Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Smoker's Club Meeting Schedule - By Invitation Only | |
September 6, 2008 | |
September 13, 2008 | |
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
http://www.derbydailyrep.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/opinion/edit2.txt
Smoking bans do affect businesses
Elected officials of Derby, I know not what impact the opinion of a history professor from Georgia may have on your decision regarding a smoking ordinance, but my opinion was solicited and I shall give it. The evidence is clear smoking bans kill establishments. In Delaware, even supporters of the state’s smoking ban admit the ban drove some establishments into extinction. As for New York, an article that appeared in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on July 18, 2006 titled “N.Y., N.J. Businesses Say Smoking Ban” examined the effects of the smoking bans in New York and New Jersey. According to the article, Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, stated, “There’s no question ... that the smoking bans have hurt the taverns and the bars.” He said a loss of about 20 percent of sales has been typical.“People have seen gains from the floor, closing the gap in the losses. But most of my members are still doing less business today than they were before the ban ... About 25 percent of our member establishments closed over the last three years.”Derby council members, ask yourselves, what if you ran one of these businesses that closed due to a smoking ban? How would you feel? As far as smoking in privately-owned businesses is concerned, leave it alone. Let the free market decide for itself. The free market has already been making the shift toward non-smoking establishments for years. The free market IS the “level playing field.”Anti-smokers speak of deaths from secondhand smoke. Yet, strangely, they never seem to produce the victims. Ask them for the bodies, the death certificates, the graves. They cannot produce them because there are none. Of course it is hard to find victims when even nonsmoking bartenders inhale the equivalent of 1/10th of a cigarette per shift.
Anti-smoking forces bring up the issue of the Surgeon General’s Report. Former Surgeon General Carmona is a tobacco prohibitionist whose statement that there was no safe level of tobacco smoke came from a press release, not his report. In addition, Carmona conveniently ignored the most extensive study on secondhand smoke ever done “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98” by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat. Enstrom and Kabat concluded, “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” Should you pass a smoking ban for the workers? The federal agency OSHA certainly refuses to. OSHA has found all the components in secondhand smoke are present at safe levels in the vast majority of public places. This is why you are being pressured to pass this ban, the antismokers know OSHA has said NO! yet OSHA is the very agency which should be concerned with bans if the danger were real. If OSHA, a federal agency, will not advocate a smoking ban for businesses, then why should the Derby City Council pass one? At least one city council member feels the day is coming when the nation will be smoke free. Perhaps officially at some point the nation’s businesses might all become smoke free, but that outcome is not inevitable, nor desirable. And opposition to the smoke ban craze is not futile. Throughout history smoke bans rarely withstand the test of time. Already in California an estimated 50 percent of bars ignore the state’s smoke ban in order to stay in business. Rumors are also rampant of restaurants that have hidden rooms’ for special smoking guests and some that even have “patios” with four walls and a ceiling. Could the United States adequately enforce a national smoking ban? Right now we cannot stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing the border, nor can we win the drug war. In fact, according to one recent report, marijuana has become the largest cash crop in the United States-70 years after it was officially banned. My position against smoking bans may not be very politically correct right now. Much of the public is supporting bans as indicated by the fact that city council members, legislators and uninformed voters have passed bans in many parts of the country. The right thing to do is not always popular though. There was a time when the majority of Americans supported racial segregation for example, but did that make racial segregation right? This country might be headed for blanket smoking prohibition, but here is one historian who will not sit idly by and see that happen. I have chosen what I believe in my heart to be the right position, and I will not waver. I take my stand.
Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.,
Georgia
Smoking bans do affect businesses
Elected officials of Derby, I know not what impact the opinion of a history professor from Georgia may have on your decision regarding a smoking ordinance, but my opinion was solicited and I shall give it. The evidence is clear smoking bans kill establishments. In Delaware, even supporters of the state’s smoking ban admit the ban drove some establishments into extinction. As for New York, an article that appeared in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on July 18, 2006 titled “N.Y., N.J. Businesses Say Smoking Ban” examined the effects of the smoking bans in New York and New Jersey. According to the article, Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, stated, “There’s no question ... that the smoking bans have hurt the taverns and the bars.” He said a loss of about 20 percent of sales has been typical.“People have seen gains from the floor, closing the gap in the losses. But most of my members are still doing less business today than they were before the ban ... About 25 percent of our member establishments closed over the last three years.”Derby council members, ask yourselves, what if you ran one of these businesses that closed due to a smoking ban? How would you feel? As far as smoking in privately-owned businesses is concerned, leave it alone. Let the free market decide for itself. The free market has already been making the shift toward non-smoking establishments for years. The free market IS the “level playing field.”Anti-smokers speak of deaths from secondhand smoke. Yet, strangely, they never seem to produce the victims. Ask them for the bodies, the death certificates, the graves. They cannot produce them because there are none. Of course it is hard to find victims when even nonsmoking bartenders inhale the equivalent of 1/10th of a cigarette per shift.
Anti-smoking forces bring up the issue of the Surgeon General’s Report. Former Surgeon General Carmona is a tobacco prohibitionist whose statement that there was no safe level of tobacco smoke came from a press release, not his report. In addition, Carmona conveniently ignored the most extensive study on secondhand smoke ever done “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98” by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat. Enstrom and Kabat concluded, “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” Should you pass a smoking ban for the workers? The federal agency OSHA certainly refuses to. OSHA has found all the components in secondhand smoke are present at safe levels in the vast majority of public places. This is why you are being pressured to pass this ban, the antismokers know OSHA has said NO! yet OSHA is the very agency which should be concerned with bans if the danger were real. If OSHA, a federal agency, will not advocate a smoking ban for businesses, then why should the Derby City Council pass one? At least one city council member feels the day is coming when the nation will be smoke free. Perhaps officially at some point the nation’s businesses might all become smoke free, but that outcome is not inevitable, nor desirable. And opposition to the smoke ban craze is not futile. Throughout history smoke bans rarely withstand the test of time. Already in California an estimated 50 percent of bars ignore the state’s smoke ban in order to stay in business. Rumors are also rampant of restaurants that have hidden rooms’ for special smoking guests and some that even have “patios” with four walls and a ceiling. Could the United States adequately enforce a national smoking ban? Right now we cannot stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing the border, nor can we win the drug war. In fact, according to one recent report, marijuana has become the largest cash crop in the United States-70 years after it was officially banned. My position against smoking bans may not be very politically correct right now. Much of the public is supporting bans as indicated by the fact that city council members, legislators and uninformed voters have passed bans in many parts of the country. The right thing to do is not always popular though. There was a time when the majority of Americans supported racial segregation for example, but did that make racial segregation right? This country might be headed for blanket smoking prohibition, but here is one historian who will not sit idly by and see that happen. I have chosen what I believe in my heart to be the right position, and I will not waver. I take my stand.
Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.,
Georgia
Friday, March 02, 2007
Seven Questions for Mr. Smitherman -ON
February 21 , 2007 :
Health and Long Term Care Minister George Smitherman recently stated that the apparent death from hypothermia of a long-term care patient, who was made to go outside to smoke, had nothing to do with his smoking bans and regulations. He then gave an opinion which appeared to endorse the charging of a worker in connection with this tragic death.“Is it appropriate for a minister of the crown to make statements that may reflect prejudicially on a case before the courts, and which seem designed to deflect any questions about the impact his laws and regulations may be having on the residents of long-term care facilities and on those who try the care for them?” said Nancy Daigneault, president of the smokers’ rights group mychoice.ca.Ms. Daigneault said Mr. Smitherman’s statements raise questions about his regulations that deserve answers.
Question 1:
Will the minister provide a list of all the cases that have occurred involving injuries to smoking residents, since his regulations came into force last May 31? All such cases require by law that an incident report be filed with his ministry. This list should be made public.
Question 2:
Why did Mr. Smitherman make the regulations for special smoking rooms in these facilities so onerous that most cannot afford them?Question 3:
Why did he ignore submissions from homes and an association representing homes asking for reasonable accommodation and grandfathering of existing separate and ventilated rooms?
