From Des Moines, Iowa:
The state’s proposed rules to regulate a statewide smoking ban treats hundreds of bars as restaurants, which means customers won’t be able to smoke in outdoor patio areas, some business owners and a few legislators said today.
"In my mind and in the minds of just about every single legislator I’ve talked with in the past week – and that’s about 20 or so – this is an absolute perversion of the legislative intent. Period," said Rep. McKinley Bailey, a Webster City Democrat.
The state's administrative rules are intended to help clarify and implement laws and spell out details of enforcement. The Legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed the proposed rules for the smoking ban today.
The Legislature this year approved a ban on smoking in almost all public places, including bars and restaurants, effective July 1. One provision in the law allows bar owners to permit smoking in their outdoor patio areas but prohibits restaurants from allowing outdoor smoking.
The rules, also effective July 1, say that bar food is limited to ice, pre-packaged snacks, popcorn, peanuts and the reheating of commercially prepared foods that do not require assembly, such as frozen pizza.
Under that definition, bars that have a grill and serve a burger, for example, would be considered a restaurant.
The draft rules were recommended by the Iowa Department of Public Health, along with a number of other state agencies, including the attorney general's office and the Department of Inspections and Appeals.
"This is a clear case where a state agency is going beyond the scope of the intended legislation," said Tom Baldwin, owner of Drink, a Clive bar.
Roughly 3 percent of Drink’s sales are from food. But because of the proposed rules, the facility would be considered a restaurant for the purposes of enforcement of the statewide smoking ban, he told the rules committee today.
The Iowa Board of Health is expected to vote on the rules at 2 p.m. today The rules are likely to be put into place by July 1 even though a public comment period will continue through Aug. 6, said Don McCormick, a spokesman for the Department of Public Health.
State officials involved in the rules committee could revise them as a result of public input, even after the July 1 start date, he said.
More information on Iowa Anti-Smoking Laws:
RULES: The rules, including information about the rule-making process and how to send state officials a comment about the law, can be found at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.
Smoking ban details
PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS BANNED: Bars; restaurants; restaurants' outdoor seating areas; financial institutions; public and private educational facilities; health care provider locations; laundries; schools; public transportation facilities, including buses and taxicabs, and the ticketing, boarding and waiting areas of these facilities; reception areas; aquariums, galleries, libraries and museums; retail food production and marketing establishments; service establishments; retail stores; shopping malls; entertainment venues, including theaters, concert halls, auditoriums and other similar facilities or sports arenas; polling places; convention facilities and meeting rooms; waiting rooms; public buildings and places of public assembly owned, leased or operated by the state; private residences when used as child care facilities or health care provider locations; and child care facilities.
PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED: Outdoor areas of bars; veterans organizations, except at functions where the general public is invited; farm tractors and trucks; fairgrounds; designated areas of National Guard facilities; designated areas of correctional facilities; areas of casino gambling; some hotels; tobacco stores; semiprivate rooms in long-term-care facilities; many outdoor areas that are places of employment; most limousine services; and homes, except those used as child care facilities.
Smoking ban enforcement
FINES: A person caught smoking in a banned area is subject to a $50 fine. Employers or caretakers of public places who fail to enforce the law are subject to a $100 fine for the first offense, $200 for a second offense, and $500 for other violations within one year.
EMPLOYERS: An employer who fires, refuses to employ a worker, or retaliates against an employee who complains about a violation is subject to fines of $2,000 to $10,000.
SIGNS: The proposed rules outline the responsibilities of property owners or government officials to post no-smoking signs.
COMPLAINTS: The state's health department designates each law enforcement department in the state to help with enforcement. A toll-free number will be set up for people to complain about violators. Complaints may also be filed with state officials online at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.
RULES: Once legislation is signed by the governor it becomes part of the Iowa Code. Some laws require or authorize a state government agency to adopt administrative rules, which are the regulations the agency uses to implement the law.
EXPEDITED: The state's standard rule-making process takes at least 108 days and frequently lasts six months or longer. Because the smoking ban was signed into law by Gov. Chet Culver on April 15 and takes effect July 1, state officials are using an emergency rule-making process.
