April 25 - The Dutch: Cigarettes no, drugs yes … and more here - The Netherlands has long been famous for its “coffeeshops”, establishments that serve up marijuana, often in different “gourmet” varieties, to customers. The shops have functioned for decades now under a controlled and tolerant regulatory regime. Of course, it goes without saying that the marijuana is smoked.

Meanwhile, in many other parts of the world where the War on Drugs rages unchecked, bolstering the budgets for local law enforcement, encouraging police corruption and enriching international drug lord kingpins beyond all imagination, the same dope smoking that is routinely enjoyed in a Dutch coffee shop often means jail time – sometimes major jail time – and a criminal record for anyone who might care to indulge. 

So what’s the Dutch response to the new War on Tobacco? Well, since the World Health Organization and all the other operatives of anti-tobacco are concentrating on the persecution of tobacco smokers and don’t seem much interested in marijuana smoking, the logical thing is happening.

The new wisdom of the Netherlands essentially says, “dope smoking is ok, but ordinary cigarettes are more dangerous than a nuclear plant meltdown.”

"’It is ridiculous to think that a smoking ban would be the end of coffee shops,’" one politician and coffee shop owner is quoted as saying in this article. He’s probably right. After all, everyone knows that marijuana smoke in the ambient air does no harm, while tobacco smoke EST kills on contact. Right? Of course right.

April 25 - Wiping out the competition - The Wisconsin Restaurant Association also backs the statewide smoking ban, reversing its previous position.  Mark Dougherty, owner of Mark's East Side, an Appleton restaurant, did the same. Dougherty, speaking at the Capitol hearing, said he had rethought his previous strong opposition to the ban.  "We looked at the big picture and decided this was best for the restaurant and hospitality industry," he said. — Appleton Post Crescent, April 20, 2007

While a restaurant supporting a statewide smoking ban appears counterintuitive there is nothing unusual going on at all.  By and large, restaurant associations have backed smoking bans in the USA. For example, the Washington Restaurant Association did not oppose the smoking ban in Washington State and in fact refused to consider environmental tobacco smoke issues or rebuttal. The theme of the alleged opposition to the smoking became “Smoking bans are fine, this ban is just too extreme.”  In several states where smoking bans have recently passed or are currently pending restaurant associations quite consistently state no opposition to or support for the bans.

You are observing business as usual at work. Many large franchise chains have gone ”Smoke Free” voluntarily. As they did so customers migrated to small, independent restaurants and bars that accommodated smokers.  Restaurant association membership is to the greatest extent large franchise chain establishments. Smoking bans therefore predictably hurt small, independent bars, taverns and restaurants while benefiting already-smoke-free large franchise establishments. This is simply a use of political agendas to advance regulatory measures that predictably benefit large franchise operations at the intended expense of small, independent neighborhood establishments.

April 16 - How not to overturn smoking bans - A county judge in Colorado has ruled that the state-wide smoking ban is unconstitutional because it exempts cigar bars.  On the surface a ruling against a smoking ban could be considered a positive development that should be applauded and emulated.  The result of this particular victory, however, is likely to be recorded as yet another useless effort that paradoxically will result in tightening up the state's smoking ban.

The Colorado law exempts cigar bars and businesses that sell tobacco products from the smoking ban.  Obviously this exemption is "unfair" and, in the case of cigar bars, is an eloquent example of how the rich and powerful exempt themselves from the hassles that the "little people" must endure.  Taking this unfairness to the courts seems to make sense.  What will happen, however, is that, if this ruling is upheld, the politicians who are owned by anti-smoking interests will rush to remove all exemptions, "levelling the playing field" while providing themselves with the aura of virtue by cracking down on the cigar-smoking elite.  A legislator in fact has already introduced a law to end the cigar bar exemption.

The history of smoking ban litigation is littered with cases brought before judges on constitutional bases.  With rare exceptions all fail.  Health in this country, including Colorado, trumps all.  Litigating on technicalities, property rights and so-called constitutional issues is a sure loser.  The only way a suit will ever kill a smoking ban on private property is to take the "science" of secondhand smoke to court.  While it won't be easy to do the facts will be on the side of the plaintiff.  Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that secondhand smoke is hazardous but the research that is used to claim harm, if digested by anyone who understands epidemiology, never leads to any justification to ban smoking in restaurants, bars or anywhere else.

