|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,3:46 pm |
|
   |
You could call it The Passion of the Smoker. It's not a movie but it's really playing in Freeborn County these days.
"The government should rent box cars from DM & E and put all the smokers inside,"
"Get all of us and put us in the box car -- veterans, too -- and do away with us.
The United States is a free country, though, so gassing us wouldn't be nice.
Of course, those with limited sympathy for smokers would argue that they'd do a fine job of gassing themselves, in a DM & E box car or any other enclosed space.
But it's the smokers' turn to get huffy. They're the ones who have been getting hammered.
First it was Minnesota's Right to a Smoke Free Work Space instituted in September 2003. .
Meanwhile, the Smoke Free colition are not satisfied and will not stop until they completely stripped away the right of a property owners "Freedom to Choose".
Smokers, including veterans and other seniors, will be forced to abandon their familiar haunts, drop their comfortable routines and even give up their social lives.
They will feel they have been turned into pariahs -- because they have been. And the politicians, rather than cutting them some slack with a reasonable adjustment period (and maybe even some humane exemptions), seem hellbent on making them disappear altogether.
THERE ARE SOUND reasons to ban smoking from workplaces -- no one should be forced to breathe second-hand smoke.
But there are creative solutions that could accommodate smokers and help businesses, without gassing the non-smokers.
"I respect the rights of non-smokers, but non-smokers have to respect us, too. Nobody gives me my cigarettes. I worked hard for my money all my life, and I enjoy them."
There has to be respect -- even toward smokers.
"Our Local politicians need to be reminded that the WW2 vets went overseas, risked their lives, lost friends in the fight against fascism. The same can be said about the Korean vets and Vietnam vets. Only difference is their fight was against Communism. Yet I can't help but feel these two 'isms' are rearing their ugly heads here."
Time for Big Brother to lay off.
George Gillespie
Chariman Freeborn County
Freedom to Choose Committee
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,3:55 pm |
|
 |
Duluth city councilors dealt a rare victory to smoking ban opponents by loosening the city's smoke-free law, but might have send the issue to voters again.
Councilors agreed 6-3 Monday night to allow bars where smoking is allowed to serve hamburgers, pizzas and other prepared food.
It was the first time smoking ban supporters lost a major council vote since Duluth banned smoking in restaurants in summer 2000. Voters approved a tougher ban in November 2001.
Councilor Russ Stewart drafted the proposal to loosen the ban after five Duluth bars were cited recently for violating the smoking ban.
If Mayor Gary Doty approves the change, the last dozen bars where smoking is allowed will be able to serve hamburgers, pizza and other grill fare. He has 10 days to approve or veto the change. Right now, they can only serve popcorn, peanuts and frozen appetizers.
Duluth now bans smoking in restaurants, most bars with grills, pool halls and bowling alleys.
That doesn't mean the fight is over.
Smoking ban supporters say the council ignored the wishes of voters and will put the issue on the ballot again.
"We are still focused on the health of workers and the vote of the people," said Pat McKone, senior director of the American Lung Association in Duluth.
Smoking ban supporters want to put the issue on next fall's ballot during the presidential election. They must collect about 6,200 signatures to get it on the ballot.
The vote will be different than in 2001. If voters approve the smoke-free law, councilors can't amend the ban like they did Monday. Last time Duluthians voted, the smoking ban opponents put the issue on the ballot to do away with it. Since the ban withstood the challenge, councilors can change it with five of nine votes.
"This is a sad day for the city of Duluth," Councilor Greg Gilbert said before the vote. "This is a repeal of the smoke-free ordinance. This is a betrayal of the voters of Duluth."
Gilbert withdrew a proposal to eliminate smoking from bars, fearing he didn't have the votes to pass it.
Stewart said the issue initially surfaced in 2000 when there were five new councilors who had little understanding of the debate.
Looking back, "I felt misled and that I was given some misinformation" from smoking ban supporters, Stewart said.
Local bar owners rejoiced in Monday's decision.
