From: Garnet Dawn
To: Voice of the People - Chgo Trib
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006
Subject: A good day to quit smoking - Overkill - Chicago, IL

Attention:  Chicago Tribune Editors/Voice of the People
 
RE:  OVERKILL - A Good Day to Quit Smoking - Editorial
Published January 16, 2006  
 
Smokers have been forced to endure your systematic and repeated attacks upon their life-style choices for months.  However, this time shame on the Chicago Tribune and the anonymous author of this editorial!  How dare an unnamed author make moral and medical judgments on an entire segment of our population through issuing subjective, undocumented and judgmental statements to the public.  This newspaper has already made its support of a city-wide smoking ban very clear.  Repeatedly exploiting your newspaper's position by preaching smoke-hating dogma is completely reprehensible.  Smokers still compose 21% of our population and a significant portion of your readers.
 
Free choice and free trade advocates have been requesting any valid health documentation or death certificates from the Health Control Industry for years to confirm the harms of ETS.  To date, not one response has been given to document these health claims, and all studies have proved inconclusive.  Smoking bans, the smoking-ban bandwagon, and this form of social engineering have become "big business" and only one more example of USA citizens' loss of liberty and right-to-choice. 
 
Until the last few months, I had been under the impression that the Chicago Tribune followed certain respected standards in reporting news and publishing editorials.  Op-eds of this nature are a serious blemish upon this newspaper's credibility.  Please cease making moral judgments and attempting to implement social engineering by abusing your position of visibility.
 
Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn
The Smoker's Club, Inc.
Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Smokers get in last drags before Chicago's smoking ban starts Monday

ANNA JOHNSON
Posted on Fri, Jan. 13, 2006
Associated Press

CHICAGO - For Cheryl Woodcock, the city's new smoking ban is a real headache.

The 42-year-old trader takes a smoke break a couple of times a day right outside the Loop office building where she works. But beginning Monday, Woodcock will have to walk further away from the building if she wants a cigarette - a real problem on a cold, sleeting day like Friday.

"I think the ban is out of control," she said. "I understand not smoking in the building, but what do you do when it's 10 degrees outside? Do they really want all these smokers in the streets?"

After much debate, Chicago's City Council last month approved a ban on smoking in nearly all public places, including 15 feet from any entrance to areas where smoking is prohibited. The council gave taverns and bars located inside restaurants until the middle of 2008 to comply.

Though Chicago is by no means a smoking ban trendsetter - more than a dozen states and hundreds of cities and counties around the country now ban smoking in restaurants, bars or both - anti-smoking advocates hope other Illinois and Midwestern cities jump on Chicago's bandwagon.

"It's very, very important symbolically to have Chicago become smoke free because it's the leader in the Midwest and it will have a trickle down effect," said Daniel Smith, the American Cancer Society's national vice president for government relations. "This is part of a national trend this is just now starting in the Midwest."

DeKalb Alderman Kris Povlsen said he hopes his city's lawmakers are swayed by Chicago's actions when they begin considering a smoking ban ordinance later this month.

"I believe what we will see is more and more communities will embrace this concept," Povlsen said. "The trends always tend to move from California, to large cities and then into smaller communities."

Springfield Alderman Bruce Strom, however, said Chicago's ordinance has both helped and hurt his fight to ban smoking in his central Illinois city.

Chicago's ordinance includes a possible loophole for taverns and bar areas inside restaurants that want to allow smoking after June 30, 2008. If owners can prove that their establishments feature air filtration or ventilation systems that make patrons' exposure to secondhand smoke equivalent to the exposure they would receive if they were outside, they can permit smoking.

Strom said some in Springfield now believe Chicago's loophole is the answer, and the City Council will look at two ordinances - one like Chicago's and Strom's more stringent one - this month.

"Chicago's ban is both good and bad, but its unfortunate the model wasn't better," he said.

Smokers' rights advocates also agree that Chicago's ban will propel other cities to look at the issue, and they're not going down without a fight.

Garnet Dawn, Midwest regional director of The Smoker's Club Inc., said Chicago's ban is giving her group more motivation in its push to keep smoking alive in restaurants and bars.

