Thursday, September 29, 2005

Sep 29, 2005
Letter to Mayor Daley/Letter to Editor; Daley cool on smoking ban idea; Chicago mayor holds out hope of smoking-ban compromise - IL

Two letters and two news stories below about the proposed Chicago smoking ban. The first letter was to Mayor Daley and the second to the Chicago Tribune (with slight revisions). - Garnet Dawn

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;

Mayor Richard M. Daley
City of Chicago
121 N. La Salle Street
Chicago, IL 60602-1202

RE: Proposed Chicago smoking ban - Another public health free-for-all

Dear Mayor Daley:
cc: Alderman William M. Beavers
Mr. Mike Ditka

It appears the proposed Chicago smoking ban is becoming another public health free-for-all in which anti-smoking organizations are trying to take advantage of an opportunity to subjugate yet another proud city to their smoking ban dogma.

"Anti-smoking activists delivered more than 3,000 letters and e-mails to City Hall on Wednesday as they pressed for passage of a comprehensive tobacco ban." This is just one of the many methods that the leading organizations in the anti-smoking movement employ to continue operating. This is what they do, while completely ignoring all opposing perspectives and the basic inalienable rights of citizens!

The Health Extremist Industry has already damaged the lives of millions of people in incalculable ways over the years, many of them doing it while enriching themselves and their prestigious positions...and they've gotten away with it! Health issues do not need the heavy boot of government intrusion to decide personal life-style choices. The free-market should be allowed to do that. Smoke is not an invisible threat to the public, as are other health code issues requiring ordinances. Any prospective patron can clearly see smoke and decide whether or not to patronize an establishment choosing to allow adults to use a legal product on their premises.

Please do not allow another prohibition style smoking ban destroy Chicago! Chicago needs to continue to set the standards for respect of independent personal choice, not follow other cities' unconstitutional laws. We do not need to become another victim of the "noble" smoking ban experiments.

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

Letter to the Editor:

RE: Proposed Chicago smoking ban - Another public health free-for-all
Dear Editor:
cc: Gary Washburn

It appears the proposed Chicago smoking ban is becoming another public health free-for-all in which anti-smoking organizations are trying to take advantage of an opportunity to subjugate yet another proud city to their smoking ban dogma.........

...........We cannot allow another prohibition style smoking ban to destroy Chicago! Chicago needs to continue to set the standards for respect of independent personal choice, not follow other cities' unconstitutional laws. We do not need to become another victim of the "noble" smoking ban experiments.

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


Daley cool on smoking ban idea
City gets 3,000 notes favoring law; mayor wants compromise
By Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 29, 2005

Anti-smoking activists delivered more than 3,000 letters and e-mails to City Hall on Wednesday as they pressed for passage of a comprehensive tobacco ban, but Mayor Richard Daley said he continues to seek "some form of compromise" on the issue.

A proposed ordinance that would prohibit smoking in public buildings, including bars and restaurants, has been languishing in the City Council's Health Committee for months despite a vigorous campaign for passage by a coalition of organizations called Smoke-Free Chicago.

Daley said that some bars already have invested in equipment to clean the air, and he added that there are disagreements even among restaurateurs over the proposed smoking ban.

"Some are for it," he said. "Some are against it. So you are listening to them. It is a huge industry. It employs many people. It is very significant here in the city of Chicago, and we work very closely with them. We don't have to be antagonistic toward any industry."

Brian Imus, one of the leaders of the anti-smoking coalition, said there may be room to negotiate certain details, such things as a possible phase-in of a smoking ban. "But we can't accept any compromise that compromises our health," he declared.

Daley's comments came at a City Hall news conference where he renewed his call for the General Assembly to make permanent a temporary measure that limits increases in assessed valuation to 7 percent a year for homeowners.

The cap means that when the second installment of 2004 property tax bills hits mailboxes within a few days, most Chicago homeowners "can open the envelope without their hands trembling," Daley said.

But Chicago properties will be reassessed next year, and unless the legislature acts to extend the cap, property taxes probably will increase by double-digit percentages, Daley said.

Daley also called on Springfield to rescind a requirement, in effect only in Cook County, that senior citizens reapply for the senior exemption on their property taxes each year.


Chicago mayor holds out hope of smoking-ban compromise
September 29, 2005

CHICAGO Mayor Richard Daley says he continues to seek compromise on a proposal to ban smoking in all indoor public places in Chicago, including restaurants and bars.

The proposed smoking ban has been languishing in the City Council for months despite an aggressive campaign for its passage. Yesterday, activists delivered more than three-thousand letters and e-mails to City Hall pressing for a comprehensive ban.

Detractors say a ban would hurt restaurants and bars by driving away smoking patrons.

Daley said yesterday he was sympathetic to those concerns, but that he's still hearing out both sides of the debate.

One leader of an anti-smoking coalition, Brian Imus, says there could be compromise on some details, such as a possible phase-in of a ban. But he says he's not inclined to concede anything that would compromise public health.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sep 27, 2005
Letters to/from IL Dept of Revenue

Hi Linda,

Terrific letter!! You have taken a reasonable and cooperative, yet cynical position. You have also given them a lot to think about. I believe this clueless IRS representative is referencing the first "use tax" applied to cigarette purchases, but let them do the explaining this time.

Mr. Crumly is overly impressed with his power and was careless with the wording in written communications to you. You have made a tremendous contribution to all of us by reproducing the actual letters our state is sending to residents. They are absolutely infuriating!!! We can't thank you enough for sharing...... Great work!!!! Good luck and keep us posted. Wish I could be a fly on the wall when T. Crumly opens your letter!!!

Exactly, how can the use of a legal product be a "privilege" in Illinois or anywhere in the U.S.? What country and what form of government does Terry L. Crumly, Illinois Department of Revenue, believe he is representing?
"Effective July 11, 1951, a cigarette use tax was imposed on the
privilege of using cigarette in Illinois." Terry L. Crumly, Manager; Excise Taxes Division; Illinois Department of Revenue
Take care,

priv·i·lege ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-lj, prvlj)
n. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

privilege (n)
1: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all
2: a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right); "suffrage was the prerogative of white adult males" [syn: prerogative, perquisite, exclusive right]
3: (law) the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship v : bestow a privilege upon [syn: favor, favour]
"August 25, 2005

Dear Ms. Casey;

This letter is in response to your letter to the Governor on July 31,
2005 regarding cigarettes tax owed on cigarettes purchased from

Effective July 11, 1951, a cigarette use tax was imposed on the
privilege of using cigarette in Illinois. When an Illinois resident
purchases cigarettes from a seller who is not licensed with the State
of Illinois, that resident is liable for the cigarette use tax and
must remit the tax directly to the Department of Revenue using Form
RC-44, Cigarette Use Tax Return. Cigarettes purchased from a licensed
seller will have an Illinois cigarette tax stamp affixed to the bottom
of the package.

Your letter indicates that you are purchasing VCR tapes, CD's,
clothing and gifts on the Internet. Sales Use Tax is also owed when
Illinois residents make purchases from non- registered out-of-state
retailers (such as catalog, mail order, or Internet transactions) and
must be remitted to the Department of Revenue using Form ST-44,
Illinois Use Tax Return.

Use taxes are imposed to prevent Illinois businesses from being
subjected to a competitive disadvantage and prevent the state from the
loss of revenue that would occur without these taxes. Use taxes
benefit Illinois residents by keeping businesses and jobs in Illinois.


Terry L. Crumly, Manager
Excise Taxes Division
Illinois Department of Revenue"

Sep 27, 2005
Letter to the Editor - Cedar Rapids hospitals going tobacco-free Jan. 1 - Iowa

Gazette Communications
500 3rd Ave SE - PO Box 511
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
Letter to the Editor

RE: Cedar Rapids hospitals going tobacco-free Jan. 1

Dear Editor:
cc: Cindy Hadish

If we are to believe the Cindy Hadish's statement that every year over 400,000 people die prematurely from tobacco related causes, then we had also better avoid doctors and hospitals since they could kill us as well. Nearly one fourth as many people die from medical error as "guesstimated" fatalities from smoking cigarettes. Annually, 98,000 deaths are caused by medical error, according to a report released in the May 18, 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ("Five Years After To Err Is Human: What Have We Learned?"). Cindy's unfounded "fact" is a computer generated statistic.

