MASS: Towns allowed to ban smoking in private clubs

boston.com ^ | March 23, 2006 | Raja Mishra and Jonathan Saltzman

[SheLion]

Dozens of cities and towns have already banned smoking in such clubs, which include veterans' posts and ethnic heritage clubs. The high court's decision keeps these bans in place.

[SheLion]

''A lot of the clubs don't have smoking and get no big complaint," said Gordon Crosby, state VFW adjutant, who oversees 240 posts across Massachusetts. ''Smokers smoke outside. Some guys say they fought for their country and ought to be able to smoke. But most understand that second-hand smoke can be a problem."

Second hand smoke?  What problem????  How can Gordon Crosby, state VFW adjutant, a grown man, be so easily swayed by the lies of the anti's about second hand smoke?  Sounds like Gordon is just a little wimp who loves to be easily lead.  Pity, Gordon.  Vets usually stand up for what they fought for.

About 1 in 5 Massachusetts residents are smokers, and health advocates say the ban will help push smokers to quit.

QUIT??!!!  Haha!  Who's trying to kid who?!  What ever would MASS do without all the tax contributions the state gets from the Mass smokers?  

''The town said, 'We're going to prohibit smoking in these private clubs,' " said Christopher N. Banthin, deputy director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University, who represented Athol in the case. ''People were being exposed to a known human carcinogen, people who had to be in there for work."

"We're going to prohibit smoking in these private clubs," said Chris Banthin, Public Health, as he pounded his fist on the table and spit from his mouth!  By God, we WILL ban smoking, Chris says.  Brown shirted jack boot, Chris.  March in time with your great Uncle, Hitler.

Numerous communities had banned smoking in private clubs long before the SJC decision, including Boston, Brookline, Lynn, Marblehead, and Saugus. ''We were concerned they would rule the other way," said Joyce Redford, program director for the North Shore Tobacco Control Program.

Oh Joyce!  Were you EVER down in the trenches in a bloody war fighting for your Country like our Vets were?  Are you even allowed to have membership in a Vet Club, Joyce?  Oh!  Yes! YOUR war is the war on smokers.  How prestiges of you to belong to the NORTH SHORE TOBACCO CONTROL PROGRAM.  How proud you must be Joyce!  Taking away freedoms our men fought to save. 

[SheLion]

Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.

Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.

[SheLion]

Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06

Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.

Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.

Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.

But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.

The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.

For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.

In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."

Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.

[Izzy Dunne]

Towns allowed to ban smoking in private clubs

"private".... "private".... nope. No entry in my dictionary.

I could have sworn that used to be a real word with a meaning, but it's not there anymore.

[SheLion]

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

[SheLion]

    

[SheLion]

The sign above Joyce Redford, program director for the North Shore Tobacco Control Program's door!

[SheLion]

I could have sworn that used to be a real word with a meaning, but it's not there anymore.

And smoking bans forced in private businesses and imminent domain!  What's the sense in buying your own business today?  Groups can take your property away or force bans and laws upon you, what sense does it make today to try to flourish? 

[jcparks]

Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner, regulated by the government.

Sorry SheLion, this line had to be corrected, or I would have been turned in for “aiding and abetting” [/sarc]

[JudgemAll]

I guess it means the end of the private club via the second hand smoke dubious claim. Which next sin will be used to get into our rooms? Let me see, maybe we should get into those legislators' bank accounts & check what they buy or get in bribes since they're so fat & infatuated, it's not psychologicaly healthy as fat & stress are known carcinogens too.

All this is about is to track down regular social exchanges amongst people & deem them now as smuggling routes, because anything free to BigBrother is smuggling in his boot camp.

You and I have become government property without checks & balance by court authority laundering fiat.

The noxious addicts & launderers of feelings ain't the smokers in this fight.

[SheLion]

regulated by the government.

Desperately sad, isn't it?

I don't think much of these people.  Can you tell???

[dakine]

Repeal ADA...

[SheLion]

You and I have become government property without checks & balance by court authority laundering fiat.

And the sickening part of this is:  Most of them were voted into office by US! And they turn on us like this just because we smoke a legal product?  The idiots don't realize that when they go with the war on the smokers, they are dissing 25-30% of their constituents!

I guess the big wigs think they don't NEED 25-30% of the votes anymore.  But I sure wouldn't test it!

[1_Of_We]

And yet I bet all the people that want to ban smoking drive cars. BRAIN DEAD!

[NaughtiusMaximus]

What a fine Brave New World these prohibitionist social engineers are preparing for us. How joyful, how comforting. I'm sure we'll all come to love Nanny given time.

(In spite of the fact that she's a total whore.)

[Huck]

Nothing the average marijuana smoker hasn't been putting up with all the time. Probably with a lot of tobacco smokers' blessings. Maybe when enough cig smokers' ox's get gored, they'll understand ALL prohibition is wrong.

[SheLion]

And yet I bet all the people that want to ban smoking drive cars. BRAIN DEAD!

Yep!  And isn't it horrifying how a small group like City Councils have the power over private businesses to do something like this?  I'm telling you, this is just the beginning.....

[SheLion]

What a fine Brave New World these prohibitionist social engineers are preparing for us. How joyful, how comforting. I'm sure we'll all come to love Nanny given time.

(In spite of the fact that she's a total whore.)

You hit the nail right on the head.  "Total Whore."  And that is what our City Councils have turned into.  Lots of palms being greased under the table to instigate these smoking bans on private businesses that want nothing else in this day and age but to make a living and support the wait staff.

How on earth can they continue to do this, when they will lose 25-30% of their revenue if not worse?  The City Councils have turned into the scum of the earth. 

[SheLion]

Nothing the average marijuana smoker hasn't been putting up with all the time. Probably with a lot of tobacco smokers' blessings. Maybe when enough cig smokers' ox's get gored, they'll understand ALL prohibition is wrong.

See, what I don't understand is:  when I smoke my cigarettes I don't get all wobbly in the head and I am still able to drive my vehicle without thinking I am floating on air.

You know drugs are illegal.  Drugs implies to me "anything that relieves pain and alters the mind into believing there is no pain, therefore, the mind and body feel good."

I don't get this effect from my cigarettes.  So, how can anyone lump regular cigarette smokers in with pot heads?  I just don't understand the connection one bit.

[JudgemAll]

As Christ admonished against the Pharisees of His days & our days:

Shabbat is made for man, and not man for shabbat... and implicitly, churches & other regulatory bodies were even lower in authority as they were made for Shabbat.

By the same token acting kosher does not make kosher, but being kosher in the heart is what makes one kosher in body.

There is something possessive, insidious and vicious to the unchecked powers of a school teacher on this or that kid and the madness of our days. They obviously do not want to do justice nor teach, but exercise some kind of fiat authority over others for sake of authority.

A shabbat & kosher America should be for the unkosher, it should be for man, and not man for those things. Calculated risks & decision making should be done by whomever is tied to those risks & deeds, for who is to judge whomever they do not feel for anyways.

I swear, sometimes I wonder what cunning has visions for such laws which down the line will harm us, while historians & scholars sit here still wondering like sheeps what it's really all about.

Well, I gather I have most of the elements here, but not the answer quite yet. We shall see.