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