Smokers, Stand Up and Take Back Your Dignity!
(click above to read)
Saturday, September 16, 2006
September 16, 2006
NEW - PERMANENTLY CURRENT NEWS LINKS FOR ILLINOIS - BY COMMUNITY
I apologize!!!! I have fallen wayyyyy behind with my blog this year. Illinois has had a lot of activity everywhere with proposed smoking bans.
Until I can return to blogging, please view my website, Illinois Smokers Rights, for continual updates at http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ or become a member of our Illinois Smokers forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/ .
Also, you may find current information about our upcoming and past meetings for Illinois smokers on our website.
In addition, we now have an Illinois News page on the Illinois Smokers Rights website linking us to the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter, so that each reader can find our news stories by location (community or county) and chronologically, to read about all the confusing smoking ban activities in the Illinois areas that interest them. Every time a relevant news story about Illinois is added to the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights newsletter, it remains in the news archives indefinitely.
See ILLINOIS NEWS at http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/illinois_news.html for an alphabetical listing by county or community, without searching through back issues. You may also reference a county map of Illinois to help relate where each county/community is located.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
NEW - PERMANENTLY CURRENT NEWS LINKS FOR ILLINOIS - BY COMMUNITY
I apologize!!!! I have fallen wayyyyy behind with my blog this year. Illinois has had a lot of activity everywhere with proposed smoking bans.
Until I can return to blogging, please view my website, Illinois Smokers Rights, for continual updates at http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ or become a member of our Illinois Smokers forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/ .
Also, you may find current information about our upcoming and past meetings for Illinois smokers on our website.
In addition, we now have an Illinois News page on the Illinois Smokers Rights website linking us to the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter, so that each reader can find our news stories by location (community or county) and chronologically, to read about all the confusing smoking ban activities in the Illinois areas that interest them. Every time a relevant news story about Illinois is added to the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights newsletter, it remains in the news archives indefinitely.
See ILLINOIS NEWS at http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/illinois_news.html for an alphabetical listing by county or community, without searching through back issues. You may also reference a county map of Illinois to help relate where each county/community is located.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Feb 24, 2006
Supposing ...
Below is some food for thought, supplied by Heartland Institute. Outrageous? Maybe.... Perhaps it is an extreme fantasy, but think about it! It's really not so funny..... (I still remember an old newspaper cartoon from when smoking bans first began, showing gun wielding police arresting a smoker while they ignored a robbery three feet away......) - Garnet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1711768,00.html
Supposing ...
Snipers were brought in to shoot smokers
Charlie Brooker
Friday February 17, 2006
The Guardian
I wholeheartedly support the notion of banning smoking everywhere, for one entirely selfish reason: I've recently quit and don't want to be tempted to start again. If no one else lights up around me, I won't follow suit. Which means I'll live longer. And that's all I care about. Sod freedom of choice for smokers. Sod their poxy so-called "human rights". This is me we're talking about here. ME.
Mind you, I'm not convinced a simple ban is going to cut it. I've got a far better idea - one that's firm, fair and pretty much final. It's based on a scheme I originally conceived as an alternative to London's congestion charge, and I offer it now, to the nation, free of charge.
OK, so the congestion charge was supposed to reduce the number of cars in central London. Trouble is, it's far too complicated. There's cameras and traffic zones and text-message payment systems and blah blah blah. It costs a fortune. And you'd get better results if you replaced the whole thing with a sniper.
Yes, a sniper. Here's how it works: instead of charging people to drive through busy parts of town, you simply announce that you've paid a lone sniper to sneak around the city, hiding out on rooftops. Every month he'll blow the heads off several random motorists: a maximum of 10, say, and a minimum of five. You're free to drive where you like, as often as you please - but you're taking a calculated risk each time you do so.
You'd announce the scheme, and at first no one would believe you were serious. Indeed, you'd trade on that: perhaps nothing happens for the first couple of days. People carry on as normal. Then on day three: BAM BAM BAM. The sniper takes out not one, but THREE separate motorists, in different parts of the city. Shock, horror. Front-page news. Everyone's petrified. And the mayor simply goes on TV, shrugs his shoulders and says: "I told you so."