HEARINGS: The process involves public hearings and public comment periods. State health officials will hold at least five public meetings throughout the state. The public may comment now through Aug. 6. The dates of the public meetings will be posted online at www.iowasmokefreeair.gov.
PUBLIC: Even though the rules may be adopted, public comments made before the Aug. 6 deadline will be considered and could play a part in revisions to the rules. Revisions would probably be made in October.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Bar in Ohio Continues Last Fight for Freedom in America
The owner of Zeno’s Victorian Village, 384 W. Third Ave, a bar in Columbus, Ohio is still fighting to stop the smoking ban. They will be the first bar to challenge the right of the city to enforce the statewide smoking ban at a hearing Wednesday.
From the news story:
Zeno’s first encounter with the city came early on, with an investigation that started a year ago this month and resulted in a warning letter sent in late July. In October, the establishment was fined $100. That fine was paid.
In early December, the city fined Zeno’s $1,000. That’s double the base level for a second fine. The law allows the city to double the fine when inspectors believe the violations are “ intentional,” said John Richter, supervisor for Columbus’ smoke-free program.
The business has not paid that fine and instead requested the administrative hearing to take place Wednesday. A hearing officer will make recommendations to the Board of Health, which will take up the matter at its next meeting.
In the meantime, city started a fourth investigation in March, resulting in yet another fine, this time for $2,000, Richter said.
Each investigation was prompted by a complaint called into the city.
Dick Allen, owner of Zeno’s, could not be reached.
From the news story:
Zeno’s first encounter with the city came early on, with an investigation that started a year ago this month and resulted in a warning letter sent in late July. In October, the establishment was fined $100. That fine was paid.
In early December, the city fined Zeno’s $1,000. That’s double the base level for a second fine. The law allows the city to double the fine when inspectors believe the violations are “ intentional,” said John Richter, supervisor for Columbus’ smoke-free program.
The business has not paid that fine and instead requested the administrative hearing to take place Wednesday. A hearing officer will make recommendations to the Board of Health, which will take up the matter at its next meeting.
In the meantime, city started a fourth investigation in March, resulting in yet another fine, this time for $2,000, Richter said.
Each investigation was prompted by a complaint called into the city.
Dick Allen, owner of Zeno’s, could not be reached.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Hackers target pro choice websites
Looks like the anti-smokers are at it again. Long time members of SmokingLobby.com will remember when this site was hacked 2 years ago by some non-smoking zealots, and the site was down for a while. Couldn't stop me for long! We were back up within hours. Looks like they're going after a few groups in the UK now, just rec'd this press release:
The websites of two prominent pro choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans were yesterday targeted by hackers in a "pharming" incident that redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The DNS poisoning, a high level and sophisticated hacking technique, affected all UK based internet service providers.
Andy Davis, Vice Chairman of Freedom to Choose, one of the affected websites, says: "It appears that Freedom To Choose has annoyed someone high up, it seems they don't want the truth to get out."
Stephanie Stahl, President of Forces International, claims: "To re-direct our UK visitors to an anti-smoking website shows that the antismoking movement must be very nervous about the information our pro-freedom groups provide. Domain names are sacred on the free-spirited information super highway; we trust that those responsible for this serious violation will be identified and held accountable. "
Both groups campaign against government interference in private life and property, maintaining that blanket smoking bans are based on fraudulent scientific claims about passive smoking. According to Andy Davis: "5 out of 6 studies show second hand smoke to be entirely harmless. In the UK the ban is needlessly devastating the hospitality and entertainment industries, yet modern air filtration can remove 99.97% of airborne particles and make indoor air cleaner than outdoor, regardless of smoking."
The hacking incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and is under investigation. In the meantime, both www.freedom2choose.info and www.forces.org have restored normal service.
The websites of two prominent pro choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans were yesterday targeted by hackers in a "pharming" incident that redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The DNS poisoning, a high level and sophisticated hacking technique, affected all UK based internet service providers.
Andy Davis, Vice Chairman of Freedom to Choose, one of the affected websites, says: "It appears that Freedom To Choose has annoyed someone high up, it seems they don't want the truth to get out."
