Saturday, March 8, 2008

Alton cops/firemen get laid off thanks to the smoking ban

The Alton, IL casinos have lost 1 million bucks in revenues due to the IL smoking ban. And as a result, 4 firefightas in Alton, and 2 Alton cops have been laid off due to that 1 million buck loss from the casinos.

To read the article itself, CLICK HERE.

It's sad that even people like cops and firemen can lose their jobs thanks to a smoking ban. But at least more evidence keeps piling up on bans hurting businesses.

Alton must be a small IL town that normally collects money from their casino revenues.

Friday, March 7, 2008

A victory for Hemminghaus

This is a noteworthy post from the IL Smokers Group. Me broke up the links on this post into numbered links. So readers can actually click the links.

***************************************************************
LINK TO CITED MESSAGE


From West Frankfort, IL. Jon Hemminghaus, the owner of the Wounded
Rig, installed a sign in front of his boat repair business which
reads:

"My Place, My Choice, Smoking Allowed"

"I don't smoke cigarettes," he said. "I used to smoke but I quit five
years ago. I don't think it's right they are telling me what I can do
in my own place. I bought and paid for that place. If somebody wants
to come in and smoke a cigarette they are more than welcome to it."

"This country was founded on civil disobedience, " Hemminghaus
said. "It has gotten to where, now, people are afraid to get into
trouble. It kind of makes me mad that everybody has turned into
cowards. I don't smoke but if everyone would stand together on this
one..."

Mr. Hemminghaus is correct, I have watched 158+ local bars &
restaurants go out of business as they complied with the revenue
damaging smoking bans, because they were afraid of getting into
trouble and losing their establishment. I have asked more than one
bankrupt owner, since the bans are eliminating customers and business
to the point of forcing you to close your doors for good anyway, what
would be the harm in defying the bans to begin with? If everyone
would stand up for freedom in an act of civil disobedience these laws
would get repealed in no time.

In the words of Mr. Hemminghaus ...It kind of makes me mad that
everybody has turned into cowards. Readers may have noticed that we
at Clearing the Air refuse to go silentlty into that dark night of
defeat, especially in light air quality test results that prove
secondhand smoke IS NOT a workplace health hazard.

Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer
Society
, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various
researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and
published in the esteemed British Medical Journal..... .prove that
secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA)
workplace regulations:

LINK NUMBER 1


LINK NUMBER 2

LINK NUMBER 3

LINK NUMBER 4


Inspired by Hemminghaus' s words, smoking is now also allowed at
Clearing the Air's corporate offices..... ..smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Never believed smokers can live for as long as 100 years?




This is a special pic for any antismokers lurking on here.

I've actually seen this pic (prior to today) of a smoker using a candle on her birthday cake to light her cig. But I bet not too many antis have seen this one before!

Based on modern antismoking logic, it's impossible for a smoker to live for 100 years. The reality is, it IS possible for a smoker to live for 100 years. If a smoker eats healthy food, and exercises regularly, that smoker will live longa than a nonsmoker.

I don't have a URL to confirm that as a fact. But I heard it on CBS News in the 90's. The reporter said smokers who exercise live longa than nonsmokers who exercise. And smokers who have healthy diets can also play a factor in how long he/she lives.

Oh yeah. Did I say once most of the smokers who live for at least 100 years are cigar smokers and smokers who make their own cigs?

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

New poll on here

As you can tell, Me added a new poll Q on here. This one will be up til May. From the previous poll Q, 7 smokers voted they would move outta the US if we ever have a federal smoking ban. 17 smokers voted they will do everythang they can to avoid having a smoke-free USA.

Thoughts on ths antismoking comment

I came across these comments form an antismoker in an article comments area. Unfortunately, I can't respond on there without registering to comment first.

"The bill of rights guaranteed me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. Someone blowing smoke in my face interferes on my right to life since it is a none disputed fact second hand smoke causes cancer. "

I wonder if this anti actually got diagnosed with cancer from inhaling SHS. I doubt it. I think blowing smoke in your face won't interfere with your right to life. Someone sticking a gun in your face has a betta chance of interfering with your right to life. And BTW, if someone IS "blowing smoke in your face," it must be intentional. Because I neva blow smoke in a nonsmoker's face unless he/she deserves it.

"It also interferes with my pursuit of happiness since it makes me very unhappy."

I'm unhappy with seeing drunks in the streets. But having drunks in the streets doesn't interfere with me having a happy life. How can smokers make your screwed-up life miserable? You could've been a lot more happier if you neva entered places with smokers.

It beats me on why antis like to use the excuse of "Blowing smoke in my face interferes with my right to life." YOU decided to enter that place with smokers. And you gotta LIVE with your decision.