Bingo. You're looking at a reduction in traffic of at least 40%, overnight. Problem solved. And whenever people start getting complacent, you simply instruct the sniper to whack a celebrity or two, just to keep the story in the public eye.
Flawless. Yet the cretins in charge never tried it. Now they've got a second chance. They can use it to end smoking.
We'll need more than one sniper, of course, because we're covering the entire country. And they won't just be stationed on rooftops; they'll be going undercover, like Jack Bauer - following people into bars, pumping lead into their backs when they request change for the fag machine (we wouldn't ban fag machines - they're bait).
And we don't want any perceived "safe places" either. In the very first week, we should make a point of blasting the crap out of someone sparking up in a tent in the middle of Cumbria or something. Smokers need to realise there's nowhere to hide.
Let's change the warnings on the packs while we're about it. None of this wussy "Smoking Causes Cancer" nonsense. Just a sniper, in silhouette, and the words "HE IS WATCHING".
And once we're done with the smokers, we'll start on the fatties. That's right, blobster, I can see you. Just try reaching for that doughnut. Go ahead, punk. Make my day.
Supposing ...
Below is some food for thought, supplied by Heartland Institute. Outrageous? Maybe.... Perhaps it is an extreme fantasy, but think about it! It's really not so funny..... (I still remember an old newspaper cartoon from when smoking bans first began, showing gun wielding police arresting a smoker while they ignored a robbery three feet away......) - Garnet
"This link from the Guardian imagines a smoking ban fueled by assassination of smokers in their cars by rooftop snipers. A facetious exercise in public cynicism? Or a shape of worst things to come if we do not arrest the trend of smoke fascism in modern American society? You decide.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RWC "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1711768,00.html
Supposing ...
Snipers were brought in to shoot smokers
Charlie Brooker
Friday February 17, 2006
The Guardian
I wholeheartedly support the notion of banning smoking everywhere, for one entirely selfish reason: I've recently quit and don't want to be tempted to start again. If no one else lights up around me, I won't follow suit. Which means I'll live longer. And that's all I care about. Sod freedom of choice for smokers. Sod their poxy so-called "human rights". This is me we're talking about here. ME.
Mind you, I'm not convinced a simple ban is going to cut it. I've got a far better idea - one that's firm, fair and pretty much final. It's based on a scheme I originally conceived as an alternative to London's congestion charge, and I offer it now, to the nation, free of charge.
OK, so the congestion charge was supposed to reduce the number of cars in central London. Trouble is, it's far too complicated. There's cameras and traffic zones and text-message payment systems and blah blah blah. It costs a fortune. And you'd get better results if you replaced the whole thing with a sniper.
Yes, a sniper. Here's how it works: instead of charging people to drive through busy parts of town, you simply announce that you've paid a lone sniper to sneak around the city, hiding out on rooftops. Every month he'll blow the heads off several random motorists: a maximum of 10, say, and a minimum of five. You're free to drive where you like, as often as you please - but you're taking a calculated risk each time you do so.
You'd announce the scheme, and at first no one would believe you were serious. Indeed, you'd trade on that: perhaps nothing happens for the first couple of days. People carry on as normal. Then on day three: BAM BAM BAM. The sniper takes out not one, but THREE separate motorists, in different parts of the city. Shock, horror. Front-page news. Everyone's petrified. And the mayor simply goes on TV, shrugs his shoulders and says: "I told you so."
Bingo. You're looking at a reduction in traffic of at least 40%, overnight. Problem solved. And whenever people start getting complacent, you simply instruct the sniper to whack a celebrity or two, just to keep the story in the public eye.
Flawless. Yet the cretins in charge never tried it. Now they've got a second chance. They can use it to end smoking.
We'll need more than one sniper, of course, because we're covering the entire country. And they won't just be stationed on rooftops; they'll be going undercover, like Jack Bauer - following people into bars, pumping lead into their backs when they request change for the fag machine (we wouldn't ban fag machines - they're bait).
And we don't want any perceived "safe places" either. In the very first week, we should make a point of blasting the crap out of someone sparking up in a tent in the middle of Cumbria or something. Smokers need to realise there's nowhere to hide.
