Redrant: 200 posts total on this blog! Greg Lang
Hello Everyone -
It is rather sad to see this type of damage caused by smoking bans. One has to ask, what is this world coming to? The government steps in and bans smoking legal products in almost all venues including private businesses, raises taxes on the product to make it unaffordable to some, socially stigmatizes smokers and then we are faced with the fall out or consequences of their actions. What is wrong with this picture? But perhaps the bigger question is, "Who are they going to attack next?" Something needs to change and that starts with all of us....we cannot be silent any longer....we need to act! We hold the power to elect our government officials so lets use it!
Shawn Gertken and I have been working on vetting the legislators running for the House and it is shaping up real nice. We will have an updated scorecard on them soon. The San Francisco article that Greg posted on his website www.freedomtoact.com is worth reading!
Thanks to the Smokers Club Inc for the articles below.
Sheila
Police Search For Man Who Killed Over Cigarettes
May 5, 2008BALTIMORE (WJZ) ― A woman is murdered over cigarettes. Police are asking for help as they try to catch her killer.
Derek Valcourt reports it happened in Southwest Baltimore over the weekend.
Police say the killer asked the victim and her boyfriend for something and when he didn't get it, he shot her in the head.
A makeshift memorial marks the spot on Brunswick Street where 29-year-old Dawn Shipley fell to the ground after being shot by a killer who, police say, wanted cigarettes.
Family members were left devastated by the tragedy that happened just after 1 a.m. Saturday.
Police say that's when Shipley and her boyfriend were walking home from a corner store and were approached by the man asking for cigarettes.
Dawn refused to hand them over.
"This angered the man. At some point he engaged her verbally, some words were exchanged. He produced a handgun and shot her," said Nicole Monroe with Baltimore City Police.
Shipley died a short time later at Shock Trauma. As friends of the victim and her family are coping with grief, police are now turning to the public for help.
They're asking any witnesses to come forward.
"The person that done this to my niece, if he's any kind of a human being, he would turn hisself in," said a relative.
Dawn's boyfriend, an eyewitness to the crime, is working with detectives to help identify the killer.
Elisa Shipley, the victim's sister-in-law, says she's now worried about Dawn's 9-year-old son Norman who is left grieving the loss of his mother.
"I don't want him to think God took her. God didn't take her. God accepted her, but he didn't take her. Evil took her, it wasn't her time," said Elisa.
Her family says they don't have enough money to cover funeral expenses, so they've set up the Dawn Shipley Memorial Fund. Donations can be made at any Provident Bank Branch.
Anyone with information on the case can remain anonymous and earn some reward money by calling Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-7-LOCKUP.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4274
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Another Update 7-15-08
Hello Everyone -
Just a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in our daily lives. Some people favor national health care but countries that have it are struggling too. Read the article and see how they propose to curb the spiraling costs. Is this what we want or are there other solutions?
Sheila
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
· Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment?
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."
Just a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in our daily lives. Some people favor national health care but countries that have it are struggling too. Read the article and see how they propose to curb the spiraling costs. Is this what we want or are there other solutions?
Sheila
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
· Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment?
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Fw: Theater Night Update 7-13-08
Hello Everyone -
Just a quick update with what is going on in Iowa and Hawaii. Iowa is already feeling the economic impact of their smoking ban as we knew they would. I do have a contact in Iowa and am keeping abreast of the Federal action they are pursuing. You can bet I will not pass up this opportunity for our state to be involved. On the Hawaii front, who is still fighting their smoking ban, they have banded together with other groups to bring their message to the legislators that they will not have their freedoms ripped away from them...actually not a bad idea!
Stay tuned....more updates to follow with our own legislators and their positions on issues.
Sheila
(P.S. Theater nights have not gone away.....just on vacation for now! I'll keep you updated.)
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_185203135.html
COBRA, IBOC file smoking ban petitionBy Danica BakerHerald Staff Writer
CLINTON — The Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant Association and the Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a lawsuit in an effort to get the statewide smoking ban overturned.The lawsuit includes a petition for an immediate injunction, asking the court to put a halt on the smoking ban until a ruling can be made on the law’s constitutionality.“It’s been our belief from the get-go that this law is unconstitutional,” said Jon Van Roekel, president of COBRA. “It’s blatant discrimination against smokers and it’s a property rights issue.”The petition was filed Tuesday evening in Polk County District Court in Des Moines. Van Roekel said the groups are not contesting the casino exemption, because many members feel the exemption will be overturned in the next legislative session.The petition names the Iowa Department of Public Health, IDPH Director Thomas Newton and the State of Iowa as defendants. Attorney George Eichhorn, of Stratford, is representing the plaintiffs in the case. Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC currently are the only two plaintiffs listed on the suit so far. He said more will be added as several organizations have contacted the two groups wanting to be named as parties to the lawsuit.Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC leaders are in the process of hiring a public relations firm out of Washington, D.C., to coordinate the release of information relating to court proceedings. He said the firm also will be responsible for contacting organizations to join in the lawsuit and injunction request as they too will be affected by the court’s decision.“In essence, we are fighting for the rights of every small business in Iowa,” said Van Roekel.He said the lawsuit and injunction request are the first step in getting the ban overturned. He said the groups plan to become more politically active, including putting candidates up for office “that will look out for the interests and rights of the small business owner.” Van Roekel said the final step is making the matter a national issue by pooling the resources of similar organizations throughout the United States and debating the constitutionality of the ban before the U.S. Supreme Court. He said COBRA and IBOC have been in contact with interested parties in nine states and are in the process of contacting many others.Van Roekel said part of the hypocrisy of the law is that small business owners don’t know the rules of the law because legislators haven’t been clear about the regulations and enforcement.“From the start, it’s just been a complete debacle. They needed to be clear, explain what the rules are, how to enforce them, how to handle complaints, who to contact. First, the Iowa Department of Public Health was to enforce this. Then the local police, then it was self-enforcement. First patios were allowed, now they’re not,” he said. “Very few people actually know what the rules are because they’ve changed so many times. All they’ve done is completely confuse the small business owner.”He said an injunction is necessary so legislators can step back and re-examine the issue, determine what is best for citizens and businesses and “go from there.”Van Roekel said local businesses have seen a decrease in revenue just in the first few days the smoking ban has been in effect. He said small business owners in Clinton are telling him that fewer patrons are coming to bars and spending less time there.“They are already seeing effects from this and I think it will only get worse from there,” he said. “The patrons are saying they feel they have been inconvenienced, made to be outcasts.”Van Roekel acknowledged criticism he has received regarding his decision to run against State Rep. Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, for the Iowa House District 26 seat, remarking that some are calling him a “one-issue candidate.”“If I’m a one-issue candidate, it’s not based on fighting the smoking ban, it’s protecting rights,” Van Roekel said. “We live in a free society. The more rights that are taken away, the less free we are.”No date for a hearing on the petition has been set.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/NEWS01/807070348/1001/LOCALNEWSFRONT
Smokers protest state restrictions
Motorcyclists, gun enthusiasts join in rally in front of state Capitol
By Suzanne RoigAdvertiser Staff Writer
As the nation yesterday wound down celebrations recognizing hard-fought freedoms, a group of smokers, gun owners and motorcyclists exercised a constitutional right in front of the state Capitol, waving flags, signs and banners in opposition to the state's ban on smoking.
