WE NEED HELP!
ILLINOIS SMOKING BAN
NOW EXTENDED TO SENIOR APARTMENTS?
I received the following letter yesterday. This is another example of the wide-spread evil effects from SB500, The Smoke Free Illinois Act. Our elected officials in the Illinois Assembly need to be exposed for their real and hurtful accomplishments with this smoking ban, and the Tobacco Control bullies also need to have their "public altruism" masks removed to show what they really are doing to society. Is this any way to treat our seniors?

We're all growing older every year, ourselves. Would you want to be treated this way? Think about it!!! Contact me if you have any suggestions or resources to help.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
----------------------------------------------------
We need help!

Senior citizen's health is being compromised by the new Illinois smoking bans. Most of us have smoked 50-70 years, and have no desire to stop. But we are being forced outside in rain, wind, snow, ice and all other conditions to enjoy our cigarette.We are forced to move 15 feet or more from the building, by the Illinois law. Most of us have disabilities not related to smoking.

We are talking about seniors, age 65 and older. Most are very unsteady on their feet anyway, depending on canes, walkers and wheel chairs to get around at all...even in good weather. There will be an increased danger of falls and pneumonia, and other respiratory problems as a result of this law.

The extra taxes on cigarettes also forces us to cut back on food and other necessities to afford to buy our cigarettes..

We know that the problem is not just local, but a small group of us seniors are trying to fight back. It has also happened in several nursing homes and assisted living centers here locally , as well as in the independent living apartment we are in.

In our case, we are low income, HUD-subsidized housing, but they are independent living apartments, not assisted living. We live in the Westfield Manor Apartments in Belleville Illinois. These apartments are owned by Lutheran Senior Services, but have a PRAC 202 contact with HUD to rent to low-income seniors. Smoking has always been allowed in these apartments, but this year they decided to go Non-smoking on us, starting Nov 1, 2007.... Illinois law clearly states that we can smoke in our private apartments. HUD says they have no policy about smoking, but that House rules must abide by State laws, including laws on smoking. Yet, we are being forced outside, 15 feet from doorways and windows, no shelter or protection from wind rain, ice, or etc.

There are 62 apartments in our building. 16 of us are smokers. Several other non-smoking residents also agree that we should be allowed to continue smoking in our apartments. I am the youngest at age 69. The others are between the ages of 72 and 91 years old. None of us are in perfect health at this age, and there are so few things left for us to enjoy. Stopping smoking at our age is not going to extend our lives, but the stress and hassle we are going thru, and going outside in all kinds of weather is sure to shorten it for us.

Here at Westfield Manor Apartments, they discriminate against smokers by making house rules that they can invade our privacy with searches of our apartments any time of the day or night without previous notice, threaten us with eviction, and have tried financial exploitation to force us to pay to have carpets replaced, walls painted and even claiming refrigerators and stoves will have to be replaced. They tell us that this will have to be done at our expense. We don't understand how cigarette smoke can harm stoves and etc, any more than regular cooking does. Two to Four years in an apartment , carpets will get dirty, and walls will have to be cleaned. That is normal wear and tear.

The HUD contract says the walls and carpets are to be clean when someone new moves in anyway, and I can't say for sure, but I have also been told that it also states that walls are to be painted every 5 years, and carpets replaced every 5-9 years, depending on the condition of the carpet. I think this is to be done at the builder owner's expense.

Moving is not an option for most of us. There is no other place for us to go. We have sought legal council, Management responded with a lawyer of their own, to try to force us outside to smoke or force us to move. What should be our next step???

