Saturday, March 31, 2007

Double standard, welding smoke vs secondhand smoke in the workplace



Welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. And air quality testing shows that welding smoke is regulated to safety standards by OSHA, so lawmakers allow OSHA do do its job rather than ban welding smoke.



Secondhand smoke on the other hand, though proven to be 15 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations, requires government intervention (smoking bans) according to paid activists and some lawmakers…….this double standard however, and the air quality testing link here prove that a special interest agenda might be the real motive behind the demand for bans.

Otherwise, if health were the real concern we would show some consistency, either by allowing workplace air quality regulations and ventilation solutions in our bars and restaurants.......or by imposing a ban on all other potential workplace air quality hazards.

Also see: Rent Seeking Legislation

(Ventilation equipment is allowed in the industrial workplace to remove welding smoke, why not in the hospitality workplace to remove tobacco smoke? The fact that Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, money via RWJF is used to finance smoking ban lobbyists is the likely reason......it's all about making money not concern for health)

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Today the MN Senate passed a smoking ban, here's a MN. Senate ruling that will reverse said ban

Now all that is needed, is for someone to file a lawsuit challenge.

If Minnesota state lawmakers do pass a statewide smoking ban while exempting tribal casinos, this Senate ruling could easily reverse that ban

According to a Minnesota Senate report, the tribal casinos cannot be exempt from a statewide smoking ban

The full Minnesota Senate report is found here, and asks:

Do state ..... laws apply on American Indian reservations?

To the extent that state law is "prohibitory" as opposed to "regulatory," it applies to American Indian reservations under the operation of Public Law No. 280, which provides Minnesota with the authority to enforce criminal and prohibitory law on American Indian reservations,[I]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub.L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian Reservation. The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the state's public policy.

The smoking ban law is generally to prohibit certain conduct specifically to prohibit smoking, a smoking ban then IS prohibitory. Therefore, for fair and equal treatment under the law, the tribal casinos cannot be exempt from a statewide smoking ban.

If however, DFL leadership does want to exempt the tribal casinos from a statewide smoking ban, then lawmakers need to rewrite the smoking ban bill to be a regulatory law instead of prohibitory. A regulatory smoking ban law would allow for air quality testing and monitoring to ensure that secondhand smoke levels are within air quality safety standards.

Regulatory monitoring is the manner in which welding smoke is dealt with in the workplace, and it is the manner in which secondhand smoke should also be controlled. OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke, which can easily be measured to determine if the hospitality workplace is within compliance.

The fact that lawmakers have never proposed a ban on welding smoke indicates that OSHA regulatory air quality standards are a safe acceptable method for dealing with air quality issues in the workplace.

A regulatory smoking ban is the only manner of ban that will exempt the tribal casinos. On the other hand, a prohibitory smoking ban which exempts the tribal casinos will surely be challenged and ruled as unequal treatment under the law in court.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Secondhand smoke should be regulated by OSHA, not banned

The nationwide trend of implementing a ban on secondhand smoke is justified, say activists, to protect the health of workers.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency however, is that every other workplace air quality issue is regulated by OSHA standards, rather than banned. And since smoking bans destroy hospitality businesses in record numbers , air quality regulation is a less destructive method to safeguard the health and welfare of employees and patrons.


Whether it be welding or plasma smoke exposure in factories, diesel smoke exhaust in tunnels or on truck loading docks, ozone produced from copying machines in offices, etc. OSHA regulates all these and other air quality issues to safeguard the health and safety of employees in all workplaces. So why be inconsistent regarding secondhand smoke which is far less hazardous than welding smoke for example?

Regarding the claim, by pharmaceutical nicotine funded interests , that OSHA doesn't have a permissible exposure limit for secondhand smoke components, the OSHA table is linked below for your research:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

In the OSHA table you'll find a safe permissible exposure limit for thousands of individual components, pick the individual component you want to measure in secondhand smoke, and there is an OSHA safe limit for it. OSHA permissible exposure limits are the safe level of exposure for an 8 hour day / 40 hour per week time period.

