Saturday, January 22, 2005

Thu Jan 20, 2005
New Book on Smoking


I thought I'd share a book review that I've just submitted to the Smokers Club, Inc. It's published at

"Smoke: A Global History of Smoking" is in today's Newsletter, as Book of the Week in the banner at the top. Just click on the Smokers Club link at the top of our main page or I was asked to review it because one of the authors, Sander L. Gilman, is a Professor of Liberal Arts and Medicine at the University of Illinois, Chicago. "Smoke" is really a great book and is available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble on line. I really enjoyed it and learned a lot.

Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!



Smoke: A Global History of Smoking: is an entertaining, informative and absorbing book that describes and illustrates the international human preoccupation with smoking over the past six centuries, beginning with Columbus in 1492.

The introduction, written by Sander L. Gilman and Zhou Xun, draws the reader into tobacco’s story from the first paragraph. The large, black, beautifully bound and richly presented 400-page volume contains hundreds of illustrations (both in black & white and in color). The artwork is employed to enhance and clarify the multiple essays provided by a variety of qualified writers.

The first several chapters are devoted to smoking in history and culture. These encompass the Middle East, Far East, Africa, Europe, the Americas and other portions of the globe, accompanied by many unusual photos, paintings and lithographs. “The Pleasures and Perils of Smoking in Early Modern England”, “The Opium Den in Victorian London” and “The Cocaine Experience” are among the chapters included in this section.

“Smoking in the Arts” is especially enjoyable and explains how the use of tobacco products has been incorporated into various forms of entertainment including art, music, opera, theater and movies, punctuated by photographs of famous actors and actresses.

As the reader continues, “Smoking, Gender and Ethnicity” explores the relationship between social attitudes and smoking. This section shows the ways tobacco art and advertising reflected on women, African American and Native Indian stereotypes in the nineteenth-century and promoted anti Semitism in Europe.

Although the entire book supplies informative and interesting content in an entertaining manner, I found myself devoting my undivided attention to “Smoking: the “Burning Issue”, addressing current smoking issues. Four of the five chapters included are excellent.

Only the essay, “Why Do We Smoke: The Physiology of Smoking” presents a biased, anti-smoker viewpoint by referencing many overused and unproved statistics from previous anti-smoking studies and publications. The author has increased the “annual number of premature deaths attributed to smoking”, commonly referenced by anti-smoking organizations, from 400,000 to 500,000 and describes the advantages of smoking cessation aids including the anti-depressants Bupropion and Prozac.

“Smoking, Science and Medicine” and “Engineering Consumer Confidence in the Twentieth Century” are very interesting, informative and unbiased. “Marlboro Man and the Stigma of Smoking” explores the attitude of society toward smokers in the present day. “Smoking & Advertising” follows the innovative marketing techniques developed by the tobacco industry. Smokers and non-smokers alike will recognize the social engineering techniques described and being used today to influence society, de-normalize smokers and spread smoking bans. These essays definitely rate five stars.

“Smoke: A Global History of Smoking” is unique, well organized and an excellent reference source. Also, among all the unique illustrations and beautiful photos, the smoking Santa Claus (Santa Smoking Lucky Strike at Christmas - 1936) is an absolute MUST SEE!

Garnet Dawn

Fri Jan 21, 2005
Chicago Blues band, Vini and the Demons - Press Release


I wanted to share this press release.

Friday, January 1, 2005
Contact: or 773.328.8816

HEADLINE: Chicago Blues band, Vini and the Demons refused to sign a contract to perform at the Jacksonville Superbowl Festival after several clauses were struck from their contract rider, including the notorious item: "The Demons reserve the right to smoke tobacco products on stage".

DETAILS: After an invitation by the City of Jacksonville to the Chicago Blues band, Vini and the Demons to perform at the Superbowl Festival on Feb. 5 of 2005, several contract riders were lined out by city legal reps. Said booker and bass player, Tom Miller-Demon, "First they dropped the pay, then they dropped rooms for a night, then they finally crossed out two of the most important riders in the contract: Vini's amplifier settings are non-negotiable and the Demons reserve the right to smoke tobacco products on stage. So if the Demons can't play how they play and be who they are, I asked myself, 'why are we going?'. This conservative non-smoking swing in the world is really starting to burn my ass. I mean, you can't have a cigarette with your espresso in Italy now. What planet are we on?"

Said Vini Demon, "My head's in the 60's; in the Kennedy administration, not with today's 'I wanna' live forever' idiots. Look, we play the Blues, drink and smoke. That's what we do. I don't need to play the Superbowl. They'll run an alcohol ad every ten minutes for all the world to see, and I can't smoke a cigarette on an outdoor stage in Jacksonville, Florida? Fuck 'em."

Nevertheless, Miller says, the Demons' Southern tour is still on. Some of the announced engagements include the following:
* Thursday, Feb. 3, 2005 - Vini and the Demons play The Slippery Noodle
372 South Meridian St. - Downtown Indianapolis - 9 PM
* Saturday, Feb. 5, 2005 - Vini and the Demons play Fat Matt's Rib Shack
1811 Piedmont Ave. - Atlanta, GA - 9 PM
* Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - Vini and the Demons play Eddie Cs
with Special Guests, The Unusual Suspects
1315 S. Main St. - Gainesville, FL - 9:30 PM
* Thursday, February 10, 2005 - Vini and the Demons play Eddie Cs
with Special Guests, Hoyt and the Hotheads
1315 S. Main St. - Gainesville, FL - 9:30 PM
* Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005 - Vini and the Demons play Tobacco Road
626 South Miami Ave., Miami FL - 9:00 PM
-- More dates to be released...
For more information on the Demons:
To reach Vini Demon for further comments, interview, or features:
773.328.8816 or
The Demon Credo:
The Demons play the Blues.
The Demons play the Blues with great feeling and intense emotional energy.
The Demons share this with their audience and a magical synergy develops during the course of a performance that is palpable and alive.
The Demons have tremendous respect for the Blues.
The Demons do not rehearse or perform until they have had a ritual shot of Jack Daniel's in honor of Robert Johnson and all the Blues musicians who have come before them.
The Demons do not play non-smoking venues.
The Demons believe the spirits of the original Blues performers are always present when they play.
The Demons are bound by a covenant to keep the Blues alive in the 21st century.
The Demons carry mojo bags charged for them under a waxing moon during a Celebration of the Dead ritual by a high priestess who loves the Blues.
The Demons are serious as fuck.
The Demons play the Devil Music.
The Demons play the Blues.
Old School Blues with Neo/Retro Balls!
Passionate; possessed; intense; spiritual; sexual; evil like chocolate.
Vini and the Demons' performances incorporate everything that is missing from today's music.

In the winter in 2001, Vini and the Demons moved as a band from the deep South to Chicago, as many of their Blues heroes did before them. The Demons vowed a sacred oath to help keep the Blues thriving into the 21st century and beyond. The Demons made this commitment, in part, with the encouragement and blessing of Muddy Waters' daughter Ros, and the legendary Bo Diddley, both supporters and fans of the band.

Since their arrival, The Demons have become a well known and well respected entity in the Chicago Blues community. The Demons were a featured act and house band at Eddy "The Chief" Clearwater's Reservation Blues for over two years.

A favorite of the late Shirli Dixon, the Demons continue to be one of the few bands chosen to perform at the Willie Dixon Blues Garden Concert Series each year. In 2003, The Demons were selected by the City of Chicago to participate in Jim Fraher's historic photograph of Chicago's finest Blues artists, during the nationally honored, "Year of the Blues" celebration.