The negative aspects of hospital total smoking bans are simple common sense that hospital administrators have failed to acknowledge. Social engineering dictatorial policies made in conflict with consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results. Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already under great additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility.

Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures. Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery. Many smokers, who are family members and friends of the patients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients. Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes, thereby increasing fire risks.

Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help. Offering smoking cessation classes is only a further insult.

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

Cedar Rapids hospitals going tobacco-free Jan. 1
Published: 09/23/2005
By: Cindy Hadish - The Gazette

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA - Both Mercy Medical Center and St. Luke's Hospital will have smoke-free campuses starting Jan. 1, hospital representatives said today.

Employees, patients, visitors and volunteers will not be able to use tobacco products in the buildings, grounds, or even the parking lots of the hospitals or their clinics, the two hospitals announced in a joint news conference Friday.

Each year, more than 450,000 people die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. Tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death and disease in the United States.

Sep 26, 2005
Flora Smoking Ban

Hi Carl,

I've been meaning to write to you and ask if you received any satisfaction from Flora on the outdoor smoking ban at your baseball games. Did the Editorial letters in your papers help at all? The law will still be illegal, even after January 1, 2006, because it exceeded the City's authority and was written in 2004 with no city council or public approval.

I have been pretty well stymied by both Flora and Buffalo Grove on their outdoor smoking bans because I am not a resident. You are already aware of all the correspondence I sent them on the subject, and that the legal office for Flora would never respond. I followed through with my promise and sent two letters to our Illinois Attorney General and one to our Governor on the subject of outdoor illegal smoking bans in Flora and Buffalo Grove. I did finally get a response from the AG's Office, after my second letter (more like a "non" response ), saying this issue was not within their area of responsibility. I am going to place the exactly duplicated letter in the "Files Section" of our IL Group, so you or anyone interested may reference it.

There are only two remaining options. The first would be a law suit filed by a local resident. The other option would be to send a request to R.J. Reynolds for assistance. I can tell them "This is my problem..... I know you can't litigate this on my behalf, but can you direct me to some "resource", of some kind, that may provide me some guidance? R.J. Reynolds talks the talk, but do they walk the walk?

Anyway, just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about it....

Garnet Dawn
Date: Mon Sep 26, 2005
Re: [illinoissmokers] Flora Smoking Ban

Actually, my legal eagle friend here in Philly says "Simply break the law, get a ticket, then go to court and explain (or have your lawyer explain) why the law is invalid. If you've got a half decent judge the law will then be thrown out."

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Sep 25, 2005
Smokers Tip More Than Cheapskate Nons! - DeKalb, IL

Compliments of Jim Blogg, Forces Illinois:
Riedl says the organizations that push for smoking bans have searched "high and low" for a hospitality industry employee who will speak out in behalf of smoking bans, but they can't find them, in part because tips from people who sit in smoking sections generally are far higher than those from patrons in nonsmoking sections.
OK, now are you ready for a clueless Anti excuse?.....
Kathy Drea, who has worked with the DeKalb coalition, said "people who work in the establishments cannot speak out because they will lose their jobs if they speak out."
Yeah, right! The rest of the article below....

Sides form in smoking ban battle
By Chris Rickert - City Editor

DeKALB - With both sides getting help from outside organizations skilled at arguing their positions, the coming battle over banning smoking in all public places in DeKalb is just the latest front in a larger war.

Meanwhile, thousands of city residents have reportedly signed petitions either in favor or against the ban, but there appears to be little support for the proposal from one of the main groups it is designed to protect - restaurant and bar workers.

Jim Grosklags, the head of the DeKalb Smoke-Free Coalition, said that his group has gotten help from the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association, among others. Work leading up to the smoking ban proposal has been going on for more than two years.

"We've relied heavily on them and of course they're all biased on this issue," he said.

Much of the help has come in the form of resources showing the reported health and economic effects of smoking bans, and in the form of strategies for implementing them. The coalition also received a $4,000 grant a year and a half ago through the Illinois Coalition Against Tobacco. It was for newspaper ads and other efforts to get the group's message out.

A group of seven or eight DeKalb bar and restaurant owners also have begun working with the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, according to Steve Riedl, the executive director of the trade group, which represents businesses in Illinois that sell alcohol.

"The bottom line for this is that this (smoking bans) is economically devastating to our industry," Riedl said, although he added that his organization supports smoking bans as long as they don't apply to the hospitality industry.

The co-owner of K.J.'s Tap & Grill on East Lincoln Highway, Kim Knowlton, is one of the local business owners working with the ILBA.

Knowlton said the ILBA has provided statistics from other places with smoking bans but that her group has not received any outside funding from it or any other group.

She also said she alone has collected some 1,000 signatures on a petition opposed to the smoking ban.

Riedl said his group provides information to business owners about the purported negative economic impact the bans have had on the hospitality industry - much of it culled from government statistics or industry-funded studies.

Riedl and Kathy Drea, a lobbyist for the Illinois chapter of the American Lung Association, acknowledge that in many respects the fight over smoking in DeKalb is just the latest incarnation of a fight seen elsewhere in the state, nation and around the world.

But Grosklags and fellow coalition member and 2nd Ward Alderman Kris Povlsen also claim there is local, grassroots support for the ban, pointing to a petition with hundreds of signatures and 400 postcards signed by people who support a ban. The postcards were to be sent to city council members.

"This was generated from the Citizens Environmental Commission," Povlsen said, referring to the city-sanctioned, volunteer group. "The council didn't sit one day and say 'What new laws can we put into effect?'"

But Povlsen - whose full-time job as a prevention specialist includes working to cut down on youth smoking and substance use - and Grosklags acknowledged that there's been little outcry from those who would arguably benefit the most from a smoking ban: people who work in restaurants and bars that allow smoking.

"It (smoke) doesn't bother me," said Lizette Gonzalez, 22, a nonsmoker who works at The House Cafe, which has a smoking section. "I think they have a right. If you want to smoke, you can smoke."

Employees at Fatty's Bar & Grill, the Lincoln Inn and The House all reported that they had either rarely or never heard co-workers complain about being exposed to smoke.

Although, added Morgan McKendry, a smoker and a waitress at Fatty's: "I don't really know a lot (of waiters and bartenders) that don't smoke."

McKendry said she actually was in favor of smoking ban for restaurants, but not for bars.

Riedl says the organizations that push for smoking bans have searched "high and low" for a hospitality industry employee who will speak out in behalf of smoking bans, but they can't find them, in part because tips from people who sit in smoking sections generally are far higher than those from patrons in nonsmoking sections.

Kathy Drea, who has worked with the DeKalb coalition, said "people who work in the establishments cannot speak out because they will lose their jobs if they speak out."

She added: "They should be protected from something that causes cancer and heart attacks and stroke no matter where they work."

The notion that restaurant and bar workers should be protected by government from exposure to second-hand smoke - even if they themselves don't actively seek out such protection - doesn't sit well with 26-year-old Poland native Cammillo Sobi, who also works at The House and is a former 10-year smoker.

"I think that America is going to be a police country," he said. "They (government) have to protect me from other things. They don't have to protect me from the smoke."

Chris Rickert can be reached at crickert@daily-chronicle
God grants liberty only to those who love it,
and are always ready to guard and defend it.
- Daniel Webster

Sep 24, 2005
The way market surveys are conducted...... UK

I found this on the Smokers Club International Forum and loved it. What a beautiful analogy of smoking ban polls! Right on target! We need more "dry" humor of this caliber.

