Maine Forces Archives

In other words, it's Dogpile On The Smoker Time again. Guys who would normally oppose any kind of tax increase think it's okay to treat smokers like al Qaida prisoners in shackles. Don't like it? Call your ambassador in Guantanamo.....

NEW SMYRNA BEACH -- A 13-year-old New Smyrna Beach boy was beaten to death Friday by a 15-year-old boy who thought the victim had given cigarettes to the older boy's little brother, authorities said.

Now health advocates concerned about secondhand smoke want to extinguish smoking in Mary Abraham's favorite Jacksonville sports bar and similar establishments statewide. Abraham says it won't stop there.

Mayors and officials of nine Valley cities and towns on Thursday agreed that a regional or statewide smoking ban is needed to prevent some cities from losing money to competitors.

Bloomberg Seeks to Ban Smoking in Every Restaurant and Bar

They Raided the Tobacco Settlement, Now They are Trying to Explain Their Mistake

Starting July 1, 2002, the state intends to prohibit cigarette manufacturers from offering retail discounts that in recent months have averaged about 60 cents a pack. . Officials say the combination of the tax increase and the discount prohibition could make Massachusetts cigarettes the most expensive in the country, boosting their current price by 30 to 35 percent.

''It's a huge price increase for consumers,'' said Thomas Ryan, a spokesman for Philip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboros.

Letter From Mesa, Ariz.
When Smoking Was Banned, One Restaurant Nearly Went Under Until Owner Fought Back

After Jan. 1, when Washington raised its cigarette tax to $1.42 per pack, the highest in the nation, many smokers in border areas made resolutions to travel to Idaho or Oregon for cheaper smokes.

As a result, the drop in Washington cigarette sales is far bigger than expected, state officials said.

(Personally, I would like to know what the states expect. They actually think we will stop smoking? They have another thought coming!!)

Smokers have plenty of incentive to rush pall mall across the border. The state tax on a carton of cigarettes in Washington is $14.25. It's just $2.80 in Idaho, and $6.80 in Oregon, Mitchell said.

TK O'Malleys in Dartmouth and TJ's Bar and Grill in Fairhaven have become adults-only establishments, which means they can allow smoking by keeping out minors.

Washington State-they recognize that adults do smoke and make provisions for them.

"The shelters are there for patients and employees. . . . You can't stop people from smoking."

Political heat about smoking ban crusade is long overdue

Smokers, arguably Big Tobacco's most direct "victims," are actually paying for the settlement, through steeply higher cigarette prices forced by the litigation. Their money is largely buying them persecution, in the form of ban campaigns.

The teen idol in Sidney, Australia! She always said she couldn't stand smoking and would never smoke. Yes...right!

Like Forces International says: Smoke with pride Britney. Your fans will love you for it.

In hot pursuit of that treasure trove, our greedy state and federal executives ignore the destructive effects of their proposals. Put bluntly, higher tobacco taxes are an incitement to black markets, wrongheaded economics and ineffectual at reducing cigarette use by kids.

Written by a miss-guided Doctor in southern Maine. Dr. Eric Steele writes about a 46 year old woman, smoker, who could hardly drag herself into her office, her heart was so bad. Dr. Steele goes on to say that they were childhood friends. He tried to smoke, and could not. (If smoking as claimed is so addictive, why didn't Dr. Steel get hooked?) His friend continued on the road of smoking.

He claims that within 48 hours, her health insurance would be paying out $10,000 dollars in the next 48 hours, and if already wrote her obituary by saying "if the rest of her day went as badly, she would be dead."

Why is everything blamed on smoking? There is a lot behind this 46 year old woman. For instance: is she obese? Did she exercise? How was her overall health, Dr. Steele? Why do you just lump it all under "She's a smoker."

None of us want to see teens smoke. The education begins at home. But for you to state that when a teen begins smoking, they die as teens. Now you know yourself, this is just not true. Why are lies like this continually allowed to be published to unsuspecting people who read the Bangor Daily News?

Your a Doctor, and yet you print out garbage like this. Dr. Steele must be friends with the Partners For a Smoke Free Maine. I'm really disappointed.

