?

Log in

Smokers' Liberation Front's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Smokers' Liberation Front's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Monday, June 7th, 2010
4:35 pm
[black_coffie]
Cigar Premiere in Russia
There was one of the first cigar in Russian history, world premiere: Håkon Aanonsen, Norway, presented the cigar label Chess. The new Dominican brand has six sizes - the number of chess pieces. In Moscow, were tasted three: short-short robusto, gordito and Chess Extreme.



By the cigars the company introduced the Grand Cru of the accompaniment of five drinks: wine, port wines, brandies, grappa.

And in the evening the participants were able to confirm this: they smoked Norwegian-Dominican cigars, they were asked about the variety of port Hawk represented in Norway. It turned out, for example, that the new Cuban ruler Behikeuzhe two or three weeks will go to Norway, while in Moscow it is expected only in November 2010. Norway has already sold CohibaGrandReserva, where there is not in Russia ( more ... )

Monday, November 5th, 2007
6:21 pm
[fop]
Tobacco ban
TO: CU Campus Community

FROM: Office of the President on Behalf of Regent Carrigan

SENDER: officeofthepresident@cu.edu

DATE: 11/05/2007

SUBJECT: Tobacco ban

Regent Michael Carrigan has asked the administration to explore the possibility
of a tobacco ban on University of Colorado campuses. As you know, smoking is
now prohibited in state buildings (University Hospital at the Anschutz Medical
Campus will ban tobacco use on the grounds, effective Jan. 1). The ban proposed
by Regent Carrigan would extend that to all campus property, indoors and out.
He is in discussions with his colleagues on the board about the issue.
Read more...Collapse )
Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
7:36 am
[fop]
Taken from The Chap

A devotee of Lady NIcotine and God has defied the new smoking law by lighting up in a police station. The Reverend Anthony Carr, of Holy Trinity Church in East Peckam, Kent, walked into the station in Tonbridge and said he wanted to report a crime. Asked what it was by the desk sergeant, Rev'd Carr then took out his pipe, lit it and, through clouds of aromatic tobacco fumes, said: "This is the crime."

The desk sergeant asked the vicar to extinguish his pipe, as he was in a no smoking area, and the Reverend replied, "I will not." When officers told him he would not be bundled into the back of a van he said "What a pity". They explained to the puffing curate that it is council environmental health officers who enforce the new law, not police. Rev'd Carr later said he had deliberately flouted the ban to protest against the erosion of civil liberties. "I felt strongly the need to protest against this pathetic law," he said. "There are many things which are said to affect our health. You can't really regulate the minutiae of people's individual lives like that."

A spokesman for the Bishop of Rochester said: "We regard this as a personal matter - the church would not wish to comment on the incident. Officially, the church doesn't condone breaking the law." There are many things for priests to get incensed about these days - abortion, same sex marriages, the Life of Brian - but when a man of the cloth feels the need to have himself arrested to protest against not being allowed to smoke his pipe, something must be deeply wrong with our society.

(posted to fop as well as slf_denver)
Friday, May 11th, 2007
10:05 am
[nephthys510]
MPAA cracks down on smoking in films
The MPAA, ever concerned for the children, have imposed a "glorifying smoking" warning that they can slap onto a movie, effectively raising it's rating from PG to R.

"All smoking will be considered and depictions that glamorize smoking or … feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context" could warrant a more prohibitive rating, the organization said.

The San Francisco-based center Smoke Free Movies claims that movies are responsible for 5,000 smoking-related deaths a month that might have been prevented by an R rating. The group also says movies are responsible half of the 800,000 children a year who start smoking. They went on to say that video games and Marilyn Mason are responsible for all spree killings. Ok, I made that last part up.

Of late, smoking in movies has been so pervasive and insidious that, according to an MPAA study of all movies rated over the past four years — roughly 3,400 movies — 57% contained scenes of smoking. Of that 57%, roughly 75% were rated R, the MPAA says. So, just over half had a smoker in it and of those movies, 3/4 already had an R rating... if we take out all the historic and this nebulous mitigating context, how many movies are we really talking about? I want to see THAT study.