Edna
Belleville Illinois 62223

---

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/acs_letter_07.html

Illinois Smokers Rights
Post Office Box 408
Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044

December 12, 2007

Open Letter to the American Cancer Society Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Illinois Health Claims

Dear American Cancer Society, a.k.a. Smoke Free Illinois;
cc: Senators and Representative for Illinois General Assembly, Illinois News Media

The Smoke Free Illinois Act (SB500) for Illinois has been based upon health claims from the American Cancer Society. On behalf of Illinois Smokers Rights, the two million eight hundred thousand smokers and the thousands of small businesses who will be affected, I am requesting clarification and validation for those health claims. To institute this invasive and extreme smoking ban, the public needs to learn if any concrete evidence can be provided to validate these claims. A law of this magnitude, with wide-spread social impact and based upon ACS epidemiological studies, needs to be documented for public review and shared in understandable format.

Reports containing computer generated statistics of mortalities and illness are not sufficient. Also insufficient are the previous Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 Press Release, Executive Summary, or quotes which did not reflect the contents of his 700-plus page smoking report. Dr. Carmona's report simply rehashed previous Surgeon General claims and republished previous Tobacco Control studies which had never been able to document any conclusions more definite than finding a "casual relationship" between Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and health threats.

One particular abuse example for this fully justifiable request to require accurate documentation for Illinois tobacco-smoke-health-threats, claimed by the ACS, tobacco control agencies and our Illinois elected representatives, is the currently distorted Sixteen Cigarettes claim: Smoke Free Illinois at http://www.smokefreeillinois.net/info.php "One eight hour shift in a smoky workplace is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes." (In actuality, the equivalent is approximately 1/5 cigarette.) Why the need to be deceptive?

An in-depth study analyzing the dangers from ETS was published to help fuel the promotion of smoking bans in all enclosed establishments, including bars and restaurants. That study proved that measurable amounts of n-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) could be found in side stream smoke from cigarettes and was published, not identifying the offending carcinogen or placing it in proportion with similar amounts also contained in our water, food, and other common substances. "The poison is in the dose"!

The American Cancer Society has implied through incomplete references that breathing in an environment containing (or that has contained) second hand smoke, is the same thing as actively smoking. This leaves 98% of those who have listened to current ETS health dogma misinformed. While the scientific community defends themselves by saying that even attempting to explain the epidemiology of second hand smoke would not be practical for public consumption. (From Dr. Stanton Glantz [ANR]: "...We cannot include the caveats because the public cannot understand them..." )

The bulk of blame still remains upon the manner in which ETS statistical findings have been originally presented and manipulated. Most were intended to create smoking bans. This distortion has been perpetrated by tobacco control with full intention of deceiving and creating false health claims.

Until a public statement or press release making visible and crystal clear the distortions of "16 cigarette" claims to laymen, elected officials and the news media, the intentionally deceptive damage cannot even begin to be reversed. The public is being terrorized by phony health claims, and needs clarification that n-Nitrosodimethylamine is the referenced element for the "16 cigarette" media blitz, and that NDMA is another common carcinogen and threatens us most seriously in our drinking water and food supply.

Solid proof is required for Illinois (or any other US governing body) to justify bending our US Constitutional Republic's governmental framework and dismissing the protected liberties in several of its Amendments. The Smoke Free Illinois Act basically ignores our First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Considering the serious state-wide repercussions from this law, justification is required, not vague interpretations of "causal association" health threats.

In addition, ACS financial ties with nicotine replacement products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, who hope to increase sales because of this ban, should also be published to avoid misrepresentation of charitable interests and to supply full and honest disclosure to interested parties.

Therefore, Illinois Smokers Rights, Illinois residents and the Illinois news media need to be supplied with actual documented identities of those injured or killed for The Smoke Free Illinois Act to be legitimately recognized.

Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044

###
CONTACT INFORMATION: Garnet Dawn
Illinois Smokers Rights
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto: garnetdawn@comcast.net
Midwest Regional Director
The Smoker's Club, Inc.
http://www.smokersclub.com
Media Interview Requests
http://www.smokersclubmedia.com/pr/pr051707.html

---

CHICAGO BACK DOOR POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION?

No More Smoking in Chicago Park District - 10-17-07

"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)

Mayor Daley cityclerk@cityofchicago.org is the Chicago elected official who appoints the Chicago Park District's seven member board. He is the person to contact in objection to this new Park/Beach ban, along with Timothy J. Mitchell http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/contact.home.cfm .