"It's a question of freedom of choice," said Marty Hill, a bar owner who flew in from the Big Island to join the protest. "We think it's a bar owner's right to choose to be either a nonsmoking or smoking establishment."
A group of about 20 people, from 1 to 3 p.m., protested the nearly 2-year-old old law that bans smoking in businesses, including bars and restaurants — even open-air restaurants — and requires smokers to be at least 20 feet from any public building before lighting up. The law is among the toughest in the nation and was pushed by Hawai'i anti-smoking groups for nearly two decades before it passed — touted as a way to protect people from secondhand smoke.
To comply with the law, Hill posted signs around his Kailua, Kona, bar reminding smokers that the law prohibits smoking in public places, "but if they choose to smoke, here's an ashtray."
State Sen. Roz Baker, D-5th District (South and West Maui), who was the lead sponsor of the bill banning smoking, said that while the protesters had a right to assemble, there is nothing written in the Constitution guaranteeing a person the right to smoke.
"It's a public health issue, not a civil rights issue," Baker said. "There's nothing written in the Constitution that says you can harm your workers' health. I've had so many workers say to me how much they appreciate the fact that they don't have to go home smelling of smoke. I'm glad to talk about this issue anytime."
Jolyn Tenn, of Hawaii Smokers Alliance, held a broom yesterday to illustrate her desire to sweep out lawmakers who voted in favor of the ban. She said the gun enthusiasts and motorcyclists asked to join the protest rally because they feel that helmets, gun laws and smoking bans all impede rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
"At a pub or at the state Capitol, it should be up to the business owner to decide what the policy will be on smoking in his or her own establishment," Tenn said. "The law is discriminatory."
Rick Davis arrived on his sidecar motorcycle in front of the Capitol with about five other cyclist, all wanting to support the smokers.
"I'm a nonsmoker," said Davis, a member of the Worldwide Motorcycle Club. "They have the right to smoke when there's adequate ventilation. I'm a gun enthusiast, and I feel the gun laws in Hawai'i are terrible. The laws impinge on our Second Amendment" rights.
Bill Comerford, Hawai'i Bar Association spokesman, held signs at the protest saying "Let the Owner Decide."
"People should be able to smoke a legal substance in a public or private space," Comerford said. "A lot of bars have lost business because you have to comply with the law."
Reach Suzanne Roig at sroig@honoluluadvertiser.com.
Just a quick update with what is going on in Iowa and Hawaii. Iowa is already feeling the economic impact of their smoking ban as we knew they would. I do have a contact in Iowa and am keeping abreast of the Federal action they are pursuing. You can bet I will not pass up this opportunity for our state to be involved. On the Hawaii front, who is still fighting their smoking ban, they have banded together with other groups to bring their message to the legislators that they will not have their freedoms ripped away from them...actually not a bad idea!
Stay tuned....more updates to follow with our own legislators and their positions on issues.
Sheila
(P.S. Theater nights have not gone away.....just on vacation for now! I'll keep you updated.)
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_185203135.html
COBRA, IBOC file smoking ban petitionBy Danica BakerHerald Staff Writer
CLINTON — The Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant Association and the Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a lawsuit in an effort to get the statewide smoking ban overturned.The lawsuit includes a petition for an immediate injunction, asking the court to put a halt on the smoking ban until a ruling can be made on the law’s constitutionality.“It’s been our belief from the get-go that this law is unconstitutional,” said Jon Van Roekel, president of COBRA. “It’s blatant discrimination against smokers and it’s a property rights issue.”The petition was filed Tuesday evening in Polk County District Court in Des Moines. Van Roekel said the groups are not contesting the casino exemption, because many members feel the exemption will be overturned in the next legislative session.The petition names the Iowa Department of Public Health, IDPH Director Thomas Newton and the State of Iowa as defendants. Attorney George Eichhorn, of Stratford, is representing the plaintiffs in the case. Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC currently are the only two plaintiffs listed on the suit so far. He said more will be added as several organizations have contacted the two groups wanting to be named as parties to the lawsuit.Van Roekel said COBRA and IBOC leaders are in the process of hiring a public relations firm out of Washington, D.C., to coordinate the release of information relating to court proceedings. He said the firm also will be responsible for contacting organizations to join in the lawsuit and injunction request as they too will be affected by the court’s decision.“In essence, we are fighting for the rights of every small business in Iowa,” said Van Roekel.He said the lawsuit and injunction request are the first step in getting the ban overturned. He said the groups plan to become more politically active, including putting candidates up for office “that will look out for the interests and rights of the small business owner.” Van Roekel said the final step is making the matter a national issue by pooling the resources of similar organizations throughout the United States and debating the constitutionality of the ban before the U.S. Supreme Court. He said COBRA and IBOC have been in contact with interested parties in nine states and are in the process of contacting many others.Van Roekel said part of the hypocrisy of the law is that small business owners don’t know the rules of the law because legislators haven’t been clear about the regulations and enforcement.“From the start, it’s just been a complete debacle. They needed to be clear, explain what the rules are, how to enforce them, how to handle complaints, who to contact. First, the Iowa Department of Public Health was to enforce this. Then the local police, then it was self-enforcement. First patios were allowed, now they’re not,” he said. “Very few people actually know what the rules are because they’ve changed so many times. All they’ve done is completely confuse the small business owner.”He said an injunction is necessary so legislators can step back and re-examine the issue, determine what is best for citizens and businesses and “go from there.”Van Roekel said local businesses have seen a decrease in revenue just in the first few days the smoking ban has been in effect. He said small business owners in Clinton are telling him that fewer patrons are coming to bars and spending less time there.“They are already seeing effects from this and I think it will only get worse from there,” he said. “The patrons are saying they feel they have been inconvenienced, made to be outcasts.”Van Roekel acknowledged criticism he has received regarding his decision to run against State Rep. Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, for the Iowa House District 26 seat, remarking that some are calling him a “one-issue candidate.”“If I’m a one-issue candidate, it’s not based on fighting the smoking ban, it’s protecting rights,” Van Roekel said. “We live in a free society. The more rights that are taken away, the less free we are.”No date for a hearing on the petition has been set.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/NEWS01/807070348/1001/LOCALNEWSFRONT
Smokers protest state restrictions
Motorcyclists, gun enthusiasts join in rally in front of state Capitol
By Suzanne RoigAdvertiser Staff Writer
As the nation yesterday wound down celebrations recognizing hard-fought freedoms, a group of smokers, gun owners and motorcyclists exercised a constitutional right in front of the state Capitol, waving flags, signs and banners in opposition to the state's ban on smoking.