Let's change the warnings on the packs while we're about it. None of this wussy "Smoking Causes Cancer" nonsense. Just a sniper, in silhouette, and the words "HE IS WATCHING".
And once we're done with the smokers, we'll start on the fatties. That's right, blobster, I can see you. Just try reaching for that doughnut. Go ahead, punk. Make my day.
February 24, 2006
Has Chicago Smoking Ban Set the Stage for New Big Brother Invasions?
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/chicago_police_cameras.html
Has Chicago Smoking Ban Set the Stage for New Big Brother Invasions?
Mayor Daley seems to be in favor of more personal invasions for the citizens and businesses in Chicago. Government intrusion is becoming the norm. Citizens should have known this would happen after the city recently instituted a draconian smoking ban over the Chicago hospitality industry. Don't tell me anyone was so naive that they believed local government intrusion would stop there. Now Chicago is proposing more progress...loss of privacy.
I remember!! We were told over and over that restaurants are required to observe established health and fire codes, so a smoking ban would supposedly serve the public's health. Now, all we need to do is substitute the word "safety" for "health" and we will have the same reasoning that was presented as an excuse for instituting the ban. It does not matter, once again, that apples are being compared to oranges.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
Illinois Smokers Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm
Posted 2/14/2006
Daley wants security cameras at bars
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
CHICAGO — Surveillance cameras — aimed at government buildings, train platforms and intersections here — might soon be required at corner taverns and swanky nightclubs.
A police camera, mounted with a microphone,
can detect the sound of gunshots within a two-block radius.
File photo/AP
Mayor Richard Daley wants to require bars open until 4 a.m. to install security cameras that can identify people entering and leaving the building. Other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day, including convenience stores, eventually would have to do the same.
Daley's proposed city ordinance adds a dimension to security measures installed after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The proliferation of security cameras — especially if the government requires them in private businesses — troubles some civil liberties advocates.
"There is no reason to mandate all of those cameras unless you one day see them being linked up to the city's 911 system," says Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union. "We have perhaps reached that moment of critical mass when people ... want to have a dialogue about how much of this is appropriate."
Milwaukee is considering requiring cameras at stores that have called police three or more times in a year. The Baltimore County Council in Maryland ordered large malls to put cameras in parking areas after a murder in one garage last year. The measure passed despite objections from business groups.
"We require shopping centers to put railings on stairs and install sprinkler systems for public safety. This is a proper next step," says Baltimore County Councilman Kevin Kamenetz, who sponsored the ordinance.
Some cities aren't going along. Schenectady, N.Y., shelved a proposal that would have required cameras in convenience stores.
"The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone," says Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some businesses. "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
Nick Novich, owner of three Chicago bars, worries about the cost. "Every added expense ... puts a small business in greater jeopardy of going out of business," he says. Daley says cameras will deter crime, but Novich says, "That's what we're paying taxes for."
Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, says the proposal, which Daley announced last week, is an unfair burden on small businesses. "This is once again more government intrusion," she says.
Some business owners say cameras make patrons feel safer. Cameras are in all 30 Chicago bars, clubs and restaurants owned by Ala Carte Entertainment, spokeswoman Julia Shell says: "It's far more cost-effective for us to have them than not to have them."
By spring, 30 Chicago intersections will have cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. More than 2,000 cameras around the city are linked to an emergency command center, paid for in part by federal homeland security funds.
The newest "smart" cameras alert police when there's gunfire or when someone leaves a package or lingers outside public buildings. The system is based on the one in London that helped capture suspected terrorists after last summer's subway bombings.
Chicago is installing those sophisticated camera systems more aggressively than any other U.S. city, says Rajiv Shah, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago who studies the policy implications of surveillance technology. Recording what people do in public "is just getting easier and cheaper to do," he says. "Think of your camera cellphone."
Has Chicago Smoking Ban Set the Stage for New Big Brother Invasions?
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/chicago_police_cameras.html
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. – Plato circa 400 B.C.
Mayor Daley seems to be in favor of more personal invasions for the citizens and businesses in Chicago. Government intrusion is becoming the norm. Citizens should have known this would happen after the city recently instituted a draconian smoking ban over the Chicago hospitality industry. Don't tell me anyone was so naive that they believed local government intrusion would stop there. Now Chicago is proposing more progress...loss of privacy.