Question 4:
Why is Mr. Smitherman letting local health authorities ban even outdoor shelters at long term care and even psychiatric facilities and force elderly and ill residents off the grounds to smoke? In many cases there are employees who smoke, and family members who would gladly volunteer to assist residents who smoke to do so in a safe environment.
Question 5:
Why is his government refusing to provide any financial help to these homes to meet his extreme new rules, yet is giving millions to casinos for shelters for smokers who gamble?In a Global TV debate* last May 25, Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson responded to concerns about the impact of the law and refused to consider such funding for long term care homes. He stated: “We don't believe that we should be spending tax dollars to subsidize the construction of smoking lounges. That's not a good use of tax money.” Now that it has changed its mind and sees casino smoking shelters as a good use of tax dollars, will it change its mind and also help LTC facility residents?
Question 6:
Does the government really think that all of the measures it has imposed on LTC facilities are absolutely necessary and justify any risks they have created for these residents?
Question 7:
If the answer to question six is yes, can it provide independent, verified science that supports this belief and justifies actions that include imposing involuntary cessation on LTC residents or forcing them out of their homes and onto the streets in winter to smoke?
-30-
* Transcript of debate available on request.
http://www.mychoice.ca/en/news_room/news_releases/feb_21_07.aspx
February 21 , 2007 :
Health and Long Term Care Minister George Smitherman recently stated that the apparent death from hypothermia of a long-term care patient, who was made to go outside to smoke, had nothing to do with his smoking bans and regulations. He then gave an opinion which appeared to endorse the charging of a worker in connection with this tragic death.“Is it appropriate for a minister of the crown to make statements that may reflect prejudicially on a case before the courts, and which seem designed to deflect any questions about the impact his laws and regulations may be having on the residents of long-term care facilities and on those who try the care for them?” said Nancy Daigneault, president of the smokers’ rights group mychoice.ca.Ms. Daigneault said Mr. Smitherman’s statements raise questions about his regulations that deserve answers.
Question 1:
Will the minister provide a list of all the cases that have occurred involving injuries to smoking residents, since his regulations came into force last May 31? All such cases require by law that an incident report be filed with his ministry. This list should be made public.
Question 2:
Why did Mr. Smitherman make the regulations for special smoking rooms in these facilities so onerous that most cannot afford them?Question 3:
Why did he ignore submissions from homes and an association representing homes asking for reasonable accommodation and grandfathering of existing separate and ventilated rooms?
Question 4:
Why is Mr. Smitherman letting local health authorities ban even outdoor shelters at long term care and even psychiatric facilities and force elderly and ill residents off the grounds to smoke? In many cases there are employees who smoke, and family members who would gladly volunteer to assist residents who smoke to do so in a safe environment.
Question 5:
Why is his government refusing to provide any financial help to these homes to meet his extreme new rules, yet is giving millions to casinos for shelters for smokers who gamble?In a Global TV debate* last May 25, Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson responded to concerns about the impact of the law and refused to consider such funding for long term care homes. He stated: “We don't believe that we should be spending tax dollars to subsidize the construction of smoking lounges. That's not a good use of tax money.” Now that it has changed its mind and sees casino smoking shelters as a good use of tax dollars, will it change its mind and also help LTC facility residents?
Question 6:
Does the government really think that all of the measures it has imposed on LTC facilities are absolutely necessary and justify any risks they have created for these residents?
Question 7:
If the answer to question six is yes, can it provide independent, verified science that supports this belief and justifies actions that include imposing involuntary cessation on LTC residents or forcing them out of their homes and onto the streets in winter to smoke?
-30-
* Transcript of debate available on request.
http://www.mychoice.ca/en/news_room/news_releases/feb_21_07.aspx
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02/28/3676131-sun.html
February 28, 2007
A READER SAYS ...
The claim that smoking bans are being pushed in order to protect workers and non-smokers' 'health' is false. The unstated reasoning behind the bans is simply to make smoking as uncomfortable and unenjoyable as possible.
- T. Laprade
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/ February 28, 2007
STEAMED ABOUT SMOKING
That's it. I am sick of all the non-smokers saying I am killing them. We know it is not good for us. But some aldermen want to tell me I can't light up during ball season because we have to play on fields rented by the city?
