Thursday, December 10, 2009

Court Reverses Joliet Smoking Conviction

I rememba hearing about dis chick getting convicted for smoking. I'm happy for her she got justice. If antismokers think smoking in a bar is a crime, then wha would you call mofos in the same bar who get drunk AND dey try to drive around? I guess "serial killers" in comparison to what a smoker does in a bar?

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

http://www.suburban chicagonews. com/heraldnews/ news/1928086, 4_1_JO09_ SMOKING_S1- 091209.article

JOLIET -- Late last year, a Will County jury found a Joliet woman guilty of violating the state's smoking ban.

Now a higher court has reversed that decision.

Daniel O'Day, the Peoria lawyer who has represented several local residents and others around the state who have been charged with violating the 2008 law, heard the news Tuesday morning. And he certainly was pleased.

"For a year and a half or more, smokers in Illinois were terrorized by threats of arrest for misdemeanors or petty offenses," O'Day said Tuesday afternoon. "That turned out to be bogus, according to the Illinois Appellate Court."

His client is Kathleen Kane, 56, of 702 Ingalls Ave., Joliet.

One day in March 2008, she was at Woody's, 1008 W. Washington St., Joliet. At the time, Kane worked tending bar there, but she wasn't on the clock when the arrest happened, O'Day said. A Joliet police officer and a representative from the Will County Health Department stopped at the bar and ticketed Kane and others for smoking inside the building, O'Day said.

After Kane was convicted, O'Day filed an appeal.

The higher court ruled Monday that Kane's case should have been handled administratively, not as a criminal matter in the court system.

The fine and court costs totaling $231 will be refunded, O'Day said.

With local co-counsel Ted Hammel, the Peoria lawyer has several similar cases pending in Will County. They'll be in court Dec. 16, he said.

"Now they will have to be dismissed," O'Day predicted.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

My letta to Senator Kohl

Here's a copy of a letta I sent to Senator Kohl. And the crazy part is it bounced back to me cuz his "inbox is too full."

Hello Senator Kohl,

I'd like to address two points you brought up on the PACT Act.

1) You said the PACT Act will prevent terrorists from buying cigarettes online. And this can help cut down on cigarette smuggling, as well as create a decrease in cigarette black markets. Where these terrrorists would re-sell the packs in streets and areas where they (as well as the people who buy the cigs from the terrorists) can't get caught.

First of all, if any terrorist wanted to buy cigs and then re-sell the cigs illegally, they wouldn't necessarily have to buy their stock of cigs online. The terrorist can STEAL cartons of cigs offline instead. I notice this year, I read about more robberies/heists involving cigarette cartons than I did over the past 3 years combined. And if it becomes illegal to buy cigs online, that is NOT gonna stop terrorists from smuggling in cigs. They will just rob more places with cig cartons. Or they can even smuggle in cigs into the US by flying overseas to get cigs and then bring those cartons back into the US with the intent of re-selling the cigs illegally.

And as far as making it illegal to buy cigs online so we can put an end to black cig markets, believe me, this Act won't stop that either. Gangbangers across the US (not just "terrorists") will still get away with selling packs in the streets. And if they can't buy the cartons online, no problem. They'll just organize and pull off their OWN version of cig heists offline. It's bad enough the federal tobacco tax hike back in April played a role in increasing crimes related with cigarettes in general.

2) You said the PACT Act will prevent kids from getting their hands on cigarettes. Well, based on the urban area I live in, kids can still get their hands on cigs by buying packs from cig dealers in the streets, they could ask older friends/siblings (or even their parents) to buy cigs for them, and they can even ask strangers for cigs if they see the man or woman smoking. And believe me, I have seen adults give single cigs to teens before. I know some clerks in my area who actually sell packs to teens without checking their ID's. It's common to see particularly teens smoking in my community and at least within my area.

And BTW, most online smoke shops require new customers to submit a govt-issued ID as proof the new customer is at least 18. Otherwise, if the ID ain't valid, the shop will not process orders for the new customer. Some smoke shops even require new customers to be at least 21. So if the drivers license/state ID shows the kid is under 21, the kid will still be out of luck in buying cigs online.

You could say "What if the kid has a FAKE ID they submit to the shop for verification?" Well, even if the kid has the type of fake ID that looks very real, he/she better have a real voided check with his/her name and address (and signature) on it. And the name/address on the check better match with the name/address on the kid's supposedly-real ID. Because new customers gotta submit proof of a checking account under their own name. I'm sure if the check address is different from their ID's address, the online smoke shop will still refuse to process the new customers' orders.

I didn't mention how the PACT Act will make the unemployment rate go up even more. Since online smoke shops are businesses that will be forced to close down if this Act officially passes. But I guess as long as terrorists and kids can't get their hands on cigs, you don't care about the workers at these smoke shops losing their jobs, am I right?


Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Bill to Restrict E-Cigs passes

http://njtoday. net/2009/ 12/08/bill- to-restrict- so-called- %E2%80%9Ce- cigarettes% E2%80%9D- advances/

TRENTON – A bill to restrict the use of electronic smoking devices, sometimes referred to as “e-cigarrettes,” was approved 6-0 Monday by the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee.

