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/

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)

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)

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

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

2 last articles on Grand Forks

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/287831/ (article copy-and-pasted below, since INFORUM has a history of quickly removing news articles after they're published on their site)

Published August 14 2010
Grand Forks bars to go smoke-free at midnight
Audra Goulet said she imagines spending time with friends at Grand Forks bars will still be about the same – even after a big change that goes into effect tonight.

By: Ryan Johnson, Forum Communications Co., INFORUM

Audra Goulet said she imagines spending time with friends at Grand Forks bars will still be about the same – even after a big change that goes into effect tonight.

Liquor establishments in the city will become a little less hazy at midnight, a result of a 4-3 vote by the Grand Forks City Council to ban smoking in bars, truck stops and bowling alleys.

Goulet said being a smoker makes many people incorrectly assume she’s upset about the ban.

“I’m actually kind of looking forward to it because I’ll smoke less probably,” she said. “I think it’s probably a good thing.”

Goulet and a friend, Jennifer Dotson, were spending their Friday night at Rumors, enjoying their last full night of being able to have a smoke while relaxing over drinks and conversation.

Dotson said she’s ready for the ban. She is a smoker, but she quickly admitted sitting in a smoky bar for a while is enough to make anyone “stink bad.”

“Some nights, you go out, and when you wake up ... you can still smell the smoke,” she said.

Having a cigarette during a night on the town will now just be a lot like it is when she’s home – Dotson doesn’t smoke inside her own house because she doesn’t want her 2-year-old daughter to be around it.

“I think it would actually be better at a bar,” Dotson said about the ban. “Yeah, I like to smoke and drink, but it’s not really going to bother me to go outside.”

Goulet said the change could help smokers decide to quit. And she thinks it won’t take long before the ban seems like it’s always been in place.

“Just like in Minnesota, they’re going to get used to it,” she said. “I was just amazed how long it took Grand Forks and North Dakota to get there.”

East Grand Forks and all other Minnesota cities went smoke-free several years ago as the result of a statewide indoor smoking ban for most public places.

North Dakota passed a ban around the same time, but that did not include bars – a type of business that was exempt in Grand Forks until now.

Mac Pesch, manager of Rumor’s, said his establishment plans to put containers outside to keep the littering to a minimum. And the bar might build a smoke hut this fall to give smokers a place to get out of the weather.

Pesch said the ban could hurt Rumors’ gaming or even the overall business. But he also saw this type of change as something that was almost inevitable.
============================
This is very insane, this city council(erm commission, or whatever it's called) only approved this proposal on a 4-3 vote, and didn't try the route of letting that city do a referendum vote on this ban? And ahem, I initially forgot North Dakota's smoking ban doesn't include enclosed bar areas within bowling alleys that only adults can enter, similar to the truck stop exemption that allows smoking in enclosed rooms with their own ventilation.

2nd article, which just spells out the rules. you're probably better not clicking on the URL for this one, so I'm just copying-and-pasting the Grand Forks smoking ban rules, including a silly 15 foot radius rule around building entrances that'll likely not be enforced, if the 21/2 year old statewide ban in Illinois is any indication how this smoking ban will play out in Grand Forks bars:
For the smokers

- No smoking in any workplace or public place except hotel rooms, hospital rooms and nursing homes if management allows. Also, no smoking in tobacco shops except the ones licensed before March 1, which are grandfathered in.

- No smoking within 15 feet of any door into any workplace or public place, except the places above.

This probably doesn’t mean you have to bring a tape measure with you all the time. City Attorney Howard Swanson told council members earlier this week the intent is just to keep the smoke from wafting into the building and police officers will not be measuring where you stand when you smoke anymore than they’d pull you over for driving 26 in a 25 mph zone.

- You can still smoke on the patio or a wind screen outside a bar, provided the bar serves only alcohol there, but not food.

- If you break the law, you can be fined $100 on the first violation and $500 on the second if it’s within a year of the first offense. If it’s a year after the first, the fine would be only $200.

For the businesses

- You have to post signs banning smoking in a conspicuous place. No particular design is required, but the signs must be pretty clear. Public health has some you can have ranging from straight forward — “This is a smoke-free establishment” — to somewhat jubilant — “Proud to be smoke free!” Call (701) 787-8100 for your sign.

- If someone wants to smoke on your premises, public health advises you to be understanding but firm. You might say, for example: “The local ordinance no longer allows smoking inside here. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to step outside to smoke.”