What the hell is mitigating context? According to whom? What is glamorizing smoking? When beautiful women do it and leave lipstick stained butts in a crystal ashtray, or when a soldier in a war movie sucks down a butt while hunkered in a bunker?

These are rhetorical questions only. Anyone who has seen This Film is Not Yet Rated knows that the MPAA is a shadow organization that answers to no one, arbitrarily passes down its rulings, and applies nebulous standards that they refuse to discuss.

What does this mean for movie makers? No smoking in your film unless you are ok with the R rating and the "this movie glorifies smoking" tag. In the immortal words of Eddie Izzard, "No smoking [...] no drinking, no talking." I want to see THAT war movie. Compelling and accurate viewing, I'm sure.

x-posted
Thursday, May 3rd, 2007
3:59 pm
[beerkitty]
Anti-smoking crusade is divisive, destructive and wasteful
I am going to post this editorial in its entirety.  she has some very good points that those eager for bans should think about....

(from http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/FOSTERS05/105010138)

Anti-smoking crusade is divisive, destructive and wasteful

By Linda Bogardus
La Conner, Wash.

Although I am not a resident of New Hampshire, I believe the smoking bans are an infringement on personal liberty, no matter what state they occur in.

It is always stated by government agencies and the media that there are about 400,000 deaths annually from the use of tobacco products. The current population of the United States is about 300 million. Just once, I would like to see this statistic reported like this: Tobacco products are responsible for 400,000 deaths annually in the United States, or about 0.001 percent (less than one tenth of one percent) of the total population.

Instead, media reporting about this issue always places the singular emphasis on the one big scary number in the absence of any sort of context whatsoever.

I do not mean to minimize any of the deaths attributable to tobacco use; not even one. I would just like to see the statistics reported differently, in a way that encompasses the overall picture of the issue. But certain statistics are deliberately not presented in a comparative manner.

The overly zealous war on tobacco and tobacco users is not justified at the level it is being pursued, per the true statistics; it is merely a perceived threat manufactured by the big pharmaceutical companies selling their smoking cessation products, the media, the government and the do-gooder groups that are all too willing to help spend the billions of dollars garnered from the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998, thereby ensuring themselves a job and a good salary for many years to come.

What a lucky nation we are to have one of our most threatening public health issues occupying a position three spaces to the right of the decimal point. And what a foolish nation we are to devote so much time, energy and resources to it, especially at the expense of individual liberties and free enterprise. It has only served to create new financial hardships for businesses and tobacco users alike, and, more importantly, divide our nation into two distinct social camps, smokers and non-smokers with all the disdain and animosity toward each other that is normally attached to differing clusters of society.

What the anti-tobacco crusade has done is give neurotic zealots something to grab onto, provided an abundance of new jobs and new tax shelters for all the "nonprofit" health groups springing up all over the world, in addition to creating expansion opportunities for the existing organizations. Simultaneously, the crusade has unjustly punished a minority of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who have a preference for tobacco use by way of exorbitant and disproportionate taxation and has created a social bias and "labeling" reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

I can think of no other contemporary issue (a social issue that is thinly disguised as a public health issue) whereby the "solution" has caused so much detriment to our society. Not only have the anti-tobacco measures not helped anybody to any significant degree, they have instead caused a great deal of physical, financial, and psychological harm to many people.

2:37 pm
[beerkitty]
Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State
(read entire article on Forest Online at http://www.forestonline.org/output/page378.asp)

"The mainstream media seem mostly paralysed by political correctness and a troubling lack of scepticism towards anything done in the name of 'health'."~~~Joe Jackson, FOREST Online, April 2007

"The phenomenal success of the anti-smoking movement over the last seven or eight years corresponds directly to phenomenal infusions of cash from the Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco companies and the American states, and from the World Health Organisation going into partnership with the pharmaceutical industry which wants the world's billion and a half smokers off fags and onto nicotine patches and antidepressants."~~~Joe Jackson, FOREST Online, April 2007



read Joe Jackson's updated book here: http://www.forestonline.org/files/pdf/SMOKE,%20LIES%20A4%20v5b.pdf

2:30 pm
[beerkitty]
YEAH!