The Park District does not have to answer to Chicago voters. Since the City Council would have received so much feedback, it was a clever move to let an appointed board make the decision to ban smoking along Chicago's beaches and in public parks.

Of course, in the news story below and published by the Chicago Park District, not only the "litter" excuse is used. Naturally, this ban is also "For the Children".

Chicago attracted 44.17 million visitors in 2006 from around the nation and world. I wonder what that count will be in 2008? Will Chicago be driving away the tourists and convention market like Hawaii has?

______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." – Thomas Sowell

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolph Hitler.

---------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Park_District

The Chicago Park District is the oldest and (financially) largest park district in the nation, with a $385 million annual budget. The park district also has the excellent reputation of spending the most per capita on its parks, even more than Boston in terms of park expenses per capita. It is an independent taxing authority as defined by Illinois State Statute and is considered a separate (or "sister") agency of the city of Chicago. The CEO of the Park District is appointed by the Mayor of Chicago.

The agency was long considered a dumping ground for political appointees; most famously, it was run by Ed Kelly, one of the "Eddies" who frustrated Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s. The size and personnel of the park district was dramatically pared down during the reform administration of Mayor Richard M. Daley-appointed CEO Forrest Claypool in the mid-1990s. Until 1983 it was District policy to underfund parks in minority neighborhoods[1].

Since the 2004, the district has been run by Tim Mitchell. During his tenure, the park district has taken steps to return programming to the neighborhoods and created a lakefront concert venue on Northerly Island (formerly Meigs Field).

---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/departments.home.cfm

Departments
Board of Commissioners
The Mayor of the City of Chicago appoints the Chicago Park District's seven-member board. The Board is the governing body of the Chicago Park District. The Board has three standing committees under which business is done: Administration, Programs and Recreation, and Capital Improvements. The Office of the Secretary serves as the coordinating staff to the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/departments.board.cfm

Chicago Park District to vote on smoking ban
By Charles Thomas
October 17, 2007 - The Chicago Park District will vote Wednesday on a proposal to ban smoking at public beaches, playgrounds and playlots.

Should smoking be banned at public beaches, playlots and playgrounds?
If it passes, it will go into effect immediately.
The Chicago Park District announced the proposal at Margate Park on Tuesday morning. It would prohibit smoking at all of the beaches, playlots and playgrounds within the Chicago Park District system.

"The Chicago Park District is committed to keeping its beaches, parks, playgrounds and general facilities clean, safe, healthy and pleasant for everyone," said Timothy J. Mitchell, Chicago Park District General Superintendent and CEO.

Last year, Mayor Daley dismissed the idea of a ban on beach smoking and questioned how it could be enforced. Parks officials say if an anti-smoking measure is passed, they would rely on citizens to report violations to police who would issue tickets to offenders.

"This is a public health and we expect most people will understand that," said Timothy Mitchell, Chicago Parks Superintendent.

The Chicago Park District cited research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that classifies second-hand smoke as hazardous to human health as the need to ban smoking from the area frequented by children and others. Also, research shows, according to the park district, that children who observe tobacco use at public places may model the behavior.

Environmentalists have called for a ban on smoking at public beaches for years because cigarette butts are the number one item removed from beaches in Chicago and around the world. The discarded butts can be toxic to fish and birds, as well as pollute the water.

The Chicago Park District said that in 2003, its volunteers picked up more than 32,000 cigarette butts along the 34-miles of lakefront. According to the Alliance for Great Lakes, their volunteers removed 5,654 cigarette butts from North Avenue Beach during a three-hour cleanup event in 2006 and 345,743 cigarette butts were removed in all of Chicago. Items related to cigarette and cigar smoking make up more than 54-percent of the litter found on all beaches during a September 2006 cleanup. "One small thing we can do that is not small to people who are using thebeaches is stop using them as ashtrays," said Joe Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Natacha Doyle walks 10-miles along the lakefront every day.

