Redrant: Dave Shedstad of 62A is running in my district. He lives a few blocks away from me. I plan to use my $50 once a year donation to Dave. Basically, once a year $50 single/$100 married couple can be donated to the an eleigble candidate and you get the money refunded by the State of Minnesota four to eight weeks later. It doesn't need to be in your district. This is a great program to help elected officials who support our cause. Ultimately your only cost is a stamp. Thus I registered I started the website http://spendastamp.com Check it out. I'll report on the progress of my $50 contribution here.
Be sure to read Sheila's latest update below. A lot more. Greg Lang.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Kromer
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:18 PM
Subject: Theater Night Update 7-9-08
Hello Everyone -
Next week (July 15th) is the dead line to file if you want to run for office (House of Reps). The vetting of candidates will then begin in earnest. Many of asked, "What can I do to change things?" There are several things you can do besides nothing. If you do nothing then you beget nothing and it is as simple as that. I know that everyone has very busy lives but if you want to change things then you need to participate. Some things that you can do are: Support candidates by donating money to their campaigns, volunteering to help (ie. passing out literature, helping with lawn signs, etc...), or promote candidates through conversation or posters in your bar. I personally have been making small contributions to various candidates and I also plan on volunteering some of my time to a few different candidates. Every little bit helps. Do you know about PCR money? PCR (political contribution refund) is a way of donating "free" money to candidates. A single person can donate $50 and a married couple can donate $100 to a candidate and then you apply for a refund to the state and get your money back. I have used it and it actually works! To learn more about this see Greg Lang's website http://spendastamp.com/ .
Shawn Gertken has a website http://banthebanminnesota.com/default.aspx . It is a great website and I encourage you to visit. It has a blog were you can post and one of my favorite parts is the government score card (which is still being developed) http://banthebanminnesota.com/government_scorecard.aspx . Use this scorecard to see where the candidates stand on the smoking ban issue. Also, his blog includes letters from the candidates...a must visit!
Other items of interest:
- Remember to visit http://www.freedomtoact.com/ as several new articles have been posted and are worth reading or listening to as in the case of the videos (they are about Minnesota theater nights):
Chicago Ban Forces Rewrite of Jersey Boys Play
Maryland Offers Hardship Waivers After Cig Ban
Pot Smokers Get High On dutch Tobacco Ban
British Smoking Ban Claim Panned
Lawyer Mark: A Few YouTube Vids
- Sue Jeffers Radio show on KTLK 100.3 FM with guest Sheila Kromer
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=suejeffers.xml
- Link to find your representative
http://pollfinder.sos.state.mn.us/
- Two good candidates to support (of which I have already supported):
Joshua Behling (from Shawn's blog http://banthebanminnesota.wordpress.com/ )
The candidate to whom I’m referring is Joshua Behling, who is running against Larry Haws for district 15B, who was a supporter of, and voted for, the statewide smoking ban. District 15B covers a portion of St. Cloud, and if you are in district 15B, I would encourage you to support Joshua.
Dave Shegstad (from Smoke Out Gary's website http://www.smokeoutgary.org/news/ )
Dave Shegstad Endorsed by GOP for 62A
Posted by Dan in News
Property rights advocate Dave Shegstad received the Republican endorsement in his run against Jim Davnie for the 62A House Seat on Wednesday, June 25th.Though Shegstad is a nonsmoker, he is adamantly opposed to government-imposed smoking bans. “It’s a property rights issue, plain and simple,” he says. A small business owner, Shegstad understands the challenges entrepreneurs face in Minnesota, especially in Minneapolis, where he’s been a life-long resident. Shegstad ran against Minneapolis’ smoking ban godfather, Gary Schiff for the Ward 9 City Council seat in 2005. He campaigned hard, but didn’t win - that round. The experience has left him wiser, though and over the past several years, he’s become more involved and built a network of support. Shegstad’s candidacy should attract the support of anti-ban crusaders. He faces a tough race against DFL-endorsed Davnie in an urban district, but he’s willing to work hard for a win. To support Dave, visit his website and find out how to volunteer or donate to his campaign.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
Hey Greg - Well it looks like Maryland is starting to allow some exemptions/hardship waivers.
Sheila
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=5852&type=UTTM
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
July 2, 2008 7:23 PM
KEYMAR — There’s a new message on the signboard outside of the Crossroads Inn, a roadside tavern that’s just a 15-minute drive from the Pennsylvania line. “THIS IS NOW A SMOKING BAR,” the sign reads. “BARTENDERS WANTED.” A cardboard sign at the corner of the parking lot announces that June 18 marked the first day that patrons could smoke tobacco inside. “Let’s smoke,” the sign says. Two American flags stick out from the sides, celebrating the state’s grant of a waiver from the smoking ban that allows the bar to have some indoor smoking into 2011. The display is a marked difference from March, when Crossroads owner Tim Brandenburg appeared in the Carroll County Times next to a signboard calling for the impeachment of Gov. Martin O’Malley. Brandenburg said the smoking ban, which took effect in February, almost put him out of business. He said he lost somewhere between 45 percent and 60 percent of his sales because regular customers began driving to Pennsylvania, where it’s legal to smoke inside. Instead of staying open until last call, Brandendburg said he would shutter his bar at around 10 o’clock most nights. He said he took out a $40,000 loan and sold two antique trucks to keep the Crossroads Inn afloat. “I thought for sure I wouldn’t make it,” Brandenburg said. He said he wondered whether the slow economy was contributing to the decline in sales, but now he feels things are better than they were before. Sales increased by 25 percent in just over a week, he said. Patrons are coming back, and he’s adding staff. “I want to feel comfortable,” said Kevin Smith, a cement worker having a mid-day beer last week. “I come here to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette and relax.” Smith said he was one of the many people who drove to Pennsylvania because he didn’t want to stand outside. The Crossroads Inn’s struggles convinced Carroll County and state health officials to grant the bar a hardship waiver — one of two in the state — that exempts it from the statewide smoking ban, at least in part until February 2011. Still, some other bars are drawing in new customers who may not have come out to eat before the ban took effect, which suggests a mixed bag of economic results for the first five months of the ban. Overall, the effect of the ban has been difficult to judge. Even the statewide liquor and restaurant associations are having trouble setting the ban aside from other economic pressures, such as the struggling economy, the rising cost of fuel and even the increased prices of ingredients for food that have pushed up some menu costs.