"It's a question of freedom of choice," said Marty Hill, a bar owner who flew in from the Big Island to join the protest. "We think it's a bar owner's right to choose to be either a nonsmoking or smoking establishment."
A group of about 20 people, from 1 to 3 p.m., protested the nearly 2-year-old old law that bans smoking in businesses, including bars and restaurants — even open-air restaurants — and requires smokers to be at least 20 feet from any public building before lighting up. The law is among the toughest in the nation and was pushed by Hawai'i anti-smoking groups for nearly two decades before it passed — touted as a way to protect people from secondhand smoke.
To comply with the law, Hill posted signs around his Kailua, Kona, bar reminding smokers that the law prohibits smoking in public places, "but if they choose to smoke, here's an ashtray."
State Sen. Roz Baker, D-5th District (South and West Maui), who was the lead sponsor of the bill banning smoking, said that while the protesters had a right to assemble, there is nothing written in the Constitution guaranteeing a person the right to smoke.
"It's a public health issue, not a civil rights issue," Baker said. "There's nothing written in the Constitution that says you can harm your workers' health. I've had so many workers say to me how much they appreciate the fact that they don't have to go home smelling of smoke. I'm glad to talk about this issue anytime."
Jolyn Tenn, of Hawaii Smokers Alliance, held a broom yesterday to illustrate her desire to sweep out lawmakers who voted in favor of the ban. She said the gun enthusiasts and motorcyclists asked to join the protest rally because they feel that helmets, gun laws and smoking bans all impede rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
"At a pub or at the state Capitol, it should be up to the business owner to decide what the policy will be on smoking in his or her own establishment," Tenn said. "The law is discriminatory."
Rick Davis arrived on his sidecar motorcycle in front of the Capitol with about five other cyclist, all wanting to support the smokers.
"I'm a nonsmoker," said Davis, a member of the Worldwide Motorcycle Club. "They have the right to smoke when there's adequate ventilation. I'm a gun enthusiast, and I feel the gun laws in Hawai'i are terrible. The laws impinge on our Second Amendment" rights.
Bill Comerford, Hawai'i Bar Association spokesman, held signs at the protest saying "Let the Owner Decide."
"People should be able to smoke a legal substance in a public or private space," Comerford said. "A lot of bars have lost business because you have to comply with the law."
Reach Suzanne Roig at sroig@honoluluadvertiser.com.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Theater Night Update 7-9-08
Redrant: Dave Shedstad of 62A is running in my district. He lives a few blocks away from me. I plan to use my $50 once a year donation to Dave. Basically, once a year $50 single/$100 married couple can be donated to the an eleigble candidate and you get the money refunded by the State of Minnesota four to eight weeks later. It doesn't need to be in your district. This is a great program to help elected officials who support our cause. Ultimately your only cost is a stamp. Thus I registered I started the website http://spendastamp.com Check it out. I'll report on the progress of my $50 contribution here.
Be sure to read Sheila's latest update below. A lot more. Greg Lang.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Kromer
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:18 PM
Subject: Theater Night Update 7-9-08
Hello Everyone -
Next week (July 15th) is the dead line to file if you want to run for office (House of Reps). The vetting of candidates will then begin in earnest. Many of asked, "What can I do to change things?" There are several things you can do besides nothing. If you do nothing then you beget nothing and it is as simple as that. I know that everyone has very busy lives but if you want to change things then you need to participate. Some things that you can do are: Support candidates by donating money to their campaigns, volunteering to help (ie. passing out literature, helping with lawn signs, etc...), or promote candidates through conversation or posters in your bar. I personally have been making small contributions to various candidates and I also plan on volunteering some of my time to a few different candidates. Every little bit helps. Do you know about PCR money? PCR (political contribution refund) is a way of donating "free" money to candidates. A single person can donate $50 and a married couple can donate $100 to a candidate and then you apply for a refund to the state and get your money back. I have used it and it actually works! To learn more about this see Greg Lang's website http://spendastamp.com/ .
Shawn Gertken has a website http://banthebanminnesota.com/default.aspx . It is a great website and I encourage you to visit. It has a blog were you can post and one of my favorite parts is the government score card (which is still being developed) http://banthebanminnesota.com/government_scorecard.aspx . Use this scorecard to see where the candidates stand on the smoking ban issue. Also, his blog includes letters from the candidates...a must visit!
Other items of interest:
- Remember to visit http://www.freedomtoact.com/ as several new articles have been posted and are worth reading or listening to as in the case of the videos (they are about Minnesota theater nights):
Chicago Ban Forces Rewrite of Jersey Boys Play
Maryland Offers Hardship Waivers After Cig Ban
Pot Smokers Get High On dutch Tobacco Ban
British Smoking Ban Claim Panned
Lawyer Mark: A Few YouTube Vids
- Sue Jeffers Radio show on KTLK 100.3 FM with guest Sheila Kromer
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=suejeffers.xml
- Link to find your representative
http://pollfinder.sos.state.mn.us/
- Two good candidates to support (of which I have already supported):
Joshua Behling (from Shawn's blog http://banthebanminnesota.wordpress.com/ )
The candidate to whom I’m referring is Joshua Behling, who is running against Larry Haws for district 15B, who was a supporter of, and voted for, the statewide smoking ban. District 15B covers a portion of St. Cloud, and if you are in district 15B, I would encourage you to support Joshua.