"I'm not a big fan of the butts. Or cigarette butts on the beach. And I don't think the beach is an ashtray, but that's what it's come to," said Doyle.

North Avenue Beach jogger Augie Metzger doesn't smoke, but said the proposed beach smoking ban might be going overboard.

"I am for the ban on smoking inside, but if you're outside, this is a public place, so I would feel it's your prerogative," said Metzger.

A similar measure in California that relies on public policing shows a 40-percent reduction of cigarette litter where bans are in place.

---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.enews20.com/news_No_More_Smoking_in_Chicago_Park_District_03175.html

No More Smoking in Chicago Park District
By Sophia Keenan
October 17th 2007

A new law passed in the Chicago Park District will vote Wednesday on a proposal to ban smoking at public beaches, playgrounds and play lots. If it passes, it will go into effect immediately.

The Chicago Park District announced the proposal at Margate Park on Tuesday morning. It would prohibit smoking at all of the beaches, play lots and playgrounds within the Chicago Park District system.

Last year, Mayor Daley dismissed the idea of a ban on beach smoking and questioned how it could be enforced. Parks officials say if an anti-smoking measure is passed, they would rely on citizens to report violations to police who would issue tickets to offenders.

The Chicago Park District cited research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that classifies second-hand smoke as hazardous to human health as the need to ban smoking from the area frequented by children and others. Also, research shows, according to the park district, that children who observe tobacco use at public places may model the behavior.

Environmentalists have called for a ban on smoking at public beaches for years because cigarette butts are the number one item removed from beaches in Chicago and around the world. The discarded butts can be toxic to fish and birds, as well as pollute the water.

© 2007 - eNews 2.0 All Rights Reserved

---------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago
Tourism

Navy Pier
Chicago attracted 44.17 million visitors in 2006 from around the nation and world.[19] Upscale shopping along the Magnificent Mile, thousands of restaurants, as well as Chicago's eminent architecture, continue to draw tourists. The city is the United States' third-largest convention destination.[20] Most conventions are held at McCormick Place, just south of Soldier Field.

Navy Pier, 3,000 feet (900 m) long, houses retail, restaurants, museums, exhibition halls, and auditoriums. Its 150 foot (46 m) tall Ferris wheel is north of Grant Park on the lakefront and is one of the most visited landmarks in the Midwest, attracting about 8 million people annually.

---

To: Sun Times: Letter to the Editor letters@suntimes.com
Cc: aherrmann@suntimes.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:26 PM

Chicago Sun Times
Letter to the Editor

RE: No more butts at the beach? http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/605110,101607beaches.article

Hmmmm... By examining the statistics provided in this news story for garbage collected along the Lake Michigan beaches, that's less than 1000 cigarette butts per mile...and, in most places, ashtray urns have been removed. Yet, almost 8000 pounds of garbage was collected...and there are outdoor garbage receptacles conveniently located everywhere. Styrofoam cups, paper and aluminum cans don't weigh much.

So, who are the offenders that need monitoring....smokers or the littering public? Chicago already has a comprehensive littering law which does not appear to be enforced. This new proposed smoking ban couldn't be based on more discrimination against smokers and unnecessary additional persecution, could it?

"In 2003, volunteers cleaned up 7,983 pounds of trash -- and more than 32,000 cigarette butts -- spanning 34 miles along the lakefront."

If the Chicago Park District plans to outlaw smoking on public Chicago beaches and in their parks, then it's time to outlaw food and beverages in those same areas too, or turn them into private access areas. Believing in SHS health dangers outdoors is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Cigarettes are still legal and highly taxed items.

Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/605110,101607beaches.article
No more butts at the beach?
City plan would outlaw smoking at public parks, beaches
October 16, 2007
BY ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporter

Chicago would ban smoking on beaches and at playgrounds under a measure proposed today by the Chicago Park District.

The park district board is likely to approve the plan Wednesday.

