News
December 13, 2011
Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association asks 3 Ohio Members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to investigate the Center for Disease Control. A copy of the complaint is available to read here.
Briefly, on November 30, 2011, the CDC announced a future study to be conducted on the economic impact of smoking bans on bars and restaurants. Here is why BLPHA filed a request for investigation:
This future study already has a pre-determined outcome! The Director of the CDC announed IN THE PRESS RELEASE that smoke-free policies do not hurt business. He said the perception that they do imposes barriers to further implementing these policies so they're going to conduct a study and put together educational material to businesses and business groups.
This future study is being funded by a grant from Pfizer, maker of Chantix.
David Satcher sits on the Board of Directors of the CDC Foundation AND Johnson & Johnson who profits from the sales of Nicorette gum, Nicorette lozenges, Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, and Nicotrol.
The CEO of the organization conducting this future study is quoted in an interview as saying: "We have the best technology in the world, so we should focus on prevention and health habits as opposed to treating desease...Obesity, substance abuse, alcoholism and smoking are all issues in which behavioral interventions can go a long way toward reducing their impact and lowering total health care costs". Does this sound NON-BIASED?
This entire thing is an OUTRAGE. Bar owners feel the Federal Government and anti-tobacco organizations are involved in the cover-up of losses to bars because the secondary intent of smoking bans is to close mom and pop bars. Query the American Cancer Society's website at cancer.org for the word "alcohol" and you'll find over 5,000 anti-alcohol publications.
Read what Dr. Michael Siegel said in his blog about the CDC press release.
October 7, 2011
Associated Press Release
In part, the article says:
The Ohio Department of Health has corrected a report on the impact of the statewide smoking ban following questions by a state senator.
Director Theodore Wymyslo says smokers and non-smokers were flipped in a chart showing how frequently they've visited bars since the ban took effect in 2007. The graph now shows that 40 percent of current smoker who were surveyed said they visit bars less often, while about 7 percent of non-smokers say they go out more often.
Republican Senator Bill Seitz of Cincinnati and the ban's opponents have seized on the report, saying it's flawed and its Executive Summary omitted certain figures.
Here is the rest of the story.
First, we need to correct something the AP reported. Technically, they are correct that 7% of the non-smokers reported going to bars more often, HOWEVER 18% of the non-smokers also reported going out LESS OFTEN, therefore JUST AS BAR OWNERS HAVE BEEN TELLING THE MEDIA AND TELLING THE LEGISLATURE: THEY'VE LOST 40% of their customers (the smokers) and not only have they NOT seen all the "new" non-smoking customers as were promised BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE LAW, THEY'VE ACTUALLY LOST non-smokers, 11% of them (18% minus 7%). That's over 50% of their customers. See "corrected 38 page Analysis of the Impact of the Ohio Smoke-free Workplace Act" linked below.
What we've heard over and over is how much secondhand smoke is costing in health care. Since the ban has been in effect for over 4 years, we've been trying to get figures on exactly how much Ohio has saved. We know they're spending $1.2 million per YEAR enforcing the ban, so how much HAS Ohio saved? Senator Seitz asked the question and the answer he got, in part, from the Ohio Department of Health June 29, 2011 was that
ODH is working on a comprehensive plan to evaluate the impact of the public smoking ban in four areas:
health, behavior, economic and enforcement.
This is the Executive Summary of the original 38 page Analysis of the Impact of the Ohio Smoke-Free Workplace Act.
The Executive Summary distributed to the Ohio General Assembly and Governor Kasich left out the statistics on visits to bars. Yet it did use statistics generated from the same survey on the "opinions" of Ohio adults about smoking in "Indoor Dining Area of Restaurants" (talk about asking a question to get the answer you want!). If ODH was ok to use these statistics from the survey, why didn't they include the negative information they obtained about bar visits? Shouldn't Ohio's lawmakers and Governor get ALL pertinent information? While we're talking about this "survey" of Ohio adults, they surveyed Ohioans 18 years and older. WHY were 18, 19 and 20 year olds surveyed in 2009 about a law that went into effect December 7, 2006? THEY WEREN'T OLD ENOUGH to go to a bar. If I were 18 and I was asked if I went more often, less often or about the same, I'd have to answer "about the same" since the same is NEVER! Why were 21 and 22 year olds suveyed? They couldn't go to bars until 2008 and 2009 so OF COURSE if they went even ONCE since they became of age, THEY WENT MORE OFTEN! We believe the statistics "40% of smokers" and "11 percent of non-smokers" would have shown an even more devastating impact had the ODH not surveyed PEOPLE INELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE SURVEY!
Notice what else is not in either version of the Analysis of the Impact of the Ohio Smokef-free Workplace Act nor the Executive Summary or Press Release? Remember, ODH's correspondence to Senator Seitz said the report would include the "impact of enforcement"? There is absolutely NO mention of:
the costs to enforce
that many counties have chosen NOT to enforce the ban
that they've budgeted/spent $5.8 million so far to enforce the ban
NOR did they mention that they discovered that local health departments think OTHER HEALTH ISSUES SHOULD TAKE HIGHER PRIORITY
Sept. 10, 2011
Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association Asking for Ohio Department of Health Director Wymyslo's Resignation
Source: email to Ohio Legislature and Governor Kasich
When the Director of a State Agency intentionally omits data in a report to the legislature, MANIPULATES DATA to get the outcome he wants and presents that to the legislature, Governor and media, he should RESIGN or BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY and a CORRECTED report issued both to the legislature and the media. Reasons for dismissal: dishonesty, failure of good behavior, intentionally misrepresenting data to lawmakers, Governor and media.
This past week, headlines all over the state read "Ohio healthier since smoking ban".
FACT: There was a BIGGER DECLINE in heart attacks PRIOR to the smoking ban. 2005 saw a bigger decline in heart attacks than any year SINCE the ban.
HOWEVER, ODH MANIPULATED THIS DATA. Dr. Michael Siegel, RENOWNED tobacco control expert claims:
The Ohio Miracle: How Statistics Can Be Used to Create an Effect that Isn't there.
Read how they manipulated the data here in Siegel's blog.
Dr. Siegel ends with:
Despite the precarious nature of the analysis, it doesn't stop the report from going on to estimate the actual number of heart attacks averted and to calculate the dollar savings from those averted heart attacks. This should certainly give the reader pause as to the true intentions and purpose of the report. Is it to find out the truth, or to provide post-hoc justification for the smoking ban?
The rest of the story is that the data tell one story and the report tells quite another. When a linear model doesn't provide the answer one wants, it is just too easy to use more complicated models, for which there is no conceptual basis. If you try enough manipulations, you are always going to be able to show the effect that you want. However, it is the truth that we should be after, not "favorable" evidence.
Also in the news "Bars and Restaurants not hurt by smoking ban"
If this isn't grounds enough to remove Dr. Wymyslo, then you need to take a look at the "other" report titled "Analysis of the Impact of the Ohio Smoke-Free Workplace Act", the larger report from which Wymyslo cherry-picked what to put in his Executive Summary. Dr. Wymyslo INTENTIONALLY OMITTED information on BARS. In 2009, 5,000 Ohio adults were surveyed. What Wymyslo CHOSE to put in YOUR report was "OPINIONS" about the ban overall and how the respondents felt about a ban in "Indoor Dining Area(s) of Restaurants" (talk about designing a question to elicit the response you want). But "OPINIONS" don't pay bills! What Wymyslo OMITTED from the report sent you lawmakers is THIS:
THIS IS THE CHART THAT WAS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
Nearly 80% of Ohio's adult population, OUR POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS AS BAR OWNERS, are NON-SMOKERS. We, you and voters were told the smoking ban wouldn't hurt our businesses, in fact in the Explanation and Argument FOR Issue 5, voters were told that. The REALITY is that ONLY 0.7% of NON-SMOKERS are going to bars more often. Worse, 39.5% of the non-smokers (80% of our potential customers are NON-smokers) go to bars LESS SINCE THE SMOKING BAN, a survey which SUPPORTS what bar owners have been saying. WHY DID DR. WYMYSLO OMIT THIS FROM YOUR REPORT AND THE PRESS RELEASE?