Some OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) examples of components in secondhand smoke:

Nicotine safe level of exposure (PEL) is 0.5 mg per cubic meter
arsenic safe level of exposure (PEL) is 0.3 mg per cu. meter
benzene safe level of exposure (PEL) is 10 parts per million (ppm)
formaldehyde safe level of exposure (PEL) is 0.75 ppm
acetone safe level of exposure (PEL) is 2400 mg per cu. meter etc. etc.

The method above is how OSHA regulates employee exposure to welding smoke as well, there is no OSHA permissible limit for "welding smoke", secondhand smoke, wood smoke, or any other composite pollutant of two or more chemicals. OSHA is much more scientific and precise than that......each chemical component of an indoor air pollution source must be measured independently to determine if a health hazard exists.

Arbitrarily declaring that secondhand smoke is a health hazard without conducting any air quality testing is simply a matter of opinion with no basis in science or fact. If we start passing laws based on flawed data we get flawed laws, laws which when finally scrutinized under the microscope of science cannot and will not hold up to a challenge.Minnesota lawmakers need to stop following the herd of fear-mongering states that have gone before.

Minnesota needs to declare that we have a more competent science based community that has conducted air quality testing, and instead of falling for the rhetoric of 16 other states who tell us all that the earth is flat.......we will conduct scientific air quality analysis to determine the facts. Which is a much more preferred method of implementing laws as opposed to giving credence only to partisan funded special interest groups.

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

(Ventilation equipment is allowed in the industrial workplace to improve air quality, why not in the commercial workplace?)

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Hawaiian bars & restaurants are being destroyed by a statewide smoking ban

Story here:

Smoking ban openly defied by some bars


HONOLULU — Faced with one of the toughest new anti-smoking laws in the nation, some Hawaii bar owners are openly defying the statewide smoking ban by letting their customers light up anyway.

So far, they're getting away with it, with some citing the Boston Tea Party and other rebellions.

Bar and restaurant financial losses in Hawaii:

Kailua Area:

Porky's Down 50% Kathy Wants Ban Removed

Kailua Palace Down 50% Roy Wants Ban Removed

Ohana Lounge Down 90% Cory Wants Ban Removed

Creekside No Change Shawne Wants Ban Removed

Tropics Down Debbie Wants Ban Removed

Tiares Down 30-40% Sophia Wants Ban Removed

Whitneys Down 45% Chae Wants Ban Removed

Kaneohe Area:

Ohana Lounge Down 70% Cory Wants Ban Removed

Komo Mai's Down 50% Ann Wants Ban Removed

Flamingo's Down 20% Angela Wants Ban Removed

Whittney Down 40% Mike Wants Ban Removed

Rock Rose Tavern Down 20% Niko Wants Ban Removed

Central Area:
Rosa's Ice Tee Down 50% Ice Wants Ban Removed

Panama Hattie Down 30% Larry Wants Ban Removed

Top Hat Down 25% John Wants Ban Removed

Club Bunny girls Down 50% Young Wants Ban Removed

Club Marie Down 50% Marie Wants Ban Removed

Baijo's Down 35% Me Chan Wants Ban Removed

Old Kemoo Pub Down 15% Jake Wants Ban Removed

Hui Ohana's Down 50% Clay Wants Ban Removed

Mel Rose Down 20% Rosie Wants Ban Removed

Leeward Bowl Down 25% Richard Wants Ban Removed

Sunflower Down 10% Yong Likes the Ban

Club Chance Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Festival Down 50% Soo Yoong Wants Ban Removed

Diamond Castle Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Red Carnation Down 30% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Join Us Down 40% Candi Wants Ban Removed

Club Electro No Change Per Owner Doesn't Care

Ting's Down 50 % Ting Wants Ban Removed

Ladda's Down 30% Ladda Wants Ban Removed

Star Lounge Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Star Karaoke Down 15% Kay Wants Ban Removed

Chez Monique Down 20% Merv Wants Ban Removed

Mindulay Lounge Down 75% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Olivia's Down 50% Yong/ Pak Wants Ban Removed