Not all areas in city parks would be smoke-free, however, a parks spokeswoman said today.

In 2003, volunteers cleaned up 7,983 pounds of trash -- and more than 32,000 cigarette butts -- spanning 34 miles along the lakefront.

Environmentalists have pushed for a ban for years, saying that during annual cleanup days they were able to pick up 10,000 cigarette butts an hour on Chicago beaches.

In 2006, the City Council’s Committee on Parks and Recreation heard testimony about the problem, including claims that cigarette butts and smoking-related debris make up half the trash on Chicago beaches, contaminating sand and water. They heard about how partly extinguished cigarettes and matches have caused fires.

But at the time, Mayor Daley dismissed the idea, raising questions about enforcement. He also suggested in June of 2006 that there was a danger of government intrusion into people’s lives.

“If you want government to pass every law that is necessary for you, after a while, you’re going to have a list of things you cannot do. You can’t even come out of your house eventually. You cannot eat, the way the City Council is going. How far should government become involved in peoples’ lives?” Daley said at the time.

Today, parks spokeswoman Jessica Maxey-Faulkner said enforcement would be user-driven. People angry about smokers could call the police, who would issue a ticket, said Maxey-Faulkner.

“This gives parents a right to say something” if someone is smoking in a playground, Maxey-Faulkner said.

“Our main goal is to protect children,’’ she said.

Some areas would not be covered “at this time,” such as “large passive areas” in parks away from areas where children play, she said. One example might be open areas in Grant Park.

Parks Supt. Timothy Mitchell is scheduled to be joined by Ald. Danny Solis (25th) and Alliance of the Great Lakes director Cameron Davis at Margate Park, 4921 N. Marine, this morning to officially announce the plan.

---

The World Is In A Smoking War

Here we go again with "All smoking activists are just fronts for big tobacco". Give it a rest. It isn't true. Big Tobacco threw their customers to the wolves with the MSA settlements in 1998. Prosmoking activists are people who believe government does not have the right to intrude on personal life style decisions and we volunteer our time and efforts without pay. How can adults with any capabilities of logic believe that smoking is an addiction? Stop comparing it to Cocaine and Heroine! You are the people who are contributing to teens believing that these illegal drugs "aren't so bad". How can you explain smokers returning to their habit five years or more after they quit? One simple answer. Smoking is pleasurable. It is not going to go away. Over twenty-five percent of the adults in the U.S. smoke! *

Following is a letter I wrote a few months ago to a major news station that wanted to know the top price smokers would pay for cigarettes:

I live in northern Illinois and am furious about recent antismoking health propaganda and antismoking policies. The anti-smokers are obsessed and will never be satisfied till they control every waking moment of our lives. I never objected to non-smoking public buildings, avoided non-smoking restaurants and accepted smoking areas. I am a considerate smoker and have always picked up any cigarette butts I created as ashtrays became more and more scarce. The final straw was last year, when we went on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation for two weeks in Orlando, FL. I couldn't believe that we couldn't find a restaurant that allowed smoking. Due to the Florida smoking ban, we ate at the Disney parks, snuck cigarettes in the parks when we could and refused to patronize any restaurants during our entire stay. Several times we ate in our room--too bad for the restaurants, bars and Florida's economy.

Smokers have been completely muzzled and have remained unrepresented by the great majority of the press and other media. I have written many responses and letters to the media and my local, state and federal representatives. Only a very small percentage of the citizens defending smokers' rights are ever published. I have in no way been subsidized for my efforts. I have also signed numerous petitions to fight anti-smoking legislation. I am trying to defend my civil rights, as are most proactive smokers.

I paid about $6.00 per carton when I was a teenager. Now, even with my discounted prices, they cost me over $30.00 per carton!! In regard to your question as to the maximum I will pay for cigarettes, I will only say that I will not pay Illinois prices. I have another source. Should I loose that source, I will roll my own cigarettes or grow my own tobacco--whatever it takes... I am far from alone in my sentiments. The recent Illinois tax increase will serve no purpose, except to create a mass disrespect for the law. I still smoke my favorite brand, Pall Mall Gold 100's. It is a brand that I can't even find in stores any more. The only brands I see offered are Marlboros, Camels and generics. I can't even purchase flints for my Zippo lighter in a store without needing an employee to open a locked case for me.