Garnet Dawn
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005

Hello, i live in the UK, and i don't smoke myself, but most of my family does, so i don't object to them smoking, or anyone else, so the banning of smoking is stupid at first and well, the governments don't seem to understand how much money they get from the smokers... (as has been mentioned on a tv show many years ago: "Yes, Prime Minister - A humorous look at politicians)
a quote from the series

Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, we are talking about 100,000 deaths a year."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.
This is another one about the way market surveys are conducted on how unbalanced they can be depending on how you phrase stuff.
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."
All of these show that governments are corrupt, and stupid.

Sep 24, 2005
Official may renew smoking ban push - Champaign, IL

Here we go again! If anyone has had any doubts that the health extremist lobby treats proposed smoking ban failures like a revolving door, here is the proof. What a disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money!!

Garnet Dawn
Official may renew smoking ban push
Published Online September 24, 2005

CHAMPAIGN – A Champaign City Council member says he's planning to introduce an ordinance next month that calls for banning smoking in all city bars and restaurants.

Giraldo Rosales, an at-large council member, said this week that he has asked the city attorney to draft such an ordinance and that he thinks there might be majority council support for it.

A similar proposal failed by a 5-4 straw vote in a Sept. 13 council study session.

Rosales said he is reintroducing the issue because he believes council member Gina Jackson has changed her mind and can now support a comprehensive smoking ban.

"If one from the other side switches, it means we have five votes and we might as well push for it," he said. "I feel the opportunity is there."

Jackson said her overall position is still the same. She said she favors a smoking ban in bars and restaurants but wants to see clubs like the American Legion exempted. She is a 23-year Army veteran.

"The private clubs are licensed and their signs say 'Members and guests only,'" she said. "Otherwise, they don't have to admit people. They are private clubs, and people pay extra to belong to a private club."

Jackson opposed a comprehensive ban at the Sept. 13 study session when council members wouldn't agree to exempt clubs from the ban. But she said she might consider voting for a total ban this time around even if clubs are included in the ban.

Council members Rosales, Tom Bruno, Kathy Ennen and Marci Dodds supported a comprehensive ban at the Sept. 13 meeting.

Champaign City Attorney Fred Stavins confirmed that he has drafted a smoke-free ordinance at Rosales' request and provided him with a rough draft. Stavins said his understanding is that the ordinance won't be on the Oct. 4 agenda.

Dodds, whose husband is part owner of the downtown Champaign bar Boltini, said she could support a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants if people were still allowed to smoke outside at tables and if the ordinance was qualified to not take effect unless the city of Urbana passes a similar ban.

"I do not want to chase all the business to Urbana," Dodds said. "I don't want to slow down downtown and all the bars unfairly."

Ennen declined comment.

Champaign Mayor Jerry Schweighart, who opposes a smoking ban, said he thinks the council should leave the issue alone.

"Let him (Rosales) do what he's got to do," the mayor said. "I think we ought to leave it lie and see where it goes in Urbana."

Matt Varble, director of communications for the CU Smokefree Alliance, which has pushed for a total smoking ban, said he was delighted that the issue might be coming back for another vote.

"It's a manifestation of the community's will for this issue to be considered," he said. "It shows a groundswell of community support.

"We feel a comprehensive ban is easier to enforce," he added. "It makes more sense."

Sep 22, 2005
For smoking ban foes, a flame lingers ; Proposed Smoking Ban Sparks Debate - Rhinelander/Madison, WI

Madison smoking ban opponents are regrouping, after their City Council voted to keep Madison's smoking ban intact Wednesday morning. However I have read that the Coalition to Save Jobs, among others, has proposed a more lenient state-wide ban as one of their solutions. This idea to compromise, throughout the entire state, will be financial suicide for all of Wisconsin. Misery does not need more company. State-wide smoking bans are the ultimate goals the anti-smoking health industry has desired, all along!

State bans do not "level the playing field" onto a plateau, but instead they drive the entire state's hospitality industry into a permanent economic basin. For a state that is currently promoting tourism, smoking bans are definitely counter-productive. - Garnet Dawn
For smoking ban foes, a flame lingers
They regroup, plan compromises

By Samara Kalk Derby
September 22, 2005

Smoking ban opponents wasted no time regrouping after an all-night City Council meeting ended early Wednesday morning with a razor-thin vote to keep Madison's smoking ban in place.

More than a dozen members of the tavern industry's Coalition to Save Jobs met at the Coliseum Bar on Wednesday afternoon to strategize.

The group's spokesman, Joe Klinzing, said that although the repeal of the 2-month-old indoor smoking ban failed on a 10-9 vote, the coalition was encouraged.

It was encouraged that as many as 50 bartenders and bar owners turned out and stayed until the wee morning hours to support their efforts.

It was also encouraged that with changes in council members last spring and some changing their minds, there were now four more votes against the ban since the original ordinance passed 15-5 in April 2004.

Proposed Smoking Ban Sparks Debate

Sep 22, 2005 11:29 am US/Central
Residents had plenty to say about smoking bans in both Madison and Rhinelander.

It was standing room only at Rhinelander City Hall last night, where more than 100 people packed the council chambers for a hearing on a proposed ban. A group called Smoke Free Air for Everyone wants smoking banned in all workplaces and in bar-restaurants that make half their revenue from food.

Tavern League district director Rob Swearingen says it should be freedom of choice. He says customers are smart enough to know whether they want to spend time in a restaurant that allows smoking. They don't need a babysitter.

Tobacco Free coordinator Laura Mays says the Rhinelander area has a huge incidence of cancer. She says smokers not only puts themselves at risk, but those around them. A council committee took no action.

In Madison, the City Council ended an eleven-hour meeting early this morning by voting to keep a smoking ban in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other workplaces. The ban began July first.

(© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

Sep 22, 2005
Response for Cigarette Tax Bill - IL

Hi Dan,

What a magnificent letter!!! You have addressed all the major concerns and objections we all have expressed. I would like to submit this to the Smokers Club, Inc. Newsletter for next week's issue. Your letter is an perfect example of replies we all can use against our state revenue departments. Please share any responses you may receive. Even if they should ignore your letter the first time....keep using it! It's perfect. - Garnet Dawn

From: Mankato Male
Date: Wed Sep 21, 2005
Subject: Response for cigarette tax bill

I have posted here before, even though I am from Minnesota. I have a rough draft of the letter I will be sending to the State about my tax bill. Thought I would post it here for any comments and also anyone can feel free to use any or all parts of it if they are being harassed by the State also.

"Minnesota Department of Revenue,
To whom it may concern.

I have recently received a tax due statement for some alleged internet
purchases. This is a letter stating my protest and appeal of said taxes. The
reasons for this are as follows.

1. The official first notice I received had been dated wrong. It had a date of
2004 on it and I didn't receive it until July of 2005.See enclosed copy.It asked
for an estimate of taxes owed from May of 2001 to May of 2005. Then I received
another more threatening letter stating since I didn't respond that you are now
charging me penalties and interest.

2. I would like to see copies of invoices for receiving the alleged purchases
with my signature on them.

3. The website in question had stated previously in the legal info section that
you can legally purchase cigarettes from them and in addition all taxes are
included in the price shown.

4. I have purchased a few items from websites over the years and assumed that
these companies that sell products on-line would be knowledgeable about laws
regarding collection of taxes from the consumers. They are responsible to make
payment to the appropriate state taxing agencies.

5. The Constitution of the United States...Interstate Commerce Clause in Article
1,Section 8 states-"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
state.No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to
the Ports of one State over those of another;nor shall Vessels bound to,or
from,one State,be obligated to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

6. The Jenkins Act of 1948 was created to keep distributors from driving
truckloads of black market cigarettes from one state to another.This was to stop
the resale "for profit" as is stated in Sec 375 (a).Internet customers are not
distributors and this law should not apply to them.Also no sales of alleged
cigarettes were sold for a "profit."If this was the case,the Federal
Legislators would not have introduced Senate bill S.1177 to change the wording
of the Jenkins Act to include internet consumers among many other changes.This
bill has passed on Jan 2004.But the companion bill from the House (H.R. 2824)is
still tabled.So as of yet there are no changes to the original Jenkins Act.