The bill, a Senate committee substitute for (S3053/S3054) , would expand the definition of “smoking” to include e-cigarettes. It would define smoking as the burning or inhaling of tobacco or any other matter than can be smoked or inhaled, or the inhaling of smoke or vapor from an electronic smoking device. This would allow provisions of the “New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act,” which ban smoking in public places or the sale of smoking products to minors, to apply to the electronic smoking devices

The bill is sponsored by state senators Bob Gordon (D-Bergen) and Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) .

“E-cigarettes are stainless steel tubes designed to look like real cigarettes,” Gordon said. “They have a glowing tip and contain nicotine like a cigarette. When a user puffs on it, a computer-aided sensor activates a heating element that vaporizes a solution, which usually contains nicotine, in the mouthpiece.”

The heated solution produces a mist, which comes in flavors like chocolate or cherry and can be inhaled. A light-emitting diode at the end of the tube simulates the glow of burning tobacco. The device is powered by a rechargeable lithium-ion battery.

“The battery warms the liquid nicotine and propylene glycol from a replaceable plastic cartridge when a person inhales the device,” Vitale said. “Propylene glycol, which is used in antifreeze, is the liquid that vaporizes when a person exhales and produces a mist that is nearly identical in appearance to tobacco smoke. According to a 2009 statement by Health Canada, the Canadian federal government agency with regulatory jurisdiction over health issues, inhaling propylene glycol is a known irritant.”

The “New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act” already prohibits the smoking of a cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked in indoor public places and workplaces.

“Our bill would define an electronic smoking device to mean an electronic device that can be used to deliver nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, or pipe,” Gordon said.

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refused entry to shipments of e-cigarettes coming into this country on the grounds that these are unapproved drug device products; however, these devices have made their way into this country and are sold online and in some shopping mall kiosks.

Under the bill, the penalties that currently apply to a person who smokes tobacco in an indoor public place or workplace would apply to a person who uses an e-cigarette: a fine of not less than $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has called for the federal Food and Drug Administration to remove e-cigarettes from the market. The ban on e-cigarettes is also supported by The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Monday, December 7, 2009

I hate smoke-free hospitals!

I got my first-ever taste of being at a hospital where you can't even smoke outside anywhere on the campus. I was at Oak Forest Hospital.

All I can say is if lots of hospitals/colleges have smoke-free campuses now, I'm glad my student days are over.

I waited for almost 6 hours juz to see a thyroid doctor for a 10 am appointment. By the time it got to be 2 pm, the only thang on my mind was finding a way to have a cig. I was feeling very impatient while waiting, and the fact I needed a cig made me wanna get rude if someone wanted to talk to me.

Since I couldn't even smoke outside, the only option I had was simple. Find the nearest restroom in the area of the hospital dat's very quiet. It sure is funny I had to sneak a smoke in a restroom in criminal fashion. Which included me using the tall trash can in the room and prop it up against the door from the inside.

When I lit dat baby up, it felt d@mn good, and I thought I was in heaven. I was surprised I smoked almost a whole cig in only 2-3 mins. And when I was done, I put the trash can back where I found it, and I looked both ways before leaving the room. And I left it in normal fashion, like nothang happened.

I actually did feel bad a lil bit being a "bad boy." But hey, dat cig was a must for me if anyone in the hospital wanted to talk to the Good Jay I am on a normal basis. I can go 2 hrs without smoking easily. But going 5 hrs without smoking means I need one if anyone doesn't wanna see me get rude and arrogant. I felt like myself again afta I had dat cig.

I wish smokers' hospitals existed. I dunno wha's wrong with smokers having their own businesses since there was a time where "we" lived in segeration (very smilar to segeration among smokers in the 21st century) but businesses specifically for Blacks still existed.

I guess to Big Daddy, the difference between me as a smoker and as a so-called American is "You can't quit being black. But you CAN quit smoking."

Well with all due respect, based on the way I was enjoying the cig in CO fashion at the hospital, smoking is a part of me juz like my color. Some politicians need to try living in a smoker's shoes one day. A CIG smoker's shoes dat is since politicians still smoke cigars.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Property Rights Newsletta

The Property Rights Newsletter

December 4, 2009 - Issue #549

"In America, through pressure of conformity,
there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from."
- Peter Ustinov
Property Rights for all include Smokers Rights! Should Smoking Be Banned Outdoors? But as public support for the bans continues to grow, some people are questioning how far the government should go to protect nonsmokers. “The general public should have the right to decide what they’re going to do on private property,” says Gary Nolan, regional director of Citizens Freedom Alliance, a group that opposes smoking bans. He believes it’s reasonable for the government to ban smoking in government buildings but not at parks or privately owned businesses. Adds Nolan: “We’re giving away the right to self-determination.”

Property Rights for all include Smokers Rights! Second Hand Smoke and Health. By Terry Simpson, M.D., F.A.C.S. The most devastating opinion about the EPA’s decision to classify second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen, came from Federal Judge William Osteen who interviewed scientists for four years and in 1998 opined, The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information… [The EPA] deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasons; and left significant questions without answers… Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings, were subordinate to EPA’s [goal of] demonstrating [that] ETS was a Group A carcinogen… In this case, the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme…and to influence public opinion. While doing so, [the EPA] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s researched evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. (Osteen, 1998)

Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco

By Richard White
Join FREE - Home - Events - Forum - Videos - Please Help - ©