|
|
| Post Number: 71
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 11 2005,2:29 pm |
|
   |
From: S1U2E3@aol.com Add to Address Book
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:15:53 EST
Subject: Re: (no subject)
To: geokarjos_2000@yahoo.com
Start by going to the minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com web site.
1. This is not a health issue. Bars test 150 times below OSHA safety thresholds, and OSHA is in charge of workplace safety. OSHA has no regulations on SHS but has regulations for EVERY chemical in smoke.
If it was a health issue hotels would be included. If it was a health issue casinos would be included. Now the Indian Casinos will have another monopoly.
Not one study shows SHS to be statistically significant as a health risk. See the web site for a list of almost 100 of the studies. The sun, your cell phone and hairdryer have higher risk factors than SHS.
2. Read the constitution.
3. See the web site for the negative economic impact numbers, they are shocking.
4. The rights of the smoke haters end at my front door.
We filed suit against Hennepin County, Minneapolis and Bloomington yesterday to prevent our local bans from starting on March 31. They exceeded their authority in passing these bans. The state specifically excludes bars.
Good luck,
Sue Jeffers
Stub and Herb's
http://www.stubandherbs.citysearch.com/
Edited by GEOKARJO on Mar. 11 2005,2:34 pm
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 72
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2005,2:41 pm |
|
 |
PUTTING THE PRESSURE ON THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
Most of the hospitality industry is friendly to smokers. However, based on the scientific frauds about the "dangers" of secondhand smoke exposure, local or national laws and ordinances are intruding in the hospitality industry in order to force it to create an environment hostile to smokers.
Since the right of the business owner to choose an either smoking or nonsmoking environment for his place of business is denied by both anti-tobacco cartel and state (often one and the same), it is important that smokers do not patronize hospitality establishments where smoking is forbidden, and that includes restaurants and pubs. It is important to keep this up: the government is counting on the fact that you will get tired, and you'll "get used to" the the unreasonable restrictions imposed on you. You must be prepared to keep the boycott up indefinitely. The message that economic devastation is the consequence of smoking bans must be steady, loud, and clear. Smokers have an immense economic power, more than sufficient to defeat anti-tobacco. It is time to put that power to work.
It is sad that hospitality industry operators have become the unwilling battleground between fascism and freedom, and we feel very sorry for them all. But certainly, they cannot blame us for having started it.
If the hospitality industry in your area is fighting a smoking ban, actively support it by letter, phone, and in person, and let them know that you will continue to do so for as long as they will defend your rights. But they also have to understand that you will be forced to change your attitude in case of defeat.
If your municipality is close to another municipality that allows smoking in restaurants and pubs, go where you can smoke even if it means walking or driving.
If the local or state government forbids smoking in hospitality outlets, refrain from using the hospitality industry as much as possible. You will be surprised how much money you will save by cooking your own food, or, in emergency, buying it from a take-out and consuming it at home. By the same token, a six-pack consumed at home with friends while watching the game is surprisingly much more enjoyable than in a pub with noise, confusion, and smoking prohibition to boot. And nothing beats an elegant dinner party that starts off with cocktails, cigarettes, and a selection of everyone's favorite music on the stereo. Let's use smoking prohibition as an excuse to revive the pleasures of private social life that are too often neglected in our busy culture. Turn your home into an occasional "smoke-easy" and encourage your friends to return the favor! How about a "Prohibition-era" theme party...?
Also, remember that fewer sales for the hospitality industry means less tax revenue for the government that is infringing on your rights, and on the rights of the hospitality industry. If it feels the effects of this loss, the state will be forced to raise other taxes. This will contribute to a decrease in the popularity of the sitting government, and politicians are very sensitive to that.
If an establishment has decided to ignore the totalitarian anti-smoking laws, and it accommodates smokers, let us remember that it takes courage to do so. Absurd penalties are often imposed on operators for this kind of "offense" -- as absurd and unfair as the anti-smoking laws themselves. Praise the owner(s), keep patronizing the local, refer it to your smoking friends. If the owner is hit by the health police, it would be a good idea to promote the idea of pooling the money for the fine with other smoking patrons as a sign of appreciation for the establishment's courage to stand up for freedom.
In areas where smoking bans are enforced, practicing and encouraging civil disobedience is essential.
For those who have some time available, some active action would not hurt. For example, here is a tested method that puts the pressure on. Call a restaurant, hotel, pub, etc. that you know does not allow smoking. Say that you have a large party of people, and that their establishment has been chosen. Discuss the details. Last request: "we want the smoking section, please." At the negative answer, just tell them to forget the whole thing. If they say that they cannot oblige because of municipal ordinance or state law, then ask if they are willing to accommodate you, anyway. The answer will be no, especially on the phone, for fear of a fishing expedition by the anti-tobacco cartel. Thus, "no deal, thanks."
This kind of psychological pressure, while it may not yield any immediate result, will keep reminding the operators of the size of the business lost to the cartel's prevarication, and that will turn into political pressure at the first opportunity.