7. The Governor of WI...Mr. Jim Doyle has understood this and has stopped pursuing
his constituents on July 21,2005. He has also demanded the State return collected
revenues to be returned to the consumers on July 30,2005.Actions are pending on
this matter.

8. Are you pursuing "all" internet sales or just certain ones? Is it fair to
target one persons internet purchases and not another? What about sales from
catalogs, EBay, Amazon Book, or health needs, Christmas and Birthday purchases by
our Seniors,home bound,poor,and rural residents? Or are they next on your
radar? Did not the U.S. Congress make the internet tax-free for the time
being? That is unless you are purchasing from a company that has locations in the
state you reside in.

Those are the reasons I am protesting this and am prepared to use all
means, court, newsprint, and TV to make the Public aware of the States bullying
tactics, targeting certain sales, and how many of our residents, (mostly the
older, home bound, poor, and rural) may be targeted soon too.

In addition to this, I have stopped all internet credit card purchases since July

Thank you

Sep 21, 2005
Stub out that fact and extinguish that opinion

Courtesy of Michael McFadden :)

Heh.... serendipity. While searching for something else entirely, I just ran across a year old article by Mick Hume in the London Times about how ASH got all upset last year about a proposed debate on ETS. I wonder if the Antis are now officially changing their position? They may feel they can no longer ignore us...

All out smoking ban demands reach fever pitch - 25 August 2005
Reprinted from :

Article 18 - October 2004
Stub out that fact and extinguish that opinion
Read spiked editor Mick Hume in The Times (London) on the new moral orthodoxy on smoking.
by Mick Hume

I am an ex-heavyweight champion smoker. From my teens to my thirtieth birthday, I happily got through 20 to 40 Player's No 6 (the schoolboy's choice) a day. It may not have been a coincidence that, shortly after I gave up, they stopped making that brand of little coffin nails altogether. As a 'recovering' smoker, it is often assumed that I must hate anybody else indulging the dirty-but-delicious habit. True, other people's smoke gets in my eyes. But not as much as the self-righteous 'ban public smoking' crowd get up my nose.

Come round the back of the bike sheds, I want to tell you something that some in high places don't want you to hear. Did you know that there is another Weapon of Mass Destruction that we have been warned about for years, but which does not really exist? This illusory WMD goes by the name of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) - passive smoking to you.

Yes, of course it is true that smoking tobacco can cause cancer and terrible illnesses. But the scientific case against passive smoking is far cloudier. Just about the only thing we know for certain is that inhaling other people's second-hand smoke can cause some irritation and the odd argument.

If you are wondering why the well-founded doubts about passive smoking are rarely aired, look at the extraordinary episode reported in The Times this week. The Royal Institution in London, a famous centre for scientific research and debate, has hired out its rooms to the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, for a one-day event entitled 'The Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke'. As a result, the Royal Institution finds itself under heavy fire from anti-smoking crusaders and senior medics for whom any debate about the effects of passive smoking must be stubbed out before it starts. Professor John Britton, chairman of the Royal College of Physicians' tobacco advisory group, warned the Royal Institution that the tobacco manufacturers 'want to create the impression that Britain's top scientists are debating these issues, and there is no such debate'.

Not content with demanding a ban on smoking in public, it seems that the anti-ETS lobby wants a ban on talking about smoking in public too. Stub that fact out and extinguish that opinion immediately, my lad! This affair is a symptom of the spreading epidemic of tobacco intolerance - not a medical condition, but a new moral orthodoxy. It may soon be easier to smoke a joint than a cigarette on the street.

I detest any attempt to prostitute science for political or moralistic ends. Campaigners emphasise how Big Tobacco tried to bury the evidence that smoking causes cancer. Yet the Big Prohibition supporters can be accused of being cavalier with the facts today. They broadcast claims that passive smoking causes ill-health, while ignoring reports that suggest otherwise. In a recent letter to The Times, one over-excited professor of public health declared that research proves ' second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke'. Perhaps the healthy option is to leave that fuggy pub, and go smoke a few fags in the fresh air.

Far more than wanting smokers to stub their fags out, I want the illiberal liberals now running health policy to butt out of people's personal habits. This week, an unapologetic Tony Blair made clear that he will use the dodgy intelligence on ETS to launch a war against smoking in public. However, Mr Blair is still too soft on smokers for some tastes; one leading medical journal wants him to ban tobacco altogether. There is no 'right to smoke'; but that is no reason to tolerate smokers being burnt at the stake for infringing the new conformism.

Worst of all, I cannot stand the way that passive smoking has been turned into a metaphor for that mantra of modern miserabilism: 'Other people are ruining my life!' This was the spirit of morbid self-pity that Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, tried to tap into, arguing that restrictions on public smoking would ensure that 'nobody will be bullied into a lifestyle they do not wish to join.' If lighting up in a bar means bullying (grooming?) others into adopting a hostile lifestyle, who could object to banning such abuse?

The unhealthy assumption behind all this is that smokers are helpless addicts in need of drugs and psychotherapy to save them from themselves, while the rest of us are hapless victims in need of state protection from other people's putrid lifestyles. Never mind about passive smoking, how about launching a war against the cancer of passive living?

This article is republished from The Times (London)

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Sep 21, 2005
Channel 26 TV Discussion - Chicago Smokig Ban

Here is a little recap of my WCIU-TV CHANNEL 26 TV interview yesterday. People outside of IL won't be able to watch it. But, Judy is excellent at taping and then converting the recording into a computer video. I'm counting on her and Jim Blogg to record it. I'll tape it on our VCR, but don't have the first clue about how to convert it to a computer video clip. The program will be 30 minutes, once the station edits it.

The show we taped, will air at 6:30 a.m on Saturday, October 1st, and will reach a large inner city and south side (of Chicago) audience. It was quite an experience. I went through a BRUTAL hour and a half drive to get is at its peak right now in the downtown area. The Channel 26 building is between Washington and Madison on Halsted. Washington Street/Avenue is completely closed for reconstruction and parking availability was on the street with meters. One of staff had to go out and add money to my parking meter while I was in there.
George Blaise, the moderator of the show, was wonderful and the rest of the staff were very helpful too! Since this was my first "TV" appearance, I really don't know how I will look. Those lights in the studio are cruel!! I managed to vocalize quite a few good viewpoints and George provided supportive statements several times. The Smokers Club, Inc. was identified three times I can specifically remember. However, I forgot to tell the audience our website URLs....unbelievable...I should have done it in my final statement...then the opportunity quickly passed. However, George did introduce us at the beginning of the show. George also told us he would be doing a short "post script" statement too....and he has our site URL's. I also gave them one of my new business cards for website references!

Joel Africk is the top honcho for the ALA in Illinois......he was the one I was up against. I swear, the man repeated the same viewpoints yesterday that he has used a thousand times before. He doesn't even seem to need to breath while he's talking. He's very polished with a condescending attitude, and I hope my dislike of him didn't come across on the show. He even brought two ALA associates with him to the studio....they were not in the show...maybe he needed a little moral support. In any event, we shook hands after completion of the taping.

Of course, I had a severe case of cotton mouth....other than that, I was okay and the pro-choice portion of my brain was in high gear. The show appearance opportunity originated through Heartland Institute. Oh, I want to see it!!!.....yet, I'm almost afraid to watch it! It was a good thing I wasn't planning on using any notes, since the show format required that we have nothing on the table where we seated. I couldn't look into the camera, I'm afraid. I asked where it was and learned there were several, with the main recording being done by one of the program's staff....and she was moving around. I could catch the monitor display of the three of us out of the corner of my eye, but I didn't really want to be distracted by it. I know the views I presented were some of our best, but Africk was practiced at touching upon multiple subjects in one response. I believe I aggressively rebutted the majority of them in the time allowed. I do believe the show turned out to be a little intense.....but the subject of a ban and SHS are difficult to address in a blasé manner.