“Our profits as an industry are way down because our costs are up. And now a lot of operators, much to their dismay, have had to raise their prices,” said Melvin Thompson, vice president of government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland. “With all of this going on, I don’t see how anybody can single out the effect of the smoking ban.” Jane Springer, executive director of the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, said it’s similarly hard to judge the effect on bars. That industry is facing the same economic hard times as restaurants, she said. When reviewing industries’ performance in the state, researchers sometimes look to data from the Maryland comptroller’s office, which tracks sales and use tax receipts by business category. The restaurant association typically assumes 4 percent inflation each year, said Thompson, expecting that any real annual increase in sales would be seen above that margin. This year, comparisons are complicated by a sales tax increase, from 5 percent to 6 percent, which took effect in January. Still, judging by the growth rate, the industry is not having a great year. Between February and May, sales and use taxes from liquor stores and taverns were up by 20 percent — the same percentage that the sales tax rose. Receipts from restaurants and night clubs that sell alcohol were up by 18.6 percent during that time, and payments from hotels and motels that serve alcohol were up by 22.2 percent. Figures from June were not yet available. Jeff Werling, an economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, said by e-mail that other factors make it difficult to judge the effect of the smoking ban. “I will say that the income and price effects have probably had a big negative impact on hospitality, so it would be a big stretch to attribute it to the smoking ban,” he wrote. Werling said it might be better to look at the effect during a more normal time, but had not seen any studies to suggest that smoking bans have a lasting effect. Springer, of the licensed beverage association, said she has been surprised that any waivers were granted at all. The waivers run until February 2011 and are available to businesses that can prove they have lost 15 percent or more of their food and beverage sales as a result of the ban. “I think a lot of people, quite frankly, didn’t even attempt the waiver because they didn’t think they’d get it,” Springer said. “Honestly, I was surprised to see that someone got it.” Local health departments are reviewing the applications, but the state is overseeing and assisting with the process. Dr. Clifford Mitchell, environmental health coordinator for the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said he was aware of 11 waiver applications. Three have been rejected, he said, and six are pending. He said he believes another was granted for a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Charles County, but the state has not seen the final paperwork on that application. Another Maryland establishment that got a waiver is The Havana Club Baltimore, owned by Big Steaks Management Inc. The club features cigar smoking as part of its theme. The waiver process is designed to require applicants to prove that it was the smoking ban and no other factors that led to their loss of business, and that makes it a long process. The application packet is 20 pages and asks for information including several years’ worth of tax returns. It also seeks to identify other details that could change business volume, such as changes in menu, ownership or theme. Brandenburg said his application for Crossroads Inn came to about 300 pages, but he worries that he’ll struggle again in 2011. It will get more difficult even before that, he said, because his waiver reduces the number of days patrons can smoke each year. If traditional smokers are rethinking their dining and nightlife habits under the smoking ban, so are some non-smokers. Out of 82 people asked in an informal survey by the Downtown Baltimore Family Alliance, 77 said they were more likely to go out now that the smoking ban is in effect. None said they were less likely to go out. The alliance, which advocates for families with children downtown and promotes the city center as a place to raise children, was formed in March. People who responded to the survey said they could now take part in a range of activities, from going to a bar to meet friends while pregnant without being exposed to tobacco smoke, to bringing children to pizza places and indoor concerts. Megan Baer, who has lived in Federal Hill for about three years, said she and husband Wade have been going out to dinner much more. The Baers used to be reluctant to bring 18-month-old son Garrett with them, even though the selection of restaurants in their neighborhood is part of the reason they live there. “Even if it’s a separate dining area, there are also bars,” Megan Baer said. “A lot of times we would just not go out, even if there are great restaurants that are amenable to families.” Now, they’re going out twice a week, she said, adding that it’s usually early in the evening before bar traffic overtakes the dining crowd. Brian McComas, who owns Ryleigh’s Oyster in Federal Hill with wife Jennifer, said he noticed more people bringing children to his restaurant “right out of the gate.” “The first night, I’ve got three sets of kids, right down to an infant in a lady’s arms right there at the dining table,” he said. That would not have happened before the ban took effect, he said. Food sales are up 40 percent this year at Ryleigh’s, and overall sales have grown by 15 percent. McComas has expanded his kids’ menu and added the free crayon packages and activity mats that many restaurants hand out. McComas said he does not attribute all of the growth to the smoking ban. He said other factors, such as the high price of fuel, have helped keep people in Baltimore City to go out. However, he’s happy with the effect. Ryleigh’s — which was formerly called Sisson’s — opened in April 2007. He said he did not prohibit smoking at the bar initially because he did not want to make too many changes while patrons got used to the new brand. Though he never allowed smoking in the dining room, McComas said the restaurant probably could be fine without smoking. “In retrospect, I think we could have gotten away with it,” McComas said. Still, many people who responded to the survey complained about noise or crowded sidewalks as people gather in front of bars where they could previously smoke inside. There have been no major crime issues related to the smoking ban since it took effect, said Baltimore Police Department Spokesman Sterling Clifford. He said police monitor gatherings in front of bars as part of their enforcement of the city loitering law, but generally do not stop people who step outside for a cigarette and return to the bar. When the law first took effect, he said there were a few problems outside of bars, but there has not been a real increase through the year. “Those are the little hiccups you experience when you implement something new like the smoking ban,” Clifford said. Michael Evitts, spokesman for the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, said he has not heard many complaints about sidewalk crowds, and noted that bars are now opening their windows in the warm summer weather. He said the open windows cause more noise than smokers outside. The partnership, which employs the workers downtown who clean sidewalks and other public areas, has not seen an increase in cigarette litter since the smoking ban took effect. Cigarette butts are one of the more persistent litter problems downtown, he said. That hasn’t changed, he said, but it helps that more restaurants and bars are placing ashtrays outside. “By the smoking ban driving people outside to have a cigarette, it’s to everybody’s benefit if the restaurant pays attention to what’s out there,” Evitts said.
Sheila
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=5852&type=UTTM
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
July 2, 2008 7:23 PM
KEYMAR — There’s a new message on the signboard outside of the Crossroads Inn, a roadside tavern that’s just a 15-minute drive from the Pennsylvania line. “THIS IS NOW A SMOKING BAR,” the sign reads. “BARTENDERS WANTED.” A cardboard sign at the corner of the parking lot announces that June 18 marked the first day that patrons could smoke tobacco inside. “Let’s smoke,” the sign says. Two American flags stick out from the sides, celebrating the state’s grant of a waiver from the smoking ban that allows the bar to have some indoor smoking into 2011. The display is a marked difference from March, when Crossroads owner Tim Brandenburg appeared in the Carroll County Times next to a signboard calling for the impeachment of Gov. Martin O’Malley. Brandenburg said the smoking ban, which took effect in February, almost put him out of business. He said he lost somewhere between 45 percent and 60 percent of his sales because regular customers began driving to Pennsylvania, where it’s legal to smoke inside. Instead of staying open until last call, Brandendburg said he would shutter his bar at around 10 o’clock most nights. He said he took out a $40,000 loan and sold two antique trucks to keep the Crossroads Inn afloat. “I thought for sure I wouldn’t make it,” Brandenburg said. He said he wondered whether the slow economy was contributing to the decline in sales, but now he feels things are better than they were before. Sales increased by 25 percent in just over a week, he said. Patrons are coming back, and he’s adding staff. “I want to feel comfortable,” said Kevin Smith, a cement worker having a mid-day beer last week. “I come here to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette and relax.” Smith said he was one of the many people who drove to Pennsylvania because he didn’t want to stand outside. The Crossroads Inn’s struggles convinced Carroll County and state health officials to grant the bar a hardship waiver — one of two in the state — that exempts it from the statewide smoking ban, at least in part until February 2011. Still, some other bars are drawing in new customers who may not have come out to eat before the ban took effect, which suggests a mixed bag of economic results for the first five months of the ban. Overall, the effect of the ban has been difficult to judge. Even the statewide liquor and restaurant associations are having trouble setting the ban aside from other economic pressures, such as the struggling economy, the rising cost of fuel and even the increased prices of ingredients for food that have pushed up some menu costs.