I smoke about two packs a day, although my ashtrays tend to burn away quite a few. I have no intention of quitting. I like smoking. I have since I began smoking at sixteen. Taxes/prices will never cause the large core of real smokers to stop smoking. In some very recent statistics I have read that about 50% of smokers have tried to quit at least once. Has it ever occurred to all the "for your own good" health officials that at least 50% of smokers have no intention of ever quitting? The constant pressures being artificially created to discourage smokers only intensifies our resolve. I will not spend a single penny in non-smoking establishments. That is MY choice.

Recent, well-funded efforts by massive health organizations toward smoking bans and other types of anti-smoking legislation is a frightening prophesy of our future. No amount of distortion and half truths, regarding the harms of cigarette smoke, is taboo to the anti-smokers. The current efforts to denormalize smokers smacks of "1984". We are the new minority. Only a very small percentage (about 2%) of the population are anti-smoking crusaders. History has proven that prohibitionists' motives are not altruistic. The majority of people are just following along, and are not questioning the "junk science" smoking studies with which we are constantly inundated.

I am active on the internet with other smokers all around the world. We are all "grassroots". I hope you can take a few minutes to review our Smokers Club Newsletter (published weekly). This site contains current smoking news and hyperlinks to smoking related information for each state and much, much more. Articles and letters are submitted from all over the world and our letter is published weekly.

Garnet Dawn 03/05
_____________________________________________________

By Anonymous on Sunday, March 06 @ 18:13:32 PST - "Nicotine addicts in denial. How pathetic! Whats next, drunk driver rights? No other drug addiction has rights, why should this one? Smokers rights is nothing more than a front for cigerette cartel marketing. If this drug delivery devise is a right, then we have done a greivious wrong to have cocaine and heroin etc illegel.
Militant smokers need serious phycological help to get over the denial and anger of their drug addiction."

* Note: I wrote my Opinion in response to the above comment, posted on the Free Internet Press. Please notice how the cowardly Anti author prefers to remain anonymous. I also have left his/her original spelling errors in tact.

----------------------------------------------------------

Never Be Afraid to Say What You Think!

---

Tax Increases to Reduce Cigarette Consumption? Another Fraudulent Claim!

I had a college student write to me for information to help with an article he/she is writing:

"I'm a journalism student at UW-Madison. I'm writing a feature on the cigarette tax which will probably pass (in some form) through the legislature. I'm getting a lot of statistics which show that increasing the tax will lower the amount of cigarette smokers. I find those statistics hard to refute, but freedom of choice deserves a part in the argument.

Also, do you or your organization have a position paper on this topic or a manifesto on tobacco use in general?"
_______________________________________________________

Hi _______,

Thanks for contacting me. Sure, I'll be glad to help. I do not believe that tax increases on cigarettes reduce the number of smokers. That's another fairy tale to justify additional taxation. It's a total lie, especially from the smokers who give a tax increase as another excuse for a reason to quit. They'll be giving lip service to "quitting" till the day they die.

When did a price increase cause you to give up something that you really want? Do you not eat steak any more, or like nice cars? What about the cost of your college tuition? One more example of how price increases do not affect consumer consumption is the current coffee craze. Prices have quadrupled, yet consumption continues to grow...is it a nation-wide addiction to caffeine too, perhaps? Maybe our law makers should consider a tax increase on coffee......

Smokers simply find less expensive means to purchase their cigarettes. These tax increases cause more people to break the law through black market, Indian cigarette purchases or roll their own. Lawmakers know that. That is why, right now, Tennessee is attempting to crack down on "over the state border" cigarette purchases since their recent tax increase on cigarettes. Cigarettes are a legal product. It is contrary to our Constitution to tax in order to create social change.