Vini and the Demons have shared the stage with many of Chicago's Blues artists including Eddie Taylor, Jr., Little Arthur Duncan, Billy Branch and the Sons of Blues, Bo Diddley, Sharon Lewis, Carlos Johnson, Eddy "The Chief" Clearwater, Jimmy Burns, and many more. The Demons' debut CD, Vini and the Demons, was released to the public on January 9th of 2004, at a standing room only bash at the world-renowned, Rosa's Lounge.

Vini and the Demons can be heard on many radio stations in the United States, and Europe. In France, the album reached #16 on RCV 99FM (Rockez Belles Oreilles). Their song, "I Don't Want You" hit #14 on Marc Loison's Sweet Home Chicago Blues Show on Radio 666. On the air in Lille, Tournon, Normandy, Belgium, Canada, and soon to hit the charts on Macedonia's National FM Radio Show, Mojo Blues in Skopje, the Demons are quickly gaining world-wide recognition.

Vini and the Demons never rehearse or perform until they have had a ritual shot of Jack Daniel's in honor of Robert Johnson, and all the Blues musicians who have come before them.

The Demons do not play non-smoking venues.

The Demons play the Blues with deep passion and an intense spiritual fervor. With a repertoire of over 70 standards and original songs, the Demons keep their audiences drinking, dancing, and feeling the Blues the way it was meant to be experienced.

Vini and the Demons are managed by Hamilton "Bo" Gibbons, who has worked closely for many years with the Dixon family and Willie Dixon's Blues Heaven Foundation.
# # #



Wed Jan 19, 2005
Chicago/Oak Park - City No Smoking Proposal Remains Stalled In Committee


The American Lung Association is raising it's ugly head again to push for a smoking ban in Chicago. Time to start writing Mayor Daley and our aldermen again! Remember Joel Africk, friend to American soldiers in Iraq, who tried to stop the Skokie charity drive from collecting cigarettes to send them.

City No Smoking Proposal Remains Stalled In Committee
Tuesday, January 18, 2005

CHICAGO -- Aldermen are considering a public smoking ban in the City of Chicago.

But, WBBM Newsradio 780 Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports the measure has been stalled in committee for more than two years…

An Oak Park Advisory Board wants the Village to consider a ban on smoking in most public places, including restaurants. A call for public hearings is expected at tonight’s Village Board meeting in the suburb.

The move has anti-smoking activists thinking about similar efforts bogged down in Chicago.

The American Lung Association is thrilled with anti-smoking efforts in Oak Park and elsewhere in the Midwest. Chicago area association CEO Joel Africk says Minneapolis goes smoke-free at the end of the March, But, Chicago is the big City that still eludes them.

The City Council has had a proposed ban languishing in committee for two years. Africk, however, says he’s encouraged. Africk says insiders have told him it’s not whether Chicago will ban smoking, but when.

So far, though, Mayor Daley has remained cool toward the proposal, and the Illinois Restaurant Association has lobbied hard against it.

Africk says he hopes the Mayor will keep an open mind and do what's right for the health of people in Chicago.

Stay tuned to WBBM Newsradio 780 for the latest developments on this and other stories.
Sun Jan 16, 2005
'Don't pass gas,' tobacco foes urge

This "ad campaign" shows the amount of respect the American Legacy Foundation and the Ad Council have for the American public and their opinion of the average viewer's intelligence level.
They are now stooping to gross juvenile bathroom humor in an attempt to get their point across. This new attempt at humor has given me a new perspective on Anti mentality. Bare breasts and four letter words are taboo for national viewing, but bathroom jokes are acceptable....strange morality......

I'm starting to like the idea of being de-normalized. I don't think I like the idea of being accepted as "normal" anymore.
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!

'Don't pass gas,' tobacco foes urge
By Marion Baillot

A new anti-smoking ad campaign compares secondhand smoke to the most offensive human emissions.

"Don't pass gas" is the slogan of the campaign announced this week by the American Legacy Foundation, a Washington-based anti-tobacco organization. "That is so foul," a young boy says in one of the public-service television spots, which shows a family watching television. "Whoa, Grandpa. ... You're killing us over here," says the boy's sister, after the camera shows the grandfather smoking a cigarette.

The provocative campaign — which includes an ad in which a teenager says "something's funky" after his father lights a cigarette in the family car — warns that secondhand smoke contains "poisonous fumes that can contribute to asthma and pneumonia."

Described as "funny" and "irreverent" by the campaign's producers, the ads are intended to "remind the public of the real consequences" of secondhand smoke, said Cheryl G. Healton, chief executive officer of the foundation.

She cited a study published by the organization earlier this month, which found that more than 13 million American children younger than 18 are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes. In 82 percent of the cases in which a young person lives with a smoker, the smoker is a parent — a problem that the "don't pass gas" ads were meant to highlight.

"We wanted to break down some of the barriers that may exist in families with smokers ... and start the dialogue between kids and parents," said Scott Linnen, creative director of award-winning Miami-based agency Crispin Porter+Bogusky, which produced the three TV ads:

•Children complain about their grandfather's smoking as the family watches television while an announcer says, "Passing gas in the presence of others is not only inappropriate ... it can be deadly."

•"Eww, honey, not in the car," a woman exclaims in reaction to her husband's smoking while the announcer explains, "Passing gas releases a plume of toxic vapors ... like ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

•An infant is shown crying in a bassinet while the announcer warns: "Passing gas around infants can be deadly ... especially harmful to an infant's developing lungs."

Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, at least 11 of which cause cancer, according to the foundation.

In addition to TV and radio ads, the campaign includes a Web site ( and a toll-free phone number (888-NOPASSGAS) through which people can get more information about secondhand smoke.

Some of the short-term effects of secondhand smoke, the foundation says, are eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea; long-term consequences include increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Exposure to secondhand smoke impairs lung function in children and contributes to such diseases as asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as ear and respiratory infections, and sudden infant death syndrome, the foundation warns.

Secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths every year among U.S. nonsmokers, the foundation says.

Peggy Conlon, chief executive officer of the Advertising Council, said that before final approval, the ads were shared with parents who smoke and their family members, who reportedly called the campaign "attention-getting" and "very funny."
Fri Jan 14, 2005
Smoking ban foes: It'll hurt business - Cincinnati, Ohio


The message that Antis' motives are not altruistic is beginning to spread!

"A group of nearly 160 Cincinnati restaurant and bar owners is calling a city proposal for a total ban on smoking in public places excessive and unnecessary."

"Ban opponents counter that smoking bans are mostly pushed by organizations that have a vested interest in scoring research grants and money from the federal government's settlement with tobacco companies, not from a legitimate groundswell of public support."
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Smoking ban foes: It'll hurt business
By Kevin Osborne
Post staff reporter

A group of nearly 160 Cincinnati restaurant and bar owners is calling a city proposal for a total ban on smoking in public places excessive and unnecessary.

The Greater Cincinnati Hospitality Coalition worries that customers who smoke at local bars and restaurants would take their business to Northern Kentucky and other nearby areas if a citywide ban is enacted.

"We're here to protect the right to operate in a free market with minimal government interference," said Tom Ford, owner of Murphy's Pub in Clifton Heights, who heads the coalition.

"This is really an economic issue. Smoking is a health detriment, but it is also legal."
Ford and dozens of other owners held a press conference Thursday afternoon at the Montgomery Inn Boat House on the riverfront.

A wide cross-section of businesses announced their opposition to the ban including Arthur's, the Comet, DeSha's, Echo Restaurant, Longworth's, Madison Bowl, Mount Adams Bar & Grill, Mount Lookout Tavern, the Polo Grille and Top Cat's.

A decision to go completely smoke-free should be left up to individual businesses, they said. No one is forced to work at or frequent places where smoking is allowed.

"If in fact a complete ban is appropriate and is a good business model for those bars that want to make that decision, good luck to them," said City Council Member David Crowley, whose family owns a pub in Mount Adams.