“Our profits as an industry are way down because our costs are up. And now a lot of operators, much to their dismay, have had to raise their prices,” said Melvin Thompson, vice president of government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland. “With all of this going on, I don’t see how anybody can single out the effect of the smoking ban.” Jane Springer, executive director of the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, said it’s similarly hard to judge the effect on bars. That industry is facing the same economic hard times as restaurants, she said. When reviewing industries’ performance in the state, researchers sometimes look to data from the Maryland comptroller’s office, which tracks sales and use tax receipts by business category. The restaurant association typically assumes 4 percent inflation each year, said Thompson, expecting that any real annual increase in sales would be seen above that margin. This year, comparisons are complicated by a sales tax increase, from 5 percent to 6 percent, which took effect in January. Still, judging by the growth rate, the industry is not having a great year. Between February and May, sales and use taxes from liquor stores and taverns were up by 20 percent — the same percentage that the sales tax rose. Receipts from restaurants and night clubs that sell alcohol were up by 18.6 percent during that time, and payments from hotels and motels that serve alcohol were up by 22.2 percent. Figures from June were not yet available. Jeff Werling, an economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, said by e-mail that other factors make it difficult to judge the effect of the smoking ban. “I will say that the income and price effects have probably had a big negative impact on hospitality, so it would be a big stretch to attribute it to the smoking ban,” he wrote. Werling said it might be better to look at the effect during a more normal time, but had not seen any studies to suggest that smoking bans have a lasting effect. Springer, of the licensed beverage association, said she has been surprised that any waivers were granted at all. The waivers run until February 2011 and are available to businesses that can prove they have lost 15 percent or more of their food and beverage sales as a result of the ban. “I think a lot of people, quite frankly, didn’t even attempt the waiver because they didn’t think they’d get it,” Springer said. “Honestly, I was surprised to see that someone got it.” Local health departments are reviewing the applications, but the state is overseeing and assisting with the process. Dr. Clifford Mitchell, environmental health coordinator for the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said he was aware of 11 waiver applications. Three have been rejected, he said, and six are pending. He said he believes another was granted for a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Charles County, but the state has not seen the final paperwork on that application. Another Maryland establishment that got a waiver is The Havana Club Baltimore, owned by Big Steaks Management Inc. The club features cigar smoking as part of its theme. The waiver process is designed to require applicants to prove that it was the smoking ban and no other factors that led to their loss of business, and that makes it a long process. The application packet is 20 pages and asks for information including several years’ worth of tax returns. It also seeks to identify other details that could change business volume, such as changes in menu, ownership or theme. Brandenburg said his application for Crossroads Inn came to about 300 pages, but he worries that he’ll struggle again in 2011. It will get more difficult even before that, he said, because his waiver reduces the number of days patrons can smoke each year. If traditional smokers are rethinking their dining and nightlife habits under the smoking ban, so are some non-smokers. Out of 82 people asked in an informal survey by the Downtown Baltimore Family Alliance, 77 said they were more likely to go out now that the smoking ban is in effect. None said they were less likely to go out. The alliance, which advocates for families with children downtown and promotes the city center as a place to raise children, was formed in March. People who responded to the survey said they could now take part in a range of activities, from going to a bar to meet friends while pregnant without being exposed to tobacco smoke, to bringing children to pizza places and indoor concerts. Megan Baer, who has lived in Federal Hill for about three years, said she and husband Wade have been going out to dinner much more. The Baers used to be reluctant to bring 18-month-old son Garrett with them, even though the selection of restaurants in their neighborhood is part of the reason they live there. “Even if it’s a separate dining area, there are also bars,” Megan Baer said. “A lot of times we would just not go out, even if there are great restaurants that are amenable to families.” Now, they’re going out twice a week, she said, adding that it’s usually early in the evening before bar traffic overtakes the dining crowd. Brian McComas, who owns Ryleigh’s Oyster in Federal Hill with wife Jennifer, said he noticed more people bringing children to his restaurant “right out of the gate.” “The first night, I’ve got three sets of kids, right down to an infant in a lady’s arms right there at the dining table,” he said. That would not have happened before the ban took effect, he said. Food sales are up 40 percent this year at Ryleigh’s, and overall sales have grown by 15 percent. McComas has expanded his kids’ menu and added the free crayon packages and activity mats that many restaurants hand out. McComas said he does not attribute all of the growth to the smoking ban. He said other factors, such as the high price of fuel, have helped keep people in Baltimore City to go out. However, he’s happy with the effect. Ryleigh’s — which was formerly called Sisson’s — opened in April 2007. He said he did not prohibit smoking at the bar initially because he did not want to make too many changes while patrons got used to the new brand. Though he never allowed smoking in the dining room, McComas said the restaurant probably could be fine without smoking. “In retrospect, I think we could have gotten away with it,” McComas said. Still, many people who responded to the survey complained about noise or crowded sidewalks as people gather in front of bars where they could previously smoke inside. There have been no major crime issues related to the smoking ban since it took effect, said Baltimore Police Department Spokesman Sterling Clifford. He said police monitor gatherings in front of bars as part of their enforcement of the city loitering law, but generally do not stop people who step outside for a cigarette and return to the bar. When the law first took effect, he said there were a few problems outside of bars, but there has not been a real increase through the year. “Those are the little hiccups you experience when you implement something new like the smoking ban,” Clifford said. Michael Evitts, spokesman for the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, said he has not heard many complaints about sidewalk crowds, and noted that bars are now opening their windows in the warm summer weather. He said the open windows cause more noise than smokers outside. The partnership, which employs the workers downtown who clean sidewalks and other public areas, has not seen an increase in cigarette litter since the smoking ban took effect. Cigarette butts are one of the more persistent litter problems downtown, he said. That hasn’t changed, he said, but it helps that more restaurants and bars are placing ashtrays outside. “By the smoking ban driving people outside to have a cigarette, it’s to everybody’s benefit if the restaurant pays attention to what’s out there,” Evitts said.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Florida Supreme court nixes Indian casino pact
Redrant alert: This is obviously a "stretch" but it might be a ruling worth watching. With a decision by the Florida Supreme Court it is ripe for an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
I'm not a lawyer but this story seems to reaffirm my understanding that Indian Casinos can only have "gambling" (regulated?) activities otherwise allowed in the state. Minnesota basically got heavily into the Indian Casino business because it allowed charitable "Casino Nights". The "Casino Nights" were limited to a couple of times per year and had limited betting allowed. The court focused on the core activity of "casino nights".
Indian reservations have very restricted ability to engage in activities illegal outside the reservation. As an example, Peyote is allowed allowed only in highly structured religious, ceremonies not for an "peyote cafe" open to the public on the reservation. The same goes for tobacco use in something like highly structured Native American religious activities in prisons. Both use the same highly structured situation. You can't be a "honky" in the "wannabee" tribe. and use peyote on a reservation or tobacco in prison.
