Posted on 08/17/2002 7:00:48 AM PDT by mountaineer
Prosecuting Attorney Herman D. Lantz has announced he will not criminally enforce the Marshall County Clean Indoor Air Regulation while similar issues in other counties are pending before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
In a statement issued Friday, Lantz stated it has come to his attention that some Marshall County businesses are complying with the smoking ban while others are not. As a result, the county health department has sought the assistance of the prosecutor's office in enforcing the regulation. In his statement, Lantz pointed out that while health department is not accountable to area citizens, the prosecutor's office is prompting him to offer an explanation to the citizens of Marshall County regarding the position his office has taken on the issue.
According to Lantz, questions have been raised regarding whether the local health department and its governing body, the Marshall County Board of Health, have the authority to create such a regulation, "which has the same force and effect as law.'' He pointed out that other lawmakers and officials such as the county commissioners, state and federal legislators and the prosecutor all can be removed from office by a vote of the people if a majority of the voters have been dissatisfied with their performance. This is not the case, however, with members of the board of health, who are appointed by the county commission.
"This is called democracy,'' Lantz stated in reference to the election of lawmakers. "This is what people have given their lives for in the past and even now ... are putting themselves in harm's way to protect.''
He continued by explaining that a similar clean air regulation implemented in Cabell County currently is being contested before the state Supreme Court. He added that any court action related to enforcement of Marshall County's regulation could, as a result, be stayed until the Supreme Court rules on the Cabell County case.
"I do not know how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue, but I feel it would be premature, unfair and irresponsible to enforce a regulation that may be held unenforceable,'' Lantz stated. "It is my opinion that even if I were to choose to bring an action against violators of this regulation, the proceedings would merely be stayed until the Supreme Court has issued their opinion on this issue. Clearly this would not be the best use of judicial resources.
"Therefore, until such time as the Supreme Court issues its opinion in the case currently pending before it, as Prosecuting Attorney, I will not criminally enforce the smoking ban.''
Lantz added, however, that if the Supreme Court finds the health department has the authority to create such a regulation, it will be his duty to enforce the local regulation.
"Just as I have a duty to represent the citizens of Marshall County, I have taken an oath as prosecuting attorney to uphold the law, and I will do so,'' he stated. "I can assure you that I will proceed in enforcement in the fairest manner to the citizens of Marshall County.''
Lantz stressed that the announcement of his current position on this matter is not intended to encourage anyone to violate the regulation.
"In that respect, the citizens of Marshall County and would-be violators should be aware that, in the event the Supreme Court finds that the health department has the authority to create such a regulation, I will have no choice but to enforce the regulation as of its enactment on July 1,'' he added.
Anyone having question regarding enforcement of the smoking ban should contact Lantz's office at (304) 845-3580. Lantz noted, however, that he will be out of his office from Monday through Aug. 29 for his annual Air Force Reserve Training.
Lantz also stated he will notify the people of Marshall County as soon as possible after the Supreme Court reaches a decision.
I can even go for local communities passing laws outlawing smoking in public buildings and so forth.
But I get off the anti-smoking bandwagon when such laws are passed on the state or federal level, and I get off the bandwagon when every restaurant is forced to have non-smoking areas by state or federal law, and I get off the bandwagon when there are efforts to ban smoking outdoors or in the privacy of people's own residences.
Maybe those who used to take part in these haven't found the back room yet? Give em a ping. I think FrancisAndBeans is back too, but I forget his new name.
"Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke -- The Washington Post | John Schwartz
A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."
Reports on the effects of secondhand smoke have long been controversial. While all credible scientific authorities say that cigarette smoking causes cancer, secondhand smoke involves such a low concentration of carcinogens that a strong cancer connection is hard to establish.
A new study, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, found no statistically significant risk to secondhand smoke. The tobacco industry accused the study's sponsors, the World Health Organization, of trying to suppress the findings; WHO said the companies "completely misrepresented" the study.
From what I understand, the court decided this about three years ago. I'm not up to speed on any new studies that would support the WHO position at this time, but if so, even those would have to undergo scrutiny.
In the meantime, I'll puff away and continue to accuse governments at all levels of over-riding the rights of private businesses to make their own smoking or non-smoking decisions and forcing exhorbitant taxes and penalties on smokers and tobacco growers.
'There just doesn't seem to be enough legitimate issues left for the abundance of these control freaks to become involved in these days, but I'm sure they'll find something else to dig their noses into if they fail with the smoke issue.
More stupidity from the Dem governor of W.Va., where Pa. and Ohio smokers currently visit to buy our lower-priced cigarettes:
Gov. Bob Wise is considering an increase in the cigarette tax as a way to avoid a projected $150 million deficit in the state budget in the next fiscal year.
.... Legislatures in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana and Connecticut have voted to raise cigarette taxes, according to Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform. Increases are under consideration in California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon, he said. ....
.... One of the options on the table is increasing the state's 17-cent per pack cigarette tax, which ranks about 41st in the nation, according to figures from the American Lung Association. ....
West Virginia's tax is already higher than the 3-cent per pack taxes in Virginia and Kentucky. But increasing the tax could put the state in danger of outpacing Ohio, which recently boosted its tax to 55 cents per pack. Avoiding that by limiting the tax to 52 cents per pack would still bring in $56.1 million for West Virginia's cash-strapped budget, Health and Human Resources Secretary Paul Nusbaum said. He said that number takes into account a loss of smokers who quit because of the increased cost of cigarettes. full story
The only thing you left out is that I don't believe that anyone else should have to pay my medical bills for my smoking, nor do I feel an obligation to pay their bills.
:-}..... No we haven't, we are on the puff list.
I think it's "dead man running."
I agree, but for the last twenty years, smokers has paid enough taxes to pay for their own health care and then some.
Great Dane is correct. Not only did the Congressonal Research Service, at the request of rabid anti-smoker Henry Waxman, determine that smokers pay far more into the system than they cost the system, even the New England Journal of Medicine said the same.
additionally the Master Settlement Agreement between the states and the tobacco companies was ossensibly to repay the states for "smoking related medical expenses" and that is paid 100% by smokers, not by the tobacco companies.
The vast majority of the threads to which you refer have nothing to do with "smokers' rights." Our primary argument is regarding the rights of private property owners to be left alone to make their own decisions as to whether or not to permit smoking in or on their premises.
The reason they occassionaly fall into a flame war is because some people believe they have more rights than others, including the owners of private property.
No one is forcing anyone to enter a bar or restaurant that permits or forbids smoking, until a government mandated smoking ban is implemented. Then if a person is a smoker and would like to go out for a drink or a meal, they are forced to enter an establishment that prohibits their otherwise legal activity, because there is no other choice available.
The government is defacto stating that non-smokers have more rights than the owner of the establishment and smokers.
If you want to call me a militant smoker for standing up for private property rights, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.
I wholeheartedly agree that the gubmint should not prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.