"But I think that's up to them to make that decision, and it's not up to the city of Cincinnati to impose that on any small business in this city."

A 1986 city law bans smoking in many public places, including retail stores, banks, offices, elevators, restrooms, public transportation, libraries, museums and health care facilities.

Exceptions are allowed if a designated smoking area is provided, which is what most restaurants do. No business is permitted to allow smoking everywhere except bars and bowling alleys.

Kate Argue, a bartender at O'Malley's in the Alley downtown, said city officials should focus their efforts on more important issues, like reducing crime.

"The big question to ask is who's going to enforce all of this?" Argue said. "Are cops going to go in there? I don't think so. We have bigger things to deal with."
In December, a 30-member advisory panel made up of residents, business owners, health officials and others issued a report examining the dangers of second-hand smoke on workers and customers.

But the panel, which was divided over a ban's economic impact, didn't recommend if Cincinnati should enact such a ban.

Vice Mayor Alicia Reece, who heads City Council's health committee, proposed the advisory panel in June after she was approached by the Clean Indoor Air Coalition. That group was formed using money from the government's settlement with tobacco companies and includes representatives from the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.

Two months ago, the coalition released a list of 125 businesses that endorse the ban. They include about 20 restaurants, such as the downtown gourmet establishment Jean-Robert at Pigall's, and institutions like Cincinnati State Technical and Community College

Smoking ban supporters say studies indicating that bans harm business typically are based on perception and selective surveys, and not on objective data such as sales tax collection, business registrations or employment.

Ban opponents counter that smoking bans are mostly pushed by organizations that have a vested interest in scoring research grants and money from the federal government's settlement with tobacco companies, not from a legitimate groundswell of public support.

Reece said she will conduct a citizen survey to gauge support for the ban, and ask the city's attorneys to review different types of bans nationwide.

Inhaling smoke generated by others -- or "second-hand smoke" -- is a significant factor in illnesses and diseases, according to health officials.

In adults, it can help cause lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, emphysema and impotence, they said. In children, it can lead to asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia.

A University of California at Berkeley study found sitting behind someone smoking for two hours has the same health impact as smoking four cigarettes

Among the cities with smoking bans are Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Lexington.

Voters in Toledo recently overturned a smoking ban there, while voters in Columbus upheld the ban in their city.

Thu Jan 20, 2005
Alberta, Canada - Smoking bans 'useless' in battle against tobacco use, Klein says

Congratulations to Premier Ralph Klein for denouncing smoking bans and telling it to the press!
Edmonton Journal
Calgary Herald; with files from The Edmonton Journal

Smoking bans 'useless' in battle against tobacco use, Klein says
Thursday, January 20, 2005

CALGARY - Premier Ralph Klein says smoking bans are "useless," advancing the argument on Wednesday that people in provinces with restrictions aren't healthier than those elsewhere.

Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Klein stood by his refusal last week to enact a provincewide ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars, casinos and bingo halls, saying Albertans choose where they work.

In a statement that infuriated anti-tobacco advocates, Klein said smoking bans aren't effective, arguing public education and anti-tobacco advertising are better at preventing young people from picking up the habit.

"I don't know if (bans have) done that much good," said Klein, admitting he smoked four cigarettes on Weedless Wednesday this week. "I was in Ontario and I didn't see a healthier Ontarian than I saw in Quebec, where they don't have smoking bans at all."

Klein's remarks come during national non-smoking week and follow debate over the province's tobacco policies.

Newly appointed Health Minister Iris Evans said last week she will pursue a reduction or a total ban on smoking in workplaces.

The premier quickly shot down any move towards a universal smoking ban in Alberta and said municipalities must decide for themselves.

On Wednesday, Evans said she still wants to bring in anti-smoking measures and hopes to make caucus "well-informed" on the issues.

"(The premier) said no to a province-wide ban, but within the context of that, I'm hoping there are elements of that we can accelerate," she said.

Anti-tobacco advocates dismissed Klein's statement that bans don't work, saying statistics show they are second only to tobacco taxes in reducing smoking rates.

Government critics accused Klein of ignoring the facts.

"I'm both baffled and shocked that there would be such a blatant disregard of all the factual information that is out there on smoking," said Liberal health critic Laurie Blakeman.

She noted a recent "report card" from anti-smoking groups gave Alberta a failing grade on four out of five of the province's smoking policies.

Klein said bans are also bad for business, arguing the province has to weigh the health risks of smoking against the economic impact.

"It is counterproductive to close (bars, casinos and bingo halls) down," said Klein. "Virtually, that is what will happen."

He told reporters the Royal Canadian Legion in Banff closed because of that municipality's decision to ban smoking last year.

In fact, the legion in Banff is still open, though staff said asking patrons to butt out hasn't been easy on older members.

"Business is down," said Karen Stirrett. "But we didn't close. That's not true."

Les Hagen of Action on Smoking and Health, said banning smoking in workplaces doesn't hurt businesses. He noted five provinces and territories have already brought in universal smoking bans. "The only industry that is affected by smoking bans is the tobacco industry," said Hagen.

Klein said addressing the issue of non-smokers who work at bars is a "concern," adding government may have a discussion about how to deal with second-hand smoke.

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

Thu Jan 13, 2005
More Than 13 Million American Children Regularly Breathing Secondhand Smoke in Their Homes, Cars

We knew it was going to come to this! We really need to debunk the studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke!

American Legacy Foundation and the Ad Council Launch
First Campaign to Call Attention to and Educate
Public About Dangers of Secondhand Smoke

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Legacy Foundation(R) issponsoring a new public health campaign, launched today in partnership withthe Ad Council, to educate Americans and especially parents about the dangersof secondhand smoke and motivate them to take steps to create smoke-free environments for their families. The launch coincides with new foundationresearch that demonstrates that more than 13 million American children are breathing secondhand smoke in their homes -- resulting in serious publichealth implications.

The foundation report titled Secondhand Smoke: Youth Exposure and AdultAttitudes notes that, in 2003, 13 percent of youth aged 12 to 17 were exposedto secondhand smoke in their homes, and about 7 percent of youth in this groupare exposed to secondhand smoke in the family car. Secondhand smoke puts Americans at risk for serious health consequences, including cancer,respiratory diseases and sudden-infant-death syndrome (SIDS).

The new research also shows that:

* In 82 percent of the cases where a young person lives with a smoker, that smoker is a parent.

* About 5.6 million young people between the ages of 12 and 17 currently live in a household with at least one parent who smokes. Of these youth, 1.3 million live in a household with two smoking parents.

* Youth reports indicate that although 70 percent of all US households completely ban smoking in their homes, among households in which a smoker lives, only 46 percent have rules against smoking in the home.

"The foundation recognizes the powerful force of addiction to tobacco. Weencourage all smokers to quit for their own health benefits, and stronglyencourage them to take action to protect their families from the devastatingeffects of secondhand smoke," foundation President and CEO Cheryl Healton, Dr.PH said. "We're optimistic that our partnership with the Ad Council willeffectively use humor to attract the public's attention and lead them to makepositive decisions for their families that can help safeguard smokers' healthand the health of their loved ones."

Titled Don't Pass Gas, the light-hearted campaign on a serious subjecthopes to capture the public's attention. Radio and television public serviceadvertisements (PSAs) focus on family members "shooing" away gas, holdingtheir noses, and blaming dad or grandpa for the offensive behavior, before theaudience learns that the "gas" being referenced is actually secondhand smoke.Secondhand smoke is a mixture of gases and extremely small solid materials,thus the irreverent play on words transposing secondhand smoke with "passinggas." Notably, this is the first time an Ad Council campaign has focused on atobacco issue. This is the first Ad Council campaign or partnership toaddress the issue of secondhand smoke.

