Friday, July 23, 2010

400+ Minnesota bars & restaurants closed, eliminating approximately 10,000 jobs since smoking bans were enacted in the land of 10,000 lakes



List of 410+ closed local establishments available online here:

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

Liberals, the media, and RWJF / Nicoderm funded smoking ban activists are quick to claim that the closings are due to the economy......well then if that's true we should have seen 400+ grocery store closings, 400+ gas station closings, 400+ mall closings, etc. etc. locally during the same 4-5 year time span.......but we haven't. Smoking bans were the unnecessary government intrusion responsible for these massive unprecedented record number of hospitality closings in Minnesota.

Nor was Minnesota the only negatively affected economy from smoking bans.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Epidemiologists warn that falsified claims of secondhand smoke being a hazard makes a mockery of their science

"......call for papers about threats to epidemiology or epidemiologists from organized political interests.....all were about threats from anti-tobacco activists....suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas....."

Story online here:

http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13

As proof that pro-smoking ban activists ignored sound scientific evidence in order to get their Nicoderm (RWJF) funded agenda implemented, air quality test results of secondhand smoke by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html


http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

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

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

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

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/british-medical-journal-who-conclude.html

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace "health hazard".

Conversely, the effects of unnecessary, pharmaceutical nicotine funded, smoking ban laws have been profoundly detrimental:

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

Additionally, a World Health Organization (WHO) study, and analysis of former Surgeon General Carmona's "report" indicate that exaggerations and lies about secondhand smoke was the real pandemic of SHS.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-report-passive-smoking-doesnt-cause.html

Federal government addicted to alcohol, tobaaco, and firearms

Federal government tax revenue on alcohol, tobacco and firearms were up 41% to $20.6 billion in 2009. Good thing the Supreme court ruled once and for all in favor of the 2nd Amendment which gives all Americans the right to own firearms. Accordingly, smoking bans are being relaxed around the globe.....and as government tries to close budget gaps look for more smoking bans to be retooled and / or completely repealed. Afterall, smokers don't cost society money.....they contribute hefty taxes into society. And a recent study found that it's individuals who live a long life who are more of a cost burden to our healthcare system than smokers.

More here:

The U.S. federal government collected $20.6 billion in taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and ammunition in fiscal year 2009, up 41 percent from the previous fiscal year, according to the annual report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Part of the U.S. Treasury Department, the TTB credited most of the $6 billion rise in revenues collected to the increased taxes on the tobacco industry

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-50132620100714

Saturday, July 10, 2010

George Will on Prohibition: "In the fight between law and appetite, bet on appetite"

Now that ambitious government is again hell-bent on improving Americans -- from how they use salt to what light bulbs they use -- Okrent's book is a timely tutorial on the law of unintended consequences.....Before the 18th Amendment could make drink illegal, the 16th Amendment had to make the income tax legal. It was needed because by 1910 alcohol taxes were 30 percent of federal revenue.

Similarly, as tax revenue from tobacco sales decrease (if the smoking ban activists claims come to fruition) look for liberal lawmakers to impose new taxes to make up for tobacco tax losses.
The other true constant is that smoking bans cause business closures and massive job losses.

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

The rest of George Will's article on Prohibition can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703558.html

Follow-up: Wisconsin candidate for Governor Neumann would repeal smoking ban in favor of economic freedom:

http://www.wrn.com/2010/07/neumann-wants-to-undo-smoking-ban/

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

OSHA air quality is the proper standard to compare indoor air quality test methods, EPA PM 2.5 or vague RSP testing applies only to outdoor air

As I've stated many times, indoor air quality is always worse than outdoor air quality.....so for smoking ban activists to impose EPA air quality standards (PM 2.5 or RSP (respirable suspended particles)) which only apply to outdoor air is not only unattainable, but fraudulent.

We need to insist that OSHA permissible exposure limits, which regulates indoor workplace air quality, is the standard by which any indoor air quality testing is compared......it's how we conduct air quality testing in any other workplace setting. As an indoor air quality engineer, no customer has ever come to me saying the EPA measured their interior plant air, and they're in violation of PM 2.5, or exceeds recommended RSP's......OSHA is the governing authority on indoor air quality, not the EPA.

Air quality test results of secondhand smoke by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

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

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

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

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/british-medical-journal-who-conclude.html

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace "health hazard".

Conversely, the effects of unnecessary, pharmaceutical nicotine funded, smoking ban laws have been profoundly detrimental:

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

Additionally, a World Health Organization (WHO) study, and analysis of former Surgeon General Carmona's "report" indicate that exaggerations and lies about secondhand smoke was the real pandemic of SHS.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-report-passive-smoking-doesnt-cause.html

Saturday, July 03, 2010

ClearWay MN dusts off an old "study" which tried to claim no employment harm due to smoking bans in Minnesota

ClearWay MN has strong-armed nearly every media outlet into re-publishing this old 2009 "study" precisely because it misleads, exaggerates, and quite frankly lies about the facts.

www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/640770.html

scienceblog.com/35882/bars-restaurants-see-no-significant-employment-change-under-smoking-bans-in-2-cities/

blogs.citypages.com/food/2010/07/minnesota_smoki.php

Contrary to this "ClearWay MN study's" findings however, smoking bans in the land of 10,000 lakes were the catalyst which so far has produced 400+ hospitality closings in Minneapolis / St. Paul and surrounding Minnesota area (anyone who claims that closing 1/3 the total number of liquor licensed hospitality establishments in the Twin Cities didn't eliminate jobs is smoking something):

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

How could their findings be so contrary to the truth you ask? Well the study's author Liz Klein clears that up in her emailed response to me last year:

"If you read the release, you'll note that our study used employment in hospitality businesses, not business closure. In addition, the research was conducted during 2003 to 2006."

So the answer is the study did not take into account the 399+ hospitality closings and estimated 10,000 job losses after smoking bans were enacted here. But even more important, the study ended long before Minnesota's statewide smoking ban even went into effect which was 2007. Therefore, this "study" cannot purport to measure the effect of smoking bans on hospitality employment....it was merely old, irrelevant propaganda pure and simple.

(Note: 3-4 years before Minnesota's statewide smoking ban Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties had smoking bans in place. More than half the state's population resides in those Twin Cities regions, so any "study" which claims that MN hospitality revenues were already in decline prior to our statewide smoking ban isn't telling you about one very key point.....the Twin Cities already had smoking bans in place; and those numerous local smoking bans led to numerous hospitality closing and revenue losses before the statewide smoking ban.)

Even Minnesota lawmakers who wrote the smoking ban law knew their actions would eliminate jobs.....here is actual text inserted into the bill:

c) "Dislocated worker" means an individual who is a resident of Minnesota at the time employment ceased or was working in the state at the time employment ceased and:

(4) has been permanently separated from employment in a restaurant, bar, or lawful gambling organization from October 1, 2007, to October 1, 2009, due to the implementation of any state law prohibiting smoking;

Sec. 13. DISLOCATED WORKER PROGRAM; ALLOCATION OF FUNDS......more here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/08/review-of-minnesota-smoking-ban-law.html


By the way ClearWay MN; formerly MPAAT; (which funded this 5/18/09 study) conducted their own survey in 2006 that showed bans eliminated up to 80% of the customers in 7 out of 10 bars and restaurants after smoking bans were enacted. (see links below)

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/mpaat-now-known-as-clearway-minnesota.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/state-funded-anti-tobacco-group-proves.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/minnesota-parnership-for-action.html

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