Friday, June 30, 2006

American Lung Association of MN and the pro-smoking ban activists believe (or hope) the public is too stupid to understand the facts

You may recall that I usually refer to the City of St. Louis Park air quality testing and how it compares to the OSHA regulations for the trace chemical measured -nicotine.

The data shows secondhand smoke levels to be up to 500 times safer than OSHA regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

And then our own Bob Moffit from the American Lung Association of Minnesota would write some comment on how much b.s. the air quality testing was because it only measured for the trace chemical nicotine......well apparently he didn't think it was so much b.s. when it first came out.....before I compared it to the OSHA guidelines....that is.

From Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) website, comes this story:

"MN Group Tests Air Quality in Nonsmoking Sections of Restaurants [12/22-3]"

"Prompted by the possibility of the next Minnesota Legislature considering a total smoking ban in restaurants and bars, the Pioneer Press Watchdog tested the air in the nonsmoking sections of 20 east-metro restaurants to see how much secondhand smoke diners could expect."

"During the past few weeks, ..(they)... tested "nonsmoking" air with equipment measuring the amount of nicotine, which in turn indicates the amount of secondhand smoke."

"In a few, we found air so smoky that James Repace, an international expert, called it very unhealthy for anyone."

"I'm not surprised at all by your findings," said Bob Moffitt of the American Lung Association of Minnesota. "We've been saying for years......"

The pretend air quality specialist Repace then tried to baffle us with his B.S., which apparently the media and Bob Moffitt (ALAMN) bought hook line and sinker.

"The level of nicotine in nonsmoking sections of the 20 east-metro restaurants tested ranged widely, from less-than-1 to 25 (ug) micrograms per cubic meter. A 1 is considered moderate, while a 3 would be unhealthy for some people, such as those with asthma or heart disease. A 5 would be unhealthy for most people, while a 15 would be very unhealthy. Above a 25, the air would be considered hazardous, said Repace, a biophysicist who does research at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. "

But what Repace and the other pseudo-scientists didn't tell you is that OSHA has a safe permissible exposure limit (pel) for the measured marker chemical nicotine. The OSHA safe level is 0.5 mg (milligram) / cu.M. same as 500 ug (micrograms) / cu. M. so at 1 - 25 ug / cu. M. the air quality testing proved secondhand smoke levels were 20 -500 times safer than OSHA regulations (OSHA pel is the acceptable safe exposure level for an 8 hour day, 40 hour per week time period). Of course Repace, Moffit, the American Lung and others involved didn't provide those facts to the Pioneer Press, the media, or any of our lawmakers.

full article here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050121045003/http://www.no-smoking.org/dec04/12-22-04-3.html

Lying, and or omitting data when it suits their cause, makes these once reputable organizations the sleaziest people lurking about in city halls, county commission, and state legislative offices.

By the way, below is the $300,000.00 Mr. James Repace received from Nicoderm interests at RWJF, so we know his financial motivation.....what's your Bob?
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=21651

Oh, and look here, this was Bob Moffit of the American Lung Association's motivation......$99 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Nicoderm affiliate).
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14912&ia=143

Not a bad days work for spreading a few lies and exaggerations...... wonder how I can get a gig like that?

I wonder how Moffit and Repace feel about the American Cancer Society air quality testing which proves secondhand smoke levels are up to 25,000 times safer than OSHA indoor air quality regulations for secondhand smoke.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Smoking bans.....let's cut through the bullshit shall we?

The agenda of the pro-smoking ban activists is to stop smokers from smoking...because smoking MAY be hazardous to the smokers' health. A noble cause when it was conducted through voluntary education and marketing. Smoking bans on the other hand are coercive, collusive, and frankly bordering on racketeering in my opinion.

So when voluntary marketing didn't produce the results that the activists and the pharmaceutical nicotine companies desired, they took it to the next level......Spreading lies about secondhand smoke to use the force of governemnt to accomplish what the non-profit health organizations could not. And the reason the use of force is not popular is because it has caused thousands of businesses to go bankrupt......tens of thousands of jobs lost.....and a serious violation of property rights, all based on a series of INCREDIBLE LIES. Even as the American Cancer Society itself has proven secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke components.