One thing I am sure about, once I see this discussion, I will be better able to prepare for the next one. I need to see what we did. Hope I don't want to crawl in a hole after watching it!!! Heartland told me that they get other requests for pro-smoking advocates to make appearances...I'm on their list now! Ralph Conner, Heartland, said it was time the antis learned who I was. It had to happen sooner or later.

Garnet Dawn

Sep 21, 2005
Group says ban on smoking will improve health - Dekalb,IL

Another city to keep an eye on........

Garnet Dawn
Updated Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Group says ban on smoking will improve health
DeKalb council will hear next from bar, restaurant owners

By Aracely Hernandez - Staff Writer

DeKALB - The city council heard from a group Monday that wants to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places, and next month the council is expected to hear from an opposing group that wants to preserve residents' right to light up.

The DeKalb Smoke-Free Coalition, an offshoot of the city's Citizens' Environmental Commission, gave the city council its findings on why DeKalb should ban smoking in public places. The coalition emphasizes the dangers that come from inhaling secondhand smoke, such as lung disease.

But after an hour-long presentation, aldermen said it's only fair to hear from the opposition - bar and restaurant owners.

Kim Knowlton, co-owner of KJ's Tap and Grill, said she and other bar owners are working with the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association to bring forth information on why a smoking ban ordinance should not be passed.

"I don't think (the coalition) covered all their bases," she said.

James Grosklags, chairman of the antismoking coalition, said the group surveyed DeKalb residents and Northern Illinois University students in December. The survey found that 80 percent of DeKalb residents are not smokers and 75 percent ask to be seated in nonsmoking sections in restaurants. Grosklags said 73 percent of students ask to be served in nonsmoking sections.

The group, which also is working with the American Lung Association, cited studies that purported to show how smoking bans improved a city's health. They said that in Helena, Mont., there was a 58 percent reduction in heart attacks from June to December 2004, the first six months that an antismoking ordinance was in place.

Grosklags said he personally doesn't know if his lungs have been affected by secondhand smoke, but said he is motivated in pursuing the adoption of the ordinance to protect the health of people who work in bars and restaurants, as well as other nonsmokers.

He said people get sick and die from lung disease.

"Why are they unprotected from these dangers?" he asked.

Studies of the financial impact of smoking bans show that in California, sales and employment grew during the first six months of the statewide smoking ban, and in Florida, restaurant revenues have increased.

Grosklags said the positives of antismoking laws include a reduction in the number of high school-aged children who smoke. In California, smoking by high school students went from 21.6 percent in 2000 to 13.2 percent in 2004.

He said some people who call themselves "social" smokers wouldn't smoke if the environment wasn't conducive to the behavior.

Sycamore's city council decided in July not to take any action toward restricting smoking in the city's restaurants and bars. Aldermen said a smoking ordinance could hurt local businesses and infringe on the rights of patrons and business owners to make their own decisions about smoking. They also had concerns that an antismoking ordinance would be difficult to enforce.

The council is expected to hear from bar owners at an October meeting before making any decision on an ordinance banning smoking in all or some public places.

Aracely Hernandez can be reached at .

Sep 19, 2005
Smoking Ban Poll Studies: Melman Group and Madison, WI

Time to become acquainted with enemies of freedom......

Here is a copy of the home page for the Melman Group. Same policies as Fako & Associates. Not exactly a corporation where you would choose to entrust your personal liberty choices or even trust them to park your car!!! Look at their PR strategy!!! Not political....much! This is last ditch strategy for the antis before their funding treasuries run out of cash.

Yes, Chamberlain definitely put a chink in their armor, once able to get past the unfounded Big Tobacco funding accusations. The antis are truly fighting a nasty war, using every battle strategy available.

Garnet Dawn

"Develop superior strategies using sophisticated research to find messages that influence consumer and voter choice.

How do people make complex decisions? Do people really choose a Senator the same way they choose an airline or an investment bank? What drives consumers to choose Pepsi instead of Coke, or contribute to one organization over another?

If you understand how people think, you can shape opinion and change behavior. The power to effect change is well within your reach: the key is effective message development.

At The Mellman Group, we find the messages that influence the decisions of consumers and voters because we combine the most advanced research techniques with a superior command of strategy. It is a powerful combination, proven to help clients around the world gain real advantage and win tough battles in highly competitive environments."

Sep 19, 2005
Letter to the Editor: Armed with results of poll, smoking foes push anew for ban

One more try with the Sun Times.......

Letter to the Editor:
cc: Fran Spielman

RE: Armed with results of poll, smoking foes push anew for ban

Your story, (below) quoting poll statistics of the "majority" opinion of Chicagoans in reaction the proposed Chicago smoking ban was very informative. However, it would be far more interesting and helpful for you to supply more details regarding the actual poll, size of the poll, the demographics of those polled and a reproduction of the questions actually used in the poll questionnaire.

We have had two recent polls by Fako & Associates in Springfield, IL and Madison, WI whose validity and impartially have been questioned. If the public is to accept these figures about the proposed smoking ban, they should be able to openly examine the basis for these "supposedly" reliable results themselves. I would like to learn the details that have been omitted.

Statements regarding citizens opinions, compiled by the American Cancer Society, do not always seem represent the opinion of the true majority. It appears that the ACS has a vested interest in promoting smoking bans, in order to maintain their massive financial holdings. Even if they are accurate in this case, then this question still remains: How is it possible for our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Private Property Rights to be resolved with smoking bans?

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

September 16, 2005
Armed with results of poll, smoking foes push anew for ban

Anti-smoking advocates tried to light a fire under Mayor Daley and the City Council Thursday with a new poll that shows what they call a "clear mandate" to ban smoking in virtually all of indoor Chicago.

Sixty percent of registered Chicago voters favor a blanket smoking ban that would include restaurants, bars, workplaces and public spaces and 75 percent view secondhand smoke as a serious threat to their health, according to the poll commissioned by the American Cancer Society.

Three out of five respondents say non-smoking sections in restaurants and bars do not provide enough protection from secondhand smoke. Ninety percent of both smokers and non-smokers surveyed said they would dine out as often or more often if Chicago restaurants went smoke-free.

The poll of 601 registered Chicago voters by Fako & Associates was conducted Aug. 21-23 -- after the lung cancer death of longtime ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings and the surprise lung cancer diagnosis of the widow of actor Christopher Reeve. Dana Reeve was not a smoker. The poll has a 4 percent margin of error.

'2,900 will die'

"Chicagoans are sick of being exposed to sickening secondhand smoke. They want this ordinance passed. They support candidates who support this public policy position. They're demanding it. There's a lot of momentum around this," said Steve Derks, CEO of the American Cancer Society.

Derks acknowledged that a similar poll three years ago had no effect on the City Council. But he said the "world has changed" since then and the anti-smoking bandwagon has gained steam.

"Entire countries have gone smoke-free. Entire states in the U.S. All of the largest metropolitan areas in the country have gone smoke-free. Here in Chicago, we are closer than we have ever been in the City Council to a comprehensive ordinance and a positive vote," he said.

Dr. James Webster, Daley's handpicked president of the Chicago Board of Health, said he can't explain why the mayor hasn't signed on to the ordinance and why he blocked a smoking ban confined to bars and restaurants three years ago.

"Twenty-nine hundred people will die this year and every year of secondhand smoke. It's a major public health issue that should be dealt with now. The fifth floor of City Hall [the mayor's office] knows my views on this very well. As for why he has or has not done this, you'd have to ask him," he said.

Asked Thursday about results of the new poll, Daley once again talked about trying to find a compromise that would exempt free-standing neighborhood bars and well-ventilated bars attached to restaurants.

"Every restaurant can ban smoking now and you can ban smoking in your business. Did you know that?" the mayor said.

"They are trying to figure out [a compromise] dealing with bars that have smoking and dealing with the health of people who are in there and safety and things like that. That's what they're trying to work out."

Fran Spielman

Sep 17, 2005
Chicago Hospitality Associations & Link to study "The Majority of Chicagoans Prefer Smoke-Free Restaurants"

Isn't there a Chicago "Hospitality Alliance" or "Bar Owners Assn" or anything? I haven't seen anything of them here.