"The taxing power...must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." Ronald Reagan - 1981

Here also is a review of some research I did about the actual help provided by quit smoking "help" hot lines.

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ala_1-866-quit-yes.html

The REAL Story About Quit Smoking Hot-Lines:
1-866-QUIT-YES
The American Lung Association Smoking Cessation Hot Line

After reading about my experience, how can anyone believe these "hot lines" would be of any practical help to a smoker, unless that person really wanted to quit smoking...not just because of another tax hike?

I do not believe coercion to quit smoking by our government or society creates anything but disrespect for our laws and other people's motives. Unfair taxation only turns honest people into criminals. Quitting smoking is like going on a diet, except there are no long term benefits visible..... People start smoking again after one, two, five or ten years. Does that sound like addiction....or does it sound like a pleasurable habit long missed?

You also inquired about a Position Paper or Manifesto on tobacco use in general. I don't have one yet, but that is a good suggestion. Here, however, is an editorial that I wrote about our state-wide ban that describes our pro choice position well.

Tobacco consumption in post WWII Germany actually increased to levels greater than pre-war consumption levels, when German smoking bans were lifted. Tobacco consumption levels in the US have not significantly reduced since the early 1990's

Please note, in particular, the following quote from my editorial below:

"...In 1975, Sir George Godber, WHO Chairman of the Third World Conference on Smoking and Health in NYC, first suggested social stigmatizing of smokers by eliminating cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and places. He recommended tobacco control agencies try to make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public. "There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes....He suggested that health agencies and governments at the conference map a strategy to gain real ground..."

Garnet Dawn
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
__________________________________________________________
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/IL_state_smoking_ban_letter.html

SB 500 - ILLINOIS STATE SMOKING BAN - The "Social Isolation Act"

Our Illinois Governor recently signed into law a severe state wide smoking ban, ignoring legal right-to-choice for over two million, eight hundred thousand smokers in our state and constitutional rights of private business owners, but this issue is far from settled. Tobacco control crusaders may attempt to claim this is a health issue, but still remain unable to prove their claims after over thirty years. Health has never been the real issue, but an excuse for demonizing smokers to ultimately eliminate tobacco usage.

In 1975, Sir George Godber, WHO Chairman of the Third World Conference on Smoking and Health in NYC, first suggested social stigmatizing of smokers by eliminating cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and places. He recommended tobacco control agencies try to make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public. "There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes....He suggested that health agencies and governments at the conference map a strategy to gain real ground..."--
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1975, Cigarette Fighters Map New Anti-Smoking Plans, NEW YORK (UPI) Click to read the original news story!

This began the movement to ban smoking in public places and laws to spread smoking bans. Now, over 30 years later, claims of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS/SHS) health threats have not been proven and cancer rates still continue to increase. Smoking ban activists began by claiming the demand for smoking bans was based on public opinion. That soon changed into an argument about 'a level playing field', after the passage of the Illinois Clean Air Act - Home Rule Amendment in 2006. The ban promoters, led by the American Cancer Society and American Lung Association, next trumpeted 'public health' which morphed into 'employee health', another social engineering tactic.

With the wide selection of smoke free hospitality alternatives already available, the Smoke Free Illinois Act remains an unreasonable assault upon the life styles of a large minority of voters and business owners in our state. Anti-smokers may be irritated by tobacco smoke and viciously insult smokers, but their reasoning tends to be for largely selfish and ascetic reasons, not health threats.

I have an alternative suggestion. Rather than states focusing efforts upon smoking ban legislation which discriminates against 25% of the population, will close businesses, eliminate jobs and socially isolate individuals, elected officials should instead encourage tobacco control/health agencies/charities to increase studies to find the real causes of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses. - 08.15.07

Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com/

---

Fighting Words!!!
Illinois Smoking Ban Goes into Effect January 1

I just have to share the following!