Look, RWJF and Johnson & Johnson Company etc. if you still demand a smoking ban so that you can sell more Nicoderm patches, at least show some class and ethics about it. Provide some compensation to those of us financially impacted by your lies and deceipt.

I suggested this approach over a year ago, and truth be told......if MPAAT or the American Lung Association, or Johnson & Johnson etc. had approached me back then and said, ".. look we're going to get a law passed which is going to put you out of the business of selling Smokeeters, but because we are responsible for lobbying for the smoking ban, we will compensate you for your losses," I would have probably stepped aside and said no problem. But now that the evidence has exposed their lies and they've destroyed so many peoples' lives financially, I don't think there is any level of compensation which will justify what these pharmaceutical interests have done.

I commend you for what may have once seemed a noble and just cause.......but the end DOES NOT justify the means.

The Surgeon General's report by comparison seems to be disingenuous drivel

"Would you rather spend an hour in a sealed garage with 50 chain smokers, or with one idling car?"

I know which one I would choose.

I would be very interested to hear Surgeon General Dr Carmona's answer.

The above found here:
http://tinyurl.com/h8lgb

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

So did the Surgeon General's report tell us anything new?

Of course not, he simply reviewed old studies and old data to conclude: ".. see this is why you local governments need to pass smoking bans..." It was a political ploy plain and simple, hoping to revitalize and attempting to bring some credibility to a tobacco control movement seriously lacking any credibility.

Part of the credibility problem for the pro-smoking ban movement is who has provided funding to them. Accepting funding from an organization and pharmaceutical company with direct ties to a product (Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ) which is designed to be a replacement product for the one to be banned....tobacco, would seem to be a conflict of interest. And indeed it is, so much so that all sorts of paid "studies" are exaggerated, and fabricated to meet the desired outcome that RWJF and Johnson & Johnson Company require for product sales goals.

Another credibility problem for the pro-smoking ban movement is their lack of knowledge of science and indoor air quality. Two studies that come to mind are the American Cancer Society air quality testing of secondhand smoke in NY, and the city of St. Louis Park, MN. Environmental Health Department. These arrogant pro-smoking ban groups started to feel so confident in what they were preaching they decided to conduct their own air quality testing. No doubt when they were finished they strutted around congratulating each other on quantifying just how deadly secondhand smoke was. Their error of course was in not analyzing the data to indoor air quality regulations. Because when "Clearing the Air" analyzed both organizations' test result numbers to OSHA indoor air quality regulations for secondhand smoke, we discovered IRREFUTABLY that in the case of St. Louis Park secondhand smoke concentrations indoors are up to 500 times safer than OSHA air quality workplace regulations; and that the American Cancer Society testing determined that secondhand smoke concentrations indoors are up to 25,000 times safer than OSHA air quality workplace regulations for secondhand smoke.

Still one of the greater credibility problems for the pro-smoking ban movement are the lies that they've perpetuated in public testimony all around the country. They stand before city council members, county commissioners, state lawmakers and promise "....there will be no financial harm to the hospitality business......in fact people will be bustin' down the doors to get at all that fresh clean air in your bars and restaurants..." But in fact the opposite happens, in Mpls., St Paul 74 establishments out of business after barely a year of a smoking ban.....yet the year before (2004) without the bans only 15 failed. In Ireland 200+ pubs closed immediately after their smoking ban. And around the US we are approaching 1,000 closed hospitality venues after passage of smoking bans, with perhaps tens maybe a hundred thousand lost jobs.

So did the Surgeon General accomplish his goal of attempting to breath new life into the issue, only time will tell. One things for certain many lawmakers will continue to vote for smoking bans because they think it's a no brainer. It's a numbers thing really with roughly 75% of their constituents being non-smokers a vote for a smoking ban would seem to be a sure re-election bid. But as more of the facts come out, and as more non-smokers begin to see through the smokescreen of the pro-smoking ban argument to see the facts on the other side of the issue, the more likely we can get to a more common sense and equitable solution.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Surgeon General's office steps in to help the failing tobacco control movement.....

The Surgeon General's office must have taken notice of the recent outrageous lies by the tobacco control activists like "..30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to a serious heart attack..." so much so that they felt the need to issue a report of their own, found here.

