn’t the Attorney General’s Office.
2. Why does the MDH refuse to produce the written legal opinion declaring that bars hosting Theater Night are engaged in illegal activity?
3. Some city officials have complained that they have been “leaned on” by the MDH to harass and intimidate Theater Night bars by threatening the loss of a liquor license (Maplewood) or over-regulation as a condition precedent for a “theatrical productions” permit (Vadnais Heights). Is the MDH engaged in a concerted and coordinated effort to enforce the smoking ban through threats and intimidation by proxy?
4. Why won’t the MDH take me up on my invitation to a live, unscripted televised debate regarding the legality of Theater Night?
5. The “stipulation agreement” document the MDH has so recently sent out to Theater Night bars promises “swift and decisive enforcement actions” if it is not signed. We are now seven weeks into Theater Night with only three petty misdemeanor tickets issued by local law enforcement (two in Babbitt; one in Chisholm) and nothing issued by the MDH. What’s been holding you guys up?
The show goes on.
One page, black type printable copy of "open letter" below.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. JOHN STINE, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Dear Mr. Stine,
A number of Minnesota bars have recently received your letter concerning Theater Night. You clearly state the opinion of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), namely that “’theater nights’ in bars do not fall within the theatrical production exemption of the MCIAA.” Your letter goes on to say:
Establishments that allow patrons and employees to smoke using the theatrical production exemption are violating the MCIAA regulations. Establishments electing to continue allowing patrons and employees to smoke indoors will be subject to formal enforcement procedures. The MCIAA regulations allow for both criminal and civil enforcement actions, including but not limited to, civil administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. Establishments found in violation may also be subject to license suspension or revocation.
The Theater Night phenomenon has swept the state for more than four weeks now without a single ticket issued by a city police officer or a county sheriff.
Meanwhile, MDH fended off inquiries from the press for three weeks claiming that it was “conferring”, “consulting” and “studying the issue” with the Attorney General. And when the time came for release of the much-anticipated legal opinion, it came from MDH and not the Attorney General. We have learned that the “legal advice” upon which MDH relied did not come from the Attorney General. And MDH refuses to release a copy of the written legal opinion (if it even exists) upon which it relies.
Your letter makes reference to “formal enforcement procedures” that MDH will initiate (finally!) if establishments do not come into compliance. Since you have not informed the public about these procedures, I will.
Minnesota Statute 144.989 is known as the “Health Enforcement Consolidation Act”. Minnesota Statute 144.99 is titled “Enforcement”. Its subdivisions give your agency all of the legal tools it needs to enforce compliance with the smoking ban. To date, you have used none of them.
Like Subdivision 3 – “Correction orders” – that allows your commissioner to issue correction orders requiring a person to “correct a violation of the statutes, rules, and other actions listed in subdivision 1. The correction order must state the deficiencies that constitute the violation; the specific statute, rule, or other action; and the time by which the violation must be corrected.” Your letter doesn’t do that Mr. Stine.
Or Subdivision 4 – “Administrative penalty orders” – that allows your commissioner to “issue an order requiring violations to be corrected and administratively assessing monetary penalties for violations of the statutes, rules, and other actions listed in subdivision 1. The procedures in section 144.991 must be followed when issuing administrative penalty orders.” Your letter doesn’t do that either, Mr. Stine.
But let’s look at Minnesota Statute 144.991 so we can see what procedural process MDH has refused to invoke.
Subdivision 2 of that statute says the contents of an administrative penalty order “must include”:
a concise statement of the facts alleged to constitute a violation;
a reference to the section of the statute, rule, variance, order, stipulation agreement, or term or condition of a permit that has been violated;
a statement of the amount of the administrative penalty to be imposed and the factors upon which the penalty is based; and
a statement of the person's right to review of the order.
If the bar doesn’t agree with the allegations contained in the administrative penalty order, the bar is entitled to an expedited administrative hearing under Subdivision 5. At such a hearing, MDH would be required to prove that “theatrical productions” in bars is not in compliance with the MCIAA and is an illegal activity.