This survey data is 2 years old. In 2010, the University of Cincinnati did a survey in which they incorrectly asked if the "constitution should be amended to permit smoking in bars". The results were that only 47% of Ohio adults support a smoking ban in bars. Had UC not asked about CHANGING the Constitution, we feel that number would be even less. When I spoke with the woman at UC about this survey, she said she had been getting pressure from Tobacco Control to RE-DO her survey...they didn't like her numbers! Why wasn't this NEWER survey mentioned in this report?
Even more unethical is hiring people whose titles are "public health and health promotion" to do an economic study. If we hired someone whose title was "tobacco promotion", would you give it any credibility? Regarding Klein/Hood's Sales Tax Study:
WHY didn't ODH hire a Professor of Economics at OSU to conduct this study?
WHY were businesses who paid less than $1,200 in sales taxes in six months excluded from the data?
WHY were 5 or fewer businesses in a county in any month excluded from the data?
WHY was nothing factored in for the HUNDREDS of bars and private clubs who CONTINUE to smoke?
WHY (and this is OBVIOUS) was nothing factored in for passing off increased price of goods to consumers including in the data? A keg of beer has increased 41% since 2005.
WHY was this NOT PEER REVIEWED?
To have MANIPULATED data, OMITTED information withheld from the public and lawmakers, suddenly appear in the news statewide ONE MONTH BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT is SICKENING. It's intentionally designed to mislead the public to sway public opinion and an OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO SWAY THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES' DECISIONS. SIMPLY PUT: ODH IS TRYING THIS CASE IN THE MEDIA.
1) Wymyslo should RESIGN or be REMOVED and those involved in MANIPULATING DATA held responsible (heart attack study).
2) a CORRECTED report AND PRESS RELEASE issued to the press.
If you do NOT, we can only assume that Ohio's lawmakers and Governor SUPPORT lying to the public and voters and that's it's how Ohio government conducts business.
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Contact: Maurice Thompson, 614-340-9817
Legal Center Asks High Court to Accept Smoking Ban Challenge
1851 Center Files Jurisdictional Motion with Ohio Supreme Court
COLUMBUS - The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a public interest law firm, yesterday asked the Ohio Supreme Court to make a final determination on the legality of Ohio's state smoking ban, and its enforcement. The legal center argues that state health officials' misguided enforcement of the law violates Ohio constitutional protections, and unduly punishes innocent business owners. Also, the center argues the law itself is unconstitutional, when applied to certain types of bars. A copy of the court filing is available here.
"Irrespective of what one thinks of the merits of this law, it was never intended to result in the indiscriminate imposition of $5,000 citations on innocent business owners," said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. "These enforcement complications are largely a function of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. At local 'mom and pop' taverns, alcohol and cigarette consumption have always gone hand-in-hand, and the owners of these properties have a right to decide how their indoor air is used, just as potential patrons have a right to freely enter or exit."
In 2009, after a politically charged filing against Columbus Bar Zeno's by Attorney General Richard Cordray, the 1851 Center challenged the constitutionality and enforcement of the Ohio smoking ban. The legal center argued the smoking ban unconstitutionally deprived business owners of fundamental property rights. It also argued that the state health officials' methods while enforcing the ban exceeded their constitutional authority, and is at odds with the plain language of the ban.
A Franklin County Common Pleas court agreed and ruled that sate and local health officials had overstepped their authority in enforcing the law. "When an individual is asked to stop smoking but refuses, liability is transferred from the property owner to the individual," wrote Judge David E. Cain in his February 2010 decision.
The Ohio attorney general appealed the decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and prompted the current appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
"The Health Department and its designees have and continue to exceed their limited executive branch authority when they employ a policy of strict liability for the presence of smoking against Ohio's business and property owners," wrote Thompson in the Ohio Supreme Court filing.
Also yesterday, the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, Buckeye Liuor Permit Holders Association, Ohio Liberty Council, COAST, and the Ohio Freedom Alliance filed amicus briefs with the high court supporting the 1851 Center's position.
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.
This email was sent to Patrick Preston with Channel 4 news in Columbus, Ohio and researcher Liz Klein on July
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 9:12 AM
To: 'ppreston@wcmh.com'; 'eklein@cph.osu.edu'
Subject: WCMH new story last night
I watched the interview you televised last night on the news with me and Elizabeth Klein. Ms. Klein, the researcher who has now published 2 studies in which she claims bar employment is not hurt by smoking bans, is biased.
Here is her statement, issued by press release, about her latest study:
“These clean indoor air policies are designed to protect workers from exposure to secondhand smoke,” said Elizabeth Klein, assistant professor of health behavior and health promotion at Ohio State University and lead author of the study.
Hardly an unbiased statement. Would she really publish a study that contradicts her own beliefs?
Here are 2 newspaper articles from major Ohio newspapers.
The Dayton Daily News reported: Ohioans are drinking more booze than ever before, and they’re drinking it more often at home and less often in bars and restaurants, according to sales figures released Thursday by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control.
The Columbus Dispatch reported: Ohioans are drinking more liquor, but they're doing it at home. Restaurants and bars experienced their second consecutive year of declining liquor sales in 2008, a trend that some blamed on the bad economy and the statewide smoking ban. Sales in stores, on the other hand, continued a steady climb, according to statistics released yesterday by the Ohio Department of Commerce
Challenge to Ms. Klein to look at data that does NOT support her claims
Ms. Klein stated that profitability data numbers are not readily available. There IS data she could use. Bars sell 2 products: beer and liquor. While beer distributors won't share their data, liquor sales are STATE RUN and a public records request will get you a TRUE picture of whether we're selling more or less. The Department of Commerce, Liquor Control Division, tracks the number of bottles sold retail (to carry-outs, etc. to resell for off premise consumption) and wholesale (to resell in bars, restaurants and private clubs for on premise consumption). Because they're a state agency, those numbers are available through a public records request. I'm sure that Ms. Klein would agree if bars are purchasing much less liquor from the state to re-sell in our bars that that would be a true indicator of whether or not bars are hurt, thus trickling down to employment. Less product sold = less sales = less jobs. Ms. Klein's comments that bars aren't seeing "catastrophic" losses is subjective. Catastrophic to her isn't what's catastrophic to me, as a bar owner.
Since Ms. Klein is a researcher, I'm sure she wants to build her reputation on the fact that she looks at all data available and not just data that supports her personal beliefs and funding sources. I've just provided you the data on liquor (attached). I have wholesale/retail numbers for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 - the years PRIOR to the smoking ban. 2007 contains sales with 4+ months of bars smoking (enforcement didn't begin until May, 2007). I've also attached 2008 - 2009. The only question is, "is Ms. Klein more interested in providing the truth, or is she more interested in supporting her personal beliefs while protecting future research funding?".
Here's a summary of the liquor sales from the attached PDFs. Bars sold 1,103,124 less BOTTLES of liquor than the year prior to the ban. That equates to ~ $141,199,872 in lost sales (1,103,124 x 32 shots per bottle x avg. $4 per shot). That number does not take into consideration previous years' growth, strictly from 2006. Those losses equate to ~ $8,119,000 in lost sales taxes to the State of Ohio. REMEMBER, these losses are LIQUOR ONLY. Our bar sales are beer to liquor 3:1. Getting data from distributors would prove even more devastating numbers.