NORTHERN IRELAND'S SMOKING BAN MAY HAVE REVERSE EFFECT


http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=689

“This is the first time in history when Governments have banned the public enjoyment of a product, i.e. tobacco, that is still legally on sale." 
~~~James Leavey

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007
11:42 am
[beerkitty]
CO Casino issue - House bill 1269 - YOU CAN HELP!!!!
We need everybody’s help on this and it only takes a minute.
House Bill 1269, taking away the casino's exemption, goes before the Governor to be signed.
We want him to veto this bill.
The casinos have recently began talks with us, looking to join us in the fight.
More importantly, if the casinos lose their exemption, we lose our federal court case.
All you need to do is call the governor's office and tell them your name, county and that you are against House Bill 1269.
The major reasons why: Loss of tax revenue.
How will the Governor pay for his Energy Bill? Why keep signing legislature that is unfair, confusing and impossible to enforce?
NO on HB 1269.
Call 303-866-2471.
10:18 am
[beerkitty]
CO Senate kills attempt to remove the Cigar Bar exemption
I wish I had the time to really discuss this, but at the moment these two articles will have to suffice.


Senate kills bill bolstering state smoking ban 

May 2, 2007 - 1:29AM
DENVER - Smokers caught their first break of the 2007 General Assembly on Tuesday when the Senate snuffed out a bill that would have made it harder to claim cigarbar status.

The rejection of Senate Bill 250 came just days after the House and Senate approved a ban on smoking in casinos beginning Jan. 1, ending the biggest exemption in 2006's Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. A Senate committee also killed bills this session that would have widened the exemptions on the indoor smoking ban to include veterans' halls and mom-and-pop taverns.

Sen. Betty Boyd originally sought to ban cigar bars with her bill, but she compromised Monday to clarify that such an exemption is good only for bars that opened before 2006 and get 5 percent of annual revenue from sales of cigars, cigar tobacco and rental of onsite humidors. Some bars that sell a lot of cigarettes now use the wording of the original exemption to continue to allow smoking.

Senate Republicans made their final stand on the issue Tuesday, claiming the Legislature is hurting businesses and is being overly paternalistic by telling people what they can and cannot do. This time, though, they got four Democrats to join with them and defeat the measure.

"Smoke 'em if you got 'em," Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, strode around the chamber saying afterward while carrying a cigar in his hands.

Boyd, D-Lakewood, said she's disappointed because allowing people to smoke at bars with fancy martinis and expensive cigars but not at roadside taverns can be seen as classist. She expects somebody might try to ban such bars again next year, though she said any fight would be a hard one.

"This may have been the toughest because this one ultimately is the last bastion of people going out smoking and drinking," Boyd said after the vote.

Exemptions also exist for businesses with three or fewer employees and for the smoking lounges at Denver International Airport. No one has tried to end those yet.

CONTACT THE WRITER: (303)837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com

 http://www.gazette.com/articles/senate_21838___article.html/smoking_ban.html

 

 clock May 1, 2007 7:15 pm US/Mountain

Senate Kills Ban On Most Cigar Bars

(AP) DENVER The Senate on Tuesday killed a bill that would have outlawed some cigar bars after opponents said it went too far trying to regulate businesses.

Lawmakers said they feared traditional bars are calling themselves cigar bars to take advantage of an exemption in the statewide smoking ban.

The bill (Senate Bill 250) was amended to allow an exemption for bars that get 5 percent of their income from selling tobacco, as long as it applied to cigar sales, cigar tobacco and humidor rentals, but that wasn't enough to win approval.

The smoking ban currently has three big exemptions -- casinos, cigar bars and the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport.

The exemption was aimed at protecting only a handful of cigar bars, including Churchill's at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver, but many other bars have latched on to it, according to Kimberly Hills of the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance.

The cigar bar exemption was a key part of a ruling by an Adams County judge in early April that the smoking ban was unconstitutional. The judge said the law violated the due-process rights of bar owners because it didn't allow them a chance to establish themselves as cigar bars.

Monday, April 30th, 2007
11:38 am
[beerkitty]
Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke
April 26, 2007
Michael J. McFadden

Antismokers like to say, 'There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.' They ignore the fact that the same is true for the Class A Carcinogens alcohol and sunshine, both also having "no known safe levels".

Sunshine? Is it really that bad? Well, the UN claims 60,000 people die annually from its cancerous effects. Even one quick peek out your window may kill you... if we use the Surgeon General's smoke exposure standards.