Assuming that the administrative law judge was to rule against the bar and in favor of MDH, the bar can appeal his/her decision under Minnesota Statute 14.63 which states:
Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision under the provisions of sections 14.63 to 14.68, but nothing in sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A petition for a writ of certiorari by an aggrieved person for judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68 must be filed with the Court of Appeals and served on the agency not more than 30 days after the party receives the final decision and order of the agency.
Given the constitutional issues involved here (a public health agency determining what constitutes a theatrical production), I think that it is highly likely that we would all end up at the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Stine, I am writing this to you as an “open letter” because I have found that the best way to confront bullying tactics is to do so openly. And there is little doubt in my mind that your letter is a bullying tactic.
Please have your agency avail itself of the law and enforce it as it sees fit. It is time to put up or shut up. Until then, the show must go on.
Sincerely yours,
Mark W. Benjamin
Attorney at Law
Criminal Defense, P.A.
237 Second Avenue SW, Suite 111
Cambridge, MN 55008
763-691-0900 (office)
763-670-9664 (mobile)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Star Tribune Editorial on the U of MN "research" on tested reduction in "nicotine" after the state smoking ban.
Here is the editorial in the Saturday Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/17111696.html
I use "nicotine" in a generic sense here. The two chemicals tested for are "continan" and something called "NNAL". Both are byproducts of exposure to smoke. These were done by testing urine. The presence of the substance in the urine indicates that it is being flushed from the body. The human body does not replenish these substances so we can logically conclude that the "flushed level" of these substances in urine will decrease with time if there is no replenishment. For example, I don't smoke and have been exposed to less that one hour of second hand smoke per year since the 2005 Minneapolis bar smoking ban so we would expect my urine levels to be very low or "baseline". (According to wikipedia nicotine is found in low quantities in common foods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine )
This study is at best a "reaffirmation" study where you test to see if what you expect really happens. We would expect that if there is indeed no new exposure to secondhand smoke the "flush" level of the drugs would be reduced. This is precisely what happened. The study might be mildly useful for a baseline but it doesn't constitute "news". Most prisons are smoke free nowadays and at intake prisoners are routinely asked if they smoke or are around smokers. Military inductees in "boot camp" are routinely confined to base for the same four to six weeks so there is a "control".
That said, this study might be useful (with all the previous bans and billions spent on smoking health research has this not been done before?) but the urine "flush rate" following a cessation of new smoke exposure should be well known. This should reaffirm already well known information and as such is not newsworthy. The study of was being submitted for peer review and potential publication. It might past muster for newsworthiness if it contained a dramatically unexpected finding. If you flipped 100 of a new design coin (like the state quarter) and it turned out 50/50 this would not be newsworthy because the results were not anomalous. If they were it should still have peer review for errors if results are anomalous.
From what I can tell this survey was well run but the results were as expected and not anomalous. Basically the took 24 nonsmoking volunteers who worked at bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, test their ruling (flush out) just before the ban and then again four to six weeks later after a work shift of at least six hours. Like duhh! the level of nicotine related chemicals in urine went way down. This is the expected rate (like the Minnesota quarters if they flipped 50/50). There is nothing that could possibly make this newsworthy, especially before a peer review and publication. Then it might have a minor news value of "local peer reviewed and published" but that is in the future. Th original Star Tribune Story and this editorial seem curiously timed to counter the "smoke theater" effort with a story with a good headline but not much substance.
I consider this research to be good but not newsworthy because the findings were as expected. The timing of the news release is highly suspect. If you want to dig more into the details of the study here is a press release by Clear Way Minnesota which says it gets 3% of Minnesota's tobacco settlement money (which last I heard was $4.5 billion) http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-27-2008/0004780926&EDATE=
I have received email that the key researcher behind this is involved with pharmaceutical companies promoting smoking cessation "patches" and such. I have a major beef with these because of their commerical advertising. They show someone who just quit smoking, but wearing "a patch" going over to the outdoor railng talking to people who are curently smoking."
I favor the original clean indoor air act because I had to avoid cig smoke for the first six months after I quit. The commercials tell people, that when quitting the "patch is so powerful and you can be around smoke. Here is information sent to me about our esteemed U of MN researcher.
U researcher: Study shows smoking ban reduces risk
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/17035651.html
The doctor who did this study of 2nd hand smoke in bars is a Psychiatrist. (?)