Ray L. Perkins Jr. Founder & President Mid-Coast Maine Promotion "For Clean Indoor Air," Waldoboro
Pushing Rat Poison

Nov 14-Ray L. Perkins has too much time on his hands and too much on his plate. I would like to know where he gets his statistics and also, how he dare say that over half of the smokers are mentally ill?! Send a letter to the Editor of the Bangor Daily News to protest this man. He might not smoke, but he sure doesn't sound to stable to me.

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) yesterday vetoed legislation that would have regulated smoking in the privacy of people's homes, reversing course after a rash of worldwide attention and a public opinion backlash.

Council member Michael L. Subin (D-At Large), an opponent, said, "We've become the laughingstock of the world."

"""WANTED: insane people to be no-smoking-in-public-code enforcers for the
state of Delaware. Must enter bars late at night without weapons, brains
and next of kin. Call - 1-(800) I BE NUTS anytime"""""

Read the intercepted email from the anti's about their attack on Delaware. And they think WE are bad for trying to protect our rights.

I fought against this tax increase last winter and early spring. To no avail. The Democrats along with our Governor increased taxes on cigarettes and raised the taxes on prepared food.

Too many of our Representatives have been mislead about tobacco and cigarettes. They use the excuse of raising cigarette taxes "to keep kids from smoking," and "to cover health care for sick smokers," when in all truth, the higher cigarette taxes have been imposed on the smokers in Maine to cover their little pet social programs. Have you ever wondered why the Representatives don't raise taxes on liquor? Because smoking is politically incorrect, but drinking still is! Alcohol kills more people in car accidents and with liver disease then smoking ever will. Not to mention-abuse.

Over half of the Representatives in Maine aren't fair to all constituents. They are not fair to 1 in 4 of the constituents. They were elected to help and serve ALL the people in Maine. Not just 3 out of 4. Why are the adult's who choose to smoke being made to carry the tax burden in this state? Has anyone dared ask their Representative this question? I have.

"For the children" is a ploy to fund more social programs until we are
completely socialized. When cigarette taxes go high enough, the visits to the New Hampshire stores and the black market trucks from the Carolinas will increase. Taxing cigarettes is a flimsy way to have an on-going base of support. In spite of over 45 million each year from the tobacco settlement, the Democrats spent only a portion of it for tobacco-related problems, the remainder on their new and increased social programs. Yesterday the House Republicans had a press conference to announce our version of the remainder of the budget with NO NEW TAXES, yet funding all of the essential needs.

The Governor means that the money will go to help programs that will
help kids quit smoking etc. He completely lied and you should e-mail him
back and let him know that you know from legislators that none of this money will go for any cause to reduce smoking and it just goes to fund existing programs that have nothing to do with getting kids to stop smoking. BE COMPLETELY FRANK WITH HIM. Let him know that if he ever wanted to run for a higher position that you would never support him.

Saturday�s meeting is part of a five-year, statewide effort funded by the tobacco lawsuit settlement and the resultant Healthy Maine Partnerships, which have $211,000 a year to spend. To help finance projects in the Union River watershed, the Maine Community Foundation has added a $6,100 grant.

Ellsworth already has one of the partnership projects under way, a community garden in back of Woodlawn, the Black House, on Surry Road. Twenty plots are available for people who need a place to dig, plant and weed, with seeds and tools provided.

Weymouth , as a city, has begun to embark on a costly and difficult journey. Weymouth is about to make policemen out of store owners. With this in mind , we must ask the following...

The Board of Health unanimously approved several new tobacco control regulations Monday, including a ban on smoking in restaurants and the workplace.

The Weymouth Board of Health is reaching a great deal too far in restricting the constitutional rights of citizens, as well as businesses and club owners in the hospitality industry, by implementing the new smoking ban. The regulations were crippling before, but now making them townwide to include private clubs and organizations is offensive.

Quinn said he also has met with lawyers and representatives from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association to strategize how to prevent the Board of Health's new regulation from going into effect in March 2003.

Restaurants are private businesses, not public places. If restaurant owners want to allow smoking in their buildings, the government has no right to tell them they can�t. End of story.

