"Public Option" Voted Down 15-to-8!

Good news! Fifteen members of the Senate Finance Committee (five Democrats, including Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, and all ten Republicans) voted down a new government run health insurance program.

Voted Against Public Option
Max Baucus (D - MT)
Thomas Carper (D - DE)
Kent Conrad (D - ND)
Blanche L. Lincoln (D - AR)
Bill Nelson (D - FL)
Jim Bunning (R - KY)
John Cornyn (R - TX)
Mike Crapo (R - ID)
John Ensign (R - NV)
Mike Enzi (R - WY)
Chuck Grassley (R - IA)
Orrin G. Hatch (R - UT)
Jon Kyl (R - AZ)
Olympia J. Snowe (R - ME)
Pat Roberts (R - KS)

Voted For Public Option
Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
Maria Cantwell (D - WA)
John F. Kerry (D - MA)
Robert Menendez (D - NJ)
John D. Rockefeller IV (D - WV)
Charles E. Schumer (D - NY)
Debbie Stabenow (D - MI)
Ron Wyden (D - OR)

UPDATE: The roll call above is for the vote on the Rockefeller Amendment. The Schumer Amendment was also voted down; that one was 13-10, with Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln voting against it along with all of the Republicans on the committee.

USMC 9971 OUT

Sound Off Against Govt. Healthcare

Watch the video above (it's a long one, but it's good), and then contact your representative and senators and let them know that we do not want to have our health care system taken over by the government.

USMC 9971 OUT

Cigarettes: Now With Third-Hand Smoke!

First there was mainstream (or first-hand) smoke from cigarettes, and the government forced the tobacco companies to put warning labels on the cigarette packs so that smokers would realize how dangerous using the product is. But that wasn't enough.

Next there was second-hand smoke. The smoke that comes off of a burning cigarette was determined to be super-scary dangerous, and this led to various smoking bans on both public and private property. That's right, just being near a smoker suddenly became too dangerous to patrons and employees alike. But that wasn't enough.

Now the nanny-statists have a new scare tactic with cigarettes: Third-hand smoke. Even when a cigarette is no longer burning and being smoked, it is infecting everyone and everything with the residual nasties that were generated by the first-hand and second-hand smokes.

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, [Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School] said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

Got that? If something stinks, even after someone is done doing whatever causes the stink, it's your brain telling you to get away from the toxic stink. So, when I go into the bathroom after a fellow employee drops a deuce, am I potentially going to be able to sue my employer for allowing me to be exposed to toxic stink? When I go to the mechanic and I smell all of that residual exhaust, am I potentially going to be able to sue the wrench jockey for exposure to the toxic stink? When I'm stuck taking the bus because my car is at the mechanic's shop, and I need to breathe in all of that diesel exhaust as the busses pass by, am I potentially going to be able to sue Metro Transit for exposure to that toxic stink? When I'm winding down at the end of the day and I smell the smoke off of the neighbor's fire, am I potentially going to be able to sue my neighbor for exposure to that toxic stink?

This is just getting stupid. It is more of the nanny state trying to pry their way into our lives to force us to act how they want us to act "for our own good." The problem, no matter if the intentions are good or nefarious, is that the state will most likely be using this silly little study to further take away our liberties and freedoms.

Now, I know that this hasn't led to further smoking bans, but that is only because the study hasn't been circulated enough. Once the "common knowledge" is that cigarettes are harming (and potentially killing) kids and other non-smokers just by having been smoked, the smoking bans will move to outdoor smoking areas at public and private workplaces, and eventually the private car and the home.

I'm not sure that cigarettes will ever be banned, though. The tax revenue created by tobacco is very alluring to the politicians, and if they can allow the product to be sold legally, and then fine the smokers if they are caught actually using the product, well that would just be fiscal nirvana for these busy-bodies.

I hate nanny statists.

USMC 9971 OUT

Smoking Ban Showdown

Minnesota passed a smoking ban that went into effect in October 2007, effectively ending smoking in all but a few places in Minnesota. This February, however, some creative individuals found a loophole in the new statutes.

The resulting brainstorm, "The Tobacco Monologues" debuted at a Lake Mille Lacs bar last weekend when patrons ponied up a buck for a button that identified them as actors, with a license to light up.

More bars are expected to stage the performances this weekend. [...]

[Sheila] Kromer [owner of Barnacles Resort and Campground in Aitkin, MN] said her January liquor sales are down about 26 percent from last year, in large part because of the smoking ban. The bar clears out by 10:30, she said, as smokers seek a warm place for a cigarette.

"They might go out once," she said. "But when they head out a second time for a smoke, they just leave."

But last weekend, the "play" kept the bar full until it closed at 1 a.m., Kromer said. "People had fun and they had a smile on their faces."

A sheriff's deputy showed up after someone complained but left without issuing a ticket because the bar seemed to be following the letter of the law.

