Saint Louis County about to waste $2 million of their $7.6 mil of a stimulus grant on smoking ban ads, plus four April 2011 ban referendums

As if Saint Louis County voters need any reminders that selfish smoking bans that only deprive privately owned businesses of their property rights are needed in both Saint Louis city and Saint Louis County from January 2nd and onward. I will not be surprised if many of the businesses that are covered by either the city or county ban after January 2nd quietly plan to thumb their nose at the law in some way, since both bans have crappy exemptions(Saint Louis city is worse, since it only exempts bars that have a floor space of 2000 sq. ft. or less, excluding kitchen areas), and that both should've had exemptions for businesses that are 18 and up at all times, and didn't allow minors inside at any time.

It's already looking like 4 Missouri communities, minimum(though not all confirmed yet), will have smoking bans on the April 5th ballot(Webb City, Cape Girardeau, O'Fallon, and Springfield). Only the first 3 have been confirmed to have enough signatures, and in Springfield, they still have to verify the signatures first. Joplin may or may not have a ban on the ballot in April, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Joplin antis collect the signatures in time before the April election.

I'd love it if all 4 communities could send a strong signal to state lawmakers that they do NOT want Missouri to enact an unnecessary, job-killing smoking ban in 2011. It's too bad those in Fulton who opposed a ban barely came up short in the final vote last month, since I recall it only passed by 6 percentage points there.

QUICK EDIT: Joplin's ban didn't go on the ballot, and Springfield, MO's ban will be going on the ballot in April. So that makes 4 smoking bans overall, which are as I said above, Webb City, Springfield, O'Fallon, and Cape Girardeau). I still will make a post on the November 2010 smoking ban referendums very soon, plus an Alaska community's smoking ban referendum defeat in late 2010 on a total ban I only heard about several months late.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_accf5ec9-8c19-592a-acd1-ae0a853c9059.html

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x797276092/Webb-City-smoking-ban-heads-to-voters (Webb City)

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1688154.html (Cape Girardeau, and btw, I think the newly-formed coalition fighting this ban should just shorten their name to Stand Up Cape, or Speak Out Cape, similar to the past groups Speak Out Amarillo and Speak Out San Angelo)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_2b4ae648-06eb-11e0-8b17-0017a4a78c22.html (O'Fallon, MO, which is in Saint Charles County, MO and not covered by the Saint Louis County ban)

http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-story-smoking-ban-springfield-businesses-petition-12162010,0,5731564.story (Springfield, MO)

and I'd like to have some opinions on what I should do in 2011

with the poll section. I'm considering extending the length of how long I keep the poll open to 2 months, from the existing 1 month. Please vote now, on what your preference should be(whether I should keep the length of each poll at 1 month and not change it, or if you like this idea). Thanks to everyone who reads this blog, and sorry for how much I've stunk updating this since October. I hope to be totally caught up and be very active again with posts here, before the start of 2011.

Regular polls should return by February, knock on wood. I just want to see how much regular readers here like this idea, before I decide on either proceeding or not proceeding with this idea. I might do some other minor changes too, such as(once I settle on something that isn't bad!) changing the look of this blog from the current black/white look.

-Allan

new surgeon general's report called 'unscientific and potentially unethical'

I'm going to make another try to stay active with this blog, hopefully this time, I am able to stick with keeping it active, unlike my past failed attempts. Enjoy this new article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/surgeon-general-s-report-tobacco-called

And Dr. Michael Siegal has also quickly blasted the new report as well:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/surgeon-generals-office-again.html

2 comment responses I just posted on San Angelo smoking ban articles

First one I posted was from the article Smoke-Free San Angelo plans fundraising rally:

in response to Gunner1:

Because your decision would affect the public health. Dah. "we should sit out side", if you were law enforcement, you would know that as entrapment. Because someones opinion does not fancy you, you refer to them as "silly little people" how mature of you. If you own a public bussiness. You should manage it proffessionaly. For example If you own a bar, you would not allow your employees to drink on the job nor would you drink and drive.

That's a horrible analogy to use, Gunner, and you should be very ashamed for saying that. Last time I checked, there has NEVER been one death certificate that has been issued due to secondhand smoke(SHS) exposure, and also normal levels of SHS inside businesses permitting smoking have been proven to be THOUSANDS of times safer than Occupational Safety and Health Administration's(OSHA) indoor air quality standards. Also, well renowned anti-smoking activist John Banzhaf's fraudulent agenda was exposed 12 years ago, when his organization Action on Smoking and Health(ASH) filed a lawsuit against OSHA due to his organization's selfish desire for them to issue a national rule that would've banned smoking in all private businesses(even including bars, private clubs, and casinos) nationwide. OSHA's response was that they would've issued a rule that only would require businesses to meet a minimal indoor air quality standard(and like what OSHA's indoor air quality standards still are today, which are thousands of times safer than any regular level of SHS inside a private business would measure).

Also, repeated junk science 'studies' claiming smoking bans(such as the infamous claims from anti-smoking groups that bans reduced heart attack rates in places like Helena, MT, and Pueblo, CO) reduce heart attacks are nothing more than a big joke:
http://mogasp.files.wordpress.com/201...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19698233/SS...
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modul...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1...
http://www.opposingthe-uk-smokingban....
http://www.ilba.net/cgi-bin/ILBA/info...
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archiv...

Believe me when I say it is real all the damages smoking bans will cause to private businesses, as I've lived in both individual communities and states under comprehensive smoking bans, and I've seen the damage they can do to businesses that cater to smokers. Smoking bans are fine in truly public spaces(i.e. government buildings, public transit vehicles, etc.), but are NOT warranted whatsoever for private businesses. Especially when anyone against smoking already has the power to vote with their wallet against the already limited number of smoker-friendly businesses that remain, if its smoking policy bothers one so much. See through the lies that Smoke-Free San Angelo is inevitably already saying right now in regards to smoking bans and SHS, and please vote NO on Proposition #1.