Dave Shegstad (from Smoke Out Gary's website http://www.smokeoutgary.org/news/ )
Dave Shegstad Endorsed by GOP for 62A
Posted by Dan in News
Property rights advocate Dave Shegstad received the Republican endorsement in his run against Jim Davnie for the 62A House Seat on Wednesday, June 25th.Though Shegstad is a nonsmoker, he is adamantly opposed to government-imposed smoking bans. “It’s a property rights issue, plain and simple,” he says. A small business owner, Shegstad understands the challenges entrepreneurs face in Minnesota, especially in Minneapolis, where he’s been a life-long resident. Shegstad ran against Minneapolis’ smoking ban godfather, Gary Schiff for the Ward 9 City Council seat in 2005. He campaigned hard, but didn’t win - that round. The experience has left him wiser, though and over the past several years, he’s become more involved and built a network of support. Shegstad’s candidacy should attract the support of anti-ban crusaders. He faces a tough race against DFL-endorsed Davnie in an urban district, but he’s willing to work hard for a win. To support Dave, visit his website and find out how to volunteer or donate to his campaign.
Be sure to read Sheila's latest update below. A lot more. Greg Lang.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Kromer
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:18 PM
Subject: Theater Night Update 7-9-08
Hello Everyone -
Next week (July 15th) is the dead line to file if you want to run for office (House of Reps). The vetting of candidates will then begin in earnest. Many of asked, "What can I do to change things?" There are several things you can do besides nothing. If you do nothing then you beget nothing and it is as simple as that. I know that everyone has very busy lives but if you want to change things then you need to participate. Some things that you can do are: Support candidates by donating money to their campaigns, volunteering to help (ie. passing out literature, helping with lawn signs, etc...), or promote candidates through conversation or posters in your bar. I personally have been making small contributions to various candidates and I also plan on volunteering some of my time to a few different candidates. Every little bit helps. Do you know about PCR money? PCR (political contribution refund) is a way of donating "free" money to candidates. A single person can donate $50 and a married couple can donate $100 to a candidate and then you apply for a refund to the state and get your money back. I have used it and it actually works! To learn more about this see Greg Lang's website http://spendastamp.com/ .
Shawn Gertken has a website http://banthebanminnesota.com/default.aspx . It is a great website and I encourage you to visit. It has a blog were you can post and one of my favorite parts is the government score card (which is still being developed) http://banthebanminnesota.com/government_scorecard.aspx . Use this scorecard to see where the candidates stand on the smoking ban issue. Also, his blog includes letters from the candidates...a must visit!
Other items of interest:
- Remember to visit http://www.freedomtoact.com/ as several new articles have been posted and are worth reading or listening to as in the case of the videos (they are about Minnesota theater nights):
Chicago Ban Forces Rewrite of Jersey Boys Play
Maryland Offers Hardship Waivers After Cig Ban
Pot Smokers Get High On dutch Tobacco Ban
British Smoking Ban Claim Panned
Lawyer Mark: A Few YouTube Vids
- Sue Jeffers Radio show on KTLK 100.3 FM with guest Sheila Kromer
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=suejeffers.xml
- Link to find your representative
http://pollfinder.sos.state.mn.us/
- Two good candidates to support (of which I have already supported):
Joshua Behling (from Shawn's blog http://banthebanminnesota.wordpress.com/ )
The candidate to whom I’m referring is Joshua Behling, who is running against Larry Haws for district 15B, who was a supporter of, and voted for, the statewide smoking ban. District 15B covers a portion of St. Cloud, and if you are in district 15B, I would encourage you to support Joshua.
Dave Shegstad (from Smoke Out Gary's website http://www.smokeoutgary.org/news/ )
Dave Shegstad Endorsed by GOP for 62A
Posted by Dan in News
Property rights advocate Dave Shegstad received the Republican endorsement in his run against Jim Davnie for the 62A House Seat on Wednesday, June 25th.Though Shegstad is a nonsmoker, he is adamantly opposed to government-imposed smoking bans. “It’s a property rights issue, plain and simple,” he says. A small business owner, Shegstad understands the challenges entrepreneurs face in Minnesota, especially in Minneapolis, where he’s been a life-long resident. Shegstad ran against Minneapolis’ smoking ban godfather, Gary Schiff for the Ward 9 City Council seat in 2005. He campaigned hard, but didn’t win - that round. The experience has left him wiser, though and over the past several years, he’s become more involved and built a network of support. Shegstad’s candidacy should attract the support of anti-ban crusaders. He faces a tough race against DFL-endorsed Davnie in an urban district, but he’s willing to work hard for a win. To support Dave, visit his website and find out how to volunteer or donate to his campaign.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
Hey Greg - Well it looks like Maryland is starting to allow some exemptions/hardship waivers.
Sheila
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=5852&type=UTTM
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
July 2, 2008 7:23 PM
KEYMAR — There’s a new message on the signboard outside of the Crossroads Inn, a roadside tavern that’s just a 15-minute drive from the Pennsylvania line. “THIS IS NOW A SMOKING BAR,” the sign reads. “BARTENDERS WANTED.” A cardboard sign at the corner of the parking lot announces that June 18 marked the first day that patrons could smoke tobacco inside. “Let’s smoke,” the sign says. Two American flags stick out from the sides, celebrating the state’s grant of a waiver from the smoking ban that allows the bar to have some indoor smoking into 2011. The display is a marked difference from March, when Crossroads owner Tim Brandenburg appeared in the Carroll County Times next to a signboard calling for the impeachment of Gov. Martin O’Malley. Brandenburg said the smoking ban, which took effect in February, almost put him out of business. He said he lost somewhere between 45 percent and 60 percent of his sales because regular customers began driving to Pennsylvania, where it’s legal to smoke inside. Instead of staying open until last call, Brandendburg said he would shutter his bar at around 10 o’clock most nights. He said he took out a $40,000 loan and sold two antique trucks to keep the Crossroads Inn afloat. “I thought for sure I wouldn’t make it,” Brandenburg said. He said he wondered whether the slow economy was contributing to the decline in sales, but now he feels things are better than they were before. Sales increased by 25 percent in just over a week, he said. Patrons are coming back, and he’s adding staff. “I want to feel comfortable,” said Kevin Smith, a cement worker having a mid-day beer last week. “I come here to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette and relax.” Smith said he was one of the many people who drove to Pennsylvania because he didn’t want to stand outside. The Crossroads Inn’s struggles convinced Carroll County and state health officials to grant the bar a hardship waiver — one of two in the state — that exempts it from the statewide smoking ban, at least in part until February 2011. Still, some other bars are drawing in new customers who may not have come out to eat before the ban took effect, which suggests a mixed bag of economic results for the first five months of the ban. Overall, the effect of the ban has been difficult to judge. Even the statewide liquor and restaurant associations are having trouble setting the ban aside from other economic pressures, such as the struggling economy, the rising cost of fuel and even the increased prices of ingredients for food that have pushed up some menu costs.