She's also involved in the development of a nicotine addiction vaccine for a bio pharmaceutical company and is a cheerleader for Big Medicine smoking cessation products. Follow the money.http://cbs4denver.com/health/Colorado.news.Denver.2.550333.html
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ NicVax
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/ hatsukamitest603 .html
This has been considered in the proposed legislative compromise. Any bar that allows smoking will be required to have specific signage indicating smoking. If you just quit (even with the patch) it would be wise to stay away for a while.
I use "nicotine" in a generic sense here. The two chemicals tested for are "continan" and something called "NNAL". Both are byproducts of exposure to smoke. These were done by testing urine. The presence of the substance in the urine indicates that it is being flushed from the body. The human body does not replenish these substances so we can logically conclude that the "flushed level" of these substances in urine will decrease with time if there is no replenishment. For example, I don't smoke and have been exposed to less that one hour of second hand smoke per year since the 2005 Minneapolis bar smoking ban so we would expect my urine levels to be very low or "baseline". (According to wikipedia nicotine is found in low quantities in common foods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine )
This study is at best a "reaffirmation" study where you test to see if what you expect really happens. We would expect that if there is indeed no new exposure to secondhand smoke the "flush" level of the drugs would be reduced. This is precisely what happened. The study might be mildly useful for a baseline but it doesn't constitute "news". Most prisons are smoke free nowadays and at intake prisoners are routinely asked if they smoke or are around smokers. Military inductees in "boot camp" are routinely confined to base for the same four to six weeks so there is a "control".
That said, this study might be useful (with all the previous bans and billions spent on smoking health research has this not been done before?) but the urine "flush rate" following a cessation of new smoke exposure should be well known. This should reaffirm already well known information and as such is not newsworthy. The study of was being submitted for peer review and potential publication. It might past muster for newsworthiness if it contained a dramatically unexpected finding. If you flipped 100 of a new design coin (like the state quarter) and it turned out 50/50 this would not be newsworthy because the results were not anomalous. If they were it should still have peer review for errors if results are anomalous.
From what I can tell this survey was well run but the results were as expected and not anomalous. Basically the took 24 nonsmoking volunteers who worked at bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, test their ruling (flush out) just before the ban and then again four to six weeks later after a work shift of at least six hours. Like duhh! the level of nicotine related chemicals in urine went way down. This is the expected rate (like the Minnesota quarters if they flipped 50/50). There is nothing that could possibly make this newsworthy, especially before a peer review and publication. Then it might have a minor news value of "local peer reviewed and published" but that is in the future. Th original Star Tribune Story and this editorial seem curiously timed to counter the "smoke theater" effort with a story with a good headline but not much substance.
I consider this research to be good but not newsworthy because the findings were as expected. The timing of the news release is highly suspect. If you want to dig more into the details of the study here is a press release by Clear Way Minnesota which says it gets 3% of Minnesota's tobacco settlement money (which last I heard was $4.5 billion) http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-27-2008/0004780926&EDATE=
I have received email that the key researcher behind this is involved with pharmaceutical companies promoting smoking cessation "patches" and such. I have a major beef with these because of their commerical advertising. They show someone who just quit smoking, but wearing "a patch" going over to the outdoor railng talking to people who are curently smoking."
I favor the original clean indoor air act because I had to avoid cig smoke for the first six months after I quit. The commercials tell people, that when quitting the "patch is so powerful and you can be around smoke. Here is information sent to me about our esteemed U of MN researcher.
U researcher: Study shows smoking ban reduces risk
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/17035651.html
The doctor who did this study of 2nd hand smoke in bars is a Psychiatrist. (?)
She's also involved in the development of a nicotine addiction vaccine for a bio pharmaceutical company and is a cheerleader for Big Medicine smoking cessation products. Follow the money.http://cbs4denver.com/health/Colorado.news.Denver.2.550333.html
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ NicVax
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/ hatsukamitest603 .html
This has been considered in the proposed legislative compromise. Any bar that allows smoking will be required to have specific signage indicating smoking. If you just quit (even with the patch) it would be wise to stay away for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)