"We're forming a more aggressive way to consolidate and organize people who would like to defend their right to choice," Dawn said. "We're working together to make a list of other restaurants where you can go and smoke, and our real suggestion is to boycott the city."

But for Jeff Piwnicki, Chicago's smoking ban is more personal.

The 27-year-old hopes it gives him the boost to finally quit after two years of trying. For starters, he no longer will be able to take a smoke break just outside the door at the office building where he works at a brokerage firm.

"I think this will make me smoke less," Piwnicki said. "I think unless you're a hard-core smoker, this ban is going to be a good thing."

ON THE NET

http://www.cityofchicago.org/

http://www.smokersclubinc.com

http://www.smokefreechicago.org/

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/

Read

The Curtain Call on Big Tobacco

January 19, 2006
Nedd Kareiva

Back in the early 1960s, I grew up around cigarettes. My parents were both smokers when I was a child. They were not heavy or chain users, however. My mom gave it up in my early teens and so my late dad soon after. They did so out of their own general welfare and concern. Perhaps the cigarette label warnings on the boxes had something to do with it. But one thing is for sure, however - they didn't do so to succumb to the likes of the American Cancer Society or the American Lung Association and its old slogan "We're fighting for your life".

Funny, I didn't ever see one of their representatives come up to my folks' home on the southwest side of Chicago to express their concerns. I guess Big Brother wasn't as big back then.

Or was it?

As a young boy, I watched TV when it still had modica of decency. Whether it was during shows like the Jackie Gleason Show, Petticoat Junction, the Lucy Show or the ball game or on the radio, I vividly recalled the cigarette commercials like the back of my hand. They stuck in my mind thru the years, like "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" or "I'd walk a mile for a Camel" or "Marlboro - filter, flavored, packed per puff". It didn't matter which one - Winston, Camel, Marlboro, Kool, Kent, Lucky Strike, Parliament, Pall Mall, Virginia Slims - back then, I knew them all.

And for the record, my parents were Kent smokers.

However, despite the clever and mind numbing advertising Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and others used, I wasn't persuaded to smoke as a kid. The anti-smoking crusaders like the ACS, ALA and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop made you feel that the TV commercials and billboard advertisements of tobacco products forced me to become an addicted smoker.

Alas, that wasn't the case for me.

Oh, I tried some smokes in my early teens in the 1970s. The reason I ended up choosing not to light up was not due to the likes of the above groups or more recent additions like the nannies at the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. I just didn't like the taste and didn't see a purpose to it.

So I grew up not smoking. But that was a choice I made.

In 1971, cigarette broadcasting and the First Amendment rights of the tobacco companies went up in smoke by an act of Congress. Regardless of how one feels about smoking, since the product was then (and still is) a legal one, this was well beyond the purview of Congress to act.

The fix was in. And the rout was soon to come. And the likes of Morris and Reynolds complied.

The lawsuits against Big Tobacco started to steam in the 1980s, beginning with Surgeon General Koop's efforts targeting so-called "second hand smoke", an item that even the liberal World Health Organization finds as dubious. Smoking bans started to incrementally creep into society, the same way liberals like to take their agenda. The cigarette companies were seen by willingly gullible politicians and duped Americans as a huge cash cow to be milked.

It soon became difficult to smoke at one's employment's and even one's own office. Then it became difficult to smoke on an airline, thanks to the Congressional nannies in the late 80s. States got wind of the profits to be made from tobacco suits. Almost every state soon joins in the fray. In return, Big Tobacco cries uncle and billboard advertisements with my favorites, the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel, end up being banned.

The Marlboro man rode off into the sunset and Joe Camel rode back into the desert. Cities and states began to broadly ban use of cigarettes in both public and privates places, culminating in a coup de gras for the industry - New York banning its use completely in all public places on March 31st, 2003.

Fast forward to December 2005 here in Chicago. The city council votes to pass an ordinance banning smoking in all public places, including stores, theatres and restaurants (though taverns and restaurants with bars get 30 month amnesty). There are 50 aldermen in the city council, all Democrats except for one Republican, voting on this issue.