Hi Michael,

Chicago has two powerful associations assisting with providing defense for the hospitality industry.

First, The Illinois Restaurant Association , Colleen McShane. (See IRA link on Illinois Smokers Rights - She has never responded personally to any of my letters, but did have her assistant phone me once before we were both due to interview with the same AP reporter on Peoria.

The other is ILBA (Illinois Licensed Beverage Association), Steve Riedl. (Also linked on my website) Steve did respond personally to my last letter to Chicago VP's on the smoking ban issue, to assure me that they are all coordinating their best resources to defeat it. I have their e-mail you do too!!!

I'm sure there are smaller associations also. However, the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the Midwest Public Affairs Group and Heartland Institute were the three that hosted the Tobacco Summit III this past summer. However, only the Chamber and Midwest Public Affairs groups can testify in the council meetings because Heartland is a non-profit organization.

That's a start anyway...... I think we can take apart their poll, but I need to look in my files. I have a study from about a year ago, saved on popular opinions about smoking in Chicago, and how antis attempted to manipulate the numbers before.....they even tried moving the online links, but I found them again. I believe these are the statistics the antis are referencing....note the statistics are now five years old and the "opinions" are gleaned from other publications.

It is entitled "The Epidemiology of Cigarette Smoking in Chicago" and references that "the majority of Chicagoans prefer smoke free restaurants." The .pdf file is .


September 2005
ALBA'S POSITION ON SMOKING (Arizona Licenced Beverage Association, Inc.)

"ALBA has represented the interests of Arizona retailers in many controversial issues for decades. In the past ten years or so, the issue of smoking in public places has been one of the most contentious. In that time, society has changed, and ALBA has changed along with it. We take this opportunity to set forth our position today.

We begin with this premise: property rights were and remain the foundation of American society. Property rights distinguish us from failed societies that refused to recognize these important rights. We therefore will remain steadfast in our determination that property owners and business people have a right to control their property and their business.

We recognize that liquor retailers do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of, and dependent upon, the larger society around them, and therefore must act responsibly in all they do. We support the actions of responsible retailers as they provide services to the public, create jobs for workers who want them, and pay taxes and fees to fund the various programs which society, through its several layers of government, have determined are necessary or desirable.

We recognize that there are many people of good will who are devotedly anti-smoking. Many retailers cater to that segment of the population, and we applaud them for it. We certainly understand that many non-smokers simply do not want to be around smoking odors, finding them offensive, and that others believe, rightly or wrongly, that incidental secondhand smoke is an actual health danger to them.

We also recognize that there are many people who are anti-smoking zealots, who are funded by an anti-smoking industry, that have created controversy where there need be none. We further recognize that there has been enough obfuscation, half-truths, and overt fabrication by motivated people on both sides of the secondhand smoke issue that it is difficult or impossible for reasonable people of good faith to make principled decisions based on fact.

We believe, however, that every adult know two things: First, smoking is bad for you. Second, being around smoke from others is distasteful to many people and may be harmful.

In spite of that knowledge, adults will continue to smoke and hang out in smoky places, just as adults will continue to engage in other kinds of risky lawful behavior, some of which is occupational (firefighters, coal miners, race car drivers) and some is essentially pleasurable (skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving). We must ask why smoking, and the businesses who cater to smokers, are singled out for such organized opposition when other kinds of risky activities are not. We suspect it is simply because there is an anti-smoking industry, while there is not an anti-skydiving industry.

We believe the best control is that exercised by business people responding to their customers. Whether that is the entertainment provided, the lighting, the drinks poured, the food served, or whether food is served at all, these and more are the means with which retailers distinguish themselves from one another. Smoking policy is another such factor that business people should be able to use to carve out a niche in the market.

Many establishments have already voluntarily gone non-smoking to attract customers. If government forces everyone to go non-smoking, those establishments lose their competitive edge. Why would the anti-smoking industry wish to harm those people who voluntarily adopted their position?

Although we continue to believe this should be left to the business owner’s discretion, we recognize that the political winds simply do not allow for such a result. The anti-smoking industry has deceived city councils and voters to believe voting against public smoking is voting against tobacco companies. The politics of voting against tobacco companies is easy. Council members see only upside; the fact that liquor retailers are hurt amounts to acceptable collateral damage.

ALBA has therefore reluctantly accepted the necessity of compromise. We have tried to do so by discerning the general public sentiment, which we believe is the following: Smoking in dining areas or places where unaccompanied minors can go should be prohibited, but smoking in bars, including accessory bars and service clubs, should be permitted. We recognize that there is some ambiguity in some establishments between what are the dining areas and what are not. The extremes are easy to define: smoking in a fast food restaurant would be prohibited, but smoking in the neighborhood bar would be allowed. As you get away from those extremes, the issue becomes more uncertain. Is a sports bar a bar or a restaurant? If a restaurant has an island bar, how is that handled? How should the two areas be separated?

Those are the kinds of questions that reasonable people can both disagree about and come to a compromise. Unfortunately, the other side of this issue refuses to compromise, or at best they consider delay in implementing their extreme views as compromise. We feel that given our beliefs, we have compromised as far as we can go with the position that we are taking.

About a quarter of the adult population smokes, but bar owners know that the percentage of their patrons who smoke is much higher. The same is true for bar employees. It is because of these unique characteristics that it is important to fight for the ability to serve smoking customers, and that the anti-smoking industry’s arguments that they are trying to protect workers is utter hogwash."

Arizona Licensed Beverage Association
500 East Thomas Rd., Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone (602) 285-1092 Fax (602) 285-1258

Sep 15, 2005
New Links and "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

I have just added two new links to my Illinois Smokers Rights website. They are both recent economic studies and very interesting. The first study addresses California losses from their smoking ban, by David Kuneman and Michael McFadden. The second is about New York by Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd. The links are: (originally published on the Smokers Club Newsletter) and . They are not difficult to read and are both real eye-openers!!!

Also, this group has grown wonderfully and TREMENDOUSLY in the last couple of months and this is an important thing, particularly because of the Antis' push in Chicago: they'll be very hard to beat and we're going to need all the smarts and all the people and all the energy we can get to even have a hope.

While moderating the group I've noticed there's a lot of energy being spent by lots of folks in "re-inventing the wheel" and I'd like to make a suggestion that might help with that. Mike McFadden has been fighting the antismokers for the past 30 years and his book, "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains", is probably the most readable compendium of ideas and information all gathered and organized in one place that I've seen. Any new folks who haven't read it yet should definitely pop over to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or his website and order a copy: it'll make your work a LOT easier and make us all more effective as a group."

Garnet Dawn

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Sep 14, 2005
Portland, ME - Councilor calls for smoke-free trails

This is the topic Michael Siegel addressed today in his blog at , called "Portland (Maine) to Consider Banning Outdoor Smoking along Back Cove and Promenades". It's a must read!!!

Please note that Darlene Brennan was quoted in the news story below:
"If they don't want to see smokers, ban (cigarettes) and repeal the tax," said Darlene Brennan, director of Maine Smokers Rights. "They want smoke-free, but they want our tax dollars. They can't have it both ways."
I had my comment published too and also asked others to contribute! There are quite a few great comments about this article!! - Garnet Dawn
Garnet Dawn of Lake Bluff, IL
Sep 14, 2005 8:30 PM

MIKE DITKA, of Chicago, IL has supplied the best idea to date for ending the smoking controversies. Outdoor terrible! Ban it!!! How about at the bottom of the ocean....ban it!!!

We need to eliminate the hypocrisies over smoking. I completely agree with all the smoke haters, not about another ban, but about ELIMINATING SMOKING TOTALLY. Why go half way with this ban? Let's begin legislation to make cigarettes and tobacco illegal world wide! Let's settle this once and for all!

Why take half measures at destroying hospitality industries over the world and stigmatizing smokers? With all the bogus claims that smoking is so deadly, let's finally do this right! Then, we will all have smoke free air, not CLEAN air, but smoke-free air. There IS a major difference between the two. That is the ultimate goal of the anti-tobacco lobby, isn't it?