But the absurdity of the weak argument ".....there is no safe level...." has been thoroughly debunked. It is a disingenuous statement, every harmful substance known to mankind has a safe level of exposure......it's called OSHA permissible exposure limits. And if you believed that false premise, no recognized safe level of exposure, we would have to ban drinking water due to the level of arsenic naturally present. We would have to ban the very air we breathe due to the CO2 levels present. (CO2 is fatal at a 20% concentration but with every breath we inhale a 4% concentration). There is no way to completely eliminate harmful substances from existence, once you recognize that, it simply becomes a matter of recognizing a safe acceptable level.

Furthermore, the American Cancer Society air quality testing of secondhand smoke proved levels are up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

In addition Ventilation not Legislation has been proven by a local health department to be a safe alternative to the anti-business practice of smoking bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

The surgeon has been called in to help prop up a dying argument.......but I think your time would be better spent on serious issues....don't you doc?

One final note: It's not completely clear to me what role the CDC plays in relationship to the Surgeon General's office, but the fact that the CDC accepted money from the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company......completely destroys any credibility that organization may have once had regarding tobacco issues.

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/issue.htm

RWJF grant to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/041244.htm

Johnson & Johnson financial contribution to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/041244.htm

Saturday, June 24, 2006

The case against smoking ban laws....

Update 3/2008:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/definitive-case-against-smoking-bans.html

1) Implementing a smoking ban is the most anti-business stance a local government can make.

In the Twin Cities of Minneapolis & St. Paul, MN. after barely 12 months of smoking bans 73 hospitality businesses closed, and with an average of 30 employees; that's over 2,000 lost jobs. Yet during the same period in 2004, before metro wide smoking bans existed (according to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article) only 15 hospitality businesses closed.

Update: over 500 Twin Cities area bars & restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted in Minnesota (see link below for list) (there were only approximately 1,100 Twin Cities liquor licensed establishments when smoking bans were first imposed, obviously now there are far fewer)

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

To combat the fact that smoking bans destroy businesses and jobs, many local governments and those who support smoking bans put together "economic studies", designed to deceive lawmakers and the public, which show that there has been no harm financially since the implementation of smoking bans. However, those studies are always fraught with omissions and statistical errors to minimize the truth. In Minneapolis for instance their study claimed that there had been a modest increase in business since the smoking ban. Until one digs a little further into the truth to find that the study accounted for only 353 of the 618 establishments affected by the smoking bans. And worse yet the majority of the revenue accounted for was from hotels. Hotels are unaffected by smoking bans...... did you know to this day you can still go to nearly every hotel in California and book a room which allows smoking?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/03/minneapolis-revenue-numbers-for-bars.html

Update 2008: New official MN Auditor's Office report proves smoking bans destroy the hospitality industry and jobs.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/minnesota-releases-revenue-numbers-that.html

The lobbyists and local governments know that the "risk" of secondhand smoke is too trivial and insignificant to push hotels into compliance, for they know the unions would challenge smoking ban laws.....and easily win.

I say too trivial because the American Cancer Society proved secondhand smoke is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke.

2) Numerous organizations have conducted scientific air quality testing of secondhand smoke and determined that the "purported health risks" of secondhand smoke are so insignificant as to be laughable.

The American Cancer Society conducted air quality testing and the results show secondhand smoke is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke. What makes the ACS results so laughable is that the results had to be measured in nanograms, that's 10 (-9) or 0.000000001.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

The California EPA Air Resources Board AQ testing of SHS outdoors, being used to justify outdoor smoking bans, returned test results which were 50,000 times safer than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke components.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/secondhand-smoke-air-quality-study-by.html

The Environmental Health Department of St. Louis Park, MN. also recently conducted the same AQ testing and found SHS so much safer than OSHA regulations that the argument "....protecting the health of employees....." holds no valid claim.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

3) Once you realize the organizational ties to special interest groups which fund smoking ban legislative efforts, you begin to see why the "tobacco control" groups will resort to lies, omissions, and deceipt in order to attain their goals.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds most of the groups which lobby for smoking ban legislation. The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, American Non-Smoker's Rights, the Center for Tobacco Free Kids (of which Action on Smoking and Health, ASH is a member) etc. etc. all have received funding from RWJF which benefits financially when smoking bans are passed; making them highly suspect to say the least.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/04/financial-ties-between-anti-smoking.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/09/for-those-still-naive-enough-to-think.html