And it ain't like every place used to allow smoking prior to smoking bans being put into place. There were SO MANY NON-SMOKING BUSINESSES ALREADY. Antis actually had a choice to enter smoke-free restaurants before. But yet, they pick the places that used to allow smoking in order to enjoy life at. That is stupid thinking!

I don't agree with it's all or nothing. Why the F should we have a smoke-free world? Whateva happened to making BOTH sides happy?

If I am one of these "rude smokers," you can blame that all-or-nothing mindset for making me like that. Antis don't seem to care about my right to enjoy life and smoke a legal product in public. Why the F should I respect THEM if they're gonna treat my American rights as sheet?

Neva mind these antis online who think it's illegal to litter streets with butts. If it's illegal, I wonder why a smoker neva got ticketed for dropping butts in the streets my whole life. One anti says "Illegal is illegal," but yet, he claims no authority is gonna respond to a call about smokers dropping butts in the streets! Oh really? I thought you said littering is illegal period. Where's my ticket for dropping a butt on the ground?

If you don't like seeing butts in the streets, then eitha sweep the darn butts up yourself. Or try to get my right to smoke in public places back! That way, if people could smoke inside again, you would see fewer butts in the streets and sidewalks. And life would be esier for those workers who get paid to sweep up those butts.

Panel rejects bill to modify smoking ban

Here's a copy of the article. It's crappy that IL doesn't believe in giving exemptions to casinos, taverns, vets who smoke, and otha hospitality businesses. Whoever is in those Springfield offices need to get their grasses voted outta there immediately before they kill IL even more!

If this article isn't an example of discrimination from the state, then a person who thinks that is living in a fantasy world. This article is appalling to me in all honesty. I oughta tell those Springfield folks "Screw you, and I REALLY hope you won't be in those offices next year! Because you are NOBODY'S Big Daddy."

Jay
********************************************


ARTICLE LINK

Panel rejects bill to modify smoking ban

Proposal sought to let businesses buy special licenses for lighting up

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

SPRINGFIELD - Spurning another effort to modify the new statewide smoking ban, an Illinois House committee on Tuesday voted against a proposal that would allow businesses to buy special licenses if they want to permit indoor smoking.

House Bill 4184 was written with the idea of providing businesses with options, said the measure's sponsor, Republican Rep. Randy Ramey of Carol Stream.

"It is not going to dismantle Smoke Free Illinois," he told members of the House Environmental Health Committee.

Since the Smoke Free Illinois law took effect this year, some businesses have lost money because customers no longer can smoke inside, Ramey said. His legislation would enable certain businesses to reinstate indoor smoking, if they wanted to, by buying a license.

Eligible businesses would include bars with food sales of 10 percent or less, casinos, racetracks, veterans' organizations and other private clubs. Restaurants would be excluded.

Local governments would decide how many smoking licenses to offer and how much they would cost.

Among the proposal's supporters was Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association. He told members of the House panel that January and February revenues for the state's nine operating casinos dropped by more than 17 percent, when compared with the same months a year ago.

Because of the smoking ban, casino patrons are spending more time lighting up outside and less time playing the slots and table games inside, he said Tuesday.

Mike Grady, director of public policy and government relations for the American Cancer Society's Illinois division, opposed the bill.

"There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke," he said.

Four lawmakers supported Ramey's bill, while 10 opposed it.

Also on Tuesday, the Environmental Health Committee rejected legislation calling for outright repeal of the Smoke Free Illinois Act.

Rep. Shane Cultra, R-Onarga, sponsored House Bill 5721 in response to the new law, which he said is "too intrusive" and impedes on small businesses' ability to make a profit.

Just three lawmakers supported Cultra's bill, and 11 others opposed it.

The same committee in recent weeks has blocked other attempts to ease the smoking ban's restrictions by creating exemptions for private clubs, including veterans' organizations.

_

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

More thoughts

If anyone has been reading that "chat" me has been having in the comments area of the IL ban case article, all I can say is if I ever see a smoker get ticketed or arrested for dropping cig butts in the streets, then somethang is seriously wrong with that pic.

If more buildings had ashtrays outside, or if we didn't have smoking bans, you would see less cig butts on the streets. But it's not really as big of an issue as those mothas make it sound on in the comment area.

I'd like to see what a 911 operator does to responding to a call about someone seeing smokers drop butts and empty packs on the streets.

An IL smoking ban case to follow

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/030408/REG_BFV59594.033.php

Will smoking ban hold up?

Bartender's lawyer will try to poke holes in young law today in court

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

BY MATT BUEDEL

OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PRINCETON - A Bureau County judge today will begin untangling a case that could potentially snuff out Illinois' 2-month-old ban on smoking in public places.

The case is against Karla Carrington, a bartender at The Family Tavern in Spring Valley, who was cited because she allegedly "knowingly allowed" a patron to smoke early in February when an undercover Spring Valley police officer came into the bar.