"Research shows than the majority of parents dramatically underestimatethe harmful effects of secondhand smoke to their children," according to PeggyConlon, President & CEO of The Advertising Council. "I am proud to partnerwith the American Legacy Foundation on this groundbreaking, engaging campaign,which has the potential to become iconic and play a major role in reducingsecondhand smoke exposure."

The "Don't Pass Gas" campaign includes television and radio PSAs, inaddition to print ads and Internet advertising. The public also can visit for information on the dangers of secondhand smokeand to find resources for families. Per the Ad Council model, all of the PSAsare being distributed to more than 28,000 media outlets nationwide next weekand will run and air in advertising time and space that is donated by themedia.

Callers can also phone the toll-free number 1-888-NO PASS GAS to receive abrochure containing information on secondhand smoke and learn how to safeguardtheir homes and cars against secondhand smoke. (In addition, social supportcan play a key role in helping smokers quit successfully. Visit for more information.)

Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical substances, includingseveral known human carcinogens. In June 2004, the foundation released otherdata showing that a small reduction in tobacco smoke exposure would sparethousands of children from devastating health problems, including fewer lowbirth-weight babies, fewer cases of asthma and fewer ear infections.

The best actions parents can take to protect their families fromsecondhand smoke are:

* Make your home smoke-free
* Keep your car smoke-free
* Stop smoking around children

Brenda Bell Caffee, a national tobacco control advocate, joined Dr.Healton and Ms. Conlon to call attention to this national problem. BellCaffee created Not in Mama's Kitchen, which launched in African Americancommunities across California on Mother's Day in 1999. The program isdesigned to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke by encouraging families toprohibit smoking in their homes and cars. Because many African Americanhouseholds are female headed, the program targeted mothers, grandmothers,aunts, and sisters. The highly collaborative campaign partnered withchurches, schools and nonprofits to get commitment pledges signed by women tonot allow smoking in their houses or cars on Mother's Day.

"We must protect our children from this danger," Bell Caffee said. "Irealize that it can be tough to stop smoking, but it is easy to make thedecision to keep secondhand smoke away from children and be sure that we, asparents, follow through on the decision to keep smoke out of our homes andcars." Since its inception, Not In Mama's Kitchen has been replicated inapproximately 50 cities across the United States.

The Ad Council and the American Legacy Foundation worked with award-winning Miami, Florida-based agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky to produce the campaign pro-bono. The full-service agency, in partnership with ArnoldWorldwide of Boston, also works on the American Legacy Foundation's award-winning truth(R) youth smoking prevention campaign.

"When we think of the Ad Council, we think of great copy like 'You canlearn a lot from a dummy,'" said Alex Bogusky, Executive Creative Director atCrispin Porter + Bogusky. "It's our hope that 'Don't Pass Gas' becomes theline that makes it easy to remember that we need to be careful about smokingaround others, and also gives non-smokers a fun way to remind smokers thathave forgotten. It's all done in an entertaining way that we hope will startsome conversations and word of mouth about the potential dangers involved withsecondhand smoke."

The Ad Council is a private, non-profit organization with a rich historyof marshalling volunteer talent from the advertising and media industries todeliver critical messages to the American public. Having produced literallythousands of PSA campaigns addressing the most pressing social issues of theday, the Ad Council has effected, and continues to effect, tremendous positivechange by raising awareness, inspiring action, and saving lives. To learnmore about the Ad Council and its campaigns, visit

The American Legacy Foundation(R) is dedicated to building a world whereyoung people reject tobacco and anyone can quit. Located in Washington, D.C.,the foundation develops programs that address the health effects of tobaccouse through grants, technical assistance and training, youth activism,strategic partnerships, counter-marketing and grassroots marketing campaigns,public relations, and outreach to populations disproportionately affected bythe toll of tobacco. The foundation's national programs include Circle ofFriends(R), Great Start(R), a Priority Populations Initiative, Streetheory(R)and truth(R). The American Legacy Foundation was created as a result of theNovember 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) reached between attorneysgeneral from 46 states, five US territories, and the tobacco industry. Visit

Crispin Porter + Bogusky has twice been named "Agency of the Year" byCreativity Magazine and has been Adweek's "Agency of the Year" for theSoutheast three times. Brandweek has also named the agency's clients"Guerilla Marketers of the Year" for the last five years. This past year, inan unprecedented sweep, CP+B won the Grand Prix at Cannes, an O'Toole awardfor overall creative excellence from the American Association of AdvertisingAgencies, as well as the grand prizes at the CLIOS, EFFIES, Kelly's, OBIES,APG awards and the One Show. So far this year, CP+B has won 2 Gold awards atCannes for Cyber work on Burger King Subservient Chicken and Virgin AtlanticAirways, Media Plan of the Year from Mediaweek Magazine for spending under 10million for Molson, 19 Andy Awards, Best of Show at the OBIES for IKEA, 11Awards at the One Show and 6 CLIOS. The agency and its work has been profiledin The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Forbes, Time,Newsweek, Advertising Age, Creativity and Archive.

SOURCE American Legacy FoundationWeb
Site: http://www.adcouncil.org

Thu Jan 13, 2005
Ain't Partnership Grand?

I have just copied this article from the Smokers Club, Inc. Newsletter. What did our greedy legislators in Illinois expect last year when they levied their new tax hike on cigarettes? Everyone wants their "Pound of Flesh".
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!
The Philip Morris Police
Posted on Thursday, January 13 by samantha

Smoke 'em out
Philip Morris rides to tax collectors' rescue
January 10, 2005
By Greg Hinz

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Chicago Police Superintendent Philip Cline got the attention last May when they announced the seizure of 120,000 packs of contraband cigarettes being sold without $2.14 a pack in state, county and city tax stamps.

The law enforcers deserve credit for nice work. But someone else actually put up $100,000 to front the sting operation, "helped cultivate a confidential informant" in the case and even tested the illegal product in its own labs, say law enforcement officials.

The name of this good citizen: Philip Morris USA.

Yes, the tobacco king. At a time when hungry governments have driven up cigarette taxes so high that smuggling, counterfeit production and other tax evasion is a growth industry, the nation's largest tobacco vendor has become a valued Friend of the Law in ensuring tobacco taxes are paid.

"It's been a great relationship," says Michael Hoff, collections division manager for the Illinois Department of Revenue. He reports the Philip Morris folks provide tips on suspicious activity, help train agents and offer financial assistance. Though the department had to turn down a grant (it's against state policy), "We work well together," Hoff glows.

"They're very helpful," says a spokesman for the Chicago Police Department, which provided a few officers for a training video Philip Morris is using around the country. "Their security staff is available 24/7."

At first or even second glance, there's something odd about a company that fiercely opposes tax hikes on tobacco products spending millions of dollars a year nationally to help collect tobacco taxes. Kinda like the Hatfields helping the revenuers catch the McCoys.

But Philip Morris has its reasons.

"We have a serious problem when groups that use our brand are involved in criminal sales," says Jack Holleran, Philip Morris' senior vice president of compliance and brand integrity.
It's a problem because bad things happen when Philip Morris products are imported without permission, Holleran says. (Any pharmaceutical executive would heartily agree.) In one Detroit case, proceeds from the sale of contraband cigarettes allegedly were diverted to a Middle East terrorist group.

It's a problem because sometimes Philip Morris' name is falsely put on inferior products produced overseas, thereby denying Americans the quality smokes they expect, he adds.
And it's a problem because if local governments don't collect the revenue they project, they may kick taxes still higher.

Holleran's unit has 30 to 35 full-time workers and a budget "well into the millions," he says. Formed in 2002, its workers include former officials with the FBI, Secret Service and other top federal agencies.