CY | Wholesale # bottles | Diff +- | Retail # bottles | Diff +/- |
2003 | 12,165,908 | | 24,947,914 | |
2004 | 12,547,239 | 381,331 | 26,172,992 | 1,225,078 |
2005 | 12,737,300 | 190,061 | 27,528,918 | 1,355,926 |
2006 | 12,940,262 | 202,962 | 28,713,331 | 1,184,413 |
2007 | 12,495,863 | (444,399) | 30,097,479 | 1,384,148 |
2008 | 12,206,957 | (288,906) | 31,522,639 | 1,425,160 |
2009 | 11,837,138 | (369,819) | 33,168,252 | 1,645,613 |
Ms. Klein and ClearWay Minnesota
Ms. Klein stated she didn't take reduced hours into consideration in her study. She also didn't take into consideration the vast number of bars that are openly defying the smoking ban. From a recent public records request from the Department of Health, it indicated that the State of Ohio has spend $3.2 million to enforce the smoking ban which resulted in 939 businesses being fined, 876 of which are liquor permitted businesses. 41 counties are not enforcing the ban, leaving enforcement coverage to 2 full time state employees. Many of those businesses put ashtrays out at night simply because they know the State of Ohio is broke and cannot pay overtime to 2 employees to travel the entire state at night. And as I pointed out last night, Ms. Klein does not consider businesses who reduce their hours or close during the week to make up their losses (payroll is our biggest expense).
Ms. Klein gets her grant money from ClearWay Minnesota. ClearWay Minnesota is an anti-tobacco, tobacco control organization. The study Ms. Klein did last year where she combined employment data was also funded by ClearWay. ClearWay says their mission is to: improve the health of all Minnesotans by reducing tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke through research, action and collaboration. In fact, under Grant Opportunities, it states it funds innovative projects to reduce tobacco use throughout Minnesota. I'd say Ms. Klein's studies full fill ClearWay's mission. I'm sure Ms. Klein will continue to receive funding from ClearWay.
If I got grant money from RJ Reynolds (which, of course the MSA made illegal) to do a study and I found that bars are hurt by smoking bans, would anyone believe me? Of course not. Reynolds makes their money off the sales of cigarettes. Well, ClearWay Minnesota gets THEIR money by reducing tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke. HAD Ms. Klein's study proved that bars are indeed hurt by smoking bans, would it even have been published or put out by mass press releases, as this one and her previous study were?
ClearWay has to submit a "report card" to Ramsey County District Court. Their last report states:
Conclusion
Projects ending in 2009 represented a balanced portfolio of complex
and ambitious projects. These have been projects that directly align
with the strategic goals of the organization, strategies to:
• Support policies that reduce tobacco use and exposure to
secondhand smoke,
• Increase the availability and use of cessation services,
• Support efforts in priority populations to eliminate tobacco related
disparities, and
• Expand the knowledge and advance the use of methods to
reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.
In pursuing these strategies, the grants and contracts have largely met
or exceeded the performance goals set by the organizations as evident
in this review. More importantly, the results of this body of research
and intervention projects are moving the work of tobacco control
forward in a way that clearly benefits the field and the population of
Minnesota.
LarsonAllen LLP
October 2009
Will Ms. Klein want to get at the truth even if it doesn't support her own personal beliefs and could jeopardize future tobacco control funding? I guess we'll find out.
I guess the word about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is getting around.
Zeno's Decision - February 25, 2010
Judge: Businesses Not Responsible for Smoking Ban Violators
State Should Cite Individuals Instead
Read the court decision!!!
Listen to Maurice Thompson's press conference. BTW, ask Phil Craig of the OLBA how much money they contributed to Dick Allen's defense (Zeno's). Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association contributed and Dick Allen is a member of not BLPHA but the OLBA. Ask Craig if he or a representative of OLBA attended Dick Allen's hearing. They did NOT. However Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders members did. I had to mention that because Phil Craig is in the beginning videos below with his chest all puffed out like he did something. He did NOTHING.
Ohio Legislature and City of Columbus Don't Like the Results of the Voter Approved Casinos
When there is a legal challenge to a petition initiative near and dear to Governor Strickland, how quickly a legal loophole is found! Ohio politics as usual.
AG Cordray refers to RC 2961.02, which specifically refers to convicted felons holding public office. Quite a leap from holding public office to circulating petitions.
On August 23, 2008, SOS Brunner issued Directive 2008-71 which stated "No individual who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state or the United States may circulate a petition paper (R.C. 2961.01(B), 2967.17(B)). To verify whether a circulator has been convicted of a felony, you may seek the assistance of your county clerk of courts."
Obvious is the fact Brunner wasn't concerned with getting a legal ruling until the issue affected balancing Ohio's budget. Even more obvious is the Codes to which Brunner refers are not the codes on which Cordray ruled. Proof positive that if the Governor wants it, it will happen.
People don't understand that the election process should be kept free of the perception of wrongdoing, including the fact circulators should be law abiding citizens. At least 47 convicted felons supervised the collection of and/or circulated petitions for SmokeFree Ohio's Issue 5, all convicted prior to May, 2006. I wonder what legal loophole will they use to dismiss that complaint?
We audited the SmokeFree Ohio petitions. There were not enough valid signatures to have been placed on the ballot. MULTIPLE ELECTION LAWS WERE VIOLATED. Read about it here. You can also see a brief video of the press conference we held.
November 13, 2009 - ANATOMY OF BALLOT FRAUD
Opponents of Ohio Bans called a press conference to announce the massive voter fraud uncovered that placed the SmokeFree Workplace Act on the ballot. We discovered that it did NOT contain enough signatures to have placed it on the ballot. Look at the dates below. The Secretary of State's Office ordered Issue 5 to be placed on the ballot 1 month before they even knew if SmokeFree Ohio submitted enough valid signatures. Why did only 28 of the 77 counties who had circulators who listed the ACS as their employer make it to Judge Cain to be invalidated? Since it was already ordered to be placed on the ballot, OF COURSE it had to have "sufficient signatures". IT DIDN'T!!!!!!! The press conference with further allegations of fraud was video taped.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/ohiostatecases/2006/2006-ohio-5439.pdf
{¶ 10} Just before the court of appeals entered judgment denying the writs
in Evans’s prohibition and mandamus case, on May 4, 2006, the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in a case consolidating protests that
Evans had filed in 34 different counties against the statewide smoke-free
initiative. The common pleas court sustained Evans’s protests in part and
invalidated all part-petitions listing the American Cancer Society as the
circulators’ employer when the circulators were actually employed by an
independent contractor or were self-employed. The common pleas court
determined that the pertinent part-petitions violated R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) and
ordered the parties to submit a complete list of circulators not employed by the
American Cancer Society who had falsely listed the society as their employer.
Boards of Elections
{¶ 13} On September 8, 2006, the Secretary issued Directive 2006-62
ordering the boards of elections to place the statewide smoke-free initiative on the
November 7, 2006 election ballot as Issue 5
{¶ 14} After the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the common
pleas court in the protest case and lifted its stay relating to the protest case on
September 11, the boards of elections filed revised reports concerning the number
of valid signatures on the initial petition with the Secretary. On September 19,
2006, after he received the last of the revised reports, Assistant Secretary of State
Monty Lobb mailed a letter to the committee members noting that the petition
filed on November 17, 2005, contained an insufficient number of signatures for
placement on the November 7, 2006 election ballot and that the committee would
have to submit an additional 23,750 valid signatures within ten days to ensure
placement on that ballot. In the letter, Lobb detailed the procedural history of the
initiative petition since November 17, 2005.
{¶ 15} On September 28, 2006, the committee (SmokeFree Ohio-added) timely filed a second
supplementary petition. The Secretary sent the part-petitions to the elections
boards, and after receiving reports from most of the boards, he certified that the
committee had submitted 25,486 additional valid signatures. On October 5, 2006,
the Secretary found that the committee had filed a sufficient number of signatures
to permit the placement of the proposed Smoke Free Workplace Act on the
November 7, 2006 election ballot.
Look at the dates above. The Asst SOS ordered Issue 5 to be placed on the ballot ONE MONTH BEFORE CERTIFYING THAT SMOKEFREE OHIO HAD ENOUGH SIGNATURES!!! No WONDER 49 counties were left off Judge Cain's list. IT HAD TO HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES!!!!