Smoking is a "regulated vice". Rather arcane example of how reservations need to conform to the laws of the state concerning vice might involve nuclear waste and prostitution. I do believe our Prairie Island Nuclear plant is located on or adjacent to a reservation but this has had no effect on spent nuclear fuel rod storage. There have been a number of proposals for nuclear fuel rod storage on tribal land but all have failed.
Another on might be brothels on Indian land. None exist. The same with so-called strip-shows. Minnesota, for example has very strict rules on physical contact between the "dancers" and customers. I know of no reservation in the US that has this so there are limits to tribal sovereignty. The court challenges to trial sovereignty have been somewhat limited but there are occasionally get racial discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. With the most egregious ones "tribal sovereignty" is claimed as a defense.
Smoking in indoor public access casinos might make a good case here. Indoor smoke has been deemed a "public health" issue where the goal is protect the employees. In the case of the casinos the vast majority are not native American and in other legal matters the courts have consistently ruled that the regular justice system has jurisdiction oversight over non tribal members in the tribal legal system.
Since the Florida case involves the a decision by the Florida Supreme Court the only appeal would appear to be the US Supreme Court. A friend of the court certeria could be filed in regard to the alleged discriminatory indoor smoking regulations on and off the reservations related to Casino compacts. In Supreme Court deliberations this could take a year or more to resolve.
Basically, if already unpopular smoking lost here it could open the door to other challenges on reservation sovernty. Time will tell. Greg Lang
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press WriterThu Jul 3, 3:09 PM ET
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos, saying the governor had no right to allow games that are illegal elsewhere in the state.
The November deal allowed the tribe to install Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as blackjack and baccarat at their seven casinos, including the Hard Rock Casinos in Hollywood and Tampa. But Crist overstepped his authority, the court ruled.
"The governor does not have authority to legalize in some parts of the state, or for some persons, conduct that is otherwise illegal throughout the state," the opinion said.
The opinion doesn't take issue with the slot machines, which are also legal at Broward and Miami-Dade County jai-alai frontons and horse and dog tracks, but rather with the table card games.
"What is legal in Florida is legal on tribal lands, and what is illegal in Florida is illegal there. Absent a compact, any gambling prohibited in the state is prohibited on tribal land," the opinion said.
But the tribe contends that it is operating under a federally approved compact which gives it authority for the games. The tribe has installed Vegas-style slots in six of its seven casinos and began blackjack games at its Hollywood casino on June 22.
"The tribe is studying the decision and plans no immediate change in any of the games that are offered," said spokesman Gary Bitner. "We want people to know that if they come to any of the casinos in the state this weekend for the holiday, that they can play."
The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to the card games. In exchange, the tribe gave Florida $50 million when Crist, a Republican, signed the compact. The state was to receive another $175 million over the next two years, $150 million for the third year of the agreement and at least $100 million a year for the remainder of the 25-year deal.
House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged Crist's authority to sign the agreement and asked the Supreme Court for an opinion. Senate President Ken Pruitt later joined the challenge.
Crist's office didn't immediately return a call and an e-mail seeking comment. Rubio and Pruitt, both Republicans, praised the decision.
"The court's decision is a victory for our constitutional system of checks and balances," Rubio said. "I look forward to an open and deliberative process that results in a new compact that doesn't unnecessarily expand gambling in our state."
Pruitt said, "For the Senate, this case was about protecting the important concept of separation of powers. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Legislature's sole authority to make law."
Both local and out-of-town gamblers expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"Think about it, what's a casino without blackjack," said Michael LaBella, 37, who was visiting the casino Thursday on business from El Paso, Texas. "I hate to say this, but compared to Vegas and Atlantic City, Florida has a long way to go."
Robert Dennis, 56, a blackjack lover from Miami, said the court's decision doesn't make sense.
"What is the big deal of getting rid of these games," Dennis said. "With the economy how it is, having more games would only help."
___
Associated Press writer Damian Grass in Hollywood contributed to this report.
I'm not a lawyer but this story seems to reaffirm my understanding that Indian Casinos can only have "gambling" (regulated?) activities otherwise allowed in the state. Minnesota basically got heavily into the Indian Casino business because it allowed charitable "Casino Nights". The "Casino Nights" were limited to a couple of times per year and had limited betting allowed. The court focused on the core activity of "casino nights".
Indian reservations have very restricted ability to engage in activities illegal outside the reservation. As an example, Peyote is allowed allowed only in highly structured religious, ceremonies not for an "peyote cafe" open to the public on the reservation. The same goes for tobacco use in something like highly structured Native American religious activities in prisons. Both use the same highly structured situation. You can't be a "honky" in the "wannabee" tribe. and use peyote on a reservation or tobacco in prison.
Smoking is a "regulated vice". Rather arcane example of how reservations need to conform to the laws of the state concerning vice might involve nuclear waste and prostitution. I do believe our Prairie Island Nuclear plant is located on or adjacent to a reservation but this has had no effect on spent nuclear fuel rod storage. There have been a number of proposals for nuclear fuel rod storage on tribal land but all have failed.
Another on might be brothels on Indian land. None exist. The same with so-called strip-shows. Minnesota, for example has very strict rules on physical contact between the "dancers" and customers. I know of no reservation in the US that has this so there are limits to tribal sovereignty. The court challenges to trial sovereignty have been somewhat limited but there are occasionally get racial discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. With the most egregious ones "tribal sovereignty" is claimed as a defense.
Smoking in indoor public access casinos might make a good case here. Indoor smoke has been deemed a "public health" issue where the goal is protect the employees. In the case of the casinos the vast majority are not native American and in other legal matters the courts have consistently ruled that the regular justice system has jurisdiction oversight over non tribal members in the tribal legal system.
Since the Florida case involves the a decision by the Florida Supreme Court the only appeal would appear to be the US Supreme Court. A friend of the court certeria could be filed in regard to the alleged discriminatory indoor smoking regulations on and off the reservations related to Casino compacts. In Supreme Court deliberations this could take a year or more to resolve.
Basically, if already unpopular smoking lost here it could open the door to other challenges on reservation sovernty. Time will tell. Greg Lang
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press WriterThu Jul 3, 3:09 PM ET
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos, saying the governor had no right to allow games that are illegal elsewhere in the state.
The November deal allowed the tribe to install Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as blackjack and baccarat at their seven casinos, including the Hard Rock Casinos in Hollywood and Tampa. But Crist overstepped his authority, the court ruled.
"The governor does not have authority to legalize in some parts of the state, or for some persons, conduct that is otherwise illegal throughout the state," the opinion said.
The opinion doesn't take issue with the slot machines, which are also legal at Broward and Miami-Dade County jai-alai frontons and horse and dog tracks, but rather with the table card games.
"What is legal in Florida is legal on tribal lands, and what is illegal in Florida is illegal there. Absent a compact, any gambling prohibited in the state is prohibited on tribal land," the opinion said.