But this fall, something happened to make her financial future suddenly look much more precarious.It isn't war, terrorism or recession. It's a restaurant smoking ban.

Duluth voters earlier this month rejected an attempt to repeal the smoking ban after MPAAT poured $49,000 into the hands of smoking-ban supporters in the last month of the referendum campaign to use for advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

Smoke steams out of Roger Egan's ears when he hears about proposals to mandate smoke-free workplaces.

A lot of times it's a minor structural problem that can be fixed," Zeamer said.
Good. So put some carpenters to work, not another law that takes away more freedom.

Today, I sent my son-in-law to the Maine Smoke Shop in Brewer to buy some tobacco. He is 19 years old, and is in the military . The person at the counter asked for his ID, which I can understand. When she saw it, however, she showed it to the owner, and the owner said, �That�s no good, get out of here.�

My son-in-law told me several places in Bangor will not accept his military ID. What is wrong with this town? I will ask everyone else just as I asked the owner of that shop when I called him: Do you not appreciate having your country protected by our boys?

I am from a military family. My father was retired military, and I was born in Bangor, but I am ashamed of how most of the businesses in this town act and treat their customers. This is the most unappreciative town I have ever lived in, and I have lived in many.

Our military men and women should be treated with respect, as should any customer. To tell someone to get our of their store because of their ID is an embarrassment. Do they treat all military personnel that way? Judging by the economy around here, they should be kissing their feet, for more reasons than just that they are protecting us. I informed the Maine Smoke Shop that they just lost a customer because of their attitude, and if I didn�t live here now, and need some of the other stores around here, I would tell them the same.

Open letter from George Kachulis, owner of Jack Feeney's Bar And Grill, 1355 Richmond Rd.

"Dear Alex. You remember me, don't you? I'm the guy in the restaurant business who voted for you (yes, I live in Kanata). I also said in my last e-mail to you that if I was still in business in six months after the smoking bylaw went into place, I would shake your hand.

"Sorry, Alex, but it now looks like it's just not going to happen. I may not make it to April when I figure my patio may save me. I have lost money since August; I was one of the few to comply, even though it was barely enforced anywhere else, and it's still not being enforced properly.

State tax chief says crackdown coming on tax free cigarettes click here

Connecticut's tax commissioner says the state will crack down on tax-free cigarettes sales on the Internet and through the mail, hoping to recover millions of dollars in lost revenue.

TALLAHASSEE - Setting up a potential battle between Big Tobacco and health groups at the ballot box in November, the state Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban smoking in Florida businesses, including bars and restaurants.

The restaurant industry opposes the measure and told the court that the wording voters would see on the ballot mentions ''enclosed indoor workplaces'' -- but not restaurants specifically -- and voters might not realize they are voting to ban smoking in restaurants as well.

T he argument that this is being done "for smokers' own good" is demeaning: our bodies are not government property. The argument that smokers cost society money is specious: about one third of us considerately die before cashing in on social security. The argument that smoke is harmful to others is nothing but a subterfuge: the risk of second-hand smoke exposure has been so outrageously distorted that it amounts to an outright lie.

This "poll" appeared on the front page of the Bangor Daily News by the Eastern Maine Medical Center: 2-28-02

ahhhh...who cares? And what does this prove? What poll will Eastern Maine run next: how many "fat burgers" the people in Bangor are eating? What are they using these polls for anyway!

Whatever you think about smoking, weep for the mother who cannot smoke in her own bathroom, lest her son be forbidden from staying with her. In fact, weep for America....

John Caher
New York Law Journal
March 25, 2002
I n an apparent case of first impression, a judge in Utica, N.Y., has prohibited a mother from smoking in the presence of her 13-year-old son.

What makes Supreme Court Justice Robert F. Julian's order in a visitation matter extraordinary is that he banned the parent from smoking even though the youth is neither allergic to cigarette smoke nor afflicted with a disease such as asthma that could be exacerbated by exposure.....

Ms DeMatteo's lawyer, Joan Shkane, said: "The father can request urine samples, air samples from her home and that's just another way he is intruding on her life. What they've done is turn Nicholas into a little informant."