"We require shopping centers to put railings on stairs and install sprinkler systems for public safety. This is a proper next step," says Baltimore County Councilman Kevin Kamenetz, who sponsored the ordinance.Why does the questionable logic in the above quotation sound so familiar?
I remember!! We were told over and over that restaurants are required to observe established health and fire codes, so a smoking ban would supposedly serve the public's health. Now, all we need to do is substitute the word "safety" for "health" and we will have the same reasoning that was presented as an excuse for instituting the ban. It does not matter, once again, that apples are being compared to oranges.
"...Of course it is an intrusion. But on the other side, it protects the public's right to not be harmed. Bars and restaurants have to use clean plates, their workers have to wash their hands after using the restroom, there are temperature controls on food -- those are laws. Why? Because in the past we've seen the need to regulate business to protect people from harm. That is the price of doing business in our society..." (http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_1st/Feb03_BanAffect.html )This new proposed ordinance will simply chip away another piece from our personal liberties to serve public safety. I have also noticed that the city is not offering to subsidize businesses by paying for these security cameras. What has happened to our Bill of Rights which states in the Fifth Amendment "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"?
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
Illinois Smokers Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm
Posted 2/14/2006
Daley wants security cameras at bars
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
CHICAGO — Surveillance cameras — aimed at government buildings, train platforms and intersections here — might soon be required at corner taverns and swanky nightclubs.
A police camera, mounted with a microphone,
can detect the sound of gunshots within a two-block radius.
File photo/AP
Mayor Richard Daley wants to require bars open until 4 a.m. to install security cameras that can identify people entering and leaving the building. Other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day, including convenience stores, eventually would have to do the same.
Daley's proposed city ordinance adds a dimension to security measures installed after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The proliferation of security cameras — especially if the government requires them in private businesses — troubles some civil liberties advocates.
"There is no reason to mandate all of those cameras unless you one day see them being linked up to the city's 911 system," says Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union. "We have perhaps reached that moment of critical mass when people ... want to have a dialogue about how much of this is appropriate."
Milwaukee is considering requiring cameras at stores that have called police three or more times in a year. The Baltimore County Council in Maryland ordered large malls to put cameras in parking areas after a murder in one garage last year. The measure passed despite objections from business groups.
"We require shopping centers to put railings on stairs and install sprinkler systems for public safety. This is a proper next step," says Baltimore County Councilman Kevin Kamenetz, who sponsored the ordinance.
Some cities aren't going along. Schenectady, N.Y., shelved a proposal that would have required cameras in convenience stores.
"The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone," says Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some businesses. "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
Nick Novich, owner of three Chicago bars, worries about the cost. "Every added expense ... puts a small business in greater jeopardy of going out of business," he says. Daley says cameras will deter crime, but Novich says, "That's what we're paying taxes for."
Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, says the proposal, which Daley announced last week, is an unfair burden on small businesses. "This is once again more government intrusion," she says.
Some business owners say cameras make patrons feel safer. Cameras are in all 30 Chicago bars, clubs and restaurants owned by Ala Carte Entertainment, spokeswoman Julia Shell says: "It's far more cost-effective for us to have them than not to have them."
By spring, 30 Chicago intersections will have cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. More than 2,000 cameras around the city are linked to an emergency command center, paid for in part by federal homeland security funds.
The newest "smart" cameras alert police when there's gunfire or when someone leaves a package or lingers outside public buildings. The system is based on the one in London that helped capture suspected terrorists after last summer's subway bombings.
Chicago is installing those sophisticated camera systems more aggressively than any other U.S. city, says Rajiv Shah, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago who studies the policy implications of surveillance technology. Recording what people do in public "is just getting easier and cheaper to do," he says. "Think of your camera cellphone."
Feb 24, 2006
Add Galveston, TX to Those Refusing Smoking Bans!
Another one!!! Way to go!!! - Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3682123.html
Feb. 23, 2006, 11:58PM
Smoking still OK in Galveston bars
Hospitality interests fought a total ban proposal
By KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
GALVESTON - Customers at Galveston bars and restaurants can continue to smoke in designated areas, the Galveston City Council decided Thursday.