But the tribe contends that it is operating under a federally approved compact which gives it authority for the games. The tribe has installed Vegas-style slots in six of its seven casinos and began blackjack games at its Hollywood casino on June 22.
"The tribe is studying the decision and plans no immediate change in any of the games that are offered," said spokesman Gary Bitner. "We want people to know that if they come to any of the casinos in the state this weekend for the holiday, that they can play."
The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to the card games. In exchange, the tribe gave Florida $50 million when Crist, a Republican, signed the compact. The state was to receive another $175 million over the next two years, $150 million for the third year of the agreement and at least $100 million a year for the remainder of the 25-year deal.
House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged Crist's authority to sign the agreement and asked the Supreme Court for an opinion. Senate President Ken Pruitt later joined the challenge.
Crist's office didn't immediately return a call and an e-mail seeking comment. Rubio and Pruitt, both Republicans, praised the decision.
"The court's decision is a victory for our constitutional system of checks and balances," Rubio said. "I look forward to an open and deliberative process that results in a new compact that doesn't unnecessarily expand gambling in our state."
Pruitt said, "For the Senate, this case was about protecting the important concept of separation of powers. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Legislature's sole authority to make law."
Both local and out-of-town gamblers expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"Think about it, what's a casino without blackjack," said Michael LaBella, 37, who was visiting the casino Thursday on business from El Paso, Texas. "I hate to say this, but compared to Vegas and Atlantic City, Florida has a long way to go."
Robert Dennis, 56, a blackjack lover from Miami, said the court's decision doesn't make sense.
"What is the big deal of getting rid of these games," Dennis said. "With the economy how it is, having more games would only help."
___
Associated Press writer Damian Grass in Hollywood contributed to this report.
You-tube suggestion from Lawyer Mark Benjamn
Hi All --Just checked the YouTube website and found three videos that ought to be posted.
This one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUk1PonJNK0was just posted 3 days ago from Great Britain.
And this one from 'Hairy Chestnuts' in Great Britain on June 8th:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM7nU4JWILQI wish we could get this guy over hear to speak.
Finally, here's the fund raiser at Bullseye:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMzcLQo_7dISheila can sure dance!
Hope everyone has a great 4th! Celebrate what's left of our liberties and ...Our Show Goes On.--
Mark Benjamin
This one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUk1PonJNK0was just posted 3 days ago from Great Britain.
And this one from 'Hairy Chestnuts' in Great Britain on June 8th:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM7nU4JWILQI wish we could get this guy over hear to speak.
Finally, here's the fund raiser at Bullseye:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMzcLQo_7dISheila can sure dance!
Hope everyone has a great 4th! Celebrate what's left of our liberties and ...Our Show Goes On.--
Mark Benjamin
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Starbucks plans to close 600 stores across U.S.
Redrant alert: I have never been a fan of coffee shops. I have to be pretty caffeine deprived to even pay a dollar for a cup of coffee. That said, I often thought of coffee houses as being an alcohol neo-prohibitionists substitute for the bar. When the Minneapolis bar smoking ban was enacted in early 2005 I expected a boone for coffeehouses but just the opposite happened. Smoking was also banned at coffeehouses and you would see people smoking outside. When driving by coffeehouses I tend to eye the crowd and most don't look very busy. I sometimes stop in to check email on my Apple I_touch and talk with employees and customers. Here in Minneapolis the 2005 smoking ban had a strong negative effect on coffeehouses. The locally based chain Caribou Coffee has gone through a sharp decline.
In the article on Starbucks linked below I found the following statement interesting. "From 1982, when the company had just four stores, until just two years ago, when Starbucks announced plans to triple its number of stores, it seemed as if Starbucks demand knew no bounds."
The economic problems began in earnest late last year with the sub prime mortgage meltdown and more recently with high energy prices. I believe an unforeseen culprit is the rise in indoor smoking laws in the last few years. The people smoking outside Starbucks did not look happy (and you don't want to leave your laptop at the table when you go out for a smoke.) I'll try to get some pictures of people smoking outside coffeehouses. It should be a hoot!
Enough redrant. Here is the link and text.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/369152_starbucks02.html
Starbucks plans to close 600 stores across U.S.
12,000 employees affected, but company hopes to absorb some
By ANDREA JAMESP-I REPORTER
Hit hard by a slowing economy, Starbucks Corp. is closing 600 stores, or 8.5 percent of its U.S. company-operated portfolio, signaling an end to the Seattle company's U.S. boom, at least for now.
· Big Blog: Which Seattle Starbucks would you save?
From 1982, when the company had just four stores, until just two years ago, when Starbucks announced plans to triple its number of stores, it seemed as if Starbucks demand knew no bounds.
But economic pressures such as rising gas and food prices, combined with increased competition from Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's, are taking their toll.
The closures announced Tuesday will affect about 12,000 employees, or 7 percent of Starbucks' global work force, based on estimates that each store employs 20 people full and part time.
While news of the closures was not a surprise -- the Seattle coffee company has warned that it was keeping a "watch list" of stores and might close more than the 100 previously announced -- the number was larger than expected.
"It's a pretty aggressive move on the company's part," said McAdams Wright Ragen analyst Dan Geiman. "This is an indication on the storefront that they're pretty serious about turning this thing around."
About 70 percent of the stores designated for closure opened after October 2005. They represent about one in five of the new stores opened during that period. Collectively, the stores that will close were not profitable.
Starbucks is not releasing a list of which cafes are targeted. However, the company said that many of them are near another cafe, so customers will not be left without a Starbucks close by.
Some of the stores were so close that they were cannibalizing each other, said Chief Financial Officer Pete Bocian.
"We believe we've improved the profit potential of the U.S. store portfolio," he told analysts on a conference call. "You should view today's decision as a very hard one for us to make, but one where we did look very hard at the store economics. We ended up taking a bigger action than you might have expected going in."
Starbucks said that it hopes to absorb some of the affected employees. The closures will start in late July with most of them complete by mid-2009.
The closures are part of Starbucks' larger transformation strategy, which is threefold: Improve the state of U.S. business, make customers happy and focus on long-term sustainability. Starbucks reinstated Howard Schultz as chief executive in January, and he has since been shaking things up by adding new product lines, slowing U.S. store growth and ramping up international expansion.
It's normal for a rapid-growth retailer to step back and evaluate profitability at individual locations. McDonald's Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have done so, said Patricia Edwards, a retail analyst at Wentworth, Hauser and Violich in Seattle.
"It sounds like they're getting serious about return on investment," Edwards said. "It actually makes a lot of sense. You almost have to applaud them. It's the retailers and the restaurants that take the correct yet painful steps first that do better in the long run."
The fact that the closures are mostly new stores is also logical, she said. A company starts by opening in fabulous locations and then less fabulous once the best spots are taken.
"Build all the A's first, then you build the B's," Edwards said. "By the time they got as big as they were, they had to be looking at a lot of C, D, E and F locations."
Starbucks also cut the number of company-operated stores it will open in fiscal 2009 in half, to fewer than 200. The company did not adjust its plan to open fewer than 400 stores in 2010 and 2011.