Last Stop Down 40% Helen Likes the Ban

Oasis Lounge Down 30% Kathy Wants Ban Removed

Club House Down 50% Su Gen Wants Ban Removed

Ariaki Down 50% Yong Wants Ban Removed

Club Minami Down 40% Sue Wants Ban Removed

Waterfall Down 50% Pak Wants Ban Removed

Princess Palace Down 30% Janet Wants Ban Removed

Cheerleaders No Change Likes the Ban

Cheerleaders Too Down 25% Moe Wants Ban Removed

Kalihi Area:

Club Sahara Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Lagoon 500 Down 25% Sonya Wants Ban Removed

Club C&R Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Café Bronco Down 10% Akiko Wants Ban Removed

Imperial Lounge Down 50% Linda Wants Ban Removed

Club Suzie Q's Down 50% Suzie Wants Ban Removed

Club Green Tee Down 50% Hana Wants Ban Removed

Mimi's Place Down 35% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Colorful Down 50% Mina Wants Ban Removed

Club Sunrise Down 50% Sun Hee Wants Ban Removed

Club 77 Down 50% Mona Wants Ban Removed

Club New Pattaya Down 15% Per Owner Likes the Ban

Lao Star Down 20% Vahn Wants Ban Removed

Club Wilson Down 60% Linda Wants Ban Removed

Club J's Down 50% Jay Wants Ban Removed

Club Soo Mi Down 30% Soo Mi Wants Ban Removed

Club Pieces Down 40% Diane Wants Ban Removed

Linda's Karaoke Down 20% Linda Wants Ban Removed

Club All In Down 40-50% Uni Wants Ban Removed

Club Jihae Down 40% Jihae Wants Ban Removed

Club Monabi Down 40% Mona Wants Ban Removed

Shinsotei No Change Helen Likes the Ban

Yuraku Cho Down 20% Harry Wants Ban Removed

Paul & Terry's Down 25% Paul Wants Ban Removed

Club Vegas II No Change Kang Doesn't Care

London Hub Down 25% Miya Wants Ban Removed

Oneway Lounge No Change Amy Wants Ban Removed

1st Time Down 25% Ellison Wants Ban Removed

C.K. Lounge No Change Kay Likes the Ban

Club Tahoe No Change Jay Wants Ban Removed

Club New Bangkok Down 50% At Wants Ban Removed

E Lounge No Change Chris Likes the Ban

Black Stallion No Change Sandy Likes the Ban

Cheers Station Down 15% Kim Likes the Ban

Leslie's Place Down 10% Jo Ann Doesn't Care

Akoni's Down 15% Jaime Wants Ban Removed

Queen Bee's Down 10% Joe Wants Ban Removed

Club Sundance Down 25% Kim Sa Wants ban Removed

Town Area:
Club Hibiscus Down 30% Bobby Wants Ban Removed

Ward Room Down 25% Miki Wants Ban Removed

Cafe Duck Butt Down 30-40% Jenny Wants Ban Removed

Just One Down 35% Andy Wants Ban Removed

Club 7 Kings Down 50% Pat Wants Ban Removed

Twenty Ten Down 50% Stacey Wants Ban Removed

King St Café Down 10% Per Manager Doesn't Care

Pig Skins Down 40% Lance Wants Ban Removed

Club Asia Down 10% Per Manager Doesn't Care

New Casino Down 25% Per Manager Likes the Ban

Club Business No Change Per Manager Wants Ban Removed

New D'Amore Down 20% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Allure No Change Per Bartender Doesn't Care

Crystal Palace Down 25% Joe Wants Ban Removed

Tsunami Down 10% Cory Wants Ban Removed

T-Time Down 20% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Aria Down 30% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Maya's Down 25% Bartender Wants Ban Removed

Camelot Down 20% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club President Down 20% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Secret Down 50% Per Owner Wants Ban Removed