Get a bylaw officer to my ball field then, because I will be fined or jailed before I am going to let them tell me I can not light up outside.
SHANE COVELL
(OK, but the motion failed in city council.)
February 28, 2007
A READER SAYS ...
The claim that smoking bans are being pushed in order to protect workers and non-smokers' 'health' is false. The unstated reasoning behind the bans is simply to make smoking as uncomfortable and unenjoyable as possible.
- T. Laprade
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/ February 28, 2007
STEAMED ABOUT SMOKING
That's it. I am sick of all the non-smokers saying I am killing them. We know it is not good for us. But some aldermen want to tell me I can't light up during ball season because we have to play on fields rented by the city?
Get a bylaw officer to my ball field then, because I will be fined or jailed before I am going to let them tell me I can not light up outside.
SHANE COVELL
(OK, but the motion failed in city council.)
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
Gio Batta GoriSpecial to washingtonpost.comTuesday, January 30, 2007; 12:00 AM
Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."
,'Creating secondhand smoke polices based on deceptive, though widely accepted, studies sets an ominous precedent in political ethics.','Gio Batta Gori') ;
Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?
Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.
In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.
Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.
In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.
Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.
In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.
Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."
It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.
By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?
Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.
A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology -- uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully.
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
Gio Batta GoriSpecial to washingtonpost.comTuesday, January 30, 2007; 12:00 AM
Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."
,'Creating secondhand smoke polices based on deceptive, though widely accepted, studies sets an ominous precedent in political ethics.','Gio Batta Gori') ;
Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?
Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.
In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.
Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.
In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.
Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.
In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.
Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."
It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.
By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?
Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.
A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology -- uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully.
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
“Your Favorite Supper Club/Restaurant”
January 1, 2017
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
Whereas, it has been determined as law in this state that it is a crime to knowingly emit any airborne carcinogens in any private business establishment that invites the public to enter, we have established these mandatory procedures to comply with required health standards, and no exceptions will be made.
No Smoking will be allowed within 500 feet of this establishment!
Upon entering, guests will be required to completely disrobe and check all clothing articles, shoes and personal effects which will be retained in our “clean room” holding area during their dining experience. Items will be returned to our guests’ upon departure. (All clothing emits carcinogens from new textile chemicals, dry cleaning and fabric softeners.)
Guests will also be required to pass though our disinfectant showers to remove any carcinogenic traces of perfume, after shave lotion, skin cream, hairspray or other chemicals.
Guests will find that we have now removed all carpeting and upholstery in our dining and bar areas to eliminate dust mite threats. You will now be dining in plastic protected splendor. (Note: We will no longer be decorating you table with candles.)
Whereas it has been determined by law that coffee, butter, salad dressing and desserts are unhealthy and unnecessary for a balanced diet; these items will no longer be available on our menu. (Guests will also be required to sign a waiver before they will be served any water, to protect this establishment from any future prosecution, as it has also been determined that water contains a vast number of carcinogens. We cannot be responsible for the health of those guests still desiring to drink water).
Any and all alcoholic beverages will be pre-mixed in our special clean room before serving and hermetically sealed to eliminate any evaporation of ethyl alcohol into our sterile environment. Imbibing in alcoholic beverages will only be allowed by using the special self sealing straws we provide with our sealed containers.
WHEREAS the serving of undercooked meat is now illegal and current laws have abolished any open cooking or flame-required preparation (including grilling, frying or broiling), our entrees will now all be prepared by boiling or slow cooking and will be only served well done.
Whereas the only form of credit or payment currently allowed by law is your National Identification Card, our guests will have their dinner checks charged to their twenty-five (25) digit National I.D. upon leaving. (Please note: A disinfectant service charge of forty percent (40%) and a service tip of twenty percent (20%) will automatically be added to your check before its final total is determined.)
We hope you will enjoy your new dining experience and return soon. - The Management
January 1, 2017
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
Whereas, it has been determined as law in this state that it is a crime to knowingly emit any airborne carcinogens in any private business establishment that invites the public to enter, we have established these mandatory procedures to comply with required health standards, and no exceptions will be made.