"As a business owner, if you continue to eliminate options you give the consumer, eventually the consumer will never return," said Mark Rutka, owner of the North Pole Bar and Ray's Grill. "In a soft economy, the more you can offer the restaurant or bar customer, the better."
Councilors Stewart, Neill Atkins, Ken Hogg, Herb Bergson, Rob Stenberg and Russ Stover approved the change. Councilors Gilbert, Donny Ness and Jim Stauber voted against the change.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,4:02 pm |
|
|
Judge follows law, not his own beliefs
As a mini-casino employee, I was pleased to see that Pierce County Superior Court Judge Robert Culpepper had the guts to correctly apply the law and rule that the Pierce County Health Department acted illegally and abused its power when it imposed the smoking ban.
As the judge correctly stated, regardless of his own views on smoking, he had to rule based on the law contained within the Clean Air Act, not his personal beliefs.
The way to implement change is by changing the laws, not making up your own laws based on your personal beliefs and ignoring state law, as the Pierce County Health Department did.
Three cheers for Judge Culpepper.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,4:04 pm |
|
|
Princeton smoking ban facing court fight
Opponents to file suit by the end of the week
By Jennifer Potash
Princeton Packet Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
With the emotion and excitement surrounding the newly adopted smoking ban subsiding, both opponents and supporters of the ordinance are preparing for what could become a protracted legal battle.
The Princeton Regional Health Commission voted unanimously Thursday to ban smoking in indoor public places and workplaces, including restaurants, bars, private clubs and offices. The ordinance is scheduled to go into effect July 1.
National Smokers Alliance, a nonprofit organization based in Alexandria, Va. that promotes smokers' rights, has retained a local law firm to challenge the ban in court. It plans to file for an injunction by the end of the week.
At the core of the organization's challenge is the assertion that the state legislature, through statutes, has imposed smoking bans in some situations while only regulating smoking in others.
Also see related stories:
• Health chairman claims vandalism
State statutes dealing with smoking in places such as restaurants, college campuses and other public places contain language that permits local governing bodies, such as the Princeton Regional Health Commission, only to suggest guidelines but not make them mandatory, said Ross Lewin, the local attorney with the National Smokers Alliance.
"It is blatantly illegal," Mr. Lewin said. "The Health Commission can issue guidelines, just like the National Institutes of Health can, just as long as they are not mandates."
But Princeton Borough Attorney Michael J. Herbert says the Health Commission believes it was acting within its power under state statutes to adopt the ordinance to protect the public health.
A challenge to the Princeton ordinance would be a "case of first impression," or the presentation of an issue never heard before the court, Mr. Herbert said.
Mr. Lewin plans to file for injunctive relief on behalf of his clients in Superior Court in Mercer County by the end of the week. The injunction would prevent the smoking ban from taking effect until it is reviewed by the Superior Court.
At that point, other groups, such as the New Jersey Licensed Beverage Association, are likely to file lawsuits to stop the ordinance.
New Jersey Breathes, a coalition of more than 40 statewide groups dedicated to reducing tobacco use in New Jersey, will seek to file an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief in support of the ordinance, said Executive Director Larry Downs.
After the decision from Superior Court, the decision could be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, Mr. Herbert said.
Either side could appeal to the state Supreme Court if the appellate court renders a split decision, such as a 2-1 vote, Mr. Herbert said.
When the Health Commission adopted an ordinance in 1994 banning cigarette vending machines, that law was challenged up to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, Mr. Herbert said.
He said he would not be surprised if the Princeton smoking ban reaches the state Supreme Court.
"This case, obviously, is a pretty substantial measure, and deals not only with the restaurants and bars but also with private clubs and eating clubs," Mr. Herbert said.
The National Smokers Alliance, which became involved after local members contacted the organization, was left with no option but a legal challenge, said Executive Director Eric Schrippers.
"After they held a public hearing, and then seemed to have made up their minds without consulting the business community, there was little choice but to pursue a legal challenge," he said.
The organization will be putting the money up front for the legal challenge, he said
"We will volunteer the money and if the local business owners want to contribute toward it, that's great," he said.