In Illinois, Philip Morris struck up a close relationship with former Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard. He attended a Philip Morris-sponsored symposium and was so impressed that he asked the company to produce a training video. It shows officers what to look for in "typical" contraband settings. One helpful hint: For technical help, call Philip Morris' security unit.

Local officials won't say how much they think they're losing, but the number is big: Annual receipts from Chicago's cigarette tax have dropped more than $5 million, to $13.8 million, since 1999. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that local governments nationwide are losing $1.4 billion a year from Internet sales alone.

Thus, local governments have a reason to call the tobacco pros. "Our angle is that Illinois is losing money. We work with the company" to cut the loss, says Madigan's spokeswoman.
And Philip Morris has a means to make sure that, if it's gotta pay, its competition will, too. The company is drafting legislation to boost penalties for selling unstamped cigarettes.

"We find our activities have been very effective," says Holleran. "We're very pleased with our public/private partnerships in Chicago."

Ain't partnership grand?

From Crain's Chicago Business

Wed Jan 19, 2005
CDC Says It Miscalculated Number Of Obesity Deaths

Gee, the POOR CDC, having to retract the results from one of its widely reported, unending studies! As if the results from many of their studies weren't questionable already.

I wonder if CDC decision makers really decided that fighting a war on two fronts, both tobacco and obesity at the same time, was overly ambitious. Targeting the obese also, could have been making too many people wonder about the validity of other CDC claims on the dangers of smoking and SHS.
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!
CDC Says It Miscalculated Number Of Obesity Deaths
Inaccuracy Of Widely Reported Study Blamed On Software Error
January 19, 2005

ATLANTA -- Blaming a computer software error, the government says it overstated the nation's weight problem in a widely reported study last year that said obesity was about to overtake smoking as the No. 1 cause of death in the United States.

OBESITY Map: State Obesity Rates, 2002

The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published last March in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said that obesity-related deaths climbed between 1990 and 2000 to 400,000 a year - an increase of 100,000.

In Wednesday's issue of the journal, the government ran a correction, saying the increase was a more modest 65,000 deaths or so.

In a statement Tuesday, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said the agency regretted that the computer error was not discovered earlier.

"Integrity is a core value of CDC, and the integrity of our science must be protected," she said. "We are improving our internal scientific review processes, including moving toward the adoption of electronic review processes."

The original study put the number of tobacco-related deaths per year at just under 435,000, and contended that more Americans could soon be dying of obesity instead of smoking if current trends persisted.

Despite the correction, the agency said the finding that obesity is a major cause of death still stands.

"The combination of diet, physical inactivity and tobacco are all leading causes of death, causing far more than a majority of total deaths in this country in the year 2000," said Donna Stroup, acting director for the CDC's coordinating center for health promotion. "Regardless of the controversy, it's clear to people these are the three underlying causes of death most important to the country."

The errors in the study were discovered soon after it was published, as scientists inside and outside the agency began to dispute its findings. That prompted the CDC to review the study, using two independent statisticians.

Correction Extract

Previous Stories:
May 14, 2003: Study: Obesity Health Costs Rival Those Of Smoking
December 13, 2001:
Obesity Risk May Overtake Smoking Risk
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wed Jan 12, 2005
Smoking ban aids efforts to quit smoking - Lancaster County, Nebraska


Why do these statements always seem to come from the antis? We never hear them from smokers. Do they think if they say a "smoking ban aids in efforts to quit smoking" enough times, it will become true? Smokers just become more angry and either boycott non-smoking venues or do not stay as long. What does an Anti know or care about a smoker's reasoning?

...But Scholten said many customers are using the ban as an excuse to quit smoking. “I know the reason a lot of people voted for the ban was to help them quit smoking,” he said. “So far, it has been working. People aren’t smoking because they can’t.

The following statement from this story does make sense, however: " law is not going to make or break people who are hard set on smoking,” he said. “Once summer rolls around there are just going to be more drunk people stumbling around downtown.”
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Smoking ban aids efforts to quit smoking
By MAGGIE STEHR / Daily Nebraskan
January 10, 2005

A typical New Year’s resolution is getting extra motivation this year from a city ordinance. With county smoking rates already decreasing, Lincoln health officials hope the city’s smoking ban helps citizens snuff their habit.

“Smoke-free environments encourage people to quit smoking,” said Charlotte Burke, manager of Lincoln-Lancaster Health Department’s Health Promotion and Outreach Program.
Lancaster County smoking rates fell by 37 percent between 2001 and 2003, amounting to 1,054 fewer smokers, Burke said.

“Because smoking causes so many health risks, when fewer people are smoking, health benefits will increase for everyone,” she said. “The smoking ban protects the public from the hazards of second-hand smoke.”

Health department officials are working with Lincoln Police to enforce the city ordinance, which bans smoking inside local businesses. When customers and employees report complaints to the health department, Burke said businesses either receive a letter or a visit from compliance inspectors.

Receiving just eight complaints since the ban went into effect at on Jan. 1, Burke said bar owners are responding positively to the ordinance.

“There are always going to be more complaints in the beginning,” she said. “We’ve seen in other cities with similar bans that the numbers die down with time.”

Taking complaints during off-hours, police issued seven citations in downtown bars just after the ban went into effect Jan. 1, said Officer Katherine Finnell.

Fines to individuals or businesses violating the ordinance are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second and $500 for each additional offense, she said.

Kirk Scholten, manager of Iguana’s Pub, 1426 O St., said police officers have only been issuing tickets when smokers refuse to put out their cigarettes.

Like many bar owners, Scholten said he worried how the ban would affect business.

“I thought New Year’s was going to be slower than usual, but there was really no difference,” he said. “The weather has been having more of an effect than the ban.”
Scholten said he doesn’t miss the smoke.

“At midnight, you can still smell perfume and cologne on people coming in,” he said. “It’s kind of nice not having to smell like smoke.”
Russ Davis, a senior economics major, said he could now visit downtown bars without smelling like smoke days later.

While Davis said the cold weather deters smokers from lighting up, he said the ordinance would do little to lower city smoking rates when warmer weather sets in.

“Smoking is an addiction and one law is not going to make or break people who are hard set on smoking,” he said. “Once summer rolls around there are just going to be more drunk people stumbling around downtown.”

But Scholten said many customers are using the ban as an excuse to quit smoking.
“I know the reason a lot of people voted for the ban was to help them quit smoking,” he said. “So far, it has been working. People aren’t smoking because they can’t.”

Mon Jan 10, 2005
Letter to Smokers Who Fail to Quit


We all know people who have tried to quit smoking. Smokers are being made to feel like freaks. I wanted to share my letter to a lady who wrote to me. She is so embarrassed that she has lost her motivation to quit smoking. She wants to smoke again and has been "cheating". Now, she doesn't know what to tell her family, friends and co-workers after she swore she was going to quit. She has never had any previous contact with any of us or our groups, and got my e-mail address through a family member who smokes.


Hi __________,

I'm glad that you wrote to me. Although I would never tell someone to start smoking, if anyone chooses to smoke as a part of their life style, I support that choice.

I also have friends who have attempted to quit smoking or have quit. I have never tried. I considered it a couple of time, but it was only because other people were telling me I should. It was not because I am not healthy. It is just "trendy" now to quit and doctors/dentists are required now to encourage smokers to abstain. I have always enjoyed smoking. My mother did too and she smoked till the day she died. She was over 70 and smoked far more than I do.

Some people give up smoking and never miss it. My father did, when he was about 40 and he never smoked again. Most of the other people I know that tried to quit went back eventually. I had a boyfriend who quit for five years and said he even used to dream about smoking during that time. He started smoking again several years ago. I think whether you smoke or not depends on how much you enjoy it. I believe smoking is really not about addiction, it is about enjoyment and choice.