In a 4-2 vote, with one abstention, the council refused to change the current smoking ordinance, which allows restaurants to maintain smoking and non-smoking dining areas and let customers smoke in their bars.
The proposal to ban smoking in bars, taverns and restaurant bars met opposition from individual bar owners and heavy hitters in the restaurant and hotel business in this tourist city.
"I can assure you if Mr. Fertitta thought that banning smoking would help his business, he certainly would do that," said Steve Greenberg, a lobbyist for Landry's Restaurants Inc.
Greenberg referred to Landry's CEO Tilman Fertitta, who opposes banning smoking in the hotel and restaurant bars the company operates on the island. Greenberg said Fertitta does not believe bans improve bar and restaurant businesses.
Renee Adame, speaking for billionaire developer George Mitchell, whose three island hotels and associated bars and restaurants are smoke-free, said business is better since the businesses banned smoking on the premises.
"Mr. Mitchell thinks it's good for business," said Adame, who also heads the Smoke-Free Galveston Coalition. "We don't have to speculate because we have proof."
Guy Taylor, three-year owner of The Stork Club, a popular bar on Postoffice, told the council at least 50 percent of his customers smoke.
"I can't survive without their business," Taylor said. "I probably won't (survive) the rest of the year in business and everything I have, everything I own, is invested in this business."
Backers of a smoking ban were adamant that secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers and should be eliminated from bars and restaurants to protect not only customers but also employees.
"Cigarettes are the most dangerous consumer products in the world," M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's Dr. Jack Dennington told the council.
"If all the chemicals in secondhand smoke were bottled up and sprayed in somebody's face, I'm sure that it would be an assault," said Galveston resident Deborah Conrad.
After nearly a year of discussion and almost two hours of public comment, the council ended up keeping the Galveston ordinance originally adopted in 1988. It bans smoking in public buildings and most buildings open to the public. It also bans smoking in parks, but that provision has rarely been enforced.
Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas, a colon cancer survivor, said she did not want to tell business owners how to operate.
"I can choose where I go, and I don't go where there is smoke," said Thomas, explaining her vote against the ban. "I have to step into the shoes of the small business man and say, 'Thou shalt not,' and I just can't do it."
Other council members said they did not want to tell owners how to run their businesses. They also want to tell customers they have choices on which businesses to patronize.
"You choose to or you choose not to go into that hazard," said Councilwoman Barbara Roberts, referring to secondhand smoke.
After the vote, Thomas said she regretted making no progress on the issue in nearly a year. Thomas and other council members had talked earlier in the day about compromising and banning smoking only in restaurant bars. They did not vote on that alternative on Thursday, however.
"I'm disappointed in that we were not able to pass the no-smoking-in-restaurants piece of this today," Thomas said.
kevin.moran@chron.com
Add Galveston, TX to Those Refusing Smoking Bans!
Another one!!! Way to go!!! - Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3682123.html
Feb. 23, 2006, 11:58PM
Smoking still OK in Galveston bars
Hospitality interests fought a total ban proposal
By KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
GALVESTON - Customers at Galveston bars and restaurants can continue to smoke in designated areas, the Galveston City Council decided Thursday.
In a 4-2 vote, with one abstention, the council refused to change the current smoking ordinance, which allows restaurants to maintain smoking and non-smoking dining areas and let customers smoke in their bars.
The proposal to ban smoking in bars, taverns and restaurant bars met opposition from individual bar owners and heavy hitters in the restaurant and hotel business in this tourist city.
"I can assure you if Mr. Fertitta thought that banning smoking would help his business, he certainly would do that," said Steve Greenberg, a lobbyist for Landry's Restaurants Inc.
Greenberg referred to Landry's CEO Tilman Fertitta, who opposes banning smoking in the hotel and restaurant bars the company operates on the island. Greenberg said Fertitta does not believe bans improve bar and restaurant businesses.
Renee Adame, speaking for billionaire developer George Mitchell, whose three island hotels and associated bars and restaurants are smoke-free, said business is better since the businesses banned smoking on the premises.
