one more interesting article I found

Can you believe this? (I can) The Scottish MPs who passed a total indoor smoking ban over 5 years ago have never ended their exemption in that ban for a certain part of Parliament, where MPs can puff away. Yep, screw the common man, while conveniently exempting one smoking area within their legislative chamber and building.

More info here(wouldn't be surprised if I misinterpreted some of the details, will take a closer look at both articles later. and thanks to the Freedom-2-Choose Scotland blog for posting this.):

http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/12/meps-dont-have-smoking-ban-in-workplace.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/222665/Smoking-Euro-MPs-the-butt-of-anger/

Protect Private Property Rights in Michigan proves what we knew all along...

Yep, that smoking bans greatly hurt the business of the few catering to smokers. And gosh, why would a dumb ALA lobbyist like Shelly Kiser give a crap if a very limited number of businesses want to cater to smokers. There already were a LOT of bars and restaurants that voluntarily went 100% no smoking indoors to cater to customer demand before Michigan's ban in May 2010, shouldn't that have been more than sufficient to the lunatic anti-smokers? Just feel bad it took me longer than I wanted to to repost this article here(found it on NKY Choice's facebook group), but better late than never.

I know in Indianapolis-Marion County(where a ban was passed exempting just businesses that are 18 and over at all hours of operation, and applies everywhere but like 3-4 independent communities within Marion County, IN, and at least 2 of them chose to pass bans that exempted bars), Save Indiana Bars(formerly Save Indianapolis Bars) already proved in a study that JUST 1% of all types of businesses throughout that county still allowed smoking, with many adult-only businesses banning it on their own in the last few years! Same thing has been occurring in the Northern Kentucky area(just south of Cincinnati), where NKY Choice found that over 2/3rds of restaurants and other businesses banned smoking on their own, WITHOUT any government-mandated ban necessary. That percentage must be closer to 75% by now, if NKY Choice hasn't already updated the study they posted on their site, and onto Twitter and Youtube. I need to check their site again, to see if they've done a new survey on this since. And for the record, Campbell County repealed a total ban their fiscal court passed, and Kenton's fiscal court only passed a partial ban exempting adult-only businesses, and 'split shift' businesses that allow smoking only during certain hours. It's too bad Kenton hasn't repealed their ban, since I know it greatly hurt the business of one bowling alley not too far away from Boone County and Florence, KY.

yay, I love hearing IL dept. of health is giving out grant money....

to enforce a certain draconian law that there's no doubt in my mind is wrong(not to forget is NOTHING other than just junk science, if you truly look at the extremely shaky claims and 'studies' that anti groups use to justify these unnecessary bans time and time again), aka Illinois' 31/2(and counting) year old smoking ban. OMFG, what sane resident of Illinois(that darn well knows smoking should've been left as a choice in adult-only businesses) did NOT know that insane amounts of money was going to be wasted, enforcing this unnecessary law?

It's way beyond time to let adult-only businesses post clear exterior signage of their smoking policy, and let intelligent adults decide on their own if they want to patronize adult-only establishment(s) permitting smoking or not. As I've said I believe many times before in the past, Illinois would do well revising their ban and model it off of the smoking ordinance in effect in Indianapolis-Marion County, which lets all businesses that restrict minors from entry or employment decide their smoking policy on their own. And egads, I regularly read Indy articles, and know A LOT of adult businesses that could permit smoking if they wanted to, do NOT allow it inside whatsoever, due to free market demand shifting towards a higher number of no-smoking bars, clubs, adult-only restaurants, etc.

Northern Kentucky Choice has cited this(uncollected smoking ban fines, and the waste of money Ohio has spent on enforcing their state smoking ban) as a huge reason they fought the 3-county smoking ban proposal slightly over a year ago, and except in Kenton County(where only a partial ban passed), they won in 3 out of 4 counties Northern Kentucky Action was seeking a ban(it is not well-known, but they were seeking one in Grant County as well, south of Kenton and Boone County). Grant County opted out of consideration for a smoking ban first, then Boone County pulled out not long after that(much thanks to the heroic fiscal court members who fought it, like Cathy Flaig), and Campbell County initially passed one. Thankfully, they(Campbell's fiscal court) repealed a passed comprehensive smoking ban that would've only hurt Campbell businesses in early 2011, had it remained in effect.