April 10 - A modest proposal - Currently in Michigan there is a well financed effort to enact a smoking ban in restaurants and bars. Michigan is unfortunately in the midst of a severe economic decline due to current trade policies.  In fact many small businesses are struggling to survive.  Knowing this the state legislature is somewhat hesitant to pursue this smoking ban.  But the spin machine of the anti smoking movement is in high gear. The deluge of anti smoking positions in the media to support this smoking ban has kicked into high gear.

I wasn't surprised to hear that smoking is choice that can no longer be tolerated.  Also that through legislation those who make the choice to smoke will find themselves further isolated from society.  When reading the local news paper, views and opinions presented by smokers always seem to have the same old twist that "I know this isn't isn't good for me" and "Please have some consideration for me".  Most seem to admit defeat. Not once have I read or heard a choice other than continuing with the status quo or submission to the ban. I was somewhat surprised when the Flint Journal actually published the below letter I wrote them:

Maybe it's time to consider the unthinkable. I'm talking about a modified version of locking up all the smokers to protect the public health. Just imagine all of the social pariahs locked up together, inhaling that toxic cigarette smoke, puffing their way to the Big Dirt Nap. Finally, the nonsmoker's pristine nostrils and virgin lungs would be forever protected from the ravages of evil tobacco when dining out, or drinking in a tavern.

That's right, I'm proposing "Smoking only" restaurants and bars as a solution. We all must face the fact that putting smokers and nonsmokers together in a closed and poorly ventilated room is no longer the viable solution it used to be. Nonsmoking and smoking-only restaurants and bars could be the solution that works for smokers, nonsmokers, and proprietors.

If what nonsmokers say is true, then it will just be a matter of time before smoking-only establishments fail because of a lack of customers, or until the next study determines that just the thought of someone enjoying a cigarette causes cancer. — Randy Piotraczki, letter to the editor, Flint Journal, 3/20/07

The Journal in their wisdom misspelled my last name bad did have the balls to print it.  It didn't stop the antis from still contacting me to inform me of the stupidity of my simple suggestion.  As a matter of fact I got the impression by their reaction it scared the hell out of them.  I used the antis own dogma against them to justify the choice of "smoking only".  You all know what the result was from this.  There is only one one choice "Non Smoking".  This simple letter has got people thinking and talking.  Most got the point of the final sentence, and the ones that didn't never will.  I am just one of many smokers who have had enough and are more than willing push back. —  Randy Piotraczk, Michigan resident

March 29 - Some secondhand smoke is A-OK - We link to yet another example of a peculiar idiocy politicians everywhere fall sucker to.  Despite Colorado's "total" smoking ban, bars that derive a particular amount of revenue from the sale of cigarettes can continue to allow their patrons to light up indoors.  Somehow the supposedly deadly effects from secondhand smoke are rendered safe if cigarettes are sold on the premise.  In other locales throughout the United States smoking in restaurants is allowed as long as a particular percentage of the revenue comes from alcohol sales so in this case restaurant workers are not harmed when the secondhand smoke accompanies heavy drinking.  In posh cigar lounges, such as those found in the anti-smoking bastions of New York City, Seattle and San Francisco, secondhand smoke is harmless to workers, as long as it isn't polluted by wisps of cigarette smoke.  In Florida and Utah secondhand smoke is deadly if food is involved but okay if distributed throughout a drinking establishment.  In casinos everywhere the sky is the limit and smoking restrictions are almost nonexistent proving that gambling may break you but you won't die from the smoke floating above the gaming tables.  On and on go the list of irrationalities, which will continue...until such day smoking in the exempted business is finally outlawed.

March 28 - The Herd - Another California city plans to ban smoking outdoors.  Ho hum.  Outdoor smoking bans are this year's circle jerk, an impotent exercise to determine which mediocre politician has the biggest.  While banning smoking in city parks is stale news  — the originator thinks it will make his town friendlier! — Norman Kjono sees the inception of something far more interesting and quite positive.