“Our profits as an industry are way down because our costs are up. And now a lot of operators, much to their dismay, have had to raise their prices,” said Melvin Thompson, vice president of government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland. “With all of this going on, I don’t see how anybody can single out the effect of the smoking ban.” Jane Springer, executive director of the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, said it’s similarly hard to judge the effect on bars. That industry is facing the same economic hard times as restaurants, she said. When reviewing industries’ performance in the state, researchers sometimes look to data from the Maryland comptroller’s office, which tracks sales and use tax receipts by business category. The restaurant association typically assumes 4 percent inflation each year, said Thompson, expecting that any real annual increase in sales would be seen above that margin. This year, comparisons are complicated by a sales tax increase, from 5 percent to 6 percent, which took effect in January. Still, judging by the growth rate, the industry is not having a great year. Between February and May, sales and use taxes from liquor stores and taverns were up by 20 percent — the same percentage that the sales tax rose. Receipts from restaurants and night clubs that sell alcohol were up by 18.6 percent during that time, and payments from hotels and motels that serve alcohol were up by 22.2 percent. Figures from June were not yet available. Jeff Werling, an economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, said by e-mail that other factors make it difficult to judge the effect of the smoking ban. “I will say that the income and price effects have probably had a big negative impact on hospitality, so it would be a big stretch to attribute it to the smoking ban,” he wrote. Werling said it might be better to look at the effect during a more normal time, but had not seen any studies to suggest that smoking bans have a lasting effect. Springer, of the licensed beverage association, said she has been surprised that any waivers were granted at all. The waivers run until February 2011 and are available to businesses that can prove they have lost 15 percent or more of their food and beverage sales as a result of the ban. “I think a lot of people, quite frankly, didn’t even attempt the waiver because they didn’t think they’d get it,” Springer said. “Honestly, I was surprised to see that someone got it.” Local health departments are reviewing the applications, but the state is overseeing and assisting with the process. Dr. Clifford Mitchell, environmental health coordinator for the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said he was aware of 11 waiver applications. Three have been rejected, he said, and six are pending. He said he believes another was granted for a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Charles County, but the state has not seen the final paperwork on that application. Another Maryland establishment that got a waiver is The Havana Club Baltimore, owned by Big Steaks Management Inc. The club features cigar smoking as part of its theme. The waiver process is designed to require applicants to prove that it was the smoking ban and no other factors that led to their loss of business, and that makes it a long process. The application packet is 20 pages and asks for information including several years’ worth of tax returns. It also seeks to identify other details that could change business volume, such as changes in menu, ownership or theme. Brandenburg said his application for Crossroads Inn came to about 300 pages, but he worries that he’ll struggle again in 2011. It will get more difficult even before that, he said, because his waiver reduces the number of days patrons can smoke each year. If traditional smokers are rethinking their dining and nightlife habits under the smoking ban, so are some non-smokers. Out of 82 people asked in an informal survey by the Downtown Baltimore Family Alliance, 77 said they were more likely to go out now that the smoking ban is in effect. None said they were less likely to go out. The alliance, which advocates for families with children downtown and promotes the city center as a place to raise children, was formed in March. People who responded to the survey said they could now take part in a range of activities, from going to a bar to meet friends while pregnant without being exposed to tobacco smoke, to bringing children to pizza places and indoor concerts. Megan Baer, who has lived in Federal Hill for about three years, said she and husband Wade have been going out to dinner much more. The Baers used to be reluctant to bring 18-month-old son Garrett with them, even though the selection of restaurants in their neighborhood is part of the reason they live there. “Even if it’s a separate dining area, there are also bars,” Megan Baer said. “A lot of times we would just not go out, even if there are great restaurants that are amenable to families.” Now, they’re going out twice a week, she said, adding that it’s usually early in the evening before bar traffic overtakes the dining crowd. Brian McComas, who owns Ryleigh’s Oyster in Federal Hill with wife Jennifer, said he noticed more people bringing children to his restaurant “right out of the gate.” “The first night, I’ve got three sets of kids, right down to an infant in a lady’s arms right there at the dining table,” he said. That would not have happened before the ban took effect, he said. Food sales are up 40 percent this year at Ryleigh’s, and overall sales have grown by 15 percent. McComas has expanded his kids’ menu and added the free crayon packages and activity mats that many restaurants hand out. McComas said he does not attribute all of the growth to the smoking ban. He said other factors, such as the high price of fuel, have helped keep people in Baltimore City to go out. However, he’s happy with the effect. Ryleigh’s — which was formerly called Sisson’s — opened in April 2007. He said he did not prohibit smoking at the bar initially because he did not want to make too many changes while patrons got used to the new brand. Though he never allowed smoking in the dining room, McComas said the restaurant probably could be fine without smoking. “In retrospect, I think we could have gotten away with it,” McComas said. Still, many people who responded to the survey complained about noise or crowded sidewalks as people gather in front of bars where they could previously smoke inside. There have been no major crime issues related to the smoking ban since it took effect, said Baltimore Police Department Spokesman Sterling Clifford. He said police monitor gatherings in front of bars as part of their enforcement of the city loitering law, but generally do not stop people who step outside for a cigarette and return to the bar. When the law first took effect, he said there were a few problems outside of bars, but there has not been a real increase through the year. “Those are the little hiccups you experience when you implement something new like the smoking ban,” Clifford said. Michael Evitts, spokesman for the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, said he has not heard many complaints about sidewalk crowds, and noted that bars are now opening their windows in the warm summer weather. He said the open windows cause more noise than smokers outside. The partnership, which employs the workers downtown who clean sidewalks and other public areas, has not seen an increase in cigarette litter since the smoking ban took effect. Cigarette butts are one of the more persistent litter problems downtown, he said. That hasn’t changed, he said, but it helps that more restaurants and bars are placing ashtrays outside. “By the smoking ban driving people outside to have a cigarette, it’s to everybody’s benefit if the restaurant pays attention to what’s out there,” Evitts said.