Stephanie Stahl, President of Forces International, claims: "To re-direct our UK visitors to an anti-smoking website shows that the antismoking movement must be very nervous about the information our pro-freedom groups provide. Domain names are sacred on the free-spirited information super highway; we trust that those responsible for this serious violation will be identified and held accountable. "
Both groups campaign against government interference in private life and property, maintaining that blanket smoking bans are based on fraudulent scientific claims about passive smoking. According to Andy Davis: "5 out of 6 studies show second hand smoke to be entirely harmless. In the UK the ban is needlessly devastating the hospitality and entertainment industries, yet modern air filtration can remove 99.97% of airborne particles and make indoor air cleaner than outdoor, regardless of smoking."
The hacking incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and is under investigation. In the meantime, both www.freedom2choose.info and www.forces.org have restored normal service.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Smoking Ban Increases Accidents 12 Percent
Ban on smoking causes crashes - study
A ban on smoking in American bars has increased the number of accidents apparently caused by drinking and driving.
US jurisdictions with a smoking ban have seen, on average, a nearly 12 percent rise in the number of drink-related accidents at the wheel, researchers say in a paper published in the Journal of Public Economics.
It's based on data from 2000 to 2005, drawn from counties that enforced a ban on smoking in bars during this period and from accident statistics before and after the ban was introduced.
Researchers found that instead of heading to their local bar for a drink and a puff, smokers ventured farther afield in search of a place where lighting up is still allowed
They may not be drinking more than before but they are certainly driving more - and that's what is increasing the risk of a crash.
The study said: "Banning smoking in bars increases the fatal accident risk posed by drunk drivers.
"Our evidence is consistent with two mechanisms -- smokers searching for alternative locations to drink within a locality and smokers driving to nearby jurisdictions that allow smoking in bars."
According figures cited in the report, nearly a one-third of the US population lives in cities, counties or states where there are restrictions on smoking in bars.
Study authors Scott Adams and Chad Cotti of the University of Wisconsin say the increase in drunk driving has to be weighed against "potential positive health impacts" from smoking bans, and this may take years to determine. - Sapa-AFP
Source
A ban on smoking in American bars has increased the number of accidents apparently caused by drinking and driving.
US jurisdictions with a smoking ban have seen, on average, a nearly 12 percent rise in the number of drink-related accidents at the wheel, researchers say in a paper published in the Journal of Public Economics.
It's based on data from 2000 to 2005, drawn from counties that enforced a ban on smoking in bars during this period and from accident statistics before and after the ban was introduced.
Researchers found that instead of heading to their local bar for a drink and a puff, smokers ventured farther afield in search of a place where lighting up is still allowed
They may not be drinking more than before but they are certainly driving more - and that's what is increasing the risk of a crash.
The study said: "Banning smoking in bars increases the fatal accident risk posed by drunk drivers.
"Our evidence is consistent with two mechanisms -- smokers searching for alternative locations to drink within a locality and smokers driving to nearby jurisdictions that allow smoking in bars."
According figures cited in the report, nearly a one-third of the US population lives in cities, counties or states where there are restrictions on smoking in bars.
Study authors Scott Adams and Chad Cotti of the University of Wisconsin say the increase in drunk driving has to be weighed against "potential positive health impacts" from smoking bans, and this may take years to determine. - Sapa-AFP
Source
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wisconsin Statewide Smoking Ban Snuffed Out in Legislature
WISCONSIN - Hopes for a statewide smoking ban are once again on hold. The Assembly ended its session Wednesday without giving the bill a vote, which means the debate is likely over until 2009.
Appleton's working smoking ban won't be going statewide after lawmakers failed to cast a vote on an issue that's been divisive, especially among bar and restaurant owners.
"I'm disappointed. I think for everybody across the street, on a fairness question, it would be nice to see it on a level playing field," Mark Dougherty of Mark's East Side Restaurant said.
Dougherty supports a statewide ban. He says the local smoking ban has brought in more business to his restaurant.
Still, others say if a tavern doesn't sell food the losses are there.
"I don't think just because I'm hurting my neighbor in another community needs to be hurting also. There has to be some sort of compromise," Brian Striegel of Camelot Bar said
The Wisconsin Tavern League fought for a phase-in period of up to three years for bars. Others felt there should be exemptions for ventilation systems or rooms open only to smokers.