Guess how many nay votes there were?

On Monday, January 16th, the ordinance took effect. No doubt the Windy City took its cues from New York and other cig hating states like California. And more and more people will now have to go outside to smoke.

But wait a minute, there's a catch in Chicago's ordinance. There is now no smoking with 15 feet of an entrance to any Chicago public building. So during frigid weather outside this winter, those individuals who want to huddle near the entrance of such a building to "have their cigarette and smoke it too" are out of luck.

You have to wonder how 15 feet was the deciding yardage that was needed. At least that is further away than it is for pro-life protesters to picket at an abortion clinic, though shorter than some other abortion picketing hot spots.

I suppose it would be a good idea for smokers to bring measuring tape to make sure they are in compliance with the law. Or better yet, perhaps the building owner could measure off the 5 yards from his entrance and put duct tape or chalk lines at the point of restriction.

Hey, it could be worse. In November in Washington state, voters passed Initiative 901, making smoking essentially verboten outside one's castle. Smoking is banned in all government buildings as well as businesses, offices, basically anywhere the public may legally choose to enter. Businesses must put "No Smoking" signs up at their entrances and smokers must be at least 25 feet away from an entrance, open window or vent.

So Chicago residents and workers, be thankful you have 10 feet more room to puff than you do in the Evergreen state.

Enough is enough! It's time for people to wake up, smokers and non-smokers alike. This is your country. And if you have a private business anywhere in the country and are affected by such nonsense, you need to make some calls and write some letters to your elected officials and fight the establishment. And then you need to get your fellow proprietors involved, doing the same, telling the politicians to butt out.

Smoking bans to the extent they have gone are Communist in nature. It is one thing for the government to ban smoking in its quarters since the public at large uses its facilities. Most people see this as reasonable. It's entirely quite another to tell a restaurant or any private business to do the same against its will. It is extremely offensive to the thought of Constitutional liberty.

Restaurants, like most any business, pay taxes of all sorts to get their operations going. They must comply with all sorts of regulations and inspections before they are approved to be open to the public. On top of all this, now they're told they can't accommodate smokers or face hefty fines, the shutting down of their business and even jail time. Can anyone tell me with facts in hand that these laws are not police state, let alone Communistic?

Granted, Washington state's law was voter enacted. The will of the people was spoken. However, it proves one point - the voters of the state who approved of this measure need to be educated on the Constitution and freedom. If the state wanted to totally ban cigarettes, at least it would be laudable on the basis that no one individual's right was denied. But for the state's voters to do what it did, it sends the wrong message to liberty since the product, last I checked, is still legal (and taxed to he** and high water).

Readers, especially anti-smoking advocates, I would suggest you read the following about why Chicago's ban will hurt business owners http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11386.

As I said, I'm no smoker. I dislike the smell of cigarettes. I always ask for the no-smoking section in a restaurant. Occasionally, I'm asked if I would be willing to sit in the smoking section if there are a lack of seats on the non-smoking side. More often than not, I agree. If the area reeks of smoke, I just sit and grind it out rather than complain. After all, it was my decision.

I will admit that a couple years ago I got into an argument with a smoker at a local restaurant. The issue was not that he was smoking but that he chose to smoke in the non-smoking section. This was permitted at certain hours of the evening. It was not permitted at the time he was smoking and since he was nearby and the smoke was uncomfortable, I felt I could make a reasonable request for the individual to put out his cigarette or move to a different area. Unfortunately, he refused, the restaurant chose not to act and as such, I chose not to come back.

The anti-smoking crusaders are not so nice. If they can't get their wishes by the government, either legislatively enacted or by some ordinance or executive order, they will pressure businesses to cave in to their wishes and if necessary, become nannies to individual smokers, believing they are wiser than that apparent misguided person. And believe me, they've already done that.

Funny, these Chicago aldermen and smoking haters rarely, if ever, patronize the places they want banned from smoking. That's the way it should be. Freedom of choice (uh, isn't that what the pro-abortion crowd likes to crow?) is supposed to be the American way, right? But to ban others from smoking in establishments that both proprietors and customers alike approve, that is not the mark of a free society but that of socialism and Communism. And America accepts it to its own peril.