On Judge Cain's list NOT on Judge Cain's list
County | According to Exhibit A (Evans court case) List of Part Petitions Challenged for Improper RC 3501.38*E)(1) Disclosure). This is what was submitted to Judge Cain in response to Case No. 06 MS 01 33 in which Judge Cain made this Judgment Entry: "The Court ordered the parties to submit "a complete list of the circulators not employed by ACS but who listed ACS as they employer". | # Signatures that SHOULD have been invalidated from Case No. 06 MS 01 33, however were NOT submitted to Judge Cain | Notes |
Adams | | 3 | |
Allen | between 20-29 | | |
Ashland | | 3 | |
Ashtabula | | 0 | |
Athens | | 4 | |
Auglaize | between 16-17 | | 16 signatures: Did not follow court order; revised report showed same # of signatures as previous report* |
Belmont | | 0 | |
Brown | 16 | | |
Butler | between1069-1070 | | |
Carroll | | 1 | |
Champaign | | 9 | |
Clark | 83 | | 83 signatures: Did not follow court order; revised report showed same # of signatures as previous report* |
Clermont | between403-404 | | |
Clinton | 19 | | |
Columbiana | | 2 | |
Coshocton | | 2 | |
Crawford | | 2 | |
Cuyahoga | | | |
Darke | | 5 | |
Defiance | 10 | | |
Delaware | | 112 | |
Erie | 54 | | |
Fairfield | | 73 | |
Fayette | | 5 | |
Franklin | between8969-9317 | | |
Fulton | | 170 | |
Gallia | | 2 | |
Geauga | | 13 | |
Greene | 218 | 46 | 218 (however, upon checking there were 264 that should have been invalidated (add'l 46) |
Guernsey | | 1 | |
Hamilton | between 6449-6599 | | |
Hancock | between 68-70 | | court ordered to invalidate 70, however they GAINED 106 signatures* |
Hardin | | 0 | |
Harrison | | 0 | |
Henry | | 45 | |
Highland | | 4 | |
Hocking | | 0 | |
Holmes | | 2 | |
Huron | | 8 | |
Jackson | | 1 | |
Jefferson | 7 | | |
Knox | 3 | | |
Lake | between73-75 | | |
Lawrence | | 0 | |
Licking | | 38 | |
Logan | | 8 | |
Lorain | | 1,461 | |
Lucas | between13,694-14,221 | | |
Madison | | 7 | |
Mahoning | 17 | | |
Marion | | 0 | |
Medina | | 460 | |
Meigs | | 1 | |
Mercer | | 9 | |
Miami | | 75 | |
Monroe | | 0 | |
Montgomery | 1,578 | | |
Morgan | | 0 | |
Morrow | | 5 | |
Muskingum | | 3 | |
Noble | | 0 | |
Ottawa | 314 | | |
Paulding | | 0 | |
Perry | | 1 | |
Pickaway | | 11 | |
Pike | | 1 | |
Portage | | 141 | |
Preble | | 20 | |
Putnam | | 14 | |
Richland | 26 | | |
Ross | 8 | | court ordered to invalidate 8 signatures, however they GAINED 10* |
Sandusky | 46 | | |
Scioto | | 5 | |
Seneca | 22 | | |
Shelby | | 7 | |
Stark | 480 | | court ordered to invalidate 480, however they only invalidated 17* |
Summit | between7432-7646 | | |
Trumbull | | 47 | |
Tuscarawas | | 7 | |
Union | | 8 | |
VanWert | | 5 | |
Vinton | | 1 | |
Warren | | 490 | |
Washington | | 2 | |
Wayne | | 117 | |
Williams | | 10 | |
Wood | 1,043 | | |
Wyandot | | 3 | |
Grand Total: | 43,403 - 44,664 | 3,470 | 756 addition signatures should have been invalidated because counties did not revise their reports as ordered |
3,470 signatures did not get to Judge Cain to be invalidated. Why? Because the Asst Secretary of State ordered Issue 5 placed on the ballot September 8, 2006...when the Secretary of State didn't know if SmokeFree Ohio had enough signatures until October 5, 2006. IT HAD TO APPEAR TO HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES. This is OUTRIGHT VOTER FRAUD. Voter fraud carrys felony convictions. SOMEONE didn't give Judge Cain the complete list ordered as a result of the lawsuit. WHO WAS THAT?
THE VOTERS LEGALLY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR THE BAN. IT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT.
*49 counties, 3,470 signatures, did NOT GET REPORTED TO JUDGE CAIN TO BE INVALIDATED PER HIS COURT ORDER. Additionally, some county Boards of Elections ignored the Judge's order to change their reports (Auglaize, Clark); some actually GAINED signatures when ordered to invalidate signatures (Ross, Hancock) and Stark was ordered to invalidate 480 yet their number of valid signatures only decreased by 17.
Two circulators AND a company paying for signatures all listed 11645 Chesterdale Road, Springdale as their "permanent address" and it was listed as the business address for one company paying for signatures. That's the address for the Extended Stay Motel. Another circulator listed a Grove City, Ohio motel as her address. That's falsification and that's punishable by law. Further, those petitions should be invalid, even though we did NOT count them as being invalid when we calculated SmokeFree Ohio's shortfall of signatures.
FORM15s were NOT timely filed by those supervising and compensating circulators. That, BY LAW, was supposed to have invalidated over 29,000 signatures.
This law was a lie. From the fraudulent ballot language that dangled exemptions for family owned businesses and private clubs (a LIE) to the claim by SmokeFree Ohio that the ban would not hurt businesses (a LIE - ask any bar owner in Ohio) AND the fact SmokeFree Ohio claimed the need to protect Ohio workers. A LIE. According to Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation, only ONE claim (in BWC's 98 years of existence) has ever been filed alleging harm from SHS and it was DENIED because the claimant and their attorney could not prove that SHS in the workplace even caused it. If the State of Ohio doen's believe SHS is harmful, then is it REALLY? If the Ohio Department of Health believed SHS to be harmful, wouldn't the inspectors (smoking police), who have to investigate violations, be reqired to by THEIR EMPLOYER to wear respirators? According to Article 11.02 of the OCSEA/AFSCME contract for State Employers, the employer is to provide personal protective equipment for their employees. Either there IS or there ISN'T a safe level of exposure. In which does the State of Ohio believe?
Tobacco Control Fooled the States into Spending MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars on useless and, now proven more carcinogenic than cigarettes, nicotine REPLACEMENT products!!!!
Here's the study on the carcinogens in Nicorette gum Here's the study on the 98.4% failure rate for Nicoderm patches for long term quitting (1 year or longer). And it was conducted by people with a conflict of interest!!! "It appears to me that the conclusions of this paper are highly slanted. With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention in this situation. Even though the 1.6% abstinence rate is better than the 0.4% achieved with placebo, how can one call the 1.6% success rate with NRT to be "effective?"
In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention. The overwhelming majority of smokers - 98.4% - failed to achieve long-term sustained abstinence with NRT treatment.
Given the presence of a financial conflict of interest with a pharmaceutical company that manufactures nicotine replacement products, it certainly has the appearance that this conflict has biased the interpretation of the findings and the study conclusion.
I can't quite think of another intervention for which a 98.4% failure rate would be considered a success.
Competing interests: None declared"
Here's the Canadian article claiming Nicoderm is being investigated and that Big pHARMa has been overcharging (really?)
Tobacco Control OWED big pHARMa for funding the bans. The payback? PUSH THEIR PRODUCTS THAT ARE TO REPLACE NICOTINE CIGARETTES.
So our gullible government who jumped on the anti bandwagon has been DUPED. They fell for the story about secondhand smoke, hook-line-and pocketbook. They've been bullied by the Tobacco Control health Nazis into passing out patches and gum, all paid for by the Master Settlement Agreement and funding from the Feds. Only now it's proven that the patches are being investigated, they're price gouging, the gum has more carcinogens than CIGARETTES and it's more addictive than cigarettes ever were and the side effects are horrendous!!
And this was all done "to protect us"? Thanks but NO THANKS.