Club Romantei Down 45% Danny Wants Ban Removed

Anna Banana's Down 20% Tim Wants Ban Removed

Sand Island Bar Down 30% Tonie Wants Ban Removed

J's Sports Bar No Change Likes the Ban

Club Genji Down 15% Wants Ban Removed

Aku Bones Down 10% Kim Wants Ban Removed

Amy's Place Down 25% Amy Wants Ban Removed

Ke Kais Down 20% Pat Wants Ban Removed

New Hanahou Down 55% Youn Wants Ban Removed

Gold Gate Lounge Down 25% Michelle Wants Ban Removed

9th Ave Rock House No Change Terrance Doesn't Care

Aloha Lounge Down 10% Ann Likes the Ban

Anyplace Down 10% Judy Wants Ban Removed

Aquarius Lounge Down 15% Candi& Guy Wants Ban Removed

Bar 35 No Change Andy Wants Ban Removed

The Row Bar No Change Andy Wants Ban Removed

Blue Sea Lounge Down 10% Lee Wants Ban Removed

Cache Down 25% Yvette Wants Ban Removed

Club Velvet Down 50 % Valerie Wants Ban Removed

Can's Bar & Grill No Change Candice Doesn't Care

Jazz Mind's Down 20% Danny Wants Ban Removed

Cheer's Karaoke Down 10% Johnson Wants Ban Removed

Waikiki Area:

Club Ai No Change Doesn't Care

Cabana's Down 10% Sandra Wants Ban Removed

Nashvilles Down 10% Sandra Wants Ban Removed

The Hide Away Down 10% Jon Wants Ban Removed

The location of smoking bans may change, but the effect is always the same.... jobs, businesses, and people are the victims of pharmaceutical company special interests.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk

By Megan Rauscher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson's disease. Specifically, the new research shows a temporal relationship between smoking and reduced risk of Parkinson's disease.

Not coincidentally then, Parkinson's disease is rapidly on the rise thanks to smoking bans and worldwide tobacco control activism. Newsday brings us the story:

The numbers of people growing old and living longer have led to ominous projections for Parkinson's disease. By 2030, there may be 80 percent more Americans with the disease, and the numbers will double in developing Asian nations, according to a new study.

Dr. E. Ray Dorsey and his colleagues at the University of Rochester say the prevalence will grow as populations shift in age. In 2005, there were an estimated 4.1 million people worldwide with Parkinson's disease. In 25 years, that number is predicted to climb to 8.7 million.

Don't worry though, I'm sure that the pharmacetical industry, which funded the smoking bans, will have an expensive new drug to treat your Parkinson's.

Here's a research paper which details the benefits of smoking and how it may help eliminate Alzheimer's disease.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Pharmaceutical industry articulates its strategy to compete with the tobacco industry

Smoking bans, or as activists refer to them, "public policy changes" are the integral tactic to level the marketplace playing field.

Here is the article that started pharmaceutical nicotine's targeted fight against big tobacco....for profit...not health.

A Reflection On Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems
Mark C. Taylor, MD,. FRCSC
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (circa 1997?)

Article source: http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ands.pdf

AND=Alternative nicotine delivery

......a quote from the article in page one second paragraph:

"....The proper regulatory response is to implement a strategy that levels the regulatory playing field between the cigarette and AND products.

"..Pharmaceutical companies are urged to be more aggressive marketers. "I think it important that nicotine drug manufacturers (Johnson & Johnson, RWJF), who will profit from less cigarette sales, pursue this in their advertising and that they lift any voluntary restraints they have from directly competing with tobacco products and attacking the tobacco industry."

This is the smoking gun which exposes the internal strategies of the pharmaceutical nicotine industry; and the real justification for smoking bans, - it's profit... pure and simple.

Meanwhile, here is the proper way to deal with secondhand smoke; which should be regulated, not banned. Regulations and air quality safety standards are the manner in which we deal with all other workplace hazards, so why be more selective regarding secondhand smoke.......unless there is an underlying agenda.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Thinking about quitting smoking?....New report says don't waste your money on nicotine replacement therapy......cold turkey is most effective method

This story, Is government backing of pharmaceutical industry deceit killing smokers? finds that going cold turkey is the most effective method to quit smoking.

I can personally attest that cold turkey is the best method, as that is also the way I quit smoking 20 years ago.......and I haven't picked up a cigarette since. All my friends and relatives who used some form of nicotine replacement therapy like Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, etc....struggled for years, and many never quit.