"Mr. Mitchell thinks it's good for business," said Adame, who also heads the Smoke-Free Galveston Coalition. "We don't have to speculate because we have proof."
Guy Taylor, three-year owner of The Stork Club, a popular bar on Postoffice, told the council at least 50 percent of his customers smoke.
"I can't survive without their business," Taylor said. "I probably won't (survive) the rest of the year in business and everything I have, everything I own, is invested in this business."
Backers of a smoking ban were adamant that secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers and should be eliminated from bars and restaurants to protect not only customers but also employees.
"Cigarettes are the most dangerous consumer products in the world," M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's Dr. Jack Dennington told the council.
"If all the chemicals in secondhand smoke were bottled up and sprayed in somebody's face, I'm sure that it would be an assault," said Galveston resident Deborah Conrad.
After nearly a year of discussion and almost two hours of public comment, the council ended up keeping the Galveston ordinance originally adopted in 1988. It bans smoking in public buildings and most buildings open to the public. It also bans smoking in parks, but that provision has rarely been enforced.
Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas, a colon cancer survivor, said she did not want to tell business owners how to operate.
"I can choose where I go, and I don't go where there is smoke," said Thomas, explaining her vote against the ban. "I have to step into the shoes of the small business man and say, 'Thou shalt not,' and I just can't do it."
Other council members said they did not want to tell owners how to run their businesses. They also want to tell customers they have choices on which businesses to patronize.
"You choose to or you choose not to go into that hazard," said Councilwoman Barbara Roberts, referring to secondhand smoke.
After the vote, Thomas said she regretted making no progress on the issue in nearly a year. Thomas and other council members had talked earlier in the day about compromising and banning smoking only in restaurant bars. They did not vote on that alternative on Thursday, however.
"I'm disappointed in that we were not able to pass the no-smoking-in-restaurants piece of this today," Thomas said.
kevin.moran@chron.com
Recap - Illinois Smokers Rights Meeting - February 18, 2006
Marshall McGearty Tobacco Lounge - Chicago, ILIllinois Smokers Rights held a very successful meeting last Saturday, February 18, at the Marshall McGearty Tobacco Lounge in Chicago. Our turnout was excellent and Bill Walker, McGearty's General Manager, was a gracious host. While attendees enjoyed sipping coffee and smoking cigarettes during a very productive first meeting, which lasted almost three hours, we had additional McGearty patrons join our gathering.
Every individual present joined in a spirited discussion of our planned agenda to begin forming Illinois Smokers into a physically productive group. Included among those present were both smokers and non-smokers with the common purpose of defending and promoting individual life-style choices.
We will be meeting again in four weeks to review our progress and further discuss our goals for involving a wider circle of members. In this way, we will be better able to contact our legislative representatives, individual restaurant and bar owners, college pro-choice advocates and others with similar Libertarian viewpoints. We will also be reviewing our committee formation progress and creation of ways to fight tax discrimination against the consumers of a legal product in Illinois.
Regards,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
Illinois Smokers Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Feb 24, 2006
Va. and Md. Reject Ban On Smoking!!! - Virginia, Maryland
I thought everyone would be glad to see this news. Both Virginia and Maryland have stopped the state-wide smoking ban legislation. This should also help Philadelphia, Illinois and Wisconsin and shut the Antis up a little for a bit. We can use the "bandwagon" too!
Garnet Dawn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301834_2.html
Va. and Md. Reject Ban On Smoking
Lawmakers Loath To Force Businesses
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A01
Flirtations with smoking bans in Virginia and Maryland came to abrupt ends yesterday, as legislative panels in each state rejected bills that would have made restaurants and virtually all other public places smoke-free.
In Virginia, a House of Delegates subcommittee unanimously rejected a bill that had won Senate approval despite the state's long-standing ties to the tobacco industry.
In Maryland, a House committee chaired by a Baltimore delegate whose downtown district is dotted with bars and taverns turned back a similar proposal by a narrow margin.
Health groups -- including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association -- lobbied extensively for the bans. Eleven other states have approved such prohibitions, as evidence mounted about the health risks of breathing secondhand smoke and more people stopped smoking.