Smoking cigarette tobacco never overdosed anyone. I wished these people would have just smoked cigarettes. Our Board of Health is so possessed by Maine smokers, when we have a much bigger issue in Maine.

Cigarette Makers Increase Pack Prices by 12 Cents

New York, March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Philip Morris Cos., the world's largest tobacco company, and Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. said they will raise the prices for their cigarettes by 12 cents a pack in April.

(Oh really?? Where do they plan on getting all that money from tobacco then?)

Bar and restaurant owners in Ottawa defending their rights to run their business's the way they see fit! Taking the Anti's to court!

They misled the public. In other words, they lied. They continually take information and print it with impunity, while destroying an industry because they �lied?� Are the world governments also lying. Why aren' t they being sued for billions?

The following court judgments can be found in their entirety at: www.forces.org �Evidence� pages. I am not asking you to believe me, just the evidence from Judges and the zealots themselves.

Antismokers Caught While Deleting Unfavorable Evidence in Passive Smoking Studies

Conflict of interest and the corruption of science in the anti-smoker industry were on parade in Australia last week when it was revealed that a report on environmental tobacco smoke was fiddled -- and that an anti-smoker lobbyist involved in the preparation of the report may have influenced its outcome.

An Australian news agency caught that country's main medical advisory group doctoring a report in order to cook up a case for smoking bans.

Seems that the Australian Associated Press got hold of documents which indicated that the report-writers, working under the august National Health and Medical Research Council, had deleted data which clearly did not support the report's recommendations for smoking bans in a whole host of publicly accessible places (Sydney, Australia AP, 04/20/97).

The news agency even obtained a copy of a "smoking gun" letter, in which one member of the report's working group, a Sydney University public health professor named Simon Chapman, complained that the data collected by the group didn't support the recommendations.

"Journalists looking at that table (or being directed to it by the industry) will be hard pressed to write anything other than 'Official: passive smoking cleared -- no lung cancer.'"

"Much of your report recommends tightening restrictions on passive smoking ... surely with your calculations being so low, these recommendations are way over the top?"

By the time the draft report came out, the table Chapman was referring to had been deleted.

The Associated Press also notes that the report was suppressed by a federal court, which ruled that the National Health and Medical Research Council had not discharged its duty to conduct public consultation and had not given genuine consideration to submissions.

How does this sort of thing happen? Good old-fashioned conflict-of-interest seems to be the most likely explanation?

You see, Mr. Chapman is the head of an anti-smoking lobby group, according to the press report. One would think that his declared activism would rule him out from participating in what we can only assume was intended to be an objective and unbiased report.
Yet Mr. Chapman was permitted to sit on a body the purpose of which was to review the state of scientific evidence as it related to environmental tobacco smoke and illness and make recommendations for public policy.

All sorts of questions arise. Why was someone with a clear and obvious vested interest in the outcome of the report allowed to be part of its preparation in the first place? Is Mr. Chapman paid for his position as head of the lobby group? How much is he paid and by whom?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that if you are a prominent lobbyist and you want to remain in the position, you need to demonstrate that you can be effective in getting things done that support your agenda.

Put plainly, the Australian report on environmental tobacco smoke seems to have been a case of letting the fox into the henhouse. The rights of smokers -- and public confidence in the scientific community -- were the casualties in this case.

The total silence of major North American media on virtually any information that could be used against the political agenda of the international anti-tobacco cartel is truly astonishing. We are almost ashamed to admit that even we at FORCES did not know about a major decision by the Australian Federal Court on the corrupted science about ETS. That decision predates the decision by the US Federal Court, for it was issued on December 20, 1996.

To the best of our knowledge, this information has gone totally unreported by the media.