The other reason I advocate abstaining from pharmaceutical nicotine products, is because the pharmaceutical nicotine companies like Johnson & Johnson Company and their private foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, are the primary funding source for spreading false and misleading data to lawmakers and the media about the need for smoking bans.......simply so they can peddle their ineffective and useless drugs.

For those angered by the social engineering agenda of the pharmaceutical nicotine special interests and the lawmakers who believe in their lies......I urge you to take a stand.......don't be foolish enough to reward them by purchasing their worthless alternative nicotine products.......cold turkey works best, and will save you hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Update: Because of the deceit and exaggerations that Johnson and Johnson's private foundation -RWJF uses to enact rent seeking laws (smoking bans); Clearing the Air feels justified in calling for a complete boycott of Johnson & Johnson Company products.

(note: the S.C. Johnson Company (cleaning products) is not affiliated with the Johnson & Johnson Company)

Smoking ban activists have advocated for and taught a new form of deadly hatred.....they couldn't be more proud....I'm sure

March 16 [02:00 GMT] - New York: smoker killed for lighting a cigarette - Eight days have elapsed. We have waited to publish this to see if it is would reported by any medium other than the NY Post. Nothing happened. He was just a smoker, after all – and no matter if he was just 23 with a life in front of him: he would have died “prematurely”, anyway. He was in a night club, having a good time with his friends. He provoked no one. He just lit up a cigarette. That was provocation enough.

He did not see it coming – death, that is, in the form of a pool cue that smashed his skull. The cue was held by a bouncer – a bouncer who had learned to hate smoking and smokers - to the point of killing. A bouncer who had been instigated by criminal health authorities who keep on lying about passive smoke, and by irresponsible media who parrot those lies - relentlessly. So a young man died, the life support machine unplugged after he was declared brain dead at the hospital. No matter, he was a small loss anyway: he was just a smoker.

Thanks to Forces International for bringing our attention to this story.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

City of Spring Lake Park MN. takes stand against proposed statewide smoking ban

By Sarah Moran, Star Tribune
Last update: March 13, 2007 – 3:26 PM


Just when momentum for a statewide smoking ban is building, the city of Spring Lake Park passed a resolution opposing a ban.

To the delight of some and the embarrassment of others, the City Council last week voted 4-1 in favor of a resolution that said the city "is opposed to a statewide smoking ban without exceptions recognizing the personal and property rights of all individuals."

Mayor Bob Nelson and City Council members Jeanne Mason, Bill Loesch and Dale Dahl voted for the resolution.

"This is a small city, with about 7,000 people. If we lose a couple bars, we have to transfer that to the taxpayers," Nelson said. "We don't have any way to recoup money like that. If we lose a business, we have to raise property taxes."I'm an auxiliary member at the VFW -- they go all over the world to fight for freedom and they come back and can't even have a cigarette in their own club," he said.

Steve Ramstdorf, manager of Monte's Sports Bar in Spring Lake Park, is pleased.
"It's about time a city steps up and says, 'No, we're not in favor of this,' and it's kind of nice to know our city backs us on this," he said. "It seems like cities are just falling all over the smoking ban without understanding it."

Barbara Carlson, the one council member who opposed the resolution, said she is embarrassed by the city's decision. She said she understands that some people are concerned about the effect it would have on businesses but she thinks that would work itself out over time.

Carlson said Dulono's Pizza in Minneapolis, where she goes to hear bluegrass music, seems to have had more customers since the smoking ban took effect in Hennepin County.

"It's so enjoyable to go and not smell like smoke, so you stay longer," she said. "And [smoke] takes away from the taste of food."

She acknowledged that Anoka County establishments might lose customers under a statewide ban after having gained some in response to Hennepin County's ban. Spring Lake Park has three bars and not a lot of other commercial businesses, she said.


It's great to see local government taking a stand against the pharmaceutical nicotine special interest groups whose real motive for lobbying in favor of smoking bans is to increase corporate pharmaceutical profits.

While Barbara Carlson points out that the true motive for public and lawmaker support of smoking bans is:

".....it's so enjoyable to go and not smell like smoke...."