Delegates in both states said that many business owners have prohibited smoking in response to customer demands but that those who wish to cater to smokers should be allowed to do so.
"The problem is, I want to have smoke-free restaurants and businesses. But in America, you don't pass a law to tell a private business owner who is paying rent or mortgage payments what he can and can't do in his own place," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax).
The proposed ban attracted particular attention in Virginia, the nation's No. 3 tobacco-growing state. The Senate's narrow approval of the bill was interpreted by many as a sign of the loosening of the industry's hold in a state that is home to the worldwide headquarters of Philip Morris.
The Senate sponsor, a Roanoke Republican, presented his measure as a public health necessity, arguing that science has proved the dangers of secondhand smoke.
"The bottom line is that we're not talking about a smoker's right to smoke indoors," said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II. "We're talking about my right not to breath in 4,000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens that are associated with secondhand smoke."
Many lawmakers had predicted a quick death in the Virginia House, which has a long history of rejecting measures its members say amount to government nannyism. The smoking ban failed its first legislative test in the body, dying in a six-member subcommittee of the General Laws Committee.
"This is the wrong way to go about forcing this on businesses," Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake) said during the hearing. "People have to take some type of personal responsibility and not expect the state to do it for them."
Under House rules, the subcommittee vote means the bill dies for the year unless the full committee's chairman agrees the 22 members should hear the measure as well. In this case, Chairman Del. John S. "Jack" Reid (R-Henrico) said he does not intend to hold such a hearing. Bell said he was not surprised. "There's always a resistance to change," he said.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has not been supportive of the measure either.
In Maryland, three counties -- Montgomery, Talbot and more recently Prince George's -- have banned smoking. But efforts to extend the prohibition statewide failed yesterday for the fourth consecutive year when the measure fell two votes short in the House Health and Government Operations Committee.
Legislators in Annapolis were bombarded with e-mails, phone calls and petitions from representatives of both sides of the debate.
"People who walk these halls complain about the high cost of medical care, and here was a golden opportunity to do something about it," Eric Gally, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, said after the 11 to 11 vote. "Once again, we've taken a pass."
Melvin Thompson, lobbyist for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, applauded the outcome as a sign that legislators had heard the message that "smoking bans are most damaging to smaller restaurants and bars."
From the beginning, the bill sponsored by Del. Barbara A. Frush (D-Prince George's) faced resistance from Democratic leaders of the General Assembly and Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).
Prospects for passage dimmed with the departure of John Adams Hurson (D) of Montgomery County, the former House health committee chairman who represented a jurisdiction that had passed a local ban. The new committee chairman, Del. Peter A. Hammen (D), represents an area of downtown Baltimore that he said is home to nearly half the liquor licenses in the city.
Ties to Maryland's tobacco-growing past also appeared to play a role in the bill's defeat. Missing from the vote yesterday was Del. Sue Kullen (D-Calvert), a Southern Maryland lawmaker whom health care lobbyists considered critical to the outcome. Kullen, who stopped by the committee room shortly before the vote, said she had a scheduling conflict with another hearing.
"We were trying to monkey around with the schedule, but it didn't work out so well," she said. "I had an excused absence."
During a hearing on the bill last week, Kullen said the issue was a difficult one for legislators from more rural parts of Maryland.
"For me, it's the tobacco legacy I'm wrestling with. It's just not good to demonize the tobacco leaf," she said. "But it does have health implications."
After the committee meeting yesterday, Kullen would not say how she would have voted.
"I was leaning in favor of the bill," she said, "but was still concerned about the effect on business."
Staff writer Chris L. Jenkins contributed to this report.
Va. and Md. Reject Ban On Smoking!!! - Virginia, Maryland
I thought everyone would be glad to see this news. Both Virginia and Maryland have stopped the state-wide smoking ban legislation. This should also help Philadelphia, Illinois and Wisconsin and shut the Antis up a little for a bit. We can use the "bandwagon" too!
Garnet Dawn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301834_2.html
Va. and Md. Reject Ban On Smoking
Lawmakers Loath To Force Businesses
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A01
Flirtations with smoking bans in Virginia and Maryland came to abrupt ends yesterday, as legislative panels in each state rejected bills that would have made restaurants and virtually all other public places smoke-free.