Still, one lawmaker isn't giving up. Representative Steve Wieckert plans to bring back the smoking ban bill next January.
"The bill has to start from ground zero, so to speak, next year," Wieckert said. "It has to be introduced, but we can say it has the support of both committees previous session."
With bans already in Minnesota and Illinois, it's an issue eventually state lawmakers will have to vote on.
"They're just standing in the way of progress here. I think they should take it on instead of putting it off. Wisconsin should lead it a little more," Dougherty expressed.
Article Source
Appleton's working smoking ban won't be going statewide after lawmakers failed to cast a vote on an issue that's been divisive, especially among bar and restaurant owners.
"I'm disappointed. I think for everybody across the street, on a fairness question, it would be nice to see it on a level playing field," Mark Dougherty of Mark's East Side Restaurant said.
Dougherty supports a statewide ban. He says the local smoking ban has brought in more business to his restaurant.
Still, others say if a tavern doesn't sell food the losses are there.
"I don't think just because I'm hurting my neighbor in another community needs to be hurting also. There has to be some sort of compromise," Brian Striegel of Camelot Bar said
The Wisconsin Tavern League fought for a phase-in period of up to three years for bars. Others felt there should be exemptions for ventilation systems or rooms open only to smokers.
Still, one lawmaker isn't giving up. Representative Steve Wieckert plans to bring back the smoking ban bill next January.
"The bill has to start from ground zero, so to speak, next year," Wieckert said. "It has to be introduced, but we can say it has the support of both committees previous session."
With bans already in Minnesota and Illinois, it's an issue eventually state lawmakers will have to vote on.
"They're just standing in the way of progress here. I think they should take it on instead of putting it off. Wisconsin should lead it a little more," Dougherty expressed.
Article Source
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Smoking Ban Proposed For Renters
Proposed Legislation To Prevent Renters From Smoking In Apartments
March 3, 2008
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — A new smoking ban is in the works that could make it illegal to smoke in your own apartment.
New legislation is being proposed by democratic senator Alex Padilla of Van Nuys that would allow, not require landlords to ban smoking inside their rental units.
The Rental Association of Sacramento Valley supports the legislation and has already mailed out thousands of informational leaflets to apartment complexes in the Sacramento area.
Cory Koehler Deputy Director of the Renters Housing Association discussed benefits of the legislation, " there's the reduced costs, reduced cleaning cost, reduction of fire danger to the property and really a healthy living environment for other residents."
Some renters like Enrique Rojas disagree with the proposed legislation, " that law doesn't make any sense at this point, I understand bars maybe they should ban it in bars but not in your own apartment. I don't believe that's right."
The smoke-free housing bill has been read in the committee and unlike similar bills that have been proposed in the past, housing experts say this has a better chance of passing because it is not mandated and up to each landlord to ban smoking or not.
March 3, 2008
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — A new smoking ban is in the works that could make it illegal to smoke in your own apartment.
New legislation is being proposed by democratic senator Alex Padilla of Van Nuys that would allow, not require landlords to ban smoking inside their rental units.
The Rental Association of Sacramento Valley supports the legislation and has already mailed out thousands of informational leaflets to apartment complexes in the Sacramento area.
Cory Koehler Deputy Director of the Renters Housing Association discussed benefits of the legislation, " there's the reduced costs, reduced cleaning cost, reduction of fire danger to the property and really a healthy living environment for other residents."
Some renters like Enrique Rojas disagree with the proposed legislation, " that law doesn't make any sense at this point, I understand bars maybe they should ban it in bars but not in your own apartment. I don't believe that's right."
The smoke-free housing bill has been read in the committee and unlike similar bills that have been proposed in the past, housing experts say this has a better chance of passing because it is not mandated and up to each landlord to ban smoking or not.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Protesters gather to oppose state smoking ban
This article just appeared in the Southern. Hmm, wonder why they didn't bother to do just a little research to learn that the FORCES website is located at forces.org, not force.org. They even mentioned they tried to do a google search and couldn't find the site. If they did just a little research, like type the phrase "force.org smokers rights" into Google, they would see FORCES.org is the 3rd result (and with a little pat on the back I might mention SmokingLobby.com is the first two results :)
But it doesn't detract from the point of the article, which is to mention the very successful protect that Jon Hemminghaus organized. Kudos to him, a non-smoker, who believes enough in our rights as citizens of a free country, to fight government control and censorship in any form.