Not a justifiable reason however, to eliminate jobs and businesses here in Minnesota or elsewhere:

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

(Hat tip to former MN Candidate for Governor Sue Jeffers for bringing us this story)

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Johnson & Johnson Company "rent seeking" efforts now seek to eliminate your property rights at home

Emboldened by the success they've achieved in circumventing the property rights of small business owners while eliminating the jobs of employees in the hospitality industry thru smoking bans. The unethical pharmaceutical nicotine industry now moves on to what they hope will increase alternative nicotine product sales at an astronomical "rent seeking" pace.


As proof, below is a funding grant by the Nicoderm backed RWJF to city officials in Portland Maine. Guess which city will be proposing a smoking ban in the home?





Active Grants
Tobacco Use & Exposure

Project:
Eliminating smoking in rental housing units

Grant Detail:
$74,901, (awarded on Dec 1, 2006, starting Dec 1, 2006 ending Dec 31, 2007) ID# 59343

Grantee:
City of Portland

389 Congress Street

Portland, ME 04101-3509(207) 874-8449

Contact Information:
Tina H. Pettingill M.P.H. (Project Director)
thp@portlandmaine.gov
Phone: (207) 874-8449

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/grant.jsp?id=59343&iaid=143


Pro-smoking ban activists and complicit lawmakers have created an unstoppable corporate welfare monster which no longer is bound to adhere to any private property rights. Your property rights are free for the raiding, and many lawmakers are only too happy to oblige.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Ann Bancroft expedition to highlight global warming called off due to.........frostbite. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor.

The story of the global warming alarmists who had to call off their expedition due to extreme cold can be found here.

Excerpt:

....Then there was the cold -- quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said......

Global warming expedition called off due to frostbite......priceless.

By the way according to Bancroft's own site:

....The global mean temperature has increased by 0.74 degrees Celsius since 1906......

0.74 degrees every 100 years.....oh my.......the sky is truly falling. I hope there is some non-profit agency I can donate my money to, to help ensure that future global warming expeditionists don't have to humiliate themselves with the same moronic stunt.

Look, I won't argue that the earth's climate isn't changing albeit at a glacially slow pace. But what I will argue against is the activists' claims that mankind and all his "evil technological advances" are the cause of said temperature fluctuations.

Hello.....Earth to grant pandering activists, have you ever heard of the sun? It's that big orange ball in the sky with a core temperature of 15,000,000° C; 27,000,000° F. Perhaps that has something to do with the temperature change you've noticed.........then again that fact doesn't raise money and / or federal research grants for your "global warming" agenda......so don't let that fact get in your way.

Not so long ago people could see through these cheap snake oil charlatans........but in a whole new world where "secondhand smoke kills"........I guess any scam is easily believed.

As long as the special interest money keeps flowing, that is.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation confirms that smoking bans are a great source of profit for pharmaceutical nicotine interests and quitlines

The Johnson & Johnson Company affiliate RWJF has provided funding to the American Legacy Foundation in an effort to ensure its products are promoted and sold through smoking cessation organizations. (J & J is the manufacturer of Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicotrol, Nicorette, Commit and other smoking cessation products)

This recent RWJF grant says it all:

Improving the potential of U.S. quitlines to capitalize on tobacco policy control success

Grant Detail:
$399,925, (awarded on Nov 14, 2006, starting Dec 15, 2006 ending Dec 14, 2008) ID# 58531

Grantee:
North American Quitline Consortium http://www.NAQuitline.orq 4142 East Stanford DrivePhoenix, AZ 85018-1657(602) 595-3273


Contact Information:
Linda A. Bailey J.D., M.H.S. (Project Director)
lbailey@americanlegacy.org Phone: (602) 595-3273

For a time, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tried to keep a low profile regarding their role and purpose for funding smoking ban efforts. With the grant information above, RWJF seems to be making a bold new statement......they no longer are hiding their method or motive for funding smoking bans.......it's all about the profit for them and their parent company Johnson & Johnson. (RWJF owns 80,000,000 shares of J & J stock, a $5.4 billion holding)

Sunday, March 11, 2007

If Minnesota state lawmakers do pass a statewide smoking ban while exempting tribal casinos, this Senate ruling could easily reverse that ban

According to a Minnesota Senate report, the tribal casinos cannot be exempt from a statewide smoking ban

The full Minnesota Senate report is found here, and states:

Do state ..... laws apply on American Indian reservations?