The point, the department says, is to emphasize that it’s the law and your business could be fined for not complying. Public health also advised trying to spread the word about how bad second-hand smoke is using facts such as: “Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and heart disease and has been linked to asthma and other serious respiratory problems” or “Secondhand smoke contains more than 60 cancer-causing compounds.”

- If they insist on breaking the law, call the police at (701) 787-8000.

- If you want to build a shelter for employees or customers to smoke in, it can have a roof, but only enough walls to cover 50 percent of the perimeter. In other words, it can’t be fully enclosed. People inside would end up in a smoky room all over again.
================
Yawn, I see this smoking ban has a snitch line that goes to Grand Forks Police for enforcement? Why couldn't they(Grand Forks City Commission) have instead referred this issue to voters for a November referendum, or just require exterior signage and disclosure on job applications/interviews on whatever their indoor smoking policy was, so that job patrons and applicants can vote accordingly whether they favor a business' smoking policy or not?

San Antonio smoking ban update

This proposal is so sweeping, that I'd be very surprised if their council doesn't reject this proposal when it comes up for a vote later this week. Of course you never know, I was extremely surprised when Galveston passed an extremely sweeping smoking ban last year, and that Conroe, TX(to my surprise) revised their comprehensive smoking ban later to exempt bars. Check out the latest post about it on the blog Off the Kuff:

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=30351

Reedsburg, WI bar owners prove that smoking bans(regardless if it's a local or statewide one) DO NOT work!

This is a very interesting and great article that shows these bars that went non-smoking, as did all other businesses in Wisconsin as of July 5th, have YET to see an influx of new non-smoking customers!

Once again, articles like these only further reinforce my opinion that smoking bans and/or rules restrictions should be a voluntary rule imposed by a business owner(-s), NOT a government-mandated law.

http://www.wiscnews.com/reedsburgtimespress/news/local/article_84110a0e-a3e1-11df-9240-001cc4c002e0.html

electronic cigarettes may be soon totally banned in the UK

And I thought the bans I read about prohibiting their use in restaurants and bars for both New Jersey and some jurisdictions in New York state(i.e. Suffolk County) were terrible laws! I know at least a few anti-smoking activists have even been brave enough to go against the normal anti-smoking line and speak out in favor of e-cigarette use, such as Bill Goodshall(sp?) of Smoke Free Pennsylvania.

This is from the blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/08/e-cigarettes-look-set-to-be-banned.html

Creative Loafing's editorial-in-chief stupidly believes Atlanta 'would be great candidate for a bar smoking ban'

Here's the joke of an editorial, if you want to read it. She wrote this, despite that there are currently NO PROPOSALS in Atlanta's city council to ban smoking in adult-only restaurants and bars(which goes beyond Georgia's state ban of only banning smoking in businesses where minors under 18 are allowed to enter, and/or are employed at). I wonder if she was inspired to write this, just because Savannah, GA's city council is debating a recently introduced proposal to ban smoking in bars and adult-only restaurants:

http://clatl.com/atlanta/smoking-indoors-sucks/content?oid=1950119

My response in the comments section(interestingly this editor responded to at least one comment in the comments section, maybe she'll respond to mine soon):

Ah Mara, what an extremely poor editorial you wrote on this issue. While I totally support banning smoking in TRULY public places(note: NOT privately-owned businesses where you have the option not to patronize them) where non-smokers and smokers must use together, say like government buildings and on public transit, it would be a very ridiculous idea for Atlanta's city council to go beyond the Georgia's state smoking ban and ban it in all adult-only restaurants and bars. I live in Illinois, and I've seen all the negative effects our ban has done to privately-owned businesses. Businesses that don't have room to construct patios are greatly screwed versus bars that do have the room to construct patios, casino business STATEWIDE is down over 20%(versus gamblers increasingly favoring casinos in other states, not to forget one IL casino laid off 30 people after the ban started), plus the Chicago Tribune had an infamous article last year about the fact that many bars ignore the state ban just to keep their doors open. In Ohio state, there is a well known website that documents all businesses that ignore their state ban(which is equally as strict as Illinois): http://www.smokechoke.com

What I think would be fair, is if businesses permitting smoking had to post clear exterior signage stating whatever their indoor policy was on smoking, and businesses had to disclose to employees on job applications and in interviews what their smoking policy was. That way, anyone sensitive to smoke would know what places not to patronize and/or apply for, and those who don't mind smoking(smokers, and anyone who isn't a militant anti-smoker) have places they can patronize as well. A total ban would unnecessarily take away the free choice of employees who freely want to work in smoking establishments(yes there are those out there who truly prefer working in such establishments, unlike what anti-smokers want you to think), and the right of those who want to gather together and patronize indoor establishments allowing smoking(not to mention entrepreneurs that run smoking establishments).