But Carrington's lawyer, Peoria attorney Dan O'Day, claims in several motions filed late last week that multiple provisions of the Smoke-Free Illinois Act - from the signage requirements to the likelihood of illegal invasions of privacy and fines - are unenforceable at best, or even unconstitutional.

"I think what happened was they designed a statute that was more like a press release," O'Day said of the ban, which state lawmakers approved last summer and took effect at the beginning of the year. "They forgot to make it a law."

And if any provisions of the act, which prohibits smoking indoors in public places and within 15 feet of building entrances, are determined to be invalid, a quirk of a clause buried within its text could overturn the entire ban.

The specific language is known as a "severability clause," which is not unusual and most often aims to uphold all other provisions of a statute if one provision is struck down by a court or becomes otherwise ineffective.

But O'Day said the severability clause in the Smoke-Free Illinois Act contains a peculiarity that appears to do the opposite: invalidate the entire statute if one of its provisions becomes a courtroom casualty.

That, however, is only one of what appear to be several anomalies that will be sorted in Carrington's case, which has been filed as a misdemeanor charge.

The court first will have to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the matter, which O'Day argues the act leaves only to an administrative state agency like the Illinois Department of Public Health.

But even the path through the IDPH was prohibited by the Legislature's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in January because its "Lack of due process threatens the public interest and welfare," according to the Illinois Register.

If the court finds it can rule on the case, it would have to determine whether restaurant and bar owners and employees could even be cited for allowing smoking to take place, as the current language of the act appears only to allow fines for people in public places who are caught smoking, O'Day said.

And among several other challenges to the minutia of the law, Carrington's case also questions the constitutionality of the state's requirement for businesses to post no smoking signs at entrances and exits - some with the name of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the insignia of the American Lung Association or other logos. The constitutionality of mandated ash tray removal also is challenged.

"The law's a dead duck that can't be enforced," O'Day said.

The Webmaster is an antismoker on Southern Illinoisan Forum

A common quality of an anti is trying to change the topic to saving kids from SHS. The anti ("The Webmaster") on that Southern Illinoisan forum is no different. The thread started out with a post on the smoke-in. And somehow, the dumb-A "Webmaster" changed the topic to protecting kids from the dangers of SHS.

What the heck do kids gotta do with a West Frankfort smoke-in? Based on the freakin cool vids I saw from the smoke-in, my eyes didn't catch any boys and girls there who were under 18.

Neva mind the fact no kids have ever died from inhaling SHS over the past 5 decades.

If nonsmokers have the right to breathe clean air, show me those darn words in the Constitution. You don't find "Freedom of smoke-free air" in there.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Article on the smoke-in

Here's one online article I found about the smoke-in. This smoke-in was a good demostration of freedom, which is lacking in America.

DA SMOKE-IN ARTICLE

Protesters gather to oppose state smoking ban
By Codell Rodriguez, The Southern
Saturday, March 1, 2008 11:46 PM CST
WEST FRANKFORT - Erik Lind drove all the way from Minneapolis to show his disdain for Illinois' statewide smoking ban.

Jon Hemminghaus, owner of Wounded Rig Fiberglass and Gel Coat Repair in West Frankfort, hosted a protest at noon Saturday against the ban that began in January with stump speeches, greeters in Revolutionary War costumes waving the American flag - and smoking. While the smoking took place outside, Hemminghaus said anyone was welcome to smoke inside his establishment.

"This is the only thing you can do to get noticed," Hemminghaus said. "You can sign a petition and write a letter, but it doesn't do you a bit of good."

Lind, who said he was a contributor to a smokers' rights group called force.org, said he made the drive from Minneapolis because he was inspired by Hemminghaus' willingness to fight for smokers' rights.

"It's a fairly rare opportunity, and I wanted to be a part of it," Lind said. "Maybe it will grow from here."

The protest didn't gain much attention from law enforcement, although Hemminghaus did say some police officers checked on the parking situation earlier.

Hemminghaus carried a cigar with him throughout the protest, despite not being a smoker. He said the protest was more about the government telling people what they can and can't do.

"That flag out there," Hemminghaus said referring to the American Flag. "A lot of people can remember when that stood for freedom."

Hemminghaus thanked people for attending and let others take the stage, including a representative from force.org, which doesn't show up as a Web site in a Google search. The representative encouraged those in attendance to fight the ban and gave examples of reasons to fight the smoking ban, including an allegation that the smoking ban that Mayor Michael Bloomberg enacted in New York City in 2003 forced several casinos to file for bankruptcy. However, according to casino directory www.casinocity. com, there are no casinos in New York City.

For Hemminghaus, the main purpose for the protest was to let the government know that he won't let the smoking ban inflict peoples' rights.

"Smoking doesn't really affect me," Hemminghaus said. "It's just taking rights away."