We all know how well Prohibition of alcohol worked early in the twentieth century. Let's do it again, but with tobacco this time. Then all the smokers can just be arrested and placed in smoke free jails, at non-smoking tax payers' expense.

Forget about our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and private property rights or lifestyle right-to-choice! They are already being ignored....Come on America, get off the fence!

Since the majority seem to believe in the evils of smoking so intensely, stop taking half measures. It's time for the cities, counties, states and the federal government to stop depending on revenues from cigarettes smokers. Illegalize tobacco! Then, not only the smokers and private businesses will be feeling the negative effects of smoking bans. Levy new taxes across the board to make 100% of tax payers shoulder the load for our government!

Eliminate all those costs that smokers are supposed to be inflicting on health care. End all this senseless waste of time for legislators debating smoking bans. Let our politicians return to performing what their real functions are supposed to be.

The CDC, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association and all the rest of the smoke hating Anti-Tobacco Industry can return to finding causes and cures for cancer and heart disease with the remaining funding they can scrape together, after losing their tobacco generated revenues and grants.

The anti-smoking hoards will no longer be inconvenienced by tobacco smoke and cigarette butts...they can worry about all the other unsightly litter that is dropped everywhere. Come on USA, put your money where your mouth is! A new bigger and better black market and improved source of funding for terrorists will be created, but you won't have to smell tobacco smoke any more or worry about it polluting the universe. Isn't this what the "health extremists", with all their half truths, have been preaching for the last 40 years? We will finally have zero tolerance for smokers!
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Rights -
Councilor calls for smoke-free trails

By KELLEY BOUCHARD, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

Portland City Councilor Peter O'Donnell remembers inhaling a cloud of cigarette smoke as he jogged the Eastern Promenade on a Sunday morning.

"A guy was standing there," O'Donnell said, "a Styrofoam cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other."

It happens often enough, judging from complaints O'Donnell has heard from other runners, that he wants to put a stop to it. On Monday, the City Council will consider his proposal to ban smoking on recreational trails along the Eastern and Western proms and Back Cove. The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. at City Hall.

The ban would expand on state laws against smoking in public buildings, restaurants and bars. It also would augment a council resolution, passed last year, that designated city athletic facilities, playgrounds and assembly areas "tobacco-free zones," where signs discourage smoking.

So far, O'Donnell's proposal is getting mixed reviews. It puts Portland into a growing national debate over efforts to curb outdoor smoking and whether it poses a significant public health risk.
O'Donnell figures the ban has "less than a good chance" of being approved because several councilors believe it cannot be enforced. Still, he wants to have a conversation about the issue and find out whether the public agrees with him. At the very least, he'd like the city to put up signs to discourage smoking on recreational trails.

"It makes no sense trying to support and encourage working the cardiovascular system where people are smoking and putting carcinogens into the air," O'Donnell said.

Runners along Back Cove on Tuesday questioned the need for the ban, although some support the idea.

"I think it's a good idea, but you run along (Interstate 295), so you're probably getting as many carcinogens from that as you would running by a smoker," said Jody Costa of Falmouth, who runs along Back Cove at least three times a week.

Jeffrey Ellis of Portland, who runs along Back Cove three or four times a week, said O'Donnell's proposal is unnecessary. A confessed smoker who'd like to quit, he'd rather see cigarettes banned altogether.

He doesn't recall seeing people smoke on the trail, but if they do, he believes they have a right to be there.

"It's here for everybody," he said.

O'Donnell's proposal calls for fines of $50 to $250 per violation, after an initial warning. The ordinance would be enforced by the police and parks and recreation departments. City officials say neither department has the staff to dedicate to smoking patrols.

The 12-member Healthy Portland Coalition unanimously endorsed the ban a week ago and a member is expected to speak in favor of the proposal on Monday. The coalition's mission is to promote healthy eating, physical activity and quitting smoking. Portland Trails' board of trustees is expected to discuss the outcome of O'Donnell's proposal when it meets on Sept. 21.

"I think it's an intriguing idea," said Nan Cumming, a coalition member who is executive director of Portland Trails. "It's right in line with (the coalition's) goals. But we, too, wondered about enforcement. Still, we thought it would be good to encourage people not to smoke and remind people that it's not a healthy thing."

Some smokers see O'Donnell's proposal as another attempt to infringe on their right to engage in a legal activity. They dispute health concerns about secondhand smoke outdoors. They look at the recent state budget, funded with help from a $1-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax, and wonder when the restrictions are going to stop.

"If they don't want to see smokers, ban (cigarettes) and repeal the tax," said Darlene Brennan, director of Maine Smokers Rights. "They want smoke-free, but they want our tax dollars. They can't have it both ways."

Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
Smoke Out

MAINE'S SMOKING BANS date back to the 1970s, when then-Gov. Kenneth Curtis ordered no-smoking areas throughout state buildings and the Portland City Council prohibited smoking at all public meetings at City Hall.

IN 1989, Maine became the first state in the nation to ban smoking in hospitals. Four years later, Maine banned smoking in all enclosed public spaces, except bars and taverns.

IN 2004, Maine became the fifth state to ban smoking in all indoor public places. This year, private clubs were required to vote on going smoke-free.

TO REPORT a violation of Maine's smoking laws, call the Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine at 1-800-560-5269. To get help with quitting, call the Maine Tobacco Hotline at 1-800-207-1230.

Sep 14, 2005
Cigarette prices could double in California

Are these people insane? Their greed knows no limits. Previous tax increase successes on cigarettes have made legislators and the tobacco control industry brave and reckless in requesting further increases. I hope this will be the one that will break the "camel's" to speak.

Garnet Dawn
Cigarette prices could double in California

Scripps-McClatchy Western Service

VENTURA, Calif. -- With tobacco tax dollars dwindling as more California smokers quit, health groups want to pass new taxes that would double the price of a pack of cigarettes to almost $6.

State officials say the numbers tell the story.

California voters passed Proposition 99 in the late 1980s to pay for research, health education against tobacco and healthcare for indigent families.

But statewide revenues from that tax of 25 cents per pack have fallen from $575 million in the early 1990s to $321 million in the current year as the proportion of smoking adults slid to historic lows.

Proposition 10, passed in 1998, funded an early childhood initiative promoted by Hollywood director Rob Reiner. The cigarette tax went up an additional 50 cents when voters approved the proposition.

But the tax that brought in $686 million in 1999 is expected to produce only $593 million this year even as the state Legislature has pushed tougher enforcement against cigarette smuggling, counterfeiting and tax evasion.

It's a decline that promoters are applauding in the sense that the higher taxes may have deterred smoking, but now some advocates are looking to supplement those levies with new taxes on tobacco.

The California Hospital Association plans to put an initiative on the ballot next year that would place a $1.50 tax on each package of cigarettes, most of it for emergency room care. Another organization, the Coalition for a Healthy California, is seeking a tax of $1 a pack for various education, health and enforcement programs. Combined, the two taxes would nearly double the price of a package of cigarettes.

Gary Wilde, CEO of Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, said California emergency rooms could certainly use the proceeds from new taxes.

"I don't know if it should come out of the hide of smokers, but there really is a need in California hospitals with growing numbers of indigent patients using the ER as their primary source for healthcare," he said.

Jan Emerson, spokeswoman for the California Hospital Association, said the measure would raise $1.4 billion a year on top of the roughly $1 billion that tobacco taxes now generate in California.

"Tobacco-related diseases are a huge burden on hospital ERs: people who have strokes, heart attacks, heart disease, all those come to the ERs and add to the burden," Emerson said. "All of us pay for that. We're trying to create a situation where the people that add to the ER's problems pay for it."

While other habits such as alcohol also contribute to health problems, tobacco taxes are a hit with voters. Emerson said the California Hospital Association has looked at other possibilities, but polling shows cigarette taxes will fly. She noted that an effort to raise money for emergency services with a tax on in-state phone calls failed in 2004.