The National Smokers Alliance used to receive money from tobacco companies like Philip Morris and Brown and Williamson, but no longer accepts it due to differences of opinion with the tobacco companies over issues such as the companies' legal settlements with various states, Mr. Schrippers said.
Some critics of the Health Commission have urged the commission to encourage the state legislature to change the law.
Several pieces of legislation are pending in the legislature, ranging from total to partial smoking bans.
State Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Woodbridge) expects to introduce legislation later this year that would ban smoking in all indoor workplaces, similar to the Princeton ban.
"It would apply to every place that is a workplace — a restaurant, a factory, a bar, a private club," Sen. Vitale said.
Other legislation that has been introduced and referred to committees include bans on smoking in restaurants.
Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck) has introduced a "Clean Indoor Air Act" in each legislative session since 1994 that would prohibit smoking at indoor places available to the public, including restaurants.
Smoking would be banned in the bars contained in restaurants under Ms. Weinberg's legislation, but not in taverns, nightclubs or cabarets. Sen. John Adler (D-Cherry Hill) has introduced a similar Clean Air Act in the state Senate, which also is pending before that body's Environment Committee. His bill would permit cigar smoking in eating establishments that serve cigars to their customers as part of their fare.
State Sen. C. Louis Bassano (R-Union), a member of the Senate Health Committee, introduced a bill in January that would ban smoking in restaurants, but permit smoking in the bar area if it is physically separated from the dining area by a floor-to-ceiling wall.
Other proposed legislation includes a ban on smoking in shopping malls introduced by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-Haddonfield) and Assemblywoman Mary Previte (D-Cherry Hill). The bill would permit smoking in areas not accessible by the public and "at the discretion of the mall manager" in the mall food courts and restaurants, and smoking lounges that are enclosed by walls or have separate ventilation systems "or equally effective means to reduce the effect of smoking on the public."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
The Advocate
Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,7:49 pm |
|
|
Stress is the number one precursor to all health related problems. Studies have shown that stress contributes to illness and death by insidiously causing anxiety induced cardio-vascular problems, hypertension, cancer, psychiatric issues, eating disorders, and a myriad of disorders etc, etc. Screaming/yelling/overactive children, control-freak spouses or bosses, bullies, manipulators, obsessive/compulsive individuals all exert control in each and everyone of our lives by either working or living along side us. These above examples paint a picture of our world today. No one, not one of us is immune yet it would be impossible for the government to just sort of lock these noted people up because these characteristics are in each and everyone of us. My comparision is one that exhibits a health risk greater than receiving second hand smoke from a cigarette, second hand inhalation of pesticides, second hand inhalation of smog from industry or cars/trucks/motorcyles/airplanes/semis/tractors. You get the picture. Cigarette smoke is not a good thing yet it is segregatable unlike smog or pesticides which we all breath in everyday of our lives. Personal choice to be an environment such as a bar or restaurant that allows smoking gives us the option to go in or not go in. I respect the right of the facility owner to have smoking or non-smoking sections, go with total non-smoking or total smoking. Those are personal choices. I live in the country yet I have no control over the farming pesticides I breath in. However, my choice is to live in the country in the first place and I accept this responsiblity. I choose to live in a small town area where smog is less than in a larger city. I choose to drive 40 minutes everyday to work and so I will be more prone to the inhalation of fumes from the highway than if I had chosen not to work in a place that is 40 minutes away. Life is full of choices. Some good, some not good. If this smoking ban is passed then what next? If I were a farmer, truck driver, factory worker, etc. I would wonder what law could be passed to inhibit me from working. I believe this is a slippery slope and we do not want to go down there. There are ethical questions we all need to ask ourselves here. We live in a country where freedoms are paramount. Personal decsions for the way we live our life outweighs your opinion of what is right for my health. Each and every competent individual can decide for himself/herself.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Montyman
Group: Members
Posts: 421
Joined: Dec. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,8:08 pm |
|
|
excellent post advocate...
--------------
Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
rosebudinal
Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2004,11:35 pm |
|
|
True, and they use the line of freedom all the time that if you don't like what is on the television, shut it off. Guess this would fall into that category as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