Finally, in cases where you are are properly accommodated as a smoker, tip well and make it clear that you have done so because you were welcomed as a smoking customer.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 73
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2005,2:54 pm |
|
|
Environmental Health Dept. of St. Louis Park, MN tests Prove secondhand smoke in bars & restaurants is 150 times safer/lower than OSHA regulations.
Proper ventilation systems do work, and tests proved it, does that mean that all odor is removed? Of course not, but odor which may be offensive is not a killer, nor is it a public health hazard.
The OSHA safe PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for airborne nicotine is 0.5 milligrams/ cu. M or expressed in decimal form 0.0005 g/cu. M.. The city of St. Louis Park’s Environmental Health Dept. (MN) first tested Q1 2004 all it’s bars & restaurants for nicotine in milligrams / cu. M, and results came in at 0 milligrams /cu. M., no health hazard.
So what they did next is indicative of what anti-smoking activists have always done to try to defend the indefensible; they lowered the bar. They decided to re-test Q3 2004 nicotine in micrograms / cu. M, (measure in concentrations 1000 times smaller) and received new test results ranging from 1-32 micrograms(ug)/cu. M. with the median result of 3.3ug /cu. M; as a decimal it is expressed as 0.000003.3 g/ cu. M. In other words the tested air quality for nicotine in bars & restaurants in St. Louis Park Minnesota was 150 times safer than OSHA guidelines. (the second hand smoke in St. Louis Park, MN. bars & restaurants is of course no different than other bars & restaurants around the country)
One might ask why other states banned smoking if the readings are so insignificant, after all the air quality with regard to nicotine in the median bar / restaurant in St. Louis Park was 150 times safer/lower than what OSHA's PEL on nicotine allows. The answer….. no other environmental health department ever tested, (or publicized) they simply believed the rhetoric and feelings spouted by the usual suspects. In fact once I caught wind of the testing going on in St. Louis Park I started to provide that information to Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Bloomington city councils; only to get an angry phone call from a St. Louis Park Environmental Health Dept. official demanding I cease & desist.
Organizations such as the American Lung Assoc., MPAAT , and numerous such organizations with no proof, mind you, of any actual conclusive facts; but many, many $$$$ to throw at government councils & commissions, have until now, had greater influence on politicians.
After meeting with the city engineers in Eden Prairie, MN. a couple of years back and explaining the filtration method that our Smokeeter brand electro-static precipitator (ESP) systems worked on, they decided against a smoking ban. Smokeeter ESP systems with odor reducing carbon modules remove 99% harmful airborne particulate to 0.01 micron particle size, fiber filter air cleaners on the other hand, are only effective to 0.3 microns. Stanford Research Institute measured tobacco smoke and found that it’s make-up is particle sizes ranging from 0.5 microns – 0.01 microns i.e. It will flow thru fiber filters like water, Smokeeter brand ESP therefore, is the ideal tobacco smoke removal filtration system.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 74
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2005,2:59 pm |
|
|
Smoking bans force you to hang a sign and tell your patrons there is no smoking.
They DO NOT force you to enforce the law.
NY is doing it and so can you!
Florida Judge Agrees!
Administrative Judge Michael Parrish notes that there is no legal requirement for a bar owner to take ''specific action'' when someone is smoking in the bar.
Please note: This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State or town wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as police AND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty. Your 16 year old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to the police academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Remove these un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid law suits. Every worker has the right to sue you when hurt, your ban opens you up for liability.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 75
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,12:19 pm |
|
|
From: S1U2E3@aol.com Add to Address Book
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:25:33 EST
Subject: [minnesotasmokers] Update on Smoking Ban lawsuit!
Hi all,
As you all know by know we have filed suit against Hennepin County, Minneapolis, and Bloomington to prevent the implementation of the smoking bans set to begin March 31st. A hearing will be held on March 22.
I have been fielding call after call at my bar. Yesterday 51 people contacted me to talk about the lawsuit, 49 said thank you. Think of all the people who didn't call or couldn't reach me or who called one of the other places. A Hennepin County Commissioner said good job, a house representative called to say good job and asked me to testify about another related issue for him. One south Mpls Vets group is planning to bring as many as possible in uniform to fill the parking lot of the courthouse in support us at the hearing on the 22nd. Lets get the word out to all the private clubs to be there in uniform....who wants to start calling?
I have talked to several bar owners who apologized for their lack of action and money. They are now willing to help. Better late than never.
I have told these people to start writing letters to the senate and house reps because that battle is not over yet, not by a long shot. I have them writing Minneapolis, Bloomington and Hennepin County telling to repeal the ban or settle the suit, in our favor of course. I have some writing letters to the editors, especially the Pioneer Press and the smaller papers. They will print our side unlike the Tribune who won't.
After the hearing on March 22 we will begin a fund raising campaign to pay for the Supreme Court challenge that will be sure to follow. We will need approximately $100,000. So start thinking of ideas we can use to raise money.
