Don Samuels--Legislator with Head in the Sand
Dear Mr. Samuels,
Thank you for responding to my e-mail. It is unfortunate that your comments are still so obviously predicated on lies, half truths, junk science, misinformation, and surveys designed with predetermined outcomes in mind. Time and again, all of you have been provided with information that has proven the fallacious nature of various "health and medical studies".
Your statement, "I certainly do not want to see another public policy, related to another drug that has disastrous impact on the lives of our citizens. But we were asked to make a decision on the future of a very harmful substance that daily wreaks havoc on many thousands of lives. We considered the evidence outlining the harmfulness of smoking. We considered the possible impact of a ban on businesses. Both options were potentially very harmful. Both options would leave us with angry losers. Both options were imperfect. And virtually every compromise had its own set of victims."
shows a complete lack of understanding of the tobacco issue. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF OF ANY HARM BEING WREAKED ON THOUSANDS OF LIVES DAILY! THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY PROOF NOR IS IT PROBABLE THAT THERE EVER WILL BE!
I will again refer you to various internet sites that have the facts and statistics that prove this to be the case. The three best are The Cato Institute, The Oak Ridge National laboratory and Forces.Org. If you had examined these sites earlier, you would have found the World Health Organization had (much to their chagrin) published a survey on Second Hand Smoke indicating NO SIGNIFICANT association between SHS and health concerns. In fact the only significant figure they did come up with showed that adult children who came from homes with two smoking parents had a 22% better chance of NOT GETTING lung cancer than did adult children coming from non-smoking families. The EPA initially claimed 53,000 deaths a year were caused by SHS--this claim was made even before they did their much flawed META survey. After they did the survey they were forced to drop that number to 3000---which was still another lie. Eventually that number was vacated by a Federal court stipulating the EPA used the figure in a deliberate attempt to harm the legal business activities of the tobacco industry. Billions of dollars have now been squandered in the futile attempt to prove the dangers of smoking and SHS and yet not one single report has been able to do so.
Contrary to the fevered rhetoric of the the anti smoke Nazis, the vast majority of the populace is NOT in favor of smoking bans. Currently the numbers run about 50/50, and it should be understood that as those who are for the ban become aware of the lies and deceit about smoking and SHS, their 50% will erode rather quickly.
Contrary to popular belief, our country is a Republic, not a Democracy. As such, it means that our legislators must acknowledge and bow to the will of the majority. However in doing so, it is their equal obligation to do this without trampling on the rights of the minority. When you violate the rights of the minority you are ultimately violating the rights of all people. The years Germany suffered under the tyranny of the the Third Reich is the immutable proof of this point. The support of any ban is a bad thing, no matter how well intentioned the reason for that ban may be. Over the years our country has had many tyrants who have attempted to ban books, alcohol, specifiable groups of people, and now tobacco. Anyone who supports a ban of any kind, is attendently, a small minded, bigoted, hatemonger whose only joy comes from the superiority they think they have over others. This is especially true of you legislators who feel you may ride roughshod over the property rights and personal freedoms of those very people who voted you into office. All too frequently you bow to the squeaking wheel of special interest groups. In the case of smoking these groups are the ALA, AHA, ACS, CDC, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pfizer, and Glaxo Smith Klein, Pharmaceuticals. Their agenda is not health, it is funding in the case of the "organ organizations." The other groups" interest is the promotion of their smoking cessation nostrums which have been proven to be very ineffective.
I would sincerely hope you you see not only the error of your actions but the utter stupidity of them as well. There will be a day of retribution and that day will be called Election Day.
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
Thank you for responding to my e-mail. It is unfortunate that your comments are still so obviously predicated on lies, half truths, junk science, misinformation, and surveys designed with predetermined outcomes in mind. Time and again, all of you have been provided with information that has proven the fallacious nature of various "health and medical studies".
Your statement, "I certainly do not want to see another public policy, related to another drug that has disastrous impact on the lives of our citizens. But we were asked to make a decision on the future of a very harmful substance that daily wreaks havoc on many thousands of lives. We considered the evidence outlining the harmfulness of smoking. We considered the possible impact of a ban on businesses. Both options were potentially very harmful. Both options would leave us with angry losers. Both options were imperfect. And virtually every compromise had its own set of victims."
shows a complete lack of understanding of the tobacco issue. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF OF ANY HARM BEING WREAKED ON THOUSANDS OF LIVES DAILY! THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY PROOF NOR IS IT PROBABLE THAT THERE EVER WILL BE!