Sheila
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=5852&type=UTTM
Maryland's bars and restaurants find ways to deal with smoking ban
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
July 2, 2008 7:23 PM
KEYMAR — There’s a new message on the signboard outside of the Crossroads Inn, a roadside tavern that’s just a 15-minute drive from the Pennsylvania line. “THIS IS NOW A SMOKING BAR,” the sign reads. “BARTENDERS WANTED.” A cardboard sign at the corner of the parking lot announces that June 18 marked the first day that patrons could smoke tobacco inside. “Let’s smoke,” the sign says. Two American flags stick out from the sides, celebrating the state’s grant of a waiver from the smoking ban that allows the bar to have some indoor smoking into 2011. The display is a marked difference from March, when Crossroads owner Tim Brandenburg appeared in the Carroll County Times next to a signboard calling for the impeachment of Gov. Martin O’Malley. Brandenburg said the smoking ban, which took effect in February, almost put him out of business. He said he lost somewhere between 45 percent and 60 percent of his sales because regular customers began driving to Pennsylvania, where it’s legal to smoke inside. Instead of staying open until last call, Brandendburg said he would shutter his bar at around 10 o’clock most nights. He said he took out a $40,000 loan and sold two antique trucks to keep the Crossroads Inn afloat. “I thought for sure I wouldn’t make it,” Brandenburg said. He said he wondered whether the slow economy was contributing to the decline in sales, but now he feels things are better than they were before. Sales increased by 25 percent in just over a week, he said. Patrons are coming back, and he’s adding staff. “I want to feel comfortable,” said Kevin Smith, a cement worker having a mid-day beer last week. “I come here to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette and relax.” Smith said he was one of the many people who drove to Pennsylvania because he didn’t want to stand outside. The Crossroads Inn’s struggles convinced Carroll County and state health officials to grant the bar a hardship waiver — one of two in the state — that exempts it from the statewide smoking ban, at least in part until February 2011. Still, some other bars are drawing in new customers who may not have come out to eat before the ban took effect, which suggests a mixed bag of economic results for the first five months of the ban. Overall, the effect of the ban has been difficult to judge. Even the statewide liquor and restaurant associations are having trouble setting the ban aside from other economic pressures, such as the struggling economy, the rising cost of fuel and even the increased prices of ingredients for food that have pushed up some menu costs.
“Our profits as an industry are way down because our costs are up. And now a lot of operators, much to their dismay, have had to raise their prices,” said Melvin Thompson, vice president of government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland. “With all of this going on, I don’t see how anybody can single out the effect of the smoking ban.” Jane Springer, executive director of the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, said it’s similarly hard to judge the effect on bars. That industry is facing the same economic hard times as restaurants, she said. When reviewing industries’ performance in the state, researchers sometimes look to data from the Maryland comptroller’s office, which tracks sales and use tax receipts by business category. The restaurant association typically assumes 4 percent inflation each year, said Thompson, expecting that any real annual increase in sales would be seen above that margin. This year, comparisons are complicated by a sales tax increase, from 5 percent to 6 percent, which took effect in January. Still, judging by the growth rate, the industry is not having a great year. Between February and May, sales and use taxes from liquor stores and taverns were up by 20 percent — the same percentage that the sales tax rose. Receipts from restaurants and night clubs that sell alcohol were up by 18.6 percent during that time, and payments from hotels and motels that serve alcohol were up by 22.2 percent. Figures from June were not yet available. Jeff Werling, an economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, said by e-mail that other factors make it difficult to judge the effect of the smoking ban. “I will say that the income and price effects have probably had a big negative impact on hospitality, so it would be a big stretch to attribute it to the smoking ban,” he wrote. Werling said it might be better to look at the effect during a more normal time, but had not seen any studies to suggest that smoking bans have a lasting effect. Springer, of the licensed beverage association, said she has been surprised that any waivers were granted at all. The waivers run until February 2011 and are available to businesses that can prove they have lost 15 percent or more of their food and beverage sales as a result of the ban. “I think a lot of people, quite frankly, didn’t even attempt the waiver because they didn’t think they’d get it,” Springer said. “Honestly, I was surprised to see that someone got it.” Local health departments are reviewing the applications, but the state is overseeing and assisting with the process. Dr. Clifford Mitchell, environmental health coordinator for the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said he was aware of 11 waiver applications. Three have been rejected, he said, and six are pending. He said he believes another was granted for a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Charles County, but the state has not seen the final paperwork on that application. Another Maryland establishment that got a waiver is The Havana Club Baltimore, owned by Big Steaks Management Inc. The club features cigar smoking as part of its theme. The waiver process is designed to require applicants to prove that it was the smoking ban and no other factors that led to their loss of business, and that makes it a long process. The application packet is 20 pages and asks for information including several years’ worth of tax returns. It also seeks to identify other details that could change business volume, such as changes in menu, ownership or theme. Brandenburg said his application for Crossroads Inn came to about 300 pages, but he worries that he’ll struggle again in 2011. It will get more difficult even before that, he said, because his waiver reduces the number of days patrons can smoke each year. If traditional smokers are rethinking their dining and nightlife habits under the smoking ban, so are some non-smokers. Out of 82 people asked in an informal survey by the Downtown Baltimore Family Alliance, 77 said they were more likely to go out now that the smoking ban is in effect. None said they were less likely to go out. The alliance, which advocates for families with children downtown and promotes the city center as a place to raise children, was formed in March. People who responded to the survey said they could now take part in a range of activities, from going to a bar to meet friends while pregnant without being exposed to tobacco smoke, to bringing children to pizza places and indoor concerts. Megan Baer, who has lived in Federal Hill for about three years, said she and husband Wade have been going out to dinner much more. The Baers used to be reluctant to bring 18-month-old son Garrett with them, even though the selection of restaurants in their neighborhood is part of the reason they live there. “Even if it’s a separate dining area, there are also bars,” Megan Baer said. “A lot of times we would just not go out, even if there are great restaurants that are amenable to families.” Now, they’re going out twice a week, she said, adding that it’s usually early in the evening before bar traffic overtakes the dining crowd. Brian McComas, who owns Ryleigh’s Oyster in Federal Hill with wife Jennifer, said he noticed more people bringing children to his restaurant “right out of the gate.” “The first night, I’ve got three sets of kids, right