Original article:
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/oct/13/smoke-free-san-angelo-to-hold-fundraising-rally/

Second comment I made, from the article OUR OPINION: For our health, we should ban public smoking(and I'm very disappointed and upset at the San Angelo Standard-Times for endorsing such a selfish smoking ban. although papers like the Indy Star, Chicago Tribune, and Columbia, SC's newspaper The State still take the cake, when it comes to newspapers that have written the most disgusting anti-smoking 'editorials' I've ever read):

in response to ilovesanangelo:

If the ordinance does pass, smokers will still go to bars & restaurants just like non smokers go to bars & restaurants right now. It's really not that big of a deal. This is coming from an actuall business owner who will be affected by the ordinance. No need to stand up for my rights. I got it under control. Speak for yourself... not for me.

Well written editorial. Not sure which way I will vote for sure. But I do appreciate the ST opinion.

I hate to say this, but as someone who's lived in multiple communities with local smoking bans, and currently living in one with a comprehensive ban including bars, casinos, and private clubs, that's not true for all businesses. Many mom-and-pop businesses have no choice but to ignore my state's(Illinois) smoking ban, just to stay in business. Not every business has room to build an outdoor patio, so that they can accommodate smokers they used to be able to accommodate throughout their establishment(if that owner had such a smoking policy), or in a designated area(usually by the bar area only, which I still think is a sufficient compromise that respects the rights of non-smokers).

If you don't believe me how much a state ban can affect independently owned(non-chain) businesses, please go check Smoke Choke Ohio out and see how many businesses have been reported on that state's website that continue to ignore Ohio's smoking ban to this day:
http://smokechoke.com/

Even though I'm not a San Angelo resident, I very strongly agree with the goal of Speak Out San Angelo to create an updated and fair San Angelo smoking ordinance that respects the rights of all private businesses, smokers, and non-smokers. Vote NO on Proposition #1.

Laramie County, Wyoming won't pursue countywide smoking ban, plus article on Natroma County, WY

It's great to still see occasional defeats like this for once. Too bad this one seems to be more on a technicality, due to the fact Teton County's Board of Health rammed through a total smoking ban(despite the fact that ONLY one bar in that entire county permitted smoking!), and that one bar is currently challenging the Teton County BoH in a state court case. :)

Just for the record, the city of Laramie, Wyoming is NOT within Laramie County. Laramie County does contain the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, which has had a citywide comprehensive smoking ban including bars in effect since August 2006.

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2010/10/11/news/19local_10-11-10.txt (includes a decent comments section)

Turns out when I did a little more digging for Wyoming articles, I suddenly noticed the Casper-Natroma County Board of Health is now looking into this idea, all because Laramie County's Board of Health brought up this issue. Bastards.....

http://trib.com/news/local/article_8d687493-ffba-5629-bb25-62e9350173ba.html (includes very lengthy comments section)
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_9b2ca4a8-e0b5-11df-b005-001cc4c03286.html

national anti-smoking effort targets Horry County, SC

It's selfish to see an anti-smoking coalition is obviously targeting all Grand Strand region communities just to get total smoking bans passed in as many of them as they can, just because they suddenly got a federal anti-smoking grant. I can obviously tell(even very long in advance) that they're setting their eyes on 2 major targets: the cities of Myrtle Beach and Conway. Myrtle Beach, IIRC, has never debated the smoking ban issue, and Conway's city council once studied the issue, and chose not to pursue a citywide ban about 3 years ago. Currently as of now, there is only one community in the Grand Strand region with a total bar and restaurant smoking ban, which is Surfside Beach. (and will gladly not spend even one penny in Surfside Beach, if I ever succeed in revisiting the Myrtle Beach area)

I was reading an article about this, and this one commenter totally hit the nail on the head! Enjoy(it's the 3rd comment from the top, from poster thejournalist, my favorite part is in bold, and this is such the truth I always see on online review sites about businesses(i.e. Yelp), the thrill of smoking tourists from smoking-banned cities and states once again enjoying their former pleasure of being able to smoke inside):

Well said, mizar5. Will someone please explain why these people are recieving federal grants for a partisan cause? This state was built on tobacco, like it or not. Tourists from other areas of the country enjoy smoking inside, rather than outside in the rain or freezing weather like they are forced to in their hometowns. This is just another example of an oversized government chipping away at private enterprise and personal freedoms. Is it good for people? No. Is smoking ultimately a bad idea? Yes. Does that give the government the right to dictate people's individual choices? No. I have to wonder how upset these lobbyists would be if the grant was given to pro-smoking causes. All this is doing is providing career opportunities for lobbyists. Of course, it is providing medication for those trying to quit. Like the kinds that caused people to have suicidal thoughts and tendencies, depression and anxiety? Those? Or are they going to pay for my $150 AdVair prescription for the asthma that I don't whine about every month? How about my birth control? Or my gas that I spend driving away from places with cigarette fumes? Or my home mortgage, which is cigarette free?

I think somewhere, I saw an article that a similar wasteful federal grant was also given to an anti-smoking coalition in Florence, SC(just a little ways west of Conway), where their council has bravely voted down 2 smoking ban proposals in the past, the most recent ban attempt in Florence occurring last fall, and the first one was several years ago(forget what year it occurred in, at the moment). Articles:
http://www2.wjtv.com/jtv/ap_exchange/special_-_medical/article/national-anti-smoking-effort-targets-horry-county/205908/
http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/10/13/1750093/smoking-foes-step-up.html#disqus_thread

Galveston council votes to keep ban changes

I'm glad the Galveston, TX city council members that had the balls to amend the smoking ban to exempt restaurant and bar outdoor patios, and inside bars and nightclubs(ALL of these were covered in the original ban that took effect in January 2010, before new amendments that weakened the ban to be fairer took effect earlier this month) held their ground, when Mayor Joe Jaworski tried to bully Galveston's city council to restore the stricter smoking ban that killed bar and nightclub business throughout that city, and was ignored by virtually all restaurants that had outdoor patios(and according to at least 2 online reports I read, I unfortunately can't remember the links to the original articles that stated this anymore). His attempt failed big time, with only councilmember Elizabeth Beeton supporting his pathetic proposal.