All the phony health claims that smoking and passive smoke kill are ridiculous. Anti smoking is big business promoted by health experts that have no respect for the intelligence of the individual or their right-to-choice. Many branches of the government, charitable organizations, lawyers and educational institutions (through generous grants) are raking in millions of dollars by promoting smoking bans. So are the pharmaceutical firms making money from gum and patches. Smoking bans and studies are BIG business. I am including a link that you might want to check below.

THOSE 400,000 SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVE LONGER THAN THE REST OF US! "The 400,000-deaths figure is not a body count, but a 'COMPUTER-GENERATED estimate based on assumptions that are heavily biased"

Anyway, I wish you wouldn't feel guilty if you want to smoke again. If the reasons you quit were to please others, you have about as much chance at succeeding as you would if you were coerced into going on a diet you don't want to go on..... As for your friends and co-workers, just tell them that YOU have decided that YOU enjoy smoking. Stand up to them and don't be apologetic--it's YOUR choice--it's YOUR life. Thanks, I'll stick to my cigarettes and leave all the popular prescription drugs alone, even if pills are more socially acceptable. Have you noticed that prescription drug advertisements have filled all the slots vacated when tobacco products could no longer be advertised?

If you personally want to smoke, you certainly aren't alone. I felt that way before I went to Orlando, Florida on vacation a little over a year ago. Not being allowed to smoke in any restaurants/lounges anywhere, while I was on vacation, was VERY annoying to say the least. I contacted the Yahoo Florida Smoking Group when we got back, after doing a search on the internet. I wrote to them about the Florida smoking ban and soon became far more involved in smoking issues. I have learned there is an entire network of prosmoking activists all over the country and in Canada, in fact, all over the world. I was invited to start the IL Smokers Group and I did so last March. Even with the slanted bias of the news media in generally refusing to publish prosmoking articles, more and more people are beginning to question anti-smoking claims.

Good luck to you. I think if you told your husband the way you feel, he would understand. (Maybe he feels the same way and that is why he is smoking cigars.) You didn't fail, you just attempted to try something lacking in any rewards. At least on a diet we can all loose weight...

Take a look at some of the articles on the Smokers Club website and why don't you try joining the IL Smokers Group, just to read what other smokers write. You don't need to post anything. Form your own opinions.

Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Friday, January 21, 2005

Sat Jan 8, 2005
FL - State fails youth smoking review - According to the National Lung Association


According to the American Lung Association, health conscious friends to our military forces in Iraq, Florida is getting an "F" for Tobacco Prevention and Control programs.

Florida isn't spending enough! Florida has also received a failing grade for not charging high enough state taxes on retail cigarettes, among other things. The NLA is very displeased that Florida is not spending enough money on tobacco control programs.

It's curious that the population percentages for smoking rates given in this article are higher that the overall numbers usually given for smokers. I thought that the "health experts" claimed tobacco bans led to a reduction in the number of smokers.

Using the ALA's own statistics, the smoking ban in Florida doesn't seem to be working, does it?
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!
The News-Press (Southwest Florida)
Local & State - January 8, 2005
State fails youth smoking review
Published by on January 7, 2005


• Economic costs because of smoking: more than $10.3 million• Adult prevalence: 23.9 percent• High school smoking rate: 17.3 percent• Middle school smoking rate: 7.8 percent• Smoking-related deaths per 100,000 people: 283.1• Smoking-related incidents of lung cancer per 100,000 people: 91.9—

Source: Information compiled by the American Lung Association of Florida

Once a national leader in smoking prevention programs, Florida now ranks as one of the worst states in the fight against tobacco, particularly when it comes to youth smoking.For the second year in a row, the American Lung Association on Thursday gave Florida an F for tobacco prevention and control spending, underscoring the state's meager funding of a once-thriving anti-tobacco program.In its annual report card, the association also gave Florida a failing grade for its low cigarette tax rate and a D for the state's policies on restricting youth access to tobacco.

Florida did earn a B for smoke-free air because of the state's Indoor Air Act
of 2003, which banned smoking in most public places, including restaurants.But the lack of funding for anti-tobacco campaigns continues to propel Florida's fall from grace, health officials said."It was working for the kids, the rates were falling and we were actually the only state in the country that had lowered its high school and middle school rates of smoking," said Kurt Goerke, director for the lung association's Gulf Coast region in Fort Myers.

"It's so hard to watch it go away when you found you had the keys for success."In its prime between 1998 and 2003, Florida's tobacco control program resulted in a 58 percent decrease in smoking among middle school students and a 37 percent decrease among high school students, the lung association said.

Since 2003, funding for Students Working Against Tobacco — the centerpiece of the Florida Tobacco Control Program — has been cut to $1 million, which is a drastic slash from the $39 million allocation in 2002 and the $200 million startup in 1998 after Florida's landmark tobacco settlement of $13 billion.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends states spend a minimum of $78 million to fund a comprehensive anti-tobacco program.These cuts hit Florida high school students hard, many who had put a lot of time and energy into anti-smoking campaigns, only to suddenly have no resources to continue them, said Angelique Beau-Wells, 16, a Fort Myers High School sophomore.

Many students and health educators lament the demise of the Truth campaign, which really made not smoking a cool thing, she said."In the beginning, we could do a lot of events during the year to help get the message out," said Beau-Wells, who has been involved with SWAT since she was 11. "We can't do much now. We try to get events up, but it's really hard because now we have to try to find sponsors."

Officials at the Lee County Health Department, which coordinated Lee's SWAT and anti-tobacco campaigns, said with the exception of a few schools, most SWAT programs fizzled out when the money went away.The lung association's complementary teen smoking cessation program no longer exists in Lee County, either.Today, many schools are simply folding the SWAT message into the overall prevention strategy of Students Against Destructive Decisions, which is a group that advocates against all unhealthy behaviors, including drugs and alcohol.

"Right now, because of little funding, it's very difficult to do programs when you don't have the money to," said county heath educator Margaret Vislocky. "Our health care costs are tremendous. Legislators need to remember if we can prevent smoking in youth, our prevention dollars will pay off in the long run."Anti-smoking officials also advocate for higher cigarette taxes in Florida — a maneuver that not only would generate millions of dollars for the state, but would also make if more difficult for children to purchase tobacco.

Florida ranks 41st out of 52 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) for low cigarette taxes. Florida has charged .339 cents a pack since 1990, although at least 17 states charge $1 or more."A high cigarette tax prevents tobacco companies from creating future generations of smokers by making cigarettes too expensive for kids to buy them," Brenda Olsen, the lung association's Florida assistant CEO, said in a statement Thursday. "The tax will also supply the needed revenue to consistently fund tobacco control programs."Despite the tight funding, Lee County students and health officials seek creative ways to stop smoking among youth.

Vislocky is working with the Lee County Sheriff's Office to create an anti-smoking class that would be required for teenagers caught and cited for smoking.Beau-Wells is thinking about starting a SADD anti-smoking chapter at her high school.

"Every day I see or hear something about someone who wouldn't have quit smoking unless someone helped them," she said. "That's why we can't stop trying."

Sat Jan 8, 2005
MPAAT revives smoking ban push -Minneapolis, Minnesota

If anyone has ever had any doubts that anti-smoking is about big money and political lobbying, read the following.....


January 8, 2005
MPAAT revives smoking ban push
Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune
January 8, 2005 MPAAT0108

Minnesota's richest and most controversial anti-tobacco group has plunged back into lobbying for smoking ban laws after a court-ordered hiatus that lasted three years, and the move has touched off a new round of public criticism.
State Rep. Tim Wilkin, R-Eagan, has resigned from the board of the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) because of the decision, announced Friday, to award grants of up to $1.5 million "to build citizen participation efforts to protect the public from exposure to second hand smoke."

Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, said that he, too, will quit the board over what he called its "tobacco jihad." Attorney General Mike Hatch, a DFLer who went to court in 2002 to stop MPAAT's earlier lobbying, also voiced displeasure, although his office said he plans no further legal efforts against the group.

"He's very troubled that state money is being used to lobby public officials," said Hatch spokeswoman Leslie Sandberg. "He feels it is a wrong use of the dollars."

MPAAT leaders argue that taxpayer money isn't involved because the nonprofit group's $202 million endowment came from the tobacco industry's settlement with the state of Minnesota in 1998. And they say that fostering local smoke-free initiatives is a vital element of their court-chartered mission to reduce the harm caused by tobacco.

"This is about creating a healthier Minnesota," MPAAT Chairman Michael Vekich said in a news release. "The public understands the dangers associated with second hand smoke and that is why so many communities in Minnesota have adopted ordinances or are considering them."
Spending public money on various antitobacco efforts has been a persistent sore point among smokers' rights advocates and others for years.

Wilkin and other Republicans vigorously objected to Target Market, an edgy state Health Department campaign to discourage teen smoking, before the $1 billion state endowment from the tobacco settlement that financed it was drained to help balance the state budget in 2003. A $3.4 million Health Department program met similar criticism last year when some of its grantees began pushing for local smoking bans.

That led to reminders to the grantees that "they cannot use the money for things defined in the statute as lobbying," Aggie Leitheiser, assistant state health commissioner, said Friday.
And in 2002, Ramsey County District Judge Michael Fetsch ordered MPAAT to halt its smoking ban efforts until it was spending at least as much on helping individual smokers quit the habit.
Original intent?

Friday's announcement was MPAAT's first move back toward lobbying since then. According to the group, it has served more than 42,000 smokers through its QUITPLAN Helpline (1-888-354-PLAN), its Web site ( and efforts at clinics and workplaces.

Through June 2003, MPAAT added, it had spent $10.8 million on such cessation efforts and $4.2 million on smoke-free initiatives. For the year beginning July 1, it has budgeted $2.7 million for cessation and $1.5 million for policy efforts.

Not reflected in those numbers is an MPAAT resolution allowing its staff to lobby the Legislature in favor of a statewide smoking ban, Wilkin said.

"That puts legislators in a terrible position," he said. "I believe the new direction of MPAAT is inconsistent with the original intent of the use of these funds."

He said that to avert any conflict of interest former legislators should be appointed to seats reserved for legislators on MPAAT's 19-member board.

"This organization has essentially become a political action committee and is using taxpayer dollars to accomplish political goals," Wilkin wrote in a Dec. 6 resignation letter to House Speaker Steve Sviggum. "This may even put its tax-exempt status in jeopardy."

In addition, Wilkin said, the move back to lobbying will produce bad public relations for MPAAT's goals. "A lot of the initiatives they want to push have some political legs on their own without their help," he said. "I think it will backfire."

Rukavina said a better use of MPAAT's resources would be to fund ventilation systems for bars and restaurants that might lose business under smoking bans. Its latest move, he added, will only "start fights among people with the people's money."

Conrad deFiebre is at

Sat Jan 8, 2005
Opinion - We should close our wallets


I have been seeing and hearing so many stories about the vast amounts being spent to spread smoking bans this year.

We cannot read, listen to or watch any news related media without being inundated by information on the millions/billions of dollars being spent on eradicating smoking all over the world by treaties, government agencies and charitable organizations. I cannot understand how so many supposedly intelligent people can be manipulated into believing smoking is the current most important health threat.

I wonder if the money being spent by tobacco control zealots on endless non-conclusive studies and smoking bans were directed toward real health threats, how many really serious diseases could be eradicated? I also wonder how many dollars our vast network of health organizations and charities have contributed to victims of recent natural disasters.

Rather than concentrate efforts to control tobacco products and individual life style choices in the current ban frenzy, it would be truly rewarding to think that some significant dollar amounts are being spent for constructive purposes.

I totally agree with the idea that we should close our wallets and refuse to support the instigators/enforcers of smoking bans. We smokers also have to continue to be vocal about our objections every day. It's surprising how many people agree. Forget the occasional antis' barbs...we have to let others know we object. This is a war. Silent anger and frustration does not work. Many non-smokers think smokers don't mind being denormalized and are simply addicted spineless sheep, who will just accept any form of discrimination. Let them know you "choose" to smoke and are NOT apologizing for it. Walk out of a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking, after you tell them in a clear voice (that may be heard by others in the vicinity) why you are leaving.
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Fri Jan 7, 2005
Smoking issue

Hi Thomas,

Is this the article you were referencing - Winooski, Vermont?

Why can't they leave the Veterans' Associations alone? I agree, it's none of the City Counsel's business. Benjamin Clark sounds like a pompous ass, who should be run out of town by the same veterans whose life style preferences he has so patronizingly dismissed.

Where are all the antis, who keep repeating smoking bans don't hurt businesses? As sure as clockwork, the next step after every smoking ban is to continue expanding it to "level-the-playing-fields" because business owners are (justifiably) screaming. It's like the old cliché, "Misery loves company".

Boy, it's everywhere!! We are all going to have to fight even harder this year. I think we are all furious. Talk about starting 2005 off with a bang!

Take care,
Newspaper archive powered by
January 5, 2005 Section: Towns Page: 02B
WINOOSKI - Hearing set on smoking ban
Free Press Staff Report
The Burlington Free Press

A public hearing on whether Winooski's smoking ban should extend to private clubs is scheduled for Jan. 18.

The proposed ban was formally introduced to the City Council on Monday.

The council could decide whether to enact the ordinance the night of the hearing.

A council approved the smoking ban in public bars in the summer, a decision that was upheld by city voters in November. Tavern owners said an exemption for private clubs, such as the Moose or Regular Veterans Association, created an unfair competitive advantage.

Operators of two of the private clubs in Winooski, Regular Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars, have said war veterans deserve a refuge where they can socialize and smoke if they choose.

However, on Monday, City Councilor Benjamin Clark said he understands the desire to cater to veterans but he wants to make sure they are in a healthful environment. "This seems like a good way to honor our veterans, to prolong their lives," he said.

Councilor Katherine Picard asked that a provision in the proposed ordinance that would allow a smoking ban exemption for groups that rent the clubs for private parties be deleted. Councilors cautioned they wouldn't make a decision to extend the smoking ban until after they've heard from the public.

Copyright (c) The Burlington Free Press. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Gannett Co., Inc. by NewsBank, inc.
From: "Thomas Laprade"
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005

Smoking issue
Dear Editor,

City council has no dam business interfering with private enterprise that
deals with a legal product.

Council has been elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.

It is not about health, it is about de-normalizing smoking.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont. Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Thomas Laprade> The Smoker's Rights Website:
Visit my Blog for Current Letter Writings:

Fri Jan 7, 2005
Illinois Law - Discrimination by employers

Below I have copied the first portion of Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, making it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee (or potential employee) because they smoke during non-working time. I've also included the URLs.
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Group - - Respect Freedom of Choice!


Home Page: ILCS 55/&ChapterID=68&ChapterName=EMPLOYMENT&ActName=Right+to+Privacy+in+the+Workplace+Act%2E

EMPLOYMENT(820 ILCS 55/) Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act.
Prohibits any individual from refusing to hire, terminate employment, or otherwise disadvantage any person because he or she uses alcohol and/or tobacco away from the job site on non-working time.

(820 ILCS 55/1) (from Ch. 48, par. 2851)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act.
(Source: P.A. 87‑807.)