I will again refer you to various internet sites that have the facts and statistics that prove this to be the case. The three best are The Cato Institute, The Oak Ridge National laboratory and Forces.Org. If you had examined these sites earlier, you would have found the World Health Organization had (much to their chagrin) published a survey on Second Hand Smoke indicating NO SIGNIFICANT association between SHS and health concerns. In fact the only significant figure they did come up with showed that adult children who came from homes with two smoking parents had a 22% better chance of NOT GETTING lung cancer than did adult children coming from non-smoking families. The EPA initially claimed 53,000 deaths a year were caused by SHS--this claim was made even before they did their much flawed META survey. After they did the survey they were forced to drop that number to 3000---which was still another lie. Eventually that number was vacated by a Federal court stipulating the EPA used the figure in a deliberate attempt to harm the legal business activities of the tobacco industry. Billions of dollars have now been squandered in the futile attempt to prove the dangers of smoking and SHS and yet not one single report has been able to do so.
Contrary to the fevered rhetoric of the the anti smoke Nazis, the vast majority of the populace is NOT in favor of smoking bans. Currently the numbers run about 50/50, and it should be understood that as those who are for the ban become aware of the lies and deceit about smoking and SHS, their 50% will erode rather quickly.
Contrary to popular belief, our country is a Republic, not a Democracy. As such, it means that our legislators must acknowledge and bow to the will of the majority. However in doing so, it is their equal obligation to do this without trampling on the rights of the minority. When you violate the rights of the minority you are ultimately violating the rights of all people. The years Germany suffered under the tyranny of the the Third Reich is the immutable proof of this point. The support of any ban is a bad thing, no matter how well intentioned the reason for that ban may be. Over the years our country has had many tyrants who have attempted to ban books, alcohol, specifiable groups of people, and now tobacco. Anyone who supports a ban of any kind, is attendently, a small minded, bigoted, hatemonger whose only joy comes from the superiority they think they have over others. This is especially true of you legislators who feel you may ride roughshod over the property rights and personal freedoms of those very people who voted you into office. All too frequently you bow to the squeaking wheel of special interest groups. In the case of smoking these groups are the ALA, AHA, ACS, CDC, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pfizer, and Glaxo Smith Klein, Pharmaceuticals. Their agenda is not health, it is funding in the case of the "organ organizations." The other groups" interest is the promotion of their smoking cessation nostrums which have been proven to be very ineffective.
I would sincerely hope you you see not only the error of your actions but the utter stupidity of them as well. There will be a day of retribution and that day will be called Election Day.
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert,
Thanks for your passionate input. Your defense of the industry is understandable. I hear from bar owners all the time probably because I have the largest contingency of neighborhood bars, per capita, in the city, in the 3rd ward.
Let me assure you however, that the decision of the council to ban smoking was not done with the caprice or ignorance or arrogance you suggest. We thought long and hard about the pros and cons. We listened to many people, among them, many health professionals, in order to make our decision.
I remain very open to listen to the reports of the impact of the ban. As the council member for that part of the city, most impacted by crime, where lives are lost, almost weekly, in sacrifice to our policies on illegal drugs, I understand what inadequate public policy can wreak on a segment of the economy and community. And I understand the hopelessness generated in the psyches of those who see no way out.
I certainly do not want to see another public policy, related to another drug that has disastrous impact on the lives of our citizens. But we were asked to make a decision on the future of a very harmful substance that daily wreaks havoc on many thousands of lives. We considered the evidence outlining the harmfulness of smoking. We considered the possible impact of a ban on businesses. Both options were potentially very harmful. Both options would leave us with angry losers. Both options were imperfect. And virtually every compromise had its own set of victims.
We chose what we thought was best for the community in the long run and what most people seemed to want. We chose to lead what we saw as the ultimate eventuality; the place our society would arrive at in the near future. The county and state have not been willing to be as assertive.
It could be argued that every decision that has resulted in the reduction of smoking to over time has caused great harm to tobacco farmers and workers and marketers. In some cases lives have long been damaged. The questions are: “Is there a point in the fight against tobacco related illness, where we stop or slow down because of the harm the struggle inflicts? Is this that point? Have we passed that point? Is more harm than good being done?â€
Our council came to a conclusion and the fallout is now being experienced. These questions are now being asked, by you and others. I can assure you, there is an army of citizens and activists who are still satisfied with the answers we gave. This does not invalidate the truth of your observations. Indeed, it demonstrates how large the stakes have been and how painful the options in this issue we had taken on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO THE VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Please read the following article that concerns the outrageous damage you have visited upon several bar and restaurants. Everyone of you who voted for this ridiculous ban were provided with huge quantities of information showing the damages bans would cause but refused to pay any attention. You were all sent information showing how air filtration systems would improve the quality of air to 150 times better than OSHA requirements, yet your ignored the facts!! You were all sent information showing conclusively the smoking bans were being promoted by out of state interests i.e. pharmaceutical corps. who were looking to gain a larger share of sales of their stop smoking nostrums, yet you chose not to pay attention.