The only difference between Mayor Jaworski's failed(thankfully) proposal, versus the original Galveston ban that took effect January 2010, is that there would've only been an exemption for any restaurant and bar outdoor patio, plus there would've been a 5 foot smoke-free radius away from any door or window that wasn't part of a patio area. Congrats to the 4 Galveston councilmembers(Dianna Puccetti, Chris Gonzales, Steve Greenberg and Rusty Legg) for saying no to Mayor Jaworski's selfish proposal!

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/183510

Oklahoma State Board of Health seeks to repeal pre-emption

No, just no! This move would be absolutely awful, from a property rights viewpoint, especially for Oklahoma bars and clubs that freely choose to be smoking establishments on their own accord, and for the 100-200 restaurants statewide that invested their hard-earned money to accommodate smokers by building physically separate smoking rooms, as allowed by Oklahoma's existing smoking law. How would it be fair for bar and restaurant owners throughout the state to never know when their establishment is suddenly under attack by a local community smoke-free coalition that would violate their property rights?

I remember very well when Illinois passed a law repealing pre-emption for all Illinois communities in 2005, and beyond something like the 15-20 that were permanently exempt from Illinois' pre-emption law passed around 1989/90(?), due to the fact they had some kind of smoking ordinance in place at the time pre-emption passed(including Chicago, Skokie, Evanston, Galesburg, etc.). I only bet if Oklahoma foolishly goes down the path, they'll only end up down the same path Illinois did in whatever number of years it takes to shove this down the throats of Oklahoma bars and restaurants(a total statewide smoking ban with virtually no exceptions, even for bars/clubs and likely casinos. IL casinos are covered by our state ban, since NONE of them are Indian casinos). Not to mention, there's no doubt that the restaurant and bars that'd be under the greatest risk by anti-smoking coalitions would obviously be in the more populated cities, where anti-smoking groups(i.e. ACS, ALA, AHA, but especially the former 2) would especially target city/town/etc. councilmembers to propose comprehensive smoking bans without any exemptions. If you ask me, pre-emption is great, since it ensures private property owners in both the very populated cities and small towns have equal property rights to set their smoking or non-smoking policy in any way they wish, and a vocal minority of anti-smoking zealots(many who let's face it, will never step foot in a bar, EVEN if all were to be theoretically smoke-free on their own without a government mandated smoking ban) aren't able to suddenly take it away from all businesses against their will.

Also, screw Oklahoma lawmakers for passing a wasteful restaurant smoking room rebate program this past summer for any Oklahoma restaurant choosing to eliminate their smoking room, and go smoke-free. Why were Oklahoma lawmakers even wasting their time on this proposal that eventually got the governor's signature this past summer? Not to mention, this will inevitably end up wasting tons of Oklahoma state taxpayer money that this state could've better spent elsewhere.....

Several related articles:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20101013_16_A13_OKLAHO332618&archive=yes
http://www.cspnet.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5A46C90E47D64460AB6E2E089AFF84F2&AudID=6C81F2B488CE41838BC84AF1AE2AF9CD

one Missouri community I strangely missed for months(!) that's having a November smoking ban referendum, plus Joplin update

I somehow missed for too many months(until almost the very last minute, boo myself) that an anti-smoking coalition in Fulton, Missouri(called Fresh Air Fulton) has collected enough signatures to place a smoking ban on the November 2nd, 2010 ballot. This now makes 2 Missouri communities(the first one was Jefferson City) that have smoking bans that were placed on the citywide ballot for November.

And since we're fast approaching the 1 year anniversary of when Saint Louis County voters approved a limited smoking ban that exempted casinos, and bars/nightclubs with 75% or greater alcohol sales(and this is one that I still believe is very unfair and was hastily written by renown anti-smoker Barbara Fraser(and as of now is running for a seat in the Missouri State Senate, which I hope she loses greatly), since it strips the property rights away from restaurants and bowling alleys that wish to remain smoker-friendly establishments). This is of course the same ban that 'triggered' the Saint Louis city smoking ban(which is stricter than the county ban, and only has a 5 year exemption for bars/clubs under 2000 sq. ft., and any bar that opens after January 2011 has to be smoke-free, and cannot qualify for the exemption) to go into effect as of January 2011.

That sad anniversary aside, I hope residents in both Fulton and Jefferson City see through the lies of anti-smoking groups, and reject these proposals that've been referred to the ballot(and are 100% smoking bans that include all restaurants and bars, unlike the 2009 Saint Louis County ban referendum). There still is no doubt in my mind that if county board member Barbara Fraser(and chief author of what became the current county smoking ban) could've gotten enough votes on the county board to get a ban including ALL restaurants and bars on the 2009 ballot(rather than one with a 75% or greater alcohol sales exemption for bars/nightclubs), she would've gotten that onto the 2009 ballot instead. Ranting over, here's the article on Fulton, Missouri:
http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2010/08/27/news/200news01.txt

And as for Joplin, Missouri, their city council rejected approving a citywide smoking ban on a 5-4 vote October 18, but on their October 25th meeting, approved putting a smoking ban referendum(which was barely watered down from the language Smoke-Free Joplin wanted, since the only way their proposal was changed by Joplin's City Council was that private clubs are now exempt, as are restaurant/bar outdoor patios, and the smoke-free radius from doors/windows was reduced from 20 feet to 5 feet) onto the ballot in April 2011. This proposal definitely goes too far, and should've been less restrictive.

I really hope Joplin voters reject this proposal next year, and send Joplin's City Council a message that they need a ban like what the city of Wichita had, before Kansas' statewide smoking ban took effect this past summer(which exempted any restaurant or bar that chose to be an 18 and up adult establishment, or had walled off smoking rooms with their own ventilation system, and didn't require non-smokers to walk through such areas to access things like bathrooms. it also required any establishment that chose to be a smoking establishment to disclose to potential employees that they were a smoking establishment, and that they would be exposed to SHS. that's extremely fair as hell to me, and a proposal that I'd gladly 100% support).