Since then, Kromer said, she's received about a dozen calls and e-mails from other bar owners interested in directing similar "theater nights."

Kromer said she'll be staging a repeat performance of the Tobacco Monologues and [Mark] Benjamin [creator of the Tobacco Monologues], a Sunday school teacher, will be there in full garb: black velvet tights, white puffy shirt, black velvet hat complete with a plume and enormous black leather boots.

Well, it didn't take long for some to complain that the spirit of the law wasn't being followed. The state's health department is now threatening to fine bars that don't stop holding "theater nights."

State health officials are trying to pull the curtain down on bar owners who are staging "theater nights" to get around the state smoking ban.

Health Department officials issued an ultimatum on Wednesday: The bar owners are violating the state's smoking ban and will be fined if they don't stop. Hanging up a playbill and dubbing bar patrons actors doesn't constitute a theatrical production, which is exempted from the smoking ban, state officials said. [...]

[Rob] Fulton [director of St. Paul-Ramsey County Public Health] said his department employees don't initiate visits to bars but have responded to a couple of complaints about "theater nights." "We pick up a copy of the script and the playbill and then we pass it on" to the Minnesota Department of Health, Fulton said.

"On the face of it, it's utterly ridiculous to think you can invite a whole bunch of people to a bar and call it a theater," he said. [...]

"These bars are attempting to circumvent the Freedom to Breathe Act," state Health Commissioner Sanne Magnan said Wednesday. "The law was enacted to protect Minnesotans from the serious health effects of secondhand smoke. We expect all establishments to comply with the law."

Sanne said the theatrical exemption was never intended to fill up a whole public room with smokers. And the state can fine violators up to $10,000, she said.

Sanne said her department issued its statement on Wednesday to make it clear that "theater nights" in bars aren't going to be tolerated. "We hope they will comply with the law," she said.

The government is stating that "hanging up a playbill and dubbing bar patrons actors doesn't constitute a theatrical production," that "it's utterly ridiculous to think you can invite a whole bunch of people to a bar and call it a theater," and that "the theatrical exemption was never intended to fill up a whole public room with smokers." So, what does the actual law state? Here is the theatrical production exemtion in Section 144.4167 Subdivision 9.

144.4167 Subd. 9. (PERMITTED SMOKING - Theatrical productions)
Sections 144.414 to 144.417 do not prohibit smoking by actors and actresses as part of a theatrical performance conducted in compliance with section 366.01 [see below]. Notice of smoking in a performance shall be given to theater patrons in advance and shall be included in performance programs.

366.01 Subd. 2. (TOWN BOARD POWERS LISTED - Amusements, performances; pets, firearms)
They may by ordinance prohibit or license and regulate the keeping of billiard, pool, and pigeonhole tables, games of amusement, games of skill, juke boxes, roller skating rinks, bowling alleys, circuses, shows, and theatrical performances. They may fix the price and duration of the license. When in their opinion the public interest requires it, they may revoke the license. Within any platted residential area of the town, they may license and regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets and regulate or prohibit the discharge of firearms, when deemed to be in the public interest.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm not seeing how the government can argue that the theater nights are not in compliance with the law. The new smoking ban clearly exempts "smoking by actors and actresses as part of a theatrical performance conducted in compliance with section 366.01," and Section 366.01 Subsection 2 simply states that town boards may either prohibit or regulate theatrical performances. If the local government hasn't banned theatrical performances in bars, and as long as the bar owners are complying with any local regulations regarding theatrical performances, then those who are actors and actresses in the theatrical performance are exempted from the smoking ban.

The government can argue that the theatrical performance exemption wasn't intended to allow bar owners to turn their places of business into centers of interpretive and improvisational theater, but the government did allow the exemption to be written into law. There was nothing more than the Town Board Powers section of the state statutes provided to define compliance for a theatrical performance, so it seems to me that the government will have two choices if this ends up in court: 1) the government can attempt to define in the law what is and isn't considered art, or 2) the government will need to amend or strike Section 144.4167 Subdivision 9 of the state statutes.

I'd love to see the Minnesota Legislature define art, because it wouldn't be long until some performers wouldn't be in compliance with the legal definition of "art." If that were to happen, you can be certain that the section of the statute that defined a "legitimate performance" would be challenged on first amendment grounds. Amending the current exception in the law would likely provide similar challenges.

The strangest part of all of this is the fact that the theatrical performances exception actually was put in the new smoking ban to begin with. Members of the arts community didn't want the "integrity" of their performances diminished by prohibiting actors and actresses from smoking when a script called for it. In essence, they didn't want performers to have to act as if they were smoking while they were doing that thing called acting.

One needs to wonder how this will affect the incumbents in the elections this fall. The government puts a referendum on the ballot for a constitutional amendment to add a special tax for the environment and the arts, then they pass major new taxes and fees in a transportation bill, there is talk about removing the sales tax exemption from clothing, and now they may be looking at fining bar owners up to $10,000.00 for performances that appear to be in compliance with the law.