No Smoking will be allowed within 500 feet of this establishment!
Upon entering, guests will be required to completely disrobe and check all clothing articles, shoes and personal effects which will be retained in our “clean room” holding area during their dining experience. Items will be returned to our guests’ upon departure. (All clothing emits carcinogens from new textile chemicals, dry cleaning and fabric softeners.)
Guests will also be required to pass though our disinfectant showers to remove any carcinogenic traces of perfume, after shave lotion, skin cream, hairspray or other chemicals.
Guests will find that we have now removed all carpeting and upholstery in our dining and bar areas to eliminate dust mite threats. You will now be dining in plastic protected splendor. (Note: We will no longer be decorating you table with candles.)
Whereas it has been determined by law that coffee, butter, salad dressing and desserts are unhealthy and unnecessary for a balanced diet; these items will no longer be available on our menu. (Guests will also be required to sign a waiver before they will be served any water, to protect this establishment from any future prosecution, as it has also been determined that water contains a vast number of carcinogens. We cannot be responsible for the health of those guests still desiring to drink water).
Any and all alcoholic beverages will be pre-mixed in our special clean room before serving and hermetically sealed to eliminate any evaporation of ethyl alcohol into our sterile environment. Imbibing in alcoholic beverages will only be allowed by using the special self sealing straws we provide with our sealed containers.
WHEREAS the serving of undercooked meat is now illegal and current laws have abolished any open cooking or flame-required preparation (including grilling, frying or broiling), our entrees will now all be prepared by boiling or slow cooking and will be only served well done.
Whereas the only form of credit or payment currently allowed by law is your National Identification Card, our guests will have their dinner checks charged to their twenty-five (25) digit National I.D. upon leaving. (Please note: A disinfectant service charge of forty percent (40%) and a service tip of twenty percent (20%) will automatically be added to your check before its final total is determined.)
We hope you will enjoy your new dining experience and return soon. - The Management
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Speech Content: Delivered to Glenview Village Board Meeting - February 8, 2007
Thank you, Village President Cummings and the Glenview Board of Trustees for allowing me to speak this evening. Also, thank you to Glenview resident, Linda Casey, for sponsoring me. I have prepared a related packet of information for each of you.
My name is Garnet Scheuer and I am the Founding Director of Illinois Smokers Rights and I am speaking as a member of the Heartland Group on the Agenda. We are a relatively new organization that has developed on behalf of smokers and non-smokers who object to smoking bans and the unfair taxation of cigarettes. We promote pro-choice and free market solutions.
The health risks of second-hand smoke are vastly exaggerated. The poison is in the dose...and the dosage from SHS in a decently ventilated and filtrated establishment cannot pose health threats.
To date, no tobacco studies have been able prove the health risks from Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Smoking bans are not about health. They never have been. They are about power, money and control.
Our previous Surgeon General Carmona issued a massive study as one of his final accomplishments, stating that "The debate is over".
However, contrary to his media statements and Executive Summary, the report was simply a rehashing of the same studies that have already been circulated and are still inconclusive.
Since the Illinois Clean Indoor Act in 1989 banned smoking in public buildings, tobacco smoking has been eliminated from all indoor areas where the public may be required to go, and has greatly reduced any exposure to tobacco for people who find it objectionable.
Now, the remaining private businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry are being targeted by tobacco control activists.
A fact seemingly ignored is that approximately 70% of restaurants and bars have already elected to become smoke-free....and that should be their choice because they are still privately owned businesses and on personal property....even if the public is invited to enter. Business owners need to have their property rights defended, not removed.
More restrictive smoking bans in restaurants and bars will not save one single life. Smoking bans DO hurt small businesses.
Economic studies that bundle together revenue levels from large chain restaurants, previously smoke-free businesses and fast food operations with privately owned restaurants, bars and bowling alleys, do not reflect the true damage done to the individuals who have been brave enough to invest their futures, money and time into their businesses.
Smoking bans are promoted by massively wealthy Charitable Organizations, and government agencies.