I am so pleased with this piece from Aricka Flowers, and published on Heartland Institute's website. This is the first time that my words have not been paraphrased or edited to some degree in a published article, unless I wrote it myself. I imagine my quotes will generate a sizeable amount of hate mail in my e-mail messages, but it will be worth it. It's time we got the word out in no uncertain terms.

Oh, I'm just so proud.....and Aricka was great. The story may be focused on Illinois, but it applies anywhere the Antis are persecuting and bullying smokers. Gee, guess that makes it a global statement!! Enjoy!
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22149
Illinois Smoking Ban Goes into Effect January 1
Written By: Aricka Flowers
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: November 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
______________________________________________

Smoking is no longer allowed in Illinois--at least, not in public.
On July 23, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed a statewide public smoking ban. As of January 1, smoking will be illegal in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, workplaces, and all public buildings. Smoking will also be banned within 15 feet of building entrances, exits, and windows.

Illinois is the 19th state to pass such a law. American Medical Association President Ron Davis, M.D. called it "the strongest clean indoor air law in the country." Sherrill Keefe, tobacco projects manager at the American Lung Association of Greater Chicago, agreed.

"A lot of other states threw in a lot of exceptions," Keefe explained. "We were very stringent in how we decided to allocate exceptions. An example of that is the exception that is granted to nursing homes.

"Although it is a public place, it is also people's private homes," Keefe said. "Other states granted the same exception to gaming facilities and restaurants. Illinois didn't."

First Amendment Violation

Others say the law violates the First Amendment's protection of Americans' right of assembly.

"This is an issue of violating our Bill of Rights," said Garnet Dawn Scheuer, president of Illinois Smokers' Rights. "We are dealing with the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Under this law, smokers can't peaceably assemble unless it's outside." Casinos, bowling alleys, private clubs, and bars are traditionally havens where smokers have gathered.

Many restaurant and bar owners are concerned about the ban's effect on their businesses. The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, which represents retail businesses that sell alcohol, released a statement saying, "All-out smoking bans have a severe negative economic impact on hospitality venues that serve beverage alcohol for consumption on-premise."

"Of particular concern are independent, small, family-owned businesses," Scheuer noted. "These businesses will fold first. If hospitality industry businesses lose revenue, cities will also lose revenue. On average in Illinois, hospitality businesses generate one of every eight sales tax dollars. Can cities, towns, and villages really afford to lose this revenue?"

Non-Smokers' Concerns

Anti-smoking crusaders say those arguments are baseless.

"We did a lot of research in this area," said Keefe. "There were a lot of studies done that saw business improve for a lot of restaurants when smoking bans took effect. Sometimes it's not the food that's bringing people in, it's the atmosphere.

"Twenty-two percent of people in Illinois are smokers," Keefe continued. "That leaves well over 70 percent of people who are non-smokers. Some of those people don't come out because of health problems that are aggravated by smoke--now they can."

Junk Science Accusation

According to the American Medical Association, secondhand smoke kills approximately 3,000 Illinoisans annually.

Scheuer disagrees with that conclusion.

"I don't believe secondhand smoke health claims are valid," Scheuer said. "It's feel-good legislation and based on junk science. There are too many studies out there questioning the belief that secondhand smoke is dangerous.

"I do not believe that secondhand smoke or smoking by itself causes cancer," Scheuer continued. "It hasn't been proven, and the idea that you tell a lie enough times until it becomes the truth is the case in this instance."

Hefty Fines

Individuals who violate the ban will be fined $100 to $250 per instance. Businesses could be fined at least $250 for the first violation of allowing smoking on their premises. A minimum fine of $2,500 would be doled out to businesses that violated the law three times within one year.

Scheuer vowed to fight the law by arguing for personal rights.

"I'm not saying smoking is the best choice to make," Scheuer said. "But if you look at a lot of other lifestyle choices out there, it is by far not the most harmful."

Aricka Flowers (atflowers@hotmail.com ) writes from Chicago.

---