The Australian National Health & Medical Research Council was taken to task by the tobacco industry for deliberately suppressing scientific evidence. Justice Finn's findings were eloquent:

" It is clear that the NH&MRC has fallen well short of meeting . the obligation to have regard to submissions received . to take them into account and to give positive consideration to their contents as a fundamental element in its decision making. "

" The community is not to be excluded from that participation simply because, for whatever reason, the NH&MRC does not wish to give consideration to some part of the contents of submissions. It had unilaterally excluded from consideration material, which it previously had determined to be relevant by virtue of the Terms of Reference it had approved. "

" What was objectionable in what the Working Party did was to adopt this exclusionary
discriminator without bringing to the notice of the public that this was what they were going to do. They misled the public. "
Justice Finn made subsequent orders that the recommendations contained in the draft report on the estimated costs to the community of passive smoking, and for the elimination of environmental tobacco smoke in public places be taken out, as those recommendations could not be inferred from the evidence contained in the report.

In fact, working party member Simon Chapman, an associate professor at the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at Sydney University and member of ASH (what is a member of a fanatical lobby group doing working in a National Health & Medical Research Council project?) and his gang were caught while deleting information that would have exonerated passive smoke from association with disease.

Justice Finn basically reached the same conclusion of Judge Osteen in the more notorious US case of the tobacco industry vs. EPA:

In the face of overwhelming evidence about the corruption of science and the lack of evidence on the "dangers" of ETS, the international anti-tobacco cartel turns to intimidation of the scientists who do not play along, libel, suppression of information, while accelerating the pace of repression. In the meantime the WHO, international arm of the cartel, paid by the pharmaceutical industry to push smoking cessation devices, and already a moppet of the US administration, endorses the frauds on ETS as part of its political agenda against smokers -- an agenda that is itself based on computer-generated epidemics that simply do not exist. In fact, the WHO endorses the VERY STUDY THAT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE AUSTRALIAN LAWSUIT, showing total disrespect for
the courts of the countries that are footing part of its immense expenditures when the findings of those courts go against its political agenda.

Shouldn't this have rung alarm bells to the fact that the passive smoking propaganda was a lie? Why the need to delete evidence?? Grow a brain and think for yourself. So even in Australia 4 years ago Official: passive smoking cleared-no lung cancer. Yet the antis to this day are still being allowed to use this phony evidence against the smoker, thus allowing governments to extort money and repeat there lies. The Australian Federal Court: Justice Finn's Decision on ETS. Research by Carol

In the end, the massive 1998 civil settlement penalized those who light up, not the offending tobacco firms

The landmark 1998 settlement of state cigarette suits for $243 billion broke all records for civil litigation in the United States, yet it set an unfortunate precedent and remains widely misunderstood.

Faced with a series of lawsuits by state attorneys general across the country, the tobacco industry brokered the settlement in two separate deals. First, it settled with four states for $37 billion, then with the remaining 46, including Massachusetts, for $206 billion. Both the litigation and the settlement were novel in many respects.

But smokers, not tobacco companies, on several levels bear the brunt of the deal, which established penalties equivalent to an additional tax on cigarettes. In most years this tax will be about 40 cents. Whether the states get paid off at all hinges on whether people continue to smoke and how much.

With media attention focused on the $243 billion figure, an observer might have expected that this meant the cigarette industry paid off the states with either a single damages payment or a series of payments over time. However, this is not how the settlement works.

Some antismoking advocates wanted the companies' shareholders to suffer, but they also liked the idea of a higher cigarette tax to discourage smoking. They couldn't have it both ways . The tax approach was chosen because it could potentially yield a higher financial return to the states than would a fixed payment up front. Shifting the settlement cost to smokers also presumably appealed to the cigarette industry. The parties who cut the deal benefited. But the smokers, who were unrepresented at the bargaining table, were worse off.

The settlement involved high-stakes political deals among the attorneys general. To determine which states got more than their fair share, I conducted a study calculating each state's share of the country's cigarette-related medical costs and compared that amount to its settlement share. Massachusetts did well. Its share of cigarette-related medical costs was 3.2 percent, and it got 4.1 percent of the settlement. New Hampshire was not as lucky, as its medical cost share was .9 percent, and its share of the settlement was .7 percent.

The three leading tobacco-producing states all were losers. Kentucky accounts for 2.8 percent of the medical costs, but got only 1.8 percent of the settlement. North Carolina accounts for 3.5 percent of cigarette-related medical costs, but received only 2.4 percent. Virginia, which bears 2.8 percent of the medical costs, received only 2.1 percent.

