How about the state wide smoking ban in pa where there are 2796 business exemptions which does not include VFWs, American Legions or other private clubs! You never hear of court fights fines the whole aggravating mess associated with radical bans else where .

It's too bad these bans have closed so many thousands of small mom and pop bars as well as VFW's all over the United States. Private property was once held sacred. Parks, beaches, and other places have driven off 1/3 of the population and are hurting financially too due to anti-smoker preference.

Senaor Collins of Maine, just this week, announced her investigation into illegal lobying activites of smoking ban activists, including the CDC, who, with "federal stimulus funds" have been bankrolling the Cancer Society, the "Tobacco Free" groups, and other once respected non profits, AND local Health Department employees, to lobby Legislators for bans. Turns out this is illegal activity. It is illegal for those receiving the funds to coach others to "call their Legislators". Seems the CDC and the Cancer Society and Tobacco Free whateveryouwanttocallthem, simply disregard the law. How arrogant! They are also lying through their teeth saying that bans don't cause business losses. Turns out that Pfizer, (Chantix) bankrolled this "study" for the CDC, and announced the "outcome" before the study even started. The other big money behind this is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who created Tobacco Free Kids, and operate on their shares of Johnson and Johnson stock. (J&J sell Nicoderm, Nicorette, NIcotrol, Nicoderm CQ)
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool the ones who can READ!

The list noted above actually understates the case. One thing I've noticed when visiting various sites dealing with college campus bans is that on campuses where bans have been in place for a while the letters columns of the campus newspapers almost invariably seem to start sporting letters complaining about how they're ignored and not enforced.

There are also sad cases such as the one several years ago where campus authorities are aware of dangerous "work-arounds" where students find spots on dorm roof-tops etc to hang out and smoke in the evenings -- often after drinking. The resulting deaths from falls get little attention outside of local papers but are a very real cost of such bans. I don't know if any bereaved parents have taken action against any of the schools involved but I'd guess the schools are certainly culpable at some level.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michigan doesn't have a ban any longer. 'On the books', sure -- in practice, no. The only establishments that enforce it are ones that want it (primarily food service) and/or were already previously non-smoking; the remainder (primarily adult only, alcohol only sales) make accommodation(s). Too many went under in the first year and a half. Amending Michigan's private property tobacco use prohibition is really now only going to be a formality.

Someone wrote about the CDC's involvement in illegally giving our TAX DOLLARS in the form of grants that are then used to LOBBY. I'd like to point out that a complaint has been filed with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform against the CDC who issued a press release about FUTURE studies on the economic impact of smoking bans on bars and restaurants (NOTICE "FUTURE" studies). (This was made possible by a grant from Pfizer who profits from Chantix, the no-smoking drug). In the SAME PRESS RELEASE, CDC Director Frieden says "Making worksites, restaurants, and bars smoke-free saves lives, increases productivity, reduces health care costs, and doesn’t hurt business," said CDC director Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H...The project will then use the results of this analysis to project the potential economic impact of statewide smoke-free policies on these establishments. The findings will be summarized in educational materials and shared with local businesses and business groups." They've ALREADY DETERMINED THE OUTCOME! If you smoke, own a business impacted by smoking bans, are overweight, like sugar, drink an occassional beer, etc., you need to realize the GOVERNMENT is going to lie, cheat and allow you to be discriminated against for employment...all to FORCE YOU to do what THEY WANT you to do. The CDC, the ACS (along with Alere Wellbeing to provide quitline services to 27 states, generating over $9,009,000 in revenue in 1 yr.) need to be investigated.

BTW, here's the link to the CDC press release. Read it yourselves. http://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/2011/new-research-initiative-examines-economic-impact-smoke-free-policies-restaurants-and-bars

The Clean Indoor Air Act in Minnesota is not "failing." It has been in place for five years and is more popular than ever. The legislation to roll back the popular law is what failed. It never even made it to a floor vote.

"More popular than ever"? Bob, given your position as a paid advocate for many years in a large Minnesota antismoking organization, it may seem that way to you. However, if you wanted to be a bit more honest with people you might point out just how "popular" the ban has been in terms of Minnesota's Gambling Revenue figures. See the VERY clear and simple graph on page 19 of "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

and then tell us a bit more about why such a "popular" ban stopped so many people from going to bingos, bars, gaming parlors and such places that it cost Minnesota over $300 *MILLION* dollars a year.

Is that what it takes to be "popular" with the taxpayers?

- MJM

Councilwoman Joyce Shepard said, "parks are intended for use by the public, including persons of all ages and the environment should be healthy for all to enjoy."

Since there are far more children with severe allergies to such things as dandelions and grass pollen than with any documented allergic reaction to tobacco smoke, does she want the parks paved over so they'll "be healthy for all to enjoy"? Why should those with allergic disabilities be denied their use? Where are the children supposed to play? On the streets while dodging the traffic (and inhaling exhaust fumes)?

What about fair-skinned children who'd happily spend time at the parks if they were domed over to keep out carcinogenic solar radiation that will send so many to early and painful graves as victims of malignant melanoma? Does no one care about THEM?

The park smoking ban is hateful silliness with no scientific health basis at all behind it. I challenge Shepard, right here, to cite and defend actual scientific studies showing harm from the durations and exposures to smoke in the parks.

I make that challenge confidently: there are NO such studies. There are advocacy factsheets, generalized "reports," impressive quotes; but no actual science showing such harm. The Councilwoman knows that. But playing the "Love The Children" card is always a popular political trick eh? I'll bet she kisses a lot of babies at election time too.

I'll make the same challenge to Bob as well.

- MJM

I'm 'allergic' to being run over by cars. I have to navigate them all the way to our parks. We need to ban cars. Or walking to the park. One or the other. It's 'for the children'.