It is beyond time for Illinois lawmakers to repeal the state smoking ban, and continue the work they(Illinois' legislature) started this year, when the Illinois House passed a law repealing the smoking ban in casinos with 62 members in support. Hopefully, more state legislative members get on board in each successive year, till it one day becomes law. (the next version should exempt ANY business that doesn't admit or employ minors inside, and not only casinos)

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x2137969506/Word-on-the-Street-Smoking-scofflaws-have-a-rural-character

just caught this exchange, and I'll give this guy the 'anti idiot of 2011' award

Yep, Boise is the latest city(and the biggest as of right now) to be debating an unnecessary indoor bar smoking ban. Check out this exchange between a foolishly misguided anti city councilmen(Alan Shealy), and a regular private citizen.

Here's a local blogger's post on the exchange(this is a very great blog post about it, kudos to Idaho Conservative Blogger):

http://www.kido.net/pages/landing_icb_blog?Constitutional-BS=1&blockID=559716&feedID=7112

And that exchange with Councilman Shealy is caught on video here, inbetween 2:30 and 3:05, during a public hearing on Boise's proposed smoking ban for all businesses:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2011/10/19/boise-council-inhales-scores-of-comments-during-smoke-free-hearings

No wonder I HATE anti-smoking minded politicians so, so, so much. Grrrr! And yes, if I were(theoretically) the host of Countdown With Keith Olbermann, you may as well say Alan Shealy would be my '#1 worst person in the world' today. (lmao)

great IL smoking ban loopholes letter I just found now, albeit late

Just caught this from the Illinois Smokers Alliance Yahoo group(Daniel O'Day, is the same person btw who represented several Will County bars, in an unsuccessful 2008(?, let me know if I have the year this lawsuit was filed in a state court incorrect) lawsuit against the Illinois state smoking ban):

We have been fighting the forces of evil, in the courts and elsewhere, so I thought I'd prepare an update.

We figured out some time ago that the anti-smoking groups do not have access to as much cash as they previously had available, nor do they have the same goodwill with the legislature in Illinois that they once had. Everyone in the General Assembly knows that the Smoke Free Illinois Act was very poorly drafted. Then, when the anti-smoking forces promised lawmakers that only one fix was needed to correct errorsd in the law, the Legislature okayed those changes only to learn later that there are still many other technical problems with this law that could have been avoided had the law been drafted properly in the first place.

There are still many loopholes in the Act.

First, under section 20 public places and places of employment are supposed to remove ashtrays and display signs at entrances; but there is no penalty in the law for not doing so, in that the penalties are for violations of section 15, not section 20.

Second, they tried to fix section 15 by requiring an owner to "reasonably assure" that smoking is prohibited in an indoor public place or place of employment. This duty is imposed only on an owner, not on a person who operates or controls a public place. So only an owner can be charged with a violation based on a customer's or employee's smoking. In short, a bartender who is not an owner cannot be charged with letting customers smoke. As to an owner, there is no guidance on what it means to "reasonably assure" that smoking is prohibited. What this likely means is that, if an owner has posted signs and removed ashtrays, the owner just about has to be observed watching someone smoking before a violation can be found. Also, note that section 15 imposes duties on an owner only with respect to "indoor" public places. So if smoking is occurring in an outdoor area in violation of other parts of Section 15 or in violation of section 70 (which has no penalty section), the owner cannot be blamed for it.