Will a slightly more rare Starbucks bring it more cachet?
"The question is, is it about cachet anymore, or is it about selling and making good return on that investment in that store location?" Edwards said. "This is not the era of $4 coffee. We're in the era of $1.50, $2 coffee. They've got to make sure that special pot that they've got is absolutely phenomenal."
As of the end of March, there were 16,226 Starbucks stores around the world, including 7,257 company-operated stores in the U.S.
Starbucks estimates that its closure plan will cost up to $348 million, but after income tax benefits and other changes, it would pay $100 million.
The company will write off $200 million in assets for the third quarter of fiscal 2008 and also expects to spend up to $140 million to terminate its leases, which will be recognized in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first half of 2009. And Starbucks will spend about $8 million on severance costs.
Shares of Seattle-based Starbucks jumped $1.02, or 6.5 percent, to $16.64 in after-hours trading Tuesday after losing 12 cents to close at $15.62. A year ago, shares traded above $28, and in fall 2006, they were trading close to $40.
TRANSFORMING STARBUCKS
Jan. 7: Chairman Howard Schultz returns as chief executive, replacing Jim Donald.
Feb. 21: Starbucks lays off 220 employees nationwide, including 73 in Seattle.
Feb. 26: Company closes doors at nearly 7,100 U.S. shops to retrain baristas.
March 19: Starbucks acquires Seattle-based The Coffee Equipment Co., which makes the Clover brewing system. It also announces its Card Rewards program, which gives perks such as free refills of brewed coffee, upgrades to espresso drinks and complimentary Wi-Fi. And it launches mystarbucksidea.com.
April 23: Starbucks warns that the national economy is hurting its business.
April 24: It announces restructuring of its entertainment strategy, turning over day-to-day management of the Hear Music Record label to Concord Music Group. Ken Lombard, senior vice president and president of Starbucks Entertainment, leaves.
April 30: Starbucks reports 28 percent decline in quarterly profit. It also announces three new product lines: Energy drinks, smoothies and an unnamed Italian drink.
June 5: Company lays off 100 global store-development employees, including 25 at headquarters.
Tuesday: Starbucks says it will close 600 underperforming stores.
Compiled by P-I reporter Kimberly Chou
This report includes information from The Associated Press. P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.
Soundoff (23 comments)
In the article on Starbucks linked below I found the following statement interesting. "From 1982, when the company had just four stores, until just two years ago, when Starbucks announced plans to triple its number of stores, it seemed as if Starbucks demand knew no bounds."
The economic problems began in earnest late last year with the sub prime mortgage meltdown and more recently with high energy prices. I believe an unforeseen culprit is the rise in indoor smoking laws in the last few years. The people smoking outside Starbucks did not look happy (and you don't want to leave your laptop at the table when you go out for a smoke.) I'll try to get some pictures of people smoking outside coffeehouses. It should be a hoot!
Enough redrant. Here is the link and text.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/369152_starbucks02.html
Starbucks plans to close 600 stores across U.S.
12,000 employees affected, but company hopes to absorb some
By ANDREA JAMESP-I REPORTER
Hit hard by a slowing economy, Starbucks Corp. is closing 600 stores, or 8.5 percent of its U.S. company-operated portfolio, signaling an end to the Seattle company's U.S. boom, at least for now.
· Big Blog: Which Seattle Starbucks would you save?
From 1982, when the company had just four stores, until just two years ago, when Starbucks announced plans to triple its number of stores, it seemed as if Starbucks demand knew no bounds.
But economic pressures such as rising gas and food prices, combined with increased competition from Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's, are taking their toll.
The closures announced Tuesday will affect about 12,000 employees, or 7 percent of Starbucks' global work force, based on estimates that each store employs 20 people full and part time.
While news of the closures was not a surprise -- the Seattle coffee company has warned that it was keeping a "watch list" of stores and might close more than the 100 previously announced -- the number was larger than expected.
"It's a pretty aggressive move on the company's part," said McAdams Wright Ragen analyst Dan Geiman. "This is an indication on the storefront that they're pretty serious about turning this thing around."
About 70 percent of the stores designated for closure opened after October 2005. They represent about one in five of the new stores opened during that period. Collectively, the stores that will close were not profitable.
Starbucks is not releasing a list of which cafes are targeted. However, the company said that many of them are near another cafe, so customers will not be left without a Starbucks close by.
Some of the stores were so close that they were cannibalizing each other, said Chief Financial Officer Pete Bocian.
"We believe we've improved the profit potential of the U.S. store portfolio," he told analysts on a conference call. "You should view today's decision as a very hard one for us to make, but one where we did look very hard at the store economics. We ended up taking a bigger action than you might have expected going in."
Starbucks said that it hopes to absorb some of the affected employees. The closures will start in late July with most of them complete by mid-2009.
The closures are part of Starbucks' larger transformation strategy, which is threefold: Improve the state of U.S. business, make customers happy and focus on long-term sustainability. Starbucks reinstated Howard Schultz as chief executive in January, and he has since been shaking things up by adding new product lines, slowing U.S. store growth and ramping up international expansion.
It's normal for a rapid-growth retailer to step back and evaluate profitability at individual locations. McDonald's Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have done so, said Patricia Edwards, a retail analyst at Wentworth, Hauser and Violich in Seattle.
"It sounds like they're getting serious about return on investment," Edwards said. "It actually makes a lot of sense. You almost have to applaud them. It's the retailers and the restaurants that take the correct yet painful steps first that do better in the long run."
The fact that the closures are mostly new stores is also logical, she said. A company starts by opening in fabulous locations and then less fabulous once the best spots are taken.
"Build all the A's first, then you build the B's," Edwards said. "By the time they got as big as they were, they had to be looking at a lot of C, D, E and F locations."
Starbucks also cut the number of company-operated stores it will open in fiscal 2009 in half, to fewer than 200. The company did not adjust its plan to open fewer than 400 stores in 2010 and 2011.
Will a slightly more rare Starbucks bring it more cachet?
"The question is, is it about cachet anymore, or is it about selling and making good return on that investment in that store location?" Edwards said. "This is not the era of $4 coffee. We're in the era of $1.50, $2 coffee. They've got to make sure that special pot that they've got is absolutely phenomenal."
As of the end of March, there were 16,226 Starbucks stores around the world, including 7,257 company-operated stores in the U.S.
Starbucks estimates that its closure plan will cost up to $348 million, but after income tax benefits and other changes, it would pay $100 million.
The company will write off $200 million in assets for the third quarter of fiscal 2008 and also expects to spend up to $140 million to terminate its leases, which will be recognized in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first half of 2009. And Starbucks will spend about $8 million on severance costs.
Shares of Seattle-based Starbucks jumped $1.02, or 6.5 percent, to $16.64 in after-hours trading Tuesday after losing 12 cents to close at $15.62. A year ago, shares traded above $28, and in fall 2006, they were trading close to $40.
TRANSFORMING STARBUCKS
Jan. 7: Chairman Howard Schultz returns as chief executive, replacing Jim Donald.
Feb. 21: Starbucks lays off 220 employees nationwide, including 73 in Seattle.