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x693282390/Joplin-council-puts-off-smoking-ban-for-now
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x1787496751/Council-agrees-to-put-smoking-ban-on-ballot

craziness in 2 Alabama counties: Jefferson County(includes Birmingham) and Mobile County(Mobile)

In Jefferson County, Alabama, the Jefferson County Health Action Partnership, American Lung Association of Alabama and Mississippi(and if I were president of the United States, I'd so immediately end the ALA's tax exempt status, along with the ACS and AHA, for all the times they've contributed to selfish smoking ban campaigns that do nothing but unnecessarily stomp on the rights of individual business owners to cater to smokers, not to mention such businesses are rare to find in today's world, other than smoker-friendly businesses that are adult-only bars and nightclubs, or a restaurant that restricts kids/minors from entering) and the Jefferson County Mayors Association Jefferson County Health Department have signed on to this absolutely selfish proposal by the Jefferson County Department of Health to get BOTH the county board to pass a ban for unincorporated areas, plus get all 30+ municipalities(including the city of Birmingham, AL) to ban smoking by 2012! Maybe a visitor to my blog can confirm this or not, but I thought Birmingham's smoking ordinance only banned smoking in workplaces and restaurants, but not bars? The article states that only 2 communities in Jefferson County, Homewood and Fairfield, have gone as far to ban smoking in both restaurants and bars. (and I'm already making a mental note to NOT spend even one penny in both these communities, if I ever make it back to the Birmingham metropolitan area)

Two side notes: I've only driven through Birmingham once via I-65, but wouldn't mind actually visiting the city for myself one day. Hopefully my next trip there isn't just driving through it via the interstate! This sadly reminds me of other cities where I've never seen the core of the city(but just the outskirts along the interstate, and which is so fregging boring!), such as Lexington, KY and Macon, GA. Also, I definitely recall Michael Nutter(who the article mentions) was the chief author(and back then he was just a Philly city council member, and not city mayor, as he is today) of the Philadelphia bill that established a near-total smoking ban in Philadelphia, that only exempted businesses with 90% or greater alcohol sales, and bans smoking in 100% of casino gaming floors(stricter than the 2008 Pennsylvania statewide ban, which exempts any bar with 80% or greater alcohol sales, and 50% of casino gaming floors can be designated as smoking). I may post a comment on this article, eventually!

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/10/push_on_to_make_jefferson_coun.html

Second one is Mobile County, where as of October 1st of this year, the county health department(Mobile County Health Department) has begun to pathetically deduct 4 points off the inspection score of each private business that allows smoking. This policy to deduct points just for a business permitting smoking is a ridiculous joke, if any indoor SHS exposure is 'so dangerous', then why hasn't the Mobile County Board and all local municipalities within Mobile County(including the city of Mobile) banned the sale of ALL tobacco products?

One poster on the Smokers Club board(and rightfully so!) has already joked we should deduct 4 points from smoke-free businesses, and pointed out that a Chinese restaurant in the county that permits smoking(Kangaroo Express, which scored 89 after a 4 point deduction) would be a better quality business to patronize than another Chinese restaurant that's totally smoke-free(China King, which would score 86 if you pretend it's a restaurant that allows smoking, and theoretically deduct 4 points from it).
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/10/smoke-free_restaurants_feel_pr.html
http://www.smokersclubinternational.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12466 (the topic where we joked about this)

note about the poll

I've been extremely busy as of late, so I chose not to do a poll for October. Look for a new one to show up sometime next week. I think I'm going to do a change with the upcoming poll, and have each new poll start at the beginning of each month, instead of mid-month(and when my past polls have traditionally started for each monthly period, and that tradition will end with my next one).

Anyway, here are the results of the last poll I did, which was for September/October:

What best describes your smoking habits, if you smoke cigarettes or RYO cigarettes at any rate?

I am a daily smoker, and smoke a pack or more a day.	1 (33%)
I am a daily smoker, but I smoke less than a pack a day.	0 (0%)
I'm not quite a daily smoker, but I am someone who smokes socially in social situations, and when drinking.	2 (66%)
I used to smoke years ago, but quit.	0 (0%)
I don't smoke cigarettes, but smoke other tobacco products instead, like cigars or pipes.	0 (0%)
I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, including RYO tobacco.	0 (0%)

great South Dakota smoking ban article, plus comment section

I even found a commenter on page 10(rough_neck) that said a non-smoking bar in Grand Forks, ND, Dagwoods, went OUT OF BUSINESS once the Grand Forks ban took effect on August 15th of this year. And idiotic anti-smokers continue to claim that smoking bans do not hurt businesses catering to smokers, and also non-smoking businesses where their niche is suddenly harmed whenever such an unjust law is enacted?

All I have to say is just(though I'm not Jewish, just know this word b/c of a Jewish friend of mine), oy!

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20101015/NEWS/10150329/1001

Galveston, TX finally reverses their ban for bars, and becomes the 2nd Texas city to restore freedom of choice in 2010

It's way past time that more cities with total bans including bars should reverse them, and good to see at least another Texas city had the balls to ease a smoking ban that formerly applied to bars. This is the 2nd city in Texas in 2010 to make this decision, after Conroe, TX(north of Houston) did so earlier this year. Although the ban inside restaurants and workplaces will remain in effect after October 13th, the provision that banned smoking 15 feet from a door was revised to just 5 feet, and alcohol consumption is once again allowed in tobacco shops, along with indoor smoking in bars and clubs, if such a owner wishes to permit it. Galveston previously had one of THE most restrictive smoking bans in Texas, and their ban briefly was even more restrictive and prohibited smoking in tobacco shops, before a December 2009 smoking ban amendment passed. (but then still prohibiting alcohol consumption in such places) Up until this revision passed, smoking in all restaurants and bar patios was technically banned, although it was NEVER enforced, as witnessed by anyone who's ever watched the webcam for the restaurant The Spot. (and can be viewed at http://www.galveston.com/spotcam/ )

Almost forgot to say Pasadena, TX(an east suburb of Houston) did a similar ban reversal for deciding to remove bars from their smoking ban, which occurred 2-3 years ago. Bravo to Galveston's city council, and yay for the fact it overrode Mayor Jaworski's veto!

http://www.cityofgalveston.org/news/default.cfm?ID=4219
http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/225095-galveston-bar-owners-strike-back-at-smoking-ban-by-suing-city

Two additional articles I just found:
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/178330 (and wow, did Michael McFadden seriously own the idiot antis that commented in that comments section, up to 62 at the time I saw it)
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/09/smoking_ban_galveston_1.php

final poll results for my August/September question

If you smoke, do you tend to completely obey outdoor smoking bans whenever you encounter them, bend the rules slightly on outdoor bans, or ignore them outright?