I think we blew a big opportunity with the media the day after the lawsuit was filed. We should have been all over the press again. Instead we were buried in between ads for clean fresh air from the $600,000 media blitz the smoke haters have just begun. We need more media!!! Ideas anyone?
KSTP will be doing a live radio broadcast from Stub and Herb's on Wed. March 30 from 8-10. All are invited and we will be allowed to go on air with our intelligent and articulate comments. We hope to be celebrating the ruling, if not it will be the last big smoke out before the ban begins at 12:01.
That's my update...ideas, comments and money are all appreciated.
Sue Jeffers
Stub and Herb's
612-384-4374
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 76
|
keith
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,2:09 pm |
|
|
[b]A Smoking Ban in Public Buildings would be great for Albert Lea, Bars, Restraunts and all Public Buildings!!! This would help cut down on the health risks. Smoking is not a right, it is a priviledge for those who want to kill and poison themselves, why should they be able to poison others around them??? I was a smoker for 13 years, and quiting was the best thing I could have ever done. When I moved from NY state to Salt Lake City Utah where smoking ban was the rule, it was a pleasure to go into restraunts and any public building without having to inhale other people's crude second hand smoke. That would be such a blessing here as well!!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 77
|
saw1970_97
Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,2:29 pm |
|
|
After the smoking ban is enacted I hope we can start a ban on fat food. Far to many fat bastards stepping on my toes in crowded places.(Second hand pain?)
--------------
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day,
teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat
and drink beer all day!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 78
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,2:46 pm |
|
|
So you can ban smoking in a place you will never walk into and ruin businesses cost jobs and discriminate against 25 percent of the population. Great Idea.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 79
|
ICU812
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,3:09 pm |
|
|
Ban smoking in all indoor public places except bars period.
If you dont like the smoke in a bar than go to one that OFFERS no smoking.
Right now the only businesses that are fighting this ban are businesses that sling booze, and with good reason.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 80
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2005,10:34 pm |
|
|
From: Cantiloper@aol.com Add to Address Book
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:03:34 EST
Subject: Re: [minnesotasmokers] Update on Smoking Ban lawsuit!
In a message dated 3/12/2005 12:55:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, S1U2E3@aol.com writes:
We need more media!!! Ideas anyone?
Think about the possibility of using the study Dave and I have in this week's newsletter. It's "new news" for the media and you could give it a local spin by looking up your own state's numbers and projecting how much you would have lost if you'd done statewide ban like in Minnesota.
Also: I got a Philly reporter excited when I told him how all he'd heard about was bans succeeding when actually a lot are going in the other direction. He didn't believe me at first so I made a list. He's now going to lead off a major article next week with ban failures!
Here's the list I made up: covers just the 30 days that led up to the first Philly ban hearing:
Feb 7th, LaPorte Indiana City Council defeated a smoking ban proposal by a vote of 4-3 to a standing ovation from a packed chamber.
Feb 8th Virgian Senate defeated a restaurant smoking ban bill by a vote of 26 to 14.
Feb 11th, Washington State Supreme Court ruled that local health boards can't ban smoking in bars.
Feb 16th: Paris City Council noted that only 30 of its 12,452 bars, bistros, and brassiers have accepted a smoking ban request from the government.
February 17th, North Dakota's House of Representatives defearted a smoking ban bill by a vote of 47 to 45.
February 22nd Montana House of Representatives exempted bars and casinos from their state smoking ban rules by avote of 58 to 42.
February 22nd Braxton County Wext Virgina amended their smoking ban in order to allow bars and casinos continued smoking for at least the next two years.
February 23rd Indiana voted to scale back a wide smoking ban to one that simply requires family restaurants to have some nonsmoking sections.
Feb 27th, Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons in the UK declared that local pubs facing a ban in 2008 could seek exmptions through local councils.
March 2nd Minnesota House Commerce Committee killed a statewide resataurant smoking ban by a voice vote.
March 4th Wayne County Michigan just shelved a smoking ban proposal on March 4th after the United Auto Workers Union told them how strongly it was opposed by its working members.
Also on March 4th, the Burlington VT City Council decided to reconsider the ban on smoking in private bars and clubs after an outcry of complaints from the Elks and VFW Posts proved too powerful to ignore.
March 6th, the Maryland Heights Missouri City Council voted to oppose a ban for St. Louis County.
March 7th, Oak Park Illinois Village Board voted down a ban on smoking by a vote of 5 to 2.
And I *think* the below came from the newsletter site:
In addition to these local ban failures in the legislative system and the overturning of the state of Washtington's ban, there have been several other recent cases where courts have ruled bans to be illegal and/or unenforceable in the states of Massachusetts, New York, and Florida. The New York and Florida courts ruled that ""There is no clear statutory duty for the proprietor of an enclosed indoor workplace to take any specific action when patrons are seen smoking in such workplace."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