Antismokers might laugh and say 'Well, there's no avoiding sunlight, but you CAN avoid smoke by having bans.' They forget smoking bans are passed primarily to 'protect the workers' and there are many workers forced to serve self-centered Sunners desiring lunches on restaurant patios. Why should those workers be 'the only ones forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?' Should patio dining be outlawed? After all, it's no more necessary to the act of eating than smoking is to the act of drinking.

Speaking of drinking... Antismokers like to say 'You're not forcing others to drink!', but you certainly are forcing a carcinogen on them. The actual Class A components of a cigarette's smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!

See for yourself: pour a good jigger (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass. Two days later it will be gone. Where did it go? Well, unless your kittycat is a closet tippler, all that nice juicy carcinogen bubbled straight into the air inhaled by you and your family: almost 100,000 cigarettes’ worth.

Applying the same 'zero-tolerance' rules to alcohol as extremists demand for smoke would force us to ban alcohol from restaurants 'where people are forced to work.' Alcoholics could be told 'just step outside for a moment' between courses to grab a few quick gulps of wine.

It is not just sunshine and martinis though: think about the deadly popcorn fumes! Recent research indicates that workers exposed to that delicious buttery aroma can lose up to 80% of their lung capacity to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles -- the lungs' tiniest airways.

If 'first hand exposure' is that deadly, what about the 'secondhand exposure' you and your children get at the movies or while munching microwave popcorn on the couch? Picture hundreds of TV ads showing babies in the womb being force-fed butter flavored popcorn while their tiny computer-animated lungs slowly wither and die. Picture parents being denied custody of their children or losing their jobs because they are 'popcorn-eaters'.

The only thing unique about the 'deadliness' of secondary tobacco smoke is that a powerful lobby has focused our attention on it and magnified our fears of it. Having a patio lunch may actually be more dangerous than being inside with the smokers. Working in a poorly ventilated non-smoking alcohol-friendly restaurant may be deadlier than working in a well-ventilated smoking casino!

The hysteria surrounding secondary smoke is deliberately created to pressure smokers to quit, no more, no less. It's a hysteria fed by media outlets posing as good corporate citizens while making extra bucks from scary headlines. And it's a hysteria that has ruined the lives and livelihoods of many innocent people.

Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4310


skin cancer data: http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20060727/sun-kills-skin-cancer

alcohol as a carcinogen: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/known.pdf and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s007alco.pdf

10:12 am
[beerkitty]
as i was trolling other people's ban discussions
i have only this to say:

creating and supporting a law that bans a legal activity because *personally* you "don't like" said activity, and it makes *your* life more comfortable now that the ban exists?  

selfish and shortsighted.  

contrary to modern-day popular belief, the law and judicial system does not exist so that *you* can be confortable and not have to deal with things that you *personally* consider objectionable.   i will discuss all day the economic impact of the bans on both sides of the issue.  i will *not* have a discussion with someone whose entire argument is that they are happy that the ban exists because now they don;t smell like an ashtray when they get home form going out.  that is definitely a benefit of the ban, but certianly a selfish reason to have a ban.  with that logic, let's go ahead and ban perfume and flatulence becuase i personally find those two things annoying,.  

this is about the encroachment of government into our personal lives, not about whether you stink when you come home from going to a club.  

*annoyed*
Saturday, April 28th, 2007
10:11 am
[nephthys510]
help stop a disagreement
a friend is convinced that the smoking ban was not up for popular vote.

I distinctly remember voting on it.

Which one of us is smoking the bad crack here?
Friday, April 27th, 2007
2:23 pm
[beerkitty]
Civil Disobediance Protest! CCER has a plan!!!!
Our great friends at The Colorado Coalition for Equal Rights (www.stopthebans.com) has a grass-roots protest going. it sounds good to me and i think we should all encourage our local bar, pubs and taverns to think about doing this.

http://www.stopthebans.com/id49.html

Civil Disobediance Protest

We have started smoking again in OUR bars! We are protesting this ILLEGAL LAW. Bar owners throughout the state have grouped together to protest the loss of our Constitutional rights. As a group, we plan to make the state legislators reverse this law. Each Bar will allow smoking in their bar & collect $1 donation per ashtray to help fight any tickets that may be issued. We WANT to get these tickets, which we will fight with a jury trial and back up the court system. If any fines are imposed, they will be paid by our Donation Fund. You WILL bring your customers BACK into your bar. The State of Colorado has no problem putting you OUT OF BUSINESS..........this Protest WILL bring all of you IMMEDIATE RELIEF. Those who have already joined have already got all of their business back. We need EVERYONE'S participation. It will only work if we have a large number of barowners stand up and protest with us.

