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

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

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)

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

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

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*

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/