Meanwhile RWJF owns $5.4 billion worth of stock in the Johnson & Johnson Company, the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ (thru its subsidiary ALZA). (if you're asking yourself why a pharmaceutical nicotine manufacturer would want to ban tobacco nicotine use, you're apparently too naive to understand; but the marketing department at J & J understands)

4) The best way to combat these special interest groups and send them packing for good, is to have state legislators pass pre-emption laws, which essentially say....we the state already have clean air quality laws in place to protect workers, patrons, citizens, and backed by OSHA regulations are confident in these measures. Therefore in as much as smoking ban laws are financially devastating to local businesses and jobs; no local entity may pass laws which are more restrictive than current state air quality laws.....including smoking bans.

It is time to bring common sense and facts back into the smoking ban debate, once that happens; smoking bans and the special interest groups which fund them will become a thing of the past.

Also see:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/07/case-against-smoking-bans-part-2.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html

The CDC study which claimed 3000 people per year die from secondhand smoke needs to be viewed as highly dubious ......

.......due to funding provided to them by Nicoderm interests.

MPAAT, ASH, ANR, the AMA and numerous other pro-smoking ban organizations use the CDC study to claim secondhand smoke kills.

But hold on just a second........let's look at who provides funding to the CDC.

Before you all get too concerned about the "CDC study claiming 3000 deaths" from secondhand smoke. It might interest you all to know that the CDC is just as tainted as the the EPA.

Here's some proof that they accepted money from our good Nicoderm friends at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/041244.htm

And note under the "Chairman's Circle" the $50,000.00 + donors to the CDC included the Nicoderm manufacturer itself Johnson & Johnson Company. How was dinner that night Robert Wood Johnson IV (family heir to the Johnson & Johnson empire)? It appears you got your money's worth. (if you're asking yourself why a pharmaceutical nicotine manufacturer would want to ban tobacco nicotine use, you're apparently too naive to understand; but the marketing department at J & J understands)

Here's an additional grant / conference funded by RWJF to lobby lawmakers to the pro-smoking ban side of the issue.

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=17090

excerpts:

(Nicoderm benefactor RWJF) supply technical advice and information to several state agencies and to tobacco control advocates in states that were examining the potential new regulation of tobacco products.

Funding
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) supported the project with two grants totaling $388,703 between January 1998 and December 1999.

The facts are easily found regarding the conflict of interest by the pro-smoking ban activists. Now let's see how many in the media will cover what they've been forbidden to expose by news editors in the past.

Meanwhile the American Cancer Society testing tells us loud and clear that secondhand smoke is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Provide a copy of this American Cancer Society AQ test to your local lawmakers, and get involved in the fight for freedom

Dear (Fill in the blank) lawmakers,

Please take a stand for freedom, especially since the facts are on our side.

American Cancer Society air quality testing shows secondhand smoke is 532 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for ETS.

You heard correctly, the American Cancer Society conducted their own AQ testing. And "Clearing the Air" compared those test results to OSHA AQ (Standards - 29 CFR). Unfortunately for lawmakers the pro-smoking ban activists seem to leave out the fact that OSHA regulates all airborne chemical components of secondhand smoke.

American Cancer Society Study Press Release:

http://roswell.tobaccodocuments.org/nic_index.htm

American Cancer Society test result numbers are here:

http://roswell.tobaccodocuments.org/nic_study/monitor_results.htm

Analysis / comparison of ACS test results to OSHA permissible exposure limits (Standards - 29 CFR):

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/three-independent-air-quality-test.html

Here's an alternative to smoking bans that has been proven thru health department air quality testing to be a sound and safe solution.

Ventilation not Legislation:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

By the way, you can rest assured the facts regarding secondhand smoke, are not part of the special interests' agenda:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

Thank you for listening;

(your name, address here)


Go to your state, county, or municipal government website to get email or mailing addresses and get this message out.....because I can guarantee you that is how pro smoking ban activists get their message to lawmakers ...in mass.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Three independent air quality test results confirm that secondhand smoke was never a health hazard

Those who visit this weblog know about the St. Louis Park, MN. Environmental Health department air quality test results which measured secondhand smoke and determined that levels at 19 establishments ranged from 15 -500 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke components.

Then I discovered that the California EPA also measured air quality in the exact same manner as above except they measured secondhand smoke outdoors, and obtained readings
100-50,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke components.