Feb. 26: Company closes doors at nearly 7,100 U.S. shops to retrain baristas.
March 19: Starbucks acquires Seattle-based The Coffee Equipment Co., which makes the Clover brewing system. It also announces its Card Rewards program, which gives perks such as free refills of brewed coffee, upgrades to espresso drinks and complimentary Wi-Fi. And it launches mystarbucksidea.com.
April 23: Starbucks warns that the national economy is hurting its business.
April 24: It announces restructuring of its entertainment strategy, turning over day-to-day management of the Hear Music Record label to Concord Music Group. Ken Lombard, senior vice president and president of Starbucks Entertainment, leaves.
April 30: Starbucks reports 28 percent decline in quarterly profit. It also announces three new product lines: Energy drinks, smoothies and an unnamed Italian drink.
June 5: Company lays off 100 global store-development employees, including 25 at headquarters.
Tuesday: Starbucks says it will close 600 underperforming stores.
Compiled by P-I reporter Kimberly Chou
This report includes information from The Associated Press. P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.
Soundoff (23 comments)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Smokers Breath "harmful to children"?
Hello Everyone -
Just a quick update.
1) There are 2 articles below that just take the cake! This John Banzhaf (ASH) is a real nut. In the first article he notes that smoker's breath puts the public at risk and in the 2nd article he supports banning smoking in homes with or without children. We need to stop this madness....it has gotten completely out of control.
2) Sue Jeffers radio show today was on the smoking ban. In case you missed it, I will be posting the podcast tomorrow and you can listen to it on the computer. Sue did a great job to help me through my jitters on her show.
3) I have made contact with another group that is pursuing the smoking ban on a federal level. I will keep you posted on the status.
4) I have also made contact with a theater major and am pursing a "new" play. I will let you know when it is ready.
5) A big THANKS to Mark Benjamin for filing the appeal on behalf of Tanks Bar!
6) Keep the e-mails going to your legislators...they need to keep hearing from us! It only takes a minute to send one...it's the least we can all do until election time.
http://www.pr-inside.com/smoker-s-breath-creates-indoor-air-r657051.htm
Air Pollution, Smoking, Smokers' Breath, Legal Problems, Child Custody, Tobacco Residue, Americans With Disabilities, ADA
Smoker's Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution "Harmful" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study's Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces
"SMOKER'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH" // Smoker's Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution "Harmful" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study's Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces
2008-06-22 09:03:41 - "SMOKER'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH." That's the message from a new Australian study which showed that smokers who smoked only outdoors nevertheless emitted enough respirable suspended particles in their breath when they returned indoors to create air pollution which is "harmful" to children.
The study found that the chemicals in the smoker's breath were sufficient to cause or aggravate respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs, and colds among children in such homes as compared with kids in homes where the air was not contaminated by the breath of a smoker. Respiratory illnesses were found to be much more prevalent in homes with smokers. Children exposed to higher air nicotine levels were three times more likely to have asthma or wheeze than those not exposed."This study suggests that society must go beyond merely protecting children from being in the presence of parents and others who smoke in their homes, and think about more effective measures to protect children from parents who smoke anywhere. t also provides a strong scientific basis for agencies which already refuse to permit smokers to adopt children, even if the potential adoptees claim that they only smoke outdoors, and never in the presence of the child," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose organization, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), is leading the legal battle to protect children from tobacco smoke.Judges in almost three-fourths of the states have issued orders prohibiting smoking in homes to protect children involved in custody disputes. But this study would permit the parent who obtained the order to go back and strengthen it, perhaps requiring the smoking parent to change clothing and use a mouthwash before the child visits, predicts attorney Banzhaf, who has helped nonsmokers obtain some of these court orders. The same thing could happen in the dozen states which already prohibit parents from smoking in homes where foster children reside.Although the study only validated the harm to children, it did show that "harmful" levels of several known toxic chemicals are present in the air of homes where a smoker lives but smokes only outdoors. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that smoker's-breath air pollution inside homes or workplaces could also be harmful to workers with allergies and/or other special sensitivities, putting them at risk of asthmatic attacks which could even trigger a cardiac event.Banzhaf notes that two legal actions attacking tobacco residues have already been successful. In the first it was held that the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] applied, and that the employer therefore had to make a reasonable accommodation to protect the nonsmoking employee from tobacco residues.A second proceeding involved a woman who worked for a university which banned smoking in its offices, but did permit workers to go outside for a smoke. Two doctors determined that the smoker's breath, and other tobacco residue from his clothing once he returned to the office, endangered the health of the woman as well as that of her unborn child. A formal complaint filed by Banzhaf resulted in immediate action to protect the woman."We've always known that a smoker's breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution which can harm children and perhaps some adults."PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF IIIExecutive Director and Chief CounselAction on Smoking and Health (ASH)2013 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20006, USA(202) 659-4310 // ash.org
http://www.pr-inside.com/majority-want-smoking-banned-in-all-r665258.htm
Majority Want Smoking Banned in All Homes [06/26/08] Latest Front in the War to Protect Nonsmokers
2008-06-25 21:36:33 - A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars.
According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars. This could indicate growing support for smoking bans both here and abroad, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) -- America's first antismoking organization, and the group behind restrictions on smoking in homes in almost three fourths of the states -- because the percentage of smokers in Ireland is substantially higher than in the US. However, ' Ireland led the way by being the first country to introduce the smoking ban in the workplace in 2004," notes ASH Ireland."As politicians in many states continue to debate whether to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places, it looks like legislators are once again far behind the growing public sentiment for smoking bans, and also far behind how far judges and regulatory agencies are willing to go," says Banzhaf.Banzhaf -- who have been called "The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials," "The Ralph Nader of Tobacco," and "Mr. Antismoking" -- notes that:* judges in almost three fourth of all states have not hesitated to ban smoking in homes to protect children in their jurisdiction involved in custody disputes; *judges in many states have sided with nonsmokers complaining about smoke drifting or re-circulating into their apartment or condo; * both regulators and legislators have now banning all smoking in private homes and cars when foster children are present; and that a flurry of new laws are banning smoking in cars to protect children."Court after court and judge after judge has ruled that there is no right to smoke, so that courts, regulators, and legislatures are free to ban it in homes and in cars. Indeed, several courts have gone even further, holding that both private companies and governmental bodies can fire persons who smoke off the job, even if they do it in the privacy of their own homes or in other places where it is perfectly legal," says Banzhaf.Indeed, as more and more companies face the specter of bankruptcy or an inability to compete because of ever escalating health insurance costs, and are finding that providing smoking cessation assistance and/or financial incentives for employees to quit smoking are ineffective, more are insisting upon having a smoke free workforce, just as they may insist on a drug free workforce, notes Banzhaf.Smoking imposes a huge financial burden on society of over $140 billion each year, most of which is paid by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes and bloated bills for health insurance. Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF IIIExecutive Director and Chief CounselAction on Smoking and Health (ASH)2013 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20006, USA(202) 659-4310 // ash.org
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Smokers of all countries, unite!"