I suppose if I wanted a ban of something, I'd rather have a ban on alcohol. After all, I have never seen a cigarette (or cigar or pipe) smoker become intoxicated and belligerent because of the use of their substance. I've never heard of a barroom brawl occurring from someone who had one too many cigs. I've never encountered a driver impaired on the road because of his or her puffing away while at the wheel. And I don't recall any smoker so high on his or her smokes that he or she was DUI like many alkies at the wheel I've observed.

And I saw what it did to my dad who died an alcoholic.

Of course, I don't expect that will happen. The beer companies will continue to advertise on TV and the radio and on billboards while the cigarette companies are confined to advertising in magazines (shh, don't tell your local anti-smoking politician or crusader). Sure, the liquor industry is heavily taxed, like cigarettes. But they get many privileges as well. They have numerous politicians eating out of the palms of their hands.

And I wouldn't purchase liquor anyway since most beer and hard liquor companies support Planned Parenthood and pro-homosexual organizations like the Human Rights Campaign.

And yes, some cigarette companies like Philip Morris do the same.

By the way, fellow readers who regularly peruse my pieces, do you see that I have more hot button issues that I write about besides the ACLU, abortion and the homosexual agenda?

Perhaps I should interject an obvious question since I mentioned abortion and homosexuality. Why are cigarettes more heavily regulated than abortion clinics and homosexual bathhouses? Cigarettes have been known to shorten lives by as much as 7 years for smoking addicts. Practitioners of homosexuality shorten their lives from 10-30 years by their activities, many carrying diseases virtually exclusive to those engaging in this lifestyle. Women who have undergone abortions often experience extreme mental anguish from their decisions and physical pain as well since the human body was not designed to undergo such a process.

Of course, most you know the answer. Money and political correctness rather than factual correctness. Chicago knows that better than most others with its many abortion clinics and its aldermen and state public officials currying favor from the homosexual community.

I guess I couldn't stay away from the social issues too often.

With the city of Chicago on the anti-smoking bandwagon, it appears more dominoes will fall against the smokers and the cigarette lobby (a weak one at that). A handful of communities in Chicago's suburbs have already passed smoking bans. More are currently taking up this issue in their city councils and more on top of them will follow, now that Chicago has one of the strongest ordinances of any major city in America. More states are likely to follow suit as well.

And if these public officials don't pass such bans, they'll shoot for an increase in the city, county or state tax on smokes. It's an easy target for governments struggling financially and even those that aren't.

Or they may just do both.

As America's self-identified truth detector and doctor of democracy, Rush Limbaugh, says, "If smoking is so bad, then ban the substance". Unfortunately, with increasing numbers of politicians lining up at the smoking trough, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Both political parties are guilty, though the one traditionally of bigger and heavily intrusive government is more so.

As it stands, the curtain is descending on Big Tobacco. If freedom loving people, smokers or not, continue their silence while getting taxed or regulated into oblivion, the curtain will hit the stage.

Last I checked, we still have a voice to lobby policy officials and mobilize those who agree with us. If we don't, it's essentially be the end of the tobacco industry. After all, most Americans have some limit as to what they will spend to buy a product, in this case, cigarettes. And if Americans can't smoke outside their home or vehicle (and rest assured, both domains are being targeted by the aforementioned meddling busybodies as you read this), well, what good is a cigarette?

If this occurs, it will be curtains for the cigarette industry. It will be curtains for any legal product since their existence could be banished on a whim. And it will eventually be curtains for liberty.

Haven't we made a case for the loss of freedom with items like mandatory seat belt laws and the erosion of private property rights? How much more must we lose before we mobilize and fight back? Perhaps tobacco may not affect you but if you are concerned about being forced to buckle up against your will or surrender your land to some bureaucrat because of a wetlands claim or "need" to turn over your property to a developer to expand the city or county tax base, you should join forces against those who want to extinguish the right to stoke a stogy.

Then again, sacrificing the right to light up for the sake of keeping warm in a building on a bitterly cold day may not seem so bad.

Read