When Minnesotans are cutting back their family budgets to allow for the higher taxes and resulting higher prices, and when those same Minnesotans can't even go down to their local bar for a beer and a smoke because the government has banned the activity or tried to fine the establishment out of business, the "vote the bums out" mentality will likely take hold quick, fast, and in a hurry.

The state should not be able to take away private property rights as they have so far to date. Once we have no right to our own property, or the free use thereof, then we basically become nothing more than dependent wards of the state.

Good luck to the bar owners and others on their side in this fight.

USMC 9971 OUT

Nanny State Gets Bartender Slugged

The nanny state doesn't think that any negative health effects that may come from working in a smoking environment should be an assumed risk for a person who chose to work at an establishment that allowed smoking (which, in itself, is a rarity nowadays); they would rather hold the establishment liable instead. As such, I blame the nanny statists for the bar worker who got popped by a couple of smokers a few days ago.

A bartender was sucker-punched in New Hampshire on Wednesday by some smokers who didn't like him kicking them out after they had to be repeatedly asked to stop smoking. From the Union Leader:

Sawaya [the owner of the establishment] said three patrons ignored a server's repeated requests to stop smoking inside the 88 Market St. restaurant and club.

Bartender Pat Mills then asked the men to put out their cigarettes about 10:50 p.m., Sawaya said.

"They blew smoke in his face and told him it was their right to smoke," he said.

Mills, who is in his late 20s, asked the men to leave and escorted them to the front door, police said. When Mills turned to go back inside, one of the three punched him in the head, Sawaya and police allege.

A brief struggle ensued, with Mills holding down his attacker -- later identified by police as Daniel Devine, 29, of Manchester -- while Sawaya pulled another patron off the doorman and two off-duty doormen jumped in to keep the third man from entering the fray, the tavern owner said.

Now, for the record, I do not condone the behavior of the smokers in this instance, and I think that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It is too bad, though, that the bartender had to get involved as he had to. Much like the patron who has had too much to drink, you need to attempt to deal with the problem in-house. If someone had too much to drink, however, the establishment has the ability to cut off the supply of alcohol, and law enforcement can be contacted if the individual attempts to leave instead of taking a cab (third-party liability can kill your bottom line). That is not the case with patrons who choose to violate state law by smoking, though.

Sure, the establishment can stop providing any service to those who choose to smoke in violation of the state law, but a new third-party liability scenario rears its ugly head in that situation. How many attempts need to be made to get the smokers to stop smoking before the establishment becomes liable for the alleged negative health effects of the second hand smoke on other patrons? When does law enforcement need to be contacted to avoid third-party liability in smoking cases? Also, who is responsible for any additional risks that the new legislation poses for employees of establishments that may need to confront smokers who openly violate state smoking bans?

Personally, I despise smoking bans. I see them as an excuse by the state to impose undue intrusions upon personal property rights. If the excuses for the bans are public health and safety, then why allow the activity to exist at all? If smoking is as bad as some state governments claim, then why don't they protect everyone by just banning smoking and all related products outright? Simply stated, state governments won't ban smoking outright because they don't want to lose the tax revenue.

The intrusions will continue, though. If one can't smoke at a bar for fear of the effects of second hand smoke on employees and other patrons, why can one impose that same risk on one's family in the home or car, especially if minors are in those homes or cars?

I'm not giving the nanny-statists new ideas here, in case that's whay you may be thinking. For example, Louisiana banned smoking in vehicles in which children are present about a year-and-a-half ago. Don't worry, the violation won't go on your driving record, but one does wonder if social services will get a memo on the violation.

With private businesses and vehicles no longer immune from government intrusion in an attempt to look out for public health and safety, private homes can't be far off. In fact, after Kelo, I'm surprised that states didn't start targeting private homes with all sorts of "common good" type laws.

This all made me think of something that I read over at The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen a few days ago. Vir Speluncae Catholicus had a post on an issue of public health concern involving a type of staph.

A new medical study appearing in the Annals of American Medicine shows that homosexuals are spreading a new, highly-infectious and extremely dangerous bacteria amongst themselves, most probably through anal intercourse. [...]

The study's authors note that the strong link between unhealthy behavior, particularly among homosexuals, is the driving force behind the disease. "Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections," the authors write.

The study, which focused on clinics in the San Francisco area, found that in some cases up to 39% of patients had the MRSA USA300 infections in their genitals or buttocks, although the disease can be spread by general skin-to-skin contact and can even be picked up from surfaces.

The state will ban smoking, cell phone use, and trans fats for the sake of the common good; personal responsibility and choice be damned. Do you think that any state will consider banning any activity related to MRSA USA300, though? My guess is that the only state action on that will be more funding for free condoms and needle exchange programs.

We'll see, but it seems to me that in the nanny state, some animals are more equal than others.

USMC 9971 OUT