Now, Clearing the Air has discovered, with help from a
commentator, that the American Cancer Society and the Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition also conducted an air quality study on secondhand smoke concentrations indoors in 2002 and obtained test results which ranged from 0.02 - 0.94 ug/cu. M (same as 20 - 940 nanograms) , which is 532 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke components.

(Keep in mind while reading the ACS story above that the argument "....secondhand smoke is a proven human carcinogen with no safe threshold of exposure...." is a bogus argument, OSHA has a safe exposure limit regulation for all the chemicals in secondhand smoke......indeed the very existence of OSHA is to determine the safe exposure limit of all potentially hazardous substances. Example radiation is a naturally occurring substance within our atmosphere, instead of relying on government to ban all sources of radiation, OSHA has determined the safe level of exposure to radiation.....the same goes for secondhand smoke.)


Checking the math: The
OSHA safe 8 hour exposure level to secondhand smoke trace chemical nicotine is 0.5 mg / cu. M, which is the same as 500 ug/ cu. M., so 500 divided by American Cancer Society test result numbers 0.02 = 25,000, and 500 divided by 0.94 = 532.


Chart of American Cancer Society test results.

The St. Louis Park health department air quality testing has been more than replicated.....and the incredible thing is that the groups who conducted the testing were trying to prove how hazardous secondhand smoke is .........but in fact they all three proved quite the opposite.

These test results should be brought forward to all lawmakers being pressed by the
special interest groups for smoking ban legislation.

Why is nicotine used as the test chemical for air quality testing of secondhand smoke, by all the scientific experts? Answer is found
here.

Government conducted air quality test results for secondhand smoke coincide with what OSHA has repeatedly stated, "what health hazard?"

Rather than update this blog on a regular basis, the information on this weblog, especially these first two posts are designed to be reference material for those battling proposed smoking ban legislation. Clearing the Air regularly provides the government air quality data regarding secondhand smoke in the post below to lawmakers around the country, and we encourage anyone else who stumbles upon this page to also provide this air quality information to lawmakers in your respective districts. Many organizations with ties to pharmaceutical nicotine interests are providing misleading and exaggerated data to lawmakers to benefit their own particular interests.....it's time to balance out the information lawmakers receive so that they can make an informed, unbiased, and fair decision.

SLP /ACS/ EPA air quality testing proves secondhand smoke is 15 - 50,000 times safer than OSHA standards. (data link)

Wernimont

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Regarding smoking bans....the House of Lords seems to "get it"

Labour's decision to ban smoking in all pubs, clubs and workplaces is not justified by the "relatively minor" risk posed by passive smoking, a House of Lords committee claims today.

Article from the UK here.

The article continues:

The committee also voices concern that ministers are not taking account of the impact such bans have on the personal freedom and civil liberties of ordinary people.... (link mine)

We at "Clearing the Air" are pleased that the information we submitted to the House of Lords did not fall upon deaf ears.

I hope that this will lead to swift action in repealing the onerous and arbitrary smoking bans on the UK peninsula.....and then of course the repeal of bans in our country as well.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

News of the weird......

......no matter what hemisphere a local government enacts a smoking ban in, the results are the same........killing business......hurting employees.

Story from down under here.

The arrogance of the liars is truly remarkable.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Smoking bans cause tens of thousands to lose their jobs


















From Reverse the Ban.org


......I can personally atest to the FACT that smoking bans destroy businesses and jobs. -marcus aurelius

Saturday, June 03, 2006

More people having been killed because of smoking bans than secondhand smoke.

It sounds remarkable, but these are actual deaths due to smoking bans.

Meanwhile there has never been even one death certificate attributing secondhand smoke as a cause of death.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Are smoking bans good for business?

We in the hospitality industry know the answer to that question, but the well funded pro-smoking ban activists tell lawmakers over and over again that smoking bans are good for business. So I did a little digging.

According to this Dec. 2004 Star Tribune story a total of 15 establishments closed in 2004 in the Twin cities metropolitan area.

After a year of smoking bans in the same two metropolitan counties 73 establishments are out of business....the smoking bans have closed 5 times more businesses than the entire previous year when there was no local smoking ban.

So, are smoking bans good for business?......I'll let you do the math.

Nationwide business losses due to smoking bans can be found here.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012