Third, owners' fines are totally messed up -- in a good way. Recall that section 45(b) provides for fines of $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation within one year after the first violation, and $2500 for each additional violation within one year after the first violation. The first problem with this language is that an owner can be fined only over a period of one year. Once the first violation occurs, for a period of one year, there can be fines of $250, $500, or even $2500, but once the first year is up following the first violation, no fines are provided for owners. During that period of one year, the Illinois Department of Public Health has ruled that fines do not escalate until there is finality for a prior violation. So suppose an owner fights his first ticket for 6 months; during that time, if he gets more citations, the most that can be charged for any of them is $250. Only after the owner pays the ticket or loses his case can the next level of fine ($500) be imposed. And so on.

Fourth, the power of municipalities to draft their own ordinances is very much in dispute. Under section 65(a) non-home rule units and home-rule units are granted authority to regulate smoking in public places. The regulation must be at least as restrictive as the state law. If a municipality decides to draft an ordinance to reach taverns, that ordinance is probably illegal because it is not as restrictive as the state law, which applies to many types of public places in addition to taverns. If there is any variation between how the state law deals with a public place and how the state law deals with one, that is a fertile ground for objecting to the local ordinance. Moreover, under Section 10 of the state law, a place might be defined as both a "public place" and a "place of employment." Notably, Section 65 of the state law does not allow for this sort of treatment under a local ordinance, because the term "place of employment" appears nowhere in Section 65. Section 65(b) refers to any enclosed indoor area used by the public or serving as a place of work if the area does not fall within the definition of a "public place." So if an area is a public place, it cannot be regulated by a municipality or county pursuant to section 65(b) but rather an ordinance must meet all the criteria applicable due to Section 65(a).

Fifth, there is no provision for search warrants or other forms of investigative tools. Administrative search warrants or inspection systems are allowable under the 4th amendment if there is carefully-drafted legislation. Here there is none. Thus, out of all the places that are listed as public places, only bars are being watched closely because police can pretty much enter them at any time under various liquor control laws. More specifically, suppose a place of business allows its employees to smoke indoors in violation of the Smoke Free Illinois Act. The police and health departments have no right to come into any non-public parts of the business without a search warrant and here no warrant is even possible.

Sixth, there is a lot of discussion about whether smoking should be allowed in beer gardens and outdoor eating areas. Notably, an owner has no duty to stop people from smoking in these outdoor areas, under section 15 of the Act, because section 15 only requires an owner to reasonably assure that smoking is prohibited in INDOOR public places and work areas.

Finally, here's the original link to this letter from the IL Smokers Alliance Yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokersalliance/message/6263

this guy really overreacted in an inappropriate way to smoking inside a bar enforcing IL's state ban

Just caught this article on the Smokers Club forum for Illinois, and it makes me extremely annoyed someone would act this way. This is a bar in Naperville, where it happened.

The press ridiculously stereotypes smokers and any issue related to smoking, and I can't help but fear this'll make them try the tired stereotyping more. I'm actually surprised nobody has come up with a drinking game, for every single time some TV news program, or commercial exaggerates the lies on SHS, and other dubious claims from anti-smoking groups. That would make a hell of a drinking game!

Well anyway, joking aside, here's the article:

http://www.examiner.com/cultural-oddities-in-national/crime-chicago-man-caught-smoking-bar-arrested-security-gaurd-stabbing

if IL lawmakers gave any crap about property rights, they SHOULD pass both bills immediately

Just caught this press release from the IPCPR, and I couldn't agree more. I think I will try to write an encouraging letter, to encourage lawmakers to favor the side of property rights, and pass both bills immediately. And if you live in Illinois, please do ask them to support House Bill 171(to allow for segregated smoking areas in casinos) and House Bill 1310(allowing local liquor commissions to grant smoking licenses to bars and other adult-oriented businesses that get 10% or less revenue from food sales).

I would personally prefer that both age-restricted adult venues like bars have no food requirement imposed on whether they can permit smoking(a la Idaho, Louisiana, and the city of Saint Louis, where there is NO limit on how much food they can serve if they choose to be a smoking establishment), but I would totally accept this as is, considering how damaged (formerly) smoker-friendly businesses throughout the state have been in the 3 years Illinois' smoking ban has been in effect. And it has taken FAR too long for the ball to start rolling on finally addressing this issue.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/3/prweb8179247.htm