The Rules:

1. Post a sign in front of your building or window that reads: "CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE PROTEST" at bottom put the words "smoking ban" circled with a line through it.

2. Have your customers donate $1 per ashtray each time they come into your bar. ALL FUNDS COLLECTED will be put into ONE account for any tickets that may be issued. These funds will ONLY go to pay the fines of those that have joined the protest.

3. All participating bars agree to FIGHT any tickets all the way to a jury trial, and will not waiver. We are looking for strong people who are not going to give up and stick this thing through until we make a difference in the legislature.

*Smoking in your bar IS NOT a violation of your liquor license. Protest as a group and save your business. Click the link at the top for a contact name and number regarding this issue.

One Bar Collected $200 in ONE Week

~~If 10 Bars collected $200 each = $2000 per week in ashtray donations
$8000 per month

~~20 Bars X $200 = $4000 per week $16,000 per Month

~~30 Bars X $200 = $6000 per week $24,000 per Month!

~~40 bars X $200 = $8000 per week $32,000 per Month!!

***1$ per Ashtray doesn't seem like much, but you can see how much money we can raise to pay everyone's tickets.


People???? Bar owners??? is this something we can get people to do????
8:57 am
[beerkitty]
Adams County, CO ban update....
well, hello there, and good morning. i have been a bit lax on the blogs this week - primarily because everything i read in the news over the past few days got me so MAD all i could do was sputter incoherently.

i am *still* sputtering incoherently, annoyed as hell about many things, but i can at least find it in myself to post an article link updating all of you on the situation in Adams County.


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5760056

Here's smokin' at you
Some watering holes claim cigar loophole, recent ruling permit puffing..byline-->
By Monte Whaley
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/27/2007 02:29:35 AM MDT


Adams County - While judges and lawmakers tinker with Colorado's anti-smoking law, jovial Louise Dolph vows to provide the last oasis for people who want to drink and enjoy a few drags on a cigarette at the end of a hard day.

Dolph manages Stein's Tavern in the middle of a block of faded storefronts on Pecos Street.

Here, where Sheila and Rick Soderberg nurse beers and puff away every night, Dolph cheerily declares that smoking will be allowed as long as a loophole remains in a state law that otherwise banned the practice in bars and restaurants last year.

"These are just hard-working people, and they should be allowed to smoke here if they want to," Dolph said.

"I just think the police have better things to do than come in here and see if we are smoking," added Rick Soderberg, while his wife, Sheila, nodded.

Stein's Tavern claims the cigar-bar exemption - under the law, smoking is allowed as long as owners can show that 5 percent or $50,000 of sales are from tobacco.

Bills to close both the cigar bar and casino exemptions were introduced this year.

The House signed off Thursday on the compromise that removes the exemption for casinos. If Gov. Bill Ritter signs it, it will take effect Jan. 1.

Sen. Betty Boyd said Thursday she currently does not have the votes to eliminate the cigar-bar exemption but may agree to compromise language to grandfather in traditional cigar bars in order to get the bill passed before the session ends.

Bars in Adams County got a boost two weeks ago when County Judge Robert Doyle ruled in favor of a strip club that the smoking ban is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clauses of the state and U.S. Constitution by treating cigar bars differently than regular clubs and bars.

But many establishments in the county are not trying to claim the exemption. They are keeping the lid on customer smoking amid rumors of continued mass ticketing of violators.

"We don't want to risk it," said Allen Wodark, a manager at Saturday Night Live, even though the ban has hurt business.

Beth, who asked that her last name not be used, said word that a neighboring bar recently got hit with 35 tickets - after the judge's ruling - prompted her bosses at Brewski's Pub and Grill to curtail smoking.

"It's not worth it," she said.

Adams County sheriff's spokeswoman Candi Baker said deputies have not gone on a ticket-giving spree. "Our enforcement action has been consistent, and we've not cracked down" since Doyle's decision, she said.

The county continues to enforce the state smoking law, which remains in effect except for the Oasis Cabaret topless club, county officials said.

Ron Granieri - a manager at the Oasis - was ticketed last December for allowing smoking and fined $200 for a petty offense. Doyle's ruling applied only to him, officials say.

But attorney Michael Martin, who represents Granieri, said the ruling applies to all bars in the county. An appeal from Adams County prosecutors is pending, so it could be a while before the whole issue is settled, said Martin, who is also a Northglenn city councilman.

"I just think this (smoking) law is a waste of time and resources," Martin said. "Taking officers off the street to monitor smoking doesn't make sense."

Capitol bureau chief Jeri Clausing contributed to this report.

Staff writer Monte Whaley can be reached at 720-929-0907 or mwhaley@denverpost.com.



if you made it through this, then i will also fill you in on a comment made by a smoking ban proponant:

Comment: Step outside...it's not that tough! People should not be exposed to your disgunsting habit because you're too lazy to get out of your seat for two minutes.

Reply: This post indicates what I thought all along: The proponents of this ban are not at all concerned about the health of the bar's staff; they're only concerned about their own comfort


yep. it's true - the popularity of these bans really stems from the american public thinking that their comfort is paramount, and if they do not want to see something then they shouldn't have to. it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the arrogant and self-centered nature of modern america. if i smoke a cigarette in a bar with a bunch of other people who are smoking a cigarette, *why* should we stop just because someone happens to walk by who is offended by it? seriously, people.....

thoughts? talk to me....
Wednesday, April 18th, 2007
3:02 pm
[beerkitty]
Smoking Ads to be investigated in Britain

Thanks to our great friends at the Coalition for Equal Rights (right here in Colorado! www.stopthebans.com) for sending us this link:

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=30073&categoryid=0

Smoking ban adverts to be investigated
12/04/2007 07:59

Written by: Iain O'Neil

The Advertising Standards Authority is to ask for proof to substantiate claims made by the Department of Health about the dangers of passive smoking.

The watchdog will act after receiving 26 complaints about the 'Invisible Killer’ TV ads which featured cigarette smoke blowing around a wedding party and into the mouths and noses of non-smokers. 

                                                     "We would expect the respondents to provide evidence to support their claims" 
                                                      ~~~Donna Mitchell from the ASA. 

The complainants said the ad was scaremongering, would cause undue fear to non-smokers and challenged whether there is a proven link between second-hand smoke and a raised risk of contracting specific diseases.

Donna Mitchell from the ASA told morningadvertiser.co.uk: ”We will be investigating and publishing a report in due course.

“We will ask the advertising agency or the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre – which cleared the ad for use on television – to explain its rationale for clearing the ad.

“The responses will go to our ASA Council for consideration.”

Mitchell said a lot of the complaints had been about the dangers of passive smoking.

She said: “We would expect them (the respondents) to provide evidence to support their claims.” 




Tuesday, April 17th, 2007
3:22 pm
[beerkitty]
Should the ban be lifted in smaller bars?
go to this page and vote in their poll. unfortunately you can only vote once, but tell all your friends!

http://cbs4denver.com/local/polls_poll_064134157
2:54 pm
[beerkitty]
the History of Smoking Bans
Smoking Bans: A History


As usual, I defer to the experts and those with superior writing abilities for this blog. The subject is the History of Smoking Bans. The writers and experts are our Great and Respected Friends over at the SADIreland (http://www.myspace.com/sadireland) myspace blog (http://www.sadireland.com/smoking1.htm). They are serious, intelligent people with a lot of important information that YOU, as a smoker, should know. Their header really says it all:

Freedom Of Choice Should Never Become A Radical Idea In A Democratic Society

Anyway, here is their history of smoking bans. To read more make sure you check out this link to the article, http://www.sadireland.com/smoking1.htm.

Smoking Bans - A History

When Michael Martin Introduced his uncompromising smoking ban in Ireland he claimed Ireland was the first country to introduce such comprehensive measures to prohibit the use of tobacco. Like so many other claims he makes, he is utterly wrong.

Throughout history smoking bans and prohibitions introduced by despots and totalitarian regimes have come and gone. The most recent in Europe prior to the introduction of Ireland's repressive smoking legislation were the anti smoking laws of the Third Reich, introduced by the Nazi's during their brief but devastating regime in Germany.

Despite some harsh punishments throughout the decades for those disobeying smoking bans including death, smoking and smokers have continued to thrive. Below are some of the failed smoking bans and prohibitions introduced throughout the ages including the proliferation of bans revoked after the failure of prohibition in America.

1575: Mexico:
The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies
1600s: World-wide
Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places.
1612: China
Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco
1617: Mongolia
Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.
1620: Japan
bans the use of tobacco
1632: America
The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places
1633: Turkey:
Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.
1634: Russia
Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.
1634: Greece
The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah..
1638: China
The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted
1639: America
Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York.
1640: Bhutan
The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings.
1647: America
People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut
1650: Italy
Pope Innocent X's issues a decree against smoking in St Peter's, Rome