I always disobey outdoor smoking bans, regardless of who gets annoyed.	3 (75%)
I obey many bans, but tend to bend the rules on small ones, i.e. like 'smokers must stand 10-15 feet radius from door', and only stand something like 5-8 ft. away. I also use discretion and look around where I am, before lighting up.	1 (25%)
With rare exceptions, I obey outdoor bans the vast majority of the time.	0 (0%)
I don't take any chances, and obey all outdoor smoking bans.	0 (0%)

Webb City, MO(near Joplin) puts smoking ban referendum on April 2011 ballot

The more I think about it, it makes sense, considering they weren't enthused about touching this issue. But if it gives local businesses(both smoking ones, and non-smoking businesses that still favor freedom of choice) a great chance to successfully organize and fight this proposal before it's too late, more power to Webb City's council(and a la Devil Lake, ND's recent decision to refer a ban proposal to the ballot, instead of approving it).

More people need to organize against the Joplin-area group that's leading all these local smoking ban coalitions in each Joplin-area community, called Clean Air Project(it's an umbrella group that leads all the other local ones, like Smoke-Free Webb City). I'm slightly surprised Carthage wasn't the first community to refer it to the ballot, since that was the first community around there where their council had a hearing on this issue....

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x797276092/Webb-City-smoking-ban-heads-to-voters

Creve Coeur now wants to stupidly copy Brentwood's bar ban, plus (YAWN) new St. Charles County ACS poll

So, I just saw a new article that shows yet another Councilwoman(Beth Kistner) in Creve Coeur wants to copy off Clayton, Kirkwood, and Brentwood's jumping off of the cliff, and throw Creve Coeur bars over the cliff as well. Isn't it time for businesses and residents to demand that their city councils quit touching this issue, and truly solve real problems other than smoking instead? After all, if people didn't want some establishments(even restaurants) to have smoking, they'd have banned smoking on their own accord by now. The western part(aka 'West County') portion of Saint Louis County must be full as heck with anti-smoking supporters(and probably is like Chicago's North Shore suburbs), if communities from Ballwin all the way east to Clayton have unnecessarily passed these draconian laws, killing the business of any place that used to legally be able to cater to smokers. :(

And Creve Coeur's mayor(Harold Dielmann) is willing to go along with this nonsense, despite that ALREADY, 70% of restaurants in Creve Coeur are non-smoking on their own accord? He states that he's okay with a citywide ban even including the lone CC bar exempt by the Saint Louis County ban (EDIT) yet to take effect in January 2011, as long as restaurant and bar patios are exempt. Screw Mayor Dielmann, politicians truly need to learn to listen to the people, or they will see the revenge of karma turning against them, and get voted out by voters fed up by anti-smoking nonsense. And they really should turn against these municipal politicians, whenever they come up for reelection.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_9c5c657c-d791-55fc-b955-af71114d5c80.html

Ohio antis now want OH's state cig tax($1.25 a pack, $12.50 a carton) doubled

Their new comments are interesting, since I recall back in spring of this year, they were running their mouths on how the state cig tax should be raised a dollar. Now they want Ohio state to double the state cig tax, once the 2011 Ohio legislative session starts? State lawmakers there would be wise to look at Michigan, where cigarette sales HEAVILY plunged after Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and anti-smoking lawmakers got their state cig tax raised years ago from $1.25 to $2 a pack. Do they really want tons of bootlegging to start flooding that state from all directions?

Excluding Pennsylvania, they already have a higher state cigarette tax than all surrounding states. They WILL BE HIGHER than all surrounding states, including Pennsylvania, if this foolish proposal were to pass. Man, I already see bootleggers heavily targeting Cincinnati, since it's surrounded by both smoker-friendly(greatly, versus Ohio) Indiana and Kentucky.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100915/NEWS01/9160333/Hike-cigarette-tax-raise-400M-
http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/529852/Taxing-tobacco.html?nav=5002 (lol, this includes a poll on if you favor or oppose such a state cig tax increase, and already has a lengthy comment section)
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/ohio-news/health-groups-want-state-cigarette-tax-doubled-918767.html (decent comment section, as well)
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/story.aspx?id=512437
http://www.whiznews.com/content/news/local/2010/09/16/potential-cigarette-tax-increase (this is more an example of a pathetic article than anything, but a great example of how crappy some media outlets are. there's a 5 second attached video, where the only guy interviewed(yes!) is a non-smoker who spoke in favor of doubling the state tax)

Bloomberg(erm, Gloomturd) seeking expand NYC's '03 smoking ban to outdoor parks/beaches, marinas, boardwalks, + pedestrian plazas like Times Square

Haha, I'd love to see the NYPD 100% successfully enforce a ban in BOTH ALL AREAS of Central Park and the outdoor (and now car-free, thanks to Gloomturd, and saw this change in summer 2009 myself) pedestrian plaza of Times Square. Both places are so big outside(trust me, I visited both places on my trip there last summer, along w/some smoker-friendly places like the tobacco bar Circa Tabac, one of the ONLY indoor businesses totally exempted, and grandfathered in, by the 2003 city ban), that it'd be all but impossible to enforce an outdoor ban everywhere. I did not get around to visiting the Coney Island boardwalk, but from the few online pics I've seen of it, that's another great place where it'd be nearly impossible to enforce a complete outdoor ban.