March 26 - Finger in the dike - It's not a matter for debate, since the records clearly show it, that smoking bans annihilate bars.  More than a thousand have bit the dust in Ireland, just as the business owners said would happen if their patrons were forbidden to light up on the premises.  The Irish government has heard the lamentations and is kicking into gear to rescue the suffering pubs.  Too bad the rescue plan doesn't include eliminating, or at least modifying, the total smoking ban.  Instead the government will fund a fleet of buses to transport rural residents from their homes to the pubs that are going broke due to lack of patronage, namely smokers.  To the financial losses caused by government interference will be added the cost to the entire population for this mad transportation scheme that will not stop the bleeding of profits at the pubs.  The Irish government probably longs for the good old days when it told the country that banning smoking would usher in a wildly prosperous era for its pubs and restaurants.  Reality has a way of slapping the dullard in the face but some dullards never get the message.

What seems to be silly arbitrariness is actually anti-tobacco being quite clever and very patient.  Some places are not "ready" for smoking bans so bit by bit prohibition is slowly imposed until all exemptions are wiped out.  Those businesses benefiting from the exemptions are living in a fool's paradise if they think they have ducked the bullet.  Until private property owners tackle prohibition head on, focusing on the fraudulent "evidence" that secondhand smoking is dangerous, property rights will continue to be trampled under the heels of those who could care less if every bar and restaurant went out of business.

March 23 - City takes stand against statewide smoking ban - It's great to see local government taking a stand against the pharmaceutical nicotine special interest groups whose real motive for lobbying in favor of smoking bans is to increase corporate pharmaceutical profits.  While Barbara Carlson, the one council member who opposed the resolution, points out that the true motive for public and lawmaker support of smoking bans is:  ".....it's so enjoyable to go and not smell like smoke...."  Not a justifiable reason however, to eliminate jobs and businesses here in Minnesota or elsewhere.

March 22 - Business owners oppose smoking bans in the Netherlands - Even in Holland resistance to smoking bans is building up and for good reason: "Turnover fell by 20 percent in the first year in countries where a smoking ban has been introduced", an indisputable argument absolutely ignored by the health "authorities", who also have created the scientific absurdity that "there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke" which is, however, very astute for invalidating the ventilation option. Of course we are talking about a fraud but fraud is to be taken as granted when antismoking "public health" is involved. So it boils down to this: will the business owners be able to create sufficient political pressure to defeat the antismoking mafia? That remains to be seen and good luck to them.

March 22 - Santa Cruz county bans the mere possession of tobacco products in parks - It is definitely not about smoking: it is about prohibition.  Let's make that conclusive: all over the United States the itch to enact full prohibition has returned, and this piece by Michael Siegel is proof. The difference between the old prohibition and the new one is in the pitiful arguments used to justify the latter. In the old days al least there were moral reasons (that one could or could not agree with), and the causality was real, scientific and actually measurable, as entire paycheques in times of scarcity were blown in the bottle, leaving families literally starving.

Let’s hear today’s justifications instead: “Anyone who lights up or chews smokeless tobacco would be subject to a $92 fine. And anyone who merely possesses cigarettes or smokeless tobacco would also be subject to the same $92 fine”. Furthermore: “…the purpose of the ordinance is to reduce secondhand smoke exposure and to reduce the risk of fires: ‘Second-hand smoke is a known carcinogen. We believe our children deserve a clean, safe place to play.' ... The smoking ban applies to everyone and any type of tobacco, even smokeless. Officials say the idea is to keep the county's 30 parks free of second-hand smoke. Samuel expects the ban to reduce the number of park fires caused by smokers." Beside the fact that the carcinogenicity of second-hand smoke is a plain fraud, what fire and second-hand smoke for chewing tobacco?... The confusion and the hypocrisy of this prohibitionist scum needs no further comment.

March 21 - Proprietor cleared of contempt charge - This story from Thurston Washington provides a glimpse into the insanity of smoking bans.  A proprietor was cleared of a of complaint that he violated an injunction enforcing the state's anti-smoking law by allowing customers to light up inside his tavern.  This appears to mean that he was judged not to have had an intent to flout the statewide smoking ban.  That's not to say smoking doesn't occur in his bar, only that he is not responsible if it is.  Local law enforcement had asked that he be fined $7,500 because he didn't have a no smoking sign and because patrons are still lighting up.  The whole sorry episode illustrates how ridiculous smoking ban laws are and how localities are wasting an incredible amount of time and money cracking down on a so-called crime that wasn't a crime a short while ago.  To add insult to injury had the proprietor been a member of an Indian tribe he would be allowed to openly and loudly advertise his establishment as a place where customers can legally smoke.  Anti-tobacco has made such a botch of civil society that law enforcement and the judicial system should crack down on those criminals rather than running an honest businessman ragged.