1657: Switzerland
Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland
1674: Russia
Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking.
1683: America
First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders.
1693: England
First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament

* Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the 18th and 19th century. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for monarchs and leaders and tobacco bans were revoked. Even the Pope not to be left out opened a tobacco factory in 1779.

1719: France
Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces.

America and Prohibition

Smoking bans and restrictions found little favour in the developing Industrial world of the 19th century. However in the USA as the century drew to a close moral crusaders outraged by the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by American people began to demand action by federal and state legislators. This culminated in an amendment to the American constitution which allowed for the prohibition of alcohol in 1920.

Believing that prohibition might be "for their own good" Americans at first seemed to reluctantly accept it. However they rapidly grew disenchanted with the oppression. The rich and powerful colluded and rubbed shoulders with gangsters in efforts to maintain the flow of alcohol. Speakeasies flourished, hip flasks became a popular symbol of defiance.

During this period the imposition of smoking bans reached a zenith with the sale of cigarettes banned in 15 states. However by 1927, Kansas became the last state to repeal it's ban on the sale of cigarettes. Other than making the crusaders feel good, prohibition had proved an unsuccessful experiment in social engineering leading to many disastrous consequences. Prohibition was eventually lifted in 1933.

1818: USA
Smoking is banned on the streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mayor is fined when he becomes the first man to break the law.
1840: USA
Smoking is banned in Boston
1893: USA
Washington State introduces legislation banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes
1898: USA
Total ban on cigarettes in the state of Tennessee
1900: USA
The sale of cigarettes is now outlawed in the states of Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota
1904: USA
A women is sent to jail for 30 days by a New York judge for smoking in front of her children.
1905: USA
Indiana introduces a total cigarette ban
1907: USA
Washington passes legislation banning the manufacture, sale, exchange or giving away cigarettes, cigarette paper or wrappers
1914: USA
Smoking banned in the US Senate
1922: USA
15 States now have laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession and use of cigarettes

Smoking Bans and the Third Reich

Hitler was a fervent anti smoker and a crusader for the anti-smoking cause. He personally funded research into the dangers of smoking and little wonder those results given the nature of his regime tended to support his assertions that smoking was an evil the Aryan race must be rid of. Many of the studies carried out during the Third Reich are the basis for the arguments put forward today by those seeking the imposition of repressive smoking bans.

Hitler once stated that tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man" Under the Nazi's the Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco was established in 1939 followed in 1942 by the Institute for the Struggle against the dangers of Tobacco. Nazi's were the first to coin the term "passive smoking"

Under the Nazi regime the German people had imposed on them the most comprehensive set of tobacco regulations and restrictions seen in any modern nation to that date. Hitler himself took particular interest in this area often personally overseeing the drafting and implementation of anti smoking policy.

"I am convinced that if I had been a smoker, I never would have been able to bear the cares and anxieties which have been a burden to me for so long. Perhaps the German people owe its salvation to that fact."
Adolf Hitler 1942

Bans And Restrictions in Nazi Germany

The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938.
The German Post office introduced its own ban
Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes.
The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939
SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty in 1939
Hermann Goering's bans soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and while taking rest periods.
Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.
Smoking was banned in air raid shelters. Some provided separate rooms for smokers
Tobacco coupons were denied to any woman who was pregnant
Blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars and restaurants
Women below the age of 25 were banned from smoking
Restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to all female customers
In July 1943 it became illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.
Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944. This initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.


1973: America
Arizona becomes the first state in the current wave of smoking bans to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places
Monday, April 16th, 2007
10:56 am
[beerkitty]
heh. this amuses me.
"If it looks, smokes and tastes like a cigarette, it's a cigarette, delivering addiction, illness and early death to its users."
~~~~Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, referring to "little cigars"