Boy, do I really hope enough city council members show some backbone, and oppose this proposal being pushed by both Gloomturd and the primary person who introduced this bill, City Councilwoman Gail Brower. There are a few other council members who have also signed on as co-sponsors besides Brower, but I'm not sure of all the names ATM. (will post everyone's name on the NYC council later, once I find out who they all currently are) For now, this proposal doesn't include banning outdoor smoking on regular sidewalks outside of pedestrian plazas like Times Square, or for any restaurants and bars that allow smoking on an outdoor patio. Doesn't change outdoor smoking restrictions for private businesses, private organizations like college campuses(mostly thinking here about the fact Iowa and Arkansas BOTH at least do impose some sort of statewide outdoor campus smoking ban for either all public colleges, or also include private colleges in such a law(like Iowa does)), or for any other private business or organization within NYC.

http://www.examiner.com/ny-in-new-york/bill-proposes-smoking-ban-outdoor-areas-of-nyc
http://gothamist.com/2010/09/17/smokers_not_so_eager_to_comply_with.php
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/nyc-will-pursue-smoking-ban-in-parks-beaches/article1708387/
http://beta.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/sep/15/smoking-ban-include-parks-and-beaches/ (I'm gonna take a wild guess just from reading this article, that NYC City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is one of the co-sponsors to Brower's insane bill to ban outdoor smoking)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bloomberg_blunders_his_way_through_6eMJYxYP2NTXYHqVPzVyXO (lmao, Gloomturd can't even say names correctly of those he's appointed to lead other city departments :) )

update on the New York state vs NY Indian tribes cigarette tax showdown

Long story short, the state court has overturned it's decision to halt NY state from collecting the state cigarette tax, and the federal injunction for now is still in place for just two New York tribes. The Senecas and Cayugas are fighting to keep the current federal injunction ruling against the NY state cig tax being collected on Indian Reservation stores in place(hope they're successful in doing this, and even get a permanent injunction in the end), and the Oneida Nation is now filing it's own federal lawsuit to seek an injunction, as the Senecas and Cayugas currently have(albeit one that'll expire by September 28th, unless a federal judge rules to extend his imposed injunction against NY state for 2 tribes).

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/home/content/Oneida-files-injunction-after-court-approves-state-cigarette-tax-103133424.html
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9I8C25G0.htm

NY State Senate Health Committee considering anti-smoking agenda expansion w/11 items, hearing next week in NYC on Thu. 9/23

Here's an exert, from a longer letter posted on smokinglobby.com's message board:

=================================
It seems to me that New York is trying to become the anti-smoking leader in the USA. I received yesterday and email from the New York Tobacconist Association about a meeting the New York State Senate Health Committee holding a public hearing on September 23 at 10 AM taking place 250 Broadway, 19th Fl., New York City. The Committee will meet to learn how the state’s regulation of smoking and tobacco products works to improve the health of all New Yorkers and any actions needed for continued benefits.
On the table are the following items:

1. Smoking on playgrounds during the day when children under 12 present but prevents fine-able/jail enforcement
2. Smoking on train platforms
3. Smoking near playgrounds
4. Smoking in cars with someone under 14
5. Raises age 18 to 19 for tobacco statewide
6. Sale of e-cigarettes to minors
7. Definition of e-cigarettes
8. Prohibition of tobacco sales in pharmacies
9. Prohibition of tobacco vending machines 350 feet from schools/places of worship
10. Statewide flavor ban bills with the fines and complaint system in place (Paulin bill)
11. Manufacturer reports to DoH
======================

Full letter is readable below. And oh my gosh, if I lived in NY state at all(or heck, even New Jersey or Connecticut), I'd so go to this Senate Health Committee and try and speak. I'd so love to know which NY State Senate members(and ditto w/anyone in the state chapter of the ACS, ALA, etc. who's involved with pushing this s*** as well) behind proposing all these worser than craptacular proposals! The most annoying proposals by far of these 11 proposals are #2(I'll assume this proposed statewide outdoor ban would include outside areas of train platforms, even at tens and tens of feet away from the main station house), #5(this violates the personal rights of anyone who's hit the legal age of 18 to purchase and smoke a legal product(cigarettes). my guess is that this was proposed to copy off New Jersey, as they already require customers to be at least 19 to purchase cigarettes and all other tobacco products.), #6 + 7(although I wouldn't oppose restricting their sale to 18 and up, just like regular cigarettes), #8(like 5, this violates the personal rights of pharmacies to sell cigarettes if they want, since any pharmacy owner already has the power to NOT sell cigarettes, if the owner has such an objection to smoking), and #10 and #11.

Please attend and try to sign up to speak, if you live in the Northeast, and are able to attend it:
http://www.smokinglobby.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031

West Hollywood, CA outdoor ban proposal, looks like the final version will be modeled after LA's ordinance

But I did find the debate in West Hollywood, CA on an outdoor smoking ban interesting, since it must be one of the very few communities in the LA area that hasn't fallen to the outdoor smoking ban nonsense that's spread everywhere in that state. I have a bad feeling they probably will fall to some sort of outdoor smoking ban anyway, since I recall reading(believe in the first article below) that 4 of 5 city council members(and including their mayor, not surprisingly) had stated they were in favor of some sort of outdoor ban for places serving food. (meaning the restaurants would be screwed over, if they wanted to permit smoking anywhere outside) Plus, one of the articles said that 'West Hollywood had made a commitment to mirror whatever outdoor smoking restrictions LA passes, blah blah blah.'

The very first article definitely had this quote in it, interestingly admitting the outdoor ban was NOT about health, from the former West Hollywood mayor:
"So too, the author of the ordinance, then-Mayor Abbe Land, candidly acknowledged the nanny state accusations’ veracity. “This is about changing peoples’ behavior,” said Ms. Land.