June 1, 2009
Ohio Senator William Seitz sent a letter to Elizabeth Klein regarding her "study". Read it here.
June 15, 2009
Elizabeth Klein dodges pertinent questions posed by Senator Seitz. She cannot give the data to the Senator, she REFUSES to extract bar data from restaurant data. In fact, she's doing yet another study that will distort the truth due out in 2010. Her "new" study is to answer the question "do clean indoor air laws have an effect on bars or restaurants" and SHE added the emphasis on or, not I. Want a bet on which industry her new study will be done: bars or restaurants? She won't produce data on bars just like ALL of Tobacco Control will not. They pull the dirty trick of combining the data to skew the results of the losses to bars.
Did you know in Minnesota, restaurants outnumber bars 5:1? Did you know the national average for restaurant employees versus bar employees is 10:1? (Klein's study is strictly done on employment data). So for every 1 bartender who loses their job in Minnesota, they're lost in data obtained on 50 restaurant employees. And they think people are stupid? Well, if you believe Klein's study....you ARE!
Here is her reply to Senator Seitz. What a farce!
May 29, 2009
Opponents of Ohio Bans & Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association Issued Joint Press Release:
| COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Ohio newspapers, radio and TV news recently broadcast the results of a study performed at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health with Elizabeth Klein, Assistant Professor, Health Behavior and Health Promotion, Ohio State University as lead researcher. This study was funded by ClearWay Minnesota, a non-profit organization that funds Minnesota tobacco control, and used employment data as its sole economic indicator. This study gained headlines in the media as "Ban hurting business? No, study says." (Columbus Dispatch, May 19, 2009, front page). All Headline News opened with "New research suggests that smoking bans in bars meant to improve the environmental quality of indoor air doesn't cause job losses." (Note: No reference to restaurants).
What is not mentioned is the reason that this study was conducted. According to the Abstract from Ms. Klein's study, "due to the perception of negative economic effects on alcohol-licensed hospitality businesses, partial CIA policies (those that provide an exemption for freestanding bars) have been proposed as a means to reduce the risk of economic effects of comprehensive CIA policies applied to all worksites."). UWeekly, an OSU student run publication, quotes Klein as saying "the places that made exemptions for bars they weren't significantly different from the places that provided no exemptions for bars." Glaringly obvious even to a novice is that freestanding bars were supposed to be the target of the study. Even more obvious are these facts.
If this study was to determine if exemptions should be made for freestanding bars, why were restaurants included? Ms. Klein states in the study that NAICS industry code data was obtained for bars (NAICS 7224) and restaurants (NAICS 7221). If Ms. Klein received the data separately, why were they combined? Perhaps it was because according to the latest NAICS on-line data for Minnesota, restaurants outnumbered bars nearly 3 to 1. It studied two major cities, four other cities and four suburbs with combined total of 1,084 bars and restaurants. If these ten cities followed the Minnesota average, then there were approximately 361 bars and 723 restaurants.
According to Statistical abstracts of the US, 2001, table 1263, there is a national average of ten restaurant employees for every one bar employee. That means if each bar only had one employee, there would be approximately 361 bar employees and 7,230 restaurant employees. Again, restaurants were not the target of this study, according to the Abstract, and yet they were included in this study. The effect of including restaurant employment data in this study is that job losses from bars are completely overwhelmed by restaurant employment data.
There was a very large study done in 2007 by Scott Adams and Chad D. Cotti, ("The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol.7: Iss. 1 (Contributions), Article 12.), whose methodologies were very closely followed by Ms. Klein with one very large difference; the Adams and Cotti study separated bars from restaurants. They concluded "the bar industry is more negatively affected by smoking bans than the restaurant industry. On the other hand, analysis of the restaurant industry is consistent with many of the aforementioned retail sales case studies, which find that smoking bans do not seem to have an effect on business in the restaurant industry as a whole. The lagged effects suggest that the negative bar effect occurs immediately and persists over time...Dunham and Marlow (2000b), for example, found that bars are predicted to be more than twice as likely to experience losses as restaurants, a result that suggests potentially large differences in the impact of smoking regulations on these two similar industries."
Tobacco Control is well aware smoking bans have little effect on restaurants while bars are negatively impacted. So why were restaurants included in Klein's study? According to Pat Carroll, President of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, "It's obvious why it was done this way. It's to distort the truth. You can't lump bars and restaurants together. We have entirely different customers and provide different atmospheres. We demand this study be done again without restaurant data." Pam Parker, BLPHA Board Member and co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans asks "The problem is that this study, timed quite nicely to be released just as we have SB 120 introduced to exempt family owned bars in Ohio, has been widely distributed. If the data from this study is reexamined and finds that bars are hurt from smoking bans, will the researchers go to similar lengths to see that proper retractions are printed and headlined?"
President Obama's March 9, 2009 Memorandum said, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions." "I guess that doesn't apply when it's Tobacco Control and it hurts family owned bars. Imagine how our members feel that have been losing money since enforcement began, they're struggling to keep their doors open when they turn on the TV or read in the paper that a study says they're really not harmed by the ban. They're livid," said Carroll.
Related Web sites: www.thebarbiz.com and www.opponentsofohiobans.com |
| | | | | | |
SOURCE Opponents of Ohio Bans |
May 29, 2009
New Zealand gets it - sort of
Government Reviews Funding for Stop Smoking Campaigns
The government is reviewing the $37 million it spends on stop smoking campaigns, because they don't seem to be working.
In the past year, both the number of new smokers and the level of tobacco consumption have increased.
Twenty-one percent of all Kiwis are smoking despite the millions of dollars poured into preventions.
The Government is directing some of the blame at the cessation services. That means the $37 million the government pumps into the services is now under reviews. It also means uncertain times ahead for support networks like Quit-Line.
What their government needs to do is to investigate why these NRT products have been pushed when they have a 98.4% failure rate (for quitting smoking one year or longer). Some NRT products are more addictive than the cigarettes, cause extreme hair loss, skin lesions, high blood pressure (see askapatient.com under "Nicorette") and a study shows minors are able to purchase 80% of the time without being asked for ID.
They'll find Big pHARMa funded Tobacco Control. Big pHARMa funds tobacco control, tobacco control pushes the drugs and Big pHARMa profits. All nice and tidy, don't you think? Except it's failing and now governments are starting to ask questions. When will ours? How much is Ohio going to continue to throw at forcing people to quit smoking and into putting Ohio's bars out of business? How long are they going to keep throwing money into enforcing a law that was deceitful and had exemptions pulled back AFTER the vote? How much more money is Ohio going to spend on NRT products that are NO DIFFERENT than Big Tobacco's dissolvable orbs (except for who profits) that do NOT work?
Stop hounding business owners who invested THEIR money into THEIR businesses. Let them thrive and pay more sales taxes to Ohio. Stop spending money on products that do not work...just to say you're providing them. Ohio can't afford it with its devasted budget. STOP BEING OUR NANNIES.
May 4, 2009
From the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139960819782109.html
Nomination Tests Antilobbyist Policy
more in Politics »
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says lobbyists won't run his administration, but he picked an antitobacco lobbyist with ties to the pharmaceutical industry as the No. 2 official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The nomination of William Corr -- former executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, where he was a registered lobbyist until September -- highlights the murkiness of Mr. Obama's antilobbyist policy.
Mr. Obama requires employees to sign a pledge stating they will not "participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the two years before the date of my appointment." Those rules prohibit Mr. Corr from working on tobacco issues, the White House says.
But Mr. Corr's nomination raises another question: In an era when industries often make financial donations to public-interest groups that support policies that help those industries, when are public-interest advocates conflicted by the funding that supports the causes they advocate?
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the organization's work to reduce smoking because they sell products that help people quit, such as Nicorette gum and NicoDerm patches.
If confirmed, Mr. Corr would help run a department that not only regulates the drug industry through its Food and Drug Administration arm but also is its biggest payer through federal insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said the drug-industry funding of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids creates "a win-win: They get to support the public interest at the same time they are supporting their bottom lines."