read the referenced article: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/193067-blumenthal-praises-proposed-little-cigar-regulations
8:25 am
[beerkitty]
Smoking bans unconstituional??? No Shit!!!!
I watched a film last night on my local PBS station, and it was truly something I was surprised beyond belief to see aired. The film? "America: Freedom to Fascism", by Aaron Russo
. Two hours later, I am even more sure about my stance against the Nanny State of the Union (which, I must say, is now even more of a police state in my mind). Check it out - seriously. I cannot recommend it enough, no matter where you stand, politically.

Anyway, after seeing that film last night, I continued thinking about our constitution and how so many of the laws that are enacted these days are contrary to that document, not only in stance, but also in being enacted without consult with the People of the US. Which of course brings me to the prevalence of smoking bans.
Here in Colorado, a proposed ban was given to the public vote quite a few years ago. It did not pass. Our elected congress decided that even though the voting public did not want the ban, they knew what was good for us, and passed it in committee last year.
This is not right.
It violates private property rights, and was enacted without the will of the people.

On 4/14/07, Adams County Judge Doyle ruled on the unconstituional nature of the Colorado smoking ban.
Judge Robert Doyle ruled on April 5 that the law is unconstitutional primarily because it denies due process because it does not provide an opportunity for bars to establish themselves as "tobacco bars" before the effective date of the law. Tobacco bars are protected under the ban.
Additionally, Doyle found the statute denies equal protection by treating casinos and airports differently than common everyday bars. Smoking is allowed in a special smoking lounge at Denver International Airport. The Adams County district attorney is appealing the ruling.


http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4085
http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=7385

This doesn't even touch on the fact that this law was not voted into being in a democratic fashion by allowing the voting public to decided if they wanted this law.

I feel like i have lost my train of thought here....

Something more needs to be done.
Friday, April 13th, 2007
8:56 am
[beerkitty]
Why we, the SLF, love Frank Rich!!
The SLF has many friends, and we love them and appreciate them all. Today, however, Frank is our favorite.

Out of the goodness of his heart, he has created a new look for us.

Our militance has never looked so damned classy!

Thanks, Frank! Cigarette in hand, we salute you!!

[ << Previous 20 ]
slf-Denver on myspace.com   About LiveJournal.com