“Part of this is to encourage people not to smoke. That’s the goal, not to find a billion places for smokers to be. Candidly, I would that we didn’t have smoking in the outdoor areas of nightclubs and bars,” said Abbe Land."

http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5315
http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5304

This is the best article to read, and it totally debunks outdoor bans. Plus, it states why the Athens-Clarke County, GA government(and where my aunt and uncle happen to live) wisely rejected an outdoor patio smoking ban in late 2009(although they shouldn't have banned smoking in bars there in the first place 5 years ago!):
http://www.wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=4332

one more city buys the deceptive lies of antis, and sadly bans bar smoking(Savannah)

Savannah, GA unfortunately passed a bar smoking ban last week on a 4-2 vote, with the mayor also obviously supporting it as well. It's hard to believe a city like Savannah would want to do this to its bars, when already more than likely, at least a few had to be already voluntarily non-smoking. Least there's New Orleans, which thankfully hasn't fallen to this bar smoking ban madness yet. (and also Louisiana's Legislature has smartly rejected 2 bar and casino state ban proposals in the last 2 years)

It isn't lost on me either that libertarian groups protested Savannah passing an ordinance last fall requiring bartenders to be licensed and pay a fee to get a license, and after reading about that passing, it disgusted me a lot. I'll edit this post later and add links to one or more articles(based on what I can find) that that talks about Savannah's bartending ordinance, later.

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/2010-08-26/savannah-bans-smoking-bars (very good comments section, up to more than 80 comments)
http://savannahnow.com/column/2010-08-26/hughes-smoke-free-city-healthy-city (the queen nanny of Healthy Savannah, Amy Hughes, disgustingly and pathetically justifies the 'good' smoking bans do)

New York state vs NY Indian tribes cigarette tax showdown

And I know what side I'm rooting for. You might as well say this battle has gone to overtime, now that it's being heard in a state appellate court, BOTH the federal court and a state appellate court have imposed temporary injunctions on NY state collecting their insane $4.35 per pack state cigarette tax on Indian Reservations, and the stupid ACS is supposedly asking the judge if they can(yawn, so typical of health fascists) file an amicus brief in favor of the state violating the sovereignty of Native tribes. This story continues to get crazier, every time I find new articles on it. And of course in the end, there's only one guy we can blame for starting this madness(Gov. Paterson, who started this crap in the first place by wanting to laughably force NY's tribes to collect this excessive $1.60 cig tax increase from $2.75 to $4.35, along with forcing it unnecessarily on all convenience stores). Bet it is only a matter of time before tons of non-Indian convenience stores start to close down, and at least they will near Indian-owned stores and/or Reservations, and near state borders.

Also apologies that I've had so little time to post the past few weeks, I've been in the middle of starting a new temp job. Hopefully when it ends in the fall, I may have slightly more time to update this blog. We'll see, crossing fingers!

Now some articles on this story:
http://www.wben.com/American-Cancer-Society-Getting-Involved-in-Cigare/8063994 (ACS should really mind their own business, and stay out of this case)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/nyregion/02cigarettes.html (NY state appellate court imposing injunction, expanding Judge Arcara's limited injunction to all NY tribes)

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article177382.ece (federal court injunction when Judge Arcara only issued an injunction against NY state collecting the tax at Seneca and Cayuga tribal stores, article 1)

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/federal_judge_blocks_implement.html (federal court injunction, article 2)
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/after_ny_tax_hikes_indian_shop.html (this was published just over a month into NY state's July 1st $1.60 cig tax increase from $2.75 to $4.35, but before NY state was supposed to start enforcing collecting the state tax on Indian Reservations as of September 1st, only to see an appellate court issue an injunction against NY state doing this)

2 cigarette tax hikes in Europe backfire, plus how one Bulgarian city selfishly hurting their businesses w/total ban

I hardly am surprised to hear in 2 eastern European countries, cigarette tax hikes already have spurred a major shift toward black market sales. Bulgaria had a cigarette sales drop of 33%, according to their customs office. It also says towards the end of the article, that Romania both increased their cigarette tax, and their value-added tax. And speaking of the subject of a VAT, I certainly hope our country never adopts such a tax, since I have heard rumblings that it might be proposed in Congress in the future....

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q2I020100827 (article also mentions how one town(Kyustendil), in Bulgaria stupidly kept the ban when the rest of the country went along with the smoking ban repeal, and how it's hurt bars, cafes, and restaurants in that town)

Bismarck's done deal of a smoking ban, behind the scenes of business owners

Every post, article, and comment I've been reading about Bismarck(ND) City Commission's "hearing" on their now-passed smoking ban just go to show it was a farce all along, and that a local smoke-free coalition obviously contacted the mayor and each commissioner to pressure them into supporting this unnecessary ordinance banning it in all bars and truck stops. On Tuesday this week, Bismarck's City Commission voted 4-1 in favor of an ordinance to ban smoking in all businesses. I'm laughing my butt off now obviously seeing they agreed to wait till November 1st at 1am to enforce it, probably to give bar patrons one last night they can smoke in a bar(Halloween)?

NEVER MIND that I heard Bismarck already had a local limited smoking ban in place banning smoking in restaurants, but exempting bars, truck stops, and I believe certain other adult businesses. A partial statewide smoking ban passed 5 years ago in that state, exempting bars, truck stops, and other age-restricted places(like truck stops, and if a restaurant has a physically separate bar area from the rest of the restaurant). It's obvious to me why the North Dakota Tobacco Free Coalition(IIRC, need to do a google check to be sure of the name of the group that is pursuing all these bar smoking bans suddenly in this state) is pressuring city councils throughout North Dakota all of a sudden to pass local smoking bans affecting bars, before the 2011 legislative session starts in North Dakota(where there obviously will be a hard push for a statewide bar smoking ban). If antis(theoretically speaking) were to get their statewide bar smoking ban in North Dakota passed in 2011, wonder how long it'll be before they try to bug cities there(namely Fargo, as they were the first city in that state to have a bar smoking ban) to ban smoking on outdoor patios?