And who's to say there hasn't been at least some Atlanta bars and adult-only restaurants that choose freely on their own accord to ban smoking, after the state ban took effect years ago? I've seen similar effects in another city under a very similar smoking ban I visit more frequently than Atlanta(Indianapolis, which also like the state of Georgia, requires businesses permitting smoking to limit entry and employment to those 18 and older at all times), and MANY adult-only businesses there have chosen on their own accord to ban smoking, since this fair-minded ban took effect several years ago. It's probably good riddance that last fall, their city-county council(Indianapolis and Marion County merged their governments together long ago) voted against a proposal to ban smoking in all bars and adult-only restaurants. Stay free Atlanta, and don't go down the path of a total smoking ban.

finally(!), I had time to post 2 comments to 'Cancer on the Run'

Here's my comment, responding to the editorial, Michael McFadden's comment, and So, this paper wrote this horribly dumb editorial, AFTER it endlessly wrote editorial after editorial in 2007 favoring the Illinois state smoking ban proposal, wrote repeated pompous editorials saying 'the ban was gonna save lives'(when it has NOT saved even 1 life in its 21/2 years its been in effect), and it's hurt so many businesses enough to the point that they have to ignore the law just to keep their doors open, and not lose their clientele for good? This editorial is just ridiculous, and like Michael McFadden very well said, it completely ignores the fact that MANY cases of cancer(I'll recon probably most cases don't develop from smoking) do NOT develop from a long-held smoking habit.

As for your comments Ill-INI08, your comments are laughable. How come there are many successful smokers who annually train for endurance races like marathons or bike races, and even usually outrace non-smokers? If you hate exposure to cigarette or cigar smoke, you always have had the freedom to not patronize smoking establishments, and patronize smoke-free businesses. In fact, a law allowing private establishments to permit smoking as long as they posted exterior signage stating their smoking policy is what Illinois should've passed, over the major failure of a law the Smoke-Free Illinois Act has been in the 21/2 years it's been effective.

Second comment, since I forgot a point I wanted to say on my first comment: Why does our country have a rising rate of cancer cases while America's smoking rate has more than halved downward from its peak, and Japan enjoys a lower nationwide cancer rate, DESPITE having a higher smoking rate? It's great to see an editorial that kisses up to the American Cancer Society's horribly misguided agenda. *sarcasm*

one of the more creepy interviews I've read this year

And people believe quacks like Dr. Jonathan Winickoff? It sadly is true, this is after all, the same doc who coined the now infamous stupid term 'third-hand smoke.'

Enjoy reading how crazy this guy is(from this point on, I'm gonna call him Wacko Jonno, a la a certain infamous nickname for a celeb who you can easily guess who I'm referring to, and died in June of last year), at your own risk. I don't think I can stand rereading this interview, who's commentary was also published in a recent New England Journal of Medicine issue:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/07/12/doctor_smoking_ban_in_public_housing_would_protect_the_most_vulnerable/

Naaa Naaa Naaa Naaa, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye(to at least one Smoking Ban)

Just as my favorite AL baseball team(Chicago White Sox) always plays whenever an opposing starting pitcher is removed from the game, I figured the catchy title for this post is appropriate after I just caught this news slightly late. Boone County has finally pulled out of the talks for a regional smoking ban proposal in Northern Kentucky, joining Grant County(which includes both Dry Ridge and Williamstown, off of I-75 as you go south of both Boone and Kenton County towards Lexington) in saying no to any misguided regional smoking ban proposals. Looks like Campbell County Judge-Executive Steve Pendery, and soon-to-retire Kenton County Judge-Executive Ralph Drees will lose after all in their pathetic attempts to pass smoking bans for just their own county, even if not the whole NKY region.

Three cheers, and many more, to common sense getting at least one win over anti-smoking zealotry! Hopefully the city councils of Indianapolis(ahem, City-County Council of Indianapolis-Marion County) and San Antonio(both cities are where antis have been doing renewed pushes for citywide bans) will wake up and say no to bans, along with the several places I can think of where smoking ban referendums are already on the November 2010 ballot(San Angelo, TX, Jefferson City, MO, and the state of South Dakota).