The ACS spent $4 million dollars to promote passage of the Chicago smoking ban. The public is not crying out for smoking bans. What do you think would happen to public support if Tobacco Control funding to flood the media with anti-smoking/anti-smoker messages was stopped????
When smoking is completely banned in restaurants and bars, you don't just inconvenience smokers or strike a blow for public health. You violate my private property rights, and simultaneously violate my individual liberty, my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
So, what about your neighboring communities and the way they are handling smoking ban ordinances? Arlington Heights, Wheeling and Prospect Heights have passed less restrictive bans than the one proposed by Cook County. In Highland Park and Deerfield, everyone just goes to Highwood.
Alsip, Antioch, Carbondale, Decatur, Fox Lake, Gurnee, Jacksonville, Joliet, Machesney Park, Mundelein, Orland Hills, Park City, Peoria, Rockton, Streator, and Towanda have refused bans.
Oak Forest, Orland Park and Tinley Park have temporarily rescinded their bans. (Oak Forest and Orland Hills decided to lift the ban until March 14, when Cook County's ban takes effect. Tinley Park lifted its ban until Feb. 21. Oak Forest officials said they might go even further and rescind the ban entirely.)
Regarding the Springfield smoking ban, I am quoting Steve Riedl, Executive Director of the ILBA, from a December news story in the Daily Herald: “The (smoking) ban enacted September 17th in Springfield...has cut bar business by an average of 50 percent.”
For anyone who has a doubt that smoking bans have an economically negative impact on private hospitality venues, I would like to have one major question answered by the Smoke Free ban proponents who continue to trumpet that smoking bans do not hurt business in the hospitality industry. Why is the “level playing field” issue always raised as a solution to any city, community or county already suffering under a draconian smoking ban? Why should a “level playing field” even be required? That logic is a contradiction.
Thank you
______________________________ 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!
Glenview Smoking Ban Information Packet - 02/08/07
"Why You Should Fight a Smoking Ban" - Michael J. McFadden(Revised October 2006, Special Edition for Illinois)Contact: Garnet Dawn for more information on this booklet
"How to lose your business in 8 days"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/206215,113NWS3.article
"The right to be risky and stupid"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/lang/221235,211LNG1.article
"Government will decide for you, if you let it"http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/01/19/opinion/editorials/308803680612603.txt
"The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
"Bill Reverses Hawaii's Smoking Ban in Bars, Nightclubs and Restaurants"http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?92e245cc-99d4-4cce-bbc7-c51c4e12cb9d
"Right and left agree: Ban freedom to choose"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/kadner/221221,211PKD1.article
Thank you, Village President Cummings and the Glenview Board of Trustees for allowing me to speak this evening. Also, thank you to Glenview resident, Linda Casey, for sponsoring me. I have prepared a related packet of information for each of you.
My name is Garnet Scheuer and I am the Founding Director of Illinois Smokers Rights and I am speaking as a member of the Heartland Group on the Agenda. We are a relatively new organization that has developed on behalf of smokers and non-smokers who object to smoking bans and the unfair taxation of cigarettes. We promote pro-choice and free market solutions.
The health risks of second-hand smoke are vastly exaggerated. The poison is in the dose...and the dosage from SHS in a decently ventilated and filtrated establishment cannot pose health threats.
To date, no tobacco studies have been able prove the health risks from Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Smoking bans are not about health. They never have been. They are about power, money and control.
Our previous Surgeon General Carmona issued a massive study as one of his final accomplishments, stating that "The debate is over".
However, contrary to his media statements and Executive Summary, the report was simply a rehashing of the same studies that have already been circulated and are still inconclusive.
Since the Illinois Clean Indoor Act in 1989 banned smoking in public buildings, tobacco smoking has been eliminated from all indoor areas where the public may be required to go, and has greatly reduced any exposure to tobacco for people who find it objectionable.
Now, the remaining private businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry are being targeted by tobacco control activists.
A fact seemingly ignored is that approximately 70% of restaurants and bars have already elected to become smoke-free....and that should be their choice because they are still privately owned businesses and on personal property....even if the public is invited to enter. Business owners need to have their property rights defended, not removed.