I really hope the bar and truck stop owners in Bismarck consider collecting signatures to get this on the ballot, and have the backbone to ensure this gets on the ballot there, unlike Grand Forks(where there was a failed attempt to refer this issue to the ballot, before it took effect for Grand Forks bars just 11/2 weeks ago). If not, they should try in 2011 or 2012 to collect enough signatures to get this on the ballot. Devils Lake, ND's city commission had the right idea to refer this to the November 2010 ballot and let voters decide, since at least it gives residents a chance to stop such an unnecessary and silly law. And as evidenced in 2008, when both Kenosha, WI, and Amarillo, TX both voted down total smoking bans that were put on the ballot.

2 articles:
http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http://www.kxnet.com/news/618804.asp (this has the whole story and the video from a local TV newscast)
http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http://www.kxnet.com/news/618739.asp (published and broadcast just barely before the night of the hearing, in fact this was aired probably in the afternoon on the same TV station as the above article, before the hearing started in the evening)

And I dunno how I didn't catch this great article 6 months back, it's sad I only caught this article now(yay for google caching news articles that are now gone from the 'net). Never mind IIRC, someone on the Smokers Club forum may've posted this article here back in February, but I unfortunately missed it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3Rzxg8yxZcAJ:www.bismarckpride.com/blogs/%3Fp%3D3199+bismarck+smoking+ban&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

From earlier, the article on the city commission in Devils Lake referring this issue to the November 2010 ballot, when antis bugged them to pass a bar ban:
http://www.devilslakejournal.com/newsnow/x1609353793/Voters-to-decide-smoking-ban-commission-opening

San Antonio bans smoking in all places, and didn't grandfather in restaurants w/vented smoking rooms(unlike Austin's ban)

I sadly was wrong about San Antonio's city council, in guessing how they would vote on this proposal. I should've anticipated the mayor(Julian Castro) would just remove the River Walk provision and the ones for other outdoor areas, just to get over the top with the swing council members he needed the support of to pass it. This San Antonio Current article published days before the vote on Thursday afternoon, ended up being 100% correct about the final vote:
http://sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=71441

The SA ban's effective date was delayed for 1 whole year, until August 19, 2011. One article, that included an interesting comment section(I especially couldn't help but go after anti-smoking zealot RBear's shameful comments):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/council_adopt_tough_smoking_rules_101091934.html

Meant to post this in one of my comments on the mysanantonio article comment section and forgot, but the owner of one Dallas gay bar was so affected by the 2009 expansion of Dallas' city smoking ban to bars, that he is looking to sell the bar he owns, Illusions:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/the-smoking-ban-1-year-later-1020617.html

new Gallup poll: just 31% of Americans favor complete smoking bans including bars

And anti groups who do drives to collect enough signatures to get comprehensive smoking ban proposals onto general election ballots throughout the country still wonder why they often fail? Duh, it's because they don't give any leeway to privately-owned adult-only establishments that prohibit minors from entering or being employed in the first place the call they deserve to permit or ban smoking in their establishments. Just look at Amarillo, TX, and Kenosha, WI in 2008 as among many examples of past voter referendums where total bans failed EXACTLY due to this reason. (can't forget Kenosha also failed, since restaurants with 50% or more food sales that invested money to build ventilated smoking rooms to comply with an older 2000 ban wouldn't have been allowed to continue allowing smoking in those rooms)

And although Brentwood, MO's council was recently foolish enough to pass a ban, I wouldn't be surprised if the council members who voted in favor get voted out very soon in the next election, and/or a ballot drive to ease their smoking ban to mirror the Saint Louis County ban occurs. Anyway, here's the Gallup poll I'm referring to:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

UCLA's disgusting firing of epidemiology researcher James Enstrom

James Enstrom was of course, one of 2 researchers that did an infamous 2003 British Medical Journal study which found no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer and heart disease.

More info at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, and 2 other articles:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/08/james-enstrom-sacked-by-ucla.html
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/columnist/henry/x1415295919/Independent-thought-not-wanted-at-UCLA
http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/2010/08/ucla-school-of-public-health-votes-to.html

yay, once again found this very classic radio show clip, from the Kenosha, WI 2008 smoking ban debate

Vicki McKenna did a great smackdown of Smoke Free Wisconsin, and the anti group 'Breathe Free Kenosha'(the anti coalition who back in 2008, was pushing for the Kenosha City Council to expand their limited ban beyond restaurants with 50% or more food sales(unless they built a ventilated smoking room), to close all exemptions in their limited smoking ban) back in 2008, and was even linked from a post from the former Ban the Ban Wisconsin blog. (R.I.P. to that blog, as I was a regular poster on it!)

Anyway, enjoy this clip, in case you've never heard the pleasure of listening to McKenna's great rant against smoking bans in general, originally broadcast on Milwaukee AM radio station Milwaukee News/Talk 1130:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/WISN-AM/vm%208-11%20hour%202%20part%202.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MILWAUKEE-WI&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1176&STATION_ID=WISN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=WISN,_Milwaukee&PCAST_CAT=Talk&PCAST_TITLE=

'Kentucky Tonight' TV debate on NKY regional ban proposal

Just watched this earlier tonight, and it was quite interesting, particularly the 2 on the side of property rights(NKY Choice leader and blogger Ken Moellman, and Boone County Commissioner Cathy Flaig). Kenton County Commissioner Kris Knochelmann(just as disappointing as soon-to-retire Kenton Judge-Executive Ralph Drees, the biggest proponent of the NKY ban proposal by far) and NKY Action grassroots coordinator + head of American Lung Association of Kentucky, Betsy Berns Janes, represent the anti-smoking side, not surprisingly.

Commissioner Knochelmann makes the claim in this debate that Kenton and Campbell Fiscal Courts will likely vote on the NKY ban proposal within 60-90 days(depending if minute differences between what some favor in these talks get resolved), despite that the Boone Fiscal Court pulled out of the talks in late July. And never mind that the same rhetoric back around May and June was also being said about when such a vote would happen! I guess we'll see what happens, within the next few months.

Enjoy(go down to 'links' on this page, and 'watch this program online'):
http://www.ket.org/tvschedules/episode.php?nola=KKYTO+001736&cd=1

And of course, the latest draft version of this NKY ordinance that was leaked in early August(as a Microsoft Word document):
http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB16200684.DOC