(820 ILCS 55/5) (from Ch. 48, par. 2855)
Sec. 5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited.
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, it shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual uses lawful products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.....

AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Sections 5, 10, 15 and 20 of the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 48, pars. 2855, 2860, 2865 and 2870).

SOURCE: Adopted at 16 Ill. Reg. 16586, effective October 20, 1992.

Thu Jan 6, 2005
Medical discrimination is even more disturbing than job discrimination

As an addition to the previous posts regarding discrimination by hospitals and the medical profession against smokers, I wanted to share an excerpt from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" by Michael McFadden.


Michael McFadden, author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," gave me permission to share the following excerpt from his book with the mailing group here. It *is* copyrighted material however, and to protect his copyright from abuse by the Antis he asks that anyone wishing to reproduce more than a small passage should contact him first for permission and always provide acknowledgement of the source. His book and other excerpts from it are available at and the various links from that page.
"Medical discrimination is even more disturbing than job
discrimination. It has become increasingly common in recent years for
doctors and surgeons to insist that patients give up smoking if they
wish to receive the benefit of certain types of medical care and
procedures. Such doctors are probably largely drawn from the ranks of
The Idealists, with their motivation being the feeling that those
demands ultimately result in more patients quitting and therefore
supposedly living longer lives.

Sometimes such medical discrimination can seem almost
innocent: a doctor is rightly concerned about a patient's health, and,
as part of good medical practice, should instruct that patient about the
effect lifestyle choices can have on health. It's only when the doctor
oversteps the bounds of such education and advice into the territory of
threatening the patient with the withholding of care that the situation
becomes actually scary, and anyone who has experienced the helplessness
that comes with hospitalization or acute illness will know that scary
can quickly become truly terrifying.

Most people know that at some point they will be
entrusting their doctor with their lives. Most people do not want to do
or say anything that will alienate this person in whom they must trust.
When a doctor makes clear that he or she "won't care about you unless
you care about yourself" by giving up smoking, the patient is in a bind.
If they simply refuse to cooperate they're literally placing their
lives at risk.

The only practical alternative for most smoking patients
is to claim that they are trying to quit and perhaps even to accept the
doctor's pressure to take prescription drugs to help them in their
non-existent efforts. And while most doctors are above such shenanigans
there is certainly a subset that greatly enjoys the extra rewards they
get from the pharmaceutical companies when they've shown special
diligence in writing multiple pre-scriptions for various forms of
"Nicotine Replacement Therapy" and pricey antidepressants.

...............It's in the world of surgery where we move from the simply "scary" into
the realm of the macabre and terrifying. We must start off by
acknowledging that in practice there may be situations where a person's
smoking status can honestly be an important component of a medical
decision for surgery, not so much because of the status itself, but
because of conditions thought to be aggravated by smoking.

For example, a particularly risky and prolonged
operation designed primarily to improve a patient's general quality of
life might not be the right choice if the patient's respiratory health
or peripheral vascular circulation is particularly poor. If the patient
is a heavy smoker the doctor might recommend that they quit smoking in
the hope that their respiratory or circulatory system will rebound to a
point where such surgery is less risky. There's nothing particularly
wrong, at least from the standpoint of medical ethics, with such an
approach to optional surgery.

However, if the patient's respiratory or vascular health
improves without quitting smoking, to continue to withhold the surgery
should be clearly unethical. Imagine a less contentious area of
concern: suppose such surgery were being withheld on the basis of a
patient's high blood pressure and the surgeon said "Lose 50 pounds to
bring that pressure down or I won't operate." Now if, instead of
losing 50 pounds, the patient embarked on a reduced-sodium diet combined
with an exercise program that lowered their blood pressure, would it be
ethical for the surgeon to continue withholding surgery on the grounds
that the patient really should lose 50 pounds anyhow? Of course not: so
why is such reasoning not applied equally to the question of smoking and

I believe that the most dangerous and alarming examples
of this type of medical discrimination lie not in the area of optional
surgeries but in the area of necessary surgeries and organ transplants.
If two otherwise similar people are listed as needing a new heart and
one of them smokes, should the smoker be disqualified or moved lower on
the list simply because of their practice? The Antismoker argument
holds that the value of the new heart would be greater for the nonsmoker
because the nonsmoker will live longer and supposedly places more value
on his or her life.

This is not paranoid fantasy. There has already been a
case in Australia where a 56 year-old man died after being denied an
organ transplant because he refused to take the doctor's advice to quit
smoking (Rortvedt. Beyond California 03/13/01). Austin physician Lou
Irving questioned smoker transplants because "It is consuming resources
for someone who is contri-buting to their own demise" (Tanya Taylor. 02/08/01). Dr. Joel Cooper, a lung transplant surgeon
from Washington University, who has successfully transplanted a number
of lungs, has made quite clear that he wants only those who have quit
smoking to participate in his procedures (http://

But what if we're talking about a 50-year-old nonsmoker who has advanced
arteriosclerosis, failing kidneys, and a bad liver versus a 20-year-old
otherwise healthy smoker whose heart was damaged in a car crash? In
this case the smoker would have the longer life expectancy.

Should smokers still be excluded simply because of their past sins or
their reluctance to sign a paper committing themselves to behave in a
societally approved manner for the rest of their lives? Certainly in
such a situation most people would simply lie in the interest of
self-preservation, but what if the evil motive of monetary gain should
rear its head afterwards as such a lie comes to the surface?

Should self-interested insurance companies or cash-strapped hospitals be
empowered to watch over the postoperative smoker and garnishee their
future wages or take back an organ if they should ever be caught with a
cigar or cigarette? The job of Repo Man might take on a sinister new
meaning in the future.

Postoperative outcomes and life expectancies depend upon a multitude of
factors. Heart transplant candidates who eat vegetarian diets and
exercise would usually be better bets for long-term success than meat
and potatoes couch potatoes. Would it be correct for the medical
community and society at large to attempt to force dietary and lifestyle
changes on people through the threat of withholding the promise of life?

Obviously the ethical answer is no. but the sad reality is that in
practice smokers are running into such threats with increasing frequency
and this seems to be a tendency that will expand into the future if it's
not addressed soon.

A related, though less direct, form of medical discrimination occurs
when smokers delay seeking medical advice because of concerns about
general interactions with medical personnel. A 60-year-old lifelong
smoker who is also a regular alcohol user and who develops a persistent
cough and hoarseness should definitely consult a doctor. That
combination of history and symptoms is strongly indicative of forms of
throat cancer that can be successfully treated if caught early enough.

........Unfortunately, many such individuals will delay a necessary doctor's
visit simply because they know they'll be lectured and berated about
their health habits and because they feel they won't be helped unless
they agree, either honestly or dishonestly, to radically change those
habits. Thus, what might well have been treatable disease becomes an
early death. not because of outright discrimination but because of fears
of discrimination and mistreatment.

Another unfortunate side effect of this medical
discrimination has been the recent flurry of discussion and activity
around the concept of smokers boycotting blood and organ donor programs.
Many smokers seem to feel that if such programs discriminate against
them on the receiving side there's no reason why they should participate
in the giving side. Losing a quarter or a third of potential donors and
blood givers is a high price to pay for this sort of discrimination.

As surprising as it might seem to the general public, many smokers seem
to be both fully aware of and quite angry about this situation. If a
full-blown boycott was to develop and a backlash was then created by
radical Antismokers to deny all blood and organ supplies to smokers we'd
have a real societal crisis on our hands.

As smokers become increasingly angry about unfair taxation and
generalized discrimination at all levels of their lives the possibility
of such spontaneous or organized actions and the unfortunate outcomes
that would result becomes greater. At such a point, all of us, smokers
and nonsmokers alike, would be the losers."