Are you now going to listen to the ALA who wants the ban to run for a year to see what damage will be done by the end of the year. or are you going to finally listen to the business owners,citizens and tax payers WHO KNOW WHAT DAMAGE IS BEING DONE!!! The ALA doesn't pay taxes, they don't contribute to the financial growth of the city, and they don't have any vested interest in the well being of any business in this state. It is about time you started to realize who elected you and why you are in office. In other words get your collective heads out of the sand and correct this colossal mess before any further damage is done.
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
SEE BELOW SEE BELOW SEE BELOW
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=1439
MN:Bar Owners Hurting.Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For Business.***********Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For BusinessApril 22, 2005Minneapolis (WCCO) Some establishment owners are claiming a huge drop in business since Minneapolis snuffed out smoking three weeks ago.The smoking ban went in effect March 31 at city bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, but claims of declining business have elected officials thinking about changing the law.City Councilman Dean Zimmerman, co-sponsor of the city smoking ban, got an earful Wednesday at a meeting with about 40 ! Minneapolis establishment owners, including Gabby's owner Jeff Ormond."Everybody is seeing declined sales," Ormond said."We're down between 25 and 30 percent," one bar owner said."We were not prepared for this big chunk of our business to be bitten out of us," said another."We're the ones risking everything, and I'm very upset about it, and we've got to do something about it," another attendee said.Zimmerman was willing to suggest the law could change."There certainly may be opportunity for doing the partial ban that would mimic what's happening in St. Paul," Zimmerman told those in attendance.During Wednesday's lunch rush, there were plenty of open tables at Gabby's in northeast Minneapolis. The bar was practically empty, and owner Ormond was fuming."This is the worst -- wha t you're looking at -- the worst problem," Ormond said, indicating the empty barstools. "Our bar was always semi-full."Ormond said business was down 26 percent since the ban went in effect."Our bartenders' tips are down 50 percent. People come in and have one drink and say 'Hi' and then 'Bye, thank you, gotta go to the bar where we can smoke.'"Before the smoking ban, Ormond had six people serving drinks on a Saturday night. Ormond said he was cutting it to three, because he needed fewer people to serve the declining bar clientele.In all, Ormond crossed 51 work shifts off his schedule, an amount equal to 10 full-time jobs.The American Lung Association told WCCO-TV it wanted the city to give th! e smoking ban a full year. That way, the city could analyze sales receipts and gather hard data on whether businesses were actually hurting.
name=News&file=article&sid=1439
MN:Bar Owners Hurting.Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For Business.***********Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For BusinessApril 22, 2005Minneapolis (WCCO) Some establishment owners are claiming a huge drop in business since Minneapolis snuffed out smoking three weeks ago.The smoking ban went in effect March 31 at city bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, but claims of declining business have elected officials thinking about changing the law.City Councilman Dean Zimmerman, co-sponsor of the city smoking ban, got an earful Wednesday at a meeting with about 40 ! Minneapolis establishment owners, including Gabby's owner Jeff Ormond."Everybody is seeing declined sales," Ormond said."We're down between 25 and 30 percent," one bar owner said."We were not prepared for this big chunk of our business to be bitten out of us," said another."We're the ones risking everything, and I'm very upset about it, and we've got to do something about it," another attendee said.Zimmerman was willing to suggest the law could change."There certainly may be opportunity for doing the partial ban that would mimic what's happening in St. Paul," Zimmerman told those in attendance.During Wednesday's lunch rush, there were plenty of open tables at Gabby's in northeast Minneapolis. The bar was practically empty, and owner Ormond was fuming."This is the worst -- wha t you're looking at -- the worst problem," Ormond said, indicating the empty barstools. "Our bar was always semi-full."Ormond said business was down 26 percent since the ban went in effect."Our bartenders' tips are down 50 percent. People come in and have one drink and say 'Hi' and then 'Bye, thank you, gotta go to the bar where we can smoke.'"Before the smoking ban, Ormond had six people serving drinks on a Saturday night. Ormond said he was cutting it to three, because he needed fewer people to serve the declining bar clientele.In all, Ormond crossed 51 work shifts off his schedule, an amount equal to 10 full-time jobs.The American Lung Association told WCCO-TV it wanted the city to give th! e smoking ban a full year. That way, the city could analyze sales receipts and gather hard data on whether businesses were actually hurting.
posted by bob3443 | 5/07/2005 07:47:00 AM
<< Home