March 21 - Sports bar sues county over smoking case - In a very positive update to the story above about a sports bar owner being cleared of a complaint that he violated the Washington State's anti-smoking law, we are pleased to report that instead of wiping his brow with relief the bar owner is turning the tables on his persecutors.

Frank Schnarrs, an Olympia sports bar owner and critic of the state’s smoking ban, has filed a $1.5 million claim against Thurston County. Schnarrs said the county violated his civil rights.  The decision stems from the legal action taken by the county against Schnarrs earlier this month, said Schnarrs’ attorney Shawn Newman.

A part of Schnarrs' claim is that the Thurston County Environmental Health Specialist's comments at the hearing were defamatory, an interesting development given that anti-tobacco's contention that "secondhand smoke kills" defames all smokers, the businesses that allow smoking and the tobacco industry.  The tobacco industry long ago accepted defamation as a small price to pay in currying favor with government entities.  It's encouraging that the "little people", who actually are damaged by the secondhand smoke fraud are taking their legitimate claims to court.

March 16  - Civil disobedience on the move - A brave group of bar owners in Colorado Springs are openly and loudly defying the recently enacted statewide smoking ban.  Their bravery is inspiring and the group hopes it inspires bar owners in Denver to join the protest.  The protest began recently as evidence grew that bar owners throughout the state are hurting financially due to smokers refusing to go where they aren't wanted.

Recognizing that, in a country where laws are respected, it goes against the grain not to comply with an ordinance that was duly passed by the legislature, the owners know that joining the protest is a hard sell.  They have, however, morality and science on their side since there is not one piece of evidence that justifies banning a smoking on private property.  Since secondhand smoke poses absolutely no threat to nonsmokers and no one is forced to set foot in an establishment that allows smoking the ban is unjust and un-American.  The protest is definitely taking off and press coverage, for a change, has been positive.  If enough Denver bars join in it spells curtains for the smoking ban.

March 12 - Civil Disobedience - Open defiance of Colorado's smoking ban by bars in Colorado Springs, as an act of civil disobedience, forced the hand of police and code enforcement officers. A series of stings was conducted around Colorado Springs. Dozens of citations were issued, with one bar owner facing fines of more than $4,000

Now is the time for all businesses and patrons to stand beside (note we did not say behind, out of sight...) these business owners, support them in any way you can from where ever you are!

March 15  -  Beating up the old folks - These days the contemptuous advice offered to bullies of "why don't you pick on someone your own size" falls on deaf ears because the end game for officious politicians is precisely to beat up those weaker and less powerful than themselves.  These day, in fact, it is almost a requirement to slap the weak around because there is no risk to doing so since the slapping around is always accompanied with the ludicrous message that the stern chastisement is always "for their own good."

Realizing that shaming the bullies is impossible, Eamonn Mallon playfully and devastatingly congratulates a mean-spirited official for making life miserable for old pensioners who spend their waning days on earth pottering about the garden.  Even Hitler didn't make it official policy to bully, badger and fine the old duffers for the innocuous "offence" of smoking while gardening.

March 15 - Legislature halts local smoking bans - South Carolina State legislators pulled the rug out from under anti-tobacco operatives by yanking out a provision that would allow local governments to ban smoking in private property.  Anti-tobacco is working very hard lobbying the legislature to invalidate property rights by giving cities the authorization to impose prohibition.  Legislators who prevented this are to be applauded and supported.

It hasn't been a good couple of weeks for anti-tobacco in South Carolina.  Recently a judge invalided a smoking ban in one city by ruling that only the state can pass smoking ban legislation.  South Carolina will continue to be a free state.  Anti-tobacco, of course will continue its hardball tactics, working on the weakest links, lying about the "dangers" of secondhand smoke and distributing pharmaceutical money to so-called grass-roots anti-smoking groups.  At least some members of the legislature are on to their game.

March 14 - Don't become enraged - Take a moment and read carefully this news story about Belmont California.  Decent people will be outraged at the smoking ban the city council might foist on the citizens of this small San Francisco suburb.  Stifle the outrage and instead coldly concentrate on just what this proposed law means.  Don't waste time speculating on the motives of the city council or the mayor, who is the politician spearheading the passage of this new ordinance, "the most sweeping anti-smoking law in the world."  Suffice it to say that those advocating this law are not nice people.

