Thursday, December 4, 2008

The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter

The United Pro Choice
Smokers Rights Newsletter

December 5, 2008 - Issue #506

"Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."
- Gregg Easterbrook
Watch: Newsflash, Heart attacks increase in Scotland.
When it looked as though heart attack rates were dropping in Scotland, the government were quick to claim that this was caused by the smoking ban, but now that we discover that heart attacks are actually increasing, the government and the biased media prefer to sweep this inconvenient truth under the carpet. By Phil Williams, United Kingdom Regional Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc., The Smoker's Club.
Scotland: Large rise in Acute Coronary Syndrome since the smoking ban. The Scottish smoker ban is responsible for many, many deaths. The ban can be said to have CAUSED hundreds of heart attacks.
From The Mailbag
CO: Tobacco prohibitionists complaining, spending tobacco $.
KS: Hutchinson and Reno County Update by Sheila Martin.
OH: Allegations of Voter Fraud in Ohio. Ballot backwards.
USA: MSA: New companies challenge deal, tobacco wars.
The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter, read all the news.
Defiance And Ban Damage Hurts Everyone
Defiance: Inside NYC's Smoking Speakeasies. Fashionable New Yorkers are breaking the law and lighting up.
Protest! Dutch cafe owners on Saturday took to the streets of The Hague in protest at a smoking ban they say has seen business drop by up to a third. Protesters brandished banners denouncing the "dictatorship" of Dutch Health Minister Ab Klink.
France: Across France, Cafe Owners Are Suffering.
The Slippery Slope After Tobacco
Beer! Four beers a day 'could make you blind.' Explaining the trigger, Dr Chong said it was possible alcohol could increase oxidative stress to the retina. "Alcohol is a neurotoxin so it is thought that high levels can actually cause retinal damage that might lead to the disease," she said.
Flax Seed: A Natural Alternative to Statins? The guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics called for cholesterol screening of children as young as 2—and cholesterol drugs for kids as young as 8.
Privacy: You’re Leaving a Digital Trail. What About Privacy?

Proof Ireland is in recession:
pubs freeze drink prices.
Join FREE - Home - Events - Forum - Videos - Please Help - ©

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Allegations of Voter Fraud in Ohio Smoking Ban

Opponents of Ohio Bans has issued a new press release.

http://tinyurl. com/6f7do6

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Dec. 2 /PRNewswire- USNewswire/ -- Ohio voters went to
their polling places to cast their votes in November, 2006 confident
that their vote would count and confident that what they read when
they voted would be enacted into law. Several ballot initiatives
appeared on that day. Issue 2 was the Minimum Wage ballot initiative,
described in 1039 words on the ballot. Issue 5, the Ohio smoking ban
ballot initiative, was described in 202 words. To refresh the
readers' memories, we've included that actual ballot as it appeared
at the polls.

Voters approved Issue 5 based on the ballot language. SmokeFree Ohio
wants us to believe the people who voted "YES" to exemptions really
meant "NO". Voters instead got this law:

-- NO exemptions for family owned and operated businesses
-- NO exemptions for private clubs
-- Exemptions for outdoor patios with restrictions
-- Smoking a cigarette in a prohibited area is not a violation of
the law

According to a public records request dated August 4, 2008, not one
individual has been fined in the State of Ohio for smoking. In fact
according to Lance Himes, Assistant Council for the Ohio Department
of Health, "merely smoking in one of these areas does not constitute
a violation."

If the Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring all elections
are free, fair, open and honest, who is responsible for ensuring that
the law voters approved is the law the voters ended up getting? The
Legislature is. Issue 5 was nothing more than a "bait and switch"
tactic. The Ohio Attorney General pursues criminal charges
against "bait and switch" companies doing business in Ohio. "Why are
ballot initiatives not guarded even more closely? If a vote is not
sacred, then what is? How is this not voter fraud?" asks Debi
Kistner, Opponents of Ohio Bans. "Nothing about Issue 5 was honest or
fair."

Voters were told there would be exemptions for family owned
businesses, private clubs and outdoor patios. We know now that it was
an illusion, a shell game. The Director for the Ohio Department of
Health, Dr. Alvin Jackson, claimed space was an issue and that
apparently is why "with no employees" and "not open to the public"
qualifying statements were left off the ballot initiative. Eight
words would have brought the wording to 210 words, quite short of
Issue 2's 1039 words. If space was an issue, why print these
exemptions at all? If the exemptions weren't to exist, that could
have saved an additional 12 words and a lot of confusion. Why were
the exemptions listed? To get YES votes.