A spokeswoman said Mr. Corr wasn't available to comment. Norm Eisen, a White House counsel, said: "The fact that drug companies provided a tiny fraction of his former organization's funding simply does not constitute a legal or ethical conflict. If the rules prohibited government service where someone had this type of indirect, attenuated and minor connection, we could not staff government. We have absolute confidence and trust that Mr. Corr will do his job impartially and well."
Mr. Corr has spent a career working on health-care policy at HHS and on Capitol Hill, including a stint with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. At a confirmation hearing Thursday, senators called Mr. Corr an old friend and didn't ask about his ties to the drug industry. The Senate is expected to confirm his nomination this week.
At the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of Mr. Corr's jobs was pushing legislation to give HHS the authority to regulate tobacco. A measure to do so passed the House and will be considered by the Senate this year.
In the past five years, the drug industry has contributed $3.3 million, amounting to 3.2% of the Campaign's funding, said spokesman Vince Willmore.
Most of the money was donated by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which has contributed nearly $3 million since 2004, according to Campaign records. Pfizer Inc. donated $385,000 since 2007 and Johnson & Johnson gave $50,000 for an award in 2008 and 2009.
The Campaign was founded in 1996 to take on the tobacco industry. Its first grant came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nonprofit established with the personal fortune of Robert Wood Johnson, who helped build Johnson & Johnson. The foundation, a large shareholder of J&J stock, is the Campaign's biggest contributor, donating more than $85 million since its founding.
Foundation spokesman David Morse said the organization operates "completely independently" of J&J and that J&J stock amounts to less than 11% of its assets.
J&J benefits from public policies that reduce smoking because it produces two leading products to help people quit, NicoDerm patches and Nicorette gum, both marketed by Glaxo in the U.S. A company spokeswoman noted that the the company has given just $50,000 and that it operates independently from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Glaxo spokeswoman Jennifer May said the company shares the Campaign's goal of helping people to quit smoking and "address the seriousness of the smoking epidemic in the U.S.
"Pfizer is committed to reducing the prevalence of smoking" and is "proud to work with organizations such as CTFK that help advance that mission," said Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder.
Write to Jane Zhang at Jane.Zhang@wsj.com and Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
April 30, 2009
We have a Senate Bill!!! SB120 has been introduced to revise the Ohio Revised Code to clarify definitions of family-owned businesses, private clubs and outdoor patios as exemptions. You can read the bill here.
A very special thanks to sponsor Senator Schuler and co-sponsors Senators Cates, Grendell, Schaffer and Seitz.
We need EVERYONE in Ohio to contact their Senator to ask that they support SB120. We need letters, emails and phone calls!!
March 13, 2009
Friday the 13th-an unlucky day for those who paid for smoking bans!!!
From the Washington Post:
"Probable Carcinogens found in Baby Products"
"More than half the baby shampoo, lotion and other infant care products analyzed by a health advocacy group were found to contain trace amounts of two chemicals that are believed to cause cancer, the organization said yesterday.
Some of the biggest names on the market, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic lotion, tested positive for 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde, or both, the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported"
According to a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson: "The FDA and other government agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe, and all our products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold"
Read the entire story
Our Commentary: Johnson & Johnson's non-profit foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, bought smoking bans with grant money using the "no safe level of exposure" to SHS, claiming harm from the very same carcinogens that now have been found in their BABY PRODUCTS!! But according to J&J officials, there's a safe level of exposure when it comes to THEIR products. If it's safe to smather J&J Baby Magic lotion on our babies, then it's safe for adults to around to wisps of smoke!!!
This is OUTRAGEOUS. Where is the investigation into this entire ruse? How is it legal to buy laws in this country from which you profit financially?
Author Michael McFadden had this to say:
According to this story in the Wash. Post, they found formaldehyde concentrations in baby shampoo of up to 610 parts per million(ppm). This was described as "tiny" or "low" amounts of the chemical.
But let's consider a rather small (400 cubic meters) and relatively poorly ventilated (6 air-changes/hour) restaurant, with 30 customers, ten of whom light up twice per hour. Would you be worried about taking a child there after all the frightening ads and news stories about things like formaldehyde in cigarette smoke? You'd probably whisk your baby out of there faster than a waiter could pick up a tip.
According to the Surgeon General's figures those ten smokers will emit a total of 17 mg of formaldehyde into the air per hour. That formaldehyde is diluted in 2400 cubic meters of air, giving a concentration of .007ppm.
That "deadly threat" you'd normally whisk your child away from is 87,000 times safer (at least in terms of formaldehyde) than the baby shampoos described as having "tiny" or "low" levels of formaldehyde. Of course smoke has other chemicals as well, but their "threat concentrations" according to the EPA are usually significantly less than formaldehyde.
Meanwhile the FDA now wants to vastly stretch its workload to include regulating tobacco. There's clearly a problem here. Either the threat of wisps of airborne smoke have been greatly exaggerated, or the 87,000 times more deadly baby shampoos should have wiped out virtually every child in America. In either case, adding tobacco regulation to the FDA's workload seems like rather a bad idea.
Reference: 1979/1986 SG Reports, 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study: .856 mcg/cigarette total formaldehyde emissions, sidestream and mainstream (multiplied by 20 cigarettes per hour to equal 17 mg emissions per hour) A similar full analysis for a "small smoky bar" can be seen near the bottom of:
http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html
As you'll see, the formaldehyde concentrations in smoky air are actually far greater in terms of EPA safety levels than those of many of the other "deadly chemicals" you've heard about in secondhand smoke (note the last column showing the numbers of cigarettes needed to reach those levels)... so this is most certainly NOT a case of "cherry picking."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN) http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
February 20, 2009 - From the UK
Health EU Commission Confirms Suspicions
2009-02-20 16:41:23 - Environmental air pollution is a much greater threat to the health
of EU citizens than many of us are led to believe. The alleged effects of passive smoking are dwarfed in comparison to the deadly cocktails of toxins that are present within the atmosphere and workplaces of EU countries, including the UK.
In a recent letter received from the EU Commission, pro-choice group Freedom2Choose have had this suspicion confirmed by one of its members.
Freedom2Choose have also been following the work of the well-known charity Breast Cancer UK. The charity is dedicated in its quest to 'address the under-acknowledged and non-lifestyle factors associated with breast cancer'.
Andy Davis, chairman of Freedom2choose states, 'obviously tackling the issues surrounding air pollution in general is a difficult task, so our main charities and government are targeting the easier option only - lifestyle choices. This way they ‘appear' to be doing something. Unfortunately, what they are doing is negligible when it comes to tackling the primary prevention of this disease.'
Breast Cancer UK have already pointed out in a petition to the government that 'The EU recently recognised the environmental causes of breast cancer which must be taken into account when considering any public health approach to this disease. But other, high profile UK cancer charities continue to refute environmental and occupational exposures as a risk factor for breast cancer.'
Andy Davis continues, 'I would like to know how many more women need to die before this government and our main charities begin to acknowledge this. It also appears logical now that forcing smokers (and their non-smoking friends) into outdoor environments is putting them at a greater health risk than a room fitted with a modern filtration and ventilation system. This government, and the EU, are therefore following an agenda that is actually harmful to the health of its citizens'.
Modern ventilation systems include high-efficiency particulate air filters, and are designed to capture at least 99.97% of all particles greater than or equal to 0.3µm in diameter, and are also used to capture particulate matter in the extraction, thus making the indoor air quality purer than the outdoor environment.
Inexpensive air curtains can also be used to separate smoking and non-smoking areas and they have several advantages. They increase the energy efficiency of a building by preventing or reducing the unwanted exchange of hot and cold air at an entrance; they improve comfort conditions in the entrance area by preventing or warming any incoming cold draughts, thus creating a pleasant and welcoming environment; they can be used to separate atmospheric zones within a building - i.e. between non smoking and smoking zones, and to keep out air that has been polluted by traffic fumes, smells, dust, pollen etc, to repel insects and to stabilize areas of high and low humidity.