To the extent that state law is "prohibitory" as opposed to "regulatory," it applies to American Indian reservations under the operation of Public Law No. 280, which provides Minnesota with the authority to enforce criminal and prohibitory law on American Indian reservations,[I]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub.L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian Reservation. The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the state's public policy.

The smoking ban law is generally to prohibit certain conduct specifically to prohibit smoking, a smoking ban then IS prohibitory. Therefore, for fair and equal treatment under the law, the tribal casinos cannot be exempt from a statewide smoking ban.

If however, DFL leadership does want to exempt the tribal casinos from a statewide smoking ban, then lawmakers need to rewrite the smoking ban bill to be a regulatory law instead of prohibitory. A regulatory smoking ban law would allow for air quality testing and monitoring to ensure that secondhand smoke levels are within air quality safety standards.

Regulatory monitoring is the manner in which welding smoke is dealt with in the workplace, and it is the manner in which secondhand smoke should also be controlled. OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke, which can easily be measured to determine if the hospitality workplace is within compliance.

The fact that lawmakers have never proposed a ban on welding smoke indicates that OSHA regulatory air quality standards are a safe acceptable method for dealing with air quality issues in the workplace.

A regulatory smoking ban is the only manner of ban that will exempt the tribal casinos. On the other hand, a prohibitory smoking ban which exempts the tribal casinos will surely be challenged and ruled as unequal treatment under the law in court.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

According to a second local Minnesota poll, support for a statewide smoking ban is slipping away



KSTP recently reported a Survey USA poll which determined that 58% percent of Minnesotans do not support a strict statewide smoking ban. While 41% did favor a smoking ban in both bars and restaurants, leaving 1% undecided.

Only days earlier a Minnesota Legislative poll showed that 51.59% of over 15,000 participants did not favor a statewide smoking ban in Minnesota bars. And 54.74% of those polled felt that private clubs, fraternal organizations, etc. should be exempt from any smoking ban attempt.

The message seems loud and clear, Minnesotans do not support the anti-business agenda of imposing smoking bans. And given the alternatives available to deal with the grossly exaggerated "risks" of secondhand smoke, the solution is obvious : regulation not prohibition should be the proper response. OSHA air quality regulations already safeguard the health of employees in any and all industries.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/secondhand-smoke-should-be-regulated.html

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Hey big brother, can you spare a government mandate?

It would appear that the Johnson & Johnson Company and its political wing the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) have hit upon hard financial times. How else could you explain their hands out approach to pandering for government mandates (smoking bans) which gives market preference to their pharmaceutical nicotine products like Nicoderm and Nicoderm CQ as tobacco nicotine use is banned in bars and restaurants.

The fact that local governments seem only too happy to oblige, calls into question the motives of our legislative bodies as well. Especially since every other workplace hazard is regulated instead of banned, as this article point out:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/secondhand-smoke-should-be-regulated.html

An economist friend informed me that the correct term for this type of pandering is called rent seeking. I think racketeering and monopolistic are just as fitting.

The term "rent seeking" sounds benign enough until you consider its definition found on Wikipedia
here.

(Rent seeking)...implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to
productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses....

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's smoking ban efforts on behalf of their founder, the Johnson & Johnson Company are a classic example of a taking of small businesses productivity (in this case the hospitality industry) to benefit its own monopoly interests.

...Rent seeking is held to occur often in the form of lobbying for economic regulations .........Regulatory capture is a related concept which refers to collusion between firms and the government agencies assigned to regulate them, which is seen as enabling extensive rent-seeking behavior.........Claims that a firm is rent-seeking therefore often accompany allegations of government
corruption, or the undue influence of special interests..