Source: The Southern
WEST FRANKFORT - Erik Lind drove all the way from Minneapolis to show his disdain for Illinois' statewide smoking ban.
Jon Hemminghaus, owner of Wounded Rig Fiberglass and Gel Coat Repair in West Frankfort, hosted a protest at noon Saturday against the ban that began in January with stump speeches, greeters in Revolutionary War costumes waving the American flag - and smoking. While the smoking took place outside, Hemminghaus said anyone was welcome to smoke inside his establishment.
"This is the only thing you can do to get noticed," Hemminghaus said. "You can sign a petition and write a letter, but it doesn't do you a bit of good."
Lind, who said he was a contributor to a smokers' rights group called force.org, said he made the drive from Minneapolis because he was inspired by Hemminghaus' willingness to fight for smokers' rights.
"It's a fairly rare opportunity, and I wanted to be a part of it," Lind said. "Maybe it will grow from here."
The protest didn't gain much attention from law enforcement, although Hemminghaus did say some police officers checked on the parking situation earlier.
Hemminghaus carried a cigar with him throughout the protest, despite not being a smoker. He said the protest was more about the government telling people what they can and can't do.
"That flag out there," Hemminghaus said referring to the American Flag. "A lot of people can remember when that stood for freedom."
Hemminghaus thanked people for attending and let others take the stage, including a representative from force.org, which doesn't show up as a Web site in a Google search. The representative encouraged those in attendance to fight the ban and gave examples of reasons to fight the smoking ban, including an allegation that the smoking ban that Mayor Michael Bloomberg enacted in New York City in 2003 forced several casinos to file for bankruptcy. However, according to casino directory www.casinocity.com, there are no casinos in New York City.
For Hemminghaus, the main purpose for the protest was to let the government know that he won't let the smoking ban inflict peoples' rights.
"Smoking doesn't really affect me," Hemminghaus said. "It's just taking rights away."
But it doesn't detract from the point of the article, which is to mention the very successful protect that Jon Hemminghaus organized. Kudos to him, a non-smoker, who believes enough in our rights as citizens of a free country, to fight government control and censorship in any form.
Source: The Southern
WEST FRANKFORT - Erik Lind drove all the way from Minneapolis to show his disdain for Illinois' statewide smoking ban.
Jon Hemminghaus, owner of Wounded Rig Fiberglass and Gel Coat Repair in West Frankfort, hosted a protest at noon Saturday against the ban that began in January with stump speeches, greeters in Revolutionary War costumes waving the American flag - and smoking. While the smoking took place outside, Hemminghaus said anyone was welcome to smoke inside his establishment.
"This is the only thing you can do to get noticed," Hemminghaus said. "You can sign a petition and write a letter, but it doesn't do you a bit of good."
Lind, who said he was a contributor to a smokers' rights group called force.org, said he made the drive from Minneapolis because he was inspired by Hemminghaus' willingness to fight for smokers' rights.
"It's a fairly rare opportunity, and I wanted to be a part of it," Lind said. "Maybe it will grow from here."
The protest didn't gain much attention from law enforcement, although Hemminghaus did say some police officers checked on the parking situation earlier.
Hemminghaus carried a cigar with him throughout the protest, despite not being a smoker. He said the protest was more about the government telling people what they can and can't do.
"That flag out there," Hemminghaus said referring to the American Flag. "A lot of people can remember when that stood for freedom."
Hemminghaus thanked people for attending and let others take the stage, including a representative from force.org, which doesn't show up as a Web site in a Google search. The representative encouraged those in attendance to fight the ban and gave examples of reasons to fight the smoking ban, including an allegation that the smoking ban that Mayor Michael Bloomberg enacted in New York City in 2003 forced several casinos to file for bankruptcy. However, according to casino directory www.casinocity.com, there are no casinos in New York City.
For Hemminghaus, the main purpose for the protest was to let the government know that he won't let the smoking ban inflict peoples' rights.
"Smoking doesn't really affect me," Hemminghaus said. "It's just taking rights away."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)