'We are living in the 21st Century with the technology available', continues Andy Davis, 'I ask why we aren't using it?'
This further confirmation from the EU comes as no surprise to many. According to a research scientist at Oxford, Dr Kitty Little, a direct link between diesel fumes and lung cancer was forged in her study of 1998. Her evidence concluded with a damning statement, ‘Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself'
Freedom2Choose is now urging the government to acknowledge that the hysteria caused by tobacco control organisations, which is demonising and discriminating against smokers and businesses, is being used as a smokescreen to hide the main cause of lung and breast cancer.
References:
Breast Cancer UK - Primary Prevention is the Answer -
www.nomorebreastcancer.org.uk/news_4.12.08.html
Breast Cancer UK - The Cancer Industry -
www.nomorebreastcancer.org.uk/the_cancer_industry.html
Euro-Parliament Identifies Environmental Causes of Cancer -
www.nomorebreastcancer.org.uk/news_14.4.08.html
Ventilation Is A Breath Of Fresh Air -
ehstoday.com/ppe/respirators/ehs_imp_77118/
BSEE - Air Curtains For Air Quality -
www.bsee.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3984/Air_curtains_for_air_ ..
Dr Kitty Little -
www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
|
Freedom2Choose is a member of TICAP, as is Opponents of Ohio Bans
February 1, 2009 - IMPORTANT!!!!!
SCHIP, "Economic Stimulus" PORK package - WE NEED EVERYONE'S INVOLVEMENT!!
From Smokers Club International:
21st CENTURY TEA PARTY TO DUMP “UNEQUAL” TAX
MINORITY CITIZENS SAY THEY ARE TARGETS FOR SCHIP EXPANSION COSTS
February 2, 2009
“Equal Protection” is a right that is said to be guaranteed to every American under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But not, apparently, if you are a citizen who uses tobacco.
Yet again, the U.S. Congress and Senate have passed a bill to expand funding for the States Children’s Health Insurance Program; a measure that ostensibly benefits all of society, but for which only the smokers will pay. The SCHIP Bill, now sent back to the Congress for the ratification of Senate Amendments, would be entirely funded by a new federal excise tax, levied against a targeted minority group of Americans; the 20% who smoke. Historically, government has stepped in to protect minorities from taking a civil beating. This time lawmakers choose to join the mob to land kicks of their own; further codifying a manufactured intolerance through a national tax policy. Some smokers charge that such a tax is brazenly “separate and unequal,” is therefore “unfair,” and should be tested by settled laws designed to ensure equitable protection.
Members of The Smokers Club International, in conjunction with other citizens’ rights groups, are calling upon every American who would bear this new tax, to send a “time honored” message to Washington. Send a tea bag or virtual British Tea to Congress* with this signed note. (there is an imbeded picture of a box of British tea in the letter so if you print an mail it, delete the picture).
Please send your letters/emails to below and copy the Washington Times at (email to be announced):
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House Speaker
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Majority Leader
522 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC 20510
reid.senate.gov
Hon. John A. Boehner, U.S. House Republican Leader
1011 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3508
johnboehner.house.gov
News Flash - Bureau of the European Parliament PROHIBITS 1st World Conference Against Prohibition-January 22, 2009
The International Coalition Against Prohibition's 1st World Conference Against Prohibition has been prohibited by the Bureau of the European Parliament, caving to pressure by anti-smoking and pharmaceutical interests. Therefore, the conference has been canceled. Additionally, an anti-smoking organization attempted to prevent a Dutch scientist from speaking at the conference.
WHAT DO THE ANTI-SMOKING ORGANIZATIONS AND PHARMACEUTICAL INTERESTS FEAR? THAT THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT? Blocking free speech only PROVES that Tobacco Control is SCARED to allow people to speak freely and to think for themselves. THIS IS A HUGE MISTAKE ON THEIR PART. Why is Tobacco Control so afraid of a totally independent scientific conference on the issue of smoking bans?
December 22, 2008
Is the State of Ohio Breaking the Law?
State not only violating Amendment V of Constitution, but Amendment XIII as well
Not only are private property rights trampled by the State of Ohio, they are also violating the 13th Amendment.
According the our Constitution, no one can force private property business owners into involuntary labor and that's exactly what's happened. Through legal coercion, they are being forced to enforce a ban that they neither asked for nor agreed to enforce. The Dept. of Health is responsible for enforcing the ban, not the business owners. These were not the conditions under which they purchased their businesses nor was it a condition for which they agreed to work under licensure (e.g., liquor license). Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion including legal coercion. Involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988) Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953
December 10, 2008
Wanted: Family owned businesses and private clubs hurt by Ohio's smoking ban
If you're a family owned business or private club OR you know of a business of club hurt by Ohio's smoking ban, we want to hear from you. Please call at 614-565-6560 or email us and leave your name, business name and phone number. We will be in contact with you!
December 2, 2008
Allegations of Voter Fraud in Ohio; Opponents of Ohio Bans Claims "Bait and Switch"
Opponents of Ohio Bans issued this press release:
Nov. 29, 2008
JoinTogether.org (A RWJF funded group) posts story:
"Surge in Demand for Addiction, Mental Health Services Linked to Failing Economy "
It seems JoinTogether is blaming the high suicide rate and depression in Illinois on the economy.
"Mental-health professionals in Illinois are seeing an increase in cases of substance abuse, depression and suicide linked to worsening economic conditions, the Daily Herald reported Nov. 20. A $2-million budget deficit in Illinois has resulted in cuts to funding for mental-health services in a state that had already seen budget reductions. Some hospitals have been forced to eliminate substance-abuse programs and reduce staffing. Mental Health America of Illinois said that almost 8 percent of the population suffered a severe mental illness last year. Economic concerns are forcing patients already receiving mental-health services to cut back on treatment or medication to save money.
There is no immediate solution to the crisis, officials say. "We're getting a lot more demand, and capacity going down," said Kelly Clancy, Alexian's vice president of external affairs. "We need the public and legislators to understand this is getting to a critical mass."
Illinois had a draconian smoking ban implemented January 1, 2008. No smoking anywhere: bars, restaurants, casinos. The state has a 2 million dollar deficit? Countless articles have been written about Illinois' casino losses alone.
With all the money Tobacco Control has thrown around, wouldn't you have thought that by now they would have studied the MENTAL HEALTH impact of their smoking bans? People lose jobs, lose their businesses and the economic conditions ARE A DIRECT RESULT of the smoking ban. How many suicides have occurred BECAUSE of smoking bans? What about the overlooked pleasure smoking actually gives a large segment of society?
Nov. 28, 2008
(see link: Tobacco Control: BUSTED!)
"FDA Scientists Revolt Against Corrupt Food and Drug Administration Officials"
A group of scientists working in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health division has revolted against the corrupt managers of its own department, accusing them of committing crimes by claiming, "There is extensive documentary evidence that managers at CDRH have corrupted and interfered with the scientific review of medical devices."
Further in the article: Because if there's anyone with a justified reason to be violently angry at their bosses, it's gotta be this group of intimidated scientists who are trying to save people's lives by making FDA approvals based on solid science. Instead, they're being routinely overruled by politics and Big Pharma deception, which they know will result in the loss of human life as consumers are harmed or killed by dangerous medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
Representative John Dingell's statement: (excerpt) Washington, D.C. – Reps. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today launched an investigation into whether managers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) knowingly corrupted the scientific review process and approved or cleared medical device applications in gross violation of laws and regulations designed to assure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. Such activity could allow potentially unsafe and ineffective medical devices into the U.S. market.
Representative Bart Stupak's statement: (excerpt)
“Our investigations have found that the FDA has allowed contaminated food and unsafe drugs to enter the market, and now serious allegations have been raised about the scientific integrity of the FDA medical device approval process,” Stupak said.