SmokeFree Ohio told voters there was "no economic harm to businesses
from smoke-free policies". Opponents of Ohio Bans proved from public
records requests that the first year of the ban liquor permit holders
lost a potential of 67.44 million dollars in sales, which does not
include lost beer sales, vending (pool tables, juke boxes), etc. That
loss alone equates to over 4 million dollars in lost sales and use
taxes for the State of Ohio. Ohio's Gongwer Legislative News Service
dated August 15, 2008 reported the highest unemployment figures since
1992 with Hospitality and Leisure in the #1 spot beating Trade,
Utilities and Transportation combined. Tobacco control advocates
think if they keep repeating "there is no economic harm from smoking
bans" that it will make it so. It does not! The bottom line is people
are now choosing to drink (and smoke) at home, as the same public
records request showed with the increase of over 1.3 million more
bottles of liquor sold for home consumption in 2007 over what was
sold in 2006.

Voters were told the Department of Health would enforce the ban.
Reread the ballot language. Not only have they laid the enforcement
responsibilities on business owners, which was not on the ballot,
they've have now declared that smoking is not a violation of the law.
However, a business owner not telling a smoker to put the cigarette
out is a violation. This makes no sense. If a smoker is doing nothing
wrong legally, then why is a business owner required to say
anything? "It's like legally requiring a bank manager to inform
robbers while a robbery is in progress that robbing the bank is
against the law and then coming after the manager if he doesn't while
absolving the robbers of any crime," said Pam Parker, Opponents of
Ohio Bans.

Senate Bill 346 has been introduced to correct the bait and switch
tactics by SmokeFree Ohio. But time is running out. At the rate
hospitality businesses are closing, there won't be many left to save.
Most are barely hanging on. One bar owner called to say her 80 year
old father-in-law is about to lose his home that he borrowed against
to keep their 23 year bar business open. With DHL closing and Ohio
running out of unemployment funding, can Ohio also afford to bailout
those who lose their jobs from family owned businesses because of
apparent voter fraud? Where is the bailout for the business owners
who have invested years of hard work and are now depleting their
savings? "SB346 shouldn't be about politics," said Parker. "It's
about fixing a bad law based on apparent fraudulent language. It's
about saving Ohio jobs, family owned businesses and private clubs."

The only similarity between what voters read when they voted and the
law we currently have are the words "to enact Chapter 3794 of the
Ohio Revised Code".

Related Web site: http://www.opponentsofohio bans.com

SOURCE Opponents of Ohio Bans

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

IL smoking ban still debated

Here's an IL-based smoking article.

EDIT: I posted a copy of the article below this message, just in case that article has disappeared from the linked URL

ARTICLE LINK


I tried to submit a comment to it. Particularly in reply to that anti comment on there. But I'll understand if the comment doesn't get published, since smokers' comments get moderated.

I agree with the student in the article who says the smoking ban is impacting the local economy. This wouldn't be the case if smokers were viewed as actual Americans.

That student who made the wheezing claim from that wind blowing smoke in the student's face, I hope that person didn't have to go to the ER as a result. LMBAO!!!! Sh!t, based on the way that wheezing comment sounded like, the student made it sound like the wind blew deadly vehicle fumes in the face instead. HA HA HA

***********************************

One year later smoking ban still debated

By: Jessie White

Posted: 12/1/08

As of Jan. 1, 2008 the Smoke-Free Illinois Act prohibited smoking in virtually all public places. A year after the Illinois government passed the statewide smoking ban, emotions still run high on both sides of the argument.

Non-smoker Cassy Sanders, early childhood development and education major, spends a lot of time with the kids in the daycare lab. She said, "The kids used to complain about the smell all the time because people actually used to smoke right near the fence. Now the kids play out there all the time and we don't have to worry about it bothering them."

Unfortunately, this is not the case around other parts of campus. "I was walking out of my class in Webb Hall the other day, I noticed there were people down in the smoking pit lightin' up. I didn't think anything about it until the wind started blowing the smoke my direction. I was wheezing all the way out to my car," explained Josh Mckibben, student here at Lake Land, he went on to say, "I think Lake Land should ban smoking altogether because people like me, who have asthma that runs in the family, are really bothered by it."

However, students on the other side of the argument, such as Tim Roberts, a business administration major and long time smoker, think the smoking ban is a bad idea.

