HB 1131 concerning a statewide smoking ban went through second reading today – meaning House members get to offer amendments from the floor.
Rep. Charlie Brown had an amendment adopted by voice vote which strikes me as poorly drafted. I think it’s trying to say that a municipalities ordinance can’t be interpreted to affect a gambling facility unless the ordinance specifically says so. Maybe to restrict inadvertently affecting those facilities? But, here is how it reads:
A county, city, town, or other governmental unit may not under subsection (a) adopt or enforce an ordinance that affects a facility described in section 4(a)(1) through section 4(a)(4) of this chapter, unless the ordinance specifically includes a facility described in section 4(a)(1) through section 4(a)(4) of this chapter.
Those facilities are horse tracks, riverboats, and gambling facilities. The way it actually reads is to bar enforcement against anyone if the ordinance affects such a facility. I probably would have gone with something like, “An ordinance adopted under subsection (a) does not apply to a facility described in 4(a)(1) through 4(a)(4) unless the ordinance specifically states that it is intended to apply to such a facility.”
Rep. Tyler introduced an amendment that passed 52 to 42 that would allow (essentially) smoking in places with liquor licenses that don’t allow patrons or employ people who are under 18. Rep. Clere introduced and passed 54-38 an amendment that would allow smoking in a tobacco business.
The way you describe Rep Tyler’s amendment, I ask, then what is the point of the bill?
Doug- I believe Rep. Brown withdrew his second reading call on this bill.
It’s interesting that the Bill jumps right into “smoking” terminology without a hint about just what is being smoked, and without a shred of Public Interest justification noted. It’s interesting that the term “tobacco” is not used at all….unless it’s in some of the amendments After all, the entire smoke ban movement is based entirely on allegations about the harms of tobacco smoke.
One problem with that is that, so far, no legislatures anywhere have presented evidence about the harms of smoke from tobacco itself. None of the studies even define or describe what they “studied”.
Was it plain tobacco, as has been used for various reasons for about ten thousand years?
Was it tobacco and/or tobacco waste contaminated with residues of any of 450 or so still-legal pesticides, and with still-legal radiation from certain phosphate fertilizers, and with added burn accelerants, and with heaps of kid-attracting sweets and flavors etc, with dioxin-creating chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper, with any of over 1000 untested non-tobacco additives, and with addiction-enhancing substances?
Or was it Fake Tobacco, designed to “simulate” tobacco, made in US Patented ways? (Does your cig pack say the word “tobacco” anywhere?)
We actually do not know what we are talking about or legislating about.
The purpose of the bans seems clear. It is to evade literally Trillions of dollars in penalties and liabilities by the cigarette makers, their many additives and contaminants suppliers, and their insurers and investors. (Top health insurers, incidentally, being multi billion dollar investors in top cigarette makers.)
The purpose of the bans is to make the complicit public officials look as if they care about health and “clean air”…and to scapegoat the conveniently “sinful” tobacco plant, and the well-demonized victims—smokers—for some quite enormous harms caused by corporate entities.
Advice is to check where the pro-ban officials (and immediate family) invest, and where they get campaign funding. Guaranteed, some parts of the cigarette cartel…especially those ignored parts (pesticides, chlorine, insurance, etc) will be there.
Also…check the links any judges or jurors may have when it gets to any court cases.
PS: Note that this “clean air” bill utterly ignores ALL other forms of indoor and outdoor air pollutants (pesticides, emissions from synthetics, formaldehyde, chlorine cleansers etc, dry cleaning chemicals, etc etc etc) no matter how well-known to be harmful. And it ignores other forms of smoke…wood-burning sets, candles, incense, cooking smoke, welding fumes, etc. No legitimate law can tolerate such arbitrariness.
PS…. Relating to the economic links smoke-banning officials may have to the so-far hidden parts of the cigarette industry…don’t overlook connections to pharmaceutical firms.
– Bayer, BASF, Novartis, Roach, and many others also just happen to have products on lists of Tobacco Pesticides. They do Not Want to be known for that.
– Many non-tobacco cigarette additives (none tested for safety alone or in combo) are from pharmaceutical firms. They supply preservatives, humectants, artificial sweeteners, flavorings, aromas, and who knows what else.
– Pharms are often swimming in chlorine chemicals. Even if some do not contribute non-tobacco cigarette adulterants, they Do Not Want chlorine (and dioxin) to be in any way linked to so-called “smoking related” diseases.
– Some Pharms, like Johnson & Johnson, have economic motives to oppose tobacco. Tobacco is not patented. It’s a public domain natural plant. Pharms, like J & J, whose subsidiaries make synthetic nicotine delivery devices are all too happy to eliminate the competition.
– Tobacco has been long known as having medicinal benefits…for stress relief, alertness, appetite suppression, digestive relief, and even symptomatic relief for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Public domain tobacco is a threat to the profits of makers of patented, corporate drugs for those uses. With Baby Boomers getting into the Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s age…well…the timing is right for private pharm industries to work to ban any natural competitors in that potentially lucrative market.
So…if any anti-smoking officials have links to J & J, and it’s little (HUGE) friend, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), suspicion of those officials’ motives is justified.
By the way…
* The USA classified chlorine by-product, dioxin, a Known Human Carcinogen…the worst class.
* The US EPA found dioxin (from chlorine, not tobacco) in cigarette smoke.
* The USA signed the global treaty (Stockholm Convention…the “POPs Treaty) to phase dioxin, and 11 other worst of the worst industrial pollutants Off the Earth.
* Agent Orange atrocity (ongoing) was caused by dioxin from that herbicide.
Yet it’s still allowed in cigarettes ?! Inhalation is the worst possible exposure route. It would be safer if it were in baby food.
For any public official to not know about that says that harmful incompetence is afoot and is endangering everyone.
For any official (even in public health positions) to know about that but do nothing to inform or warn the public, and to absolutely ban the chlorine-dioxin, and to prosecute the perpetrators…is a multiple-level crime beyond understanding.