In Virginia, a House of Delegates subcommittee unanimously rejected a bill that had won Senate approval despite the state's long-standing ties to the tobacco industry.
In Maryland, a House committee chaired by a Baltimore delegate whose downtown district is dotted with bars and taverns turned back a similar proposal by a narrow margin.
Health groups -- including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association -- lobbied extensively for the bans. Eleven other states have approved such prohibitions, as evidence mounted about the health risks of breathing secondhand smoke and more people stopped smoking.
Delegates in both states said that many business owners have prohibited smoking in response to customer demands but that those who wish to cater to smokers should be allowed to do so.
"The problem is, I want to have smoke-free restaurants and businesses. But in America, you don't pass a law to tell a private business owner who is paying rent or mortgage payments what he can and can't do in his own place," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax).
The proposed ban attracted particular attention in Virginia, the nation's No. 3 tobacco-growing state. The Senate's narrow approval of the bill was interpreted by many as a sign of the loosening of the industry's hold in a state that is home to the worldwide headquarters of Philip Morris.
The Senate sponsor, a Roanoke Republican, presented his measure as a public health necessity, arguing that science has proved the dangers of secondhand smoke.
"The bottom line is that we're not talking about a smoker's right to smoke indoors," said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II. "We're talking about my right not to breath in 4,000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens that are associated with secondhand smoke."
Many lawmakers had predicted a quick death in the Virginia House, which has a long history of rejecting measures its members say amount to government nannyism. The smoking ban failed its first legislative test in the body, dying in a six-member subcommittee of the General Laws Committee.
"This is the wrong way to go about forcing this on businesses," Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake) said during the hearing. "People have to take some type of personal responsibility and not expect the state to do it for them."
Under House rules, the subcommittee vote means the bill dies for the year unless the full committee's chairman agrees the 22 members should hear the measure as well. In this case, Chairman Del. John S. "Jack" Reid (R-Henrico) said he does not intend to hold such a hearing. Bell said he was not surprised. "There's always a resistance to change," he said.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has not been supportive of the measure either.
In Maryland, three counties -- Montgomery, Talbot and more recently Prince George's -- have banned smoking. But efforts to extend the prohibition statewide failed yesterday for the fourth consecutive year when the measure fell two votes short in the House Health and Government Operations Committee.
Legislators in Annapolis were bombarded with e-mails, phone calls and petitions from representatives of both sides of the debate.
"People who walk these halls complain about the high cost of medical care, and here was a golden opportunity to do something about it," Eric Gally, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, said after the 11 to 11 vote. "Once again, we've taken a pass."
Melvin Thompson, lobbyist for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, applauded the outcome as a sign that legislators had heard the message that "smoking bans are most damaging to smaller restaurants and bars."
From the beginning, the bill sponsored by Del. Barbara A. Frush (D-Prince George's) faced resistance from Democratic leaders of the General Assembly and Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).
Prospects for passage dimmed with the departure of John Adams Hurson (D) of Montgomery County, the former House health committee chairman who represented a jurisdiction that had passed a local ban. The new committee chairman, Del. Peter A. Hammen (D), represents an area of downtown Baltimore that he said is home to nearly half the liquor licenses in the city.
Ties to Maryland's tobacco-growing past also appeared to play a role in the bill's defeat. Missing from the vote yesterday was Del. Sue Kullen (D-Calvert), a Southern Maryland lawmaker whom health care lobbyists considered critical to the outcome. Kullen, who stopped by the committee room shortly before the vote, said she had a scheduling conflict with another hearing.
"We were trying to monkey around with the schedule, but it didn't work out so well," she said. "I had an excused absence."
During a hearing on the bill last week, Kullen said the issue was a difficult one for legislators from more rural parts of Maryland.
"For me, it's the tobacco legacy I'm wrestling with. It's just not good to demonize the tobacco leaf," she said. "But it does have health implications."
After the committee meeting yesterday, Kullen would not say how she would have voted.
"I was leaning in favor of the bill," she said, "but was still concerned about the effect on business."
Staff writer Chris L. Jenkins contributed to this report.