Roberts stated, "I don't mind the whole not smoking in restaurants, but I think the ban is really impacting local economy. There are many bars people don't go to anymore, they just stay home and drink because they can smoke there."

Victoria Kunstman, radio broadcasting major, does not smoke, however she is against the smoking ban, she states, "I can see the concern about restaurants, sometimes you walk in and see the smoking section is like two feet from the nonsmoking section, but seriously the smells of stale beer and cigarettes are a huge part of the bar atmosphere."

So far there has been no mention of retracting the current state smoking ban. Roberts states, "One by one individual freedoms are being eroded, least popular first. Authorities cite our well being as reasons for this. As they work their way up the food chain they are taking away larger and larger chunks of our American freedom."

Monday, December 1, 2008

Nicorette, not cigs, can be dangeros to your health in the long-term

Did you know if someone chews Nicroette gum for a long time, that person will lose lots of hair, and get hi blood pressure?

No playing. I read about this through a blog citation in the Ohio group, and I believe that blog post I read. There are long-term health effects associated with these quit smoking aids that you'll neva hear about on the TV.

CLICK THIS if you wanna read the blog citation.

Antis argue BT were liars through their cig ads with people having smiley faces and antis didn't like BT making cigs sound just about as safe as eating candy. What BT used to do in their ads is promote smoking. And when you promote ANY product, you gotta make it look glamorous...not that smoking aint glamorous to begin with. Being a smoker and enjoying a cig actually makes me smile for real.

Nicroette does the same thang as BT does in the antis' claims. Nicorette commercials look glamorous with happy ladies, the product appears to be safe as chewing normal gum. There are even different gum flavas (just like cigs being in different flavas).

But Nicorette won't say sh!t about losing all of your hair and have hi blood pressure if you keep chewing the gum foreva.

Antis can argue "Based on your logic, BT doesn't say 'sh!t' about smokers getting LC and empsyshema in the long term. And that's OK to you?" BT doesn't have to say anythang about that. There's NO EVIDENCE that smoking cigs can DIRECTLY cause me or any otha smoker to get LC or empsyshema. There's clear evidence on Nicorette being dangerous for a person's health though.

At least I can say for sure smoking cigs for a long time hasn't made ME lose my hair or raise my blood pressure.

Woman fined for resisting arrest for smoking near gas pumps

While it's true this female smoker shouldn't have been smoking near gas pumps, I think arresting someone for smoking is no different from a darn cop trying to arrest me for no reason outside of race.

If she refused to put it out, I would've snatched it and put it out for her if I was a cop. That chick was a lil immature in smoking near gas pumps. But arresting someone for smoking is bogus, even in extreme situations.

What I mean is if I was in that cop's shoes, trying to arrest someone for refusing to put a cig out near the gas pumps is the last thang on my mind. I'd grab that motha (the cig) and put it out before there's an explosion. Life is more important than arresting ANYONE based on that situation.

And I still wouldn't botha putting her in cuffs afta the cig is out. (Unless of course, I had a valid reason to arrest her, like getting into a fight)

I'd give her a warning about neva smoking near the gas pumps again. Of course, I can't see a nonsmoking cop being as nice as that.




PORTSMOUTH -- A city woman who was tased, then arrested while police were investigating a 6-person parking lot fight, was given a suspended jail sentence and fined on Monday.

Patricia Reno, 23, appeared in Portsmouth District Court Dec. 1 when she pleaded guilty to a class A misdemeanor count of resisting arrest. As part of a plea agreement with the prosecution, in exchange for that plea, an accompanying charge of obstructing government administration was dismissed.

Reno was arrested Oct. 27 at the Lafayette Road Gibbs station where, police said, officers were breaking up a fight while Reno refused to stop smoking in close proximity to the gas pumps. According to police reports, she continuously refused to stop smoking, while swearing and swinging at responding officers. Officers later learned the fight began when Reno's boyfriend became angry that another man was speaking with her, according to police.

Reno appeared in the district court without an attorney and according to prosecutor Corey MacDonald, her criminal record is limited to a 2004 shoplifting conviction. Following her arrest, Reno told police she "lost her head" and "apologized, " said MacDonald.
After finding Reno guilty of resisting arrest, Judge Sawako Gardner sentenced her to six months in the Rockingham County House of Corrections, with all of it suspended pending her good behavior for one year. She was also fined $1,000, with $500 suspended pending the same year of good behavior.

http://www.seacoast online.com/ articles/ 20081201- NEWS-81201026