• The mayor says she is acting based on one complaint by an apartment dweller who claims he is suffering from ill health due to the secondhand smoke of his neighbors.  Whether this complaint is manufactured or instigated is irrelevant since the mayor's reaction to it is obviously staged.  No city of 26,000 would shatter the barriers protecting residents in their own homes from government interference based on the complaints of one man.  The mayor used this incident to do what she  wanted to do all along.
• The mayor says a smoking ban covering apartments, sidewalks, outdoor cafes, cars with open windows is needed because of the dangers of secondhand smoke.  She is lying.  She is not even bothering to base her lie on fraudulent secondhand smoke studies but bases it on absolutely nothing, since there are no secondhand smoke studies specific to apartment units, outdoor smoking or on the harmful effects of a wisp of smoke drifting from the open window of a car motoring down a city street.  A law that forbids people to consume a legal product in the privacy of their own homes was thoroughly vetted by the city attorney office.  The city attorneys, as well as the mayor, know that there is not one piece of evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
• The legislation was written by an attorney whose salary is funded by pharmaceutical money.  Robin Salsburg works for the Public Health Institute of Oakland California, which has drafted anti-smoking legislation for dozens of communities.  PHI is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a pharmaceutical front group that lobbies for anti-smoking legislation with the goal of increasing consumption of the smoking cessation devices that mean big bucks for Big Drugs.

So what we have here in Belmont is a screamingly un-American law written by the drug industry, justified by one complainer and promoted by a politician who knows the basis of the legislation is a flat out lie.  Not a pretty picture for a country that once would have ridden anyone corrupt enough to propose what the mayor is proposing out of town on a rail.  Action will be taken to end this type of obscenity, if not now in Belmont then elsewhere tomorrow.  The unbridled hatred for and discrimination of a targeted group of citizens, instigated by the mercantile interests of huge corporations, cannot persist given calm analysis and exposure.  Understand that when Belmont, or the next locality, batters down the front door of a smoker's home the fig leaf of "property rights" will have been completely removed.  With that gone the only rational recourse is to hold the culpable accountable for their demonstrable lies and subservience to big business profiteers.  Bringing them down won't be quick or easy but as it becomes obvious what they are up to, and it has nothing to do with health, their end is inevitable.

March 12 - Smoking ban overturned - A judge upheld property rights in Greenville South Carolina by overturning the draconian smoking ban enacted by the overreaching city council.  For now restaurants and bar owners again have the right to set smoking policies in their own businesses.  What a concept!  A so-called problem as been revealed not to be a problem at all.  Nonsmokers in Greenville will continue to avoid the wisps of cigarette smoke by patronizing establishments that voluntarily prohibit smoking in their privately-owned premises.  Smokers, their friends and family members can enjoy the more convivial atmosphere of restaurants and bars that voluntarily allow their patrons to light up.  This restoration of civility and freedom will not be allowed to stand, of course.  The petty dictators that make up the "anti-smoking" movement will appeal the decision and ratchet up their campaign to impose a state-wide smoking ban, overruling the common sense decision of the Greenville judge.  The Greenville ruling, however, will make anti-tobacco's task far harder.

March 9 - Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats Up - Epilogue - Yesterday's comments from Norman Kjono regarding opposition to smoking bans reported an ugly incident in which anti-tobacco operatives falsely claimed they were threatened at a town hall meeting called to discussed Ohio's smoking ban.  Press coverage prominently mentioned this phoney threat in a story that negatively stereotypes those who support property rights as dangerous individuals.  Anti-tobacco, particularly the American Cancer Society, has a history of false allegations.

In Mr. Kjono's epilogue to his series he recounts a recent incident in Urbana, Illinois that followed the script that played out in Ohio.  This time the local newspaper dug a bit deeper into the anti-smoking operative's recitation of pro-smoker violence and discovered that, as in Ohio, a deliberate attempt to smear smokers was conducted by anti-tobacco.  What we have here is a modern-day resurrection of what was known in the 1950's as McCarthy tactics.  We have been travelling down that same slippery slope regarding smoking, as well as other lifestyle issues, for quite some time.  It's time to get back on track.