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100730/NEWS0103/307300081/Boone-pulls-out-of-smoking-ban-talks

poll over cruise ship eliminating a cigar bar, plus interesting comment

Been busy a few days, but have some time once again to post. I just caught this poll(thanks to a post jsidney made on the Smokers Club International board), and found the comments section interesting. A cruise ship wants to totally eliminate a cigar bar on a ship, just because of complaints from anal anti-smokers, and because it appears from a commenter or 2 on the comments section(maybe my initial suspicions of what's really causing the ship to strongly consider eliminating the cigar bar is off?!?) that it's supposedly underused.

You'd think that commenter had a great idea going there, by switching the location of the internet cafe(if that gets much more use than the cigar bar), and moving the cigar bar to that smaller room. Sheesh, what do I know though. Despite that I'm not a cigar smoker(but down the road, do want to try cigar smoking!), I think this ship would be absolutely crazy to get rid of their cigar lounge. Just my $0.02.

Poll and comment section, for anyone interested:
http://polldaddy.com/poll/3482093/

unbelievable, from jred's blog: I didn't wake up happy at my hotel

This was an anti-smoking zealot that got unnecessarily upset, just because a person put in a reservation at an Extended Stay America hotel in Rhode Island, and they were sold out of non-smoking rooms. Just may I ask(like Michael McFadden's brilliant comment on the MSNBC article), how did these anti-smoking zealots live decades ago when NO hotels or motels at all designated any amount of rooms as non-smoking? And of course, if it was so important to have a no-smoking room, the person could've canceled the reservation right there, and asked for a refund right there, save whatever cancellation fees the person putting the reservation would've had to pay then. (disclaimer: I haven't had to make too many motel reservations in my life by myself(other than once), so I'm not 100% sure how getting a refund would work, if you go to the hotel and then suddenly decide you not want to stay there. maybe a blog visitor can better explain how canceling a hotel/motel reservation and getting a refund works)

I almost forgot to repost this story here, but here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38114761/

horribly stupid Chicago Tribune editorial, 'Cancer on the Run'

I just want to know, why in the darn hell do they believe the garbage of the American Cancer Society, and COMPLETELY omit the fact that cancers NOT caused by smoking, or exposure to cigarette smoke is what's truly on the rise and needs to be fought? Yeah right, let's further demonize a minority that is beaten up enough, and regardless of how many cliffs we jump to further a failed movement to demonize smokers. Can't help every day but wish I could trade places with someone over the Indiana border and live in Northwest Indiana, since everyone from regular to social/infrequent cigarette or cigar smokers still has some level of freedom of choice there. (even if Crown Point and Valparaiso foolishly passed local bans that stopped short of a total ban, and Lowell may or may not decide to go through with a foolish proposal for a total ban).

It is absolutely inevitable that I will jump in on the comments section when I have more time, and make a few choice comments, mainly to the misguided anti poster Ill-INI08, besides talking about how foolish of an editorial this one is. It isn't lost on me that this was the same stupid paper that once editorialized against a student group at a suburban community college that wanted its administration to build smoking shelters, and of course did very ridiculous repeated editorials in 2007 asking state lawmakers to vote for the shameful Illinois state smoking ban. Almost forgot to finally say this COMPLETELY ignores all the Illinois businesses(often mom-and-pop bars, but it isn't always just that type of bar that does this to keep their doors open) that have to look the other way at our state smoking ban just to stay in business, stupidly congratulates Wisconsin for starting their state ban this month, but doesn't admit JUST 2 of 5 surrounding states were foolish enough to pass any sort of a state ban at all. (not to mention regular non-tribal casinos were exempted in Iowa, but not Illinois, where statewide casino revenue decreased over 20% between 2008 and 2009)

Finally, did I forget to mention this is why I refuse to purchase ANY copies of the Chicago Tribune, since they've arrogantly time and time again bullied those who freely choose to smoke cigarettes and other tobacco products? And for crying out loud, hookah smokers? (who of course usually smoke FAR less frequently than other types of tobacco users, like cigarettes, RYO, etc.) And I didn't even mention Japan has a higher smoking rate, AND a lower national rate of cancer throughout that country. Give me a break, Chicago Tribune!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cancer-20100723,0,1099262.story

some in Brentwood crazy enough screw over the few bars exempt under Saint Louis County, MO 2011 ban

It's amazing that some in Brentwood, Missouri would be crazy enough to screw over those businesses that DO NOT allow children inside whatsoever, and freely choose on their own to be a smoking establishment catering to adults, and of course would fall under the 25% or less food sales exemption in the county ban going into effect in January 2011. Got the heads-up on this story, from Keep Saint Louis Free:
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2010/07/brentwood-smoking-ban.html