This paper by the Cato Institute highlights a couple of instances of rent seeking, and provides this explanantion:

...Most Americans recognize that politics has a lot to do with the pursuit of power, privilege, and special interests; however, there is a general presumption that environmental politics is somehow different. We take for granted that environmental laws are what they seem; that the legislators who enact those laws and the bureaucrats who implement them are earnestly struggling to protect public interests.......All too often, however, environmental regulations are designed to serve narrow political and economic interests, not the public interest....

In the case of smoking bans, this type of onerous prohibition is designed to serve the interests of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and the Johnson & Johnson Company) who funded such legislative efforts as evidenced in this article:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

RWJF does not fund advocacy organizations strictly to educate the public......they expect their grant recipients to bring about policy changes at state capitols and in state laws around the country.

Case in point the smoking bans......see who they've funded, and what their
expectations were:

...Two features about the program are significant: (1) the (RWJF) Foundation encouraged its grantees to be activists; (2) advocacy was emphasized to bring about policy change......

http://www.rwjf.org/research/researchdetail.jsp?id=2002&ia=143

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/npreports/smokeless.htm

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/grantlist.jsp?iaid=143&page=2

Now check out what pharmaceutical conglomerate pulls the strings at RWJF, and also note how many board members were former executives and/or board members of the Johnson & Johnson Company:

http://www.rwjf.org/about/founder.jsp


http://www.rwjf.org/about/trusteebio.jsp?id=180

http://www.rwjf.org/about/trusteebio.jsp?id=10

http://www.rwjf.org/about/trusteebio.jsp?id=70

http://www.rwjf.org/about/trusteebio.jsp?id=80

http://www.rwjf.org/about/trusteebio.jsp?id=100

RWJF is the single largest shareholder of the Johnson & Johnson Company ......a $5.4 billion holding.

Johnson & Johnson's alternative pharmaceutical nicotine products just happen to fit that niche market created when legislative smoking bans are enacted.


And in the future, RWJF has an even greater rent seeking scheme in the works, with its newest battle against obesity:

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/interestarea.jsp?iaid=138

Because the smoking bans were so successful, state and federal lawmakers will continue to hear a familiar phrase from organizations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the non-profits they employ:

Hey big brother, can you spare a government mandate?

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

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's comments yesterday at CPAC show an inconsistency......

And I just want him to know the hypocrisy of his actions will never endear him to the voters.

Mike said some things I heartily agree with, war on terrorism, free markets, less restrictions on business etc. etc.

Problem is that Mike's actions don't coincide with that speech. Huckabee claims he's pro-business yet his actions in 2006 speak differently:

Governor says workplace smoking ban likely in special session

Wednesday, Jan 11, 2006 By Rob Moritz

Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee said Tuesday that banning smoking from the workplace likely would be on the agenda if he calls a special session this year to address public education.

"While I respect the rights of people to engage in whatever legal habits and practices they wish, I do think it's time that we put a ban on smoking in the workplace..."

Smoking bans are a completely unnecessary, and unjustified intrusion on small business; because OSHA air quality standards already protect the health of all workers as I have demonstrated here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/secondhand-smoke-should-be-regulated.html

And smoking bans destroy small businesses and jobs at an alarming rate as we've discovered here in the Twin Cities:

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

So sorry Mr. Huckabee.....we are not fooled by your new found belief in the free market system.........your record speaks differently.

Friday, March 02, 2007

"Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids" (CTFK) is lobbying US lawmakers for FDA regulation of tobacco nicotine products.

It has come to my attention that the "Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids" (CTFK) is lobbying US lawmakers for FDA regulation of tobacco nicotine products. However, it is important to for you to understand that CTFK has received $70 million of its funding from the pharmaceutical nicotine industry.....specifically RWJF. (funding link below)

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=40868

RWJF is a member of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical conglomerate. Johnson & Johnson's family of companies, manufactures Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicotrol, Nicorette, Commit and a whole host of other alternative nicotine products. Thus making RWJF and CTFK's motives for lobbying FDA regulation as well as smoking ban restrictions less than honorable and in fact downright dubious.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

Please don't be fooled by these charlatans. They are merely pharmaceutical company funded lobbyists simply attempting to level the playing field.


(Clearing the Air provides the above letter to U.S. lawmakers, and I encourage our readers to do the same)

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