The attorney general most responsible for brokering the deal was Christine Gregoire of Washington state. Her state, which accounts for 1.5 percent of the medical costs, received 2.1 percent of the settlement. In fairness, perhaps the state should have gotten a bonus given Gregoire's central role in brokering the deal. But did the other state attorneys general realize that compensation to Washington for Gregoire's coordination efforts increased the state's piece of the action from $3.1 billion to $4.3 billion?

These enormous payments are even more striking given the speculative nature of the litigation. The lawsuits did not seek to recover for harm to individual smokers. In fact, smokers get nothing from this deal. Nor were the suits about youth smoking. Although many public officials said that the money from the settlement would be used to deter smoking by young people, that has not proven to be the case and was not a concern of the lawsuits. Rather, the suits were largely an accounting exercise in which the states argued that cigarettes increased the medical costs they incurred.

But let's look at the logic. Th e existence of economic costs is not a sufficient basis for giving the states a valid claim . Cars are also dangerous, but states can't recover for the costs of auto accidents. The states would also have had to show wrongful conduct on the part of the industry. That and other legal concerns combined with the unprecedented nature of the litigation to make the suits seem like longshots when they were launched.

The basic elements of the financial accounting added to the improbable prospects of the litigation. To be sure, smokers do incur higher medical costs - about five cents per pack in Massachusetts in the mid-1990s. Yet, because smokers have a shorter life expectancy than nonsmokers, smokers incur a cost of 11 cents per pack less in nursing home costs and nine cents per pack less in pension costs. On balance, smokers incur about 14 cents less per pack in costs paid by Massachusetts, while contributing an additional 51 cents per pack in excise taxes.

Any cost tally presumably should be comprehensive and recognize all cost effects of cigarettes, both positive and negative. Excise taxes also might get counted. Because the lawsuits were settled, there was never any legal resolution of which cost components get counted and which do not.

Other aspects of the settlement were equally novel and controversial. Lawyers were not paid based on hours worked, but rather were compensated through separate arrangements, most of which have remained secret. Some of the lawyers involved reaped enormous windfalls as a result of the deal, with legal fees in 21 states alone totaling $11 billion. These fees have provoked considerable controversy because many of the arrangements were a result of sweetheart deals with politically connected friends of attorneys general rather than a competitive bidding process that would have ensured that the lawyers would be paid fairly for effort expended.

Widespread concerns over the windfall gains reaped by the attorneys only touched on the most visible symptom of this flawed approach. T he settlement established a new tax on cigarettes without going through the usual legislative procedures that enable all segments of society to have political input. And the agreement included numerous regulatory provisions, such as restrictions on cigarette advertising. None of these policies underwent the usual scrutiny accorded governmental regulations.

Rather than settle the litigation, both sides should have pursued the case to its legal resolution. Doing so would have taken tax and regulatory policy out of the legal arena and established guidelines for similar litigation against other controversial products, ranging from guns to lead paint.

While most states remain enthusiastic about the incoming tobacco revenues, higher cigarette taxes, such as those being considered now by legislatures in Massachusetts and elsewhere, could have achieved the same effect without sidestepping conventional political processes.

WASHINGTON - A presidential commission that recommendeed a 17-cent tax increase on cigarettes may be close to abandoning the proposal in light of strong opposition from the public, the White House and Congress.

After four hours of debate, the only thing participants and speakers at two ASHRAE programs could agree on is that there is not likely to be agreement on smoking issues anytime soon.

The Board of Health last night unanimously approved amendments to its tobacco control regulations that will shut down smoking in bars located in restaurants and eliminate all smoking in the workplace.

Oklahoman Editorial: Dr. Beitsch, Heal Thyself

In 1995, Duke University economics professor W. Kip Viscusi analyzed evidence from federal studies and concluded that the risk from secondhand smoking is roughly parallel to the risk of drinking chlorinated water.