down to an infant in a lady’s arms right there at the dining table,” he said. That would not have happened before the ban took effect, he said. Food sales are up 40 percent this year at Ryleigh’s, and overall sales have grown by 15 percent. McComas has expanded his kids’ menu and added the free crayon packages and activity mats that many restaurants hand out. McComas said he does not attribute all of the growth to the smoking ban. He said other factors, such as the high price of fuel, have helped keep people in Baltimore City to go out. However, he’s happy with the effect. Ryleigh’s — which was formerly called Sisson’s — opened in April 2007. He said he did not prohibit smoking at the bar initially because he did not want to make too many changes while patrons got used to the new brand. Though he never allowed smoking in the dining room, McComas said the restaurant probably could be fine without smoking. “In retrospect, I think we could have gotten away with it,” McComas said. Still, many people who responded to the survey complained about noise or crowded sidewalks as people gather in front of bars where they could previously smoke inside. There have been no major crime issues related to the smoking ban since it took effect, said Baltimore Police Department Spokesman Sterling Clifford. He said police monitor gatherings in front of bars as part of their enforcement of the city loitering law, but generally do not stop people who step outside for a cigarette and return to the bar. When the law first took effect, he said there were a few problems outside of bars, but there has not been a real increase through the year. “Those are the little hiccups you experience when you implement something new like the smoking ban,” Clifford said. Michael Evitts, spokesman for the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, said he has not heard many complaints about sidewalk crowds, and noted that bars are now opening their windows in the warm summer weather. He said the open windows cause more noise than smokers outside. The partnership, which employs the workers downtown who clean sidewalks and other public areas, has not seen an increase in cigarette litter since the smoking ban took effect. Cigarette butts are one of the more persistent litter problems downtown, he said. That hasn’t changed, he said, but it helps that more restaurants and bars are placing ashtrays outside. “By the smoking ban driving people outside to have a cigarette, it’s to everybody’s benefit if the restaurant pays attention to what’s out there,” Evitts said.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Florida Supreme court nixes Indian casino pact
Redrant alert: This is obviously a "stretch" but it might be a ruling worth watching. With a decision by the Florida Supreme Court it is ripe for an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
I'm not a lawyer but this story seems to reaffirm my understanding that Indian Casinos can only have "gambling" (regulated?) activities otherwise allowed in the state. Minnesota basically got heavily into the Indian Casino business because it allowed charitable "Casino Nights". The "Casino Nights" were limited to a couple of times per year and had limited betting allowed. The court focused on the core activity of "casino nights".
Indian reservations have very restricted ability to engage in activities illegal outside the reservation. As an example, Peyote is allowed allowed only in highly structured religious, ceremonies not for an "peyote cafe" open to the public on the reservation. The same goes for tobacco use in something like highly structured Native American religious activities in prisons. Both use the same highly structured situation. You can't be a "honky" in the "wannabee" tribe. and use peyote on a reservation or tobacco in prison.
Smoking is a "regulated vice". Rather arcane example of how reservations need to conform to the laws of the state concerning vice might involve nuclear waste and prostitution. I do believe our Prairie Island Nuclear plant is located on or adjacent to a reservation but this has had no effect on spent nuclear fuel rod storage. There have been a number of proposals for nuclear fuel rod storage on tribal land but all have failed.
Another on might be brothels on Indian land. None exist. The same with so-called strip-shows. Minnesota, for example has very strict rules on physical contact between the "dancers" and customers. I know of no reservation in the US that has this so there are limits to tribal sovereignty. The court challenges to trial sovereignty have been somewhat limited but there are occasionally get racial discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. With the most egregious ones "tribal sovereignty" is claimed as a defense.
Smoking in indoor public access casinos might make a good case here. Indoor smoke has been deemed a "public health" issue where the goal is protect the employees. In the case of the casinos the vast majority are not native American and in other legal matters the courts have consistently ruled that the regular justice system has jurisdiction oversight over non tribal members in the tribal legal system.
Since the Florida case involves the a decision by the Florida Supreme Court the only appeal would appear to be the US Supreme Court. A friend of the court certeria could be filed in regard to the alleged discriminatory indoor smoking regulations on and off the reservations related to Casino compacts. In Supreme Court deliberations this could take a year or more to resolve.
Basically, if already unpopular smoking lost here it could open the door to other challenges on reservation sovernty. Time will tell. Greg Lang
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press WriterThu Jul 3, 3:09 PM ET
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos, saying the governor had no right to allow games that are illegal elsewhere in the state.
The November deal allowed the tribe to install Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as blackjack and baccarat at their seven casinos, including the Hard Rock Casinos in Hollywood and Tampa. But Crist overstepped his authority, the court ruled.
"The governor does not have authority to legalize in some parts of the state, or for some persons, conduct that is otherwise illegal throughout the state," the opinion said.
The opinion doesn't take issue with the slot machines, which are also legal at Broward and Miami-Dade County jai-alai frontons and horse and dog tracks, but rather with the table card games.
"What is legal in Florida is legal on tribal lands, and what is illegal in Florida is illegal there. Absent a compact, any gambling prohibited in the state is prohibited on tribal land," the opinion said.
But the tribe contends that it is operating under a federally approved compact which gives it authority for the games. The tribe has installed Vegas-style slots in six of its seven casinos and began blackjack games at its Hollywood casino on June 22.
"The tribe is studying the decision and plans no immediate change in any of the games that are offered," said spokesman Gary Bitner. "We want people to know that if they come to any of the casinos in the state this weekend for the holiday, that they can play."
The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to the card games. In exchange, the tribe gave Florida $50 million when Crist, a Republican, signed the compact. The state was to receive another $175 million over the next two years, $150 million for the third year of the agreement and at least $100 million a year for the remainder of the 25-year deal.
House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged Crist's authority to sign the agreement and asked the Supreme Court for an opinion. Senate President Ken Pruitt later joined the challenge.
Crist's office didn't immediately return a call and an e-mail seeking comment. Rubio and Pruitt, both Republicans, praised the decision.
"The court's decision is a victory for our constitutional system of checks and balances," Rubio said. "I look forward to an open and deliberative process that results in a new compact that doesn't unnecessarily expand gambling in our state."