Greg - This is a good article.
http://forces-germany.blogspot.com/2008/06/smokers-of-all-countries-unite.html
Smokers of all countries, unite!"
Our opening fanfare is a text by Guenter Ropohl, an outspoken critic of “health fascism”. Professor Ropohl has a Ph.D. in engineering (same as the infamous Stanton Glantz, ironically) and later specialized in sociology and philosophy of technology. He has written a couple of excellent pieces on junk science and smoking bans.
The following call, which we wholeheartedly support, is a part of his website translated into English.
Smokers of all countries, unite!
Millions of our people are being deprived of fundamental rights, on a worldwide scale there are hundreds of millions. They are refused the right to enjoy tobacco in public buildings, transportation, and places like restaurants, pubs, and bars. So their basic right to social interactions expressing their own personalities and choices is drastically restricted. This will certainly not stand up to judicial review by supreme and constitutional courts.
This violation of basic human rights is justified by the claim that a higher ranking value is at stake, the health of nonsmokers. The environmental air, it is said, is polluted by tobacco emissions which, involuntarily (“passively”) inhaled by nonsmokers, will cause lethal diseases.
This claim, invented in the USA some 30 years ago, has been examined ever and again. Most of the studies it is based on, however, are nothing more than statistical estimates. The results, inconsistent and highly debated among scientists, are not able to demonstrate causal evidence for the alleged health dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Activists of public health, however, vehemently maintain the contrary and seek to abolish a basic human right just because of scientifically questionable speculations. To control an unproven hypothetical risk they fight against real freedom.
The smoking bans offend against a fundamental principle of legislation: the principle of appropriateness.(1) Smoking bans are not a suitable means for establishing an additional protection of health. If environmental tobacco smoke really does not harm people’s health, smoking bans are not only unsuitable, but do not make any sense at all.(2) Smoking bans are not required. Even if they may be suitable to protect a minority of sensitive nonsmokers against annoyance, there are measures more moderate that would obtain this protection goal. In public places, separated nonsmoker and smoker areas may be set up, so that everybody has a free choice. This had been successful in railway trains for years, until total smoking bans now are introduced that clearly have no basis at all.(3) The disadvantages of general smoking bans are out of proportion to very questionable benefits. Millions of people have their participation in public sociability and mobility strongly interfered with. In work places, long distance trains, hospitals and retirement homes they are forced to painfully refrain from enjoyment. Finally tens of thousands of restaurant and bar owners are threatened with the loss of their business, and traditional pub and tobacco culture is being destroyed.
The managers of airlines, transport services and public buildings misuse the baseless fear of tobacco smoke as a cover-up for saving money on cleaning and ventilation through smoking bans. Yet the smokers enrich public finances through enormous sums of tobacco taxes. The basic right to full personality and social development is to be sacrificed on the altar of misplaced stinginess.
Managers and organization persons belong to the so-called ”higher circles”, and among those people smoking has come out of fashion. The “higher circles”, however, exercise the power in society. What they on their part, more or less voluntarily, are refraining from, they try to forbid others: the hairdressers and the lorry drivers, the office employees and the workmen, the shop assistants and the labourers, in a word, the “ordinary people”, who cannot stand up on their own.
The fight against smokers is a novel class struggle, a class struggle from the top. Health fanatics and managers form an alliance against the smoking third of mankind to deprive them of freedom and life enjoyment. Just as in former times the labour movement had to fight for their rights by forming powerful organizations, nowadays the smoking people have to resist growing suppression attempts. Smokers of all countries, unite!
Guenter Ropohl (Professor Emeritus of General Technology at the University of Frankfurt on Main, Germany)
http://forces-germany.blogspot.com/2008/06/smokers-of-all-countries-unite.html
Smokers of all countries, unite!"
Our opening fanfare is a text by Guenter Ropohl, an outspoken critic of “health fascism”. Professor Ropohl has a Ph.D. in engineering (same as the infamous Stanton Glantz, ironically) and later specialized in sociology and philosophy of technology. He has written a couple of excellent pieces on junk science and smoking bans.
The following call, which we wholeheartedly support, is a part of his website translated into English.
Smokers of all countries, unite!
Millions of our people are being deprived of fundamental rights, on a worldwide scale there are hundreds of millions. They are refused the right to enjoy tobacco in public buildings, transportation, and places like restaurants, pubs, and bars. So their basic right to social interactions expressing their own personalities and choices is drastically restricted. This will certainly not stand up to judicial review by supreme and constitutional courts.
This violation of basic human rights is justified by the claim that a higher ranking value is at stake, the health of nonsmokers. The environmental air, it is said, is polluted by tobacco emissions which, involuntarily (“passively”) inhaled by nonsmokers, will cause lethal diseases.
This claim, invented in the USA some 30 years ago, has been examined ever and again. Most of the studies it is based on, however, are nothing more than statistical estimates. The results, inconsistent and highly debated among scientists, are not able to demonstrate causal evidence for the alleged health dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Activists of public health, however, vehemently maintain the contrary and seek to abolish a basic human right just because of scientifically questionable speculations. To control an unproven hypothetical risk they fight against real freedom.
The smoking bans offend against a fundamental principle of legislation: the principle of appropriateness.(1) Smoking bans are not a suitable means for establishing an additional protection of health. If environmental tobacco smoke really does not harm people’s health, smoking bans are not only unsuitable, but do not make any sense at all.(2) Smoking bans are not required. Even if they may be suitable to protect a minority of sensitive nonsmokers against annoyance, there are measures more moderate that would obtain this protection goal. In public places, separated nonsmoker and smoker areas may be set up, so that everybody has a free choice. This had been successful in railway trains for years, until total smoking bans now are introduced that clearly have no basis at all.(3) The disadvantages of general smoking bans are out of proportion to very questionable benefits. Millions of people have their participation in public sociability and mobility strongly interfered with. In work places, long distance trains, hospitals and retirement homes they are forced to painfully refrain from enjoyment. Finally tens of thousands of restaurant and bar owners are threatened with the loss of their business, and traditional pub and tobacco culture is being destroyed.
The managers of airlines, transport services and public buildings misuse the baseless fear of tobacco smoke as a cover-up for saving money on cleaning and ventilation through smoking bans. Yet the smokers enrich public finances through enormous sums of tobacco taxes. The basic right to full personality and social development is to be sacrificed on the altar of misplaced stinginess.
Managers and organization persons belong to the so-called ”higher circles”, and among those people smoking has come out of fashion. The “higher circles”, however, exercise the power in society. What they on their part, more or less voluntarily, are refraining from, they try to forbid others: the hairdressers and the lorry drivers, the office employees and the workmen, the shop assistants and the labourers, in a word, the “ordinary people”, who cannot stand up on their own.
The fight against smokers is a novel class struggle, a class struggle from the top. Health fanatics and managers form an alliance against the smoking third of mankind to deprive them of freedom and life enjoyment. Just as in former times the labour movement had to fight for their rights by forming powerful organizations, nowadays the smoking people have to resist growing suppression attempts. Smokers of all countries, unite!
Guenter Ropohl (Professor Emeritus of General Technology at the University of Frankfurt on Main, Germany)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)