Beitsch needs a self- examination of his role in public health. His self-righteous, brusque behavior, his condescension toward those with whom he disagrees, will make him less effective in accomplishing his laudable goal of making Oklahoma a healthier state.
story here

Notice how they don't want the Delaware Legislature to "KNOW" who they are! Check out #3 where their people are instructed NOT to indicate what they belong too:

ALERT -- ALERT --ALERT -- PRIORITY! June, 13, 2002

Delaware's CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT presently is facing a legislative attack
that would roll back the law. Yesterday, nine legislators--led by Rep.
Bobby Quillen-- introduced House Bill 560, a bill which would exempt gaming
facilities and bars from the state's clean indoor air act.

The official synopsis of HB 560 is as follows:

"This bill amends the Clean Indoor Air Act by permitting smoking in bars,
taverns, taprooms, motorsports speedways, horse racetracks, and video
lottery machine facilities...."

Smokefree advocates must act now to preserve the new comprehensive law in
Delaware.

HB 560 is in the Business/Corps/Commerce Committee in the House of Reps,
chaired by Rep. Joseph Miro. Members of that committee are Rep Hudson, Rep
Fallon, Rep Maier, Rep Stone, Rep Ulbrich, Rep Wagner, Rep Brady, Rep
Houghton. Advocates in Delaware report that there are a minority of
smokefree supporters in this committee.

ACT TODAY (in order of priority):

1. Call your Representative and urge them to oppose HB 560 and support the
comprehensive law as it was enacted.   General contact information for
Delaware House of Representatives:
Dover Offices: (302) 744-4171 (R); (302) 744-4351 (D)
Fax: (302) 739-2773 (R); (302) 739-2313 (D)
Or, for direct contact information for legislators, please go to:
http://www.de.lwv.org/repu01.html.

2. Call Governor Minner
Contact Gov. Ruth Ann Minner and ask her to make a commitment NOW to veto
this bill if passed by the General Assembly.
302-577-3210 (Wilmington), 302-577-3118 (Wilmington FAX)
302-739-4101 (Dover), 302-744-2775 (Dover FAX)
or call 1-800-464-4357 and ask to be connected to the Governor's office.
Email: [email protected]

3. Write a letter to the editor of the News Journal (e-mail:
[email protected]) and the DE State News ([email protected] or
fax: 741-8252) Sign your name, but DO NOT indicate you are a member of
IMPACT: Your letter will have more meaning if you are a member of the
general public.   We can help if you need it.

4.Call House Speaker Terry Spence (home: 328-8961; Leg Hall: 744-4127) and
urge him to keep HB 560 off the House floor and support the comprehensive
enacted smokefree law.

5.Call each member of the Business Committee (listed above) and urge them
to oppose HB 560.

Points to share:

�      77% of the State DOES NOT smoke and supports the current law.
� Legislators should give the smokefree law time to work.
�      Ask your Rep., Terry Spence, and Gov. Minner, and legislators to
stand by the majority of constituents in Delaware who counted on them for
their support and expect to see them stand by their original intention.
�      Legislators need to give the law a chance to succeed.
�      Legslators need to do what is best for the public health of
Delawareans; do the right thing and vote NO on any proposed amendments to
the Clean Indoor Air Act..
�      Legislators should not believe the tobacco industry scare tactic of
economic chaos and financial doom-and-gloom.

Please pass this along to AT LEAST FIVE PEOPLE you know who will call their
Representative and their Senator and urge them to listen to the voice of
77% of Delawareans who stand behind this law. Advocates in Delaware worked
SO HARD to make Senate Bill 99 become law. Now, more than ever before, we
must keep the pressure on or we ll lose the battle against secondhand smoke.

Please feel free to contact Deb Brown of the ALA of Delaware
(1-800-LUNG-USA) for more information or to get involved locally, or
contact Bronson Frick of ANR at 510-841-3032.

Tim Filler
Associate Director
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J
Berkeley, CA 94702

The recent pact between Big Government and Big Tobacco represents the triumph of the raw power of government over the liberties of Americans. In protest, Reason urges all freedom-loving Americans (and any other interested parties) to buy a pack of cigarettes on the Fourth of July.

Portland Press Herald - 28 May 2002
The project will be funded through a $100,000 grant from the American Legacy Foundation of Washington, D.C. It's part of a nationwide project aimed at lowering smoking rates among minorities and low-income people.