Pruitt said, "For the Senate, this case was about protecting the important concept of separation of powers. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Legislature's sole authority to make law."
Both local and out-of-town gamblers expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"Think about it, what's a casino without blackjack," said Michael LaBella, 37, who was visiting the casino Thursday on business from El Paso, Texas. "I hate to say this, but compared to Vegas and Atlantic City, Florida has a long way to go."
Robert Dennis, 56, a blackjack lover from Miami, said the court's decision doesn't make sense.
"What is the big deal of getting rid of these games," Dennis said. "With the economy how it is, having more games would only help."
___
Associated Press writer Damian Grass in Hollywood contributed to this report.
I'm not a lawyer but this story seems to reaffirm my understanding that Indian Casinos can only have "gambling" (regulated?) activities otherwise allowed in the state. Minnesota basically got heavily into the Indian Casino business because it allowed charitable "Casino Nights". The "Casino Nights" were limited to a couple of times per year and had limited betting allowed. The court focused on the core activity of "casino nights".
Indian reservations have very restricted ability to engage in activities illegal outside the reservation. As an example, Peyote is allowed allowed only in highly structured religious, ceremonies not for an "peyote cafe" open to the public on the reservation. The same goes for tobacco use in something like highly structured Native American religious activities in prisons. Both use the same highly structured situation. You can't be a "honky" in the "wannabee" tribe. and use peyote on a reservation or tobacco in prison.
Smoking is a "regulated vice". Rather arcane example of how reservations need to conform to the laws of the state concerning vice might involve nuclear waste and prostitution. I do believe our Prairie Island Nuclear plant is located on or adjacent to a reservation but this has had no effect on spent nuclear fuel rod storage. There have been a number of proposals for nuclear fuel rod storage on tribal land but all have failed.
Another on might be brothels on Indian land. None exist. The same with so-called strip-shows. Minnesota, for example has very strict rules on physical contact between the "dancers" and customers. I know of no reservation in the US that has this so there are limits to tribal sovereignty. The court challenges to trial sovereignty have been somewhat limited but there are occasionally get racial discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. With the most egregious ones "tribal sovereignty" is claimed as a defense.
Smoking in indoor public access casinos might make a good case here. Indoor smoke has been deemed a "public health" issue where the goal is protect the employees. In the case of the casinos the vast majority are not native American and in other legal matters the courts have consistently ruled that the regular justice system has jurisdiction oversight over non tribal members in the tribal legal system.
Since the Florida case involves the a decision by the Florida Supreme Court the only appeal would appear to be the US Supreme Court. A friend of the court certeria could be filed in regard to the alleged discriminatory indoor smoking regulations on and off the reservations related to Casino compacts. In Supreme Court deliberations this could take a year or more to resolve.
Basically, if already unpopular smoking lost here it could open the door to other challenges on reservation sovernty. Time will tell. Greg Lang
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press WriterThu Jul 3, 3:09 PM ET
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday overturned an agreement Gov. Charlie Crist signed with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling at its casinos, saying the governor had no right to allow games that are illegal elsewhere in the state.
The November deal allowed the tribe to install Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as blackjack and baccarat at their seven casinos, including the Hard Rock Casinos in Hollywood and Tampa. But Crist overstepped his authority, the court ruled.
"The governor does not have authority to legalize in some parts of the state, or for some persons, conduct that is otherwise illegal throughout the state," the opinion said.
The opinion doesn't take issue with the slot machines, which are also legal at Broward and Miami-Dade County jai-alai frontons and horse and dog tracks, but rather with the table card games.
"What is legal in Florida is legal on tribal lands, and what is illegal in Florida is illegal there. Absent a compact, any gambling prohibited in the state is prohibited on tribal land," the opinion said.
But the tribe contends that it is operating under a federally approved compact which gives it authority for the games. The tribe has installed Vegas-style slots in six of its seven casinos and began blackjack games at its Hollywood casino on June 22.
"The tribe is studying the decision and plans no immediate change in any of the games that are offered," said spokesman Gary Bitner. "We want people to know that if they come to any of the casinos in the state this weekend for the holiday, that they can play."
The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to the card games. In exchange, the tribe gave Florida $50 million when Crist, a Republican, signed the compact. The state was to receive another $175 million over the next two years, $150 million for the third year of the agreement and at least $100 million a year for the remainder of the 25-year deal.
House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged Crist's authority to sign the agreement and asked the Supreme Court for an opinion. Senate President Ken Pruitt later joined the challenge.
Crist's office didn't immediately return a call and an e-mail seeking comment. Rubio and Pruitt, both Republicans, praised the decision.
"The court's decision is a victory for our constitutional system of checks and balances," Rubio said. "I look forward to an open and deliberative process that results in a new compact that doesn't unnecessarily expand gambling in our state."
Pruitt said, "For the Senate, this case was about protecting the important concept of separation of powers. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Legislature's sole authority to make law."
Both local and out-of-town gamblers expressed disappointment with the ruling.
"Think about it, what's a casino without blackjack," said Michael LaBella, 37, who was visiting the casino Thursday on business from El Paso, Texas. "I hate to say this, but compared to Vegas and Atlantic City, Florida has a long way to go."
Robert Dennis, 56, a blackjack lover from Miami, said the court's decision doesn't make sense.
"What is the big deal of getting rid of these games," Dennis said. "With the economy how it is, having more games would only help."
___
Associated Press writer Damian Grass in Hollywood contributed to this report.
You-tube suggestion from Lawyer Mark Benjamn
Hi All --Just checked the YouTube website and found three videos that ought to be posted.
This one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUk1PonJNK0was just posted 3 days ago from Great Britain.
And this one from 'Hairy Chestnuts' in Great Britain on June 8th:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM7nU4JWILQI wish we could get this guy over hear to speak.
Finally, here's the fund raiser at Bullseye:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMzcLQo_7dISheila can sure dance!
Hope everyone has a great 4th! Celebrate what's left of our liberties and ...Our Show Goes On.--
Mark Benjamin
This one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUk1PonJNK0was just posted 3 days ago from Great Britain.
And this one from 'Hairy Chestnuts' in Great Britain on June 8th:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM7nU4JWILQI wish we could get this guy over hear to speak.
Finally, here's the fund raiser at Bullseye:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMzcLQo_7dISheila can sure dance!
Hope everyone has a great 4th! Celebrate what's left of our liberties and ...Our Show Goes On.--
Mark Benjamin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)