Scientific Integrity...exactly why we filed our complaint with Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity on Ex-Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 Report. But mainstream media has kept the FDA scandal quiet. See what Pharmalot's Bloggers say about that. Big pHARMa runs this country, not the Federal Government (or the line is so blurred you can't tell who is who or who owes whom).
Nov. 16,2008
BOYCOTT FRANCHISE RESTAURANTS IN OHIO
Ohio Restaurant Association joins Tobacco Control groups in opposition to SB346
According to Richard Mason, lobbyist for the Ohio Restaurant Association "We lost the fight in 2006. We didn't like the proposal, but now we want a level playing field," said Richard Mason, chief lobbyist for the Ohio Restaurant Association "The legislation would allow one member on one side of the street to allow smoking, but the member on the other side couldn't. We don't think that makes sense." Although there was a lot of rhetoric in 2006 that the smoking ban would hurt businesses, Mason said, "some of that was probably blown out of proportion."
Mr. Mason is OBVIOUSLY looking out for the big franchises who can afford the membership to the Ohio Restaurant Association. Notice he said "member". The fact is, he is ONLY looking out of the members who pay dues to belong to their association. The franchises haven't been hurt by this draconian smoking ban. His idea of "level paying field" is close the mom and pop restaurants so the big franchises get all their business. Truth is, they've already inflated their prices to make up for losses from smoking bans all over the U.S. What about the "mom and pop" restaurants? The Ohio Restaurant Association doesn't care if they lose everything they've worked hard for. And that the losses have been blown out of proportion? I can tell you that liquor permit holders lost 67.44 MILLION DOLLARS in potential sales one year after this ban went into effect. And the Hospitality Industry has the highest losses of jobs in Ohio. According to the Gongwer Legislative News Service, Ohio's highest unemployment since 1992 shows Hospitality and Liesure in the #1 spot, beating Trade, Utilities and Transportation COMBINED. Mr. Mason is vastly out of touch with the little restaurants.
What can you do?
BOYCOTT FRANCHISE RESTAURANTS
Call the Ohio Restaurant Association @ 1-800-282-9049 . Tell them you will NOT patronize a franchisemember of their organization until they support small family owned businesses by allowing them the choice.
Call your senator, state represenative and tell them you want them to support SB346.
Ohioans were lied to! We were told:
There is no economic harm from smoking bans. LIE
We would have exemptions for family owned businesses, private clubs, outdoor patios. LIE
Smokers would be warned and fined. LIE
In fact, the Ohio Dept. of Health says it is not a violation for a smoker to light and smoke a cigarette in a business. That's right!! Can you believe it? It is only a violation of the owner tells him/her to put the cigarette out and the smoker refuses. If the smoker is doing nothing illegal, why does an owner need to say anything? Isn't it a little like saying a bank manager is required to tell robbers while they're robbing their bank that it's illegal and then coming after the bank manager if he didn't tell them?
Ohio voters should be outraged. SmokeFree Ohio pulled a BAIT AND SWITCH. They dangled the exemptions, got the law passed and yanked them away.
How many more lies will we tolerate?
10/08/2008 - Our latest press release
Four Groups File Complaints Against Carmona's 2006 Report; Scientific Misconduct as Reasons for Complaint Against Ex-Surgeon General
In June, 2006, then Surgeon General Carmona released his report titled "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke". Since that date, his report has drawn criticism from Scientists and Epidemiologists worldwide. Four separate groups have filed complaints with the Office of Research Integrity, Health and Human Services against Ex-Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 Report.
Here are Opponents of Ohio Bans' complaint, Hawaii Smokers Alliance's complaint, Ban the Ban Wisconsin's complaint, and Citizens Freedom Alliance complaints in their entirety (we're housing CFA's link until their webmaster recovers from being hospitalized).
Comments on our press release by prominent physicians, scientists, etc.
"The claims that thousands die due to second hand smoke are not true and are a misuse of the second hand smoke research results and data. The Office on Research Integrity should investigate and discipline the researchers who misrepresented the science and the public health officials who wrote the Surgeon General's report that made outrageous and false claims about the effects of second hand smoke." - John Dale Dunn MD JD Policy Advisor Heartland Institute of Chicago, and the American Council on Science and Health, New York City.
See Hairy Chestnut's UTube video about the filing of these complaints..what a hoot!
(And they blame Secondhand Smoke?)
09/19/2008
Acetaminophen may raise asthma risk in kids
Study covered pain reliever's use among children in 31 countries
In the United States acetaminophen is widely sold under the brand Tylenol and is used to relieve fever, minor aches and pain. It is used in a liquid suspension for children.
Medium use of acetaminophen in the past 12 months increased asthma risk by 61 percent, while high dosages of once a month or more in the past year raised the risk by over three times.
Medium use was defined as once per year or more, but less than once a month.
Suspicions of a possible link between acetaminophen and asthma emerged in recent years when experts observed an increased use of the drug to a simultaneous rise in asthma prevalence worldwide. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26788879/
08/18/2008
LSU Chemist Isolates Air Pollutants
Particles present risks equal to a pack a day
"Newly discovered air pollutants could cause health risks similar to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, new LSU research contends. Environmental chemistry professor Barry Dellinger presented his findings on the pollutants Sunday at the 236th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in PhiladelphiaThe pollutants are known as “environmentally persistent free radicals,” called PFRs. They are microscopic particles released into the atmosphere from any flame-producing chemical reaction. Dellinger, whose research focuses on the environmental effects of combustion, said the “PFRs” study results could eventually explain why so many nonsmokers get lung cancer and other pulmonary diseases. “At the worst, it still looks like it could be equal to a pack of cigarettes a day,” Dellinger said, “if you live in a polluted area". Nearly 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed in nonsmokers, according to the American Cancer Society."
07/29/2008
Michael J. Fox Foundation Funds $1.1 Million for Cutting-Edge Approaches to Parkinson's Disease Under Rapid Response Innovation Awards 2008
-Rahul Srinivasan, MBBS, PhD, and Henry A. Lester, PhD, of the California Institute of Technology are working to better understand epidemiological findings that have consistently shown smoking may protect against PD. The researchers hope to elucidate the mechanisms by which nicotine may protect dopamine neurons through development and validation of a screening test for small molecules that could increase nicotine receptor expression in the brain.
07/15/2008
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Cigarette smoking appears to be associated with a decreased risk of cancer of the endometrium, the inner lining of the uterus, research from China suggests.
07/28/2008
07/24/2008
Opponents of Ohio Bans spoke to ~ 75 business owners, club managers and residents in Toledo, Ohio tonight. Below is a link to the coverage by the Toledo Blade.
06/24/2008
SB346 has been introduced in the Ohio Senate to exempt family owned businesses and private clubs, as Issue 5 ballot language indicated. However, we all know NO exemptions have been allowed. Please email your State Reps and Senators to ask for support for SB346.
Thank you. Ohio counts on your help.
Tools for getting the word out on SB346:
For bulk mailing to Ohio Legislators:
OTHER PRESS RELEASES ISSUED BY OPPONENTS OF OHIO BANS
NEW!! Press Release 07/23/2008
"Who Really Profits from Smoking Bans? Opponents of Ohio Bans Say "Just Follow The Money"
Press Release 06/12/2008
"Ohio Voters Misled When They Voted for Smoking Ban; Ohio Senator Introduces Common Sense Bill"
Press Release 05/07/2008
"It's Time for Truth in Ohio. Opponents of Ohio Bans Weigh In."
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS175529+07-May-2008+PRN20080507 Even though rules for enforcement were not implemented until May, 2007, Ohio's smoking ban went into effect December 7, 2006. According to this Ohio Job and Family Services New Release, hospitality and leisure saw 5,400 jobs lost from January, 2007 - January, 2008. I used the January, 2007 as a start date because it was the first FULL month of the smoking ban in Ohio.
Essential Read: from Yale Law School - "Til Naught But Ash is Left to See" scroll to page 22 where you'll find "II. Case Study: The Ohio Smoke Free Workplace Act" and all its deceptions.