But now we have a situation where, if you don't smoke and don't pay more taxes, you're not being good to the state of New York.

But the last time I checked, my Benson & Hedges menthol lights had not been listed as a controlled substance.

Duluth City Council to consider changes to smoking ban click here for Duluth Forces

Two days after Duluth business owners filed a complaint asking for investigations of the smoking ban debate by the city and county attorneys, the Duluth City Council agreed to discuss the financial impact of the ban and to consider amending the ordinance to allow more hardship exemptions for businesses.

Neill Atkins, one of three new city councilmen sworn into office earlier this month, proposed the action at Thursday's council agenda meeting. "If this ordinance truly is devastating these businesses," Atkins said, "I'd like to know how we can help them." Atkins opposed the ban during last fall's campaign. "This is not negating the election. This is fine-tuning the ordinance so that we can give some help to those local businesses that are being devastated by this ordinance."

An 18 year old male agreed to a drug/alcohol random test. He proved positive for nicotine, and has been banned from his school prom coming up on the 4th of May.

An 18-year-old high school student who tested positive for nicotine during a random drug test will get to attend his prom after all.

The CDC is right to note the dangers of smoking: You can get lung cancer, you can become more susceptible to illness and you can increase your chances of dying an early death. Everybody understand? Good. Now will the nags who take such great joy in telling the rest of us how to run our lives please shut up?

As the strictest penalty known in Minnesota for selling cigarettes to minors took effect Monday, workers removed all tobacco products--and their racks--from a Burnsville SuperAmerica station, says the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. SuperAmerica must pay a $10,000 fine by March 18, and the location was banned from selling tobacco products for a year after police caught clerks there selling to juveniles for the fifth time in two years.

February 27 - Mass Murder In Wisconsin - The Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board announced 1,200 people are murdered in the state each year by smokers. Despite knowing the precise number of homicides, the Control Board, doesn't have any names to attach to the victims. To aid in their detective work the Control Board, along with the American Cancer Society and Wisconsin's Department of Public Health, are seeking help from the citizens to match the deaths with real people. Undoubtedly when all 1,200 are identified, the Control Board will turn the information over to law enforcements so the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

For some odd reason, although the Control Board knows 1,200 people will be murdered each year, the state government still continues to allow tobacco not only to be smoked but also to be sold and taxed. Perhaps that highly ambivalent position is due to the fact that the Control Board is funded exclusively by tobacco money. The American Cancer Society would also go broke if the state outlawed tobacco.

Minneapolis Star Tribune
In January, Hatch filed a motion asking the court to clarify MPAAT's role, saying he had received complaints about the organization from the AFL-CIO, the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, chambers of commerce, city and county officials, and others. MPAAT subsequently delayed a vote on its next round of grants until it could conduct an internal review and appear with Hatch at the court hearing.

November 14 - Upscale Casino Caters To Smokers - The high stakes gambling area has its own bar, the Roller Lounge, which features a professional cigar and cigarette roller.

Although smokers are stereotyped as dumb and poor, the only new casino to open in Las Vegas this year is banking on attracting the young and affluent, many of whom smoke. The opening of the Palms Hotel/Casino comes at the same time a bunch of anti-tobacco operatives are scheming to impose the anti-tobacco ethos upon Nevada. It's interesting that people who work for a living, such as the owners/operators of the Palms Hotel, know that their financial success depends upon catering to all people while those who can't run a hotdog stand, such as anti-tobacco types, preach the gospel of exclusion and prohibition.

Life continues and the pleasures of life help make the pain and shock bearable for those men and women digging out the bodies from what was the World Trade Center. The No Smoking signs are ignored as irrelevant artifacts from an era when the trivial was elevated over reality. Real life triumphs over the suddenly ludicrous panics artificially generated by those who cannot understand what makes life worth living.
Someone piled cigarette cartons and cigars on the bar. Three cases of beer were ferreted from a closet.

Bloomberg Seeks to Ban Smoking in Every Restaurant and Bar

State tax chief says crackdown coming on tax free cigarettes click here

Cigarette Makers Increase Pack Prices by 12 Cents

Oklahoman Editorial: Dr. Beitsch, Heal Thyself