"We believe this is the measure that has the best chance of success," she said. "There's strong voter support for this."

She said more than $900 million would go to hospitals to cover the costs of operating emergency rooms, with the rest devoted to nursing education, tobacco and breast cancer programs, law enforcement to prevent tobacco smuggling, and administrative costs.

About $100 million would go toward existing tobacco-funded programs that have lost revenues.

Critics say tobacco taxes pass for one simple reason.

"Everybody likes the taxes on somebody else," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Smokers compose only about 15 percent of the adult population, according to the state Department of Health Services.

Critics say there's a point of diminishing returns with cigarette taxes. To avoid them, some people buy them elsewhere: from the Internet, through the mail or in other states. The state Board of Equalization says tough enforcement has cut down on such problems.

Still, the agency estimates that $54 million is lost annually to such sources and almost $250 million to counterfeiting.

"Smoking is probably the worst habit in the world," handyman Greg Murphy said as he took a cigarette break Monday at the Ventura County Government Center. "If they made the tax so expensive no one could smoke, they'd probably stop."

(Contact Kathleen Wilson of the Ventura County Star in California at .)

Sep 13, 2005
Re: Senior Citizens, ACLU and AARP

From my own personal attempts, I have learned that AARP and ACLU have refused to involve themselves in general smoking issues....or at least refuse to respond to personal inquiries and requests for support on smoking bans and taxes.

In my opinion, ACLU's position is completely contrary to my beliefs because they do not respect our Bill of Rights any more than the smoking ban advocates, since they support legislation to control hiring practices for individual businesses (personal property rights). This is not acceptable from a Libertarian perspective.

I hope we are addressing smoking issues at the moment. The ACLU will only take a stand on hiring discrimination (as in Weyco), but have bounced me around endlessly with their automated replies. Each time I sent a letter to a newly referenced ACLU addy, I received another automated message. I do not believe one set of human eyes ever laid eyes on any of my letters.

AARP harassed my mother for years, and now they have begun to target me. I'm not impressed. If you like the discounts AARP can offer.....go for it. Do not turn to them to defend smokers rights!! I have yet to notice any real benefits offered from membership to AARP that I couldn't improve upon elsewhere. As for the ACLU, check out their politics before you write a check for your annual membership fee........

Sep 12, 2005
Re: [illinoissmokers] senior citizens

AARP will take no position on smoking issues. They are there to collect membership fees. Neither will the ACLU.

I've written enough unanswered letters to them. They will both sit this one out......that's why I've dropped my membership to the ACLU this year. The issue is just too controversial for AARP and the ACLU has, what they consider to be, better applications for memebership fees. That is one of the reasons I will never join AARP. Don't count on either organization to take a stand.

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005
Subject: Re: [illinoissmokers] senior citizens

Bet it would depend a lot on what position the AARP takes.
Being only 1 yr. from 'sr' myself, it's important to me.

Lynda Farley
Sep 12, 2005
Ashtrays in Autos - This is insane! (illinoissmokers)

Hi Alexandra,

First, welcome to the Group. Thank you for your post, updating us on standard equipment in new autos.

The manufacturers have found a new way to generate mark-ups on autos..... Great!!! First, the ashtrays became smaller, then they were moved to inconvenient NOTHING. So clever of them to take advantage of a social issue to turn a profit! Even non-smokers use ashtrays for toll change or other small items. It's really disgraceful......I will love it when I see the news story about standard autos packages no longer containing battery charging accessories without an upgrade.

Here is something more, on a closely related topic, because I grew angry about being rented a non-smoking auto in Orlando, FL a couple of years ago. Once again, no one asks your preference. However, if you are tenacious, the various corporate policies can be determined. I did a survey of national auto rental agencies' smoking policies. Even some of the responses were contradictory and documents the differences between Customer Service/Public Relations and the agent you have to cope with when you rent a car. The results are at

Take care,

Sep 11, 2005
Big Pharma's Involvement with Anti Groups

Hi Lynda,

Go to Forces and use their Google search function for "Big Pharma". Do the same at Smokers Club, Inc. You will be amazed at the extensively involved relationships the anti-smoking industry and the pharmaceutical giants have. Here is a little info for you to whet your appetite.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) does have significant financial holdings in Johnson & Johnson worth just a shade over $5.4 billion dollars ("the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson common stock"). Johnson & Johnson distributes nicotine inhalers and patches under the Nicotrol name brand through its subsidiary McNeil Consumer Products. - Garnet

Sep 11, 2005
Champaign City Council Meeting

Hi Allen,

I wonder if the attendees at the council meeting go into a stupor after a while. I've heard how they sit there just nodding their heads during the speakers' presentations. I'm not going to try to advise you which studies to choose for our defense in Champaign, because you have so many great ones to choose from.

I would think the best thing to do initially is grab their attention, in the meeting, and wake them up with some good, easy to remember sound bites. I think you are approaching the meeting partially from a ventilation standpoint. How about using "Smoke free air is NOT clean air " to lead into your ventilation and SHS studies from Jenkins.

A good one for the economic perspective would be: "The hospitality industry in the city of Dallas lost $11.7 million in revenue during the first 9 months their smoking ban was in effect from March to December 2004."

I think I already gave you the quote from Carol Schwartz, Washington, D.C. Councilwoman, but here it is again with a link to the Smokers Club story, where you may find it along with the rest of her historic speech this past June:

"It had just never occurred to me that I could simply choose to ban a legal choice for consenting adults in a private place where the public does not have to go, and where workers do not have to work, and then get six other people to agree – and then just do it."

Another catchy phrase would be this one (it is new to me) and I can't take credit for it, but Anti-smoking prohibitionists have a habit of snapping at pro-choice smoking advocates: "Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins." To which I respond, "Your nasal rights end where the restaurant property begins."

Maybe even a good quotation wouldn't hurt......Accuse the ban supporters of striking blows at the very principles upon which our government was founded.)

Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
... Abraham Lincoln ( December 1840)
You don't have to use any of them, but they are there if you want them! Good luck!

Garnet Dawn

September 09, 2005

To: Mayor Richard M. Daley
Alderman William M. Beavers
Colleen McShane, IL Restaurant Association
Mr. Steve Riedl, Illinois Licensed Beverage Assoc.
Mr. Mike Ditka



I hope the following statistics may be helpful for opposition to the proposed Chicago smoking ban in the upcoming Chicago City Council meeting.

This economic impact study from the Dallas Restaurant Association last December, shows a loss of $11.7 million in Dallas restaurants over the first nine months after their smoking ban was enacted. Since Dallas and Chicago have more than a few similarities, this could be helpful.

Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Rights - - Respect Freedom of Choice!
December 7, 2004
Study says smoking ban caused restaurants to lose money

Sales of alcoholic beverages have declined by $11.7 million in Dallas restaurants since the city instituted a smoking ban, according to an economic impact study commissioned by Dallas restaurant owners.

The Greater Dallas Restaurant Association on Monday released the survey to its members. The survey was conducted by Bernard Weinstein and Terry Clower, professors of economics at the University of North Texas.

The study shows that since March 1, 2003 when the ban was instituted, suburban cities saw alcoholic beverage receipts increase. The study also showed there have been several restaurant closings and a reported loss of revenue at many Dallas restaurants from the smoking ban.

"Unfortunately, the findings in this report are consistent with what we expected would happen when the city banned smoking in Dallas restaurants," said Tracey Evers, executive director of the restaurant association. "The findings are consistent with what happened in Carrollton and Plano when those cities initially banned smoking."
Evers said both cities later repealed the bans.

Mark Maguire, immediate past president of the association, said the group will continue to monitor the impact the smoking ban has on its members, and plan to have future conversations with Dallas officials.

The Greater Dallas Restaurant Association has more than 1,000 members. The group promotes growth of the restaurant industry by providing educational programs, public awareness campaigns, and grass-roots government affairs initiatives.

Web site:© 2004 American City Business Journals Inc