More restrictive smoking bans in restaurants and bars will not save one single life. Smoking bans DO hurt small businesses.
Economic studies that bundle together revenue levels from large chain restaurants, previously smoke-free businesses and fast food operations with privately owned restaurants, bars and bowling alleys, do not reflect the true damage done to the individuals who have been brave enough to invest their futures, money and time into their businesses.
Smoking bans are promoted by massively wealthy Charitable Organizations, and government agencies.
The ACS spent $4 million dollars to promote passage of the Chicago smoking ban. The public is not crying out for smoking bans. What do you think would happen to public support if Tobacco Control funding to flood the media with anti-smoking/anti-smoker messages was stopped????
When smoking is completely banned in restaurants and bars, you don't just inconvenience smokers or strike a blow for public health. You violate my private property rights, and simultaneously violate my individual liberty, my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
So, what about your neighboring communities and the way they are handling smoking ban ordinances? Arlington Heights, Wheeling and Prospect Heights have passed less restrictive bans than the one proposed by Cook County. In Highland Park and Deerfield, everyone just goes to Highwood.
Alsip, Antioch, Carbondale, Decatur, Fox Lake, Gurnee, Jacksonville, Joliet, Machesney Park, Mundelein, Orland Hills, Park City, Peoria, Rockton, Streator, and Towanda have refused bans.
Oak Forest, Orland Park and Tinley Park have temporarily rescinded their bans. (Oak Forest and Orland Hills decided to lift the ban until March 14, when Cook County's ban takes effect. Tinley Park lifted its ban until Feb. 21. Oak Forest officials said they might go even further and rescind the ban entirely.)
Regarding the Springfield smoking ban, I am quoting Steve Riedl, Executive Director of the ILBA, from a December news story in the Daily Herald: “The (smoking) ban enacted September 17th in Springfield...has cut bar business by an average of 50 percent.”
For anyone who has a doubt that smoking bans have an economically negative impact on private hospitality venues, I would like to have one major question answered by the Smoke Free ban proponents who continue to trumpet that smoking bans do not hurt business in the hospitality industry. Why is the “level playing field” issue always raised as a solution to any city, community or county already suffering under a draconian smoking ban? Why should a “level playing field” even be required? That logic is a contradiction.
Thank you
______________________________ 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!
Glenview Smoking Ban Information Packet - 02/08/07
"Why You Should Fight a Smoking Ban" - Michael J. McFadden(Revised October 2006, Special Edition for Illinois)Contact: Garnet Dawn for more information on this booklet
"How to lose your business in 8 days"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/206215,113NWS3.article
"The right to be risky and stupid"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/lang/221235,211LNG1.article
"Government will decide for you, if you let it"http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/01/19/opinion/editorials/308803680612603.txt
"The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
"Bill Reverses Hawaii's Smoking Ban in Bars, Nightclubs and Restaurants"http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?92e245cc-99d4-4cce-bbc7-c51c4e12cb9d
"Right and left agree: Ban freedom to choose"http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/kadner/221221,211PKD1.article
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C16%5Cstory_16-2-2007_pg3_8
Smokers’ choice
Sir: The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of ‘second-hand’ smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat — decades of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the ‘right’ decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion in their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect ‘public places’, they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid ‘second-hand’ smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives.
THOMAS LAPRADE Via email
Smokers’ choice
Sir: The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of ‘second-hand’ smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat — decades of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the ‘right’ decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion in their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect ‘public places’, they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid ‘second-hand’ smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives.
THOMAS LAPRADE Via email
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C16%5Cstory_16-2-2007_pg3_8
Smokers’ choice
Sir: The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of ‘second-hand’ smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat — decades of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the ‘right’ decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion in their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect ‘public places’, they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid ‘second-hand’ smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives.
THOMAS LAPRADE
Via email
Smokers’ choice
Sir: The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of ‘second-hand’ smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat — decades of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the ‘right’ decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion in their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect ‘public places’, they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid ‘second-hand’ smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives.
THOMAS LAPRADE
Via email
